Heresies:DONATISM
THE SEVEN BOOKS OF AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO, ON BAPTISM,
AGAINST THE DONATISTS
(BOOKS I & II)
THE SEVEN BOOKS OF AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO, ON BAPTISM, AGAINST THE DONATISTS
This treatise was written about
400 A.D. Concerning it Aug. in Retract. Book II. c. xviii., says: I have written
seven books on Baptism against the Donatists, who strive to defend themselves by
the authority of the most blessed bishop and martyr Cyprian; in which I show
that nothing is so effectual for the refutation of the Donatists, and for
shutting their mouths directly from upholding their schism against the Catholic
Church, as the letters and act of Cyprian.
BOOK I.
HE PROVES THAT BAPTISM CAN BE CONFERRED OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC COMMUNION BY
HERETICS OR SCHISMATICS, BUT THAT IT OUGHT NOT TO BE RECEIVED FROM THEM; AND
THAT IT IS OF NO AVAIL TO ANY WHILE IN A STATE OF HERESY OR SCHISM.
CHAP. 1.--1. In the treatise which we wrote against the published epistle of
Parmenianus(1) to Tichonius,(2) we promised that at some future time we would
treat the question of baptism more thoroughly;(3) and indeed, even if we had not
made this promise, we are not unmindful that this is a debt fairly due from us
to the prayers of our brethren. Wherefore in this treatise we have undertaken,
with the help of God, not only to refute the objections which the Donatists have
been wont to urge against us in this matter, but also to advance what God may
enable us to say in respect of the authority of the blessed martyr Cyprian,
which they endeavor to use as a prop, to prevent their perversity from falling
before the attacks of truth.(4) And this we propose to do, in order that all
whose judgment is not blinded by party spirit may understand that, so far from
Cyprian's authority being in their favor, it tends directly to their refutation
and discomfiture.
2. In the treatise above mentioned, it has already been said that the grace of
baptism can be conferred outside the Catholic communion, just as it can be also
there retained. But no one of the Donatists themselves denies that even
apostates retain the grace of baptism; for when they return within the pale of
the Church, and are converted through repentance, it is never given to them a
second time, and so it is ruled that it never could have been lost. So those,
too, who in the sacrilege of schism depart from the communion of the Church,
certainly retain the grace of baptism, which they received before their
departure, seeing that, in case of their return, it is not again conferred on
them whence it is proved, that what they had received while within the unity of
the Church, they could not have lost in their separation. But if it can be
retained outside, why may it not also be given there? If you say, "It is not
rightly given without the pale;" we answer, "As it is not rightly retained, and
yet is in some sense retained, so it is not indeed rightly given, but yet it is
given." But as, by reconciliation to unity, that begins to be profitably
possessed which was possessed to no profit in exclusion from unity, so, by the
same reconciliation, that begins to be profitable which without it was given to
no profit. Yet it cannot be allowed that it should be said that that was not
given which was given, nor that any one should reproach a man with not having
given this, while confessing that he had given what he had himself received. For
the sacrament of baptism is what the person possesses who is baptized; and the
sacrament of conferring baptism is what he possesses who is ordained. And as the
baptized person, if he depart from the unity of the Church, does not thereby
lose the sacrament of baptism, so also he who is ordained, if he depart from the
unity of the Church, does not lose the sacrament of conferring baptism. For
neither sacrament may be wronged. If a sacrament necessarily becomes void in the
case of the wicked, both must become void; if it remain valid with the wicked,
this must be so with both. If, therefore, the baptism be acknowledged which he
could not lose who severed himself from the unity of the Church, that baptism
must also be acknowledged which was administered by one who by his secession had
not lost the sacrament of conferring baptism. For as those who return to the
Church, if they had been baptized before their secession, are not rebaptized, so
those who return, having been ordained before their secession, are certainly not
ordained again; but either they again exercise their former ministry, if the
interests of the Church require it, or if they do not exercise it, at any rate
they retain the sacrament of their ordination; and hence it is, that when hands
are laid on them,(1) to mark their reconciliation, they are not ranked with the
laity. For Felicianus,(2) when he separated himself from them with Maximianus,
was not held by the Donatists themselves to have lost either the sacrament of
baptism or the sacrament of conferring baptism. For now he is a recognized
member of their own body, in company with those very men whom he baptized while
he was separated from them in the schism of Maximianus. And so others could
receive from them, whilst they still had not joined our society, what they
themselves had not lost by severance from our society. And hence it is clear
that they are guilty of impiety who endeavor to rebaptize those who are in
Catholic unity; and we act rightly who do not dare to repudiate God's
sacraments, even when administered in schism. For in all points in which they
think with us, they also are in communion with us, and only are severed from us
in those points in which they dissent from us. For contact and disunion are not
to be measured by different laws in the case of material or spiritual
affinities. For as union of bodies arises from continuity of position, so in the
agreement of wills there is a kind of contact between souls. If, therefore, a
man who has severed himself from unity wishes to do anything different from that
which had been impressed on him while in the state of unity, in this point he
does sever himself, and is no longer a part of the united whole; but wherever he
desires to conduct himself as is customary in the state of unity, in which he
himself learned and received the lessons which he seeks to follow, in these
points he remains a member, and is united to the corporate whole.
CHAP. 2.--3. And so the Donatists in some matters are with us; in some matters
have gone out from us. Accordingly, those things wherein they agree with us we
do not forbid them to do; but in those things in which they differ from us, we
earnestly encourage them to come and receive them from us, or return and recover
them, as the case may be; and with whatever means we can, we lovingly busy
ourselves, that they, freed front faults and corrected, may choose this course.
We do not therefore say to them, "Abstain from giving baptism," but "Abstain
from giving it in schism." Nor do we say to those whom we see them on the point
of baptizing, "Do not receive the baptism," but "Do not receive it in schism."
For if any one were compelled by urgent necessity, being unable to find a
Catholic from whom to receive baptism, and so, while preserving Catholic peace
in his heart, should receive from one without the pale of Catholic unity the
sacrament which he was intending to receive within its pale, this man, should he
forthwith depart this life, we deem to be none other than a Catholic. But if he
should be delivered from the death of the body, on his restoring himself in
bodily presence to that Catholic congregation from which in heart he had never
departed, so far from blaming his conduct, we should praise it with the greatest
truth and confidence; because he trusted that God was present to his heart,
while he was striving to preserve unity, and was unwilling to depart this life
without the sacrament of holy baptism, which he knew to be of God, and not of
men; wherever he might find it. But if any one who has it in his power to
receive baptism within the Catholic Church prefers, from some perversity of
mind, to be baptized in schism, even if he afterwards bethinks himself to come
to the Catholic Church, because he is assured that there that sacrament will
profit him, which can indeed be received but cannot profit elsewhere, beyond all
question he is perverse, and guilty of sin, and that the more flagrant in
proportion as it was committed wilfully. For that he entertains no doubt that
the sacrament is rightly received in the Church, is proved by his conviction
that it is there that he must look for profit even from what he has received
elsewhere.
CHAP. 3.--4. There are two propositions, moreover, which we affirm,--that
baptism exists in the Catholic Church, and that in it alone can it be rightly
received,--both of which the Donatists deny. Likewise there are two other
propositions which we affirm,--that baptism exists among the Donatists, but that
with them it is not rightly received, of which two they strenuously confirm the
former, that baptism exists with them; but they are unwilling to allow the
latter, that in their Church it cannot be rightly received. Of these four
propositions, three are peculiar to us; in one we both agree. For that baptism
exists in the Catholic Church, that it is rightly received there, and that it is
not rightly received among the Donatists, are assertions made only by ourselves;
but that baptism exists also among the Donatists, is asserted by them and
allowed by us. If any one, therefore, is desirous of being baptized, and is
already convinced that he ought to choose our Church as a medium for Christian
salvation, and that the baptism of Christ is only profitable in it, even when it
has been received elsewhere, but yet wishes to be baptized in the schism of
Donatus, because not they only, nor we only, but both parties alike say that
baptism exists with them, let him pause and look to the other three points. For
if he has made up his mind to follow us in the points which they deny, though he
prefers what both of us acknowledge, to what only we assert, it is enough for
our purpose that he prefers what they do not affirm and we alone assert, to what
they alone assert. That baptism exists in the Catholic Church, we assert and
they deny. That it is rightly received in the Catholic Church, we assert and
they deny. That it is not rightly received in the schism of Donatus, we assert
and they deny. As, therefore, he is the more ready to believe what we alone
assert should be believed, so let him be the more ready to do what we alone
declare should be done. But let him believe more firmly, if he be so disposed,
what both parties assert should be believed, than what we alone maintain. For he
is inclined to believe more firmly that the baptism of Christ exists in the
schism of Donatus, because that is acknowledged by both of us, than that it
exists in the Catholic Church, an assertion made alone by the Catholics. But
again, he is more ready to believe that the baptism of Christ exists also with
us, as we alone assert, than that it does not exist with us, as they alone
assert. For he has already determined and is fully convinced, that where we
differ, our authority is to be preferred to theirs. So that he is more ready to
believe what we alone assert, that baptism is rightly received with us, than
that it is not rightly so received, since that rests only on their assertion.
And, by the same rule, he is more ready to believe what we alone assert, that it
is not rightly received with them, than as they alone assert, that it is rightly
so received. He finds, therefore, that his confidence in being baptized among
the Donatists is somewhat profit-less, seeing that, though we both acknowledge
that baptism exists with them, yet we do not both declare that it ought to be
received from them. But he has made up his mind to cling rather to us in matters
where we disagree. Let him therefore feel confidence in receiving baptism in our
communion, where he is assured that it both exists and is rightly received; and
let him not receive it in a communion, where those whose opinion he has
determined to follow acknowledge indeed that it exists, but say that it cannot
rightly be received. Nay, even if he should hold it to be a doubtful question,
whether or no it is impossible for that to be rightly received among the
Donatists which he is assured can rightly be received in the Catholic Church, he
would commit a grievous sin, in matters concerning the salvation of his soul, in
the mere fact of preferring uncertainty to certainty. At any rate, he must be
quite sure that a man can be rightly baptized in the Catholic Church, from the
mere fact that he has determined to come over to it, even if he be baptized
elsewhere. But let him at least acknowledge it to be matter of uncertainty
whether a man be not improperly baptized among the Donatists, when he finds this
asserted by those whose Opinion he is convinced should be preferred to theirs;
and, preferring certainty to uncertainty, let him be baptized here, where he has
good grounds for being assured that it is rightly done, in the fact that when he
thought of doing it elsewhere, he had still determined that he ought afterwards
to come over to this side.
CHAP. 4.--5. Further, if any one fails to understand how it can be that we
assert that the sacrament is not rightly conferred among the Donatists, while we
confess that it exists among them, let him observe that we also deny that it
exists rightly among them, just as they deny that it exists rightly among those
who quit their communion. Let him also consider the analogy of the military
mark, which, though it can both be retained, as by deserters, and, also be
received by those who are not in the army, yet ought not to be either received
or retained outside its ranks; and, at the same time, it is not changed or
renewed when a man is enlisted or brought back to his service. However, we must
distinguish between the case of those who unwittingly join the ranks of these
heretics, under the impression that they are entering the true Church of Christ,
and those who know that there is no other Catholic Church save that which,
according to the promise, is spread abroad throughout the whole world, and
extends even to the utmost limits of the earth; which, rising amid tares, and
seeking rest in the future from the weariness of offenses, says in the Book of
Psalms, "From the end of the earth I cried unto Thee, while my heart was in
weariness: Thou didst exalt me on a rock."(1) But the rock was Christ, in whom
the apostle says that we are now raised up, and set together in heavenly places,
though not yet actually, but only in hope.(2) And so the psalm goes on to say,
"Thou wast my guide, because Thou art become my hope, a tower of strength from
the face of the enemy."(1) By means of His promises, which are like spears and
javelins stored up in a strongly fortified place, the enemy is not only guarded
against, but overthrown, as he clothes his wolves in sheep's clothing,(3) that
they may say, "Lo, here is Christ, or there;"(4) and that they may separate many
from the Catholic city which is built upon a hill, and bring them down to the
isolation of their own snares, so as utterly to destroy them. And these men,
knowing this, choose to receive the baptism of Christ without the limits of the
communion of the unity of Christ's body, though they intend afterwards, with the
sacrament which they have received elsewhere, to pass into that very communion.
For they propose to receive Christ's baptism in antagonism to the Church of
Christ, well knowing that it is so even on the very day on which they receive
it. And if this is a sin, who is the man that will say, Grant that for a single
day I may commit sin? For if he proposes to pass over to the Catholic Church, I
would fain ask why. What other answer can he give, but that it is ill to belong
to the party of Donatus, and not to the unity of the Catholic Church? Just so
many days, then, as you commit this ill, of so many days' sin are you going to
be guilty. And it may be said that there is greater sin in more days' commission
of it, and less in fewer; but in no wise can it be said that no sin is committed
at all. But what is the need of allowing this accursed wrong for a single day,
or a single hour? For the man who wishes this license to be granted him, might
as well ask of the Church, or of God Himself, that for a single day he should be
permitted to apostatize. For there is no reason why he should fear to be an
apostate for a day, if he does not shrink from being for that time a schismatic
or a heretic.
CHAP. 5.--6. I prefer, he says, to receive Christ's baptism where both parties
agree that it exists. But those whom you intend to join say that it cannot be
received there rightly; and those who say that it can be received there rightly
are the party whom you mean to quit. What they say, therefore, whom you yourself
consider of inferior authority, in opposition to what those say whom you
yourself prefer, is, if not false, at any rate, to use a milder term, at least
uncertain. I entreat you, therefore, to prefer what is true to what is false, or
what is certain to what is uncertain. For it is not only those whom you are
going to join, but you yourself who are going to join them, that confess that
what you want can be rightly received in that body which you mean to join when
you have received it elsewhere. For if you had any doubts whether it could be
rightly received there, you would also have doubts whether you ought to make the
change. If, therefore, it is doubtful whether it be not sin to receive baptism
from the party of Donatus, who can doubt but that it is certain sin not to
prefer receiving it where it is certain that it is not sin? And those who are
baptized there through ignorance, thinking that it is the true Church of Christ,
are guilty of less sin in comparison than these, though even they are wounded by
the impiety of schism; nor do they escape a grievous hurt, because others suffer
even more. For when it is said to certain men, "It shall be more tolerable for
the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you,"(1) it is not meant that
the men of Sodom shall escape torment, but only that the others shall be even
more grievously tormented.
7. And yet this point had once, perhaps, been involved in obscurity and doubt.
But that which is a source of health to those who give heed and receive
correction, is but an aggravation of the sin of those who, when they are no
longer suffered to be ignorant, persist in their madness to their own
destruction. For the condemnation of the party of Maximianus, and their
restoration after they had been condemned, together with those whom they had
sacrilegiously, to use the language of their own Council? baptized in schism,
settles the whole question in dispute, and removes all controversy. There is no
point at issue between ourselves and those Donatists who hold communion with
Primianus, which could give rise to any doubt that the baptism of Christ may not
only be retained, but even conferred by those who are severed from the Church.
For as they themselves are obliged to confess that those whom Felicianus
baptized in schism received true baptism, inasmuch as they now acknowledge them
as members of their own body, with no other baptism than that which they
received in schism; so we say that that is Christ's baptism, even without the
pale of Catholic communion, which they confer who are cut off from that
communion, inasmuch as they had not lost it when they were cut off. And what
they themselves think that they conferred on those persons whom Felicianus
baptized in schism, when they admitted them to reconcilation with themselves,
viz., not that they should receive that which they did not as yet possess, but
that what they had received to no advantage in schism, and were already in
possession of, should be of profit to them, this God really confers and bestows
through the Catholic communion on those who come from any heresy or schism in
which they received the baptism of Christ; viz., not that they should begin to
receive the sacrament of baptism as not possessing it before, but that what they
already possessed should now begin to profit them.
CHAP. 6.--8. Between us, then, and what we may call the genuine(3) Donatists,
whose bishop is Primianus at Carthage, there is now no controversy on this
point. For God willed that it should be ended by means of the followers of
Maximianus, that they should be compelled by the precedent of his case to
acknowledge what they would not allow at the persuasion of Christian charity.
But this brings us to consider next, whether those men do not seem to have
something to say for themselves, who refuse communion with the party of
Primianus, contending that in their body there remains greater sincerity of
Donatism, just in proportion to the paucity of their numbers. And even if these
were only the party of Maximianus, we should not be justified in despising their
salvation. How much more, then, are we bound to consider it, when we find that
this same party of Donatus is split up into many most minute fractions, all
which small sections of the body blame the one much larger portion which has
Primianus for its head, because they receive the baptism of the followers of
Maximianus; while each endeavors to maintain that it is the sole receptacle of
true baptism, which exists nowhere else, neither in the whole of the world where
the Catholic Church extends itself, nor in that larger main body of the
Donatists, nor even in the other minute sections, but only in itself. Whereas,
if all these fragments would listen not to the voice of man, but to the most
unmistakable manifestation of the truth, and would be willing to curb the fiery
temper of their own perversity, they would return from their own barrenness, not
indeed to the main body of Donatus, a mere fragment of which they are a smaller
fragment, but to the never-failing fruitfulness of the root of the Catholic
Church. For all of them who are not against us are for us; but when they gather
not with us, they scatter abroad.
CHAP. 7.--9. For, in the next place, that I may not seem to rest on mere human
arguments,--since there is so much obscurity in this question, that in earlier
ages of the Church, before the schism of Donatus, it has caused men of great
weight, and even our fathers, the bishops, whose hearts were full of charity, so
to dispute and doubt among themselves, saving always the peace of the Church,
that the several statutes of their Councils in their different districts long
varied from each other, till at length the most wholesome opinion was
established, to the removal of all doubts, by a plenary Council of the whole
world:(1)--I therefore bring forward from the gospel clear proofs, by which I
propose, with God's help, to prove how rightly and truly in the sight of God it
has been determined, that in the case of every schismatic and heretic, the wound
which caused his separation should be cured by the medicine of the Church; but
that what remained sound in him should rather be recognized with approbation,
than wounded I by condemnation. It is indeed true that the Lord says in the
gospel, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me
scattereth abroad."(2) Yet when the disciples had brought word to Him that they
had seen one casting out devils in His name, and had forbidden him, because he
followed not them, He said, "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is
for us. For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can
lightly speak evil of me."(3) If, indeed, there were nothing in this man
requiring correction, then any one would be safe who, setting himself outside
the communion of the Church, severing himself from all Christian brotherhood,
should gather in Christ's name; and so there would be no truth in this, "He that
is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth
abroad." But if he required correction in the point where the disciples in their
ignorance were anxious to check him, why did our Lord, by saying, "Forbid him
not," prevent this check from being given? And how can that be true which He
then says, "He that is not against you is for you?" For in this point he was not
against, but for them, when he was working miracles of healing in Christ's name.
That both, therefore, should be true, as both are true,--both the declaration,
that "he that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me
scattereth abroad;" and also the injunction, "Forbid him not; for he that is not
against you is for you,"--what must we understand, except that the man was to be
confirmed in his veneration for that mighty Name, in respect of which he was not
against the Church, but for it; and yet he was to be bland for separating
himself from the Church, whereby his gathering became a scattering; and if it
should have so happened that he sought union with the Church, he should not have
received what he already possessed, but be made to set right the points wherein
he had gone astray?
CHAP. 8.--10. Nor indeed were the prayers of the Gentile Cornelius unheard, nor
did his alms lack acceptance; nay, he was found worthy that an angel should be
sent to him, and that he should behold the messenger, through whom he might
assuredly have learned everything that was necessary, without requiring that any
man should come to him. But since all the good that he had in his prayers and
alms could not benefit him unless he were incorporated in the Church by the bond
of Christian brotherhood and peace, he was ordered to send to Peter, and through
him learned Christ; and, being also baptized by his orders, he was joined by the
tie of communion to the fellowship of Christians, to which before he was bound
only by the likeness of good works.(4) And indeed it would have been most fatal
to despise what he did not yet possess, vaunting himself in what he had. So too
those who, by separating themselves from the society of their fellows, to the
overthrow of charity, thus break the bond of unity, if they observe none of the
things which they have received in that society, are separated in everything;
and so any one whom they have joined to their society, if he afterwards wish to
come over to the Church, ought to receive everything which he has not already
received. But if they observe some of the same things, in respect of these they
have not severed themselves; and so far they are still a part of the framework
of the Church, while in all other respects they are cut off from it.
Accordingly, any one whom they have associated with themselves is united to the
Church in all those points in which they are not separated from it. And
therefore, if he wish to come over to the Church, he is made sound in those
points in which he was unsound and went astray; but where he was sound in union
with the Church, he is not cured, but recognized,--lest in desiring to cure what
is sound we should rather inflict a wound. Therefore those whom they baptize
they heal from the wound of idolatry or unbelief; but they injure them more
seriously with the wound of schism. For idolaters among the people of the Lord
were smitten with the sword;(1) but schismatics were swallowed up by the earth
opening her mouth.(2) And the apostle says, "Though I have all faith, so that I
could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."(3)
11. If any one is brought to the surgeon, afflicted with a grievous wound in
some vital part of the body, and the surgeon says that unless it is cured it
must cause death, the friends who brought him do not, I presume, act so
foolishly as to count over to the surgeon all his sound limbs, and, drawing his
attention to them, make answer to him, "Can it be that all these sound limbs are
of no avail to save his life, and that one wounded limb is enough to cause his
death?" They certainly do not say this, but they entrust him to the surgeon to
be cured. Nor, again, because they so entrust him, do they ask the surgeon to
cure the limbs that are sound as well; but they desire him to apply drugs with
all care to the one part from which death is threatening the other sound parts
too, with the certainty that it must come, unless the wound be healed. What will
it then profit a man that he has sound faith, or perhaps only soundness in the
sacrament of faith, when the soundness of his charity is done away with by the
fatal wound of schism, so that by the overthrow of it the other points, which
were in themselves sound, are brought into the infection of death? To prevent
which, the mercy of God, through the unity of His holy Church, does not cease
striving that they may come and be healed by the medicine of reconciliation,
through the bond of peace. And let them not think that they are sound because we
admit that they have something sound in them; nor let them think, on the other
hand, that what is sound must needs be healed, because we show that in some
parts there is a wound. So that in the soundness of the sacrament, because they
are not against us, they are for us; but in the wound of schism, because they
gather not with Christ, they scatter abroad. Let them not be exalted by what
they have. Why do they pass the eyes of pride over those parts only which are
sound? Let them condescend also to look humbly on their wound, and give heed not
only to what they have, but also to what is wanting in them.
CHAP. 9.--12. Let them see how many things, and what important things, are of no
avail, if a certain single thing be wanting, and let them see what that one
thing is. And herein let them hear not my words, but those of the apostle:
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I
am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of
prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all
faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.(4)
What does it profit them, therefore, if they have both the voice of angels in
the sacred mysteries, and the gift of prophecy, as had Caiaphas(5) and Saul,(6)
that so they may be found prophesying, of whom Holy Scripture testifies that
they were worthy of condemnation? If they not only know, but even possess the
sacraments, as Simon Magus did;(7) if they have faith, as the devils confessed
Christ (for we must not suppose that they did not believe when they said, "What
have we to do with Thee, O Son of God? We know Thee who Thou art"(8); if they
distribute of themselves their own substance to the poor, as many do, not only
in the Catholic Church, but in the different heretical bodies; if, under the
pressure of any persecution, they give their bodies with us to be burned for the
faith which they like us confess: yet because they do all these things apart
from the Church, not "forbearing one another in love," nor "endeavoring to keep
the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace,"(9) insomuch as they have not
charity, they cannot attain to eternal salvation, even with all those good
things which profit them not.
CHAP. 10.--13. But they think within themselves that they show very great
subtlety in asking whether the baptism of Christ in the party of Donatus makes
men sons or not; so that, if we allow, that it does make them sons, they may
assert that theirs is the Church, the mother which could give birth to sons in
the baptism of Christ; and since the Church must be one, they may allege that
ours is no Church. But if we say that it does not make them sons, "Why then,"
say they, "do you not cause those who pass from us to you to be born again in
baptism, after they have been baptized with us, if they are not thereby born as
yet?"
14. Just as though their party gained the power of generation in virtue of what
constitutes its division, and not from what causes its union with the Church.
For it is severed from the bond of peace and charity, but it is joined in one
baptism. And so there is one Church which alone is called Catholic; and whenever
it has anything of its own in these communions of different bodies which are
separate from itself, it is most certainly in virtue of this which is its Own in
each of them that it, not they, has the power of generation. For neither is it
their separation that generates, but what they have retained of the essence of
the Church; and if they were to go on to abandon this, they would lose the power
of generation. The generation, then, in each case proceeds from the Church,
whose sacraments are retained, from which any such birth can alone in any case
proceed,--although not all who receive its birth belong to its unity, which
shall save those who persevere even to the end. Nor is it those only that do not
belong to it who are openly guilty of the manifest sacrilege of schism, but also
those who, being outwardly joined to its unity, are yet separated by a life of
sin. For the Church had herself given birth to Simon Magus through the sacrament
of baptism; and yet it was declared to him that he had no part in the
inheritance of Christ.(1) Did he lack anything in respect of baptism, of the
gospel, of the sacraments? But in that he wanted charity, he was born in vain;
and perhaps it had been well for him that he had never been born at all. Was
anything wanting to their birth to whom the apostle says, "I have fed you with
milk, and not with meat, even as babes in Christ"? Yet he recalls them from the
sacrilege of schism, into which they were rushing, because they were carnal: "I
have fed you," he says, "with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not
able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas
there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For
while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not men?"(2)
For of these he says above: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no
divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind,
and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto, me of you, my
brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions
among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of
Apollos, land I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul
crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"(3) These,
therefore, if they continued in the same perverse obstinacy, were doubtless
indeed born, but yet would not belong by the bond of peace and unity to the very
Church in respect of which they were born. Therefore she herself bears them in
her own womb and in the womb of her handmaids, by virtue of the same sacraments,
as though by virtue of the seed of her husband. For it is not without meaning
that the apostle says that all these things were done by way of figure.(4) But
those who are too proud, and are not joined to their lawful mother, are like
Ishmael, of whom it is said, "Cast out this bond-woman and her Son: for the son
of the bond-woman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac."(5) But those
who peacefully love the lawful wife of their father, whose sons they are by
lawful descent, are like the sons of Jacob, born indeed of handmaids, but yet
receiving the same inheritance.(6) But those who are born within the family, of
the womb of the mother herself, and then neglect the grace they have received,
are like Isaac's son Esau, who was rejected, God Himself bearing witness to it,
and saying, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau;"(7) and that though they were
twin-brethren, the offspring of the same womb.
CHAP. 11.--15. They ask also, "Whether sins are remitted in baptism in the party
of Donatus:" so that, if we say that they are remitted, they may answer, then
the Holy Spirit is there; for when by the breathing of our Lord the Holy Spirit
was given to the disciples, He then went on to say, "Baptize all nations in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."(8) Whose soever sins
ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are
retained."(9) And if it is so, they say, then our communion is the Church of
Christ; for the Holy Spirit does not work the remission of sins except in the
Church. And if our communion is the Church of Christ, then your communion is not
the Church of Christ. For that is one, wherever it is, of which it is said, "My
dove is but one; she is the only one of her mother;"(10) nor can there be just
so many churches as there are schisms. But if we should say that sins are not
there remitted, then, say they, there is no true baptism there; and therefore
ought you to baptize those whom you receive from us. And since you do not do
this, you confess that you are not in the Church of Christ.
16. To these we reply, following the Scriptures, by asking them to answers
themselves what they ask of us. For I beg them to tell us whether there is any
remission of sins where there is not charity; for sins are the darkness of the
soul. For we find St. John saying, "He that hateth his brother is still in
darkness."(1) But none would create schisms, if they were not blinded by hatred
of their brethren. If, therefore, we say that sins are not remitted there, how
is he regenerate who is baptized among them? And what is regeneration in
baptism, except the being renovated from the corruption of the old man? And how
can he be so renovated whose past sins are not remitted? But if he be not
regenerate, neither does he put on Christ; from which it seems to follow that he
ought to be baptized again. For the apostle says, "For as many of you as have
been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;"(2) and if he has not so put on
Christ, neither should he be considered to have been baptized in Christ.
Further, since we say that he has been baptized in Christ, we confess that he
has put on Christ; and if we confess this, we confess that he is regenerate, And
if this be so, how does St. John say, "He that hateth his brother remaineth
still in darkness," if remission of his sins has already taken place? Can it be
that schism does not involve hatred of one's brethren? Who will maintain this,
when both the origin of, and perseverance in schism consists in nothing else
save hatred of the brethren?
17. They think that they solve this question widen they say: "There is then no
remission of sins in schism, and therefore no creation of the new man by
regeneration, and accordingly neither is there the baptism of Christ." But since
we confess that the baptism of Christ exists in schism, we propose this question
to them for solution: Was Simon Magus endued with the true baptism of Christ?
They will answer, Yes; being compelled to do so by the authority of holy
Scripture. I ask them whether they confess that he received remission of his
sins. They will certainly acknowledge it. So I ask why Peter said to him that he
had no part in the hot of the saints. Because, they say, he sinned afterwards,
wishing to buy with money the gift of God, which he believed the apostles were
able to sell.
CHAP. 12.--18. What if he approached baptism itself in deceit? were his sins
remitted, or were they not? Let them choose which they will. Whichever they
choose will answer our purpose. If they say they were remitted, how then shall
"the Holy Spirit of discipline flee deceit,"(3) if in him who was full of deceit
He worked remission of sins? If they say they were not remitted, I ask whether,
if he should afterwards confess his sin with contrition of heart and true
sorrow, it would be judged that he ought to be baptized again. And if it is mere
madness to assert this, then let them confess that a man can be baptized with
the true baptism of Christ, and that yet his heart, persisting in malice or
sacrilege, may not allow remission of sins to be given; and so let them
understand that men may be baptized in communions severed from the Church, in
which Christ's baptism is given and received in the said celebration of the
sacrament, but that it will only then be of avail for the remission of sins,
when the recipient, being reconciled to the unity of the Church, is purged from
the sacrilege of deceit, by which his sins were retained, and their remission
prevented. For, as in the case of him who had approached the sacrament in deceit
there is no second baptism, but he is purged by faithful discipline and truthful
confession, which he could not be without baptism, so that what was given before
becomes then powerful to work his salvation, when the former deceit is done away
by the truthful confession; so also in the case of the man who, while an enemy
to the peace and love of Christ, received in any heresy or schism the baptism of
Christ, which the schismatics in question had not lost from among them, though
by his sacrilege his sins were not remitted, yet, when he corrects his error,
and comes over to the communion and unity of the Church, he ought not to be
again baptized: because by his very reconciliation to the peace of the Church he
receives this benefit, that the sacrament now begins in unity to be of avail for
the remission of his sins, which could not so avail him as received in schism.
19. But if they should say that in the man who has approached the sacrament in
deceit, his sins are indeed removed by the holy power of so great a sacrament at
the moment when he received it, but return immediately in consequence of his
deceit: so that the Holy Spirit has both been present with him at his baptism
for the removal of his sins, and has also fled before his perseverance in deceit
so that they should return: so that both declarations prove true,--both, "As
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;" and also,
"The holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit; "--that is to say, that both
the holiness of baptism clothes him with Christ, and the sinfulness of deceit
strips him of Christ; like the case of a man who passes. from darkness through
light into darkness again, his eyes being always directed towards darkness,
though the light cannot but penetrate them as he passes;--if they should say
this, let them understand that this is also the case with those who are baptized
without the pale of the Church, but yet with the baptism of the Church, which is
holy in itself, wherever it may be; and which therefore belongs not to those who
separate themselves, but to the body from which they are separated; while yet it
avails even among them so far, that they pass through its light back to their
own darkness, their sins, which in that moment had been dispelled by the
holiness of baptism, returning immediately upon them, as though it were the
darkness returning which the light had dispelled while they were passing through
it.
20. For that sins which have been remitted do return upon a man, where there is
no brotherly love, is most clearly taught by our Lord, in the case of the
servant whom He found owing Him ten thousand talents, and to whom He yet forgave
all at his entreaty. But when he refused to have pity on his fellow-servant who
owed him a hundred pence, the Lord commanded him to pay what He had forgiven
him. The time, then, at which pardon is received through baptism is as it were
the time for rendering accounts, so that all the debts which are found to be due
may be remitted. Yet it was not afterwards that the servant lent his
fellow-servant the money, which he had so pitilessly exacted when the other was
unable to pay it; but his fellow-servant already owed him the debt, when he
himself, on rendering his accounts to his master, was excused a debt of so vast
an amount. He had not first excused his fellow-servant, and so come to receive
forgiveness from his Lord. This is proved by the words of the fellow-servant:
"Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all." Otherwise he would have said,
"You forgave me it before; why do you again demand it?" This is made more clear
by the words of the Lord Himself. For He says, "But the same servant went out,
and found one of his fellow-servants which was owing(1) him a hundred pence."(2)
He does not say, "To whom he had already forgiven a debt of a hundred pence."
Since then He says, "was owing him," it is clear that he had not forgiven him
the debt. And indeed it would have been better, and more in accordance with the
position of a man who was going to render an account of so great a debt, and
expected forbearance from his lord, that he should first have forgiven his
fellow-servant what was due to him, and so have come to render the account when
there was such need for imploring the compassion of his lord. Yet the fact that
he had not yet forgiven his fellow-servant, did not prevent his lord from
forgiving him all his debts on the occasion of receiving his accounts. But what
advantage was it to him, since they all immediately returned with redoubled
force upon his head, m consequence of his persistent want of charity? So the
grace of baptism is not prevented from giving remission of all sins, even if he
to whom they are forgiven continues to cherish hatred towards his brother in his
heart. For the guilt of yesterday is remitted, and all that was before it, nay,
even the guilt of the very hour and moment previous to baptism, and during
baptism itself. But then he immediately begins again to be responsible, not only
for the days, hours, moments which ensue, but also for the past,--the guilt of
all the sins which were remitted returning on him, as happens only too
frequently in the Church.
CHAP. 13.--21. For it often happens that a man has an enemy whom he hates most
unjustly; although we are commanded to love even our unjust enemies, and to pray
for them. But in some sudden danger of death he begins to be uneasy, and desires
baptism, which he receives in such haste, that the emergency scarcely admits of
the necessary formal examination of a few words, much less of a long
conversation, so that this hatred should be driven from his heart, even
supposing it to be known to the minister who baptizes him. Certainly cases of
this sort are still found to occur not only with us, but also with them. What
shall we say then? Are this man's sins forgiven or not? Let them choose just
which alternative they prefer. For if they are forgiven, they immediately
return: this is the teaching of the gospel, the authoritative announcement of
truth. Whether, therefore, they are forgiven or not, medicine is necessary
afterwards; and yet if the man lives, and learns that his fault stands in need
of correction, and corrects it, he is not baptized anew, either with them or
with us. So in the points in which schismatics and heretics neither entertain
different opinions nor observe different practice from ourselves, we do not
correct them when they join us, but rather commend what we find in them. For
where they do not differ from us, they are not separated from us. But because
these things do them. no good so long as they are schismatics or heretics, on
account of other points in which they differ from us, not to mention the most
grievous sin that is involved in separation itself, therefore, whether their
sins remain in them, or return again immediately after remission, in either ease
we exhort them to come to the soundness of peace and Christian charity, not only
that they may obtain something which they had not before, but also that what
they had may begin to be of use to them.
CHAP. 14.--22. It is to no purpose, then, that they say to us, "If you
acknowledge our baptism, what do we lack that should make you suppose that we
ought to think seriously of joining your communion?" For we reply, We do not
acknowledge any baptism of yours; for it is not the baptism of schismatics or
heretics, but of God and of the Church, wheresoever it may be found, and
whithersoever it may be transferred. But it is in no sense yours, except because
you entertain false opinions, and do sacrilegious acts, and have impiously
separated yourselves from the Church. For if everything else in your practice
and opinions were true, and still you were to persist in this same separation.
contrary to the bond of brotherly peace, contrary to the union of all the
brethren, who have been manifest, according to the promise, in all the world;
the particulars of whose history, and the secrets of whose hearts, you never
could have known or considered in every case, so as to have a right to condemn
them; who, moreover, cannot be liable to condemnation for submitting themselves
to the judges of the Church rather than to one of the parties to the
dispute,--in this one thing, at least, in such a case, you are deficient, in
which he is deficient who lacks charity. Why should we go over our argument
again? Look and see yourselves in the apostle, how much there is that you lack.
For what does it matter to him who lacks charity, whether he be carried away
outside the Church at once by some blast of temptation, or remain within the
Lord's harvest. so as to be separated only at the final winnowing? And vet even
such, if they have once been born in baptism, need not be born again.
CHAP. 15.--23. For it is the Church that gives birth to all, either within her
pale, of her own womb; or beyond it, of the seed of her bridegroom,--(either of
herself, or of her handmaid.(1)) But Esau, even though born of the lawful wife,
was separated from the people of God because he quarrelled with his brother. And
Asher, born indeed by the authority of a wife, but yet of a handmaid, was
admitted to the land of promise on account of his brotherly good-will. Whence
also it was not the being born of a handmaid, but his quarrelling with his
brother, that stood in the way of Ishmael, to cause his separation from the
people of God; and he received no benefit from the power of the wife, whose son
he rather was, inasmuch as it was in virtue of her conjugal rights that he was
both conceived in and born of the womb of the handmaid. Just as with the
Donatists it is by the right of the Church, which exists in baptism, that
whosoever is born receives his birth; but if they agree with their brethren,
through the unity of peace they come to the land of promise, not to be again
cast out from the bosom of their true mother, but to be acknowledged in the seed
of their father; but if they persevere in discord, they will belong to the line
of Ishmael. For Ishmael was first, and then Isaac; and Esau was the elder, Jacob
the younger. Not that heresy gives birth before the Church, or that the Church
herself gives birth first to those who are carnal or animal, and afterwards to
those who are spiritual; but because, in the actual lot of our mortality, in
which we are born of the seed of Adam, "that was not first which is spiritual,
but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual."(2) But from
mere animal sensation, because "the natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God,"(3) arise all dissensions and schisms. And the apostle says(4)
that all who persevere in this animal sensation belong to the old covenant. that
is, to the desire of earthly promises, which are indeed the type of the
spiritual; but "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God."(3)
24. At whatever time, therefore, men have begun to be of such a nature in this
life, that, although they have partaken of such divine sacraments as were
appointed for the dispensation under which they lived, they yet savor of carnal
things, and hope for and desire carnal things from God, whether in this life or
afterwards, they are yet carnal. But the Church, which is the people of God, is
an ancient institution even in the pilgrimage of this life, having a carnal
interest in some men, a spiritual interest in others. To the carnal belongs the
old covenant, to the spiritual the new. But in the first days both were hidden,
from Adam even to Moses. But by Moses the old covenant was made manifest, and in
it was hidden the new covenant, because after a secret fashion it was typified.
But so soon as the Lord came in the flesh, the new covenant was revealed; yet,
though the sacraments of the old covenant passed away; the dispositions peculiar
to it did not pass away. For they still exist in those whom the apostle declares
to be already born indeed by the sacrament of the new covenant, but yet capable,
as being natural, of receiving the things of the Spirit of God. For, as in the
sacraments of the old covenant some persons were already spiritual, belonging
secretly to the new covenant, which was then concealed so now also in the
sacrament of the new covenant, which has been by this time revealed many live
who are natural. And if they will not advance to receive the things of the
Spirit of God, to which the discourse of the apostle urges them, they will still
belong to the old covenant. But if they advance, even before they receive them,
yet by their very advance and approach they belong to the new covenant; and if,
before becoming spiritual, they are snatched away from this life, yet through
the protection of the holiness of the sacrament they are reckoned in the land of
the living, where the Lord is our hope and our portion. Nor can I find any truer
interpretation of the scripture, "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being
imperfect"(1) considering what follows, "And in Thy book shall all be
written."(2)
CHAP. 16.--25. But the same mother which brought forth Abel, and Enoch, and
Noah, and Abraham, brought forth also Moses and the prophets who succeeded him
till the coming of our Lord; and the mother which gave birth to them gave birth
also to our apostles and martyrs, and all good Christians. For all these that
have appeared have been born indeed at different times, but are included in the
society of our people; and it is as citizens of the same state that they have
experienced the labors of this pilgrimage, and some of them are experiencing
them, and others will experience them even to the end. Again, the mother who
brought forth Cain, and Ham, and Ishmael, and Esau, brought forth also Dathan
and others like him in the same people; and she who gave birth to them gave
birth also to Judas the false apostle, and Simon Magus, and all the other false
Christians who up to this time have persisted obstinately in their carnal
affections, whether they have been mingled in the unity of the Church, or
separated from it in open schism. But when men of this kind have the gospel
preached to them, and receive the sacraments at the hand of those who are
spiritual, it is as though Rebecca gave birth to them of her own womb, as she
did to Esau; but when they are produced in the midst of the people of God
through the instrumentality of those who preach the gospel not sincerely? Sarah
is indeed the mother, but through Hagar. So when good spiritual disciples are
produced by the preaching or baptism of those who are carnal, Leah, indeed, or
Rachel, gives birth to them in her right as wife, but from the womb of a
handmaid. But when good and faithful disciples are born of those who are
spiritual in the gospel, and either attain to the development of spiritual age,
or do not cease to strive in that direction, or are only deterred from doing so
by want of power, these are born like Isaac from the womb of Sarah, or Jacob
from the womb of Rebecca, in the new life and the new covenant.
CHAP. 17.--26. Therefore, whether they seem to abide within, or are openly
outside, whatsoever is flesh is flesh, and what is chaff is chaff, whether they
persevere in remaining in their barrenness on the threshing-floor, or, when
temptation befalls them, are carried out as it were by the blast of some wind.
And even that man is always severed from the unity of the Church which is
without spot or wrinkle,(4) who associates with the congregation of the saints
in carnal obstinacy. Yet we ought tO despair of no man, whether he be one who
shows himself to be of this nature within the pale of the Church, or whether he
more openly opposes it from without. But the spiritual, or those who are
steadily advancing with pious exertion towards this end, do not stray without
the pale; since even when, by some perversity or necessity among men, they seem
to be driven forth, they are more approved than if they had remained within,
since they are in no degree roused to contend against the Church, but remain
rooted in the strongest foundation of Christian charity on the solid rock of
unity. For hereunto belongs what is said in the sacrifice of Abraham: "But the
birds divided he not."(5)
CHAP. 18.--27. On the question of baptism, then, I think that I have argued at
sufficient length; and since this is a most manifest schism which is called by
the "name of the Donatists, it only remains that on the subject of baptism we
should believe with pious faith what the universal Church maintains, apart from
the sacrilege of schism. And yet, if within the Church different men still held
different opinions on the point, without meanwhile violating peace, then till
some one clear and simple decree should have been passed by an universal
Council, it would have been right for the charity which seeks for unity to throw
a veil over the error of human infirmity, as it is written "For charity shall
cover the multitude of sins."(1) For, seeing that its absence causes the
presence of all other things to be of no avail, we may well suppose that in its
presence there is found pardon for the absence of some missing things.
28. There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed martyr
Cyprian, in his letters,--to come at last to him of whose authority they
carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst by his love they are
spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before the consent of the whole Church
had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council,(2) what
practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, in common with
about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who
had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should, on
joining the Church, be baptized anew. And I take it, that the reason why the
Lord did not reveal the error in this to a man of such eminence, was, that his
pious humility and charity in guarding the peace and health of the Church might
be made manifest, and might be noticed, so as to serve as an example of healing
power, so to speak, not only to Christians of that age, but also to those who
should come after. For when a bishop of so important a Church, himself a man of
so great merit and virtue, endowed with such excellence of heart and power of
eloquence, entertained an opinion about baptism different from that which was to
be confirmed by a more diligent searching into the truth; though many of his
colleagues held what was not yet made manifest by authority, but was sanctioned
by the past custom of the Church, and afterwards embraced by the whole Catholic
world; yet under these circumstances he did not sever himself, by refusal of
communion, from the others who thought differently, and indeed never ceased to
urge on the others that they should "forbear one another in love, endeavoring to
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."(3) For so, while the
framework of the body remained whole, if any infirmity occurred in certain of
its members, it might rather regain its health from their general soundness,
than be deprived of the chance of any healing care by their death in severance
from the body. And if he had severed himself, how many were there to follow!
what a name was he likely to make for himself among men! how much more widely
would the name of Cyprianist have spread than that of Donatist! But he was not a
son of perdition, one of those of whom it is said, "Thou castedst them down
while they were elevated;" but he was the son of the peace of the Church, who in
the clear illumination of his mind failed to see one thing, only that through
him another thing might be more excellently seen. "And yet," says the apostle,
"show I unto you a more excellent way: though I speak with the tongues of men
and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a
tinkling cymbal."(5) He had therefore imperfect insight into the hidden mystery
of the sacrament. But if he had known the mysteries of all sacraments, without
having charity, it would have been nothing. But as he, with imperfect insight
into the mystery, was careful to preserve charity with all courage and humility
and faith, he deserved to come to the crown of martyrdom; so that, if any cloud
had crept over the clearness of his intellect from his infirmity as man, it
might be dispelled by the glorious brightness of his blood. For it was not in
vain that our Lord Jesus Christ, when He declared Himself to be the vine, and
His disciples, as it were, the branches in the vine, gave command that those
which bare no fruit should be cut off, and removed from the vine as useless
branches.(6) But what is really fruit, save that new offspring, of which He
further says, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another?"(7)
This is that very charity, without which the rest profiteth nothing. The apostle
also says: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance;"(8) which all begin with
charity, and with the rest of the combination forms one unity in a kind of
wondrous cluster.(9) Nor is it again in vain that our Lord added, "And every
branch that beareth fruit, my Father purgeth it, that it may bring forth more
fruit,"(10) but because those who are strong in the fruit of charity may yet
have something which requires purging, which the Husbandman will not leave
untended. Whilst then, that holy man entertained on the subject of baptism an
opinion at variance with the true view, which was afterwards thoroughly examined
and confirmed after most diligent consideration, his error was compensated by
his remaining in catholic unity, and by the abundance of his charity; and
finally it was cleared away by the pruning-hook of martyrdom.
CHAP. 19.--29. But that I may not seem to be uttering these praises of the
blessed martyr (which, indeed, are not his, but rather those of Him by whose
grace he showed himself what he was), in order to escape the burden of proof,
let us now bring forward from his letters the testimony by which the mouths of
the Donatists may most of all be stopped. For they advance his authority before
the unlearned, to show that in a manner they do well when they baptize afresh
the faithful who come to them. Too wretched are they--and, unless they correct
themselves, even by themselves are they utterly condemned--who choose in the
example set them by so great a man to imitate just that fault, which only did
not injure him, because he walked with constant steps even to the end in that
from which they have strayed who "have not known the way of peace."(1) It is
true that Christ's baptism is holy; and although it may exist among heretics or
schismatics, yet it does not belong to the heresy or schism; and therefore even
those who come from thence to the Catholic Church herself ought not to be
baptized afresh. Yet to err on this point is one thing; it is another thing that
those who are straying from the peace of the Church, and have fallen headlong
into the pit of schism, should go on to decide that any who join them ought to
be baptized again. For the former is a speck on the brightness of a holy soul
which abundance of charity(2) would fain have covered; the latter is a stain in
their nether foulness which the hatred of peace in their countenance
ostentatiously brings to light. But the subject for our further consideration,
relating to the authority of the blessed Cyprian, we will commence from a fresh
beginning.
BOOK II.
IN WHICH AUGUSTIN PROVES THAT IT IS TO NO PURPOSE THAT THE DONATISTS BRING
FORWARD THE AUTHORITY OF CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR, SINCE IT IS REALLY MORE
OPPOSED TO THEM THAN TO THE CATHOLICS. FOR THAT HE HELD THAT THE VIEW OF HIS
PREDECESSOR AGRIPPINUS, ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTIZING HERETICS IN THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH WHEN THEY JOIN ITS COMMUNION, SHOULD ONLY BE RECEIVED ON CONDITION THAT
PEACE SHOULD BE MAINTAINED WITH THOSE WHO ENTERTAINED THE OPPOSITE VIEW, AND
THAT THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH SHOULD NEVER BE BROKEN BY ANY KIND OF SCHISM.
CHAP. 1.--1. HOW much the arguments make for us, that is, for catholic peace,
which the party of Donatus profess to bring forward against us from the
authority of the blessed Cyprian, and how much they prove against those who
bring them forward, it is my intention, with the help of God, to show in the
ensuing book. If, therefore, in the course of my argument, I am obliged to
repeat what l have already said in other treatises (although I will do so as
little as I can,) yet this ought not to be objected to by those who have already
read them and agree with them; since it is not only right that those things
which are necessary for instruction should be frequently instilled into men of
dull intelligence, but even in the case of those who are endowed with larger
understanding, it contributes very much both to make their learning easier and
their powers of teaching readier, where the same points are handled and
discussed in many various ways. For I know how much it discourages a reader,
when he comes upon any knotty question in the book which he has in hand, to find
himself presently referred for its solution to another which he happens not to
have. Wherefore, if I am compelled, by the urgency of the present questions, to
repeat what I have already said in other books, I would seek forgiveness from
those who know those books already, that those who are ignorant may have their
difficulties removed; for it is better to give to one who has already, than to
abstain from satisfying any one who is in want.
2. What, then, do they venture to say, when their mouth is closed(1) by the
force of truth, with which they will not agree? "Cyprian," say they, "whose
great merits and vast learning we all know, decreed in a Council,(2) with many
of his fellow-bishops contributing their several opinions, that all heretics and
schismatics, that is, all who are severed from the communion of the one Church,
are without baptism; and therefore, whosoever has joined the communion of the
Church after being baptized by them must be baptized in the Church." The
authority of Cyprian does not alarm me, because I am reassured by his humility.
We know, indeed, the great merit of the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but is it in
any way greater than that of the apostle and martyr Peter, of whom the said
Cyprian speaks as follows in his epistle to Quintus? "For neither did Peter,
whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church,(3) when Paul
afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim or assume anything
insolently and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held the primacy, and
should rather be obeyed of those who were late and newly come. Nor did he
despise Paul because he had before been a persecutor of the Church, but he
admitted the counsel of truth, and readily assented to the legitimate grounds
which Paul maintained; giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that
we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather account as
our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren and colleagues for the
common health and weal."(1) Here is a passage in which Cyprian records what we
also learn in holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the
apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle
Paul, when he adopted a custom in the matter of circumcision at variance with
the demands of truth. If it was therefore possible for Peter in some point to
walk not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, so as to compel the
Gentiles to judaize, as Paul writes in that epistle in which he calls God to
witness that he does not lie; for he says, "Now the things which I write unto
you, behold, before God, I lie not;"(2) and, after this sacred and awful calling
of God to witness, he told the whole tale, saying in the course of it, "But when
I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I
said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner
of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to
live as do the Jews?"(3)--if Peter, I say, could compel the Gentiles to live
after the manner of the Jews, contrary to the rule of truth which the Church
afterwards held, why might not Cyprian, in opposition to the rule of faith which
the whole Church afterwards held, compel heretics and schismatics to be baptized
afresh? I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter
in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am
showing disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of
his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever? But, granting the
difference in the dignity of their sees, yet they have the same glory in their
martyrdom. And whether it may be the case that the hearts of those who confess
and die for the true faith in the unity of charity take precedence of each other
in different points, the Lord Himself will know, by the hidden and wondrous
dispensation of whose grace the thief hanging on the cross once for all
confesses Him, and is sent on the selfsame day to paradise,(4) while Peter, the
follower of our Lord, denies Him thrice, and has his crown postponed:(5) for us
it were rash to form a judgment from the evidence. But if any one were now found
compelling a man to be circumcised after the Jewish fashion, as a necessary
preliminary for baptism, this would meet with much more general repudiation by
mankind, than if a man should be compelled to be baptized again. Wherefore, if
Peter, on doing this, is corrected by his later colleague Paul, and is yet
preserved by the bond of peace and unity till he is promoted to martyrdom, how
much more readily and constantly should we prefer, either to the authority of a
single bishop, or to the Council of a single province, the rule that has been
established by the statutes of the universal Church? For this same Cyprian, in
urging his view of the question, was still anxious to remain in the unity of
peace even with those who differed from him on this point, as is shown by his
own opening address at the beginning of the very Council which is quoted by the
Donatists. For it is as follows:
CHAP. 2.--3. "When, on the calends of September, very many bishops from the
provinces of Africa,(6) Numidia, and Mauritania, with their presbyters and
deacons, had met together at Carthage, a great part of the laity also being
present; and when the letter addressed by Jubaianus(7) to Cyprian, as also the
answer of Cyprian to Jubaianus, on the subject of baptizing heretics, had been
read, Cyprian said: 'Ye have heard, most beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus, our
fellow-bishop, has written to me, consulting my moderate ability concerning the
unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, and what answer I gave him,--giving a
judgment which we have once and again and often given, that heretics coming to
the Church ought to be baptized, and sanctified with the baptism of the Church.
Another letter of Jubaianus has likewise been read to you, in which, agreeably
to his sincere and religious devotion, in answer to our epistle, he not only
expressed his assent, but returned thanks also, acknowledging that he had
received instruction. It remains that we severally declare our opinion on this
subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he
differ from us. For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by
tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as
every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming
his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge
another. But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone
has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging
of our acts therein.'"
CHAP. 3.--4. Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics raise
themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this address. Ye mad
Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the peace and unity of the holy
Church, that ye may receive health therein, what have ye to say in answer to
this? You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his
opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism,
and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can
fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New
Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely
in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can
hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in
it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been
written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be
refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth,
either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than
themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other
bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils
themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield,
beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are
formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the
earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual
experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is
known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious
pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of
envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian
charity?
CHAP. 4.--5. Wherefore the holy Cyprian, whose dignity is only increased by his
humility, who so loved the pattern set by Peter as to use the words, "Giving us
thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that we should not pertinaciously
love our own opinions, but should rather account as our own any true and
rightful suggestions of our brethren and colleagues, for the common health and
weal,"(1) --he, I say, abundantly shows that he was most willing to correct his
own opinion, if any one should prove to him that it is as certain that the
baptism of Christ can be given by those who have strayed from the fold, as that
it could not he lost when they strayed; on which subject we have already said
much. Nor should we ourselves venture to assert anything of the kind, were we
not supported by the unanimous authority of the whole Church, to which he
himself would unquestionably have yielded, if at that time the truth of this
question had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a
plenary Council. For if he quotes Peter as an example for his allowing himself
quietly and peacefully to be corrected by one junior colleague, how much more
readily would he himself, with the Council of his province, have yielded to the
authority of the whole world, when the truth had been thus brought to light?
For, indeed, so holy and peaceful a soul would have been most ready to assent to
the arguments of any single person who could prove to him the truth; and perhaps
he even did so,(2) though we have no knowledge of the fact. For it was neither
possible that all the proceedings which took place between the bishops at that
time should have been committed to writing, nor are we acquainted with all that
was so committed. For how could a matter which was involved in such mists of
disputation even have been brought to the full illumination and authoritative
decision of a plenary Council, had it not first been known to be discussed for
some considerable time in the various districts of the world, with many
discussions and comparisons of tile views of the bishop on every side? But this
is one effect of the soundness of peace, that when any doubtful points are long
under investigation, and when, on account of the difficulty of arriving at the
truth, they produce difference of opinion in the course of brotherly
disputation, till men at last arrive at the unalloyed truth; yet the bond of
unity remains, lest in tile part that is cut away there should be found the
incurable wound of deadly error.
CHAP. 5.--6. And so it is that often something is imperfectly revealed to the
more learned, that their patient and humble charity, from which proceeds the
greater fruit, may be proved, either in the way in which they preserve unity,
when they hold different opinions on matters of comparative obscurity, or in the
temper with which they receive the truth, when they learn that it has been
declared to be contrary to what they thought. i And of these two we have a
manifestation in the blessed Cyprian of the one, viz., of the way in which he
preserved unity with those from whom he differed in opinion. For he says,
'Judging no one nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ
from us."(1) And the other, viz., in what temper he could receive the truth when
found to be different from what he thought it, though his letters are silent on
the point, is yet proclaimed by his merits. If there is no letter extant to
prove it, it is witnessed by his crown of martyrdom; if the Council of bishops
declare it not, it is declared by the host of angels. For it is no small proof
of a most peaceful soul, that he won the crown of martyrdom in that unity from
which he would not separate, even though he differed from it. For we are but
men; and it is therefore a temptation incident to men that we should hold views
at variance with the truth on any point. But to come through too great love for
our own opinion, or through jealousy of our betters, even to the sacrilege of
dividing the communion of the Church, and of rounding heresy or schism, is a
presumption worthy of the devil But never in any point to entertain an opinion
at variance with the truth is perfection found only in the angels. Since then we
are men, yet forasmuch as in hope we are angels, whose equals we shall be in the
resurrections,(2) at any rate, so long as we are wanting in the perfection of
angels, let us at least be without the presumption of the devil. Accordingly the
apostle says, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to
man."(3) It is therefore part of man's nature to be sometimes wrong. Wherefore
he says in another place, "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus
minded: and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this
unto you."(4) But to whom does He reveal it when it is His will (be it in this
life or in the life to come), save to those who walk in the way of peace, and
stray not aside into any schism? Not to such as those who have not known the way
of peace,(5) or for some other cause have broken the bond of unity. And so, when
the apostle said, "And if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal
even this unto you," lest they should think that besides the way of peace their
own wrong views might be revealed to them, he immediately added, "Nevertheless,
whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule."(6) And Cyprian,
walking by this rule, by the most persistent tolerance, not simply by the
shedding of his blood, but because it was shed in unity (for if he gave his body
to be burned, and had not charity, it would profit him nothing(7)), came by the
confession of martyrdom to the light of the angels, and if not before, at least
then, acknowledged the revelation of the truth on that point on which, while yet
in error, he did not prefer the maintenance of a wrong opinion to the bond of
unity.
CHAP. 6.--7. What then, ye Donatists, what have ye to say to this? If our
opinion about baptism is true, yet all who thought differently in the time of
Cyprian were not cut off from the unity of the Church, till God revealed to them
the truth of the point on which they were in error, why then have ye by your
sacrilegious separation broken the bond of peace? But if yours is the true
opinion about baptism, Cyprian and the others, in conjunction with whom ye set
forth that he held such a Council, remained in unity with those who thought
otherwise; why, therefore, have ye broken the bond of peace? Choose which
alternative ye will, ye are compelled to pronounce an opinion against your
schism. Answer me, wherefore have ye separated yourselves? Wherefore have ye
erected an altar in opposition to the whole world? Wherefore do ye not
communicate with the Churches to which apostolic epistles have been sent, which
you yourselves read and acknowledge, in accordance with whose tenor you say that
you order your lives? Answer me, wherefore have ye separated yourselves? I
suppose in order that ye might not perish by communion with wicked men. How then
was it that Cyprian, and so many of his colleagues, did not perish? For though
they believed that heretics and schismatics did not possess baptism, yet they
chose rather to hold communion with them when they had been received into the
Church without baptism, although they believed that their flagrant and
sacrilegious sins were yet upon their heads, than to be separated from the unity
of the Church, according to the words of Cyprian, "Judging no one, nor depriving
any one of the right of communion if he differ from us."
8. If, therefore, by such communion with the wicked the just cannot but perish,
the Church had already perished in the time of Cyprian. Whence then sprang the
origin of Donatus? where was he taught, where was he baptized, where was he
ordained, since the Church had been already destroyed by the contagion of
communion with the wicked? But if the Church still existed, the wicked could do
no harm to the good in one communion with them. Wherefore did ye separate
yourselves? Behold, I see in unity Cyprian and others, his colleagues, who, on
holding a council, decided that those who have been baptized without the
communion of the Church have no true baptism, and that therefore it must be
given them when they join the Church. But again, behold I see in the same unity
that certain men think differently in this matter, and that, recognizing in
those who come from heretics and schismatics the baptism of Christ, they do not
venture to baptize them afresh. All of these catholic unity embraces in her
motherly breast, bearing each other's burdens by turns, and endeavoring to keep
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,(1) till God should reveal to one
or other of them any error in their views. If the one party held the truth, were
they infected by the others, or no? If the others held the truth, were they
infected by the first, or no? Choose which ye will. If there was contamination,
the Church even then ceased to exist; answer me, therefore, whence came ye forth
hither? But if the Church remained, the good are in no wise contaminated by the
bad in such communion; answer me, therefore, why did ye break the bond?
9. Or is it perhaps that schismatics, when received without baptism, bring no
infection, but that it is brought by those who deliver up the sacred books?(2)
For that there were traditors of your number is proved by the clearest testimony
of history. And if you had then brought true evidence against those whom you
were accusing, you would have proved your cause before the unity of the whole
world, so that you would have been retained whilst they were shut out. And if
you endeavored to do this, and did not succeed, the world is not to blame, which
trusted the judges of the Church rather than the beaten parties in the suit;
whilst, if you would not urge your suit, the world again is not to blame, which
could not condemn men without their cause being heard. Why, then, did you
separate yourselves from the innocent? You cannot defend the sacrilege of your
schism. But this I pass over. But so much I say, that if the traditors could
have defiled you, who were not convicted by you, and by whom, on the contrary,
you were beaten, much more could the sacrilege of schismatics and heretics,
received into the Church, as you maintain, without baptism, have defiled
Cyprian. Yet he did not separate himself. And inasmuch as the Church continued
to exist, it is clear that it could not be defiled. Wherefore, then, did you
separate yourselves, I do not say from the innocent, as the facts proved them,
but from the traditors, as they were never proved to be? Are the sins of
traditors, as I began to say, heavier than those of schismatics? Let us not
bring in deceitful balances, to which we may hang what weights we will and how
we will, saying to suit ourselves, "This is heavy and this is light;" but let us
bring forward the sacred balance out of holy Scripture, as out of the Lord's
treasure-house, and let us weigh them by it, to see which is the heavier; or
rather, let us not weigh them for ourselves, but read the weights as declared by
the Lord. At the time when the Lord showed, by the example of recent punishment,
that there was need to guard against the sins of olden days, and an idol was
made and worshipped, and the prophetic book was burned by the wrath of a
scoffing king, and schism was attempted, the idolatry was punished with the
sword,(3) the burning of the book by slaughter in war and captivity in a foreign
land,(4) schism by the earth opening, and swallowing up alive the leaders of the
schism while the rest were consumed with fire from heaven.(5) Who will now doubt
that that was the worse crime which received the heavier punishment? If men
coming from such sacrilegious company, without baptism, as you maintain, could
not defile Cyprian, how could those defile you who were not convicted but
supposed betrayers of the sacred books?(6) For if they had not only given up the
books to be burned, but had actually burned them with their own hands, they
would have been guilty of a less sin than if they had committed schism; for
schism is visited with the heavier, the other with the lighter punishment, not
at man's discretion, but by the judgment of God.
CHAP. 7.--10. Wherefore, then, have ye severed yourselves? If there is any sense
left in you, you must surely see that you can find no possible answer to these
arguments. "We are not left," they say, "so utterly without resource, but that
we can still answer, It is our will. 'Who art thou that judgest another man's
servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.'"(7) They do not understand
that this was said to men who were wishing to judge, not of open facts, but of
the hearts of other men. For how does the apostle himself come to say so much
about the sins of schisms and heresies? Or how comes that verse in the Psalms,
"If of a truth ye love justice, judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?"(1) But why
does the Lord Himself say, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge
righteous judgment,"(2) if we may not judge any man? Lastly, why, in the case of
those traditors, whom they have judged unrighteously, have they themselves
ventured to pass any judgments at all on another man's servants? To their own
master they were standing or falling. Or why, in the case of the recent
followers of Maximianus, have they not hesitated to bring forward the judgment
delivered with the infallible voice, as they aver, of a plenary Council, in such
terms as to compare them with those first schismatics whom the earth swallowed
up alive? And yet some of them, as they cannot deny, they either condemned
though innocent, or received back again in their guilt. But when a truth is
urged which they cannot gainsay, they mutter a truly wholesome murmuring: "It is
our will: 'Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he
standeth or falleth.'" But when a weak sheep is espied in the desert, and the
pastor who should reclaim it to the fold is nowhere to be seen, then there is
setting of teeth, and breaking of the weak neck: "Thou wouldst be a good man,
wert thou not a traditor. Consult the welfare of thy soul; be a Christian." What
unconscionable madness! When it is said to a Christian, "Be a Christian," what
other lesson is taught, save a denial that he is a Christian? Was it not the
same lesson which those persecutors of the Christians wished to teach, by
resisting whom the crown of martyrdom was gained? Or must we even look on crime
as lighter when committed with threatening of the sword than with treachery of
the tongue?
11. Answer me this, ye ravening wolves, who, seeking to be clad in sheep's
clothing,(3) think that the letters of the blessed Cyprian are in your favor.
Did the sacrilege of schismatics defile Cyprian, or did it not? If it did, the
Church perished from that instant, and there remained no source from which ye
might spring. If it did not, then by what offense on the part of others can the
guiltless possibly be defiled, if the sacrilege of schism cannot defile them?
Wherefore, then, have ye severed yourselves? Wherefore, while shunning the
lighter offenses, which are inventions of your own, have ye committed the
heaviest offense of all, the sacrilege of schism? Will ye now perchance confess
that those men were no longer schismatics or heretics who had been baptized
without the communion of the Church, or in some heresy or schism, because by
coming over to the Church, and renouncing their former errors, they had ceased
to be what formerly they were? How then was it, that though they were not
baptized, their sins remained not on their heads? Was it that the baptism was
Christ's, but that it could not profit them without the communion of the Church;
yet when they came over, and, renouncing their past error, were received into
the communion of the Church by the laying on of hands, then, being now rooted
and founded in charity, without which all other things are profitless, they
began to receive profit for the remission of sins and the sanctification of
their lives from that sacrament, which, while without the pale of the Church,
they possessed in vain?
12. Cease, then, to bring forward against us the authority of Cyprian in favor
of repeating baptism, but cling with us to the example of Cyprian for the
preservation of unity. For this question of baptism had not been as yet
completely worked out, but yet the Church observed the most wholesome custom of
correcting what was wrong, not repeating what was already given, even in the
case of schismatics and heretics: she healed the wounded part, but did not
meddle with what was whole. And this custom, coming, I suppose, from apostolical
tradition (like many other things which are held to have been handed down under
their actual sanction, because they are preserved throughout tile whole Church,
though they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils of their
successors),--this most wholesome custom, I say, according to the holy Cyprian,
began to be what is called amended by his predecessor Agrippinus.(4) But,
according to the teaching which springs from a more careful investigation into
the truth, which, after great doubt and fluctuation, was brought at last to the
decision of a plenary Council, we ought to believe that it rather began to be
corrupted than to receive correction at the hands of Agrippinus. Accordingly,
when so great a question forced itself upon him, and it was difficult to decide
tile point, whether remission of sins and man's spiritual regeneration could
take place among heretics or schismatics, and the authority of Agrippinus was
there to guide him, with that of some few men who shared in his misapprehension
of this question, having preferred attempting something new to maintaining a
custom which they did not understand how to defend; under these circumstances
considerations of probability forced themselves into the eyes of his sold, and
barred the way to the thorough investigation of the truth.
CHAP. 8.--13. Nor do I think that the blessed Cyprian had any other motive in
the free expression and earlier utterance of what he thought in opposition to
the custom of the Church, save that he should thankfully receive any one that
could be found with a fuller revelation of the truth, and that he should show
forth a pattern for imitation, not only of diligence in teaching, but also of
modesty in learning; but that, if no one should be found to bring forward any
argument by which those considerations of probability should be refuted, then he
should abide by his opinion, with the full consciousness that he had neither
concealed what he conceived to be the truth, nor violated the unity which he
loved. For so he understood the words of the apostle: "Let the prophets speak
two or three, and let the other judge. If anything be revealed to another that
sitteth by, let the first hold his peace."(1) "In which passage he has taught
and shown, that many things are revealed to individuals for the better, and that
we ought not each to strive pertinaciously for what he has once imbibed and
held, but if anything has appeared better and more useful, he should willingly
embrace it."(2) At any rate, in these words he not only advised those to agree
with him who saw no better course, but also exhorted any who could to bring
forward arguments by which the maintenance of the former custom might rather be
established; that if they should be of such a nature as not to admit of
refutation, he might show in his own person with what sincerity, he said "that
we ought not each to strive pertinaciously for what he has once imbibed and
held, but that, if anything has appeared better and more useful, he should
willingly embrace it."(2) But inasmuch as none appeared, except such as simply
urged the custom against him, and the arguments which they produced in its favor
were not of a kind to bring conviction to a soul like his, this mighty reasoner
was not content to give up his opinions, which, though they were not true, as he
was himself unable to see, were at any rate not confuted, in favor of a custom
which had truth on its side, but had not yet been confirmed. And yet, had not
his predecessor Agrippinus, and some of his fellow-bishops throughout Africa,
first tempted him to desert this custom, even by the decision of a Council, he
certainly would not have dared to argue against it. But, amid the perplexities
of so obscure a question, and seeing everywhere around him a strong universal
custom, he would rather have put restraint upon himself by prayer and stretching
forth his mind towards God, so as to have perceived or taught that for truth
which was afterwards decided by a plenary Council. But when he had found relief
amid his weariness in the authority of the former Council(3) which was held by
Agrippinus, he preferred maintaining what was in a manner the discovery of his
predecessors, to expending further toil in investigation. For, at the end of his
letter to Quintus, he thus shows how he has sought repose, if one may use the
expression, for his weariness, in what might be termed the resting-place of
authority.(4)
CHAP. 9.--14. "This, moreover," says he, "Agrippinus, a man of excellent memory,
with the rest, bishops with him, who at that time governed the Church of the
Lord in the province of Africa and Numidia, did establish and, after the
investigation of a mutual Council had weighed it, confirm; whose sentence, being
both religious and legitimate and salutary in accordance with the Catholic faith
and Church, we also have followed."(5) By this witness he gives sufficient proof
how much more ready he would have been to bear his testimony, had any Council
been held to discuss this matter which either embraced the whole Church, or at
least represented our brethren beyond the sea.(6) But such a Council had not yet
been held, because the whole world was bound together by the powerful bond of
custom; and this was deemed sufficient to oppose to those who wished to
introduce what was new, because they could not comprehend the truth. Afterwards,
however, while the question became matter for discussion and investigation
amongst many on either side, the new practice was not only invented, but even
submitted to the authority and power of a plenary Council,--after the martyrdom
of Cyprian, it is true, but before we were born.(7) But that this was indeed the
custom of the Church, which afterwards was confirmed by a plenary Council, in
which the truth was brought to light, and many difficulties cleared away, is
plain enough from the words of the blessed Cyprian himself in that same letter
to Jubaianus, which was quoted as being read in the Council.(7) For he says,
"But some one asks, What then will be done in the case of those who, coming out
of heresy to the Church, have already been admitted without baptism?" where
certainly he shows plainly enough what was usually done, though he would have
wished it otherwise; and in the very fact of his quoting the Council of
Agrippinus, he clearly proves that the custom of the Church was different. Nor
indeed was it requisite that he should seek to establish the practice by this
Council, if it was already sanctioned by custom; and in the Council itself some
of the speakers expressly declare, in giving their opinion, that they went
against the custom of the Church in deciding what they thought was right.
Wherefore let the Donatists consider this one point, which surely none can fail
to see, that if the authority of Cyprian is to be followed, it is to be followed
rather in maintaining unity than in altering the custom of the Church; but if
respect is paid to his Council, it must at any rate yield place to the later
Council of the universal Church, of which he rejoiced to be a member, often
warning his associates that they should all follow his example in upholding the
coherence of the whole body. For both later Councils are preferred among later
generations to those of earlier date; and the whole is always, with good reason,
looked upon as superior to the parts.
CHAP. 10.--15. But what attitude do they assume, when it is shown that the holy
Cyprian, though he did not himself admit as members of the Church those who had
been baptized in heresy or schism, yet held communion with those who did admit
them, according to his express declaration, "Judging no one, nor depriving any
one of the right of communion if he differ from us?"(2) If he was polluted by
communion with persons of this kind, why do they follow his authority in the
question of baptism? But if he was not polluted by communion with them, why do
they not follow his example in maintaining unity? Have they anything to urge in
their defense except the plea, "We choose to have it so?" What other answer have
any sinful or wicked men to the discourse of truth or justice,--the voluptuous,
for instance, the drunkards, adulterers, and those who are impure in any way,
thieves, robbers, murderers, plunderers, evil-doers, idolaters,--what other
answer can they make when convicted by the voice of truth, except "I choose to
do it;" "It is my pleasure so"? And if they have in them a tinge of
Christianity, they say further, "Who art thou that judgest another man's
servant?"(3) Yet these have so much more remains of modesty, that when, in
accordance with divine and human law, they meet with punishment for their
abandoned life and deeds, they do not style themselves martyrs; while the
Donatists wish at once to lead a sacrilegious life and enjoy a blameless
reputation, to suffer no punishment for their wicked deeds, and to gain a
martyr's glory in their just punishment. As if they were not experiencing the
greater mercy and patience of God, in proportion as "executing His judgments
upon them by little and little, He giveth them place of repentance,"(4) and
ceases not to redouble His scourgings in this life; that, considering what they
suffer, and why they suffer it, they may in time grow wise; and that those who
have received the baptism of the party of Maximianus in order to preserve the
unity of Donatus, may the more readily embrace the baptism of the whole world in
order to preserve the peace of Christ; that they may be restored to the root,
may be reconciled to the unity of the Church, may see that they have nothing
left for them to say, though something yet remains for them to do; that for
their former deeds the sacrifice of loving-kindness may be offered to a
long-suffering God, whose unity they have broken by their wicked sin, on whose
sacraments they have inflicted such a lasting wrong. For "the Lord is merciful
and gracious, slow to anger, plenteous in mercy and truth."(5) Let them embrace
His mercy and long-suffering in this life, and fear His truth in the next. For
He willeth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his
way and live;(6) because He bends His judgment against the wrongs that have been
inflicted on Him. This is our exhortation.
CHAP. 11.--16. For this reason, then, we hold them to be enemies, because we
speak the truth, because we are afraid to be silent, because we fear to shrink
from pressing our point with all the force that lies within our power, because
we obey the apostle when he says, "Preach the word; be instant in season out of
season; reprove, rebuke, exhort."(1) But, as the gospel says, "They love the
praise of men more than the praise of God;" and while they fear to incur blame
for a time. they do not fear to incur damnation for ever. They see, too,
themselves what wrong they are doing; they see that they have no answer which
they can make, but they overspread the inexperienced with mists, whilst they
themselves are being swallowed up alive,--that is, are perishing knowingly and
willfully. They see that men are amazed, and look with abhorrence on the fact
that they have divided themselves into many schisms, especially in Carthage,(3)
the capital and most noted city of all Africa; they have endeavored to patch up
the disgrace of their rags. Thinking that they could annihilate the followers of
Maximianus, they pressed heavily on them through the agency of Optatus the
Gildonian;(4) they inflicted on them many wrongs amid the cruellest of
persecutions. Then they received back some, thinking that all could be converted
under the influence of the same terror; but they were unwilling to do those whom
they received the wrong of baptizing afresh those who had been baptized by them
in their schism, or rather of causing them to be baptized again within their
communion by the very same men by whom they had been baptized outside, and thus
they at once made an exception to their own impious custom. They feel how
wickedly they are acting in assailing the baptism of the whole world, when they
have received the baptism of the followers of Maximianus. But they fear those
whom they have themselves rebaptized, lest they should receive no mercy from
them, when they have shown it to others; lest these should call them to account
for their souls when they have ceased to destroy those of other men.
CHAP. 12.--17. What answer they can give about the followers of Maximianus whom
they have received, they cannot divine. If they say, "Those we received were
innocent," the answer is obvious, "Then you had condemned the innocent." If they
say, did it in ignorance," then you judged rashly (just as you passed a rash
judgment on the traditors), and your declaration was false that "you must know
that they were condemned by the truthful voice of a plenary Council."(5) For
indeed the innocent could never be condemned by a voice of truth. If they say,
"We did not condemn them," it is only necessary to cite the Council, to cite the
names of bishops and states alike. If they say, "The Council itself is none of
ours," then we cite the records of the proconsular province, where more than
once they quoted the same Council to justify the exclusion of the followers of
Maximianus from the basilicas, and to confound them by the din of the judges and
the force of their allies. If they say that Felicianus of Musti, and
Praetextatus of Assavae, whom they afterwards received, were not of the party of
Maximianus, then we cite the records in which they demanded, in the courts of
law, that these persons should be excluded from the Council which they held
against the party of Maximianus. If they say, "They were received for the sake
peace," our answer is, "Why then do ye not acknowledge the only true and full
peace? Who urged you, who compelled you to receive a schismatic whom you had
condemned, to preserve the peace of Donatus, and to condemn the world unheard,
in violation of the peace of Christ?" Truth hems them in on every side. They see
that there is no answer left for them to make, and they think that there is
nothing left for them to do; they cannot find out what to say. They are not
allowed to be silent. They had rather strive with perverse utterance against
truth, than be restored to peace by a confession of their faults.
CHAP. 13.--18. But who can fail to understand what they may be saying in their
hearts? "What then are we to do," say they, "with those whom we have already
rebaptized?" Return with them to the Church. Bring those whom you have wounded
to be healed by the medicine of peace: bring those whom you have slain to be
brought to life again by the life of charity. Brotherly union has great power in
propitiating God. "If two of you," says our Lord, "shall agree on earth as
touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them."(6) If for two
men who agree, how much more for two communities? Let us throw ourselves
together on our knees before the Lord Do you share with us our unity; let us
share with you your contrition and let charity cover the multitude of sins. Seek
counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend
upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the
communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those
who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he
was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they
might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon.
For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as
follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, 'What then will become of those who,
in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?'
The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts
of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in
the Church fallen asleep."(2)
CHAP. 14.--19. But which is the worse, not to be baptized at all, or to be twice
baptized, it is difficult to decide. I see, indeed, which is more repugnant and
abhorrent to men's feelings; but when I have recourse to that divine balance, in
which the weight of things is determined, not by man's feelings, but by the
authority of God, I find a statement by our Lord on either side. For He said to
Peter, "He who is washed has no need of washing a second time;"(3) and to
Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God."(4) What is the purport of the more secret
determination of God, it is perhaps difficult for men like us to learn; but as
far as the mere words are concerned, any one may see what a difference there is
between "has no need of washing," and "cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."
The Church, lastly, herself holds as her tradition, that without baptism she
cannot admit a man to her altar at all; but since it is allowed that one who has
been rebaptized may be admitted after penance, surely this plainly proves that
his baptism is considered valid. If, therefore, Cyprian thought that those whom
he considered to be unbaptized yet had some share in pardon, in virtue of the
bond of unity, the Lord has power to be reconciled even to the rebaptized by
means of the simple bond of unity and peace, and by this same compensating power
of peace to mitigate His displeasure against those by whom they were rebaptized,
and to pardon all the errors which they had committed while in error, on their
offering the sacrifice of charity, which covereth the multitude of sins; so that
He looks not to the number of those who have been wounded by their separation,
but to the greater number who have been delivered from bondage by their return.
For in the same bond of peace in which Cyprian conceived that, through the mercy
of God, those whom he considered to have been admitted to the Church without
baptism, were yet not severed from the gifts of the Church, we also believe that
through the same mercy of God the rebaptized can earn their pardon at His hands.
CHAP. 15.--20. Since the Catholic Church, both in the time of the blessed
Cyprian and in the older time before him, contained within her bosom either some
that were rebaptized or some that were unbaptized, either the one section or the
other must have won their salvation only by the force of simple unity. For if
those who came over from the heretics were not baptized, as Cyprian asserts,
they were not rightly admitted into the Church; and yet he himself did not
despair of their obtaining pardon from the mercy of God in virtue of the unity
of the Church. So again, if they were already baptized, it was not right to
rebaptize them. What, therefore, was there to aid the other section, save the
same charity that delighted in unity, so that what was hidden from man's
weakness, in the consideration of the sacrament, might not be reckoned, by the
mercy of God, as a fault in those who we're lovers of peace? Why, then, while ye
fear those whom ye have rebaptized, do ye grudge yourselves and them the
entrance to salvation? There was at one time a doubt upon the subject of
baptism; those who held different opinions yet remained in unity. In course of
time, owing to the certain discovery of the truth, that doubt was taken away.
The question which, unsolved, did not frighten Cyprian into separation from the
Church, invites you, now that it is solved, to return once more within the fold.
Come to the Catholic Church in its agreement, which Cyprian did not desert while
yet disturbed with doubt; or if now you are dissatisfied with the example of
Cyprian, who held communion with those who were received with the baptism of
heretics, declaring openly that we should "neither judge any one, nor deprive
any one of the right of communion if he differ from us,"(5) whither are ye
going, ye wretched men? What are ye doing? You are bound to fly even from
yourselves, because you have advanced beyond the position where he abode. But if
neither his own sins nor those of others could stand in his way, on account of
the abundance of his charity and his love of brotherly kindness and the bond of
peace, do you return to us, where you will find much less hindrance in the way
of either us or you from the fictions which your party have invented.
(courtesy
of http://www.synaxis.org)