56. For the apostle, in confuting those who denied that there was any

resurrection of the dead, corrects their view by showing the absurdity

which follows those who entertain this view, however loth they may

be to admit the consequence, in order that, while they shrink in

abhorrence from what is impious to say, they may correct what they have

ventured to believe. His argument continues thus: "But if there be no

resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: and if Christ be

not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have testified

of God that He raised up Christ; whom He raised not up, if so be that

the dead rise not,"[1125] in order that, while they fear to say that

Christ had not risen, with the other wicked and accursed conclusions

which follow from such a statement, they may correct what they said

in a spirit of folly and infidelity, that there is no resurrection

of the dead. If, therefore, you take away what stands at the head

of this argument, "_If_ there be no resurrection of the dead," the

rest is spoken amiss, and yet must be ascribed to the apostle. But

if you restore the supposition on which the rest depends, and place

as the hypothesis from which you start, "There is no resurrection of

the dead," then the conclusion will follow rightly, "Then is Christ

not risen, and our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain,"

with all the rest that is appended to it. And all these statements of

the apostle are wise and good, since whatever evil they have in them

is to be imputed to those who denied the resurrection of the dead.

In the same manner also, in my epistle, take away my supposition,

If every one is born again in spiritual grace of the same character

as he by whom he is baptized, and if, when the man who baptizes is

genuinely and manifestly good, he does of himself give faith, he is

the origin and root and head of him who is being born again; but when

the baptizer is a wicked man, and undetected in his wickedness, then

each man who is baptized receives his faith from Christ, derives his

origin from Christ, is rooted in Christ, makes his boast in Christ

as his Head:--take away, I say, this hypothesis, on which all that

follows depends, and there remains a saying of the worst description

which must fairly be ascribed to me, viz., that all who are baptized

should desire that they should have faithless men to baptize them,

and be ignorant of their faithlessness. For however good men they may

have to baptize them, Christ is incomparably better, who will then

be the Head of the baptized, if the baptizer be a faithless man, but

undetected.[1126] But let the statements that you make be restored, and

then it will forthwith be found that this which depends upon it and

follows in close connection from it is not my sentiment, and that any

evil which it contains is retorted on the opinion which you maintain.

In like manner, take away the supposition, If the good baptizer is the

good tree, so that he whom he has baptized is his good fruit, and if,

when the character of an evil tree is concealed, then any one that

has been baptized by it is born, not of it, but of Christ,--take away

this hypothesis, which you were compelled to confess had its origin

in your sect and in the letter of Petilianus, and the mad conclusion

which follows from it will be mine, to be ascribed to me alone, Then

they are justified with greater holiness who are baptized by undetected

evil men, than they who are baptized by men that are genuinely and

manifestly good.[1127] But restore the hypothesis on which this

depends, and you will at once see both that I have been right in making

this statement for your correction, and that all that with good reason

displeases you in this opinion has recoiled upon your own head.

* * * * *

CHAP. XLVII.--57. Furthermore, in like manner as those who denied

the resurrection of the dead could in no way defend themselves from

the evil consequences which the apostle proved to follow from their

premises, in order to refute their error, saying, "Then is not Christ

raised," with the other conclusions of similar atrocity, unless they

changed their opinions, and acknowledged that there was a resurrection

of the dead; so is it necessary that you should change your opinion,

and cease to rest on man the hope of those who are baptized, if you

do not wish to have imputed to you what we say for your refutation

and correction, that they are justified with greater holiness who are

baptized by undetected evil men than those that are baptized by men

that are genuinely and manifestly good. For if you make your first

assertion, see what I say, unless some one shall suppress this a second

time, and make out that I have entertained the opinion which I quote

for your refutation and correction. See what I lay down as my premiss,

from which hangs the statement which I shall subsequently make: If you

rest the hope of those who are to be baptized on the man by whom they

are baptized, and if you maintain, as Petilianus wrote, that the man

who baptizes is the origin and root and head of him that is baptized;

if you receive as the good tree the good man who baptizes, and as

his good fruit the man who has been baptized by him; then you put it

into our heads to ask from what origin he springs, from what root he

shoots up, to what head he is joined, from what tree he is born, who

is baptized by an undetected bad man? For to this inquiry belongs also

the following, to which I have over and over again maintained that

Petilianus has given no reply: By what means is a man to be cleansed

who receives baptism while he is ignorant of the stain upon the

conscience of him that gives but not in holiness? for this conscience

of him that gives, or of him that gives in holiness, Petilianus wishes

to be the origin, root, head, seed, tree from which the sanctification

of the baptized has its existence,--springs, begins, sprouts forth, is

born.

* * * * *

CHAP. XLVIII.--58. When we ask, therefore, by what means the man is

to be cleansed whom you do not baptize again in your communion, even

when it has been made clear that he has been baptized by some one who,

on account of some concealed iniquity, did not at the time possess the

conscience of one that gives in holiness, what answer do you intend

to make, except that he is cleansed by Christ or by God, although,

indeed, Christ is Himself God over all, blessed for ever,[1128] or by

the Holy Spirit, since He too is Himself God, because this Trinity of

Persons is one God? Whence Peter, after saying to a man, "Thou hast

dared to lie to the Holy Ghost," immediately went on to add what was

the nature of the Holy Ghost, saying, "Thou hast not lied unto men, but

unto God."[1129] Lastly, even if you were to say that he was cleansed

and purified by an angel when he is unacquainted with the pollution in

the conscience of him that gives but not in holiness, take notice that

it is said of the saints, when they shall have risen to eternal life,

that they shall then be equal to the angels of God.[1130] Any one,

therefore, that is cleansed even by an angel is cleansed with greater

holiness than if he were cleansed by any kind of conscience of man.

Why then are you unwilling that it should be said to you, If cleansing

is wrought by the hands of a man when he is genuinely and manifestly

good; but when the man is evil, but undetected in his wickedness, then

since he has not the conscience of one that gives in holiness, it is

no longer he, but God, or an angel, that cleanses; therefore they who

are baptized by undetected evil men are justified with greater holiness

than those who are baptized by men that are genuinely and manifestly

good? And if this opinion is displeasing to you, as in reality it ought

to be displeasing to every one, then take away the source from which

it springs, correct the premiss to which it is indissolubly bound; for

if these do not precede as hypotheses, the other will not follow as a

consequence.

* * * * *

CHAP. XLIX.--59. Do not therefore any longer say, "The conscience

of one that gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the

conscience of the recipient," lest you be asked, When a stain on the

conscience of the giver is concealed, who cleanses the conscience of

the recipient? And when you shall have answered, Either God or an

angel (since there is no other answer which you possibly can make),

then should follow a consequence whereby you would be confounded: Those

then are justified with greater holiness who are baptized by undetected

evil men, so as to be cleansed by God or by an angel, than those who

are baptized by men who are genuinely and manifestly good, who cannot

be compared with God or with the angels. But prevail upon yourselves

to say what is said by Truth and by the Catholic Church, that not only

when the minister of baptism is evil, but also when he is holy and

good, hope is still not to be placed in man, but in Him that justifieth

the ungodly, in whom if any man believe, his faith is counted for

righteousness.[1131] For when we say, Christ baptizes, we do not mean

by a visible ministry, as Petilianus believes, or would have men think

that he believes, to be our meaning, but by a hidden grace, by a hidden

power in the Holy Spirit, as it is said of Him by John the Baptist,

"The same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."[1132] Nor has He,

as Petilianus says, now ceased to baptize; but He still does it, not by

any ministry of the body, but by the invisible working of His majesty.

For in that we say, He Himself baptizes, we do not mean, He Himself

holds and dips in the water the bodies of the believers; but He Himself

invisibly cleanses, and that He does to the whole Church without

exception. Nor, indeed, may we refuse to believe the words of the

Apostle Paul, who says concerning Him, "Husbands, love your wives, even

as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might

sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word."[1133]

Here you see that Christ sanctifies; here you see that Christ also

Himself washes, Himself purifies with the self-same washing of water by

the word, wherein the ministers are seen to do their work in the body.

Let no one, therefore, claim unto himself what is of God. The hope of

men is only sure when it is fixed on Him who cannot deceive, since

"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man,"[1134] and "Blessed is that

man that maketh the Lord His trust."[1135] For the faithful steward

shall receive as his reward eternal life; but the unfaithful steward,

when he dispenses his lord's provisions to his fellow-servants, must

in no wise be conceived to make the provisions useless by his own

unfaithfulness. For the Lord says, "Whatsoever they bid you observe,

that observe and do; but do not ye after their works."[1136] And this

is therefore the injunction that is given us against evil stewards,

that the good things of God should be received at their hands, but that

we should beware of their own evil life, by reason of its unlikeness to

what they thus dispense.

* * * * *

CHAP. L.--60. But if it is clear that Petilianus has made no answer

to those first words of my epistle, and that, when he has endeavoured

to make an answer, he has shown all the more clearly how incapable he

was of answering, what shall I say in respect of those portions of

my writings which he has not even attempted to answer, on which he

has not touched at all? And yet if any one shall be willing to review

their character, having in his possession both my writings and those

of Petilianus, I think he will understand by what confirmation they

are supported. And that I may show you this as shortly as I can, I

would beg you to call to mind the proofs that were advanced from holy

Scripture, or refresh your memory by reading both what he has brought

forward as against me, and what I have brought forward in my answer as

against you, and see how I have shown that the passages which he has

brought forward are antagonistic not to me, but rather to yourselves;

whilst he has altogether failed to touch those which I brought forward

as especially necessary, and in that one passage of the apostle which

he has endeavoured to make use of as though it favoured him, you will

see how he found himself without the means of making his escape.

61. For the portion of this epistle which he wrote to his

adherents--from the beginning down to the passage in which he says,

"This is the commandment of the Lord to us, 'When they persecute you

in this city, flee ye into another;'[1137] and if they persecute you

in that also, flee ye to a third"--came first into my hands, and to

it I made a reply; and when this reply of ours had fallen, in turn,

into his hands, he wrote in answer to it this which I am now refuting,

showing that he has made no reply to mine. In that first portion,

therefore, of his writings to which I first replied, these are the

passages of Scripture which he conceives to be opposed to us: "Every

good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth

forth evil fruit. Do men gather grapes of thorns?"[1138] And again:

"A good man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth

good things; and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth

evil things."[1139] And again: "When a man is baptized by one that is

dead, his washing profiteth him nothing."[1140] From these passages

he is anxious to show that the man who is baptized is made to partake

of the character of him by whom he is baptized; I, on the other hand,

have shown in what sense these passages should be received, and that

they could in no wise aid his view. But as for the other expressions

which he has used against evil and accursed men, I have sufficiently

shown that they are applicable to the Lord's wheat, dispersed, as was

foretold and promised, throughout the world, and that they might rather

be used by us against you. Examine them again, and you will find it so.

62. But the passages which I have advanced to assert the truth of the

Catholic Church, are the following: As regards the question of baptism,

that our being born again, cleansed, justified by the grace of God,

should not be ascribed to the man who administered the sacrament, I

quoted these: "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence

in man;"[1141] and, "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man;"[1142] and

that, "Salvation belongeth unto the Lord;"[1143] and that, "Vain is the

help of man;"[1144] and that, "Neither is he that planteth anything,

neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase;"[1145] and

that He in whom men believe justifieth the ungodly, that his faith may

be counted to him for righteousness.[1146] But in behalf of the unity

of the Church itself, which is spread abroad throughout all the world,

with which you do not hold communion, I urged that the following

passages were prophesied of Christ: that "He shall have dominion also

from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth;"[1147]

and, "I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the

uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession;"[1148] and that the

covenant of God made with Abraham may be quoted in behalf of our,

that is, of the Catholic, communion, in which it is written, "In thy

seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed;"[1149] which seed the

apostle interprets, saying, "And to thy seed, which is Christ."[1150]

Whence it is evident that in Christ not only Africans or Africa, but

all the nations through which the Catholic Church is spread abroad,

should receive the blessing which was promised so long before. And

that the chaff is to be with the wheat even to the time of the last

winnowing, that no one may excuse the sacrilege of his own separation

from the Church by calumnious accusations of other men's offences, if

he shall have left or deserted the communion of all nations; and to

show that the society of Christians may not be divided on account of

evil ministers, that is, evil rulers in the Church, I further quoted

the passage, "All whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;

but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not."[1151] With

regard to these passages of holy Scripture which I advanced to prove my

points, he neither showed how they ought to be otherwise interpreted,

so as to prove that they neither made for us nor against you, nor was

he willing to touch them in any way. Nay, his whole object was, could

it have been achieved, that by the tumultuous outpouring of his abuse,

it might never occur to any one at all, who after reading my epistle

might have been willing to read his as well, that these things had been

said by me.

* * * * *

CHAP. LI.--63. Next, listen for a short time to the kind of way in

which he has tried to use, in his own behalf, the passages which I had

advanced from the writings of the Apostle Paul. "For you asserted," he

says, "that the Apostle Paul finds fault with those who used to say

that they were of the Apostle Paul, saying, 'Was Paul crucified for

you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?'[1152] Wherefore, if they

were in error, and would have perished had they not been corrected,

because they wished to be of Paul, what hope can there possibly be for

those who have wished to be of Donatus? For this is their sole object,

that the origin, and root, and head of him that is baptized should be

none other than he by whom he is baptized."[1153] These words, and this

confirmation from the writings of the apostle, he has quoted from my

epistle, and he has proposed to himself the task of refuting them. Go

on then, I beg of you, to see how he has fulfilled the task. For he

says, "This assertion is meaningless, and inflated, and childish, and

foolish, and something very far from a true exposition of our faith.

For you would only be right in asserting this, if we were to say, We

have been baptized in the name of Donatus, or Donatus was crucified for

us, or we have been baptized in our own name. But since such things

as this neither have been said nor are said by us,--seeing that we

follow the formula of the holy Trinity,--it is clear that you are mad

to bring such accusations against us. Or if you think that we have been

baptized in the name of Donatus, or in our own name, you are miserably

deceived, and at the same time confess in your sacrilege that you on

your part defile your wretched selves in the name of Cæcilianus." This

is the answer which Petilianus has made to those arguments of mine, not

supposing--or rather making a noise that no one might suppose--that he

has made no answer at all which could bear in any way upon the question

which is under discussion. For who could fail to see that this witness

of the apostle has been adduced by us with all the more propriety, in

that you do not say that you were baptized in the name of Donatus, or

that Donatus was crucified for you, and yet separate yourselves from

the communion of the Catholic Church out of respect to the party of

Donatus; as also those whom Paul was rebuking certainly did not say

that they had been baptized in the name of Paul, or that Paul had been

crucified for them, and yet they were making a schism in the name

of Paul. As therefore in their case, for whom Christ, not Paul, was

crucified, and who were baptized in the name of Christ, not of Paul,

and who yet said, "I am of Paul," the rebuke is used with all the more

propriety, "Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name

of Paul?" to make them cling to Him who was crucified for them, and in

whose name they were baptized, and not be guilty of division in the

name of Paul; so in your case, also, the rebuke, Was Donatus crucified

for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Donatus? is used all the

more appositely, because you do not say, We were baptized in the name

of Donatus, and yet desire to be of the party of Donatus. For you know

that it was Christ who was crucified for you, and Christ in whose

name you were baptized; and yet, out of respect to the name and party

of Donatus, you show such obstinacy in fighting against the unity of

Christ, who was crucified for you, and in whose name you were baptized.

* * * * *

CHAP. LII.--64. But if you wish to see that the object of Petilianus

in his writings really was to prove "that the origin, and root, and

head of him that is baptized is none other than he by whom he is

baptized," and that this has not been asserted by me without meaning,

or childishly, or foolishly, review the beginning of the epistle itself

to which I made my reply, or rather pay careful attention to me as I

quote it. "The conscience," he says, "of one that gives in holiness is

what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient; for he

who has received his faith from one that is faithless, receives not

faith but guilt." And as though some one had said to him, Whence do

you derive your proof of this? he goes on to say, "For everything has

its existence from a source and root; and if anything has not a head,

it is nothing; nor does anything well confer a new birth, unless it be

born again of good seed. And this being so, brethren, what perversity

must it be to maintain that he who is guilty by reason of his own

offences should make another free from guilt; whereas our Lord Jesus

Christ says, 'A good tree bringeth forth good fruit: do men gather

grapes of thorns?' And again, 'A good man, out of the good treasure

of his heart, bringeth forth good things; and an evil man, out of the

evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things.' And again, 'When a man is

baptized by one that is dead, his washing profiteth him nothing.'" You

see to what end all these things tend, viz. that the conscience of him

that gives in holiness (lest any one, by receiving his faith from one

that is faithless, should receive not faith but guilt) should be itself

the origin, and root, and head, and seed of him that is baptized. For,

wishing to prove that the conscience of one that gives in holiness

is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient, and

that he receives not faith but guilt, who wittingly receives his faith

from one that is faithless, he has added immediately afterwards, "For

everything has its existence from a source and root; and if anything

has not a head, it is nothing; nor does anything well confer a new

birth, unless it be born again of good seed." And for fear that any

one should be so dull as still not to understand that in each case he

is speaking of the man by whom a person is baptized, he explains this

afterwards, and says, "This being so, brethren, what perversity must

it be to maintain that he who is guilty by reason of his own offences

should make another free from guilt; whereas our Lord Jesus Christ

says, 'A good tree bringeth forth good fruit: do men gather grapes of

thorns?'" And lest, by some incredible stupidity of understanding, the

hearer or seer should be blind enough not to see that he is speaking

of the man that baptizes, he adds another passage, where he actually

specifies the man. "And again," he says, "'A good man, out of the good

treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things; and an evil man,

out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things;' and again,

'When a man is baptized by one that is dead, his washing profiteth him

nothing.'" Certainly it is now plain, certainly he needs no longer any

interpreter, or disputant, or demonstrator, to show that the object

of his party is to prove that the origin, and root, and head of him

that is baptized is none other than he by whom he is baptized. And

yet, being overwhelmed by the force of truth, and as though forgetful

of what he had said before, Petilianus acknowledges afterwards to me

that Christ is the origin and root of them that are regenerate, and the

Head of the Church, and not any one that may happen to be the dispenser

and minister of baptism. For having said that the apostles used to

baptize in the name of Christ, and set forth Christ as the foundation

of their faith, to make men Christians, and being fain to prove this,

too, by passages and examples from holy Scripture, just as though we

were denying it, he says, "Where is now that voice, from which issued

the noise of those minute and constant petty questionings, wherein,

in the spirit of envy and self-conceit, you uttered many involved

sayings about Christ, and for Christ, and in Christ, in opposition to

the rashness and haughtiness of men? Lo, Christ is the origin, Christ

is the head, Christ is the root of the Christian." When, therefore,

I heard this, what could I do but give thanks to Christ, who had

compelled the man to make confession? All those things, therefore, are

false which he said in the beginning of his epistle, when he wished to

persuade us that the conscience of one that gives in holiness must be

looked for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient; and that when

one has wittingly received his faith from one that is faithless, he

receives not faith but guilt. For, wishing as it were to show clearly

how much rested in the man that baptizes, he had added what he seems to

think most weighty proofs, saying, "For everything has its existence

from a source and root; and if anything has not a head, it is nothing."

But afterwards, when he says what we also say, "Lo, Christ is the

origin, Christ is the head, Christ is the root of the Christian," he

wipes out what he had said before, "that the conscience of one that

gives in holiness is the origin, and root, and head of the recipient."

The truth, therefore, has prevailed, so that the man who is desirous

to receive the baptism of Christ should not rest his hope upon the man

who administers the sacrament, but should approach in all security to

Christ Himself, as to the source which is not changed, to the root

which is not plucked up, to the head which is not cast down.

* * * * *

CHAP. LIII.--65. Then who is there that could fail to perceive from

what a vein of conceit it proceeds, that in explaining as it were the

declaration of the apostle, he says, "He who said, 'I planted, Apollos

watered, but God gave the increase,' surely meant nothing else than

this, that 'I made a man a catechumen in Christ, Apollo baptized him;

God confirmed what we had done?'" Why then did not Petilianus add

what the apostle added, and I especially took pains to quote, "So then

neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but

God that giveth the increase?"[1154] And if he be willing to interpret

this on the same principle as what he has set down above, it follows

beyond all doubt, that neither is he that baptizeth anything, but God

that giveth the increase. For what matter does it make in reference to

the question now before us, in what sense it has been said, "I planted,

Apollos watered,"--whether it is really to be taken as equivalent to

his saying, "I made a catechumen, Apollos baptized him;" or whether

there be any other more apposite interpretation?--for in the mean time,

according to his own interpretation of the words, neither is he that

makes the catechumen anything, neither he that baptizes, but God that

gives the increase. But there is a great difference between confirming

what another does, and doing anything oneself. For He who gives the

increase does not confirm a tree or a vine, but creates it. For by

that increase it comes to pass that even a piece of wood planted in

the ground produces and establishes a root; by that increase it comes

to pass that a seed cast into the earth puts forth a shoot. But why

should we make a longer dissertation on this point? It is enough that,

according to Petilianus himself, neither he that makes a catechumen,

nor he that baptizes, is anything, but God that gives the increase.

But when would Petilianus say this, so that we should understand that

he meant, Neither is Donatus of Carthage anything, neither Januarius,

neither Petilianus? When would the swelling of his pride permit him to

say this, which now causes the man to think himself to be something,

when he is nothing, deceiving himself?[1155]

* * * * *

CHAP. LIV.--66. Finally, again, a little afterwards, when he resolved

and was firmly purposed, as it were, to reconsider once more the

words of the apostle which we had brought up against him, he was

unwilling to set down this that I had said, preferring something else

in which by some means or other the swelling of human pride might

find means to breathe. "For to reconsider," he says, "those words of

the apostle, on which you founded an argument against us; he said,

'What is Apollos, what is Paul, save only ministers of Him in whom ye

have believed?'[1156] What else, for example, does he say to all of

us than this, What is Donatus of Carthage, what is Januarius, what

is Petilianus, save only ministers of Him in whom ye have believed?"

I did not bring forward this passage of the apostle, but I did bring

forward that which he has been unwilling to quote, "Neither he that

planteth is anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth

the increase." But Petilianus was willing to insert those words of

the apostle, in which he asks what is Paul, and what is Apollos, and

answers that "They are ministers of Him in whom ye have believed."

This the muscles of the heretic's neck could bear; but he was wholly

unable to endure the other, in which the apostle did not ask and answer

what he was, but said that he was nothing. But now I am willing to ask

whether it be true that the minister of Christ is nothing. Who will say

so much as this? In what sense, therefore, is it true that "Neither

is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that

giveth the increase," except that he who is something in one point of

view may be nothing in another? For ministering and dispensing the word

and sacrament he is something, but for purifying and justifying he is

nothing, seeing that this is not accomplished in the inner man, except

by Him by whom the whole man was created, and who while He remained

God was made man,--by Him, that is, of whom it was said, "Purifying

their hearts by faith;"[1157] and "To him that believeth on Him that

justifieth the ungodly."[1158] And this testimony Petilianus has been

willing to set forth in my words, whilst in his own he has neither

handled it, nor even touched it.

* * * * *

CHAP. LV.--67. A minister, therefore, that is a dispenser of the

word and sacrament of the gospel, if he is a good man, becomes a

fellow-partner in the working of the gospel; but if he is a bad man, he

does not therefore cease to be a dispenser of the gospel. For if he is

good, he does it of his own free will; but if he is a bad man,--that

is, one who seeks his own and not the things of Jesus Christ,--he

does it unwillingly, for the sake of other things which he is seeking

after. See, however, what the same apostle has said: "For if I do this

thing willingly," he says, "I have a reward; but if against my will, a

dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me;"[1159] as though he

were to say, If I, being good, announce what is good, I attain unto

it also myself; but if, being evil, I announce it, yet I announce

what is good. For has he in any way said, If I do it against my will,

then shall I not be a dispenser of the gospel? Peter and the other

disciples announce the good tidings, as being good themselves. Judas

did it against his will, but yet, when he was sent, he announced it

in common with the rest. They have a reward; to him a dispensation

of the gospel was committed. But they who received the gospel at the

mouth of all those witnesses, could not be cleansed and justified

by him that planted, or by him that watered, but by Him alone that

gives the increase. For neither are we going to say that Judas did

not baptize, seeing that he was still among the disciples when that

which is written was being accomplished, "Jesus Himself baptized not,

but His disciples."[1160] Are we to suppose that, because he had not

betrayed Christ, therefore he who had the bag, and bare what was put

therein,[1161] was still enabled to dispense grace without prejudice to

those who received it, though he could not be an upright guardian of

the money entrusted to his care? Or if he did not baptize, at any rate

we must acknowledge that he preached the gospel. But if you consider

this a trifling function, and of no importance, see what you must

think of the Apostle Paul himself, who said, "For Christ sent me not

to baptize, but to preach the gospel."[1162] To this we may add, that

according to this, Apollos begins to be more important, who watered

by baptizing, than Paul, who planted by preaching the gospel, though

Paul claims to himself the relation of father towards the Corinthians

in virtue of this very act, and does not grant this title to those

who came to them after him. For he says, "Though ye have ten thousand

instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ

Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."[1163] He says, "I

have begotten you" to the same men to whom he says in another place,

"I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, and

I baptized also the household of Stephanas."[1164] He had begotten

them, therefore, not through himself, but through the gospel. And even

though he had been seeking his own, and not the things of Jesus Christ,

and had been doing this unwillingly, so as to receive no reward for

himself, yet he would have been dispensing the treasure of the Lord;

and this, though evil himself, he would not have been making evil or

useless to those who received it well.

* * * * *

CHAP. LVI.--68. And if this is rightly said of the gospel, with how

much greater certainty should it be said of baptism, which belongs to

the gospel in such wise, that without it no one can reach the kingdom

of heaven, and with it only if to the sacrament be added righteousness?

For He who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he

cannot enter into the kingdom of God,"[1165] said Himself also, "Except

your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and

Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."[1166]

The form of the sacrament is given through baptism, the form of

righteousness through the gospel. Neither one without the other leads

to the kingdom of heaven. Yet even men of inferior learning can baptize

perfectly, but to preach the gospel perfectly is a task of much greater

difficulty and rarity. Therefore the teacher of the Gentiles, that was

superior in excellence to the majority, was sent to preach the gospel,

not to baptize; because the latter could be done by many, the former

only by a few, of whom he was chief. And yet we read that he said in

certain places, "My gospel;"[1167] but he never called baptism either

his, or any one's else by whom it was administered. For that baptism

alone which John gave is called John's baptism.[1168] This that man

received as the special pledge of his ministry, that the preparatory

sacrament of washing should even be called by the name of him by whom

it was administered; whereas the baptism which the disciples of Christ

administered was never called by the name of any one of them, that it

should be understood to be His alone of whom it is said, "Christ loved

the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse

it with the washing of water by the word."[1169] If, therefore, the

gospel, which is Christ's, but so that a minister also may call it his

in virtue of his office of administering it, can be received by a man

even at the hands of an evil minister without danger to himself, if

he does according to what he says, and not after the example of what

he does, how much more may any one who comes in good faith to Christ

receive without fear of contagion from an evil minister the baptism of

Christ, which none of the apostles so administered as to dare to call

it his own?

* * * * *

CHAP. LVII.--69. Furthermore, if, whilst I have continued without

intermission to prove how entirely the passages of Scripture which

Petilianus has quoted against us have failed to hurt our cause, he

himself has in some cases not touched at all what I have quoted, and

partly, when he has endeavoured to handle them, has shown that the

only thing that he could do was to fail in finding an escape from

them, you require no long exhortation or advice in order to see what

you ought to maintain, and what you should avoid. But it may be that

this has been the kind of show that he has made in dealing with the

testimony of holy Scripture, but that he has not been without force

in the case of the documentary evidence found in the records of the

schism itself. Let us then see in the case of these too, though it is

superfluous to inquire into them after testimony from the word of God,

what he has quoted, or what he has proved. For, after pouring forth a

violent invective against _traditors_, and quoting loudly many passages

against them from the holy books themselves, he yet said nothing which

could prove his opponents to be _traditors_. But I quoted the case

of Silvanus of Cirta, who held his own see some little time before

himself, who was expressly declared in the Municipal Chronicles to have

been a _traditor_ while he was yet a sub-deacon. Against this fact he

did not venture to whisper a syllable. And yet you cannot fail to see

how strong the pressure was which must have been urging him to reply,

that he might show a man, who was his predecessor, not only one of his

party, but a partner, so to speak, in his see, to have been innocent

of the crime of delivering up the sacred books, especially as you rest

the whole strength of your cause on the fact that you give the name of

_traditor_ to all whom you either pretend or believe to have been the

successors of _traditors_ in the path of their communion. Although,

then, the very exigencies of your cause would seem to compel him to

undertake the defence of a citizen even of Russicadia, or Calama, or

any other city of your party, whom I should declare to be a _traditor_,

on the authority of the Municipal Chronicles, yet he did not open

his mouth even in defence of his own predecessor. For what reason,

except that he could not find any mist dark enough to deceive the

minds of even the slowest and sleepiest of men? For what could he have

said, except that the charges brought against Silvanus were false?

But we quote the words of the Chronicles, both as to the date of the

fact, and as to the time of the information laid before Zenophilus

the ex-consul.[1170] And how could he resist this evidence, being

encompassed on every side by the most excellent cause of the Catholics,

whilst yours was bad as bad could be? For which reason I quote these

words from my epistle to which he would fain be thought to have replied

in this which I am now refuting, that you may see for yourselves how

impregnable the position must be against which he has been able to find

no safer weapon than silence.

* * * * *

CHAP. LVIII.--70. For when he quoted a passage from the gospel as

making against us, where our Lord says, "They will come to you in

sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves: ye shall

know them by their fruits,"[1171]--I answered and said, "Then let us

consider their fruits;" and then I at once went on to add the following

words: "You bring up against them their delivery of the sacred books.

This very charge we urge with greater probability against their

accusers themselves. And not to carry our search too far: in the same

city of Constantina, your predecessors ordained Silvanus bishop at the

very outset of his schism. He, while he was still a sub-deacon, was

most unmistakeably entered as a _traditor_ in the archives of the city.

If you, on your side, bring forward documents against our predecessors,

all that we ask is equal terms, that we should either believe both to

be true, or both to be false. If both are true, you are unquestionably

guilty of schism, who have pretended that you avoid offences in the

communion of the whole world, though these were common among you in

your own fragmentary sect. But again, if both are false, you are

unquestionably guilty of schism, who, on account of the false charges

of _traditors_, are staining yourselves with the heinous offence

of severance from the Church. But if we have something to urge in

accusation, while you have nothing, or if our charges are true, whilst

yours are false, it is no longer matter of discussion how thoroughly

your mouths are closed. What if the holy and true Church of Christ were

to convince and overcome you, even if we held no documents in support

of our cause, or only such as were false, while you had possession of

some genuine proof of delivery of the sacred books, what would then

remain for you, except that, if you would, you should show your love of

peace, or otherwise should hold your tongues? For whatever in that case

you might bring forward in evidence, I should be able to say with the

greatest ease and with the most perfect truth, that then you are bound

to prove as much to the full and Catholic unity of the Church, already

spread abroad and established throughout so many nations, to the end

that you should remain within, and that those whom you convict should

be expelled. And if you have endeavoured to do this, certainly you

have not been able to make good your proof; and, being vanquished or

enraged, you have separated yourselves, with all the heinous guilt of

sacrilege, from the guiltless men who could not condemn on insufficient

proof. But if you have not even endeavoured to do this, then with most

accursed and unnatural blindness you have cut yourselves off from the

wheat of Christ, which grows throughout His whole fields, that is,

throughout the whole world until the end, because you have taken

offence at a few tares in Africa."[1172] To this, which I have quoted

from my former epistle, Petilianus has made no answer whatsoever. And,

at all events, you see that in these few words is comprised the whole

question which is at issue between us. For what should he endeavour to

say, when, whatever course he chose, he was sure to be defeated?

71. For when documents are brought forward relating to the _traditors_,

both by us against the men of your party, and by you against the men

of our party, (if indeed any really are brought forward on your side,

for to this very day we are left in total ignorance of them; nor indeed

can we believe that Petilianus would have omitted to insert them in his

letter, seeing that he has taken so much pains to secure the quotation

and insertion of those portions of the Chronicles which bear on the

matter in opposition to me),--but still, as I began to say, if such

documents are brought forward both by us and by you,--documents of

whose existence we are wholly ignorant to this very day,--surely you

must acknowledge that either both are true, or both false, or ours true

and yours false, or yours true and ours false; for there is no further

alternative that can be suggested.

* * * * *

CHAP. LIX.--But according to all these four hypotheses, the truth is

on the side of the communion of the Catholic Church. For if both are

true, then you certainly should not have deserted the communion of the

whole world on account of men such as you too had among yourselves.

But if both are false, you should have guarded against the guilt of

most accursed division, which had not even any pretext to allege of any

delivery of the sacred books. If ours are true and yours are false, you

have long been without anything to say for yourselves. If yours are

true and ours are false, we have been liable to be deceived, in common

with the whole world, not about the truth of the faith, but about the

unrighteousness of men. For the seed of Abraham, dispersed throughout

the world, was bound to pay attention, not to what you said you knew,

but to what you proved to the judges. Whence have we any knowledge of

what was done by those men who were accused by your ancestors, even

if the allegations made against them were true, so long as they were

held to be not true but false, either by the judges who took cognisance

of the case, or at least by the general body of the Church dispersed

throughout the world, which was only bound to pay heed to the sentence

of the judges? God does not necessarily pardon any human guilt that

others in the weakness of human judgment fail to discover; yet I

maintain that no one is rightly deemed guilty for having believed a man

to be innocent who was not convicted. How then do you prove the world

to be guilty, merely because it did not know what possibly was really

guilt in the Africans,--its ignorance arising either from the fact that

no one reported the sin to it, or from its having given credence, in

respect of the information which was given, rather to the judges who

took cognisance of the case, than to the murmurers who were defeated?

So far, then, Petilianus deserves all praise, in that, when he saw

that on this point I was absolutely impregnable, he passed it by in

silence. Yet he does not deserve praise for his attempts to obscure

in a mist of words other points which were equally impregnable, which

yet he thought could be obscured; or for having put me in the place of

his cause, when the cause left him nothing to say; while even about

myself he could say nothing except what was either altogether false,

or undeserving of any blame, or without any bearing whatsoever upon

me. But, in the meantime, are you, whom I have made judges between

Petilianus and myself, possessed of discrimination enough to decide in

any degree between what is true and what is false, between what is mere

empty swelling and what is solid, between what is troubled and what is

calm, between inflammation and soundness, between divine predictions

and human assumptions, between bringing an accusation and establishing

it, between proofs and fictions, between pleading a cause and leading

one away from it? If you have such power of discrimination, well and

good; but if you have it not, we shall not repent of having bestowed

our pains on you; for even though your heart be not converted unto

peace, yet our peace shall return unto ourselves.

FOOTNOTES:

[1029] Possidius, in the third chapter of his _Indiculus_, designates

this third book as "One book against the second letter of the same."

[1030] Ps. lii. 3.

[1031] Ps. lxxxiv. 10.

[1032] Nihil enim mihi conscius sum.

[1033] 1 Cor. iv. 1-6.

[1034] 1 Cor. iii. 21, 23.

[1035] Jas. i. 17.

[1036] 1 Cor. iv. 7.

[1037] 1 Cor. iv. 16.

[1038] Matt. xxiii. 3.

[1039] Jer. xvii. 5.

[1040] Matt. iii. 12.

[1041] 2 Tim. ii. 20.

[1042] Matt. xiii. 47, 48.

[1043] Matt. xxv. 32, 33.

[1044] Matt. xiii. 24-40.

[1045] 1 Cor. i. 12, 13.

[1046] 2 Tim. ii. 19.

[1047] Ps. xxvii. 14.

[1048] 1 Thess. v. 14, 15.

[1049] 2 Cor. xi. 2, 3.

[1050] 1 Cor. viii. 11.

[1051] 1 Cor. iii. 7.

[1052] 1 John iv. 16.

[1053] Gal. vi. 4, 5.

[1054] Rom. xiv. 12, 13.

[1055] Gal. vi. 2, 3.

[1056] Eph. iv. 2, 3.

[1057] Matt. xii. 30.

[1058] Gal. i. 8.

[1059] Matt. v. 12.

[1060] Cant. i. 3.

[1061] Ps. lvii. 11.

[1062] 1 Cor. i. 30, 31.

[1063] Matt. v. 10-12.

[1064] Matt. x. 25.

[1065] Ps. xxvi. 1.

[1066] Ps. lvi. 11.

[1067] Ps. xi. 1.

[1068] 1 Pet. iii. 21.

[1069] Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.

[1070] Some editors have "unitate," but Amerbach and the MSS.,

"veritate;" and this is supported by sec. 28 below: "De ecclesiæ vel

baptismi veritate;" and sec. 22 of the treatise _de Unico Baptismo_:

"Ambulantibus in ecclesiæ veritate."

[1071] Ubi vobis faventibus loquatur, et victus verum simulans statum,

talia vel etiam sceleratiora dicat in me. Mihi sat est ad rem, etc.

Morel (_Elem. Crit._ pp. 326-328) suggests as an improvement, "Ubi

vobis faventibus loquatur et victus. Verum si millies tantum talia vel

etiam sceleratiora dicat in me, mihi sat est," etc.,--"on which he may

speak amidst applause from you, even when beaten. But if he were to

make a thousand times as many statements concerning me," etc.

[1072] Eph. vi. 12.

[1073] Eph. v. 8.

[1074] 2 Cor. vi. 7, 8.

[1075] Luke vi. 35.

[1076] Luke xxiii. 34.

[1077] See above, Book I. c. i. sec. 2.

[1078] Acts xxiv. 1.

[1079] Paracleti.

[1080] "Favente," which is wanting in the MSS., was inserted in the

margin by Erasmus, as being needed to complete the sense.

[1081] Megalius, bishop of Calama, primate of Numidia, was the

bishop who ordained Augustine, as we find in c. viii. of his life by

Possidius. Augustine makes further reply to the same calumny, which was

gathered from a letter of Megalius, in Contra _Cresconium_, Book III.

c. lxxx. sec. 92, and Book IV. c. lxiv. secs. 78, 79.

[1082] Lente, ut dicitur, et bene. Morel (_Element. Crit._ pp. 140,

141) suggests as an amendment, "lene," as suiting better with "lente."

[1083] See Book I. c. i. secs. 2, 3.

[1084] Lactantius, Book V. c. xiv., tells us of the talents of

Carneades, recording that when he was sent on an embassy to Rome by

the Athenians, he spoke there first in defence of justice, and then on

the following day in opposition to it; and that he was in the habit of

speaking with such force on either side, as to be able to refute any

arguments advanced by anybody else.

[1085] Ter. _Heaut._ IV. iii. 41.

[1086] In _de Civ. Dei_, Book II. c. xxi., Augustine mentions L. Furius

Philus, one of the interlocutors in Cicero's _Laelus_, as maintaining

this same view. From the similarity of the name, it has been thought

that here Furius and Pilus are only one man.

[1087] The MSS. here and below have Protagoras. Both were atheists,

according to Cicero, _Nat. Deor._ I. i. 2, and Lactantius, Book I. c. i.

[1088] Ps. xiv. 1.

[1089] See Book I. c. ii. sec. 3.

[1090] See Book I. c. ii. sec. 3.

[1091] Jer. xvii. 5.

[1092] 1 Cor. iii. 21.

[1093] Ps. lxii. 1, 2.

[1094] John i. 22.

[1095] Matt. iii. 7.

[1096] Wisd. i. 5.

[1097] 1 Tim. iii. 10.

[1098] Book I. c. ii. sec. 2.

[1099] Wisd. i. 5.

[1100] The Council of Carthage, held on 13th September 401, passed a

decree in favour of receiving the clergy of the Donatists with full

recognition of their orders.

[1101] Acts viii. 36.

[1102] Jer. xv. 18. See Book II. c. cii. sec. 234, 235.

[1103] Rev. xvii. 15.

[1104] Ps. cxli. 5. See Book II. c. ciii. sec. 236, 237.

[1105] 1 John iv. 1.

[1106] Matt. xvi. 16.

[1107] Matt. viii. 29; Mark i. 24; Luke viii. 28.

[1108] Wisd. i. 5.

[1109] See Book I. c. x. sec. 11, 12.

[1110] 1 Cor. iii. 21, and i. 31.

[1111] Rom. iv. 5.

[1112] That of Bagai.

[1113] Gal. vi. 5.

[1114] See Possidius' _Life of St. Augustine_, cc. v.-xi.

[1115] See c. xlv. sec. 54.

[1116] Rom. iv. 5.

[1117] 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.

[1118] John xv. 5.

[1119] Rom. xii. 5.

[1120] Book I. c. v. secs. 6, 7.

[1121] Book I. c. vi. secs. 6, 7.

[1122] Matt. vii. 17, 16.

[1123] Matt. xii. 35.

[1124] See Book I. cc. vii. viii. secs. 8, 9.

[1125] 1 Cor. xv. 13-15.

[1126] See Book I. c. vi. sec. 7.

[1127] See Book I. c. viii. sec. 9.

[1128] Rom. ix. 5.

[1129] Acts v. 3, 4.

[1130] Matt. xxii. 30.

[1131] Rom. iv. 5.

[1132] John i. 33.

[1133] Eph. v. 25, 26.

[1134] Jer. xvii. 5.

[1135] Ps. xl. 4.

[1136] Matt. xxiii. 3.

[1137] Matt. x. 23.

[1138] Matt. vii. 17, 16.

[1139] Matt. xii. 35.

[1140] Ecclus. xxxiv. 25. See Book I. c. ix. sec. 10.

[1141] Ps. cxviii. 8.

[1142] Jer. xvii. 5.

[1143] Ps. iii. 8.

[1144] Ps. lx. 11.

[1145] 1 Cor. iii. 7.

[1146] Rom. iv. 5.

[1147] Ps. lxxii. 8.

[1148] Ps. ii. 8.

[1149] Gen. xxii. 18.

[1150] Gal. iii. 16.

[1151] Matt. xxiii. 3.

[1152] 1 Cor. i. 13.

[1153] See Book I. cc. iii. iv. secs. 4, 5.

[1154] 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.

[1155] Gal. vi. 3.

[1156] Ministri ejus cui credidistis. See 1 Cor. iii. 4, 5.

[1157] Acts xv. 9.

[1158] Rom. iv. 5.

[1159] 1 Cor. ix. 17.

[1160] John iv. 2.

[1161] John xii. 6.

[1162] 1 Cor. i. 17.

[1163] 1 Cor. iv. 15.

[1164] 1 Cor. i. 14.

[1165] John iii. 5.

[1166] Matt. v. 20.

[1167] 2 Tim. ii. 8.

[1168] Acts xix. 3.

[1169] Eph. v. 25, 26.

[1170] See Book III. _c. Cresconium_, cc. xxvii. xxviii. secs. 30, 32.

[1171] Matt. vii. 15, 16.

[1172] See Book I. cc. xxi. xxii. secs. 23, 24.

A TREATISE

CONCERNING

THE CORRECTION OF THE DONATISTS;

FORMING EPISTLE 185 IN MIGNE'S EDITION OF AUGUSTINE'S

WORKS.

A LETTER OF AUGUSTINE[1173] TO BONIFACE, WHO, AS WE LEARN FROM EPISTLE

220, WAS TRIBUNE, AND AFTERWARDS COUNT IN AFRICA. IN IT AUGUSTINE

SHOWS THAT THE HERESY OF THE DONATISTS HAS NOTHING IN COMMON WITH THAT

OF ARIUS; AND POINTS OUT THE MODERATION WITH WHICH IT WAS POSSIBLE TO

RECALL THE HERETICS TO THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH THROUGH AWE OF THE

IMPERIAL LAWS. HE ADDS REMARKS CONCERNING THE SAVAGE CONDUCT OF THE

DONATISTS AND CIRCUMCELLIONES, CONCLUDING WITH A DISCUSSION OF THE

UNPARDONABLE NATURE OF THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST.

CHAP. I.--1. I must express my satisfaction, and congratulations, and

admiration, my son Boniface, in that, amid all the cares of wars and

arms, you are eagerly anxious to know concerning the things that are

of God. From hence it is clear that in you it is actually a part of

your military valour to serve in truth the faith which is in Christ.

To place, therefore, briefly before your Grace the difference between

the errors of the Arians and the Donatists, the Arians say that

the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are different in substance;

whereas the Donatists do not say this, but acknowledge the unity of

substance in the Trinity. And if some even of them have said that the

Son was inferior to the Father, yet they have not denied that He is

of the same substance; whilst the greater part of them declare that

they hold entirely the same belief regarding the Father and the Son

and the Holy Ghost as is held by the Catholic Church. Nor is this the

actual question in dispute with them; but they carry on their unhappy

strife solely on the question of communion, and in the perversity of

their error maintain rebellious hostility against the unity of Christ.

But sometimes, as we have heard, some of them, wishing to conciliate

the Goths, since they see that they are not without a certain amount

of power, profess to entertain the same belief as they. But they are

refuted by the authority of their own leaders; for Donatus himself, of

whose party they boast themselves to be, is never said to have held

this belief.

2. Let not, however, things like these disturb thee, my beloved

son. For it is foretold to us that there must needs be heresies and

stumbling-blocks, that we may be instructed among our enemies; and

that so both our faith and our love may be the more approved,--our

faith, namely, that we should not be deceived by them; and our love,

that we should take the utmost pains we can to correct the erring ones

themselves; not only watching that they should do no injury to the

weak, and that they should be delivered from their wicked error, but

also praying for them, that God would open their understanding, and

that they might comprehend the Scriptures. For in the sacred books,

where the Lord Christ is made manifest, there is also His Church

declared; but they, with wondrous blindness, whilst they would know

nothing of Christ Himself save what is revealed in the Scriptures, yet

form their notion of His Church from the vanity of human falsehood,

instead of learning what it is on the authority of the sacred books.

3. They recognise Christ together with us in that which is written,

"They pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they

look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast

lots upon my vesture;" and yet they refuse to recognise the Church in

that which follows shortly after: "All the ends of the world shall

remember, and turn unto the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations

shall worship before Thee. For the kingdom is the Lord's; and He is the

Governor among the nations."[1174] They recognise Christ together with

us in that which is written, "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my

Son, this day have I begotten Thee;" and they will not recognise the

Church in that which follows: "Ask of me, and I shall give Thee the

heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for

Thy possession."[1175] They recognise Christ together with us in that

which the Lord Himself says in the gospel, "Thus it behoved Christ to

suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day;" and they will not

recognise the Church in that which follows: "And that repentance and

remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations,

beginning at Jerusalem."[1176] And the testimonies in the sacred books

are without number, all of which it has not been necessary for me to

crowd together into this book. And in all of them, as the Lord Christ

is made manifest, whether in accordance with His Godhead, in which

He is equal to the Father, so that, "In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" or according to the

humility of the flesh which He took upon Him, whereby "the Word was

made flesh, and dwelt among us;"[1177] so is His Church made manifest,

not in Africa alone, as they most impudently venture in the madness of

their vanity to assert, but spread abroad throughout the world.

4. For they prefer to the testimonies of Holy Writ their own

contentions, because, in the case of Cæcilianus, formerly a bishop

of the Church of Carthage, against whom they brought charges which

they were and are unable to substantiate, they separated themselves

from the Catholic Church,--that is, from the unity of all nations.

Although, even if the charges had been true which were brought by them

against Cæcilianus, and could at length be proved to us, yet, though

we might pronounce an anathema upon him even in the grave,[1178] we

are still bound not for the sake of any man to leave the Church, which

rests for its foundation on divine witness, and is not the figment of

litigious opinions, seeing that it is better to trust in the Lord than

to put confidence in man.[1179] For we cannot allow that if Cæcilianus

had erred,--a supposition which I make without prejudice to his

integrity,--Christ should therefore have forfeited His inheritance. It

is easy for a man to believe of his fellow-men either what is true or

what is false; but it marks abandoned impudence to desire to condemn

the communion of the whole world on account of charges alleged against

a man, of which you cannot establish the truth in the face of the world.

5. Whether Cæcilianus was ordained by men who had delivered up the

sacred books, I do not know. I did not see it, I heard it only from

his enemies. It is not declared to me in the law of God, or in the

utterances of the prophets, or in the holy poetry of the Psalms, or

in the writings of any one of Christ's apostles, or in the eloquence

of Christ Himself. But the evidence of all the several scriptures

with one accord proclaims the Church spread abroad throughout the

world, with which the faction of Donatus does not hold communion. The

law of God declared, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth

be blessed."[1180] The Lord said by the mouth of His prophet, "From

the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name

shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be

offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great

among the heathen."[1181] The Lord said through the Psalmist, "He shall

have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends

of the earth."[1182] The Lord said by His apostle, "The gospel is come

unto you, as it is in all the world, and bringeth forth fruit."[1183]

The Son of God said with His own mouth, "Ye shall be witnesses unto

me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto

the uttermost part of the earth."[1184] Cæcilianus, the bishop of the

Church of Carthage, is accused with the contentiousness of men; the

Church of Christ, established among all nations, is recommended by

the voice of God. Mere piety, truth, and love forbid us to receive

against Cæcilianus the testimony of men whom we do not find in the

Church, which has the testimony of God; for those who do not follow the

testimony of God have forfeited the weight which otherwise would attach

to their testimony as men.

* * * * *

CHAP. II.--6. I would add, moreover, that they themselves, by making it

the subject of an accusation, referred the case of Cæcilianus to the

decision of the Emperor Constantine; and that, even after the bishops

had pronounced their judgment,[1185] finding that they could not crush

Cæcilianus, they brought him in person before the above-named emperor

for trial, in the most determined spirit of persecution. And so they

were themselves the first to do what they censure in us, in order that

they may deceive the unlearned, saying that Christians ought not to

demand any assistance from Christian emperors against the enemies of

Christ. And this, too, they did not dare to deny in the conference

which we held at the same time in Carthage: nay, they even venture to

make it a matter of boasting that their fathers had laid a criminal

indictment against Cæcilianus before the emperor; adding furthermore a

lie, to the effect that they had there worsted him, and procured his

condemnation. How then can they be otherwise than persecutors, seeing

that when they persecuted Cæcilianus by their accusations, and were

overcome by him, they sought to claim false glory for themselves by a

most shameless lie; not only considering it no reproach, but glorying

in it as conducive to their praise, if they could prove that Cæcilianus

had been condemned on the accusation of their fathers? But in regard to

the manner in which they were overcome at every turn in the conference

itself, seeing that the records are exceedingly voluminous, and it

would be a serious matter to have them read to you while you are

occupied in other matters that are essential to the peace of Rome,

perhaps it may be possible to have a digest[1186] of them read to you,

which I believe to be in the possession of my brother and fellow-bishop

Optatus; or if he has not a copy, he might easily procure one from the

church at Sitifa; for I can well believe that even that volume will

prove wearisome enough to you from its lengthiness, amid the burden of

your many cares.

7. For the Donatists met with the same fate as the accusers of the holy

Daniel.[1187] For as the lions were turned against them, so the laws

by which they had proposed to crush an innocent victim were turned

against the Donatists; save that, through the mercy of Christ, the

laws which seemed to be opposed to them are in reality their truest

friends; for through their operation many of them have been, and are

daily being reformed, and return God thanks that they are reformed,

and delivered from their ruinous madness. And those who used to hate

are now filled with love; and now that they have recovered their right

minds, they congratulate themselves that these most wholesome laws

were brought to bear against them, with as much fervency as in their

madness they detested them; and are filled with the same spirit of

ardent love towards those who yet remain as ourselves, desiring that

we should strive in like manner that those with whom they had been

like to perish might be saved. For both the physician is irksome to

the raging madman, and a father to his undisciplined son,--the former

because of the restraint, the latter because of the chastisement which

he inflicts; yet both are acting in love. But if they were to neglect

their charge, and allow them to perish, this mistaken kindness would

more truly be accounted cruelty. For if the horse and mule, which have

no understanding, resist with all the force of bites and kicks the

efforts of the men who treat their wounds in order to cure them; and

yet the men, though they are often exposed to danger from their teeth

and heels, and sometimes meet with actual hurt, nevertheless do not

desert them till they restore them to health through the pain and

annoyance which the healing process gives,--how much more should man

refuse to desert his fellow-man, or brother to desert his brother, lest

he should perish everlastingly, being himself now able to comprehend

the vastness of the boon accorded to himself in his reformation, at the

very time that he complained of suffering persecution?

8. As then the apostle says, "As we have therefore opportunity, let

us do good unto all men, not being weary in well-doing,"[1188] so

let all be called to salvation, let all be recalled from the path of

destruction,--those who may, by the sermons of Catholic preachers;

those who may, by the edicts of Catholic princes; some through

those who obey the warnings of God, some through those who obey the

emperor's commands. For, moreover, when emperors enact bad laws on

the side of falsehood as against the truth, those who hold a right

faith are approved, and, if they persevere, are crowned; but when the

emperors enact good laws on behalf of the truth against falsehood,

then those who rage against them are put in fear, and those who

understand are reformed. Whosoever, therefore, refuses to obey the

laws of the emperors which are enacted against the truth of God, wins

for himself a great reward; but whosoever refuses to obey the laws of

the emperors which are enacted in behalf of truth, wins for himself

great condemnation. For in the times, too, of the prophets, the kings

who, in dealing with the people of God, did not prohibit nor annul the

ordinances which were issued contrary to God's commands, are all of

them censured; and those who did prohibit and annul them are praised

as deserving more than other men. And king Nebuchadnezzar, when he was

a servant of idols, enacted an impious law that a certain idol should

be worshipped; but those who refused to obey his impious command acted

piously and faithfully. And the very same king, when converted by a

miracle from God, enacted a pious and praiseworthy law on behalf of the

truth, that every one who should speak anything amiss against the true

God, the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, should perish utterly,

with all his house.[1189] If any persons disobeyed this law, and

justly suffered the penalty imposed, they might have said what these

men say, that they were righteous, because they suffered persecution

through the law enacted by the king: and this they certainly would have

said, had they been as mad as these who make divisions between the

members of Christ, and spurn the sacraments of Christ, and take credit

for being persecuted, because they are prevented from doing such things

by the laws which the emperors have passed to preserve the unity of

Christ; and boast falsely of their innocence, and seek from men the

glory of martyrdom, which they cannot receive from our Lord.

9. But true martyrs are such as those of whom the Lord says, "Blessed

are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake."[1190] It is

not, therefore, those who suffer persecution for their unrighteousness,

and for the divisions which they impiously introduce into Christian

unity, but those who suffer for righteousness' sake, that are

truly martyrs. For Hagar also suffered persecution at the hands of

Sarah;[1191] and in that case she who persecuted was righteous, and

she unrighteous who suffered persecution. Are we to compare with this

persecution which Hagar suffered the case of holy David, who was

persecuted by unrighteous Saul?[1192] Surely there is an essential

difference, not in respect of his suffering, but because he suffered

for righteousness' sake. And the Lord Himself was crucified with two

thieves;[1193] but those who were joined in their suffering were

separated by the difference of its cause. Accordingly, in the psalm, we

must interpret of the true martyrs, who wish to be distinguished from

false martyrs, the verse in which it is said, "Judge me, O Lord, and

distinguish[1194] my cause from an ungodly nation."[1195] He does not

say, Distinguish my punishment, but "Distinguish my cause." For the

punishment of the impious may be the same; but the cause of the martyrs

is always different. To whose mouth also the words are suitable, "They

persecute me wrongfully; help Thou me;"[1196] in which the Psalmist

claimed to have a right to be helped in righteousness, because his

adversaries persecuted him wrongfully; for if they had been right in

persecuting him, he would have deserved not help, but correction.

10. But if they think that no one can be justified in using

violence,--as they said in the course of the conference that the true

Church must necessarily be the one which suffers persecution, not the

one inflicting it,--in that case I no longer urge what I observed

above; because, if the matter stand as they maintain that it does, then

Cæcilianus must have belonged to the true Church, seeing that their

fathers persecuted him, by pressing his accusation even to the tribunal

of the emperor himself. For we maintain that he belonged to the true

Church, not merely because he suffered persecution, but because he

suffered it for righteousness' sake; but that they were alienated from

the Church, not merely because they persecuted, but because they did

so in unrighteousness. This, then, is our position. But if they make

no inquiry into the causes for which each person inflicts persecution,

or for which he suffers it, but think that it is a sufficient sign of

a true Christian that he does not inflict persecution, but suffers it,

then beyond all question they include Cæcilianus in that definition,

who did not inflict, but suffered persecution; and they equally exclude

their own fathers from the definition, for they inflicted, but did not

suffer it.

11. But this, I say, I forbear to urge. Yet one point I must press: If

the true Church is the one which actually suffers persecution, not the

one which inflicts it, let them ask the apostle of what Church Sarah

was a type, when she inflicted persecution on her handmaid. For he

declares that the free mother of us all, the heavenly Jerusalem, that

is to say, the true Church of God, was prefigured in that woman who

cruelly entreated her handmaid.[1197] But if we investigate the story

further, we shall find that the handmaid rather persecuted Sarah by her

haughtiness, than Sarah the handmaid by her severity: for the handmaid

was doing wrong to her mistress; the mistress only imposed on her a

proper discipline in her haughtiness. Again I ask, if good and holy

men never inflict persecution upon any one, but only suffer it, whose

words they think that those are in the psalm where we read, "I have

pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them; neither did I turn again till

they were consumed."[1198] If, therefore, we wish either to declare

or to recognise the truth, there is a persecution of unrighteousness,

which the impious inflict upon the Church of Christ; and there is

a righteous persecution, which the Church of Christ inflicts upon

the impious. She therefore is blessed in suffering persecution for

righteousness' sake; but they are miserable, suffering persecution

for unrighteousness. Moreover, she persecutes in the spirit of love,

they in the spirit of wrath; she that she may correct, they that they

may overthrow; she that she may recall from error, they that they may

drive headlong into error. Finally, she persecutes her enemies and

arrests them, until they become weary in their vain opinions, so that

they should make advance in the truth; but they, returning evil for

good, because we take measures for their good, to secure their eternal

salvation, endeavour even to strip us of our temporal safety, being

so in love with murder, that they commit it on their own persons,

when they cannot find victims in any others. For in proportion as

the Christian charity of the Church endeavours to deliver them from

that destruction, so that none of them should die, so their madness

endeavours either to slay us, that they may feed the lust of their own

cruelty, or even to kill themselves, that they may not seem to have

lost the power of putting men to death.

* * * * *

CHAP. III.--12. But those who are unacquainted with their habits

think that they only kill themselves now that all the mass of the

people are freed from the fearful madness of their usurped dominion,

in virtue of the laws which have been passed for the preservation

of unity. But those who know what they were accustomed to do before

the passing of the laws, do not wonder at their deaths, but call to

mind their character; and especially how vast crowds of them used to

come in procession to the most frequented ceremonies of the pagans,

while the worship of idols still continued,--not with the view of

breaking the idols, but that they might be put to death by those who

worshipped them. For if they had sought to break the idols under the

sanction of legitimate authority, they might, in case of anything

happening to them, have had some shadow of a claim to be considered

martyrs; but their only object in coming was, that while the idols

remained uninjured, they themselves might meet with death. For it was

the general custom of the strongest youths among the worshippers of

idols, for each of them to offer in sacrifice to the idols themselves

any victims that he might have slain. Some went so far as to offer

themselves for slaughter to any travellers whom they met with arms,

using violent threats that they would murder them if they failed to

meet with death at their hands. Sometimes, too, they extorted with

violence from any passing judge that they should be put to death by

the executioners, or by the officer of his court. And hence we have

a story, that a certain judge played a trick upon them, by ordering

them to be bound and led away, as though for execution, and so escaped

their violence, without injury to himself or them. Again, it was their

daily sport to kill themselves, by throwing themselves over precipices,

or into the water, or into the fire. For the devil taught them these

three modes of suicide, so that, when they wished to die, and could not

find any one whom they could terrify into slaying them with his sword,

they threw themselves over the rocks, or committed themselves to the

fire or the eddying pool. But who can be thought to have taught them

this, having gained possession of their hearts, but he who actually

suggested to our Saviour Himself, as a duty sanctioned by the law,

that He should throw Himself down from a pinnacle of the temple?[1199]

And his suggestion they would surely have thrust far from them, had

they carried Christ, as their Master, in their hearts. But since they

have rather given place within them to the devil, they either perish

like the herd of swine, whom the legion of devils drove down from the

hill-side into the sea,[1200] or, being rescued from that destruction,

and gathered together in the loving bosom of our Catholic mother

Church, they are delivered, brought to be healed of the devil, saying

that ofttimes he was wont to fall into the fire, and oft into the

water.[1201]

13. Whence it appears that great mercy is shown towards them, when by

the force of those very imperial laws they are in the first instance

rescued against their will from that sect in which, through the

teaching of lying devils, they learned those evil doctrines, so that

afterwards they might be made whole in the Catholic Church, becoming

accustomed to the good teaching and example which they find in it. For

many of the men whom we now admire in the unity of Christ, for the

pious fervour of their faith, and for their charity, give thanks to God

with great joy that they are no longer in that error which led them to

mistake those evil things for good,--which thanks they would not now be

offering willingly, had they not first, even against their will, been

severed from that impious association. And what are we to say of those

who confess to us, as some do every day, that even in the olden days

they had long been wishing to be Catholics; but they were living among

men among whom those who wished to be Catholics could not be so through

the infirmity of fear, seeing that if any one there said a single

word in favour of the Catholic Church, he and his house were utterly

destroyed at once? Who is mad enough to deny that it was right that

assistance should have been given through the imperial decrees, that

they might be delivered from so great an evil, whilst those whom they

used to fear are compelled in turn to fear, and are either themselves

corrected through the same terror, or, at any rate, whilst they pretend

to be corrected, they abstain from further persecution of those who

really are, to whom they formerly were objects of continual dread?

14. But if they have chosen to destroy themselves, in order to prevent

the deliverance of those who had a right to be delivered, and have

sought in this way to alarm the pious hearts of the deliverers, so

that in their apprehension that some few abandoned men might perish,

they should allow others to lose the opportunity of deliverance from

destruction, who were either already unwilling to perish, or might have

been saved from it by the employment of compulsion; what is in this

case the function of Christian charity, especially when we consider

that those who utter threats of their own violent and voluntary

deaths are very few in number in comparison with the nations that are

to be delivered? What then is the function of brotherly love? Does

it, because it fears the shortlived fires of the furnace for a few,

therefore abandon all to the eternal fires of hell? and does it leave

so many, who are either already desirous, or hereafter are not strong

enough to pass to life eternal, to perish everlastingly, while taking

precautions that some few should not perish by their own hand, who are

only living to be a hindrance in the way of the salvation of others,

whom they will not permit to live in accordance with the doctrines of

Christ, in the hopes that some day or other they may teach them too to

hasten their death by their own hand, in the manner which now causes

them themselves to be a terror to their neighbours, in accordance with

the custom inculcated by their devilish tenets? or does it rather save

all whom it can, even though those whom it cannot save should perish in

their own infatuation? For it ardently desires that all should live,

but it more especially labours that not all should die. But thanks be

to the Lord, that both amongst us--not indeed everywhere, but in the

great majority of places--and also in the other parts of Africa, the

peace of the Catholic Church both has gained and is gaining ground,

without any of these madmen being killed. But those deplorable deeds

are done in places where there is an utterly furious and useless set of

men, who were given to such deeds even in the days of old.

* * * * *

CHAP. IV.--15. And indeed, before those laws were put in force by

the emperors of the Catholic faith, the doctrine of the peace and

unity of Christ was beginning by degrees to gain ground, and men were

coming over to it even from the faction of Donatus, in proportion as

each learned more, and became more willing, and more master of his

own actions; although, at the same time, among the Donatists herds of

abandoned men were disturbing the peace of the innocent for one reason

or another in the spirit of the most reckless madness. What master was

there who was not compelled to live in dread of his own servant, if

he had put himself under the guardianship of the Donatists? Who dared

even threaten one who sought his ruin with punishment? Who dared to

exact payment of a debt from one who consumed his stores, or from any

debtor whatsoever, that sought their assistance or protection? Under

the threat of beating, and burning, and immediate death, all documents

compromising the worst of slaves were destroyed, that they might depart

in freedom. Notes of hand that had been extracted from debtors were

returned to them. Any one who had shown a contempt for their hard words

were compelled by harder blows to do what they desired. The houses of

innocent persons who had offended them were either razed to the ground

or burned. Certain heads of families of honourable parentage, and

brought up with a good education, were carried away half dead after

their deeds of violence, or bound to the mill, and compelled by blows

to turn it round, after the fashion of the meanest beasts of burden.

For what assistance from the laws rendered by the civil powers was ever

of any avail against them? What official ever ventured so much as to

breathe in their presence? What agents ever exacted payment of a debt

which they had been unwilling to discharge? Who ever endeavoured to

avenge those who were put to death in their massacres? Except, indeed,

that their own madness took revenge on them, when some, by provoking

against themselves the swords of men, whom they obliged to kill them

under fear of instant death, others by throwing themselves over sundry

precipices, others by water, others by fire, gave themselves over on

the several occasions to a voluntary death, and gave up their lives as

offerings to the dead by punishments inflicted with their own hands

upon themselves.

16. These deeds were looked upon with horror by many who were firmly

rooted in the same superstitious heresy; and accordingly, when they

supposed that it was sufficient to establish their innocence that they

were ill contented with such conduct, it was urged against them by the

Catholics: If these evil deeds do not pollute your innocence, how then

do you maintain that the whole Christian world has been polluted by

the alleged sins of Cæcilianus, which are either altogether calumnies,

or at least not proved against him? How come you, by a deed of gross

impiety, to separate yourselves from the unity of the Catholic Church,

as from the threshing-floor of the Lord, which must needs contain, up

to the time of the final winnowing, both corn which is to be stored in

the garner, and chaff that is to be burned up with fire?[1202] And thus

some were so convinced by argument as to come over to the unity of the

Catholic Church, being prepared even to meet the hostility of abandoned

men; whilst the greater number, though equally convinced, and though

desirous to do the same, yet dared not make enemies of these men, who

were so unbridled in their violence, seeing that some who had come over

to us experienced the greatest cruelty at their hands.

17. To this we may add, that in Carthage itself some of the bishops

of the same party, making a schism among themselves, and dividing the

party of Donatus among the lower orders of the Carthaginian people,

ordained as bishop against bishop a certain deacon named Maximianus,

who could not brook the control of his own diocesan. And as this

displeased the greater part of them, they condemned the aforesaid

Maximianus, with twelve others who had been present at his ordination,

but gave the rest that were associated in the same schism a chance of

returning to their communion on an appointed day. But afterwards some

of these twelve, and certain others of those who had had the time of

grace allowed to them, but had only returned after the day appointed,

were received by them without degradation from their orders; and they

did not venture to baptize a second time those whom the condemned

ministers had baptized outside the pale of their communion. This

action of theirs at once made strongly against them on the side of the

Catholic party, so that their mouths were wholly closed. And on the

matter being diligently spread abroad, as was only right, in order

to cure men's souls of the evils of schism, and when it was shown in

every possible direction by the sermons and discussions of the Catholic

divines, that to maintain the peace of Donatus they had not only

received back those whom they had condemned, with full recognition of

their orders, but had even been afraid to declare that baptism to be

void which had been administered outside their Church by men whom they

had condemned or even suspended; whilst, in violation of the peace of

Christ, they cast in the teeth of all the world the stain conveyed by

contact with some sinners, it matters little with whom, and declared

baptism to be consequently void which had been administered even in

the very Churches whence the gospel itself had come to Africa;--seeing

all this, very many began to be confounded, and blushing before what

they saw to be mostly manifest truth, they submitted to correction in

greater numbers than was their wont; and men began to breathe with

a somewhat freer sense of liberty from their cruelty, and that to a

considerably greater extent in every direction.

18. Then indeed they blazed forth with such fury, and were so

excited by the goadings of hatred, that scarcely any churches of our

communion could be safe against their treachery and violence and most

undisguised robberies; scarcely any road secure by which men could

travel to preach the peace of the Catholic Church in opposition to

their madness, and convict the rashness of their folly by the clear

enunciation of the truth. They went so far, besides, in proposing

hard terms of reconciliation, not only to the laity or to any of the

clergy, but even in a measure to certain of the Catholic bishops.

For the only alternative offered was to hold their tongues about the

truth, or to endure their savage fury. But if they did not speak about

the truth, not only was it impossible for any one to be delivered

by their silence, but many were even sure to be destroyed by their

submitting to be led astray; while if, by their preaching the truth,

the rage of the Donatists was again provoked to vent its madness,

though some would be delivered, and those who were already on our side

would be strengthened, yet the weak would again be deterred by fear

from following the truth. When the Church, therefore, was reduced to

these straits in its affliction, any one who thinks that anything was

to be endured, rather than that the assistance of God, to be rendered

through the agency of Christian emperors, should be sought, does not

sufficiently observe that no good account could possibly be rendered

for neglect of this precaution.

* * * * *

CHAP. V.--19. But as to the argument of those men who are unwilling

that their impious deeds should be checked by the enactment of

righteous laws, when they say that the apostles never sought such

measures from the kings of the earth, they do not consider the

different character of that age, and that everything comes in its

own season. For what emperor had as yet believed in Christ, so as to

serve Him in the cause of piety by enacting laws against impiety, when

as yet the declaration of the prophet was only in the course of its

fulfilment, "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain

thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and their rulers take

counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed;" and

there was as yet no sign of that which is spoken a little later in

the same psalm: "Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed,

ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with

trembling."[1203] How then are kings to serve the Lord with fear,

except by preventing and chastising with religious severity all those

acts which are done in opposition to the commandments of the Lord? For

a man serves God in one way in that he is man, in another way in that

he is also king. In that he is man, he serves Him by living faithfully,

but in that he is also king, he serves Him by enforcing with suitable

rigour such laws as ordain what is righteous, and punish what is the

reverse. Even as Hezekiah served Him, by destroying the groves and

the temples of the idols, and the high places which had been built in

violation of the commandments of God;[1204] or even as Josiah served

Him, by doing the same things in his turn;[1205] or as the king of the

Ninevites served Him, by compelling all the men of his city to make

satisfaction to the Lord;[1206] or as Darius served Him, by giving the

idol into the power of Daniel to be broken, and by casting his enemies

into the den of lions;[1207] or as Nebuchadnezzar served Him, of whom

I have spoken before, by issuing a terrible law to prevent any of his

subjects from blaspheming God.[1208] In this way, therefore, kings can

serve the Lord, even in so far as they are kings, when they do in His

service what they could not do were they not kings.

20. Seeing, then, that the kings of the earth were not yet serving the

Lord in the time of the apostles, but were still imagining vain things

against the Lord and against His Anointed, that all might be fulfilled

which was spoken by the prophets, it must be granted that at that time

acts of impiety could not possibly be prevented by the laws, but were

rather performed under their sanction. For the order of events was

then so rolling on, that even the Jews were killing those who preached

Christ, thinking that they did God service in so doing, just as Christ

had foretold,[1209] and the heathen were raging against the Christians,

and the patience of the martyrs was overcoming them all. But so soon as

the fulfilment began of what is written in a later psalm, "All kings

shall fall down before Him; all nations shall serve Him,"[1210] what

sober-minded man could say to the kings, "Let not any thought trouble

you within your kingdom as to who restrains or attacks the Church of

your Lord; deem it not a matter in which you should be concerned, which

of your subjects may choose to be religious or sacrilegious," seeing

that you cannot say to them, "Deem it no concern of yours which of your

subjects may choose to be chaste, or which unchaste?" For why, when

free-will is given by God to man, should adulteries be punished by the

laws, and sacrilege allowed? Is it a lighter matter that a soul should

not keep faith with God, than that a woman should be faithless to her

husband? Or if those faults which are committed not in contempt but in

ignorance of religious truth are to be visited with lighter punishment,

are they therefore to be neglected altogether?

* * * * *

CHAP. VI.--21. It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that

men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be

driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that

because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who

do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage

(as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in

being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards

be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had

already learned in word. Some, indeed, set before us the sentiments of

a certain secular author, who said,

"'Tis well, I ween, by shame the young to train,

And dread of meanness, rather than by pain."[1211]

This is unquestionably true. But whilst those are better who are guided

aright by love, those are certainly more numerous who are corrected by

fear. For, to answer these persons out of their own author, we find him

saying in another place,

"Unless by pain and suffering thou art taught,

Thou canst not guide thyself aright in aught."[1212]

But, moreover, holy Scripture has both said concerning the former

better class, "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth

out fear;"[1213] and also concerning the latter lower class, which

furnishes the majority, "A servant will not be corrected by words; for

though he understand, he will not answer."[1214] In saying, "He will

not be corrected by words," he did not order him to be left to himself,

but implied an admonition as to the means whereby he ought to be

corrected; otherwise he would not have said, "He will not be corrected

by words," but without any qualification, "He will not be corrected."

For in another place he says that not only the servant, but also the

undisciplined son, must be corrected with stripes, and that with great

fruits as the result; for he says, "Thou shalt beat him with the rod,

and shalt deliver his soul from hell;"[1215] and elsewhere he says,

"He that spareth the rod hateth his son."[1216] For, give us a man who

with right faith and true understanding can say with all the energy of

his heart, "My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall

I come and appear before God?"[1217] and for such an one there is no

need of the terror of hell, to say nothing of temporal punishments or

imperial laws, seeing that with him it is so indispensable a blessing

to cleave unto the Lord, that he not only dreads being parted from that

happiness as a heavy punishment, but can scarcely even bear delay in

its attainment. But yet, before the good sons can say they have "a

desire to depart, and to be with Christ,"[1218] many must first be

recalled to their Lord by the stripes of temporal scourging, like evil

slaves, and in some degree like good-for-nothing fugitives.

22. For who can possibly love us more than Christ, who laid down His

life for His sheep?[1219] And yet, after calling Peter and the other

apostles by His words alone, when He came to summon Paul, who was

before called Saul, subsequently the powerful builder of His Church,

but originally its cruel persecutor, He not only constrained him with

His voice, but even dashed him to the earth with His power; and that He

might forcibly bring one who was raging amid the darkness of infidelity

to desire the light of the heart, He first struck him with physical

blindness of the eyes. If that punishment had not been inflicted, he

would not afterwards have been healed by it; and since he had been wont

to see nothing with his eyes open, if they had remained unharmed, the

Scripture would not tell us that at the imposition of Ananias' hands,

in order that their sight might be restored, there fell from them as

it had been scales, by which the sight had been obscured.[1220] Where

is what the Donatists were wont to cry: Man is at liberty to believe

or not believe? Towards whom did Christ use violence? Whom did He

compel? Here they have the Apostle Paul. Let them recognise in his

case Christ first compelling, and afterwards teaching; first striking,

and afterwards consoling. For it is wonderful how he who entered the

service of the gospel in the first instance under the compulsion of

bodily punishment, afterwards laboured more in the gospel than all they

who were called by word only;[1221] and he who was compelled by the

greater influence of fear to love, displayed that perfect love which

casts out fear.

23. Why, therefore, should not the Church use force in compelling

her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their

destruction? Although even men who have not been compelled, but only

led astray, are received by their loving mother with more affection if

they are recalled to her bosom through the enforcement of terrible but

salutary laws, and are the objects of far more deep congratulation than

those whom she had never lost. Is it not a part of the care of the

shepherd, when any sheep have left the flock, even though not violently

forced away, but led astray by tender words and coaxing blandishments,

to bring them back to the fold of his master when he has found them,

by the fear or even the pain of the whip, if they show symptoms of

resistance; especially since, if they multiply with growing abundance

among the fugitive slaves and robbers, he has the more right in that

the mark of the master is recognised on them, which is not outraged in

those whom we receive but do not rebaptize? For the wandering of the

sheep is to be corrected in such wise that the mark of the Redeemer

should not be destroyed on it. For even if any one is marked with the

royal stamp by a deserter who is marked with it himself, and the two

receive forgiveness,[1222] and the one returns to his service, and

the other begins to be in the service in which he had no part before,

that mark is not effaced in either of the two, but rather it is

recognised in both of them, and approved with the honour which is due

to it because it is the king's. Since then they cannot show that the

destination is bad to which they are compelled, they maintain that they

ought to be compelled by force even to what is good. But we have shown

that Paul was compelled by Christ; therefore the Church, in trying to

compel the Donatists, is following the example of her Lord, though in

the first instance she waited in the hopes of needing to compel no one,

that the prediction of the prophet might be fulfilled concerning the

faith of kings and peoples.

24. For in this sense also we may interpret without absurdity the

declaration of the blessed Apostle Paul, when he says, "Having in

a readiness to avenge all disobedience, when your obedience is

fulfilled."[1223] Whence also the Lord Himself bids the guests in

the first instance to be invited to His great supper, and afterwards

compelled; for on His servants making answer to Him, "Lord, it is done

as Thou hast commanded, and yet there is room," He said to them, "Go

out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in."[1224]

In those, therefore, who were first brought in with gentleness, the

former obedience is fulfilled; but in those who were compelled, the

disobedience is avenged. For what else is the meaning of "Compel them

to come in," after it had previously said, "Bring in," and the answer

had been made, "Lord, it is done as Thou commanded, and yet there

is room?" If He had wished it to be understood that they were to be

compelled by the terrifying force of miracles, many divine miracles

were rather wrought in the sight of those who were first called,

especially in the sight of the Jews, of whom it was said, "The Jews

require a sign;"[1225] and, moreover, among the Gentiles themselves the

gospel was so commended by miracles in the time of the apostles, that

had these been the means by which they were ordered to be compelled,

we might rather have had good grounds for supposing, as I said before,

that it was the earlier guests who were compelled. Wherefore, if the

power which the Church has received by divine appointment in its

due season, through the religious character and the faith of kings,

be the instrument by which those who are found in the highways and

hedges--that is, in heresies and schisms--are compelled to come in,

then let them not find fault with being compelled, but consider whether

they be so compelled. The supper of the Lord is the unity of the body

of Christ, not only in the sacrament of the altar, but also in the

bond of peace. Of the Donatists themselves, indeed, we can say that

they compel no man to any good thing; for whomsoever they compel, they

compel to nothing else but evil.

* * * * *

CHAP. VII.--25. However, before those laws were sent into Africa by

which men are compelled to come in to the sacred Supper, it seemed to

certain of the brethren, of whom I was one, that although the madness

of the Donatists was raging in every direction, yet we should not ask

of the emperors to ordain that heresy should absolutely cease to be,

by sanctioning a punishment to be inflicted on all who wished to live

in it; but that they should rather content themselves with ordaining

that those who either preached the Catholic truth with their voice,

or established it by their study, should no longer be exposed to the

furious violence of the heretics. And this they thought might in some

measure be effected, if they would take the law which Theodosius,

of pious memory, enacted generally against heretics of all kinds,

to the effect that any heretical bishop or clergyman, being found

in any place, should be fined ten pounds of gold, and confirm it in

more express terms against the Donatists, who denied that they were

heretics; but with such reservations, that the fine should not be

inflicted upon all of them, but only in those districts where the

Catholic Church suffered any violence from their clergy, or from the

Circumcelliones, or at the hands of any of their people; so that, after

a formal complaint had been made by the Catholics who had suffered the

violence, the bishops or other ministers should forthwith be obliged,

under the commission given to the officers, to pay the fine. For we

thought that in this way, if they were terrified, and no longer dared

do anything of the sort, the Catholic truth might be freely taught and

held under such conditions, that while no one was compelled to it, any

one might follow it who was anxious to do so without intimidation, so

that we might not have false and pretended Catholics. And although

a different view was held by other brethren, who either were more

advanced in years, or had experience of many states and places where we

saw the true Catholic Church firmly established, which had, however,

been planted and confirmed by God's great goodness at a time when men

were compelled to come in to the Catholic communion by the laws of

previous emperors, yet we carried our point, to the effect that the

measure which I have described above should be sought in preference

from the emperors: it was decreed in our council,[1226] and envoys were

sent to the court of the count.

26. But God in His great mercy, knowing how necessary was the terror

inspired by these laws, and a kind of medicinal inconvenience for

the cold and wicked hearts of many men, and for that hardness of

heart which cannot be softened by words, but yet admits of softening

through the agency of some little severity of discipline, brought it

about that our envoys could not obtain what they had undertaken to

ask. For our arrival had already been anticipated by the serious

complaints of certain bishops from other districts, who had suffered

much ill-treatment at the hands of the Donatists themselves, and had

been thrust out from their sees; and, in particular, the attempt to

murder Maximianus, the Catholic bishop of the Church of Bagai, under

circumstances of incredible atrocity, had caused measures to be taken

which left our deputation nothing to do. For a law had already been

published, that the heresy of the Donatists, being of so savage a

description that mercy towards it really involved greater cruelty than

its very madness wrought, should for the future be prevented not only

from being violent, but from existing with impunity at all; but yet

no capital punishment was imposed upon it, that even in dealing with

those who were unworthy, Christian gentleness might be observed, but

a pecuniary fine was ordained, and sentence of exile was pronounced

against their bishops or ministers.

27. With regard to the aforesaid bishop of Bagai, in consequence of his

claim being allowed in the ordinary courts, after each party had been

heard in turn, in a basilica[1227] of which the Donatists had taken

possession, as being the property of the Catholics, they rushed upon

him as he was standing at the altar, with fearful violence and cruel

fury, beat him savagely with cudgels and weapons of every kind, and

at last with the very boards of the broken altar. They also wounded

him with a dagger in the groin so severely, that the effusion of blood

would have soon put an end to his life, had not their further cruelty

proved of service for its preservation; for, as they were dragging

him along the ground thus severely wounded, the dust forced into the

spouting vein stanched the blood, whose effusion was rapidly on the

way to cause his death. Then, when they had at length abandoned him,

some of our party tried to carry him off with psalms; but his enemies,

inflamed with even greater rage, tore him from the hands of those who

were carrying him, inflicting grievous punishment on the Catholics,

whom they put to flight, being far superior to them in numbers, and

easily inspiring terror by their violence. Finally, they threw him

into a certain elevated tower, thinking that he was by this time

dead, though in fact he still breathed. Lighting then on a soft heap

of earth, and being espied by the light of a lamp by some men who were

passing by at night, he was recognised and picked up, and being carried

to a religious house, by dint of great care, was restored in a few days

from his state of almost hopeless danger. Rumour, however, had carried

the tidings even across the sea that he had been killed by the violence

of the Donatists; and when afterwards he himself went abroad, and was

most unexpectedly seen to be alive, he showed, by the number, the

severity, and the freshness of his wounds, how fully rumour had been

justified in bringing tidings of his death.

28. He sought assistance, therefore, from the Christian emperor, not

so much with any desire of revenging himself, as with the view of

defending the Church entrusted to his charge. And if he had omitted to

do this, he would have deserved not to be praised for his forbearance,

but to be blamed for negligence. For neither was the Apostle Paul

taking precautions on behalf of his own transitory life, but for the

Church of God, when he caused the plot of those who had conspired to

slay him to be made known to the Roman captain, the effect of which

was, that he was conducted by an escort of armed soldiers to the place

where they proposed to send him, that he might escape the ambush

of his foes.[1228] Nor did he for a moment hesitate to invoke the

protection of the Roman laws, proclaiming that he was a Roman citizen,

who at that time could not be scourged;[1229] and again, that he might

not be delivered to the Jews who sought to kill him, he appealed to

Cæsar,[1230]--a Roman emperor, indeed, but not a Christian. And by this

he showed sufficiently plainly what was afterwards to be the duty of

the ministers of Christ, when in the midst of the dangers of the Church

they found the emperors Christians. And hence, therefore, it came about

that a religious and pious emperor, when such matters were brought to

his knowledge, thought it well, by the enactment of most pious laws,

entirely to correct the error of this great impiety, and to bring those

who bore the standards of Christ against the cause of Christ into the

unity of the Catholic Church, even by terror and compulsion, rather

than merely to take away their power of doing violence, and to leave

them the freedom of going astray, and perishing in their error.

29. Presently, when the laws themselves arrived in Africa, in the first

place those who were already seeking an opportunity for doing so, or

were afraid of the raging madness of the Donatists, or were previously

deterred by a feeling of unwillingness to offend their friends, at

once came over to the Church. Many, too, who were only restrained by

the force of custom handed down in their homes from their parents,

but had never before considered what was the groundwork of the heresy

itself,--had never, indeed, wished to investigate and contemplate its

nature,--beginning now to use their observation, and finding nothing

in it that could compensate for such serious loss as they were called

upon to suffer, became Catholics without any difficulty; for, having

been made careless by security, they were now instructed by anxiety.

But when all these had set the example, it was followed by many who

were less qualified of themselves to understand what was the difference

between the error of the Donatists and Catholic truth.

30. Accordingly, when the great masses of the people had been received

by the true mother with rejoicing into her bosom, there remained

outside cruel crowds, persevering with unhappy animosity in that

madness. Even of these the greater number communicated in feigned

reconciliation, and others escaped notice from the scantiness of

their numbers. But those who feigned conformity, becoming by degrees

accustomed to our communion, and hearing the preaching of the truth,

especially after the conference and disputation which took place

between us and their bishops at Carthage, were to a great extent

brought to a right belief. Yet in certain places, where a more

obstinate and implacable body prevailed, whom the smaller number that

entertained better views about communion with us could not resist,

or where the masses were under the influence of a few more powerful

leaders, whom they followed in a wrong direction, our difficulties

continued somewhat longer. Of these places there are a few in which

trouble still exists, in the course of which the Catholics, and

especially the bishops and clergy, have suffered many terrible

hardships, which it would take too long to go through in detail, seeing

that some of them had their eyes put out, and one bishop his hands

and tongue cut off, while some were actually murdered. I say nothing

of massacres of the most cruel description, and robberies of houses,

committed in nocturnal burglaries, with the burning not only of private

houses, but even of churches,--some being found abandoned enough to

cast the sacred books into the flames.

31. But we were consoled for the suffering inflicted on us by these

evils, by the fruit which resulted from them. For wherever such deeds

were committed by unbelievers, there Christian unity has advanced with

greater fervency and perfection, and the Lord is praised with greater

earnestness for having deigned to grant that His servants might win

their brethren by their sufferings, and might gather together into

the peace of eternal salvation through His blood His sheep who were

dispersed abroad in deadly error. The Lord is powerful and full of

compassion, to whom we daily pray that He will give repentance to the

rest as well, that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the

devil, by whom they are taken captive at his will,[1231] though now

they only seek materials for calumniating us, and returning to us evil

for good; because they have not the knowledge to make them understand

what feelings and love we continue to have towards them, and how we are

anxious, in accordance with the injunction of the Lord, given to His

pastors by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, to bring again that which

was driven away, and to seek that which was lost.[1232]

* * * * *

CHAP. VIII.--32. But they, as we have sometimes said before in other

places, do not charge themselves with what they do to us; while, on

the other hand, they charge us with what they do to themselves. For

which of our party is there who would desire, I do not say that one

of them should perish, but should even lose any of his possessions?

But if the house of David could not earn peace on any other terms

except that Absalom his son should have been slain in the war which

he was waging against his father, although he had most carefully

given strict injunctions to his followers that they should use their

utmost endeavours to preserve him alive and safe, that his paternal

affection might be able to pardon him on his repentance, what remained

for him except to weep for the son that he had lost, and to console

himself in his sorrow by reflecting on the acquisition of peace for

his kingdom?[1233] The same, then, is the case with the Catholic

Church, our mother; for when war is waged against her by men who are

certainly different from sons, since it must be acknowledged that from

the great tree, which by the spreading of its branches is extended

over all the world, this little branch in Africa is broken off, whilst

she is willing in her love to give them birth, that they may return

to the root, without which they cannot have the true life, at the

same time if she collects the remainder in so large a number by the

loss of some, she soothes and cures the sorrow of her maternal heart

by the thoughts of the deliverance of such mighty nations; especially

when she considers that those who are lost perish by a death which

they brought upon themselves, and not, like Absalom, by the fortune

of war. And if you were to see the joy of those who are delivered in

the peace of Christ, their crowded assemblies, their eager zeal, the

gladsomeness with which they flock together, both to hear and sing

hymns, and to be instructed in the word of God; the great grief with

which many of them recall to mind their former error, the joy with

which they come to the consideration of the truth which they have

learned, with the indignation and detestation which they feel towards

their lying teachers, now that they have found out what falsehoods

they disseminated concerning our sacraments; and how many of them,

moreover, acknowledge that they long ago desired to be Catholics, but

dared not take the step in the midst of men of such violence,--if, I

say, you were to see the congregations of these nations delivered from

such perdition, then you would say that it would have been the extreme

of cruelty, if, in the fear that certain desperate men, in number not

to be compared with the multitudes of those who were rescued, might be

burned in fires which they voluntarily kindled for themselves, these

others had been left to be lost for ever, and to be tortured in fires

which shall not be quenched.

33. For if two men were dwelling together in one house, which we knew

with absolute certainty to be upon the point of falling down, and they

were unwilling to believe us when we warned them of the danger, and

persisted in remaining in the house; if it were in our power to rescue

them, even against their will, and we were afterwards to show them the

ruin threatening their house, so that they should not dare to return

again within its reach, I think that if we abstained from doing it, we

should well deserve the charge of cruelty. And further, if one of them

should say to us, Since you have entered the house to save our lives,

I shall forthwith kill myself; while the other was not indeed willing

to come forth from the house, nor to be rescued, but yet had not the

hardihood to kill himself: which alternative should we choose,--to

leave both of them to be overwhelmed in the ruin, or that, while one at

any rate was delivered by our merciful efforts, the other should perish

by no fault of ours, but rather by his own? No one is so unhappy as not

to find it easy enough to decide what should be done in such a case.

And I have proposed the question of two individuals,--one, that is to

say, who is lost, and one who is delivered; what then must we think

of the case where some few are lost, and an innumerable multitude of

nations are delivered? For there are actually not so many persons who

thus perish of their own free will, as there are estates, villages,

streets, fortresses, municipal towns, cities, that are delivered by the

laws under consideration from that fatal and eternal destruction.

34. But if we were to consider the matter under discussion with yet

greater care, I think that if there were a large number of persons in

the house which was going to fall, and any single one of them could be

saved, and when we endeavoured to effect his rescue, the others were

to kill themselves by jumping out of the windows, we should console

ourselves in our grief for the loss of the rest by the thoughts of

the safety of the one; and we should not allow all to perish without

a single rescue, in the fear lest the remainder should destroy

themselves. What then should we think of the work of mercy to which we

ought to apply ourselves, in order that men may attain eternal life and

escape eternal punishment, if true reason and benevolence compel us to

give such aid to men, in order to secure for them a safety which is not

only temporal, but very short,--for the brief space of their life on

earth?

* * * * *

CHAP. IX.--35. As to the charge that they bring against us, that we

covet and plunder their possessions, I would that they would become

Catholics, and possess in peace and love with us, not only what they

call theirs, but also what confessedly belongs to us. But they are so

blinded with the desire of uttering calumnies, that they do not observe

how inconsistent their statements are with one another. At any rate,

they assert, and seem to make it a subject of most invidious complaint

among themselves, that we constrain them to come in to our communion

by the violent authority of the laws,--which we certainly should not

do by any means, if we wished to gain possession of their property.

What avaricious man ever wished for another to share his possessions?

Who that was inflamed with the desire of empire, or elated by the

pride of its possession, ever wished to have a partner? Let them at

any rate look on those very men who once belonged to them, but now

are our brethren joined to us by the bond of fraternal affection, and

see how they hold not only what they used to have, but also what was

ours, which they did not have before; which yet, if we are living as

poor in fellowship with poor, belongs to us and them alike; whilst, if

we possess of our private means enough for our wants, it is no longer

ours, inasmuch as we do not commit so infamous an act of usurpation as

to claim for our own the property of the poor, for whom we are in some

sense the trustees.

36. Everything, therefore, that was held in the name of the churches

of the party of Donatus, was ordered by the Christian emperors, in

their pious laws, to pass to the Catholic Church, with the possession

of the buildings themselves.[1234] Seeing, then, that there are with

us poor members of those said churches who used to be maintained by

these same paltry possessions, let them rather cease themselves to

covet what belongs to others whilst they remain outside, and so let

them enter within the bond of unity, that we may all alike administer,

not only the property which they call their own, but also with it what

is asserted to be ours. For it is written, "All are yours; and ye are

Christ's; and Christ is God's."[1235] Under Him as our Head, let us all

be one in His one body; and in all such matters as you speak of, let us

follow the example which is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles: "They

were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought

of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things

common."[1236] Let us love what we sing: "Behold, how good and how

pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!"[1237] that so

they may know, by their own experience, with what perfect truth their

mother, the Catholic Church, calls out to them what the blessed apostle

writes to the Corinthians: "I seek not yours, but you."[1238]

37. But if we consider what is said in the Book of Wisdom, "Therefore

the righteous spoiled the ungodly;"[1239] and also what is said in the

Proverbs, "The wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just;"[1240]

then we shall see that the question is not, who are in possession of

the property of heretics? but who are in the society of the just? We

know, indeed, that the Donatists arrogate to themselves such a store of

justice, that they boast not only that they possess it, but that they

also bestow it upon other men. For they say that any one whom they have

baptized is justified by them, after which there is nothing left for

them but to say to the person who is baptized by them, that he must

needs believe on him who has administered the sacrament; for why should

he not do so, when the apostle says, "To him that believeth on Him that

justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness?"[1241]

Let him believe, therefore, upon the man by whom he is baptized, if

it be none else that justifies him, that his faith may be counted

for righteousness. But I think that even they themselves would look

with horror on themselves, if they ventured for a moment to entertain

such thoughts as these. For there is none that is just and able to

justify, save God alone. But the same might be said of them that the

apostle says of the Jews, that "being ignorant of God's righteousness,

and going about to establish their own righteousness, they have not

submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."[1242]

38. But far be it from us that any one of our number should call

himself in such wise just, that he should either go about to establish

his own righteousness, as though it were conferred upon him by himself,

whereas it is said to him, "For what hast thou that thou didst not

receive?"[1243] or venture to boast himself as being without sin in

this world, as the Donatists themselves declared in our conference

that they were members of a Church which has already neither spot nor

wrinkle, nor any such thing,[1244]--not knowing that this is only

fulfilled in those individuals who depart out of this body immediately

after baptism, or after the forgiveness of sins, for which we make

petition in our prayers; but that for the Church, as a whole, the time

will not come when it shall be altogether without spot or wrinkle, or

any such thing, till the day when we shall hear the words, "O death,

where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death

is sin."[1245]

39. But in this life, when the corruptible body presseth down the

soul,[1246] if their Church is already of such a character as they

maintain, they would not utter unto God the prayer which our Lord has

taught us to employ: "Forgive us our trespasses."[1247] For since all

sins have been remitted in baptism, why does the Church make this

petition, if already, even in this life, it has neither spot nor

wrinkle, nor any such thing? They would also have a right to despise

the warning of the Apostle John, when he cries out in his epistle,

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth

is not in us. But if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to

forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."[1248]

On account of this hope, the universal Church utters the petition,

"Forgive us our trespasses," that when He sees that we are not

vainglorious, but ready to confess our sins, He may cleanse us from

all unrighteousness, and that so the Lord Jesus Christ may show to

Himself in that day a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or

any such thing, which now He cleanses with the washing of water in the

word: because, on the one hand, there is nothing that remains behind

in baptism to hinder the forgiveness of every bygone sin (so long,

that is, as baptism is not received to no effect without the Church,

but is either administered within the Church, or, at least, if it

has been already administered without, the recipient does not remain

outside with it); and, on the other hand, whatever pollution of sin, of

whatsoever kind, is contracted through the weakness of human nature by

those who live here after baptism, is cleansed away in virtue of the

same laver's efficacy. For neither is it of any avail for one who has

not been baptized to say, "Forgive us our trespasses."

40. Accordingly, He so now cleanses His Church by the washing of water

in the word, that He may hereafter show it to Himself as not having

spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing,--altogether beautiful, that is to

say, and in absolute perfection, when death shall be "swallowed up in

victory."[1249] Now, therefore, in so far as the life is flourishing

within us that proceeds from our being born of God, living by faith,

so far we are righteous; but in so far as we drag along with us the

traces of our mortal nature as derived from Adam, so far we cannot be

free from sin. For there is truth both in the statement that "whosoever

is born of God doth not commit sin,"[1250] and also in the former

statement, that "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,

and the truth is not in us."[1251] The Lord Jesus, therefore, is both

righteous and able to justify; but we are justified freely by no other

grace than His.[1252] For there is nothing that justifieth save His

body, which is the Church; and therefore, if the body of Christ bears

off the spoils of the unrighteous, and the riches of the unrighteous

are laid up in store as treasures for the body of Christ, the

unrighteous ought not therefore to remain outside, but rather to enter

within, that so they may be justified.

41. Whence also we may be sure that what is written concerning the day

of judgment, "Then shall the righteous man stand in great boldness

before the face of such as have afflicted him, and made no account

of his labours,"[1253] is not to be taken in such a sense as that the

Canaanite shall stand before the face of Israel, though Israel made

no account of the labours of the Canaanite; but only as that Naboth

shall stand before the face of Ahab, since Ahab made no account of the

labours of Naboth, since the Canaanite was unrighteous, while Naboth

was a righteous man. In the same way the heathen shall not stand before

the face of the Christian, who made no account of his labours, when the

temples of the idols were plundered and destroyed; but the Christian

shall stand before the face of the heathen, who made no account of his

labours, when the bodies of the martyrs were laid low in death. In the

same way, therefore, the heretic shall not stand in the face of the

Catholic, who made no account of his labours, when the laws of the

Catholic emperors were put in force; but the Catholic shall stand in

the face of the heretic, who made no account of his labours, when the

madness of the ungodly Circumcelliones was allowed to have its way. For

the passage of Scripture decides the question in itself, seeing that

it does not say, Then shall men stand, but "Then shall the righteous

stand;" and they shall stand "in great boldness," because they stand in

the power of a good conscience.

42. But in this world no one is righteous by his own

righteousness,--that is, as though it were wrought by himself and for

himself; but as the apostle says, "According as God hath dealt to every

man the measure of faith." But then he goes on to add the following:

"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not

the same office; so we, being many, are one body in Christ."[1254]

And according to this doctrine, no one can be righteous so long as

he is separated from the unity of this body. For in the same manner

as if a limb be cut off from the body of a living man, it cannot any

longer retain the spirit of life; so the man who is cut off from the

body of Christ, who is righteous, can in no wise retain the spirit

of righteousness, even if he retain the form of membership which he

received when in the body. Let them therefore come into the framework

of this body, and so possess their own labours, not through the lust

of lordship, but through the godliness of using them aright. But we,

as has been said before, cleanse our wills from the pollution of this

concupiscence, even in the judgment of any enemy you please to name as

judge, seeing that we use our utmost efforts in entreating the very

men of whose labours we avail ourselves to enjoy with us, within the

society of the Catholic Church, the fruits both of their labours and of

our own.

* * * * *

CHAP. X.--43. But this, they say, is the very thing which disquiets

us,--If we are unrighteous, wherefore do you seek our company? To which

question we answer, We seek the company of you who are unrighteous,

that you may not remain unrighteous; we seek for you who are lost, that

we may rejoice over you as soon as you are found, saying, This our

brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.[1255]

Why, then, he says, do you not baptize me, that you might wash me from

my sins? I reply: Because I do not do despite to the stamp of the

monarch, when I correct the ill-doing of a deserter. Why, he says, do

I not even do penance in your body? Nay truly, except you have done

penance, you cannot be saved; for how shall you rejoice that you have

been reformed, unless you first grieve that you had been astray? What,

then, he says, do we receive with you, when we come over to your side?

I answer, You do not indeed receive baptism, which was able to exist

in you outside the framework of the body of Christ, although it could

not profit you; but you receive the unity of the Spirit in the bond of

peace,[1256] without which no one can see God; and you receive charity,

which, as it is written, "shall cover the multitude of sins."[1257] And

in regard to this great blessing, without which we have the apostle's

testimony that neither the tongues of men or of angels, nor the

understanding of all mysteries, nor the gift of prophecy, nor faith

so great as to be able to remove mountains, nor the bestowal of all

one's goods to feed the poor, nor giving one's body to be burned, can

profit anything;[1258] if, I say, you think this mighty blessing to

be worthless or of trifling value, you are deservedly but miserably

astray; and deservedly you must necessarily perish, unless you come

over to Catholic unity.

44. If, then, they say, it is necessary that we should repent of having

been outside, and hostile to the Church, if we would gain salvation,

how comes it that after the repentance which you exact from us we still

continue to be clergy, or it may be even bishops in your body? This

would not be the case, as indeed, in simple truth, we must confess

it should not be the case, were it not that the evil is cured by the

compensating power of peace itself. But let them give themselves this

lesson, and most especially let those feel sorrow in their hearts, who

are lying in this deep death of severance from the Church, that they

may recover their life even by this sort of wound inflicted on our

Catholic mother Church. For when the bough that has been cut off is

grafted in, a new wound is made in the tree, to admit of its reception,

that life may be given to the branch which was perishing for lack of

the life that is furnished by the root. But when the newly-received

branch has become identified with the stock in which it is received,

the result is both vigour and fruit; but if they do not become

identified, the engrafted bough withers, but the life of the tree

continues unimpaired. For there is further a mode of grafting of such a

kind, that without cutting away any branch that is within, the branch

that is foreign to the tree is inserted, not indeed without a wound,

but with the slightest possible wound inflicted on the tree. In like

manner, then, when they come to the root which exists in the Catholic

Church, without being deprived of any position which belongs to them as

clergy or bishops after ever so deep repentance of their error, there

is a kind of wound inflicted as it were upon the bark of the mother

tree, breaking in upon the strictness of her discipline; but since

neither he that planteth is anything, neither he that watereth,[1259]

so soon as by prayers poured forth to the mercy of God peace is secured

through the union of the engrafted boughs with the parent stock,

charity then covers the multitude of sins.

45. For although it was made an ordinance in the Church, that no one

who had been called upon to do penance for any offence should be

admitted into holy orders, or return to or continue in the body of the

clergy,[1260] this was done not to cause despair of any indulgence

being granted, but merely to maintain a rigorous discipline; otherwise

an argument will be raised against the keys that were given to the

Church, of which we have the testimony of Scripture: "Whatsoever

thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."[1261] But lest

it should so happen that, after the detection of offences, a heart

swelling with the hope of ecclesiastical preferment might do penance

in a spirit of pride, it was determined, with great severity, that

after doing penance for any mortal sin, no one should be admitted to

the number of the clergy, in order that, when all hope of temporal

preferment was done away, the medicine of humility might be endowed

with greater strength and truth. For even the holy David did penance

for deadly sin, and yet was not degraded from his office. And we know

that the blessed Peter, after shedding the bitterest of tears, repented

that he had denied his Lord, and yet remained an apostle. But we must

not therefore be induced to think that the care of those in later times

was in any way superfluous, who, when there was no risk of endangering

salvation, added something to humiliation, in order that the salvation

might be more thoroughly protected,--having, I suppose, experienced

a feigned repentance on the part of some who were influenced by the

desire of the power attaching to office. For experience in many

diseases necessarily brings in the invention of many remedies. But in

cases of this kind, when, owing to the serious ruptures of dissensions

in the Church, it is no longer a question of danger to this or that

particular individual, but whole nations are lying in ruin, it is right

to yield a little from our severity, that true charity may give her aid

in healing the more serious evils.