{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45843/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45843","id":"gutenberg_45843","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45843","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Donatists","Donatists -- Controversial literature"],"text":"NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS\n\nEDINBURGH, _April 1872_.\n\nMessrs. Clark have much pleasure in publishing the Second Issue of\nthe Works of ST. AUGUSTINE, viz.:--\n\n WRITINGS IN CONNECTION WITH\n THE DONATIST CONTROVERSY.\n\n THE ANTI-PELAGIAN WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTINE,\n Vol. I.\n\nThey thank their Subscribers for the kindness with which this new\nenterprise has been received, and they assure them that no pains\nwill be spared either by Editor or by Publisher to make it worthy\nof success.\n\nThe First Issue of Second Year will be published about OCTOBER,\nand will comprise the First Volume of the LETTERS, and probably\nthe TREATISES against FAUSTUS the MANICH\u00c6AN.\n\nNow that the ANTE-NICENE SERIES is complete, they trust that as\nmany as possible of those who have subscribed to it will extend\ntheir Subscriptions to the WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.\n\nThey take this early opportunity of intimating that they intend to\nfollow this Series with the WORKS OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM, but it is by\nfar too early to make any more definite announcement.\n\nAn early remittance of the Subscription for Second Year of ST.\nAUGUSTINE will greatly oblige.\n\n\n\n THE WORKS\n OF\n AURELIUS AUGUSTINE,\n BISHOP OF HIPPO.\n\n\n _A NEW TRANSLATION._\n\n\n Edited by the\n REV. MARCUS DODS, M.A.\n\n\n VOL. III.\n\n WRITINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE\n DONATIST CONTROVERSY.\n\n\n EDINBURGH:\n T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.\n MDCCCLXXII.\n\n\n\n\n PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,\n FOR\n T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.\n\n LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.\n DUBLIN, JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO.\n NEW YORK, C. SCRIBNER AND CO.\n\n\n\n\n WRITINGS\n IN CONNECTION WITH THE\n DONATIST CONTROVERSY.\n\n\n Translated by the\n\n REV. J. R. KING, M.A.,\n VICAR OF ST. PETER'S IN THE EAST, OXFORD;\n AND LATE FELLOW AND TUTOR OF MERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD.\n\n\n EDINBURGH:\n T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.\n MDCCCLXXII.\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n ON BAPTISM, AGAINST THE DONATISTS.\n\n BOOK I.\n\n PAGE\n\n He proves that baptism can be conferred outside the\n Catholic communion by heretics or schismatics, but\n that it ought not to be received from them; and that\n it is of no avail to any while in a state of heresy or\n schism, 1\n\n BOOK II.\n\n In which Augustine proves that it is to no purpose\n that the Donatists bring forward the authority of\n Cyprian, bishop and martyr, since it is really more\n opposed to them than to the Catholics. For that he\n held that the view of his predecessor Agrippinus, on\n the subject of baptizing heretics in the Catholic\n Church when they join its communion, should only be\n received on condition that peace should be maintained\n with those who entertained the opposite view, and that\n the unity of the Church should never be broken by any\n kind of schism, 31\n\n BOOK III.\n\n Augustine undertakes the refutation of the arguments\n which might be derived from the Epistle of Cyprian to\n Jubaianus, to give colour to the view that the baptism\n of Christ could not be conferred by heretics, 54\n\n BOOK IV.\n\n In which he treats of what follows in the same\n Epistle of Cyprian to Jubaianus, 79\n\n BOOK V.\n\n He examines the last part of the Epistle of Cyprian to\n Jubaianus, together with his Epistle to Quintus, the\n letter of the African Synod to the Numidian bishops,\n and Cyprian's Epistle to Pompeius, 115\n\n BOOK VI.\n\n In which is considered the Council of Carthage, held\n under the authority and presidency of Cyprian, to\n determine the question of the baptism of heretics, 150\n\n BOOK VII.\n\n In which the remaining judgments of the Council of\n Carthage are examined, 195\n\n\n ANSWER TO LETTERS OF PETILIAN.\n\n BOOK I.\n\n Written in the form of a letter addressed to the\n Catholics, in which the first portion of the letter\n which Petilian had written to his adherents is\n examined and refuted, 231\n\n BOOK II.\n\n In which Augustine replies to all the several\n statements in the letter of Petilianus, as though\n disputing with an adversary face to face, 255\n\n BOOK III.\n\n In this Book Augustine refutes the second letter which\n Petilianus wrote to him after having seen the first\n of Augustine's earlier Books. This letter had been\n full of violent language; and Augustine rather shows\n that the arguments of Petilianus had been deficient\n and irrelevant, than brings forward arguments in\n support of his own statements, 405\n\n ON THE CORRECTION OF THE DONATISTS.\n\n A Letter of Augustine to Boniface, who, as we learn\n from Epistle 220, was Tribune, and afterwards Count\n in Africa. In it Augustine shows that the heresy of\n the Donatists has nothing in common with that of\n Arius; and points out the moderation with which it was\n possible to recall the heretics to the communion of\n the Church through awe of the imperial laws. He adds\n remarks concerning the savage conduct of the Donatists\n and Circumcelliones, concluding with a discussion of\n the unpardonable nature of the sin against the Holy\n Ghost, 479\n\n INDEX. 521\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe schism of the Donatists, with which the treatises in the present\nvolume are concerned, arose indirectly out of the persecution under\nDiocletian at the beginning of the fourth century. At that time\nMensurius, bishop of Carthage, and his archdeacon C\u00e6cilianus, had\nendeavoured to check the fanatical spirit in which many of the\nChristians courted martyrdom; and consequently, on the death of\nMensurius in 311, and the elevation of C\u00e6cilianus to the see of\nCarthage in his place, the opposing party, alleging that Felix,\nbishop of Aptunga, by whom C\u00e6cilianus had been consecrated, had been\na _traditor_, and that therefore his consecration was invalid, set\nup against him Majorinus, who was succeeded in 315 by Donatus. The\nparty had by this time gained strength, through the professions that\nthey made of extreme purity in the discipline which they maintained,\nand had gone so far, under the advice of another Donatus, bishop\nof Cas\u00e6 Nigr\u00e6 in Numidia, as to accuse C\u00e6cilianus before the Roman\nEmperor Constantine,--thus setting the first precedent for referring\na spiritual cause to the decision of a civil magistrate. Constantine\naccepted the appeal, and in 313 the matter was laid for decision\nbefore Melchiades, bishop of Rome, and three bishops of the province\nof Gaul. They decided in favour of the validity of the consecration\nof C\u00e6cilianus; and a similar verdict was given by a council held at\nArles, by direction of the Emperor, in the following year. The party of\nMajorinus then appealed to the personal judgment of the Emperor, which\nwas likewise given against them, not without strong expressions of his\nanger at their pertinacity. This was followed by severe laws directed\nagainst their schism; but so far from crushing them, the attack seemed\nonly to increase their enthusiasm and develope their resources. And,\nunder the leadership of Donatus, the successor of Majorinus, their\ninfluence spread widely throughout Africa, and continued to prevail,\nin spite of various efforts at their forcible suppression, during the\nwhole of the fourth century. They especially brought on themselves\nthe vengeance of the civil powers, by the turbulence of certain\nfanatical ascetics who embraced their cause, and who, under the name of\nCircumcelliones, spread terror through the country, seeking martyrdom\nfor themselves, and offering violence to every one who opposed them.[1]\n\nTowards the close of the century, this schism attracted the attention\nof Augustine, then a priest of Hippo Regius in Numidia. The controversy\nseems to have had for him a special attraction, not merely because\nof its intrinsic importance, but also because of the field which it\npresented for his unrivalled powers as a dialectician. These the\nDonatists had recently provoked, by inconsistently receiving back into\ntheir body a deacon of Carthage named Maximianus who had separated\nhimself from them, and by recognising as valid all baptism administered\nby his followers. Hence they naturally shrank from engaging in a\ncontest with an antagonist who was sure to make the most of such a\ndeviation from the very principles on which they based their schism;\nand, on the other hand, Augustine was so firmly convinced that his\nown position was impregnable, that he seems to have thought that if\nhe could only secure a thorough and dispassionate discussion of the\nmatter, the Donatists must necessarily be brought to acknowledge not\nonly their theoretical errors, but also the practical sinfulness of\ntheir separation from the Church. Throughout the controversy, however,\nhe appears to have put out of sight two considerations: first, the\ninfluence of party spirit and prejudice in blinding men to argument;\nand, secondly, the necessity of treating his opponents in a logical\ndiscussion as on an equal footing with himself. The first was in\nsome degree an unavoidable element of disappointment; but Augustine\nmade concession yet more difficult on the part of his opponents, by\nexpecting them to acknowledge his superior position as a member of the\nCatholic Church, whose duty it was to expose the error of their views.\nHe practically begs the very point at issue, by assuming that he,\nand not the Donatists, was in the Catholic communion; and though his\nargument is conducted independently of this premiss, yet it naturally\nrendered them more unwilling to admit its force.\n\nThis dogmatism was of less consequence in the first pamphlet which\nAugustine published on the subject,--his _Alphabetical Psalm_, in which\nhe set forth the history and errors of the Donatists in a popular\nform,--since it was not intended as a controversial treatise, but\nonly as a means of enlightening the less educated as to the Catholic\ntenets on the question in dispute. His next work, written in answer\nto a letter of Donatus of Carthage, in which the latter tried to\nprove that the baptism of Christ existed only in his communion, is\nunfortunately lost; and we can only gather hints as to the further part\nwhich he took in the controversy during the next few years from certain\nof his letters, especially those to the Donatist Bishops Honoratus\nand Crispinus.[2] From the former he claims the admission that the\nexclusiveness of the Donatists proves that they are not the Church of\nChrist; and his letter to the latter contains an invitation to discuss\nthe leading points at issue, which Crispinus seems to have declined.\n\nIn the year 400 he wrote two books _Against the Party of Donatus_,\nwhich are also lost; and about the same time he published his\nrefutation of the letter of Parmenianus in answer to Tichonius, in\nwhich he handles and solves the famous question, whether, while abiding\nin unity in the communion of the same sacraments, the wicked pollute\nthe good by their society.[3]\n\nThen followed his seven books _On Baptism_, included in this volume, in\nwhich he shows the emptiness of the arguments of the Donatists for the\nrepetition of baptism; and proves that so far was Cyprian from being on\ntheir side, that his letters and conduct are of the highest value as\noverthrowing their position, and utterly condemning their separation\nfrom the Church.\n\nNot long after this, Petilianus, bishop of Cirta or Constantina, the\nmost eminent theologian among the Donatist divines, wrote a letter\nto his clergy against the Catholics, of which Augustine managed to\nobtain a copy, though the Donatists used their utmost care to keep\nit from him; and he replied to it in two books, written at different\ntimes,--the first in the year 400, before he was in possession of the\nwhole letter, the remainder in 402. To the first book Petilianus made\nan answer, of which we gather the main tenour from a third book written\nby Augustine in reply to it. It appears to have been full of vehement\nabuse, and to have assumed the question in dispute, that the existence\nof the true Church, and the catholicity of any branch of it, depended\non the purity and orthodoxy of all its ministers; so that the guilt or\nheresy of any minister would invalidate the whole of his ministerial\nacts. Hence he argued that C\u00e6cilianus being the spiritual father of the\nso-called Catholics, and having been a _traditor_, none of them could\npossibly have been lawfully baptized, much less rightfully ordained.\n\nAugustine admits neither of his assumptions; but, leaving the guilt\nor innocence of C\u00e6cilianus as a point which was irrelevant (though\npractically the case against him utterly broke down), he addresses\nhimself to the other point, and argues most conclusively that all\nthe functions of the clergy in celebrating the rites of the Church\nbeing purely ministerial, the efficacy of those rites could in no way\ndepend upon the excellence of the individual minister, but was derived\nentirely from Christ. Hence there was a certainty of the grace bestowed\nthrough the several ordinances, which otherwise there could not\npossibly have been, had their virtue depended on the character of any\nman, in whom even an unblemished reputation might have been the fruit\nof a skilled hypocrisy.\n\nThe third treatise in this volume belongs to a later period, being\na letter written to Bonifacius, the Roman Count of Africa under\nValentinian the Third. He had written to Augustine to consult him\nas to the best means of dealing with the Donatists; and Augustine\nin his reply points out to him his mistake in supposing that the\nDonatists shared in the errors of the Arians, whilst he urges him to\nuse moderation in his coercive measures; though both here and in his\nanswer to Petilianus we find him countenancing the theory that the\nState has a right to interfere in constraining men to keep within the\nChurch. Starting with a forced interpretation of the words, \"_Compel_\nthem to come in,\" in Luke xiv. 23, he enunciates principles of coercion\nwhich, though in him they were subdued and rendered practically of\nlittle moment by the spirit of love which formed so large an element\nin his character, yet found their natural development in the despotic\nintolerance of the Papacy, and the horrors of the Inquisition. It is\nprobable that he was himself in some degree misled by confounding the\nnecessity of repressing the violence of the Circumcelliones, which was\na real offence against the State, with the expediency of enforcing\nspiritual unity by temporal authority.\n\nThe Donatist treatises have met with little attention from individual\neditors. There is a dissertation, _De Aur. Augustino adversario\nDonatistarum_, by Adrien Roux, published at Louvain in 1838;[4] but\nit is believed that no treatises of this series have ever before been\ntranslated into English, nor are they separately edited. They are in\nthemselves a valuable authority for an important scene in the history\nof the Church, and afford a good example both of the strength and the\nweakness of Augustine's writing,--its strength, in the exhaustive way\nin which he tears to pieces his opponent's arguments, and the clearness\nwith which he exposes the fallacies of their reasoning; its weakness,\nin the persistency with which he pursues a point long after its\ndiscussion might fairly have been closed, as though he hardly knew when\nhe had gained the victory; and his tendency to claim, by right of his\nposition, a vantage-ground which did not in reality belong to him till\nthe superiority of his cause was proved.\n\n J. R. KING.\n\n OXFORD, _March 1870_.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Aug. _De Hoer._ c. 69; _Enarr. in Ps._ 132, secs. 3, 6; _C.\nCresc._ iii. 46, 47; _C. Gaudentium_ i. 32.\n\n[2] _Epist._ xlix. li.\n\n[3] Vol. ix p. 34, etc.\n\n[4] The other works bearing on this controversy are mentioned in\nthe exhaustive volume of Ferd. Ribbeck, _Donatus und Augustinus_\n(Elberfeld, 1858).--ED.\n\n\n\n\nTHE SEVEN BOOKS OF AUGUSTINE,\n\nBISHOP OF HIPPO,\n\nON BAPTISM, AGAINST THE DONATISTS.[5]\n\n\n\n\nBOOK FIRST.\n\n HE PROVES THAT BAPTISM CAN BE CONFERRED OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC COMMUNION\n BY HERETICS OR SCHISMATICS, BUT THAT IT OUGHT NOT TO BE RECEIVED FROM\n THEM; AND THAT IT IS OF NO AVAIL TO ANY WHILE IN A STATE OF HERESY OR\n SCHISM.\n\n\nCHAP. I.--1. In the treatise which we wrote against the published\nepistle of Parmenianus to Tichonius, we promised that at some future\ntime we would treat the question of baptism more thoroughly;[6] and\nindeed, even if we had not made this promise, we are not unmindful\nthat this is a debt fairly due from us to the prayers of our brethren.\nWherefore in this treatise we have undertaken, with the help of God,\nnot only to refute the objections which the Donatists have been wont to\nurge against us in this matter, but also to advance what God may enable\nus to say in respect of the authority of the blessed martyr Cyprian,\nwhich they endeavour to use as a prop, to prevent their perversity\nfrom falling before the attacks of truth. And this we propose to do,\nin order that all whose judgment is not blinded by party spirit may\nunderstand that, so far from Cyprian's authority being in their favour,\nit tends directly to their refutation and discomfiture.\n\n2. In the treatise above mentioned, it has already been said that the\ngrace of baptism can be conferred outside the Catholic communion,\njust as it can be also there retained. But no one of the Donatists\nthemselves denies that even apostates retain the grace of baptism;\nfor when they return within the pale of the Church, and are converted\nthrough repentance, it is never given to them a second time, and so\nit is ruled that it never could have been lost. So those, too, who\nin the sacrilege of schism depart from the communion of the Church,\ncertainly retain the grace of baptism, which they received before\ntheir departure, seeing that, in case of their return, it is not again\nconferred on them; whence it is proved, that what they had received\nwhile within the unity of the Church, they could not have lost in their\nseparation. But if it can be retained outside, why may it not also be\ngiven there? If you say, \"It is not rightly given without the pale;\"\nwe answer, \"As it is not rightly retained, and yet is in some sense\nretained, so it is not indeed rightly given, but yet it is given.\" But\nas, by reconciliation to unity, that begins to be profitably possessed\nwhich was possessed to no profit in exclusion from unity, so, by the\nsame reconciliation, that begins to be profitable which without it\nwas given to no profit. Yet it cannot be allowed that it should be\nsaid that that was not given which was given, nor that any one should\nreproach a man with not having given this, while confessing that he\nhad given what he had himself received. For the sacrament of baptism\nis what the person possesses who is baptized; and the sacrament of\nconferring baptism is what he possesses who is ordained. And as the\nbaptized person, if he depart from the unity of the Church, does not\nthereby lose the sacrament of baptism, so also he who is ordained, if\nhe depart from the unity of the Church, does not lose the sacrament\nof conferring baptism. For neither sacrament may be wronged. If a\nsacrament necessarily becomes void in the case of the wicked, both\nmust become void; if it remain valid with the wicked, this must be\nso with both. If, therefore, the baptism be acknowledged which he\ncould not lose who severed himself from the unity of the Church, that\nbaptism must also be acknowledged which was administered by one who by\nhis secession had not lost the sacrament of conferring baptism. For\nas those who return to the Church, if they had been baptized before\ntheir secession, are not rebaptized, so those who return, having been\nordained before their secession, are certainly not ordained again; but\neither they again exercise their former ministry, if the interests of\nthe Church require it, or if they do not exercise it, at any rate they\nretain the sacrament of their ordination; and hence it is, that when\nhands are laid on them,[7] to mark their reconciliation, they are not\nranked with the laity. For Felicianus, when he separated himself from\nthem with Maximianus, was not held by the Donatists themselves to have\nlost either the sacrament of baptism or the sacrament of conferring\nbaptism. For now he is a recognised member of their own body, in\ncompany with those very men whom he baptized while he was separated\nfrom them in the schism of Maximianus. And so others could receive\nfrom them, whilst they still had not joined our society, what they\nthemselves had not lost by severance from our society. And hence it\nis clear that they are guilty of impiety who endeavour to rebaptize\nthose who are in Catholic unity; and we act rightly who do not dare to\nrepudiate God's sacraments, even when administered in schism. For in\nall points in which they think with us, they also are in communion with\nus, and only are severed from us in those points in which they dissent\nfrom us. For contact and disunion are not to be measured by different\nlaws in the case of material or spiritual affinities. For as union of\nbodies arises from continuity of position, so in the agreement of wills\nthere is a kind of contact between souls. If, therefore, a man who has\nsevered himself from unity wishes to do anything different from that\nwhich had been impressed on him while in the state of unity, in this\npoint he does sever himself, and is no longer a part of the united\nwhole; but wherever he desires to conduct himself as is customary\nin the state of unity, in which he himself learned and received the\nlessons which he seeks to follow, in these points he remains a member,\nand is united to the corporate whole.\n\n\nCHAP. II.--3. And so the Donatists in some matters are with us; in\nsome matters have gone out from us. Accordingly, those things wherein\nthey agree with us we forbid them not to do; but in those things in\nwhich they differ from us, we earnestly endeavour that they should come\nand receive them from us, or return and recover them, as the case may\nbe. We do not therefore say to them, \"Abstain from giving baptism,\"\nbut \"Abstain from giving it in schism.\" Nor do we say to those whom\nwe see them on the point of baptizing, \"Do not receive the baptism,\"\nbut \"Do not receive it in schism.\" For if any one were compelled by\nurgent necessity, being unable to find a Catholic from whom to receive\nbaptism, and so, while preserving Catholic peace in his heart, should\nreceive from one without the pale of Catholic unity the sacrament\nwhich he was intending to receive within its pale, this man, should he\nforthwith depart this life, we deem to be none other than a Catholic.\nBut if he should be delivered from the death of the body, on his\nrestoring himself in bodily presence to that Catholic congregation\nfrom which in heart he had never departed, so far from blaming his\nconduct, we should praise it with the greatest truth and confidence;\nbecause he trusted that God was present to his heart, while he was\nstriving to preserve unity, and was unwilling to depart this life\nwithout the sacrament of holy baptism, which he knew to be of God, and\nnot of men, wherever he might find it. But if any one who has it in his\npower to receive baptism within the Catholic Church prefers, from some\nperversity of mind, to be baptized in schism, even if he afterwards\nbethinks himself to come to the Catholic Church, because he is assured\nthat there that sacrament will profit him, which can indeed be received\nbut cannot profit elsewhere, beyond all question he is perverse, and\nguilty of sin, and that the more flagrant in proportion as it was\ncommitted wilfully. For that he entertains no doubt that the sacrament\nis rightly received in the Church, is proved by his conviction that it\nis there that he must look for profit even from what he has received\nelsewhere.\n\n\nCHAP. III.--4. There are two propositions, moreover, which we\naffirm,--that baptism exists in the Catholic Church, and that in it\nalone can it be rightly received,--both of which the Donatists deny.\nLikewise there are two other propositions which we affirm,--that\nbaptism exists among the Donatists, but that with them it is not\nrightly received,--of which two they strenuously confirm the former,\nthat baptism exists with them; but they are unwilling to allow the\nlatter, that in their Church it cannot be rightly received. Of these\nfour propositions, three are peculiar to us; in one we both agree. For\nthat baptism exists in the Catholic Church, that it is rightly received\nthere, and that it is not rightly received among the Donatists, are\nassertions made only by ourselves; but that baptism exists also among\nthe Donatists, is asserted by them and allowed by us. If any one,\ntherefore, is desirous of being baptized, and is already convinced that\nhe ought to choose our Church as a medium for Christian salvation, and\nthat the baptism of Christ is only profitable in it, even when it has\nbeen received elsewhere, but yet wishes to be baptized in the schism\nof Donatus, because not they only, nor we only, but both parties alike\nsay that baptism exists with them, let him pause and look to the other\nthree points. For if he has made up his mind to follow us in the points\nwhich they deny, though he prefers what both of us acknowledge to what\nonly we assert, it is enough for our purpose that he prefers what they\ndo not affirm and we alone assert, to what they alone assert. That\nbaptism exists in the Catholic Church, we assert and they deny. That it\nis rightly received in the Catholic Church, we assert and they deny.\nThat it is not rightly received in the schism of Donatus, we assert\nand they deny. As, therefore, he is the more ready to believe what we\nalone assert should be believed, so let him be the more ready to do\nwhat we alone declare should be done. But let him believe more firmly,\nif he be so disposed, what both parties assert should be believed, than\nwhat we alone maintain. For he is inclined to believe more firmly that\nthe baptism of Christ exists in the schism of Donatus, because that\nis acknowledged by both of us, than that it exists in the Catholic\nChurch, an assertion made alone by the Catholics. But again, he is\nmore ready to believe that the baptism of Christ exists also with\nus, as we alone assert, than that it does not exist with us, as they\nalone assert. For he has already determined and is fully convinced,\nthat where we differ, our authority is to be preferred to theirs. So\nthat he is more ready to believe what we alone assert, that baptism\nis rightly received with us, than that it is not rightly so received,\nsince that rests only on their assertion. And, by the same rule, he\nis more ready to believe what we alone assert, that it is not rightly\nreceived with them, than as they alone assert, that it is rightly so\nreceived. He finds, therefore, that his confidence in being baptized\namong the Donatists is somewhat profitless, seeing that, though we both\nacknowledge that baptism exists with them, yet we do not both declare\nthat it ought to be received from them. But he has made up his mind to\ncling rather to us in matters where we disagree. Let him therefore feel\nconfidence in receiving baptism in our communion, where he is assured\nthat it both exists and is rightly received; and let him not receive it\nin a communion, where those whose opinion he has determined to follow\nacknowledge indeed that it exists, but say that it cannot rightly be\nreceived. Nay, even if he should hold it to be a doubtful question,\nwhether or no it is impossible for that to be rightly received among\nthe Donatists which he is assured can rightly be received in the\nCatholic Church, he would commit a grievous sin, in matters concerning\nthe salvation of his soul, in the mere fact of preferring uncertainty\nto certainty. At any rate, he must be quite sure that a man can be\nrightly baptized in the Catholic Church, from the mere fact that he has\ndetermined to come over to it, even if he be baptized elsewhere. But\nlet him at least acknowledge it to be matter of uncertainty whether a\nman be not improperly baptized among the Donatists, when he finds this\nasserted by those whose opinion he is convinced should be preferred to\ntheirs; and, preferring certainty to uncertainty, let him be baptized\nhere, where he has good grounds for being assured that it is rightly\ndone, in the fact that when he thought of doing it elsewhere, he had\nstill determined that he ought afterwards to come over to this side.\n\n\nCHAP. IV.--5. Further, if any one fails to understand how it can be\nthat we assert that the sacrament is not rightly conferred among the\nDonatists, while we confess that it exists among them, let him observe\nthat we also deny that it exists rightly among them, just as they deny\nthat it exists rightly among those who quit their communion. Let him\nalso consider the analogy of the military mark, which, though it can\nboth be retained, as by deserters, and also be received by those who\nare not in the army, yet ought not to be either received or retained\noutside its ranks; and, at the same time, it is not changed or renewed\nwhen a man is enlisted or brought back to his service. However, we must\ndistinguish between the case of those who unwittingly join the ranks of\nthese heretics, under the impression that they are entering the true\nChurch of Christ, and those who know that there is no other Catholic\nChurch save that which, according to the promise, is spread abroad\nthroughout the whole world, and extends even to the utmost limits of\nthe earth; which, rising amid tares, and seeking rest in the future\nfrom the weariness of offences, says in the Book of Psalms, \"From the\nend of the earth I cried unto Thee, while my heart was in weariness:\nThou didst exalt me on a rock.\"[8] But the rock was Christ, in whom the\napostle says that we are now raised up, and set together in heavenly\nplaces, though not yet actually, but only in hope.[9] And so the psalm\ngoes on to say, \"Thou wast my guide, because Thou art become my hope,\na tower of strength from the face of the enemy.\"[8] By means of His\npromises, which are like spears and javelins stored up in a strongly\nfortified place, the enemy is not only guarded against, but overthrown,\nas he clothes his wolves in sheep's clothing,[10] that they may say,\n\"Lo, here is Christ, or there;\"[11] and that they may separate many\nfrom the Catholic city which is built upon a hill, and bring them down\nto the isolation of their own snares, so as utterly to destroy them.\nAnd these men, knowing this, choose to receive the baptism of Christ\nwithout the limits of the communion of the unity of Christ's body,\nthough they intend afterwards, with the sacrament which they have\nreceived elsewhere, to pass into that very communion. For they propose\nto receive Christ's baptism in antagonism to the Church of Christ, well\nknowing that it is so even on the very day on which they receive it.\nAnd if this is a sin, who is the man that will say, Grant that for a\nsingle day I may commit sin? For if he proposes to pass over to the\nCatholic Church, I would fain ask why. What other answer can he give,\nbut that it is ill to belong to the party of Donatus, and not to the\nunity of the Catholic Church? Just so many days, then, as you commit\nthis ill, of so many days' sin are you going to be guilty. And it may\nbe said that there is greater sin in more days' commission of it, and\nless in fewer; but in no wise can it be said that no sin is committed\nat all. But what is the need of allowing this accursed wrong for a\nsingle day, or a single hour? For the man who wishes this licence to be\ngranted him, might as well ask of the Church, or of God Himself, that\nfor a single day he should be permitted to apostatize. For there is no\nreason why he should fear to be an apostate for a day, if he does not\nshrink from being for that time a schismatic or a heretic.\n\n\nCHAP. V.--6. I prefer, he says, to receive Christ's baptism where both\nparties agree that it exists. But those whom you intend to join say\nthat it cannot be received there rightly; and those who say that it can\nbe received there rightly are the party whom you mean to quit. What\nthey say, therefore, whom you yourself consider of inferior authority,\nin opposition to what those say whom you yourself prefer, is, if\nnot false, at any rate, to use a milder term, at least uncertain. I\nentreat you, therefore, to prefer what is true to what is false, or\nwhat is certain to what is uncertain. For it is not only those whom\nyou are going to join, but you yourself who are going to join them,\nthat confess that what you want can be rightly received in that body\nwhich you mean to join when you have received it elsewhere. For if you\nhad any doubts whether it could be rightly received there, you would\nalso have doubts whether you ought to make the change. If, therefore,\nit is doubtful whether it be not sin to receive baptism from the party\nof Donatus, who can doubt but that it is certain sin not to prefer\nreceiving it where it is certain that it is not sin? And those who are\nbaptized there through ignorance, thinking that it is the true Church\nof Christ, are guilty of less sin in comparison than these, though\neven they are wounded by the impiety of schism; nor do they escape a\ngrievous hurt, because others suffer even more. For when it is said\nto certain men, \"It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in\nthe day of judgment than for you,\"[12] it is not meant that the men of\nSodom shall escape torment, but only that the others shall be even more\ngrievously tormented.\n\n7. And yet this point had once, perhaps, been involved in obscurity and\ndoubt. But that which is a source of health to those who give heed and\nreceive correction, is but an aggravation of the sin of those who, when\nthey are no longer suffered to be ignorant, persist in their madness to\ntheir own destruction. For the condemnation of the party of Maximianus,\nand their restoration after they had been condemned, together with\nthose whom they had sacrilegiously, to use the language of their own\nCouncil,[13] baptized in schism, settles the whole question in dispute,\nand removes all controversy. There is no point at issue between\nourselves and those Donatists who hold communion with Primianus,\nwhich could give rise to any doubt that the baptism of Christ may not\nonly be retained, but even conferred by those who are severed from\nthe Church. For as they themselves are obliged to confess that those\nwhom Felicianus baptized in schism received true baptism, inasmuch as\nthey now acknowledge them as members of their own body with no other\nbaptism than that which they received in schism, so we say that that is\nChrist's baptism, even without the pale of Catholic communion, which\nthey confer who are cut off from that communion, inasmuch as they had\nnot lost it when they were cut off. And what they themselves think that\nthey conferred on those persons whom Felicianus baptized in schism,\nwhen they admitted them to reconciliation with themselves, viz., not\nthat they should receive that which they did not as yet possess, but\nthat what they had received to no advantage in schism, and were already\nin possession of, should be of profit to them, this God really confers\nand bestows through the Catholic communion on those who come from any\nheresy or schism in which they received the baptism of Christ; viz.\nnot that they should begin to receive the sacrament of baptism as not\npossessing it before, but that what they already possessed should now\nbegin to profit them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VI.--8. Between us, then, and what we may call the genuine[14]\nDonatists, whose bishop is Primianus at Carthage, there is now no\ncontroversy on this point. For God willed that it should be ended by\nmeans of the followers of Maximianus, that they should be compelled\nby the precedent of his case to acknowledge what they would not\nallow at the persuasion of Christian charity. But this brings us to\nconsider next, whether those men do not seem to have something to say\nfor themselves, who refuse communion with the party of Primianus,\ncontending that in their body there remains greater sincerity of\nDonatism, just in proportion to the paucity of their numbers. And even\nif these were only the party of Maximianus, we should not be justified\nin despising their salvation. How much more, then, are we bound to\nconsider it, when we find that this same party of Donatus is split up\ninto many most minute fractions, all which small sections of the body\nblame the one much larger portion which has Primianus for its head,\nbecause they receive the baptism of the followers of Maximianus; while\neach endeavours to maintain that it is the sole receptacle of true\nbaptism, which exists nowhere else, neither in the whole of the world\nwhere the Catholic Church extends itself, nor in that larger main body\nof the Donatists, nor even in the other minute sections, but only in\nitself. Whereas, if all these fragments would listen not to the voice\nof man, but to the most unmistakeable manifestation of the truth, and\nwould be willing to curb the fiery temper of their own perversity, they\nwould return from their own barrenness, not indeed to the main body of\nDonatus, a mere fragment of which they are a smaller fragment, but to\nthe never-failing fruitfulness of the root of the Catholic Church. For\nall of them who are not against us are for us; but when they gather not\nwith us, they scatter abroad.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VII.--9. For, in the next place, that I may not seem to rest\non mere human arguments,--since there is so much obscurity in this\nquestion, that in earlier ages of the Church, before the schism of\nDonatus, it has caused men of great weight, and even bishops whose\nhearts were full of charity, so to dispute and doubt among themselves,\nsaving always the peace of the Church, that the several statutes of\ntheir Councils in their different districts long varied from each\nother, till at length the most wholesome opinion was established,\nto the removal of all doubts, by a general Council of the whole\nworld:[15]--I therefore bring forward from the gospel clear proofs,\nby which I propose, with God's help, to prove how rightly and truly\nin the sight of God it has been determined, that in the case of every\nschismatic and heretic, the wound which caused his separation should\nbe cured by the medicine of the Church; but that what remained sound\nin him should rather be recognised with approbation, than wounded by\ncondemnation. It is indeed true that the Lord says in the gospel, \"He\nthat is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me\nscattereth abroad.\"[16] Yet when the disciples had brought word to\nHim that they had seen one casting out devils in His name, and had\nforbidden him, because he followed not them, He said, \"Forbid him not:\nfor he that is not against us is for us. For there is no man which\nshall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.\"[17]\nIf, indeed, there were nothing in this man requiring correction, then\nany one would be safe, who, setting himself outside the communion of\nthe Church, severing himself from all Christian brotherhood, should\ngather in Christ's name; and so there would be no truth in this, \"He\nthat is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me\nscattereth abroad.\" But if he required correction in the point where\nthe disciples in their ignorance were anxious to check him, why did our\nLord, by saying, \"Forbid him not,\" prevent this check from being given?\nAnd how can that be true which He then says, \"He that is not against\nyou is for you?\" For in this point he was not against, but for them,\nwhen he was working miracles of healing in Christ's name. That both,\ntherefore, should be true, as both are true,--both the declaration,\nthat \"he that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not\nwith me scattereth abroad;\" and also the injunction, \"Forbid him not;\nfor he that is not against you is for you,\"--what must we understand,\nexcept that the man was to be confirmed in his veneration for that\nmighty Name, in respect of which he was not against the Church, but for\nit; and yet he was to be blamed for separating himself from the Church,\nwhereby his gathering became a scattering; and if it should have so\nhappened that he sought union with the Church, he should not have\nreceived what he already possessed, but be made to set right the points\nwherein he had gone astray?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VIII.--10. Nor indeed were the prayers of the Gentile Cornelius\nunheard, nor did his alms lack acceptance; nay, he was found worthy\nthat an angel should be sent to him, and that he should behold the\nmessenger, through whom he might assuredly have learned everything\nthat was necessary, without requiring that any man should come to\nhim. But since all the good that he had in his prayers and alms could\nnot benefit him unless he were incorporated in the Church by the\nbond of Christian brotherhood and peace, he was ordered to send to\nPeter, and through him learned Christ; and, being also baptized by\nhis orders, he was joined by the tie of communion to the fellowship\nof Christians, to which before he was bound only by the likeness of\ngood works.[18] And indeed it would have been most fatal to despise\nwhat he did not yet possess, vaunting himself in what he had. So\ntoo those who, by separating themselves from the society of their\nfellows, to the overthrow of charity, thus break the bond of unity,\nif they observe none of the things which they have received in that\nsociety, are separated in everything; and so any one whom they have\njoined to their society, if he afterwards wish to come over to the\nChurch, ought to receive everything which he has not already received.\nBut if they observe some of the same things, in respect of these\nthey have not severed themselves; and so far they are still a part\nof the framework of the Church, while in all other respects they are\ncut off from it. Accordingly, any one whom they have associated with\nthemselves is united to the Church in all those points in which they\nare not separated from it. And therefore, if he wish to come over to\nthe Church, he is made sound in those points in which he was unsound\nand went astray; but where he was sound in union with the Church, he\nis not cured, but recognised,--lest in desiring to cure what is sound\nwe should rather inflict a wound. Therefore those whom they baptize\nthey heal from the wound of idolatry or unbelief; but they injure them\nmore seriously with the wound of schism. For idolaters among the people\nof the Lord were smitten with the sword;[19] but schismatics were\nswallowed up by the earth opening her mouth.[20] And the apostle says,\n\"Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have\nnot charity, I am nothing.\"[21]\n\n11. If any one is brought to the surgeon, afflicted with a grievous\nwound in some vital part of the body, and the surgeon says that unless\nit is cured it must cause death, the friends who brought him do not, I\npresume, act so foolishly as to count over to the surgeon all his sound\nlimbs, and, drawing his attention to them, make answer to him, \"Can it\nbe that all these sound limbs are of no avail to save his life, and\nthat one wounded limb is enough to cause his death?\" They certainly do\nnot say this, but they entrust him to the surgeon to be cured. Nor,\nagain, because they so entrust him, do they ask the surgeon to cure\nthe limbs that are sound as well; but they desire him to apply drugs\nwith all care to the one part from which death is threatening the\nother sound parts too, with the certainty that it must come, unless\nthe wound be healed. What will it then profit a man that he has sound\nfaith, or perhaps only soundness in the sacrament of faith, when\nthe soundness of his charity is done away with by the fatal wound of\nschism, so that by the overthrow of it the other points, which were in\nthemselves sound, are brought into the infection of death? To prevent\nwhich, the mercy of God, through the unity of His holy Church, does\nnot cease striving that they may come and be healed by the medicine of\nreconciliation, through the bond of peace. And let them not think that\nthey are sound because we admit that they have something sound in them;\nnor let them think, on the other hand, that what is sound must needs be\nhealed, because we show that in some parts there is a wound. So that in\nthe soundness of the sacrament, because they are not against us, they\nare for us; but in the wound of schism, because they gather not with\nChrist, they scatter abroad. Let them not be exalted by what they have.\nWhy do they pass the eyes of pride over those parts only which are\nsound? Let them condescend also to look humbly on their wound, and give\nheed not only to what they have, but also to what is wanting in them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IX.--12. Let them see how many things, and what important things,\nare of no avail, if a certain single thing be wanting, and let them\nsee what that one thing is. And herein let them hear not my words,\nbut those of the apostle: \"Though I speak with the tongues of men and\nof angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a\ntinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand\nall mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that\nI could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.\"[22] What\ndoes it profit them, therefore, if they have both the voice of angels\nin the sacred mysteries, and the gift of prophecy, as had Caiaphas[23]\nand Saul,[24] that so they may be found prophesying, of whom Holy\nScripture testifies that they were worthy of condemnation? If they not\nonly know, but even possess the sacraments, as Simon Magus did;[25]\nif they have faith, as the devils confessed Christ (for we must not\nsuppose that they did not believe when they said, \"What have we to do\nwith Thee? I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God\"[26]); if they\ndistribute of themselves their own substance to the poor, as many do,\nnot only in the Catholic Church, but in the different heretical bodies;\nif, under the pressure of any persecution, they give their bodies with\nus to be burned for the faith which they like us confess: yet because\nthey do all these things apart from the Church, not \"forbearing one\nanother in love,\" nor \"endeavouring to keep the unity of the spirit in\nthe bond of peace,\"[27] insomuch as they have not charity, they cannot\nattain to eternal salvation, even with all those good things which\nprofit them not.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. X.--13. But they think within themselves that they show very\ngreat subtlety in asking whether the baptism of Christ in the party of\nDonatus makes men sons or not; so that, if we allow that it does make\nthem sons, they may assert that theirs is the Church, the mother which\ncould give birth to sons in the baptism of Christ; and since the Church\nmust be one, they may allege that ours is no Church. But if we say that\nit does not make them sons, \"Why then,\" say they, \"do you not cause\nthose who pass from us to you to be born again in baptism, after they\nhave been baptized with us, if they are not thereby born as yet?\"\n\n14. Just as though their party gained the power of generation in virtue\nof what constitutes its division, and not from what causes its union\nwith the Church. For it is severed from the bond of peace and charity,\nbut it is joined in one baptism. And so there is one Church which\nalone is called Catholic; and whenever it has anything of its own in\nthese communions of different bodies which are separate from itself,\nit is most certainly in virtue of this which is its own in each of\nthem that it, not they, has the power of generation. For neither is\nit their separation that generates, but what they have retained of\nthe essence of the Church; and if they were to go on to abandon this,\nthey would lose the power of generation. The generation, then, in each\ncase proceeds from the Church, whose sacraments are retained, from\nwhich any such birth can alone in any case proceed,--although not all\nwho receive its birth belong to its unity, which shall save those who\npersevere even to the end. Nor is it those only that do not belong to\nit who are openly guilty of the manifest sacrilege of schism, but also\nthose who, being outwardly joined to its unity, are yet separated by\na life of sin. For the Church had herself given birth to Simon Magus\nthrough the sacrament of baptism; and yet it was declared to him that\nhe had no part in the inheritance of Christ.[28] Did he lack anything\nin respect of baptism, of the gospel, of the sacraments? But in that\nhe wanted charity, he was born in vain; and perhaps it had been well\nfor him that he had never been born at all. Was anything wanting to\ntheir birth to whom the apostle says, \"I have fed you with milk, and\nnot with meat, even as babes in Christ?\" Yet he recalls them from the\nsacrilege of schism, into which they were rushing, because they were\ncarnal: \"I have fed you,\" he says, \"with milk, and not with meat: for\nhitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet are ye able. For ye\nare yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and\ndivisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I\nam of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?\"[29] For\nof these he says above: \"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of\nour Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there\nbe no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together\nin the same mind, and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared\nunto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chl\u00f6e,\nthat there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one\nof you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I\nof Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye\nbaptized in the name of Paul?\"[30] These, therefore, if they continued\nin the same perverse obstinacy, were doubtless indeed born, but yet\nwould not belong by the bond of peace and unity to the very Church in\nrespect of which they were born. Therefore she herself bears them in\nher own womb, and in the womb of her handmaids, by virtue of the same\nsacraments, as though by virtue of the seed of her husband. For it is\nnot without meaning that the apostle says that all these things were\ndone by way of figure.[31] But those who are too proud, and are not\njoined to their lawful mother, are like Ishmael, of whom it is said,\n\"Cast out this bond-woman and her son: for the son of the bond-woman\nshall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.\"[32] But those who\npeacefully love the lawful wife of their father, whose sons they are by\nlawful descent, are like the sons of Jacob, born indeed of handmaids,\nbut yet receiving the same inheritance.[33] But those who are born\nwithin the family, of the womb of the mother herself, and then neglect\nwhat they have received, are like Isaac's son Esau, who was rejected,\nGod Himself bearing witness to it, and saying, \"I loved Jacob, and I\nhated Esau;\"[34] and that though they were twin-brethren, the offspring\nof the same womb.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XI.--15. They ask also, \"Whether sins are remitted in baptism in\nthe party of Donatus:\" so that, if we say that they are remitted, they\nmay answer, then the Holy Spirit is there; for when by the breathing\nof our Lord the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples, He then went\non to say, \"Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the\nSon, and of the Holy Ghost.\"[35] \"Whose soever sins ye remit, they\nare remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are\nretained.\"[36] And if it is so, they say, then our communion is the\nChurch of Christ; for the Holy Spirit does not work the remission\nof sins except in the Church. And if our communion is the Church of\nChrist, then your communion is not the Church of Christ. For that is\none, wherever it is, of which it is said, \"My dove is but one; she is\nthe only one of her mother;\"[37] nor can there be just so many churches\nas there are schisms. But if we should say that sins are not there\nremitted, then, say they, there is no true baptism there; and therefore\nought you to baptize those whom you receive from us. And since you do\nnot do this, you confess that you are not in the Church of Christ.\n\n16. To these we reply, following the Scriptures, by asking them to\nanswer themselves what they ask of us. For I beg them to tell us\nwhether there is any remission of sins where there is not charity;\nfor sins are the darkness of the soul. For we find St. John saying,\n\"He that hateth his brother is in darkness.\"[38] But none would\ncreate schisms, if they were not blinded by hatred of their brethren.\nIf, therefore, we say that sins are not remitted there, how is he\nregenerate who is baptized among them? And what is regeneration in\nbaptism, except the being renovated from the corruption of the old man?\nAnd how can he be so renovated whose past sins are not remitted? But\nif he be not regenerate, neither does he put on Christ; from which it\nseems to follow that he ought to be baptized again. For the apostle\nsays, \"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on\nChrist;\"[39] and if he has not so put on Christ, neither should he be\nconsidered to have been baptized in Christ. Further, since we say that\nhe has been baptized in Christ, we confess that he has put on Christ;\nand if we confess this, we confess that he is regenerate. And if this\nbe so, how does St. John say, \"He that hateth his brother remaineth\nstill in darkness,\" if remission of his sins has already taken place?\nCan it be that schism does not involve hatred of one's brethren? Who\nwill maintain this, when both the origin of, and perseverance in schism\nconsists in nothing else save hatred of the brethren?\n\n17. They think that they solve this question when they say: \"There\nis then no remission of sins in schism, and therefore no creation of\nthe new man by regeneration, and accordingly neither is there the\nbaptism of Christ.\" But since we confess that the baptism of Christ\nexists in schism, we propose this question to them for solution: Was\nSimon Magus endued with the true baptism of Christ? They will answer,\nYes; being compelled to do so by the authority of holy Scripture. I\nask them whether they confess that he received remission of his sins.\nThey will certainly acknowledge it. So I ask why Peter said to him\nthat he had no part in the lot of the saints. Because, they say, he\nsinned afterwards, wishing to buy with money the gift of God, which he\nbelieved the apostles were able to sell.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XII.--18. What if he approached baptism itself in deceit? were\nhis sins remitted, or were they not? Let them choose which they will.\nWhichever they choose will answer our purpose. If they say they\nwere remitted, how then shall \"the Holy Spirit of discipline flee\ndeceit,\"[40] if in him who was full of deceit He worked remission\nof sins? If they say they were not remitted, I ask whether, if he\nshould afterwards confess his sin with contrition of heart and true\nsorrow, it would be judged that he ought to be baptized again. And\nif it is mere madness to assert this, then let them confess that a\nman can be baptized with the true baptism of Christ, and that yet his\nheart, persisting in malice or sacrilege, may not allow remission of\nsins to be given; and so let them understand that men may be baptized\nin communions severed from the Church, in which Christ's baptism is\ngiven and received in the said celebration of the sacrament, but that\nit will only then be of avail for the remission of sins, when the\nrecipient, being reconciled to the unity of the Church, is purged from\nthe sacrilege of deceit, by which his sins were retained, and their\nremission prevented. For, as in the case of him who had approached\nthe sacrament in deceit there is no second baptism, but he is purged\nby faithful discipline and truthful confession, which he could not be\nwithout baptism, so that what was given before becomes then powerful\nto work his salvation, when the former deceit is done away by the\ntruthful confession; so also in the case of the man who, while an enemy\nto the peace and love of Christ, received in any heresy or schism the\nbaptism of Christ, which the schismatics in question had not lost from\namong them, though by his sacrilege his sins were not remitted, yet,\nwhen he corrects his error, and comes over to the communion and unity\nof the Church, he ought not to be again baptized: because by his very\nreconciliation to the peace of the Church he receives this benefit,\nthat the sacrament now begins in unity to be of avail for the remission\nof his sins, which could not so avail him as received in schism.\n\n19. But if they should say that in the man who has approached the\nsacrament in deceit, his sins are indeed removed by the holy power of\nso great a sacrament at the moment when he received it, but return\nimmediately in consequence of his deceit: so that the Holy Spirit\nhas both been present with him at his baptism for the removal of his\nsins, and has also fled before his perseverance in deceit so that they\nshould return: so that both declarations prove true,--both, \"As many of\nyou as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;\" and also,\n\"The holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit;\"--that is to say,\nthat both the holiness of baptism clothes him with Christ, and the\nsinfulness of deceit strips him of Christ; like the case of a man who\npasses from darkness through light into darkness again, his eyes being\nalways directed towards darkness, though the light cannot but penetrate\nthem as he passes;--if they should say this, let them understand that\nthis is also the case with those who are baptized without the pale of\nthe Church, but yet with the baptism of the Church, which is holy in\nitself, wherever it may be; and which therefore belongs not to those\nwho separate themselves, but to the body from which they are separated;\nwhile yet it avails even among them so far, that they pass through its\nlight back to their own darkness, their sins, which in that moment had\nbeen dispelled by the holiness of baptism, returning immediately upon\nthem, as though it were the darkness returning which the light had\ndispelled while they were passing through it.\n\n20. For that sins which have been remitted do return upon a man, is\nmost clearly taught by our Lord, in the case of the servant whom He\nfound owing Him ten thousand talents, and to whom He yet forgave all at\nhis entreaty. But when he refused to have pity on his fellow-servant\nwho owed him a hundred pence, the Lord commanded him to pay what He\nhad forgiven him. The time, then, at which pardon is received through\nbaptism is as it were the time for rendering accounts, so that all\nthe debts which are found to be due may be remitted. Yet it was not\nafterwards that the servant lent his fellow-servant the money, which\nhe had so pitilessly exacted when the other was unable to pay it; but\nhis fellow-servant already owed him the debt, when he himself, on\nrendering his accounts to his master, was excused a debt of so vast\nan amount. He had not first excused his fellow-servant, and so come\nto receive forgiveness from his Lord. This is proved by the words of\nthe fellow-servant: \"Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.\"\nOtherwise he would have said, \"You forgave me it before; why do you\nagain demand it?\" This is made more clear by the words of the Lord\nHimself. For He says, \"But the same servant went out, and found one\nof his fellow-servants which was owing[41] him a hundred pence.\"[42]\nHe does not say, \"To whom he had already forgiven a debt of a hundred\npence.\" Since then He says, \"was owing him,\" it is clear that he had\nnot forgiven him the debt. And indeed, it would have been better, and\nmore in accordance with the position of a man who was going to render\nan account of so great a debt, and expected forbearance from his lord,\nthat he should first have forgiven his fellow-servant what was due to\nhim, and so have come to render the account when there was such need\nfor imploring the compassion of his lord. Yet the fact that he had\nnot yet forgiven his fellow-servant, did not prevent his lord from\nforgiving him all his debts on the occasion of receiving his accounts.\nBut what advantage was it to him, since they all immediately returned\nwith redoubled force upon his head, in consequence of his persistent\nwant of charity? So the grace of baptism is not prevented from giving\nremission of all sins, even if he to whom they are forgiven continues\nto cherish hatred towards his brother in his heart. For the guilt\nof yesterday is remitted, and all that was before it, nay, even the\nguilt of the very hour and moment previous to baptism, and during\nbaptism itself. But then he immediately begins again to be responsible,\nnot only for the days, hours, moments which ensue, but also for the\npast,--the guilt of all the sins which were remitted returning on him,\nas happens only too frequently in the Church.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIII.--21. For it often happens that a man has an enemy whom\nhe hates most unjustly; although we are commanded to love even our\nunjust enemies, and to pray for them. But in some sudden danger of\ndeath he begins to be uneasy, and desires baptism, which he receives\nin such haste, that the emergency scarcely admits of the necessary\nformal examination of a few words, much less of a long conversation,\nso that this hatred should be driven from his heart, even supposing\nit to be known to the minister who baptizes him. Certainly cases of\nthis sort are still found to occur not only with us, but also with\nthem. What shall we say then? Are this man's sins forgiven or not?\nLet them choose just which alternative they prefer. For if they are\nforgiven, they immediately return: this is the teaching of the gospel,\nthe authoritative announcement of truth. Whether, therefore, they are\nforgiven or not, medicine is necessary afterwards; and yet if the man\nlives, and learns that his fault stands in need of correction, and\ncorrects it, he is not baptized anew, either with them or with us.\nSo in the points in which schismatics and heretics neither entertain\ndifferent opinions nor observe different practice from ourselves, we\ndo not correct them when they join us, but rather commend what we find\nin them. For where they do not differ from us, they are not separated\nfrom us. But because these things do them no good so long as they are\nschismatics or heretics, on account of other points in which they\ndiffer from us, not to mention the most grievous sin that is involved\nin separation itself, therefore, whether their sins remain in them, or\nreturn again immediately after remission, in either case we exhort them\nto come to the soundness of peace and Christian charity, not only that\nthey may obtain something which they had not before, but also that what\nthey had may begin to be of use to them.\n\nCHAP. XIV.--22. It is to no purpose, then, that they say to us, \"If\nyou acknowledge our baptism, what do we lack that should make you\nsuppose that we ought to think seriously of joining your communion?\"\nFor we reply, We do not acknowledge any baptism of yours; for it is\nnot the baptism of schismatics or heretics, but of God and of the\nChurch, wheresoever it may be found, and whithersoever it may be\ntransferred. But it is in no sense yours, except because you entertain\nfalse opinions, and do sacrilegious acts, and have impiously separated\nyourselves from the Church. For if everything else in your practice\nand opinions were true, and still you were to persist in this same\nseparation, contrary to the bond of brotherly peace, contrary to\nthe union of all the brethren, who have been manifest, according to\nthe promise, in all the world; the particulars of whose history,\nand the secrets of whose hearts, you never could have known or\nconsidered in every case, so as to have a right to condemn them; who,\nmoreover, cannot be liable to condemnation for submitting themselves\nto the judges of the Church rather than to one of the parties to\nthe dispute,--in this one thing, at least, in such a case, you are\ndeficient, in which he is deficient who lacks charity. Why should we go\nover our argument again? Look and see yourselves in the apostle, how\nmuch there is that you lack. For what does it matter to him who lacks\ncharity, whether he be carried away outside the Church at once by some\nblast of temptation, or remain within the Lord's harvest, so as to be\nseparated only at the final winnowing? And yet even such, if they have\nonce been born in baptism, need not be born again.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XV.--23. For it is the Church that gives birth to all, either\nwithin her pale, of her own womb; or beyond it, of the seed of her\nbridegroom,--either of herself, or of her handmaid. But Esau, even\nthough born of the lawful wife, was separated from the people of God\nbecause he quarrelled with his brother. And Asher, born indeed by the\nauthority of a wife, but yet of a handmaid, was admitted to the land\nof promise on account of his brotherly good-will. Whence also it was\nnot the being born of a handmaid, but his quarrelling with his brother,\nthat stood in the way of Ishmael, to cause his separation from the\npeople of God; and he received no benefit from the power of the wife,\nwhose son he rather was, inasmuch as it was in virtue of her conjugal\nrights that he was both conceived in and born of the womb of the\nhandmaid. Just as with the Donatists it is by the right of the Church,\nwhich exists in baptism, that whosoever is born receives his birth;\nbut if they agree with their brethren, through the unity of peace they\ncome to the land of promise, not to be again cast out from the bosom of\ntheir true mother, but to be acknowledged in the seed of their father;\nbut if they persevere in discord, they will belong to the line of\nIshmael. For Ishmael was first, and then Isaac; and Esau was the elder,\nJacob the younger. Not that heresy gives birth before the Church, or\nthat the Church herself gives birth first to those who are carnal or\nanimal, and afterwards to those who are spiritual; but because, in the\nactual lot of our mortality, in which we are born of the seed of Adam,\n\"that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and\nafterward that which is spiritual.\"[43] But from mere animal sensation,\nbecause \"the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of\nGod,\"[44] arise all dissensions and schisms. And the apostle says[45]\nthat all who persevere in this animal sensation belong to the old\ncovenant, that is, to the desire of earthly promises, which are indeed\nthe type of the spiritual; but \"the natural man receiveth not the\nthings of the Spirit of God.\"[44]\n\n24. At whatever time, therefore, men have begun to be of such a\nnature in this life, that, although they have partaken of such divine\nsacraments as were appointed for the dispensation under which they\nlived, they yet savour of carnal things, and hope for and desire\ncarnal things from God, whether in this life or afterwards, they are\nyet carnal. But the Church, which is the people of God, is an ancient\ninstitution even in the pilgrimage of this life, having a carnal\ninterest in some men, a spiritual interest in others. To the carnal\nbelongs the old covenant, to the spiritual the new. But in the first\ndays both were hidden, from Adam even to Moses. But by Moses the old\ncovenant was made manifest, and in it was hidden the new covenant,\nbecause after a secret fashion it was typified. But so soon as the\nLord came in the flesh, the new covenant was revealed; yet, though\nthe sacraments of the old covenant passed away, the dispositions\npeculiar to it did not pass away. For they still exist in those whom\nthe apostle declares to be already born indeed by the sacrament of\nthe new covenant, but yet incapable, as being natural, of receiving\nthe things of the Spirit of God. For, as in the sacraments of the old\ncovenant some persons were already spiritual, belonging secretly to the\nnew covenant, which was then concealed, so now also in the sacrament\nof the new covenant, which has been by this time revealed, many live\nwho are natural. And if they will not advance to receive the things of\nthe Spirit of God, to which the discourse of the apostle urges them,\nthey will still belong to the old covenant. But if they advance, even\nbefore they receive them, yet by their very advance and approach they\nbelong to the new covenant; and if, before becoming spiritual, they\nare snatched away from this life, yet through the protection of the\nholiness of the sacrament they are reckoned in the land of the living,\nwhere the Lord is our hope and our portion. Nor can I find any truer\ninterpretation of the scripture, \"Thine eyes did see my substance, yet\nbeing imperfect;\"[46] considering what follows, \"And in Thy book shall\nall be written.\"[47]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVI.--25. But the same mother which brought forth Abel, and\nEnoch, and Noah, and Abraham, brought forth also Moses and the prophets\nwho succeeded him till the coming of our Lord; and the mother which\ngave birth to them gave birth also to our apostles and martyrs, and all\ngood Christians. For all these that have appeared have been born indeed\nat different times, but are included in the society of our people; and\nit is as citizens of the same state that they have experienced the\nlabours of this pilgrimage, and some of them are experiencing them,\nand others will experience them, even to the end. Again, the mother\nwho brought forth Cain, and Ham, and Ishmael, and Esau, brought forth\nalso Dathan and others like him in the same people; and she who gave\nbirth to them gave birth also to Judas the false apostle, and Simon\nMagus, and all the other false Christians who up to this time have\npersisted obstinately in their carnal affections, whether they have\nbeen mingled in the unity of the Church, or separated from it in open\nschism. But when men of this kind have the gospel preached to them, and\nreceive the sacraments at the hand of those who are spiritual, it is as\nthough Rebecca gave birth to them of her own womb, as she did to Esau;\nbut when they are produced in the midst of the people of God through\nthe instrumentality of those who preach the gospel not sincerely,[48]\nSarah is indeed the mother, but through Hagar. So when good spiritual\ndisciples are produced by the preaching or baptism of those who are\ncarnal, Leah, indeed, or Rachel, gives birth to them in her right as\nwife, but from the womb of a handmaid. But when good and faithful\ndisciples are born of those who are spiritual in the gospel, and either\nattain to the development of spiritual age, or do not cease to strive\nin that direction, or are only deterred from doing so by want of power,\nthese are born like Isaac from the womb of Sarah, or Jacob from the\nwomb of Rebecca, in the new life of the new covenant.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVII.--26. Therefore, whether they seem to abide within, or are\nopenly outside, whatsoever is flesh is flesh, and what is chaff is\nchad, whether they persevere in remaining in their barrenness on the\nthreshing-floor, or, when temptation befalls them, are carried out as\nit were by the blast of some wind. And even that man is always severed\nfrom the unity of the Church which is without a spot or wrinkle,[49]\nwho associates with the congregation of the saints in carnal obstinacy.\nYet we ought to despair of no man, whether he be one who shows himself\nto be of this nature within the pale of the Church, or whether he more\nopenly opposes it from without. But the spiritual, or those who are\nsteadily advancing with pious exertion towards this end, do not stray\nwithout the pale; since even when, by some perversity or necessity\namong men, they seem to be driven forth, they are more approved than if\nthey had remained within, since they are in no degree roused to contend\nagainst the Church, but remain rooted in the strongest foundation of\nChristian charity on the solid rock of unity. For hereunto belongs what\nis said in the sacrifice of Abraham: \"But the birds divided he not.\"[50]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVIII.--27. On the question of baptism, then, I think that I have\nargued at sufficient length; and since this is a most manifest schism\nwhich is called by the name of the Donatists, it only remains that on\nthe subject of baptism we should believe with pious faith what the\nuniversal Church maintains, apart from the sacrilege of schism. And\nyet, if within the Church different men still held different opinions\non the point, without meanwhile violating peace, then till some one\nclear and simple decree should have been passed by an universal\nCouncil, it would have been right for the charity which seeks for unity\nto throw a veil over the error of human infirmity, as it is written,\n\"For charity shall cover the multitude of sins.\"[51] For, seeing that\nits absence causes the presence of all other things to be of no avail,\nwe may well suppose that in its presence there is found pardon for the\nabsence of some missing things.\n\n28. There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed\nmartyr Cyprian, in his letters,--to come at last to him of whose\nauthority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst\nby his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before\nthe consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the\ndecree of a general Council,[52] what practice should be followed\nin this matter, it seemed to him, in common with about eighty of\nhis fellow-bishops of the African churches, that every man who had\nbeen baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should,\non joining the Church, be baptized anew. And I take it, that the\nreason why the Lord did not reveal the error in this to a man of such\neminence, was, that his pious humility and charity in guarding the\npeace and health of the Church might be made manifest, and might be\nnoticed, so as to serve as an example of healing power, so to speak,\nnot only to Christians of that age, but also to those who should come\nafter. For when a bishop of so important a Church, himself a man of\nso great merit and virtue, endowed with such excellence of heart and\npower of eloquence, entertained an opinion about baptism different\nfrom that which was to be confirmed by a more diligent searching\ninto the truth; though many of his colleagues held what was not yet\nmade manifest by authority, but was sanctioned by the past custom of\nthe Church, and afterwards embraced by the whole Catholic world; yet\nunder these circumstances he did not sever himself, by refusal of\ncommunion, from the others who thought differently, and indeed never\nceased to urge on the others that they should \"forbear one another\nin love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of\npeace.\"[53] For so, while the framework of the body remained whole,\nif any infirmity occurred in certain of its members, it might rather\nregain its health from their general soundness, than be deprived of the\nchance of any healing care by their death in severance from the body.\nAnd if he had severed himself, how many were there to follow! what a\nname was he likely to make for himself among men! how much more widely\nwould the name of Cyprianist have spread than that of Donatist! But\nhe was not a son of perdition, one of those of whom it is said, \"Thou\ncastedst them down into destruction;\"[54] but he was the son of the\npeace of the Church, who in the clear illumination of his mind failed\nto see one thing, only that through him another thing might be more\nexcellently seen. \"And yet,\" says the apostle, \"show I unto you a more\nexcellent way: though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,\nand have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling\ncymbal.\"[55] He had therefore imperfect insight into the hidden mystery\nof the sacrament. But if he had known the mysteries of all sacraments,\nwithout having charity, it would have been nothing. But as he, with\nimperfect insight into the mystery, was careful to preserve charity\nwith all courage and humility and faith, he deserved to come to the\ncrown of martyrdom; so that, if any cloud had crept over the clearness\nof his intellect from his infirmity as man, it might be dispelled by\nthe glorious brightness of his blood. For it was not in vain that our\nLord Jesus Christ, when He declared Himself to be the vine, and His\ndisciples, as it were, the branches in the vine, gave command that\nthose which bare no fruit should be cut off, and removed from the\nvine as useless branches.[56] But what is really fruit, save that new\noffspring, of which He further says, \"A new commandment I give unto\nyou, that ye love one another?\"[57] This is that very charity, without\nwhich the rest profiteth nothing. The apostle also says: \"But the\nfruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness,\ngoodness, faith, meekness, temperance;\"[58] each of which begins with\ncharity, and with the rest of the combination forms one unity in a kind\nof wondrous cluster.[59] Nor is it again in vain that our Lord added,\n\"And every branch that beareth fruit, my Father purgeth it, that it may\nbring forth more fruit,\"[60] but because those who are strong in the\nfruit of charity may yet have something which requires purging, which\nthe Husbandman will not leave untended. Whilst, then, that holy man\nentertained on the subject of baptism an opinion at variance with the\ntrue view, which was afterwards thoroughly examined and confirmed after\nmost diligent consideration, his error was compensated by his remaining\nin catholic unity, and by the abundance of his charity; and finally it\nwas cleared away by the pruning-hook of martyrdom.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIX.--29. But that I may not seem to be uttering these praises\nof the blessed martyr (which, indeed, are not his, but rather those of\nHim by whose grace he showed himself what he was), in order to escape\nthe burden of proof, let us now bring forward from his letters the\ntestimony by which the mouths of the Donatists may most of all be\nstopped. For they advance his authority before the unlearned, to show\nthat in a manner they do well when they baptize afresh the faithful\nwho come to them. Too wretched are they--and, unless they correct\nthemselves, even by themselves are they utterly condemned--who choose\nin the example set them by so great a man to imitate just that fault,\nwhich only did not injure him, because he walked with constant steps\neven to the end in that from which they have strayed who \"have not\nknown the ways of peace.\"[61] It is true that Christ's baptism is\nholy; and although it may exist among heretics or schismatics, yet\nit does not belong to the heresy or schism; and therefore even those\nwho come from thence to the Catholic Church herself ought not to be\nbaptized afresh. Yet to err on this point is one thing; it is another\nthing that those who are straying from the peace of the Church, and\nhave fallen headlong into the pit of schism, should go on to decide\nthat any who join them ought to be baptized again. For the former is a\nspeck on the brightness of a holy soul which abundance of charity[62]\nwould fain have covered; the latter is a stain in their nether foulness\nwhich the hatred of peace in their countenance ostentatiously brings\nto light. But the subject for our further consideration, relating to\nthe authority of the blessed Cyprian, we will commence from a fresh\nbeginning.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[5] This treatise was written about 400 A.D.\n\n[6] _Contra Epist. Parmen._ ii. 14.\n\n[7] Comp. v. 23, and iii. 16, note.\n\n[8] Ps. lxi. 2, 3. Augustine translates from the Septuagint. The\nEnglish version is: \"From the end of the earth will I cry unto Thee,\nwhen my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the Rock that is higher than\nI. For Thou hast been a shelter for me, and a strong tower from the\nenemy.\"\n\n[9] Eph. ii. 6.\n\n[10] Matt. vii. 15.\n\n[11] Matt. xxiv. 23.\n\n[12] Matt. xi. 24.\n\n[13] The Council of Donatist bishops, held at Bagai in Numidia, A.D.\n394. Cp. _Contr. Crescon._ iii. 52, 53.\n\n[14] Quodam modo cardinales Donatistas.\n\n[15] See below, on ii. 9.\n\n[16] Matt. xii. 30.\n\n[17] Mark ix. 38, 39; Luke ix. 50.\n\n[18] Acts x.\n\n[19] Ex. xxxii.\n\n[20] Num. xvi.\n\n[21] 1 Cor. xiii. 2.\n\n[22] 1 Cor. xiii. 1, 2.\n\n[23] John xi. 51.\n\n[24] 1 Sam. xviii. 10.\n\n[25] Acts viii. 13.\n\n[26] Mark i. 24.\n\n[27] Eph. iv. 2, 3.\n\n[28] Acts viii. 13, 21.\n\n[29] 1 Cor. iii. 1-4.\n\n[30] 1 Cor. i. 10-13.\n\n[31] 1 Cor. x. 11. _In figura_; [Greek: tupich\u00f4s]; A. V., \"for\nensamples.\"\n\n[32] Gen. xxi. 10.\n\n[33] Gen. xxx. 3.\n\n[34] Mal. i. 2, 3; Gen. xxv. 24.\n\n[35] Matt. xxviii. 19.\n\n[36] John xx. 23.\n\n[37] Song of Sol. vi. 9.\n\n[38] 1 John ii. 11.\n\n[39] Gal. iii. 27.\n\n[40] Wisd. i. 5.\n\n[41] Debebat. It is necessary to depart from the A. V., \"owed,\" as\nAugustine founds an argument on the use of the imperfect tense. Gr.\n[Greek: \u00f4pheilen].\n\n[42] Matt. xviii. 23-35.\n\n[43] 1 Cor. xv. 46.\n\n[44] 1 Cor. ii. 14.\n\n[45] Gal. iv.\n\n[46] Ps. cxxxix. 16.\n\n[47] So Augustine from the Septuagint: [Greek: epi to biblion sou\npantes graph\u00easontai]. A.V., \"In Thy book were all _my members_ written.\"\n\n[48] Non caste; [Greek: ouch agn\u00f4s]. Phil. i. 16.\n\n[49] In the _Retractations_, ii. 18, Augustine notes on this passage,\nthat wherever he uses this quotation from the Epistle to the Ephesians,\nhe means it to be understood of the progress of the Church towards this\ncondition, and not of her success in its attainment; for at present the\ninfirmities and ignorance of her members give ground enough for the\nwhole Church joining daily in the petition, \"Forgive us our debts.\"\n\n[50] Gen. xv. 10.\n\n[51] 1 Pet. iv. 8.\n\n[52] See below, ii. 9.\n\n[53] Eph. iv. 2, 3.\n\n[54] Ps. lxxiii. 18.\n\n[55] 1 Cor. xii. 31, xiii. 1.\n\n[56] John xv. 1, 2.\n\n[57] John xiii. 34.\n\n[58] Gal. v. 22, 23.\n\n[59] Botrum.\n\n[60] John xv. 2.\n\n[61] Rom. iii. 17; from which it has been introduced into the\nAlexandrine MS. of the Septuagint at Ps. xiv. 3, as it is quoted by\nMigne, and found in the English Prayer-book version of the Psalms.\n\n[62] Charitatis ubera.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK SECOND.\n\n IN WHICH AUGUSTINE PROVES THAT IT IS TO NO PURPOSE THAT THE DONATISTS\n BRING FORWARD THE AUTHORITY OF CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR, SINCE IT\n IS REALLY MORE OPPOSED TO THEM THAN TO THE CATHOLICS. FOR THAT HE\n HELD THAT THE VIEW OF HIS PREDECESSOR AGRIPPINUS, ON THE SUBJECT\n OF BAPTIZING HERETICS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHEN THEY JOIN ITS\n COMMUNION, SHOULD ONLY BE RECEIVED ON CONDITION THAT PEACE SHOULD BE\n MAINTAINED WITH THOSE WHO ENTERTAINED THE OPPOSITE VIEW, AND THAT THE\n UNITY OF THE CHURCH SHOULD NEVER BE BROKEN BY ANY KIND OF SCHISM.\n\n\nCHAP. I.--1. How much the arguments make for us, that is, for catholic\npeace, which the party of Donatus profess to bring forward against us\nfrom the authority of the blessed Cyprian, and how much they prove\nagainst those who bring them forward, it is my intention, with the\nhelp of God, to show in the ensuing book. If, therefore, in the course\nof my argument, I am obliged to repeat what I have already said in\nother treatises (although I will do so as little as I can), yet this\nought not to be objected to by those who have already read them and\nagree with them; since it is not only right that those things which\nare necessary for instruction should be frequently instilled into men\nof dull intelligence, but even in the case of those who are endowed\nwith larger understanding, it contributes very much both to make their\nlearning easier and their powers of teaching readier, where the same\npoints are handled and discussed in many various ways. For I know how\nmuch it discourages a reader, when he comes upon any knotty question in\nthe book which he has in hand, to find himself presently referred for\nits solution to another which he happens not to have. Wherefore, if I\nam compelled, by the urgency of the present questions, to repeat what I\nhave already said in other books, I would seek forgiveness from those\nwho know those books already, that those who are ignorant may have\ntheir difficulties removed; for it is better to give to one who has\nalready, than to abstain from satisfying any one who is in want.\n\n2. What, then, do they venture to say, when their mouth is closed[63]\nby the force of truth, with which they will not agree? \"Cyprian,\"\nsay they, \"whose great merits and vast learning we all know, decreed\nin a Council,[64] with many of his fellow-bishops contributing their\nseveral opinions, that all heretics and schismatics, that is, all who\nare severed from the communion of the one Church, are without baptism;\nand therefore, whosoever has joined the communion of the Church after\nbeing baptized by them must be baptized in the Church.\" The authority\nof Cyprian does not alarm me, because I am reassured by his humility.\nWe know, indeed, the great merit of the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but\nis it in any way greater than that of the apostle and martyr Peter, of\nwhom the said Cyprian speaks as follows in his epistle to Quintus? \"For\nneither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His\nChurch,[65] when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision,\nclaim or assume anything insolently and arrogantly to himself, so as\nto say that he held the primacy, and should rather be obeyed of those\nwho were late and newly come. Nor did he despise Paul because he had\nbefore been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted the counsel\nof truth, and readily assented to the legitimate grounds which Paul\nmaintained; giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that\nwe should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather\naccount as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren\nand colleagues for the common health and weal.\"[66] Here is a passage\nin which Cyprian records what we also learn in holy Scripture, that\nthe Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines with\nsuch exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle Paul, when\nhe adopted a custom in the matter of circumcision at variance with\nthe demands of truth. If it was therefore possible for Peter in some\npoint to walk not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, so as\nto compel the Gentiles to judaize, as Paul writes in that epistle in\nwhich he calls God to witness that he does not lie; for he says, \"Now\nthe things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not;\"[67]\nand, after this sacred and awful calling of God to witness, he told\nthe whole tale, saying in the course of it, \"But when I saw that they\nwalked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said\nunto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the\nmanner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the\nGentiles to live as do the Jews?\"[68]--if Peter, I say, could compel\nthe Gentiles to live after the manner of the Jews, contrary to the rule\nof truth which the Church afterwards held, why might not Cyprian, in\nopposition to the rule of faith which the whole Church afterwards held,\ncompel heretics and schismatics to be baptized afresh? I suppose that\nthere is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to\nhis crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing\ndisrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of\nhis apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate in the world? But,\ngranting the difference in the dignity of their sees, yet they have the\nsame glory in their martyrdom. And whether it may be the case that the\nhearts of those who confess and die for the true faith in the unity of\ncharity take precedence of each other in different points, the Lord\nHimself will know, by the hidden and wondrous dispensation of whose\ngrace the thief hanging on the cross once for all confesses Him, and\nis sent on the selfsame day to paradise,[69] while Peter, the follower\nof our Lord, denies Him thrice, and has his crown postponed:[70] for\nus it were rash to form a judgment from the evidence. But if any one\nwere now found compelling a man to be circumcised after the Jewish\nfashion, as a necessary preliminary for baptism, this would meet with\nmuch more general repudiation by mankind, than if a man should be\ncompelled to be baptized again. Wherefore, if Peter, on doing this,\nis corrected by his later colleague Paul, and is yet preserved by the\nbond of peace and unity till he is promoted to martyrdom, how much more\nreadily and constantly should we prefer, either to the authority of a\nsingle bishop, or to the Council of a single province, the rule that\nhas been established by the statutes of the universal Church? For this\nsame Cyprian, in urging his view of the question, was still anxious to\nremain in the unity of peace even with those who differed from him on\nthis point, as is shown by his own opening address at the beginning of\nthe very Council which is quoted by the Donatists. For it is as follows:\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. II.--3. \"When, on the calends of September, very many bishops\nfrom the provinces of Africa,[71] Numidia, and Mauritania, with their\npresbyters and deacons, had met together at Carthage, a great part\nof the laity also being present; and when the letter addressed by\nJubaianus to Cyprian, as also the answer of Cyprian to Jubaianus, on\nthe subject of baptizing heretics, had been read, Cyprian said: 'Ye\nhave heard, most beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus, our fellow-bishop,\nhas written to me, consulting my moderate ability concerning the\nunlawful and profane baptism of heretics, and what answer I gave\nhim,--giving a judgment which we have once and again and often\ngiven, that heretics coming to the Church ought to be baptized, and\nsanctified with the baptism of the Church. Another letter of Jubaianus\nhas likewise been read to you, in which, agreeably to his sincere and\nreligious devotion, in answer to our epistle, he not only expressed his\nassent, but returned thanks also, acknowledging that he had received\ninstruction. It remains that we severally declare our opinion on\nthis subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of\ncommunion if he differ from us. For no one of us sets himself up as a\nbishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forceth his colleagues to\na necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of\nhis liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and\ncan no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another.\nBut we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone\nhas the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and\nof judging of our acts therein.'\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. III.--4. Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics\nraise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this\naddress. Ye mad Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the\npeace and unity of the holy Church, that ye may receive health therein,\nwhat have ye to say in answer to this? You are wont, indeed, to bring\nup against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why\ndo ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his\nexample when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail\nto be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and\nNew Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands\nso absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the\nbishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation\nwhether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but\nthat all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being\nwritten, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted\nif there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth,\neither by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the\nmatter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned\nexperience of other bishops, or by the authority of Councils; and\nfurther, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several\ndistricts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt,\nto the authority of universal Councils which are formed for the whole\nChristian world; and that even of the universal Councils, the earlier\nare often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual\nexperiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed,\nand that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any\nwhirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck\nthrough arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with\nholy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IV.--5. Wherefore the holy Cyprian, whose dignity is only\nincreased by his humility, who so loved the pattern set by Peter as to\nuse the words, \"Giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience,\nthat we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should\nrather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our\nbrethren and colleagues, for the common health and weal,\"[72]--he,\nI say, abundantly shows that he was most willing to correct his own\nopinion, if any one should prove to him that it is as certain that\nthe baptism of Christ can be given by those who have strayed from the\nfold, as that it could not be lost when they strayed; on which subject\nwe have already said much. Nor should we ourselves venture to assert\nanything of the kind, were we not supported by the unanimous authority\nof the whole Church,--to which he himself would unquestionably have\nyielded, if at that time the truth of this question had been placed\nbeyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a general Council.\nFor if he quotes Peter as an example for his allowing himself quietly\nand peacefully to be corrected by one junior colleague, how much more\nreadily would he himself, with the Council of his province, have\nyielded to the authority of the whole world, when the truth had been\nthus brought to light? For, indeed, so holy and peaceful a soul would\nhave been most ready to assent to the arguments of any single person\nwho could prove to him the truth; and perhaps he even did so,[73]\nthough we have no knowledge of the fact. For it was neither possible\nthat all the proceedings which took place between the bishops at that\ntime should have been committed to writing, nor are we acquainted with\nall that was so committed. For how could a matter which was involved\nin such mists of disputation even have been brought to the full\nillumination and authoritative decision of a general Council, had it\nnot first been known to be discussed for some considerable time in the\nvarious districts of the world, with many discussions and comparisons\nof the views of the bishops on every side? But this is one effect of\nthe soundness of peace, that when any doubtful points are long under\ninvestigation, and when, on account of the difficulty of arriving\nat the truth, they produce difference of opinion in the course of\nbrotherly disputation, till men at last arrive at the unalloyed truth;\nyet the bond of unity remains, lest in the part that is cut away there\nshould be found the incurable wound of deadly error.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. V.--6. And so it is that often something is imperfectly revealed\nto the more learned, that their patient and humble charity, from which\nproceeds the greater fruit, may be proved, either in the way in which\nthey preserve unity, when they hold different opinions on matters of\ncomparative obscurity, or in the temper with which they receive the\ntruth, when they learn that it has been declared to be contrary to\nwhat they thought. And of these two we have a manifestation in the\nblessed Cyprian of the one, viz. of the way in which he preserved unity\nwith those from whom he differed in opinion. For he says, \"Judging\nno one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ\nfrom us.\"[74] And the other, viz. in what temper he could receive the\ntruth when found to be different from what he thought it, though his\nletters are silent on the point, is yet proclaimed by his merits. If\nthere is no letter extant to prove it, it is witnessed by his crown of\nmartyrdom; if the Council of bishops declare it not, it is declared by\nthe host of angels. For it is no small proof of a most peaceful soul,\nthat he won the crown of martyrdom in that unity from which he would\nnot separate, even though he differed from it. For we are but men;\nand it is therefore a temptation incident to men that we should hold\nviews at variance with the truth on any point. But to come through too\ngreat love for our own opinion, or through jealousy of our betters,\neven to the sacrilege of dividing the communion of the Church, and\nof founding heresy or schism, is a presumption worthy of the devil.\nBut never in any point to entertain an opinion at variance with the\ntruth is perfection found only in the angels. Since then we are men,\nyet forasmuch as in hope we are angels, whose equals we shall be in\nthe resurrection,[75] at any rate, so long as we are wanting in the\nperfection of angels, let us at least be without the presumption of\nthe devil. Accordingly the apostle says, \"There hath no temptation\ntaken you but such as is common to man.\"[76] It is therefore part\nof man's nature to be sometimes wrong. Wherefore he says in another\nplace, \"Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded: and\nif in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto\nyou.\"[77] But to whom does He reveal it when it is His will (be it in\nthis life or in the life to come), save to those who walk in the way\nof peace, and stray not aside into any schism? Not to such as those\nwho have not known the way of peace,[78] or for some other cause have\nbroken the bond of unity. And so, when the apostle said, \"And if in\nanything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you,\"\nlest they should think that besides the way of peace their own wrong\nviews might be revealed to them, he immediately added, \"Nevertheless,\nwhereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule.\"[79]\nAnd Cyprian, walking by this rule, by the most persistent tolerance,\nnot simply by the shedding of his blood, but because it was shed in\nunity (for if he gave his body to be burned, and had not charity, it\nwould profit him nothing[80]), came by the confession of martyrdom to\nthe light of the angels, and if not before, at least then, acknowledged\nthe revelation of the truth on that point on which, while yet in error,\nhe did not prefer the maintenance of a wrong opinion to the bond of\nunity.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VI.--7. What then, ye Donatists, what have ye to say to this?\nIf our opinion about baptism is true, yet all who thought differently\nin the time of Cyprian were not cut off from the unity of the Church,\ntill God revealed to them the truth of the point on which they were in\nerror, why then have ye by your sacrilegious separation broken the bond\nof peace? But if yours is the true opinion about baptism, Cyprian and\nthe others, in conjunction with whom ye set forth that he held such\na Council, remained in unity with those who thought otherwise; why,\ntherefore, have ye broken the bond of peace? Choose which alternative\nye will, ye are compelled to pronounce an opinion against your schism.\nAnswer me, wherefore have ye separated yourselves? Wherefore have ye\nerected an altar in opposition to the whole world? Wherefore do ye not\ncommunicate with the Churches to which apostolic epistles have been\nsent, which you yourselves read and acknowledge, in accordance with\nwhose tenor you say that you order your lives? Answer me, wherefore\nhave ye separated yourselves? I suppose in order that ye might not\nperish by communion with wicked men. How then was it that Cyprian, and\nso many of his colleagues, did not perish? For though they believed\nthat heretics and schismatics did not possess baptism, yet they chose\nrather to hold communion with them when they had been received into the\nChurch without baptism, although they believed that their flagrant and\nsacrilegious sins were yet upon their heads, than to be separated from\nthe unity of the Church, according to the words of Cyprian, \"Judging no\none, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from\nus.\"\n\n8. If, therefore, by such communion with the wicked the just cannot\nbut perish, the Church had already perished in the time of Cyprian.\nWhence then sprang the origin of Donatus? where was he taught, where\nwas he baptized, where was he ordained, since the Church had been\nalready destroyed by the contagion of communion with the wicked? But\nif the Church still existed, the wicked could do no harm to the good\nin one communion with them. Wherefore did ye separate yourselves?\nBehold, I see in unity Cyprian and others, his colleagues, who, on\nholding a council, decided that those who have been baptized without\nthe communion of the Church have no true baptism, and that therefore it\nmust be given them when they join the Church. But again, behold I see\nin the same unity that certain men think differently in this matter,\nand that, recognising in those who come from heretics and schismatics\nthe baptism of Christ, they do not venture to baptize them afresh. All\nof these catholic unity embraces in her motherly breast, bearing each\nother's burdens by turns, and endeavouring to keep the unity of the\nSpirit in the bond of peace,[81] till God should reveal to one or other\nof them any error in their views. If the one party held the truth,\nwere they infected by the others, or no? If the others held the truth,\nwere they infected by the first, or no? Choose which ye will. If there\nwas contamination, the Church even then ceased to exist; answer me,\ntherefore, whence came ye forth hither? But if the Church remained, the\ngood are in no wise contaminated by the bad in such communion; answer\nme, therefore, why did ye break the bond?\n\n9. Or is it perhaps that schismatics, when received without baptism,\nbring no infection, but that it is brought by those who deliver up\nthe sacred books?[82] For that there were _traditors_ of your number\nis proved by the clearest testimony of history. And if you had then\nbrought true evidence against those whom you were accusing, you would\nhave proved your cause before the unity of the whole world, so that\nyou would have been retained whilst they were shut out. And if you\nendeavoured to do this, and did not succeed, the world is not to blame,\nwhich trusted the judges of the Church rather than the beaten parties\nin the suit; whilst, if you would not urge your suit, the world again\nis not to blame, which could not condemn men without their cause being\nheard. Why, then, did you separate yourselves from the innocent? You\ncannot defend the sacrilege of your schism. But this I pass over. But\nso much I say, that if the _traditors_ could have defiled you, who\nwere not convicted by you, and by whom, on the contrary, you were\nbeaten, much more could the sacrilege of schismatics and heretics,\nreceived into the Church, as you maintain, without baptism, have\ndefiled Cyprian. Yet he did not separate himself. And inasmuch as the\nChurch continued to exist, it is clear that it could not be defiled.\nWherefore, then, did you separate yourselves, I do not say from the\ninnocent, as the facts proved them, but from the _traditors_, as they\nwere never proved to be? Are the sins of _traditors_, as I began to\nsay, heavier than those of schismatics? Let us not bring in deceitful\nbalances, to which we may hang what weights we will, and how we will,\nsaying to suit ourselves, \"This is heavy and this is light;\" but let\nus bring forward the sacred balance out of holy Scripture, as out\nof the Lord's treasure-house, and let us weigh them by it, to see\nwhich is the heavier; or rather, let us not weigh them for ourselves,\nbut read the weights as declared by the Lord. At the time when the\nLord showed, by the example of recent punishment, that there was\nneed to guard against the sins of olden days, and an idol was made\nand worshipped, and the prophetic book was burned by the wrath of a\nscoffing king, and schism was attempted, the idolatry was punished\nwith the sword,[83] the burning of the book by slaughter in war and\ncaptivity in a foreign land,[84] schism by the earth opening, and\nswallowing up alive the leaders of the schism, while the rest were\nconsumed with fire from heaven.[85] Who will now doubt that that was\nthe worse crime which received the heavier punishment? If men coming\nfrom such sacrilegious company, without baptism, as you maintain, could\nnot defile Cyprian, how could those defile you who were not convicted\nbut supposed betrayers of the sacred books?[86] For if they had not\nonly given up the books to be burned, but had actually burned them with\ntheir own hands, they would have been guilty of a less sin than if\nthey had committed schism; for schism is visited with the heavier, the\nother with the lighter punishment, not at man's discretion, but by the\njudgment of God.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VII.--10. Wherefore, then, have ye severed yourselves? If there\nis any sense left in you, you must surely see that you can find no\npossible answer to these arguments. \"We are not left,\" they say, \"so\nutterly without resource, but that we can still answer, It is our will.\n'Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master\nhe standeth or falleth.'\"[87] They do not understand that this was\nsaid to men who were wishing to judge, not of open facts, but of the\nhearts of other men. For how does the apostle himself come to say so\nmuch about the sins of schisms and heresies? Or how comes that verse in\nthe Psalms, \"If of a truth ye love justice, judge uprightly, O ye sons\nof men?\"[88] But why does the Lord Himself say, \"Judge not according\nto the appearance, but judge righteous judgment,\"[89] if we may not\njudge any man? Lastly, why, in the case of those _traditors_, whom they\nhave judged unrighteously, have they themselves ventured to pass any\njudgments at all on another man's servants? To their own master they\nwere standing or falling. Or why, in the case of the recent followers\nof Maximianus, have they not hesitated to bring forward the judgment\ndelivered with the infallible voice, as they aver, of a general\nCouncil, in such terms as to compare them with those first schismatics\nwhom the earth swallowed up alive? And yet some of them, as they cannot\ndeny, they either condemned though innocent, or received back again\nin their guilt. But when a truth is urged which they cannot gainsay,\nthey mutter a truly wholesome murmuring: \"It is our will: 'Who art\nthou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth\nor falleth.'\" But when a weak sheep is espied in the desert, and the\npastor who should reclaim it to the fold is nowhere to be seen, then\nthere is setting of teeth, and breaking of the weak neck: \"Thou wouldst\nbe a good man, wert thou not a _traditor_. Consult the welfare of thy\nsoul; be a Christian.\" What unconscionable madness! When it is said\nto a Christian, \"Be a Christian,\" what other lesson is taught, save a\ndenial that he is a Christian? Was it not the same lesson which those\npersecutors of the Christians wished to teach, by resisting whom the\ncrown of martyrdom was gained? Or must we even look on crime as lighter\nwhen committed with threatening of the sword than with treachery of the\ntongue?\n\n11. Answer me this, ye ravening wolves, who, seeking to be clad in\nsheep's clothing,[90] think that the letters of the blessed Cyprian\nare in your favour. Did the sacrilege of schismatics defile Cyprian,\nor did it not? If it did, the Church perished from that instant, and\nthere remained no source from which ye might spring. If it did not,\nthen by what offence on the part of others can the guiltless possibly\nbe denied, if the sacrilege of schism cannot defile them? Wherefore,\nthen, have ye severed yourselves? Wherefore, while shunning the\nlighter offences, which are inventions of your own, have ye committed\nthe heaviest offence of all, the sacrilege of schism? Will ye now\nperchance confess that those men were no longer schismatics or heretics\nwho had been baptized without the communion of the Church, or in some\nheresy or schism, because by coming over to the Church, and renouncing\ntheir former errors, they had ceased to be what formerly they were? How\nthen was it, that though they were not baptized, their sins remained\nnot on their heads? Was it that the baptism was Christ's, but that it\ncould not profit them without the communion of the Church; yet when\nthey came over, and, renouncing their past error, were received into\nthe communion of the Church by the laying on of hands, then, being\nnow rooted and founded in charity, without which all other things are\nprofitless, they began to receive profit for the remission of sins and\nthe sanctification of their lives from that sacrament, which, while\nwithout the pale of the Church, they possessed in vain?\n\n12. Cease, then, to bring forward against us the authority of Cyprian\nin favour of repeating baptism, but cling with us to the example of\nCyprian for the preservation of unity. For this question of baptism had\nnot been as yet completely worked out, but yet the Church observed the\nmost wholesome custom of correcting what was wrong, not repeating what\nwas already given, even in the case of schismatics and heretics: she\nhealed the wounded part, but did not meddle with what was whole. And\nthis custom, coming, I suppose, from apostolical tradition (like many\nother things which are held to have been handed down under their actual\nsanction, because they are preserved throughout the whole Church,\nthough they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils\nof their successors),--this most wholesome custom, I say, according to\nthe holy Cyprian, began to be what is called amended by his predecessor\nAgrippinus. But, according to the teaching which springs from a more\ncareful investigation into the truth, which, after great doubt and\nfluctuation, was brought at last to the decision of a general Council,\nwe ought to believe that it rather began to be corrupted than to\nreceive correction at the hands of Agrippinus. Accordingly, when so\ngreat a question forced itself upon him, and it was difficult to decide\nthe point, whether remission of sins and man's spiritual regeneration\ncould take place among heretics or schismatics, and the authority of\nAgrippinus was there to guide him, with that of some few men who shared\nin his misapprehension of this question, having preferred attempting\nsomething new to maintaining a custom which they did not understand how\nto defend; under these circumstances, considerations of probability\nforced themselves into the eyes of his soul, and barred the way to the\nthorough investigation of the truth.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VIII.--13. Nor do I think that the blessed Cyprian had any\nother motive in the free expression and earlier utterance of what he\nthought in opposition to the custom of the Church, save that he should\nthankfully receive any one that could be found with a fuller revelation\nof the truth, and that he should show forth a pattern for imitation,\nnot only of diligence in teaching, but also of modesty in learning;\nbut that, if no one should be found to bring forward any argument by\nwhich those considerations of probability should be refuted, then he\nshould abide by his opinion, with the full consciousness that he had\nneither concealed what he conceived to be the truth, nor violated the\nunity which he loved. For so he understood the words of the apostle:\n\"Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If\nanything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his\npeace.\"[91] \"In which passage he has taught and shown, that many things\nare revealed to individuals for the better, and that we ought not each\nto strive pertinaciously for what he has once imbibed and held, but\nif anything has appeared better and more useful, he should willingly\nembrace it.\"[92] At any rate, in these words he not only advised those\nto agree with him who saw no better course, but also exhorted any\nwho could to bring forward arguments by which the maintenance of the\nformer custom might rather be established; that if they should be of\nsuch a nature as not to admit of refutation, he might show in his own\nperson with what sincerity he said \"that we ought not each to strive\npertinaciously for what he has once imbibed and held, but that, if\nanything has appeared better and more useful, he should willingly\nembrace it.\"[92] But inasmuch as none appeared, except such as simply\nurged the custom against him, and the arguments which they produced in\nits favour were not of a kind to bring conviction to a soul like his,\nthis mighty reasoner was not content to give up his opinions, which,\nthough they were not true, as he was himself unable to see, were at\nany rate not confuted, in favour of a custom which had truth on its\nside, but had not yet been confirmed. And yet, had not his predecessor\nAgrippinus, and some of his fellow-bishops throughout Africa, first\ntempted him to desert this custom, even by the decision of a Council,\nhe certainly would not have dared to argue against it. But, amid the\nperplexities of so obscure a question, and seeing everywhere around\nhim a strong universal custom, he would rather have put restraint upon\nhimself by prayer and stretching forth his mind towards God, so as to\nhave perceived or taught that for truth which was afterwards decided by\na general Council. But when he had found relief amid his weariness in\nthe authority of the former Council[93] which was held by Agrippinus,\nhe preferred maintaining what was in a manner the discovery of his\npredecessors, to expending further toil in investigation. For, at the\nend of his letter to Quintus, he thus shows how he has sought repose,\nif one may use the expression, for his weariness, in what might be\ntermed the resting-place of authority.[94]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IX.--14. \"This moreover,\" says he, \"Agrippinus, a man of\nexcellent memory, with the rest, bishops with him, who at that time\ngoverned the Church of the Lord in the province of Africa and Numidia,\ndid, when by common counsel duly weighed, establish and confirm;\nwhose sentence, being both religious and legitimate and salutary\nin accordance with the Catholic faith and Church, we also have\nfollowed.\"[95] By this witness he gives sufficient proof how much more\nready he would have been to bear his testimony, had any Council been\nheld to discuss this matter which either embraced the whole Church, or\nat least represented our brethren beyond the sea. But such a Council\nhad not yet been held, because the whole world was bound together by\nthe powerful bond of custom; and this was deemed sufficient to oppose\nto those who wished to introduce what was new, because they could\nnot comprehend the truth. Afterwards, however, while the question\nbecame matter for discussion and investigation amongst many on either\nside, the new practice was not only invented, but even submitted to\nthe authority and power of a general Council,--after the martyrdom\nof Cyprian, it is true, but before we were born.[96] But that this\nwas indeed the custom of the Church, which afterwards was confirmed\nby a general Council, in which the truth was brought to light, and\nmany difficulties cleared away, is plain enough from the words of the\nblessed Cyprian himself in that same letter to Jubaianus, which was\nquoted as being read in the Council.[97] For he says, \"But some one\nasks, What then will be done in the case of those who, coming out of\nheresy to the Church, have already been admitted without baptism?\"\nwhere certainly he shows plainly enough what was usually done, though\nhe would have wished it otherwise; and in the very fact of his quoting\nthe Council of Agrippinus, he clearly proves that the custom of the\nChurch was different. Nor indeed was it requisite that he should seek\nto establish the practice by this Council, if it was already sanctioned\nby custom; and in the Council itself some of the speakers expressly\ndeclare, in giving their opinion, that they went against the custom\nof the Church in deciding what they thought was right. Wherefore let\nthe Donatists consider this one point, which surely none can fail to\nsee, that if the authority of Cyprian is to be followed, it is to be\nfollowed rather in maintaining unity than in altering the custom of\nthe Church; but if respect is paid to his Council, it must at any rate\nyield place to the later Council of the universal Church, of which he\nrejoiced to be a member, often warning his associates that they should\nall follow his example in upholding the coherence of the whole body.\nFor both later Councils are preferred among later generations to those\nof earlier date; and the whole is always, with good reason, looked upon\nas superior to the parts.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. X.--15. But what attitude do they assume, when it is shown\nthat the holy Cyprian, though he did not himself admit as members of\nthe Church those who had been baptized in heresy or schism, yet held\ncommunion with those who did admit them, according to his express\ndeclaration, \"Judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of\ncommunion if he differ from us?\"[98] If he was polluted by communion\nwith persons of this kind, why do they follow his authority in the\nquestion of baptism? But if he was not polluted by communion with\nthem, why do they not follow his example in maintaining unity? Have\nthey anything to urge in their defence except the plea, \"We choose\nto have it so?\" What other answer have any sinful or wicked men to\nthe discourse of truth or justice,--the voluptuous, for instance, the\ndrunkards, adulterers, and those who are impure in any way, thieves,\nrobbers, murderers, plunderers, evil-doers, idolaters,--what other\nanswer can they make when convicted by the voice of truth, except \"I\nchoose to do it;\" \"It is my pleasure so?\" And if they have in them a\ntinge of Christianity, they say further, \"Who art thou that judgest\nanother man's servant?\"[99] Yet these have so much more remains of\nmodesty, that when, in accordance with divine and human law, they\nmeet with punishment for their abandoned life and deeds, they do not\nstyle themselves martyrs; while the Donatists wish at once to lead\na sacrilegious life and enjoy a blameless reputation, to suffer\nno punishment for their wicked deeds, and to gain a martyr's glory\nin their just punishment. As if they were not experiencing the\ngreater mercy and patience of God, in proportion as \"executing His\njudgments upon them by little and little, He giveth them place of\nrepentance,\"[100] and ceases not to redouble His scourgings in this\nlife; that, considering what they suffer, and why they suffer it, they\nmay in time grow wise; and that those who have received the baptism of\nthe party of Maximianus in order to preserve the unity of Donatus, may\nthe more readily embrace the baptism of the whole world in order to\npreserve the peace of Christ; that they may be restored to the root,\nmay be reconciled to the unity of the Church, may see that they have\nnothing left for them to say, though something yet remains for them to\ndo; that for their former deeds the sacrifice of loving-kindness may be\noffered to a long-suffering God, whose unity they have broken by their\nwicked sin, on whose sacraments they have inflicted such a lasting\nwrong. For \"the Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, plenteous\nin mercy and truth.\"[101] Let them embrace His mercy and long-suffering\nin this life, and fear His truth in the next. For He willeth not the\ndeath of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his way and\nlive;[102] because He bends His judgment against the wrongs that have\nbeen inflicted on Him. This is our exhortation.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XI.--16. For this reason, then, we hold them to be enemies,\nbecause we speak the truth, because we are afraid to be silent,\nbecause we fear to shrink from pressing our point with all the force\nthat lies within our power, because we obey the apostle when he says,\n\"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke,\nexhort.\"[103] But, as the gospel says, \"They love the praise of men\nmore than the praise of God;\"[104] and while they fear to incur blame\nfor a time, they do not fear to incur damnation for ever. They see,\ntoo, themselves what wrong they are doing; they see that they have no\nanswer which they can make, but they overspread the inexperienced with\nmists, whilst they themselves are being swallowed up alive,--that is,\nare perishing knowingly and wilfully. They see that men are amazed, and\nlook with abhorrence on the fact that they have divided themselves into\nmany schisms, especially in Carthage,[105] the capital and most noted\ncity of all Africa; they have endeavoured to patch up the disgrace\nof their rags. Thinking that they could annihilate the followers of\nMaximianus, they pressed heavily on them through the agency of Optatus\nthe Gildonian;[106] they inflicted on them many wrongs amid the\ncruellest of persecutions. Then they received back some, thinking that\nall could be converted under the influence of the same terror; but they\nwere unwilling to do those whom they received the wrong of baptizing\nafresh those who had been baptized by them in their schism, or rather\nof causing them to be baptized again within their communion by the very\nsame men by whom they had been baptized outside, and thus they at once\nmade an exception to their own impious custom. They feel how wickedly\nthey are acting in assailing the baptism of the whole world, when they\nhave received the baptism of the followers of Maximianus. But they fear\nthose whom they have themselves rebaptized, lest they should receive no\nmercy from them, when they have shown it to others; lest these should\ncall them to account for their souls when they have ceased to destroy\nthose of other men.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XII.--17. What answer they can give about the followers of\nMaximianus whom they have received, they cannot divine. If they say,\n\"Those we received were innocent,\" the answer is obvious, \"Then you\nhad condemned the innocent.\" If they say, \"We did it in ignorance,\"\nthen you judged rashly (just as you passed a rash judgment on the\n_traditors_), and your declaration was false that \"you must know that\nthey were condemned by the truthful voice of a general Council.\"[107]\nFor indeed the innocent could never be condemned by a voice of truth.\nIf they say, \"We did not condemn them,\" it is only necessary to cite\nthe Council, to cite the names of bishops and states alike. If they\nsay, \"The Council itself is none of ours,\" then we cite the records\nof the proconsular province, where more than once they quoted the\nsame Council to justify the exclusion of the followers of Maximianus\nfrom the basilicas, and to confound them by the din of the judges and\nthe force of their allies. If they say that Felicianus of Musti, and\nPr\u00e6textatus of Assav\u00e6, whom they afterwards received, were not of the\nparty of Maximianus, then we cite the records in which they demanded,\nin the courts of law, that these persons should be excluded from the\nCouncil which they held against the party of Maximianus. If they say,\n\"They were received for the sake of peace,\" our answer is, \"Why then\ndo ye not acknowledge the only true and full peace? Who urged you,\nwho compelled you to receive a schismatic whom you had condemned, to\npreserve the peace of Donatus, and to condemn the world unheard, in\nviolation of the peace of Christ?\" Truth hems them in on every side.\nThey see that there is no answer left for them to make, and they think\nthat there is nothing left for them to do; they cannot find out what\nto say. They are not allowed to be silent. They had rather strive\nwith perverse utterance against truth, than be restored to peace by a\nconfession of their faults.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIII.--18. But who can fail to understand what they may be saying\nin their hearts? \"What then are we to do,\" say they, \"with those whom\nwe have already rebaptized?\" Return with them to the Church. Bring\nthose whom you have wounded to be healed by the medicine of peace;\nbring those whom you have slain to be brought to life again by the life\nof charity. Brotherly union has great power in propitiating God. \"If\ntwo of you,\" says our Lord, \"shall agree on earth as touching anything\nthat they shall ask, it shall be done for them.\"[108] If for two men\nwho agree, how much more for two communities? Let us throw ourselves\ntogether on our knees before the Lord. Do you share with us our unity;\nlet us share with you your contrition; and let charity cover the\nmultitude of sins.[109] Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself.\nSee how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from\nwhich he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who\ndisagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were\nbaptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he\nwas yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church,\nthey might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a\nshare in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to\nhimself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: \"But some will say, 'What\nthen will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from\nheresy, were admitted without baptism?' The Lord is able of His mercy\nto grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those\nwho, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church\nfallen asleep.\"[110]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIV.--19. But which is the worse, not to be baptized at all,\nor to be twice baptized, it is difficult to decide. I see, indeed,\nwhich is more repugnant and abhorrent to men's feelings; but when I\nhave recourse to that divine balance, in which the weight of things\nis determined, not by man's feelings, but by the authority of God, I\nfind a statement by our Lord on either side. For He said to Peter,\n\"He who is washed has no need of washing a second time;\"[111] and to\nNicodemus, \"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot\nenter into the kingdom of God.\"[112] What is the purport of the more\nsecret determination of God, it is perhaps difficult for men like us to\nlearn; but as far as the mere words are concerned, any one may see what\na difference there is between \"has no need of washing,\" and \"cannot\nenter into the kingdom of heaven.\" The Church, lastly, herself holds as\nher tradition, that without baptism she cannot admit a man to her altar\nat all; but since it is allowed that one who has been rebaptized may\nbe admitted after penance, surely this plainly proves that his baptism\nis considered valid. If, therefore, Cyprian thought that those whom he\nconsidered to be unbaptized yet had some share in pardon, in virtue\nof the bond of unity, the Lord has power to be reconciled even to the\nrebaptized by means of the simple bond of unity and peace, and by this\nsame compensating power of peace to mitigate His displeasure against\nthose by whom they were rebaptized, and to pardon all the errors which\nthey had committed while in error, on their offering the sacrifice of\ncharity, which covereth the multitude of sins; so that He looks not\nto the number of those who have been wounded by their separation, but\nto the greater number who have been delivered from bondage by their\nreturn. For in the same bond of peace in which Cyprian conceived\nthat, through the mercy of God, those whom he considered to have been\nadmitted to the Church without baptism, were yet not severed from the\ngifts of the Church, we also believe that through the same mercy of God\nthe rebaptized can earn their pardon at His hands.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XV.--20. Since the Catholic Church, both in the time of the\nblessed Cyprian and in the older time before him, contained within her\nbosom either some that were rebaptized or some that were unbaptized,\neither the one section or the other must have won their salvation only\nby the force of simple unity. For if those who came over from the\nheretics were not baptized, as Cyprian asserts, they were not rightly\nadmitted into the Church; and yet he himself did not despair of their\nobtaining pardon from the mercy of God in virtue of the unity of the\nChurch. So again, if they were already baptized, it was not right to\nrebaptize them. What, therefore, was there to aid the other section,\nsave the same charity that delighted in unity, so that what was hidden\nfrom man's weakness, in the consideration of the sacrament, might not\nbe reckoned, by the mercy of God, as a fault in those who were lovers\nof peace? Why, then, while ye fear those whom ye have rebaptized,\ndo ye grudge yourselves and them the entrance to salvation? There\nwas at one time a doubt upon the subject of baptism; those who held\ndifferent opinions yet remained in unity. In course of time, owing to\nthe certain discovery of the truth, that doubt was taken away. The\nquestion which, unsolved, did not frighten Cyprian into separation\nfrom the Church, invites you, now that it is solved, to return once\nmore within the fold. Come to the Catholic Church in its agreement,\nwhich Cyprian did not desert while yet disturbed with doubt; or if now\nyou are dissatisfied with the example of Cyprian, who held communion\nwith those who were received with the baptism of heretics, declaring\nopenly that we should \"neither judge any one, nor deprive any one of\nthe right of communion if he differ from us,\"[113] whither are ye\ngoing, ye wretched men? What are ye doing? You are bound to fly even\nfrom yourselves, because you have advanced beyond the position where\nhe abode. But if neither his own sins nor those of others could stand\nin his way, on account of the abundance of his charity and his love of\nbrotherly kindness and the bond of peace, do you return to us, where\nyou will find much less hindrance in the way of either us or you from\nthe fictions which your party have invented.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[63] Pr\u00e6focantur.\n\n[64] The Council of Carthage, September 1, A.D. 256, in which\neighty-seven African bishops declared in favour of rebaptizing\nheretics. The opinions of the bishops are quoted and answered by\nAugustine, one by one, in Books vi. and vii.\n\n[65] Matt. xvi. 18.\n\n[66] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxi.\n\n[67] Gal. i. 20.\n\n[68] Gal. ii. 14.\n\n[69] Luke xxiii. 40-43.\n\n[70] Matt. xxvi. 69-75.\n\n[71] That is, the proconsular province of Africa, or Africa Zeugitana,\nanswering to the northern part of the territory of Tunis.\n\n[72] See above, c. i. 2.\n\n[73] Bede asserts that this was the case, Book viii. qu. 5.\n\n[74] See above, c. ii. 3.\n\n[75] Matt. xxii. 30.\n\n[76] 1 Cor. x. 13.\n\n[77] Phil. iii. 15.\n\n[78] Rom. iii. 17; see on i. 19, 29.\n\n[79] Phil. iii. 16.\n\n[80] 1 Cor. xiii. 3.\n\n[81] Eph. iv. 3.\n\n[82] Traditores sanctorum librorum.\n\n[83] Ex. xxxii.\n\n[84] Jer. xxxvi.\n\n[85] Num. xvi.\n\n[86] Non convicti sed conficti traditores.\n\n[87] Rom. xiv. 4.\n\n[88] Ps. lviii. 1; though slightly varied from the LXX.: si vere\njustitiam diligitis; for [Greek: ei al\u00eath\u00f4s ara dikaiosyn\u00ean laleite]\n\n[89] John vii. 24.\n\n[90] Matt. vii. 15.\n\n[91] 1 Cor. xiv. 29, 30.\n\n[92] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxi.\n\n[93] The former Council of Carthage was held by Agrippinus early in the\nthird century, the ordinary date given being 215 A.D.\n\n[94] Tanquam lectulo auctoritatis.\n\n[95] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxi.\n\n[96] The general Council, on whose authority Augustine relies in many\nplaces in this work, was either that of Arles, in 314 A.D., or of\nNic\u00e6a, in 325 A.D., both of them being before his birth, in 354 A.D.\nHe quotes the decision of the same council, _contra Parmenianum_,\nii. 13, 30; _de Hoeresibus_, 69; _Ep._ xliii. 7, 19. Migne brings\nforward the following passages in favour of its being the Council of\nArles to which Augustine refers, since in them he ascribes the decision\nof the controversy to \"the authority of the whole world.\" _Contra\nParmenianum_, iii. 4, 21: \"They condemned,\" he says, \"some few in\nAfrica, by whom they were in turn vanquished by the judgment of the\nwhole world;\" and he adds, that \"the Catholics trusted ecclesiastical\njudges like these in preference to the defeated parties in the suit.\"\n_Ib._ 6, 30: He says that the Donatists, \"having made a schism in the\nunity of the Church, were refuted, not by the authority of 310 African\nbishops, but by that of the whole world.\" And in the sixth chapter\nof the first book of the same treatise, he says that the Donatists,\nafter the decision at Arles, came again to Constantine, and there were\ndefeated \"by a final decision,\" _i.e._ at Milan, as is seen from _Ep._\nxliii. 7, 20, in the year 316 A.D.\n\n[97] See above, ch. ii. 3.\n\n[98] See above, ch. ii. 3.\n\n[99] Rom. xiv. 4.\n\n[100] Wisd. xii. 10.\n\n[101] Ps. ciii. 8. \"And truth\" is not found in the A. V., nor in\nthe Roman version of the LXX. The Alexandrian MS. adds [Greek: kai\nal\u00eatheinos].\n\n[102] Ezek. xxiii. 11.\n\n[103] 2 Tim. iv. 2.\n\n[104] John xii. 43.\n\n[105] He is alluding to that chief schism among the Donatists, which\noccurred when Maximianus was consecrated bishop of Carthage, in\nopposition to Primianus, 394 A.D.\n\n[106] Optatus, a Donatist bishop of Thaumugade in Numidia, was\ncalled Gildonianus from his adherence to Gildo, Count of Africa, and\ngeneralissimo of the province under the elder Theodosius. On his death,\nin 395 A.D., Gildo usurped supreme authority, and by his aid Optatus\nwas enabled to oppress the Catholics in the province, till, in 398\nA.D., Gildo was defeated by his brother Maxezel, and destroyed himself,\nand Optatus was put in prison, where he died soon afterwards. He is\nnot to be confounded with Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, the strenuous\nopponent of the Donatists.\n\n[107] The Council of Bagai. See above, I. v. 7.\n\n[108] Matt. xviii. 19.\n\n[109] 1 Pet. iv. 8.\n\n[110] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. to Jubaianus.\n\n[111] John xiii. 10. \"Qui lotus est, non habet necessitatem iterum\nlavandi.\" The Latin, with the A.V., loses the distinction between\n[Greek: ho leloumenos], \"he that has _bathed_,\" and [Greek: niptein],\nto _wash_; and further introduces the idea of repetition.\n\n[112] John iii. 5.\n\n[113] See above, c. ii. 3.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK THIRD.\n\n AUGUSTINE UNDERTAKES THE REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENTS WHICH MIGHT BE\n DERIVED FROM THE EPISTLE OF CYPRIAN TO JUBAIANUS, TO GIVE COLOUR TO\n THE VIEW THAT THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST COULD NOT BE CONFERRED BY HERETICS.\n\n\nCHAP. I.--1. I think that it may now be considered clear to every\none, that the authority of the blessed Cyprian for the maintenance\nof the bond of peace, and the avoiding of any violation of that most\nwholesome charity which preserves unity in the Church, may be urged on\nour side rather than on the side of the Donatists. For if they have\nchosen to act upon his example in rebaptizing Catholics, because he\nthought that heretics ought to be baptized on joining the Catholic\nChurch, shall not we rather follow his example, whereby he laid down\na manifest rule that one ought in no wise, by the establishment of a\nseparate communion, to secede from the Catholic communion, that is,\nfrom the body of Christians dispersed throughout the world, even on the\nadmission of evil and sacrilegious men, since he was unwilling even to\nremove from the right of communion those whom he considered to have\nreceived sacrilegious men without baptism into the Catholic communion,\nsaying, \"Judging no one, nor depriving any of the right of communion if\nhe differ from us?\"[114]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. II.--2. Nevertheless, I see what may still be required of me,\nviz. that I should answer those plausible arguments, by which, in even\nearlier times, Agrippinus, or Cyprian himself, or those in Africa\nwho agreed with them, or any others in far distant lands beyond the\nsea, were moved, not indeed by the authority of any general or even\nprovincial Council, but by a mere epistolary correspondence, to\nthink that they ought to adopt a custom which had no sanction from\nthe ancient custom of the Church, and which was expressly forbidden\nby the most unanimous resolution of the Catholic world, in order that\nan error which had begun to creep into the minds of some men, through\ndiscussions of this kind, might be cured by the more powerful truth\nand universal healing power of unity coming on the side of safety. And\nso they may see with what security I approach this discourse. If I am\nunable to gain my point, and show how those arguments may be refuted\nwhich they bring forward from the Council and the epistles of Cyprian,\nto the effect that Christ's baptism may not be given by the hands of\nheretics, I shall still remain safely in the Church, in whose communion\nCyprian himself remained with those who differed from him.\n\n3. But if they say that the Catholic Church existed then, because\nthere were a few, or, if they prefer it, even a considerable number,\nwho denied the validity of any baptism conferred in an heretical body,\nand baptized all who came from thence, what then? Did the Church not\nexist at all before Agrippinus, with whom that new kind of system\nbegan, at variance with all previous custom? Or how, again, after\nthe time of Agrippinus, when, unless there had been a return to the\nprimitive custom, there would have been no need for Cyprian to set on\nfoot another Council? Was there no Church then, because such a custom\nas this prevailed everywhere, that the baptism of Christ should be\nconsidered nothing but the baptism of Christ, even though it were\nproved to have been conferred in a body of heretics or schismatics?\nBut if the Church existed even then, and had not perished through\na breach of its continuity, but was, on the contrary, holding its\nground, and receiving increase in every nation, surely it is the\nsafest plan to abide by this same custom, which then embraced good\nand bad alike in unity. But if there was then no Church in existence,\nbecause sacrilegious heretics were received without baptism, and this\nprevailed by universal custom, whence has Donatus made his appearance?\nfrom what land did he spring? or from what sea did he emerge? or\nfrom what sky did he fall? And so we, as I had begun to say, are\nsafe in the communion of that Church, throughout the whole extent of\nwhich the custom now prevails, which prevailed in like manner through\nits whole extent before the time of Agrippinus, and in the interval\nbetween Agrippinus and Cyprian, and whose unity neither Agrippinus\nnor Cyprian ever deserted, nor those who agreed with them, although\nthey entertained different views from the rest of their brethren,--all\nof them remaining in the same communion of unity with the very men\nfrom whom they differed in opinion. But let the Donatists themselves\nconsider what their true position is, if they neither can say whence\nthey derived their origin, if the Church had already been destroyed by\nthe plague-spot of communion with heretics and schismatics received\ninto her bosom without baptism; nor again agree with Cyprian himself,\nfor he declared that he remained in communion with those who received\nheretics and schismatics, and so also with those who were received as\nwell: while they have separated themselves from the communion of the\nwhole world, on account of the charge of having delivered up the sacred\nbooks, which they brought against the men whom they maligned in Africa,\nbut failed to convict when brought to trial beyond the sea; although,\neven had the crimes which they alleged been true, they were much less\nheinous than the sins of heresy and schism; and yet these could not\ndefile Cyprian in the persons of those who came from them without\nbaptism, as he conceived, and were admitted without baptism into the\nCatholic communion. Nor, in the very point in which they say that they\nimitate Cyprian, can they find any answer to make about acknowledging\nthe baptism of the followers of Maximianus, together with those whom,\nthough they belonged to the party that they had first condemned in\ntheir own general Council, and then gone on to prosecute even at the\ntribunal of the secular power, they yet received back into their\ncommunion, in the episcopate of the very same bishop under whom they\nhad been condemned. Wherefore, if the communion of wicked men destroyed\nthe Church in the time of Cyprian, they have no source from which they\ncan derive their own communion; and if the Church was not destroyed,\nthey have no excuse for their separation from it. Moreover, they\nare neither following the example of Cyprian, since they have burst\nthe bond of unity, nor abiding by their own Council, since they have\nrecognised the baptism of the followers of Maximianus.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. III--4. Let us therefore, seeing that we adhere to the example of\nCyprian, go on now to consider Cyprian's Council. What says Cyprian?\n\"Ye have heard,\" he says, \"most beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus\nour fellow-bishop has written to me, consulting my moderate ability\nconcerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, and what\nanswer I gave him,--giving a judgment which we have once and again and\noften given, that heretics coming to the Church ought to be baptized\nand sanctified with the baptism of the Church. Another letter of\nJubaianus has likewise been read to you, in which, agreeably to his\nsincere and religious devotion, in answer to our epistle, he not only\nexpressed his assent, but returned thanks also, acknowledging that\nhe had received instruction.\"[115] In these words of the blessed\nCyprian, we find that he had been consulted by Jubaianus, and what\nanswer he had given to his questions, and how Jubaianus acknowledged\nwith gratitude that he had received instruction. Ought we then to be\nthought unreasonably persistent, if we desire to consider this same\nepistle by which Jubaianus was convinced? For till such time as we are\nalso convinced (if there are any arguments of truth whereby this can\nbe done), Cyprian himself has established our security by the right of\nCatholic communion.\n\n5. For he goes on to say: \"It remains that we severally declare our\nopinion on this same subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one\nof the right of communion if he differ from us.\"[115] He allows me,\ntherefore, without losing the right of communion, not only to continue\ninquiring into the truth, but even to hold opinions differing from his\nown. \"For no one of us,\" he says, \"setteth himself up as a bishop of\nbishops, or by tyrannical terror forceth his colleagues to a necessity\nof obeying.\" What could be more kind? what more humble? Surely there\nis here no authority restraining us from inquiry into what is truth.\n\"Inasmuch as every bishop,\" he says, \"in the free use of his liberty\nand power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no\nmore be judged by another than he can himself judge another,\"--that\nis, I suppose, in those questions which have not yet been brought to\nperfect clearness of solution; for he knew what a deep question about\nthe sacrament was then occupying the whole Church with every kind of\ndisputation, and gave free liberty of inquiry to every man, that the\ntruth might be made known by investigation. For he was surely not\nuttering what was false, and trying to catch his simpler colleagues in\ntheir speech, so that, when they should have betrayed that they held\nopinions at variance with his, he might then propose, in violation of\nhis promise, that they should be excommunicated. Far be it from a soul\nso holy to entertain such accursed treachery; indeed, they who hold\nsuch a view about such a man, thinking that it conduces to his praise,\ndo but show that it would be in accordance with their own nature. I\nfor my part will in no wise believe that Cyprian, a Catholic bishop, a\nCatholic martyr, whose greatness only made him proportionately humble\nin all things, so as to find favour before the Lord,[116] should ever,\nespecially in the sacred Council of his colleagues, have uttered with\nhis mouth what was not echoed in his heart, especially as he further\nadds, \"But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who\nalone has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church,\nand of judging of our acts therein.\"[117] When, then, he called to\ntheir remembrance so solemn a judgment, hoping to hear the truth from\nhis colleagues, would he first set them the example of lying? May God\navert such madness from every Christian man, and how much more from\nCyprian! We have therefore the free liberty of inquiry granted to us by\nthe most moderate and most truthful speech of Cyprian.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IV.--6. Next his colleagues proceed to deliver their several\nopinions. But first they listened to the letter written to Jubaianus;\nfor it was read, as was mentioned in the preamble. Let it therefore\nbe read among ourselves also, that we too, with the help of God,\nmay discover from it what we ought to think. \"What!\" I think I hear\nsome one saying, \"do you proceed to tell us what Cyprian wrote to\nJubaianus?\" I have read the letter, I confess, and should certainly\nhave been a convert to his views, had I not been induced to consider\nthe matter more carefully by the vast weight of authority, originating\nin those whom the Church, distributed throughout the world amid so\nmany nations, of Latins, Greeks, barbarians, not to mention the Jewish\nrace itself, has been able to produce,--that same Church which gave\nbirth to Cyprian himself,--men whom I could in no wise bring myself\nto think had been unwilling without reason to hold this view,--not\nbecause it was impossible that in so difficult a question the opinion\nof one or of a few might not have been more near the truth than that\nof more, but because one must not lightly, without full consideration\nand investigation of the matter to the best of his abilities, decide in\nfavour of a single individual, or even of a few, against the decision\nof so very many men of the same religion and communion, all endowed\nwith great talent and abundant learning. And so how much was suggested\nto me on more diligent inquiry, even by the letter of Cyprian himself,\nin favour of the view which is now held by the Catholic Church, that\nthe baptism of Christ is to be recognised and approved, not by the\nstandard of their merits by whom it is administered, but by His alone\nof whom it is said, \"The same is He which baptizeth,\"[118] will be\nshown naturally in the course of our argument. Let us therefore suppose\nthat the letter which was written by Cyprian to Jubaianus has been read\namong us, as it was read in the Council.[119] And I would have every\none read it who means to read what I am going to say, lest he might\npossibly think that I have suppressed some things of consequence. For\nit would take too much time, and be irrelevant to the elucidation of\nthe matter in hand, were we at this moment to quote all the words of\nthis epistle.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. V.--7. But if any one should ask what I hold in the meantime,\nwhile discussing this question, I answer that, in the first place, the\nletter of Cyprian suggested to me what I should hold till I should see\nclearly the nature of the question which next begins to be discussed.\nFor Cyprian himself says: \"But some will say, 'What then will become\nof those who in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were\nadmitted without baptism?'\"[120] Whether they were really without\nbaptism, or whether they were admitted because those who admitted them\nconceived that they had partaken of baptism, is a matter for our future\nconsideration. At any rate, Cyprian himself shows plainly enough what\nwas the ordinary custom of the Church, when he says that in past time\nthose who came to the Church from heresy were admitted without baptism.\n\n8. For in the Council itself Castus of Sicca says: \"He who, despising\ntruth, presumes to follow custom, is either envious or evil-disposed\ntowards the brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or is ungrateful\ntowards God, by whose inspiration His Church is instructed.\"[121]\nWhether the truth had been revealed, we shall investigate hereafter; at\nany rate, he acknowledges that the custom of the Church was different.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VI.--9. Libosus also of Vaga says: \"The Lord says in the gospel,\n'I am the Truth.'[122] He does not say, 'I am custom.' Therefore,\nwhen the truth is made manifest, custom must give way to truth.\"[123]\nClearly no one could doubt that custom must give way to truth where it\nis made manifest. But we shall see presently about the manifestation\nof the truth. Meanwhile he also makes it clear that custom was on the\nother side.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VII.--10. Zosimus also of Tharassa said: \"When a revelation of\nthe truth has been made, error must give way to truth; for even Peter,\nwho at the first circumcised, afterwards gave way to Paul when he\ndeclared the truth.\"[124] He indeed chose to say error, not custom; but\nin saying \"for even Peter, who at the first circumcised, afterwards\ngave way to Paul when he declared the truth,\" he shows plainly enough\nthat there was a custom also on the subject of baptism at variance\nwith his views. At the same time, also, he warns us that it was not\nimpossible that Cyprian might have held an opinion about baptism at\nvariance with that required by the truth, as held by the Church both\nbefore and after him, if even Peter could hold a view at variance with\nthe truth as taught us by the Apostle Paul.[125]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VIII.--11. Likewise Felix of Buslacene said: \"In admitting\nheretics without the baptism of the Church, let no one prefer custom\nto reason and truth; because reason and truth always prevail to the\nexclusion of custom.\"[126] Nothing could be better, if it be reason,\nand if it be truth; but this we shall see presently. Meanwhile, it is\nclear from the words of this man also that the custom was the other way.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IX.--12. Likewise Honoratus of Tucca said: \"Since Christ is\nthe Truth, we ought to follow truth rather than custom.\"[127] By all\nthese declarations it is proved that we are not excluded from the\ncommunion of the Church, till it shall have been clearly shown what\nis the nature of the truth, which they say must be preferred to our\ncustom. But if the truth has made it clear that the very regulation\nought to be maintained which the said custom had prescribed, then it\nis evident, both that this custom was not established or confirmed in\nvain, and also that, in consequence of the discussions in question,\nthe most wholesome observance of so great a sacrament, which could\nnever, indeed, have been changed in the Catholic Church, was even\nmore watchfully guarded with the most scrupulous caution, when it had\nreceived the further corroboration of Councils.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. X.--13. Therefore Cyprian writes to Jubaianus as follows,\n\"concerning the baptism of heretics, who, being placed without, and set\ndown out of the Church,\" seem to him to \"claim to themselves a matter\nover which they have neither right nor power. Which we,\" he says,\n\"cannot account valid or lawful, since it is clear that among them it\nis unlawful.\"[128] Neither, indeed, do we deny that a man who is baptized\namong heretics, or in any schism outside the Church, derives no profit\nfrom it so far as he is partner in the perverseness of the heretics\nand schismatics; nor do we hold that those who baptize, although they\nconfer the real true sacrament of baptism, are yet acting rightly,\nin gathering adherents outside the Church, and entertaining opinions\ncontrary to the Church. But it is one thing to be without a sacrament,\nanother thing to be in possession of it wrongly, and to usurp it\nunlawfully. Therefore they do not cease to be sacraments of Christ\nand the Church, merely because they are unlawfully used, not only\nby heretics, but by all kinds of wicked and impious persons. These,\nindeed, ought to be corrected and punished, but the sacraments should\nbe acknowledged and revered.\n\n14. Cyprian, indeed, says that on this subject not one, but two or\nmore Councils were held; always, however, in Africa. For indeed in one\nhe mentions that seventy-one bishops had been assembled,[128]--to all\nwhose authority we do not hesitate, with all due deference to Cyprian,\nto prefer the authority, supported by many more bishops, of the whole\nChurch spread throughout the whole world, of which Cyprian himself\nrejoiced that he was an inseparable member.\n\n15. Nor is the water \"profane and adulterous\"[128] over which the name\nof God is invoked, even though it be invoked by profane and adulterous\npersons; because neither the creature itself of water, nor the name\ninvoked, is adulterous. But the baptism of Christ, consecrated by\nthe words of the gospel, is necessarily holy, however polluted and\nunclean its ministers may be; because its inherent sanctity cannot be\npolluted, and the divine excellence abides in its sacrament, whether\nto the salvation of those who use it aright, or to the destruction\nof those who use it wrong. Would you indeed maintain that, while the\nlight of the sun or of a candle, diffused through unclean places,\ncontracts no foulness in itself therefrom, yet the baptism of Christ\ncan be defiled by the sins of any man, whatsoever he may be? For if we\nturn our thoughts to the visible materials themselves, which are to\nus the medium of the sacraments, every one must know that they admit\nof corruption. But if we think on that which they convey to us, who\ncan fail to see that it is incorruptible, however much the men through\nwhose ministry it is conveyed are either being rewarded or punished for\nthe character of their lives?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XI.--16. But Cyprian was right in not being moved by what\nJubaianus wrote, that \"the followers of Novatian rebaptize those who\ncome to them from the Catholic Church.\"[129] For, in the first place,\nit does not follow that whatever heretics have done in a perverse\nspirit of mimicry, Catholics are therefore to abstain from doing,\nbecause the heretics do the same. And again, the reasons are different\nfor which heretics and the Catholic Church ought respectively to\nabstain from rebaptizing. For it would not be right for heretics to\ndo so, even if it were fitting in the Catholic Church; because their\nargument is, that among the Catholics is wanting that which they\nthemselves received whilst still within the pale, and took away with\nthem when they departed. Whereas the reason why the Catholic Church\nshould not administer again the baptism which was given among heretics,\nis that it may not seem to decide that a power which is Christ's\nalone belongs to its members, or to pronounce that to be wanting in\nthe heretics which they have received within her pale, and certainly\ncould not lose by straying outside. For thus much Cyprian himself,\nwith all the rest, established, that if any should return from heresy\nto the Church, they should be received back, not by baptism, but by\nthe discipline of penitence; whence it is clear that they cannot be\nheld to lose by their secession what is not restored to them when they\nreturn. Nor ought it for a moment to be said that, as their heresy is\ntheir own, as their error is their own, as the sacrilege of disunion is\ntheir own, so also the baptism is their own, which is really Christ's.\nAccordingly, while the evils which are their own are corrected when\nthey return, so in that which is not theirs His presence should be\nrecognised, from whom it is.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XII.--17. But the blessed Cyprian shows that it was no new or\nsudden thing that he decided, because the practice had already begun\nunder Agrippinus. \"Many years,\" he says, \"and much time has passed away\nsince, under Agrippinus of honoured memory, a large assembly of bishops\ndetermined this point.\" Accordingly, under Agrippinus, at any rate, the\nthing was new. But I cannot understand what Cyprian means by saying,\n\"And thenceforward to the present day, so many thousand heretics in our\nprovinces, having been converted to our Church, showed no hesitation\nor dislike, but rather with full consent of reason and will, have\nembraced the opportunity of the grace of the laver of life and the\nbaptism unto salvation,\"[130] unless indeed he says, \"thenceforward to\nthe present day,\" because from the time when they were baptized in the\nChurch, in accordance with the Council of Agrippinus, no question of\nexcommunication had arisen in the case of any of the rebaptized. Yet\nif the custom of baptizing those who came over from heretics remained\nin force from the time of Agrippinus to that of Cyprian, why should\nnew Councils have been held by Cyprian on this point? Why does he say\nto this same Jubaianus that he is not doing anything new or sudden,\nbut only what had been established by Agrippinus? For why should\nJubaianus be disturbed by the question of novelty, so as to require to\nbe satisfied by the authority of Agrippinus, if this was the continuous\npractice of the Church from Agrippinus till Cyprian? Why, lastly, did\nso many of his colleagues urge that reason and truth must be preferred\nto custom, instead of saying that those who wished to act otherwise\nwere acting contrary to truth and custom alike?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIII.--18. But as regards the remission of sins, whether it is\ngranted through baptism at the hands of the heretics, I have already\nexpressed my opinion on this point in a former book,[131] but I will\nshortly recapitulate it here. If remission of sins is there conferred\nby the sacredness of baptism, the sins return again through obstinate\nperseverance in heresy or schism; and therefore such men must needs\nreturn to the peace of the Catholic Church, that they may cease to\nbe heretics and schismatics, and deserve that those sins which had\nreturned on them should be cleansed away by love working in the bond\nof unity. But if, although among heretics and schismatics it be still\nthe same baptism of Christ, it yet cannot work remission of sins owing\nto this same foulness of discord and wickedness of dissent, then the\nsame baptism begins to be of avail for the remission of sins when they\ncome to the peace of the Church,--[not][132] that what has been\nalready truly remitted should not be retained; nor that heretical\nbaptism should be repudiated as belonging to a different religion, or\nas being different from our own, so that a second baptism should be\nadministered; but that the very same baptism, which was working death\nby reason of discord outside the Church, may work salvation by reason\nof the peace within. It was, in fact, the same savour of which the\napostle says, \"We are a sweet savour of Christ in every place;\" and\nyet, says he, \"both in them that are saved, and in them that perish.\nTo the one we are the savour of life unto life; and to the other the\nsavour of death unto death.\"[133] And although he used these words with\nreference to another subject, I have applied them to this, that men may\nunderstand that what is good may not only work life to those who use it\naright, but also death to those who use it wrong.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIV.--19. Nor is it material, when we are considering the\nquestion of the genuineness and holiness of the sacrament, \"what\nthe recipient of the sacrament believes, and with what, faith he is\nimbued.\" It is of the very highest consequence as regards the entrance\ninto salvation, but is wholly immaterial as regards the question of\nthe sacrament. For it is quite possible that a man may be possessed of\nthe genuine sacrament and a corrupted faith, as it is possible that he\nmay hold the words of the creed in their integrity, and yet entertain\nan erroneous belief about the Trinity, or the resurrection, or any\nother point. For it is no slight matter, even within the Catholic\nChurch, to hold faith entirely consistent with the truth about even\nGod Himself, to say nothing of any of His creatures. Is it then to be\nmaintained, that if any one who has been baptized within the Catholic\nChurch itself should afterwards, in the course of reading, or by\nlistening to instruction, or by quiet argument, find out, through God's\nown revelation, that he had before believed otherwise than he ought,\nit is requisite that he should therefore be baptized afresh? But what\ncarnal and natural man is there who does not stray through the vain\nconceits[134] of his own heart, and picture God's nature to himself to\nbe such as he has imagined out of his carnal sense, and differ from the\ntrue conception of God as far as vanity from truth? Most truly, indeed,\nspeaks the apostle, filled with the light of truth: \"The natural man,\"\nsays he, \"receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.\"[135] And\nyet herein he was speaking of men whom he himself shows to have been\nbaptized. For he says to them, \"Was Paul crucified for you? or were\nye baptized in the name of Paul?\"[136] These men had therefore the\nsacrament of baptism; and yet, inasmuch as their wisdom was of the\nflesh, what could they believe about God otherwise than according to\nthe perception of their flesh, according to which \"the natural man\nreceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God?\" To such he says: \"I\ncould not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even\nas unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:\nfor hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.\nFor ye are yet carnal.\"[137] For such are carried about with every\nwind of doctrine, of which kind he says, \"That we be no more children,\ntossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.\"[138]\nIs it then true that, if these men shall have advanced even to the\nspiritual age of the inner man, and in the integrity of understanding\nshall have learned how far different from the requirements of the\ntruth has been the belief which they have been led by the fallacious\ncharacter of their conceits to entertain of God, they are therefore to\nbe baptized again? For, on this principle, it would be possible for a\nCatholic catechumen to light upon the writings of some heretic, and,\nnot having the knowledge requisite for discerning truth from error,\nhe might entertain some belief contrary to the Catholic faith, yet\nnot condemned by the words of the creed, just as, under colour of the\nsame words, innumerable heretical errors have sprung up. Supposing,\nthen, that the catechumen was under the impression that he was studying\nthe work of some great and learned Catholic, and was baptized with\nthat belief in the Catholic Church, and by subsequent research should\ndiscover what he ought to believe, so that, embracing the Catholic\nfaith, he should reject his former error, ought he, on confessing\nthis, to be baptized again? Or supposing that, before learning and\nconfessing this for himself, he should be found to entertain such an\nopinion, and should be taught what he ought to reject and what he\nshould believe, and it were to become clear that he had held this\nfalse belief when he was baptized, ought he therefore to be baptized\nagain? Why should we maintain the contrary? Because the sanctity of\nthe sacrament, consecrated in the words of the gospel, remains upon\nhim in its integrity, just as he received it from the hands of the\nminister, although he, being firmly rooted in the vanity of his carnal\nmind, entertained a belief other than was right at the time when he\nwas baptized. Wherefore it is manifest that it is possible that, with\ndefective faith, the sacrament of baptism may yet remain without defect\nin any man; and therefore all that is said about the diversity of the\nseveral heretics is beside the question. For in each person that is to\nbe corrected which is found to be amiss by the man who undertakes his\ncorrection. That is to be made whole which is unsound; that is to be\ngiven which is wanting, and, above all, the peace of Christian charity,\nwithout which the rest is profitless. Yet, as the rest is there, we\nmust not administer it as though it were wanting, only take care that\nits possession be to the profit, not the hurt of him who has it,\nthrough the very bond of peace and excellence of charity.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XV.--20. Accordingly, if Marcion consecrated the sacrament of\nbaptism with the words of the gospel, \"In the name of the Father, and\nof the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,\"[139] the sacrament was complete,\nalthough his faith expressed under the same words, seeing that he\nheld opinions not taught by the Catholic truth, was not complete, but\nstained with the falsity of fables.[140] For under these same words,\n\"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,\"\nnot Marcion only, or Valentinus, or Arius, or Eunomius, but the carnal\nbabes of the Church themselves (to whom the apostle said, \"I could not\nspeak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal\"), if they could\nbe individually asked for an accurate exposition of their opinions,\nwould probably show a diversity of opinions as numerous as the persons\nwho held them, \"for the natural man receiveth not the things of the\nSpirit of God.\" Can it, however, be said on this account that they do\nnot receive the complete sacrament? or that, if they shall advance,\nand correct the vanity of their carnal opinions, they must seek again\nwhat they had received? Each man receives after the fashion of his own\nfaith; yet how much does he obtain under the guidance of that mercy\nof God, in the confident assurance of which the same apostle says,\n\"If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this\nto you?\"[141] Yet the snares of heretics and schismatics prove for\nthis reason only too pernicious to the carnally-minded, because their\nvery progress is intercepted when their vain opinions are confirmed\nin opposition to the Catholic truth, and the perversity of their\ndissension is strengthened against the Catholic peace. Yet if the\nsacraments are the same, they are everywhere complete, even when they\nare wrongly understood, and perverted to be instruments of discord,\njust as the very writings of the gospel, if they are only the same,\nare everywhere complete, even though quoted with a boundless variety\nof false opinions. For as to what Jeremiah says--\"Why do those who\ngrieve me prevail against me? My wound is stubborn, whence shall I\nbe healed? In its origin it became unto me as lying water, having no\ncertainty,\"[142]--if the term \"water\" were never used figuratively and\nin the allegorical language of prophecy except to signify baptism, we\nshould have trouble in discovering what these words of Jeremiah meant;\nbut as it is, when \"waters\" are expressly used in the Apocalypse[143]\nto signify \"peoples,\" I do not see why, by \"lying water having no\ncertainty,\" I should not understand, \"a lying people, whom I cannot\ntrust.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVI.--21. But when it is said that \"the Holy Spirit is given\nonly in the Catholic Church,\" I suppose that our ancestors meant that\nwe should understand thereby what the apostle says, \"Because the love\nof God is spread abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given\nunto us.\"[144] For this is that very love which is wanting in all who\nare cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church; and for lack\nof this, \"though they speak with the tongues of men and of angels,\nthough they understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though they\nhave the gift of prophecy, and all faith, so that they could remove\nmountains, and though they bestow all their goods to feed the poor,\nand though they give their bodies to be burned, it profiteth them\nnothing.\"[145] But those are wanting in God's love who do not care for\nthe unity of the Church; and consequently we are right in understanding\nthat the Holy Spirit may be said not to be received except in the\nCatholic Church. For the Holy Spirit is not only given by the laying\non of hands amid the testimony of temporal sensible miracles, as He\nwas given in former days to be the credentials of a rudimentary faith,\nand for the extension of the first beginnings of the Church. For who\nexpects in these days that those on whom hands are laid that they may\nreceive the Holy Spirit should forthwith begin to speak with tongues?\nbut it is understood that invisibly and imperceptibly, on account of\nthe bond of peace, divine love is breathed into their hearts, so that\nthey may be able to say, \"Because the love of God is spread abroad in\nour hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.\" But there are\nmany operations of the Holy Spirit, which the same apostle commemorates\nin a certain passage at such length as he thinks sufficient, and then\nconcludes: \"But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit,\ndividing to every man severally as He will.\"[146] Since, then, the\nsacrament is one thing, which even Simon Magus could have;[147] and the\noperation of the Spirit is another thing, which is even often found in\nwicked men, as Saul had the gift of prophecy;[148] and that operation\nof the same Spirit is a third thing, which only the good can have, as\n\"the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a\ngood conscience, and of faith unfeigned:\"[149] whatever, therefore, may\nbe received by heretics and schismatics, the charity which covereth the\nmultitude of sins is the especial gift of Catholic unity and peace; nor\nis it found in all that are within that bond, since not all that are\nwithin it are of it, as we shall see in the proper place. At any rate,\noutside the bond that love cannot exist, without which all the other\nrequisites, even if they can be recognised and approved, cannot profit\nor release from sin. But the laying on of hands in reconciliation to\nthe Church is not, like baptism, incapable of repetition; for what is\nit more than a prayer offered over a man?[150]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVII.--22. \"For as regards the fact that to preserve the figure\nof unity the Lord gave the power to Peter that whatsoever he should\nloose on earth should be loosed,\"[151] it is clear that that unity is\nalso described as one dove without fault.[152] Can it be said, then,\nthat to this same dove belong all those greedy ones, whose existence in\nthe same Catholic Church Cyprian himself so grievously bewailed? For\nbirds of prey, I believe, cannot be called doves, but rather hawks. How\nthen did they baptize those who used to plunder estates by treacherous\ndeceit, and increase their profits by compound usury,[153] if baptism\nis only given by that indivisible and chaste and perfect dove, that\nunity which can only be understood as existing among the good? Is it\npossible that, by the prayers of the saints who are spiritual within\nthe Church, as though by the frequent lamentations of the dove, a great\nsacrament is dispensed, with a secret administration of the mercy of\nGod, so that their sins also are loosed who are baptized, not by the\ndove but by the hawk, if they come to that sacrament in the peace of\nCatholic unity? But if this be so, why should it not also be the case\nthat, as each man comes from heresy or schism to the Catholic peace,\nhis sins should be loosed through their prayers? But the integrity of\nthe sacrament is everywhere recognised, though it will not avail for\nthe irrevocable remission of sins outside the unity of the Church. Nor\nwill the prayers of the saints, or, in other words, the groanings of\nthat one dove, be able to help one who is set in heresy or schism; just\nas they are not able to help one who is placed within the Church, if by\na wicked life he himself retain the debts of his sins against himself,\nand that though he be baptized, not by this hawk, but by the pious\nministry of the dove herself.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVIII.--23. \"As my Father hath sent me,\" says our Lord, \"even so\nsend I you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith\nunto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they\nare remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are\nretained.\"[154] Therefore, if they represented the Church, and this was\nsaid to them as to the Church herself, it follows that the peace of\nthe Church looses sins, and estrangement from the Church retains them,\nnot according to the will of men, but according to the will of God and\nthe prayers of the saints who are spiritual, who \"judge all things,\nbut themselves are judged of no man.\"[155] For the rock retains, the\nrock remits; the dove retains, the dove remits; unity retains, unity\nremits. But the peace of this unity exists only in the good, in those\nwho are either already spiritual, or are advancing by the obedience\nof concord to spiritual things; it exists not in the bad, whether\nthey make disturbances abroad, or are endured within the Church with\nlamentations, baptizing and being baptized. But just as those who\nare tolerated with groanings within the Church, although they do not\nbelong to the same unity of the dove, and to that \"glorious Church,\nnot having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing,\"[156] yet if they are\ncorrected, and confess that they approached to baptism most unworthily,\nare not baptized again, but begin to belong to the dove, through whose\ngroans those sins are remitted which were retained in them who were\nestranged from her peace; so those also who are more openly without the\nChurch, if they have received the same sacraments, are not freed from\ntheir sins on coming, after correction, to the unity of the Church,\nby a repetition of baptism, but by the same law of charity and bond\nof unity. For if \"those only may baptize who are set over the Church,\nand established by the law of the gospel and ordination as appointed\nby the Lord,\" were they in any wise of this kind who seized on estates\nby treacherous frauds, and increased their gains by compound interest?\nI trow not, since those are established by ordination as appointed of\nthe Lord, of whom the apostle, in giving them a standard, says, \"Not\ngreedy, not given to filthy lucre.\"[157] Yet men of this kind used to\nbaptize in the time of Cyprian himself; and he confesses with many\nlamentations that they were his fellow-bishops, and endures them with\nthe great reward of tolerance. Yet did they not confer remission of\nsins, which is granted through the prayers of the saints, that is, the\ngroans of the dove, whoever it be that baptizes, if those to whom it\nis given belong to her peace. For the Lord would not say to robbers\nand usurers, \"Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to\nhim; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained.\" \"Outside\nthe Church, indeed, nothing can be either bound or loosed, since there\nthere is no one who can either bind or loose;\" but he is loosed who has\nmade peace with the dove, and he is bound who is not at peace with the\ndove, whether he is openly without, or appears to be within.\n\n24. But we know that Dathan, Korah, and Abiram,[158] who tried to usurp\nto themselves the right of sacrificing, contrary to the unity of the\npeople of God, and also the sons of Aaron who offered strange fire\nupon the altar,[159] did not escape punishment. Nor do we say that\nsuch offences remain unpunished, unless those guilty of them correct\nthemselves, if the patience of God leading them to repentance[160] give\nthem time for correction.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIX.--25. They indeed who say that baptism is not to be repeated,\nbecause only hands were laid on those whom Philip the deacon had\nbaptized,[161] are saying what is quite beside the point; and far be it\nfrom us, in seeking the truth, to use such arguments as this. Wherefore\nwe are all the further from \"yielding to heretics,\"[162] if we deny\nthat what they possess of Christ's Church is their own property, and\ndo not refuse to acknowledge the standard of our General because of\nthe crimes of deserters; nay, all the more because \"the Lord our God\nis a jealous God,\"[163] let us refuse, whenever we see anything of His\nwith an alien, to allow him to consider it his own. For of a truth the\njealous God Himself rebukes the woman who commits fornication against\nHim, as the type of an erring people, and says that she gave to her\nlovers what belonged to Him, and again received from them what was not\ntheirs but His. In the hands of the adulterous woman and the adulterous\nlovers, God in His wrath, as a jealous God, recognises His gifts; and\ndo we say that baptism, consecrated in the words of the gospel, belongs\nto heretics? and are we willing, from consideration of their deeds,\nto attribute to them even what belongs to God, as though they had the\npower to pollute it, or as though they could make what is God's to be\ntheir own, because they themselves have refused to belong to God?\n\n26. Who is that adulterous woman whom the prophet Hosea points out,\nwho said, \"I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my\nwater, my wool and my flax, and everything that befits me?\"[164] Let\nus grant that we may understand this also of the people of the Jews\nthat went astray; yet whom else are the false Christians (such as are\nall heretics and schismatics) wont to imitate, except false Israelites?\nFor there were also true Israelites, as the Lord Himself bears witness\nto Nathanael, \"Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.\"[165]\nBut who are true Christians, save those of whom the same Lord said,\n\"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth\nme?\"[166] But what is it to keep His commandments, except to abide in\nlove? Whence also He says, \"A new commandment I give unto you, that\nye love one another;\" and again, \"By this shall all men know that ye\nare my disciples, if ye have love one to another.\"[167] But who can\ndoubt that this was spoken not only to those who heard His words with\ntheir fleshly ears when He was present with them, but also to those who\nlearn His words through the gospel, when He is sitting on His throne\nin heaven? For He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil.[168] But\nthe fulfilling of the law is love.[169] And in this Cyprian abounded\ngreatly, insomuch that though he held a different view concerning\nbaptism, he yet did not forsake the unity of the Church, and was in the\nLord's vine a branch firmly rooted, bearing fruit, which the heavenly\nHusbandman purged with the knife of suffering, that it should bear\nmore fruit.[170] But the enemies of this brotherly love, whether they\nare openly without, or appear to be within, are false Christians, and\nantichrists. For when they have found an opportunity, they go out, as\nit is written: \"A man wishing to separate himself from his friends,\nseeketh opportunities.\"[171] But even if occasions are wanting, while\nthey seem to be within, they are severed from that invisible bond of\nlove. Whence St. John says, \"They went out from us, but they were not\nof us; for had they been of us, they would no doubt have continued\nwith us.\"[172] He does not say that they ceased to be of us by going\nout, but that they went out because they were not of us. The Apostle\nPaul also speaks of certain men who had erred concerning the truth,\nand were overthrowing the faith of some; whose word was eating as a\ncanker. Yet in saying that they should be avoided, he nevertheless\nintimates that they were all in one great house, but as vessels to\ndishonour,--I suppose because they had not as yet gone out. Or if\nthey had already gone out, how can he say that they were in the same\ngreat house with the honourable vessels, unless it was in virtue of\nthe sacraments themselves, which even in the severed meetings of\nheretics are not changed, that he speaks of all as belonging to the\nsame great house, though in different degrees of esteem, some to honour\nand some to dishonour? For thus he speaks in his Epistle to Timothy:\n\"But shun profane and vain babblings; for they will increase unto\nmore ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker; of whom\nis Hymen\u00e6us and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying\nthat the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.\nNevertheless the foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal, The\nLord knoweth them that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the name\nof Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only\nvessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some\nto honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from\nthese, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the\nmaster's use, and prepared unto every good work.\"[173] But what is it\nto purge oneself from such as these, except what he said just before,\n\"Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity?\"\nAnd lest any one should think that, as being in one great house with\nthem, he might perish with such as these, he has most carefully\nforewarned them, \"The Lord knoweth them that are His,\"--those, namely,\nwho, by departing from iniquity, purge themselves from the vessels made\nto dishonour, lest they should perish with them whom they are compelled\nto tolerate in the great house.\n\n27. They, therefore, who are wicked, evil-doers, carnal, fleshly,\ndevilish, think that they receive at the hands of their seducers what\nare the gifts of God alone, whether sacraments, or any spiritual\nworkings about present salvation. But these men have not love towards\nGod, but are busied about those by whose pride they are led astray,\nand are compared to the adulterous woman, whom the prophet introduces\nas saying, \"I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my\nwater, my wool and my flax, and my oil, and everything that befits me.\"\nFor thus arise heresies and schisms, when the fleshly people which\nis not founded on the love of God says, \"I will go after my lovers,\"\nwith whom, either by corruption of her faith, or by the puffing up of\nher pride, she shamefully commits adultery. But for the sake of those\nwho, having undergone the difficulties, and straits, and barriers of\nthe empty reasoning of those by whom they are led astray, afterwards\nfeel the prickings of fear, and return to the way of peace, to seeking\nGod in all sincerity,--for their sake He goes on to say, \"Therefore,\nbehold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she\nshall not find her paths. And she shall follow after her lovers, but\nshe shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but she shall\nnot find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first\nhusband; for then was it better with me than now.\" Then, that they\nmay not attribute to their seducers what they have that is sound, and\nderived from the doctrine of truth, by which they lead them astray\nto the falseness of their own dogmas and dissensions; that they may\nnot think that what is sound in them belongs to them, he immediately\nadded, \"And she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil,\nand multiplied her money; but she made vessels of gold and silver for\nBaal.\"[174] For she had said above, \"I will go after my lovers, that\ngive me my bread,\" etc., not at all understanding that all this, which\nwas held soundly and lawfully by her seducers, was of God, and not of\nmen. Nor would even they themselves claim these things for themselves,\nand as it were assert a right in them, had not they in turn been led\nastray by a people which had gone astray, when faith is reposed in\nthem, and such honours are paid to them, that they should be enabled\nthereby to say such things, and claim such things for themselves, that\ntheir error should be called truth, and their iniquity be thought\nrighteousness, in virtue of the sacraments and Scriptures, which they\nhold, not for salvation, but only in appearance. Accordingly, the same\nadulterous woman is addressed by the mouth of Ezekiel: \"Thou hast also\ntaken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given\nthee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom\nwith them; and tookest my[175] broidered garments, and coveredst them:\nand thou hast set mine oil and mine incense before them. My meat also\nwhich I gave thee, fine flour, and oil, and honey, wherewith I fed\nthee, thou hast even set it before them for a sweet savour: and this\nthou hast done.\"[176] For she turns all the sacraments, and the words\nof the sacred books, to the images of her own idols, with which her\ncarnal mind delights to wallow. Nor yet, because those images are\nfalse, and the doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy,[177]\nare those sacraments and divine utterances therefore so to lose their\ndue honour, as to be thought to belong to such as these; seeing that\nthe Lord says, \"Of my gold, and my silver, and my broidered garments,\nand mine oil, and mine incense, and my meat,\" and so forth. Ought we,\nbecause those erring ones think that these things belong to their\nseducers, therefore not to recognise whose they really are, when He\nHimself says, \"And she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine,\nand oil, and multiplied her money?\" For He did not say that she did\nnot have these things because she was an adulteress; but she is said\nto have had them, and that not as belonging to herself or her lovers,\nbut to God, whose alone they are. Although, therefore, she had her\nfornication, yet those things wherewith she adorned it, whether as\nseduced or in her turn seducing, belonged not to her, but to God. If\nthese things were spoken in a figure of the Jewish nation, when the\nscribes and Pharisees were rejecting the commandment of God in order to\nset up their own traditions, so that they were in a manner committing\nwhoredom with a people which was abandoning their God; and yet for all\nthat, whoredom at that time among the people, such as the Lord brought\nto light by convicting it, did not cause that the mysteries should\nbelong to them, which were not theirs but God's, who, in speaking to\nthe adulteress, says that all these things were His; whence the Lord\nHimself also sent those whom He cleansed from leprosy to the same\nmysteries, that they should offer sacrifice for themselves before the\npriests, because that sacrifice had not become efficacious for them,\nwhich He Himself afterwards wished to be commemorated in the Church\nfor all of them, because He Himself proclaimed the tidings to them\nall;--if this be so, how much the more ought we, when we find the\nsacraments of the New Testament among certain heretics or schismatics,\nnot to attribute them to these men, nor to condemn them, as though we\ncould not recognise them? We ought to recognise the gifts of the true\nhusband, though in the possession of an adulteress, and to amend, by\nthe word of truth, that whoredom which is the true possession of the\nunchaste woman, instead of finding fault with the gifts, which belong\nentirely to the pitying Lord.\n\n28. From these considerations, and such as these, our forefathers, not\nonly before the time of Cyprian and Agrippinus, but even afterwards,\nmaintained a most wholesome custom, that whenever they found anything\ndivine and lawful remaining in its integrity even in the midst of any\nheresy or schism, they approved rather than repudiated it; but whatever\nthey found that was alien, and peculiar to that false doctrine or\ndivision, this they convicted in the light of the truth, and healed.\nThe points, however, which remain to be considered in the letter\nwritten by Jubaianus, must, I think, when looking at the size of this\nbook, be taken in hand and treated with a fresh beginning.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[114] See above, II. ii. 3.\n\n[115] See above, II. ii. 3.\n\n[116] Ecclus. iii. 18.\n\n[117] See above, II. ii. 3.\n\n[118] John i. 33.\n\n[119] The Council of Carthage.\n\n[120] _Epist._ lxxiii. sec. 20, to Jubaianus.\n\n[121] Conc. Carth. sec. 28.\n\n[122] John xiv. 6.\n\n[123] Conc. Carth. sec. 30.\n\n[124] _Ib._ sec. 56.\n\n[125] Gal. ii. 11-14.\n\n[126] Conc. Carth. sec. 63.\n\n[127] _Ib._ sec. 77.\n\n[128] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 1.\n\n[129] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 2.\n\n[130] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 3.\n\n[131] Above, Book I. c. xi. foll.\n\n[132] Non ut jam vere dimissa non retineantur. One of the negatives\nhere appears to be superfluous, and the former is omitted in Amerbach's\nedition, and in many of the MSS., which continue the sentence, \"non\nut ille baptismus,\" instead of \"neque ut ille,\" etc. If the latter\nnegative were omitted, the sense would be improved, and \"neque\" would\nappropriately remain.\n\n[133] 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16.\n\n[134] Phantasmata.\n\n[135] 1 Cor. ii. 14.\n\n[136] 1 Cor. i. 13.\n\n[137] 1 Cor. iii. 1-3.\n\n[138] Eph. iv. 14.\n\n[139] Matt. xxviii. 19.\n\n[140] Cp. _Concilium Arelatense_, can. 8. \"De Afris, quod propria lege\nutuntur ut rebaptizent; placuit ut si ad ecclesiam aliquis de h\u00e6resi\nvenerit, interrogent eum symbolum; et si perviderint eum in Patre, et\nFilio, et Spiritu sancto esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum imponatur, ut\naccipiat Spiritum sanctum. Quod si interrogatus non responderit hanc\nTrinitatem, baptizetur.\"\n\n[141] Phil. iii. 15.\n\n[142] Jer. xv. 18, quoted from the LXX.\n\n[143] Rev. xvii. 15.\n\n[144] Rom. v. 5.\n\n[145] 1 Cor. xiii. 1-3.\n\n[146] 1 Cor. xii. 11.\n\n[147] Acts viii. 13.\n\n[148] 1 Sam. x. 6, 10.\n\n[149] 1 Tim. i. 5.\n\n[150] He refers to laying on of hands such as he mentions below, Book\nv. c. xxiii.: \"If hands were not laid on one who returned from heresy,\nhe would be judged to be free from all fault.\"\n\n[151] Matt. xvi. 19.\n\n[152] Song of Sol. vi. 9.\n\n[153] Cypr. _de Lapsis_, c. 4.\n\n[154] John xx. 21-23.\n\n[155] 1 Cor. ii. 15.\n\n[156] Eph. v. 27. Cp. _Retract._ ii. 18, quoted above on I. xvii.\n\n[157] Tit. i. 7.\n\n[158] Num. xvi.\n\n[159] Lev. x. 1, 2.\n\n[160] Rom. ii. 4.\n\n[161] Acts viii. 5-17.\n\n[162] Because Cyprian, in his letter to Jubaianus (_Ep._ lxxiii. sec.\n8), had urged as following from this, that \"there is no reason, dearest\nbrother, why we should think it right to yield to heretics that baptism\nwhich was granted to the one and only Church.\"\n\n[163] Deut. iv. 24.\n\n[164] Hos. ii. 5, from the LXX.\n\n[165] John i. 47.\n\n[166] John xiv. 21.\n\n[167] John xiii. 34, 35.\n\n[168] Matt. v. 17.\n\n[169] Rom. xiii. 10.\n\n[170] John xv. 1-5.\n\n[171] Prov. xviii. 1, from the LXX.\n\n[172] 1 John ii. 19.\n\n[173] 2 Tim. ii. 16-21.\n\n[174] Hos. ii. 5-8, from the LXX.\n\n[175] In the LXX., as well as in the English version, this is in the\nsecond person: [Greek: ton imatismon ton poikilon sou].\n\n[176] Ezek. xvi. 17-19.\n\n[177] 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK FOURTH.\n\n IN WHICH HE TREATS OF WHAT FOLLOWS IN THE SAME EPISTLE OF CYPRIAN TO\n JUBAIANUS.\n\n\nCHAP. I.--1. The comparison of the Church with Paradise[178] shows us\nthat men may indeed receive her baptism outside her pale, but that\nno one outside can either receive or retain the salvation of eternal\nhappiness. For, as the words of Scripture testify, the streams from\nthe fountain of Paradise flowed copiously even beyond its bounds.\nRecord indeed is made of their names; and through what countries they\nflow, and that they are situated beyond the limits of Paradise, is\nknown to all;[179] and yet in Mesopotamia, and in Egypt, to which\ncountries those rivers extended, there is not found that blessedness\nof life which is recorded in Paradise. Accordingly, though the waters\nof Paradise are found beyond its boundaries, yet its happiness is in\nParadise alone. So, therefore, the baptism of the Church may exist\noutside, but the gift of the life of happiness is found alone within\nthe Church, which has been founded on a rock, which has received the\nkeys of binding and loosing.[180] \"She it is alone who holds as her\nprivilege the whole power of her Bridegroom and Lord;\" by virtue of\nwhich power as bride, she can bring forth sons even of handmaids. And\nthese, if they be not high-minded, shall be called into the lot of the\ninheritance; but if they be high-minded, they shall remain outside.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. II.--2. All the more, then, because we are fighting for the\nhonour and unity of the Church, let us beware of giving to heretics\nthe credit of whatever we acknowledge among them as belonging to the\nChurch; but let us teach them by argument, that what they possess that\nis derived from unity is of no efficacy to their salvation, unless they\nshall return to that same unity. For \"the water of the Church is full\nof faith, and salvation, and holiness\" to those who use it rightly. No\none, however, can use it well outside the Church. But to those who use\nit perversely, whether within or without the Church, it is employed to\nwork punishment, and does not conduce to their reward. And so baptism\n\"cannot be corrupted and polluted,\" though it be handled by the corrupt\nor by adulterers, just as also \"the Church herself is uncorrupt, and\npure, and chaste.\" And so no share in it belongs to the avaricious, or\nthieves, or usurers,--many of whom, by the testimony of Cyprian himself\nin many places of his letters, exist not only without, but actually\nwithin the Church,--and yet they both are baptized and do baptize, with\nno change in their hearts.\n\n3. For this, too, he says, in one of his epistles[181] to the clergy on\nthe subject of prayer to God, in which, after the fashion of the holy\nDaniel, he represents the sins of his people as falling upon himself.\nFor among many other evils of which he makes mention, he speaks of\nthem also as \"renouncing the world in words only and not in deeds;\" as\nthe apostle says of certain men, \"They profess that they know God, but\nin works they deny Him.\"[182] These, therefore, the blessed Cyprian\nshows to be contained within the Church herself, who are baptized\nwithout their hearts being changed for the better, seeing that they\nrenounce the world in words and not in deeds, as the Apostle Peter\nsays, \"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth now save us, (not\nthe putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good\nconscience),\"[183] which certainly they had not of whom it is said that\nthey \"renounced the world in words only, and not in deeds;\" and yet he\ndoes his utmost, by chiding and convincing them, to make them at length\nwalk in the way of Christ, and be His friends rather than friends of\nthe world.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. III.--3. And if they would have obeyed him, and begun to live\nrightly, not as false but as true Christians, would he have ordered\nthem to be baptized anew? Surely not; but their true conversion would\nhave gained this for them, that the sacrament which availed for their\ndestruction while they were yet unchanged, should begin when they\nchanged to avail for their salvation.\n\n4. For neither are they \"devoted to the Church\"[184] who seem to\nbe within, and live contrary to Christ, that is, act against His\ncommandments; nor can they be considered in any way to belong to that\nChurch, which He so purifies by the washing of water, \"that He may\npresent to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle,\nor any such thing.\"[185] But if they are not in that Church to whose\nmembers they do not belong, they are not in the Church of which it is\nsaid, \"My dove is but one; she is the only one of her mother;\"[186]\nfor she herself is without spot or wrinkle. Or else let him who can\nassert that those are members of this dove who renounce the world in\nwords but not in deeds. Meantime there is one thing which we see,\nfrom which I think it was said, \"He that regardeth the day, regardeth\nit unto the Lord;\"[187] for God judgeth every day. For, according\nto His foreknowledge, who knows whom He has foreordained before the\nfoundation of the world to be made like to the image of His Son, many\nwho are even openly outside, and are called heretics, are better\nthan many good Catholics. For we see what they are to-day, what they\nshall be to-morrow we know not. And with God, with whom the future is\nalready present, they already are what they shall hereafter be. But\nwe, according to what each man is at present, inquire whether they are\nto be to-day reckoned among the members of the Church which is called\nthe one dove, and the Bride of Christ without spot or wrinkle,[188] of\nwhom Cyprian says in the letter which I have quoted above, that \"they\ndid not keep in the way of the Lord, nor observe the commandments given\nunto them for their salvation; that they did not fulfil the will of\ntheir Lord, being eager about their property and gains, following the\ndictates of pride, giving way to envy and dissension, careless about\nsingle-mindedness and faith, renouncing the world in words only and not\nin deeds, pleasing each himself, and displeasing all men.\"[189] But if\nthe dove does not acknowledge them among her members, and if the Lord\nshall say to them, supposing that they continue in the same perversity,\n\"I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity;\"[190] then\nthey seem indeed to be in the Church, but are not; \"nay, they even act\nagainst the Church. How then can they baptize with the baptism of the\nChurch,\"[191] which is of avail neither to themselves, nor to those\nwho receive it from them, unless they are changed in heart with a true\nconversion, so that the sacrament itself, which did not avail them when\nthey received it whilst they were renouncing the world in words and not\nin deeds, may begin to profit them when they shall begin to renounce it\nin deeds also? And so too in the case of those whose separation from\nthe Church is open; for neither these nor those are as yet among the\nmembers of the dove, but some of them perhaps will be at some future\ntime.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IV.--5. We do not, therefore, \"acknowledge the baptism of\nheretics,\"[192] when we refuse to rebaptize after them; but because\nwe acknowledge the ordinance to be of Christ, even among evil men,\nwhether openly separated from us, or secretly severed whilst within our\nbody, we receive it with due respect, having corrected those who were\nwrong in the points wherein they went astray. For as I seem to be hard\npressed when it is said to me, \"Does then a heretic confer remission of\nsins?\" so I in turn press hard when I say, Does then he who violates\nthe commands of Heaven, the avaricious man, the robber, the usurer, the\nenvious man, does he who renounces the world in words and not in deeds,\nconfer such remission? If you mean by the force of God's sacrament,\nthen both the one and the other; if by his own merit, neither of them.\nFor that sacrament, even in the hands of wicked men, is known to be\nof Christ; but neither the one nor the other of these men is found in\nthe body of the one uncorrupt, holy, chaste dove, which has neither\nspot nor wrinkle. And just as baptism is of no profit to the man who\nrenounces the world in words and not in deeds, so it is of no profit\nto him who is baptized in heresy or schism; but each of them, when he\namends his ways, begins to receive profit from that which before was\nnot profitable, but was yet already in him.\n\n6. \"He therefore that is baptized in heresy does not become the temple\nof God;\"[193] but does it therefore follow that he is not to be\nconsidered as baptized? For neither does the avaricious man, baptized\nwithin the Church, become the temple of God, unless he depart from his\navarice; for they who become the temple of God certainly inherit the\nkingdom of God. But the apostle says, among many other things, \"Neither\nthe covetous, nor thieves, shall inherit the kingdom of God.\"[194] For\nin another place the same apostle compares covetousness to the worship\nof idols: \"Nor covetous man,\" he says, \"who is an idolater;\"[195] which\nmeaning the same Cyprian has so far extended in a letter to Antonianus,\nthat he did not hesitate to compare the sin of covetousness with that\nof men who in time of persecution had declared in writing that they\nwould offer incense.[196] The man, then, who is baptized in heresy in\nthe name of the Holy Trinity yet does not become the temple of God\nunless he abandons his heresy, just as the covetous man who has been\nbaptized in the same name does not become the temple of God unless he\nabandons his covetousness, which is idolatry. For this, too, the same\napostle says: \"What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?\"[197]\nLet it not, then, be asked of us \"of what God he is made the\ntemple?\"[193] when we say that he is not made the temple of God at all.\nYet he is not therefore unbaptized, nor does his foul error cause that\nwhat he has received, consecrated in the words of the gospel, should\nnot be the holy sacrament; just as the other man's covetousness (which\nis idolatry) and great uncleanness cannot prevent what he receives from\nbeing holy baptism, even though he be baptized with the same words of\nthe gospel by another man covetous like himself.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. V.--7. \"Further,\" Cyprian goes on to say, \"in vain do some, who\nare overcome by reason, oppose to us custom, as though custom were\nsuperior to truth, or that were not to be followed in spiritual things\nwhich has been revealed by the Holy Spirit, as the better way.\"[198]\nThis is clearly true, since reason and truth are to be preferred to\ncustom. But when truth supports custom, nothing should be more strongly\nmaintained. Then he proceeds as follows: \"For one may pardon a man\nwho merely errs, as the Apostle Paul says of himself, 'Who was before\na blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious; but I obtained mercy,\nbecause I did it ignorantly;'[199] but he who, after inspiration and\nrevelation given, perseveres advisedly and knowingly in his former\nerror, sins without hope of pardon on the ground of ignorance. For he\nrests on a kind of presumption and obstinacy, when he is overcome by\nreason.\" This is most true, that his sin is much more grievous who has\nsinned wittingly than his who has sinned through ignorance. And so\nin the case of the holy Cyprian, who was not only learned, but also\npatient of instruction, which he so fully himself understood to be a\npart of the praise of the bishop whom the apostle describes,[200] that\nhe said, \"This also should be approved in a bishop, that he not only\nteach with knowledge, but also learn with patience.\"[201] I do not\ndoubt that if he had had the opportunity of discussing this question,\nwhich has been so long and so much disputed in the Church, with the\npious and learned men to whom we owe it that subsequently that ancient\ncustom was confirmed by the authority of a general Council, he would\nhave shown, without hesitation, not only how learned he was in those\nthings which he had grasped with all the security of truth, but also\nhow ready he was to receive instruction in what he had failed to\nperceive. And yet, since it is so clear that it is much more grievous\nto sin wittingly than in ignorance, I should be glad if any one would\ntell me which is the worse,--the man who falls into heresy, not\nknowing how great a sin it is, or the man who refuses to abandon his\ncovetousness, knowing its enormity. I might even put the question\nthus: If one man unwittingly fall into heresy, and another knowingly\nrefuse to depart from idolatry, since the apostle himself says, \"The\ncovetous man, which is an idolater;\" and Cyprian too understood the\nsame passage in just the same way, when he says, in his letter to\nAntonianus, \"Nor let the new heretics flatter themselves in this,\nthat they say they do not communicate with idolaters, whereas there\nare amongst them both adulterers and covetous persons, who are held\nguilty of the sin of idolatry; 'for know this, and understand, that no\nwhoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater,\nhath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God;'[202] and\nagain, 'Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth;\nfornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence,\nand covetousness, which is idolatry.'\"[203] I ask, therefore, which\nsins more deeply,--he who ignorantly has fallen into heresy, or he\nwho wittingly has refused to abandon covetousness, that is idolatry?\nAccording to that rule by which the sins of those who sin wittingly\nare placed before those of the ignorant, the man who is covetous with\nknowledge takes the first place in sin. But as it is possible that\nthe greatness of the actual sin should produce the same effect in the\ncase of heresy that the witting commission of the sin produces in\nthat of covetousness, let us suppose the ignorant heretic to be on a\npar in guilt with the consciously covetous man, although the evidence\nwhich Cyprian himself has advanced from the apostle does not seem to\nprove this. For what is it that we abominate in heretics except their\nblasphemies? But when he wished to show that ignorance of the sin may\nconduce to ease in obtaining pardon, he advanced a proof from the\ncase of the apostle, when he says, \"Who before was a blasphemer, and\na persecutor, and injurious; but I obtained mercy, because I did it\nignorantly.\"[204] But if possible, as I said before, let the sins of\nthe two men--the blasphemy of the unconscious, and the idolatry of the\nconscious sinner--be esteemed of equal weight; and let them be judged\nby the same sentence,--he who, in seeking for Christ, falls into a\ntruth-like setting forth of what is false, and he who wittingly resists\nChrist speaking through His apostle, \"seeing that no whoremonger,\nnor unclean person, nor covetous man, which is an idolater, hath any\ninheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God,\"[205]--and then I\nwould ask why baptism and the words of the gospel are held as naught in\nthe former case, and accounted valid in the latter, when each is alike\nfound to be estranged from the members of the dove. Is it because the\nformer is an open combatant outside, that he should not be admitted,\nthe latter a cunning assenter within the fold, that he may not be\nexpelled?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VI.--8. But as regards his saying, \"Nor let any one affirm that\nwhat they have received from the apostles, that they follow; for\nthe apostles handed down only one Church and one baptism, and that\nappointed only in the same Church;\"[206] this does not so much move\nme to venture to condemn the baptism of Christ when found amongst\nheretics (just as it is necessary to recognise the gospel itself when\nI find it with them, though I abominate their error), as it warns\nme that there were some even in the times of the holy Cyprian who\ntraced to the authority of the apostles that custom against which the\nAfrican Councils were held, and in respect of which he himself said\na little above, \"In vain do those who are beaten by reason oppose to\nus the authority of custom.\" Nor do I find the reason why the same\nCyprian found this very custom, which after his time was confirmed\nby nothing less than a general Council of the whole world, already\nso strong before his time, that when with all his learning he sought\nan authority worth following for changing it, he found nothing but a\nCouncil of Agrippinus held in Africa a very few years before his own\ntime. And seeing that this was not enough for him, as against the\ncustom of the whole world, he laid hold on these reasons which we\njust now, considering them with great care, and being confirmed by\nthe antiquity of the custom itself, and by the subsequent authority\nof a general Council, found to be truth-like rather than true; which,\nhowever, seemed to him true, as he toiled in a question of the greatest\nobscurity, and was in doubt about the remission of sins,--whether it\ncould fail to be given in the baptism of Christ, and whether it could\nbe given among heretics. In which matter, if an imperfect revelation\nof the truth was given to Cyprian, that the greatness of his love in\nnot deserting the unity of the Church might be made manifest, there is\nyet not any reason why any one should venture to claim superiority over\nthe strong defences and excellence of his virtues, and the abundance of\ngraces which were found in him, merely because, with the instruction\nderived from the strength of a general Council, he sees something which\nCyprian did not see, because the Church had not yet held a general\nCouncil on the matter. Just as no one is so insane as to set himself up\nas surpassing the merits of the Apostle Peter, because, taught by the\nepistles of the Apostle Paul, and confirmed by the custom of the Church\nherself, he does not compel the Gentiles to Judaize, as Peter once had\ndone.[207]\n\n9. We do not then \"find that any one, after being baptized among\nheretics, was afterwards admitted by the apostles with the same\nbaptism, and communicated;\"[208] but neither do we find this, that\nany one coming from the society of heretics, who had been baptized\namong them, was baptized anew by the apostles. But this custom, which\neven then those who looked back to past ages could not find to have\nbeen invented by men of a later time, is rightly believed to have\nbeen handed down from the apostles. And there are many other things\nof the same kind, which it would be tedious to recount. Wherefore, if\nthey had something to say for themselves to whom Cyprian, wishing to\npersuade them of the truth of his own view, says, \"Let no one say,\nWhat we have received from the apostles, that we follow,\" with how\nmuch more force we now say, What the custom of the Church has always\nheld, what this argument has failed to prove false, and what a general\nCouncil has confirmed, this we follow! To this we may add that it may\nalso be said, after a careful inquiry into the reasoning on both sides\nof the discussion, and into the evidence of Scripture, What truth has\ndeclared, that we follow.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VII.--10. For in fact, as to what some opposed to the reasoning\nof Cyprian, that the apostle says, \"Notwithstanding every way, whether\nin pretence or in truth, let Christ be preached,\"[209] Cyprian rightly\nexposed their error, showing that it has nothing to do with the case\nof heretics, since the apostle was speaking of those who were acting\nwithin the Church, with malicious envy seeking their own profit. They\nannounced Christ, indeed, according to the truth whereby we believe in\nChrist, but not in the spirit in which He was announced by the good\nevangelists to the sons of the dove. \"For Paul,\" he says, \"in his\nepistle was not speaking of heretics, or of their baptism, so that it\ncould be shown that he had laid down anything concerning this matter.\nHe was speaking of brethren, whether as walking disorderly and contrary\nto the discipline of the Church, or as keeping the discipline of the\nChurch in the fear of God. And he declared that some of them spoke the\nword of God stedfastly and fearlessly, but that some were acting in\nenvy and strife; that some had kept themselves encompassed with kindly\nChristian love, but that others entertained malice and strife: but yet\nthat he patiently endured all things, with the view that, whether in\ntruth or in pretence, the name of Christ, which Paul preached, might\ncome to the knowledge of the greatest number, and that the sowing of\nthe word, which was as yet a new and unaccustomed work, might spread\nmore widely by the preaching of those that spoke. Furthermore, it is\none thing for those who are within the Church to speak in the name of\nChrist, another thing for those who are without, acting against the\nChurch, to baptize in the name of Christ.\"[210] These words of Cyprian\nseem to warn us that we must distinguish between those who are bad\noutside, and those who are bad within the Church. And those whom he\nsays that the apostle represents as preaching the gospel impurely and\nof envy, he says truly were within. This much, however, I think I\nmay say without rashness, if no one outside can have anything which is\nof Christ, neither can any one within have anything which is of the\ndevil. For if that closed garden can contain the thorns of the devil,\nwhy cannot the fountain of Christ equally flow beyond the garden's\nbounds? But if it cannot contain them, whence, even in the time of the\nApostle Paul himself, did there arise amongst those who were within so\ngreat an evil of envy and malicious strife? For these are the words of\nCyprian. Can it be that envy and malicious strife are a small evil?\nHow then were those in unity who were not at peace? For it is not my\nvoice, nor that of any man, but of the Lord Himself; nor did the sound\ngo forth from men, but from angels, at the birth of Christ, \"Glory to\nGod in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will.\"[211] And\nthis certainly would not have been proclaimed by the voice of angels\nwhen Christ was born upon the earth, unless God wished this to be\nunderstood, that those are in the unity of the body of Christ who are\nunited in the peace of Christ, and those are in the peace of Christ who\nare of good will. Furthermore, as good will is shown in kindliness, so\nis bad will shown in malice.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VIII.--11. In short, we may see how great an evil in itself\nis envy, which cannot be other than malicious. Let us not look for\nother testimony. Cyprian himself is sufficient for us, through whose\nmouth the Lord poured forth so many thunders in most perfect truth,\nand uttered so many useful precepts about envy and malignity. Let us\ntherefore read the letter of Cyprian about envy and malignity, and\nsee how great an evil it is to envy those better than ourselves,--an\nevil whose origin he shows in memorable words to have sprung from\nthe devil himself. \"To feel jealousy,\" he says, \"of what you regard\nas good, and to envy those who are better than yourselves, to some,\ndearest brethren, seems a light and minute offence.\"[212] And again\na little later, when he was inquiring into the source and origin of\nthe evil, he says, \"From this the devil, in the very beginning of the\nworld, perished first himself, and led others to destruction.\"[213]\nAnd further on in the same chapter: \"What an evil, dearest brethren,\nis that by which an angel fell! by which that exalted and illustrious\nloftiness was able to be deceived and overthrown! by which he was\ndeceived who was the deceiver! From that time envy stalks upon the\nearth, when man, about to perish through malignity, submits himself to\nthe teacher of perdition,--when he who envies imitates the devil, as it\nis written, 'Through envy of the devil came death into the world, and\nthey that do hold of his side do find it.'\"[214] How true, how forcible\nare these words of Cyprian, in an epistle known throughout the world,\nwe cannot fail to recognise. It was truly fitting for Cyprian to argue\nand warn most forcibly about envy and malignity, from which most deadly\nevil he proved his own heart to be so far removed by the abundance\nof his Christian love; by carefully guarding which he remained in\nthe unity of communion with his colleagues, who without ill-feeling\nentertained different views about baptism, whilst he himself differed\nin opinion from them, not through any contention of ill will, but\nthrough human infirmity, erring in a point which God, in His own good\ntime, would reveal to him by reason of his perseverance in love. For\nhe says openly, \"Judging no one, nor depriving any of the right of\ncommunion if he differ from us. For no one of us setteth himself up as\na bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forceth his colleagues to\na necessity of obeying.\"[215] And in the end of the epistle before us\nhe says, \"These things I have written to you briefly, dearest brother,\naccording to my poor ability, prescribing to or prejudging no one, so\nas to prevent each bishop from doing what he thinks right in the free\nexercise of his own judgment. We, so far as in us lies, do not strive\non behalf of heretics with our colleagues and fellow-bishops, with\nwhom we hold the harmony that God enjoins, and the peace of our Lord,\nespecially as the apostle says, 'If any man seem to be contentious,\nwe have no such custom, neither the churches of God.'[216] Christian\nlove in our souls, the honour of our colleges, the bond of faith, the\nharmony of the priesthood, all these are maintained by us with patience\nand gentleness. For this cause we have also, so far as our poor ability\nadmitted, by the permission and inspiration of the Lord, written now a\ntreatise on the benefit of patience,[217] which we have sent to you in\nconsideration of our mutual affection.\"[218]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IX.--12. By this patience of Christian love he not only endured\nthe difference of opinion manifested in all kindliness by his good\ncolleagues on an obscure point, as he also himself received toleration,\ntill, in process of time, when it so pleased God, what had always\nbeen a most wholesome custom was further confirmed by a declaration\nof the truth in a general Council, but he even put up with those who\nwere manifestly bad, as was very well known to himself, who did not\nentertain a different view in consequence of the obscurity of the\nquestion, but acted contrary to their preaching in the evil practices\nof an abandoned life, as the apostle says of them, \"Thou that preachest\na man should not steal, dost thou steal?\"[219] For Cyprian says in\nhis letter of such bishops of his own time, his own colleagues, and\nremaining in communion with him, \"While they had brethren starving\nin the Church, they tried to amass large sums of money, they took\npossession of estates by fraudulent proceedings, they multiplied their\ngains by accumulated usuries.\"[220] For here there is no obscure\nquestion. Scripture declares openly, \"Neither thieves nor covetous\nshall inherit the kingdom of God;\"[221] and \"He that putteth out his\nmoney to usury,\"[222] and \"No whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor\ncovetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom\nof Christ and of God.\"[223] He therefore certainly would not, without\nknowledge, have brought accusations of such covetousness, that men\nnot only greedily treasured up their own goods, but also fraudulently\nappropriated the goods of others, or of idolatry existing in such\nenormity as he understands and proves it to exist; nor assuredly would\nhe bear false witness against his fellow-bishops. And yet with the\nbowels of fatherly and motherly love he endured them, lest that, by\nrooting out the tares before their time, the wheat should also have\nbeen rooted up,[224] imitating assuredly the Apostle Paul, who, with\nthe same love towards the Church, endured those who were ill-disposed\nand envious towards him.[225]\n\n13. But yet because \"by the envy of the devil death entered into the\nworld, and they that do hold of his side do find it,\"[226] not because\nthey are created by God, but because they go astray of themselves,\nas Cyprian also says himself, seeing that the devil, before he was a\ndevil, was an angel, and good, how can it be that they who are of the\ndevil's side are in the unity of Christ? Beyond all doubt, as the Lord\nHimself says, \"an enemy hath done this,\" who \"sowed tares among the\nwheat.\"[227] As therefore what is of the devil within the fold must be\nconvicted, so what is of Christ without must be recognised. Has the\ndevil what is his within the unity of the Church, and shall Christ not\nhave what is His without? This, perhaps, might be said of individual\nmen, that as the devil has none that are his among the holy angels,\nso God has none that are His outside the communion of the Church. But\nthough it may be allowed to the devil to mingle tares, that is, wicked\nmen, with this Church which still wears the mortal nature of flesh,\nso long as it is wandering far from God, he being allowed this just\nbecause of the pilgrimage of the Church herself, that men may desire\nmore ardently the rest of that country which the angels enjoy, yet\nthis cannot be said of the sacraments. For, as the tares within the\nChurch can have and handle them, though not for salvation, but for the\ndestruction to which they are destined in the fire, so also can the\ntares without, which received them from seceders from within; for they\ndid not lose them by seceding. This, indeed, is made plain from the\nfact that baptism is not conferred again on their return, when any of\nthe very men who seceded happen to come back again. And let not any one\nsay, Why, what fruit hath the tares? For if this be so, their condition\nis the same, so far as this goes, both inside and without. For it\nsurely cannot be that grains of corn are found in the tares inside,\nand not in those without. But when the question is of the sacrament,\nwe do not consider whether the tares bear any fruit, but whether they\nhave any share of heaven; for the tares, both within and without, share\nthe rain with the wheat itself, which rain is in itself heavenly and\nsweet, even though under its influence the tares grow up in barrenness.\nAnd so the sacrament, according to the gospel of Christ, is divine and\npleasant; nor is it to be esteemed as naught because of the barrenness\nof those on whom its dew falls even without.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. X.--14. But some one may say that the tares within may more\neasily be converted into wheat. I grant that it is so; but what has\nthis to do with the question of repeating baptism? You surely do not\nmaintain that if a man converted from heresy, through the occasion and\nopportunity given by his conversion, should bear fruit before another\nwho, being within the Church, is more slow to be washed from his\niniquity, and so corrected and changed, the former therefore needs not\nto be baptized again, but the churchman to be baptized again, who was\noutstripped by him who came from the heretics, because of the greater\nslowness of his amendment. It has nothing, therefore, to do with the\nquestion now at issue who is later or slower in being converted from\nhis especial waywardness to the straight path of faith, or hope, or\ncharity. For although the bad within the fold are more easily made\ngood, yet it will sometimes happen that certain of the number of those\noutside will outstrip in their conversion certain of those within;\nand while these remain in barrenness, the former, being restored to\nunity and communion, will bear fruit with patience, thirty-fold, or\nsixty-fold, or a hundred-fold.[228] Or if those only are to be called\ntares who remain in perverse error to the end, there are many ears of\ncorn outside, and many tares within.\n\n15. But it will be urged that the bad outside are worse than those\nwithin. It is indeed a weighty question, whether Nicolaus, being\nalready severed from the Church,[229] or Simon, who was still within\nit,[230] was the worse,--the one being a heretic, the other a sorcerer.\nBut if the mere fact of division, as being the clearest token of\nviolated charity, is held to be the worse evil, I grant that it is\nso. Yet many, though they have lost all feelings of charity, yet do\nnot secede from considerations of worldly profit; and as they seek\ntheir own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's,[231] what they\nare unwilling to secede from is not the unity of Christ, but their own\ntemporal advantage. Whence it is said in praise of charity, that she\n\"seeketh not her own.\"[232]\n\n16. Now, therefore, the question is, how could men of the party of\nthe devil belong to the Church, which has no spot, or wrinkle, or any\nsuch thing,[233] of which also it is said, \"My dove is one?\"[234] But\nif they cannot, it is clear that she groans among those who are not\nof her, some treacherously laying wait within, some barking at her\ngate without. Such men, however, even within, both receive baptism,\nand possess it, and transmit it holy in itself; nor is it in any way\ndefiled by their wickedness, in which they persevere even to the end.\nWherefore the same blessed Cyprian teaches us that baptism is to\nbe considered as consecrated in itself by the words of the gospel,\nas the Church has received, without joining to it or mingling with\nit any consideration of waywardness and wickedness on the part of\neither minister or recipients; since he himself points out to us\nboth truths,--both that there have been some within the Church who\ndid not cherish kindly Christian love, but practised envy and unkind\ndissension, of whom the Apostle Paul spoke; and also that the envious\nbelong to the devil's party, as he testifies in the most open way\nin the epistle which he wrote about envy and malignity. Wherefore,\nsince it is clearly possible that in those who belong to the devil's\nparty, Christ's sacrament may yet be holy,--not, indeed, to their\nsalvation, but to their condemnation,--and that not only if they are\nled astray after they have been baptized, but even if they were such\nin heart when they received the sacrament, renouncing the world (as\nthe same Cyprian shows) in words only and not in deeds;[235] and since\neven if afterwards they be brought into the right way, the sacrament\nis not to be again administered which they received when they were\nastray; so far as I can see, the case is clear and evident, that in\nthe question of baptism we have to consider, not who gives, but what\nhe gives; not who receives, but what he receives; not who has, but\nwhat he has. For if men of the party of the devil, and therefore in\nno way belonging to the one dove, can yet receive, and have, and give\nbaptism in all its holiness, in no way defiled by their waywardness, as\nwe are taught by the letters of Cyprian himself, how are we ascribing\nto heretics what does not belong to them? how are we saying that what\nis really Christ's is theirs, and not rather recognising in them the\nsigns of our Sovereign, and correcting the deeds of deserters from\nHim? Wherefore it is one thing, as the holy Cyprian says, \"for those\nwithin, in the Church, to speak in the name of Christ, another thing\nfor those without, who are acting against the Church, to baptize in\nHis name.\"[236] But both many who are within act against the Church by\nevil living, and by enticing weak souls to copy their lives; and some\nwho are without speak in Christ's name, and are not forbidden to work\nthe works of Christ, but only to be without, since for the healing of\ntheir souls we grasp at them, or reason with them, or exhort them. For\nhe, too, was without who did not follow Christ with His disciples, and\nyet in Christ's name was casting out devils, which the Lord enjoined\nthat he should not be prevented from doing;[237] although, certainly,\nin the point where he was imperfect he was to be made whole, in\naccordance with the words of the Lord, in which He says, \"He that is\nnot with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth\nabroad.\"[238] Therefore both some things are done outside in the name\nof Christ not against the Church, and some things are done inside on\nthe devil's part which are against the Church.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XI.--17. What shall we say of what is also wonderful, that he who\ncarefully observes may find that it is possible that certain persons,\nwithout violating Christian charity, may yet teach what is useless, as\nPeter wished to compel the Gentiles to observe Jewish customs,[239]\nas Cyprian himself would force heretics to be baptized anew? whence\nthe apostle says to such good members, who are rooted in charity, and\nyet walk not rightly in some points, \"If in anything ye be otherwise\nminded, the Lord shall reveal even this unto you;\"[240] and that\nsome again, though devoid of charity, may teach something wholesome?\nof whom the Lord says, \"The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:\nall therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;\nbut do not ye after their works: for they say and do not.\"[241] Whence\nthe apostle also says of those envious and malicious ones who yet\npreach salvation through Christ, \"Whether in pretence, or in truth,\nlet Christ be preached.\"[242] Wherefore, both within and without, the\nwaywardness of man is to be corrected, but the divine sacraments and\nutterances are not to be attributed to men. He is not, therefore, a\n\"patron of heretics\" who refuses to attribute to them what he knows not\nto belong to them, even though it be found among them. We do not grant\nbaptism to be theirs; but we recognise His baptism of whom it is said,\n\"The same is He which baptizeth,\"[243] wheresoever we find it. But if\n\"the treacherous and blasphemous man\" continue in his treachery and\nblasphemy, he receives no \"remission of sins either without\" or within\nthe Church; or if, by the power of the sacrament, he receives it for\nthe moment, the same force operates both without and within, as the\npower of the name of Christ used to work the expulsion of devils even\nwithout the Church.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XII.--18. But he urges that \"we find that the apostles, in all\ntheir epistles, execrated and abhorred the sacrilegious wickedness of\nheretics, so as to say that 'their word does spread as a canker.'\"[244]\nWhat then? Does not Paul also show that those who said, \"Let us eat\nand drink, for to-morrow we die,\" were corrupters of good manners\nby their evil communications, adding immediately afterwards, \"Evil\ncommunications corrupt good manners;\" and yet he intimated that these\nwere within the Church when he says, \"How say some among you that\nthere is no resurrection of the dead?\"[245] But when does he fail to\nexpress his abhorrence of the covetous? Or could anything be said in\nstronger terms, than that covetousness should be called idolatry,\nas the same apostle declared?[246] Nor did Cyprian understand his\nlanguage otherwise, inserting it when need required in his letters;\nthough he confesses that in his time there were in the Church not\ncovetous men of an ordinary type, but robbers and usurers, and these\nfound not among the masses, but among the bishops. And yet I should be\nwilling to understand that those of whom the apostle says, \"Their word\ndoes spread as a canker,\" were without the Church, but Cyprian himself\nwill not allow me. For, when showing, in his letter to Antonianus, that\nno man ought to sever himself from the unity of the Church before the\ntime of the final separation of the just and unjust, merely because\nof the admixture of evil men in the Church, when he makes it manifest\nhow holy he was, and deserving of the illustrious martyrdom which he\nwon, he says, \"What swelling of arrogance it is, what forgetfulness\nof humility and gentleness, that any one should dare or believe that\nhe can do what the Lord did not grant even to the apostles,--to think\nthat he can distinguish the tares from the wheat, or, as if it were\ngranted to him to carry the fan and purge the floor, to endeavour to\nseparate the chaff from the grain! And whereas the apostle says, 'But\nin a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver,\nbut also of wood and of earth,'[247] that he should seem to choose\nthose of gold and of silver, and to despise and cast away and condemn\nthose of wood and of earth, when really the vessels of wood are only\nto be burned in the day of the Lord by the burning of the divine\nconflagration, and those of earth are to be broken by Him to whom the\n'rod of iron'[248] has been given.\"[249] By this argument, therefore,\nagainst those who, under the pretext of avoiding the society of wicked\nmen, had severed themselves from the unity of the Church, Cyprian shows\nthat by the great house of which the apostle spoke, in which there\nwere not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and\nof earth, he understood nothing else but the Church, in which there\nshould be good and bad, till at the last day it should be cleansed\nas a threshing-floor by the winnowing-fan. And if this be so, in the\nChurch herself, that is, in the great house itself, there were vessels\nto dishonour, whose word did spread like a canker. For the apostle,\nspeaking of them, taught as follows: \"And their word,\" he says, \"will\neat as doth a canker; of whom is Hymen\u00e6us and Philetus; who concerning\nthe truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already;\nand overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God\nstandeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His.\nAnd, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.\nBut in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver,\nbut also of wood and of earth.\"[250] If, therefore, they whose word\ndid eat as doth a canker were as it were vessels to dishonour in the\ngreat house, and by that \"great house\" Cyprian understands the unity\nof the Church itself, surely it cannot be that their canker polluted\nthe baptism of Christ. Accordingly, neither without, any more than\nwithin, can any one who is of the devil's party, either in himself or\nin any other person, stain the sacrament which is of Christ. It is not,\ntherefore, the case that \"the word which eats as a canker to the ears\nof those who hear it gives remission of sins;\"[251] but when baptism\nis given in the words of the gospel, however great be the perverseness\nof understanding on the part either of him through whom, or of him to\nwhom it is given, the sacrament itself is holy in itself on account of\nHim whose sacrament it is. And if any one, receiving it at the hands of\na misguided man, yet does not receive the perversity of the minister,\nbut only the holiness of the mystery, being closely bound to the unity\nof the Church in good faith and hope and charity, he receives remission\nof his sins,--not by the words which do eat as doth a canker, but by\nthe sacraments of the gospel flowing from a heavenly source. But if the\nrecipient himself be misguided, on the one hand, what is given is of\nno avail for the salvation of the misguided man; and yet, on the other\nhand, that which is received remains holy in the recipient, and is not\nrenewed to him if he be brought to the right way.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIII.--19. There is therefore \"no fellowship between\nrighteousness and unrighteousness,\"[252] not only without, but also\nwithin the Church; for \"the Lord knoweth them that are His,\" and \"Let\nevery one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.\" There\nis also \"no communion between light and darkness,\"[253] not only\nwithout, but also within the Church; for \"he that hateth his brother\nis still in darkness.\"[254] And they at any rate hated Paul, who,\npreaching Christ of envy and malicious strife, supposed that they added\naffliction to his bonds;[255] and yet the same Cyprian understands\nthese still to have been within the Church. Since, therefore, \"neither\ndarkness can enlighten, nor unrighteousness justify,\"[256] as Cyprian\nagain says, I ask, how could those men baptize within the very Church\nherself? I ask, how could those vessels which the large house contains\nnot to honour, but to dishonour, administer what is holy for the\nsanctifying of men within the great house itself, unless because that\nholiness of the sacrament cannot be polluted even by the unclean,\neither when it is given at their hands, or when it is received by those\nwho in heart and life are not changed for the better? of whom, as\nsituated within the Church, Cyprian himself says, \"Renouncing the world\nin word only, and not in deed.\"[257]\n\n20. There are therefore also within the Church \"enemies of God, whose\nhearts the spirit of Antichrist has possessed;\" and yet they \"deal\nwith spiritual and divine things,\"[6] which cannot profit for their\nsalvation so long as they remain such as they are; and yet neither\ncan they pollute them by their own uncleanness. With regard to what\nhe says, therefore, \"that they have no part given them in the saving\ngrace of the Church, who, scattering and fighting against the Church of\nChrist, are called adversaries by Christ Himself, and antichrists by\nHis apostles,\"[258] this must be received under the consideration that\nthere are men of this kind both within and without. But the separation\nof those that are within from the perfection and unity of the dove is\nnot only known in the case of some men to God, but even in the case of\nsome to their fellow-men; for, by regarding their openly abandoned\nlife and confirmed wickedness, and comparing it with the rules of God's\ncommandments, they understand to what a multitude of tares and chaff,\nsituated now some within and some without, but destined to be most\nmanifestly separated at the last day, the Lord will then say, \"Depart\nfrom me, ye that work iniquity,\"[259] and \"Depart into everlasting\nfire, prepared for the devil and his angels.\"[260]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIV.--21. But we must not despair of the conversion of any man,\nwhether situated within or without, so long as \"the goodness of God\nleadeth him to repentance,\"[261] and \"visits their transgressions\nwith the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.\" For in this way \"He\ndoes not utterly take from them His loving-kindness,\"[262] if they\nwill themselves sometime \"love their own soul, pleasing God.\"[263]\nBut as the good man \"that shall endure to the end, the same shall be\nsaved,\"[264] so the bad man, whether within or without, who shall\npersevere in his wickedness to the end, shall not be saved. Nor do we\nsay that \"all, wheresoever and howsoever baptized, obtain the grace\nof baptism,\"[265] if by the grace of baptism is understood the actual\nsalvation which is conferred by the celebration of the sacrament; but\nmany fail to obtain this salvation even within the Church, although\nit is clear that they possess the sacrament, which is holy in itself.\nWell, therefore, does the Lord warn us in the gospel that we should not\ncompany with ill-advisers,[266] who walk under the pretence of Christ's\nname; but these are found both within and without, as, in fact, they do\nnot proceed without unless they have first been ill-disposed within.\nAnd we know that the apostle said of the vessels placed in the great\nhouse, \"If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a\nvessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, and\nprepared unto every good work.\"[267] But in what manner each man ought\nto purge himself from these he shows a little above, saying, \"Let\nevery one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity,\"[268]\nthat he may not in the last day, with the chaff, whether with that\nwhich has already been driven from the threshing-floor, or with that\nwhich is to be separated at the last, hear the command, \"Depart from\nme, ye that work iniquity.\"[269] Whence it appears, indeed, as Cyprian\nsays, that \"we are not at once to admit and adopt whatsoever is\nprofessed in the name of Christ, but only what is done in the truth\nof Christ.\"[270] But it is not an action done in the truth of Christ\nthat men should \"seize on estates by fraudulent pretences, and increase\ntheir gains by accumulated usury,\"[271] or that they should \"renounce\nthe world in word only;\"[272] and yet, that all this is done within the\nChurch, Cyprian himself bears sufficient testimony.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XV.--22. To go on to the point which he pursues at\ngreat length, that \"they who blaspheme the Father of Christ cannot\nbe baptized in Christ,\"[273] since it is clear that they blaspheme\nthrough error (for he who comes to the baptism of Christ will not\nopenly blaspheme the Father of Christ, but he is led to blaspheme by\nholding a view contrary to the teaching of the truth about the Father\nof Christ), we have already shown at sufficient length that baptism,\nconsecrated in the words of the gospel, is not affected by the error\nof any man, whether ministrant or recipient, whether he hold views\ncontrary to the revelation of divine teaching on the subject of the\nFather, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost. For many carnal and natural\nmen are baptized even within the Church, as the apostle expressly\nsays: \"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of\nGod;\"[274] and after they had received baptism, he says that they \"are\nyet carnal.\"[275] But according to its carnal sense, a soul given\nup to fleshly appetites cannot entertain but fleshly wisdom about\nGod. Wherefore many, progressing after baptism, and especially those\nwho have been baptized in infancy or early youth, in proportion as\ntheir intellect becomes clearer and brighter, while \"the inward man\nis renewed day by day,\"[276] throw away their former opinions which\nthey held about God while they were mocked with vain imaginings, with\nscorn and horror and confession of their mistake. And yet they are\nnot therefore considered not to have received baptism, or to have\nreceived baptism of a kind corresponding to their error; but in them\nboth the perfection of the sacrament is honoured and the delusion of\ntheir mind is corrected, even though it had become inveterate through\nlong confirmation, or been, perhaps, maintained in many controversies.\nWherefore even the heretic, who is manifestly without, if he has there\nreceived baptism as ordained in the gospel, has certainly not received\nbaptism of a kind corresponding to the error which blinds him. And\ntherefore, if returning into the way of wisdom, he perceives that he\nought to relinquish what he has held amiss, he must not at the same\ntime give up the good which he had received; nor because his error\nis to be condemned, is the baptism of Christ in him to be therefore\nextinguished. For it is already sufficiently clear, from the case of\nthose who happen to be baptized within the Church with false views\nabout God, that the truth of the sacrament is to be distinguished from\nthe error of him who believes amiss, although both may be found in\nthe same man. And therefore, when any one grounded in any error, even\noutside the Church, has yet been baptized with the true sacrament, when\nhe is restored to the unity of the Church, a true baptism cannot take\nthe place of a true baptism, as a true faith takes the place of a false\none, because a thing cannot take the place of itself, since neither can\nit give place. Heretics therefore join the Catholic Church to this end,\nthat what they have evil of themselves may be corrected, not that what\nthey have good of God should be repeated.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVI.--23. Some one says, Does it then make no difference, if two\nmen, rooted in like error and wickedness, be baptized without change of\nlife or heart, one without, the other within the Church? I acknowledge\nthat there is a difference. For he is worse who is baptized without,\nin addition to his other sin,--not because of his baptism, however,\nbut because he is without; for the evil of division is in itself far\nfrom insignificant or trivial. Yet the difference exists only if he who\nis baptized within has desired to be within not for the sake of any\nearthly or temporal advantage, but because he has preferred the unity\nof the Church spread throughout the world to the divisions of schism;\notherwise he too must be considered among those who are without: Let\nus therefore put the two cases in this way. Let us suppose that the\none, for the sake of argument, held the same opinions as Photinus[277]\nabout Christ, and was baptized in his heresy outside the communion of\nthe Catholic Church; and that another held the same opinion, but was\nbaptized in the Catholic Church, believing that his view was really\nthe Catholic faith. I consider him as not yet a heretic, unless, when\nthe doctrine of the Catholic faith is made clear to him, he chooses to\nresist it, and prefers that which he already holds; and till this is\nthe case, it is clear that he who was baptized outside is the worse.\nAnd so in the one case erroneous opinion alone, in the other the sin\nof schism also, requires correction; but in neither of them is the\ntruth of the sacrament to be repeated. But if any one holds the same\nview as the first, and knows that it is only in heresy severed from\nthe Church that such a view is taught or learned, but yet for the\nsake of some temporal emolument has desired to be baptized in the\nCatholic unity, or, having been already baptized in it, is unwilling\non account of the said emolument to secede from it, he is not only to\nbe considered as seceding, but his offence is aggravated, in so far as\nto the error of heresy and the division of unity he adds the deceit of\nhypocrisy. Wherefore the depravity of each man, in proportion as it is\nmore dangerous and wanting in straightforwardness, must be corrected\nwith the more earnestness and energy; and yet, if he has anything that\nis good in him, especially if it be not of himself, but from God, we\nought not to think it of no value because of his depravity, or to be\nblamed like it, or to be ascribed to it, rather than to His bountiful\ngoodness, who even to a soul that plays the harlot, and goes after her\nlovers, yet gives His bread, and His wine, and His oil, and other food\nor ornaments, which are neither from herself nor from her lovers, but\nfrom Him who in compassion for her is even desirous to warn her to whom\nshe should return.[278]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVII.--24. \"Can the power of baptism,\" says Cyprian, \"be greater\nor better than confession? than martyrdom? that a man should confess\nChrist before men, and be baptized in his own blood? And yet,\" he goes\non to say, \"neither does this baptism profit the heretic, even though\nfor confessing Christ he be put to death outside the Church.\"[279]\nThis is most true; for, by being put to death outside the Church, he\nis proved not to have had charity, of which the apostle says, \"Though\nI give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me\nnothing.\"[280] But if martyrdom is of no avail for this reason, because\nit has not charity, neither does it profit those who, as Paul says,\nand Cyprian further sets forth, are living within the Church without\ncharity in envy and malice; and yet they can both receive and transmit\ntrue baptism. \"Salvation,\" he says, \"is not without the Church.\"[281] Who\nsays that it is? And therefore, whatever men have that belongs to the\nChurch, it profits them nothing towards salvation outside the Church.\nBut it is one thing not to have, another to have so as to be of no\nuse. He who has not must be baptized that he may have; but he who has\nto no avail must be corrected, that what he has may profit him. Nor is\nthe water in the baptism of heretics \"adulterous,\"[281] because neither\nis the creature itself which God made evil, nor is fault to be found\nwith the words of the gospel in the mouths of any who are astray; but\nthe fault is theirs in whom there is an adulterous spirit, even though\nit may receive the adornment of the sacrament from a lawful spouse.\nBaptism therefore can \"be common to us and the heretics,\"[281] just\nas the gospel can be common to us, whatever difference there may be\nbetween our faith and their error,--whether they think otherwise\nthan the truth about the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or,\nbeing cut away from unity, do not gather with Christ, but scatter\nabroad,[282]--seeing that the sacrament of baptism can be common to us,\nif we are the wheat of the Lord, with the covetous within the Church,\nand with robbers, and drunkards, and other pestilent persons of the\nsame sort, of whom it is said, \"They shall not inherit the kingdom\nof God,\"[283] and yet the vices by which they are separated from the\nkingdom of God are not shared by us.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVIII.--25. Nor, indeed, is it of heresies alone that the\napostle says \"that they which do such things shall not inherit the\nkingdom of God.\" But it may be worth while to look for a moment at the\nthings which he groups together. \"The works of the flesh,\" he says,\n\"are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness,\nlasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations,\nwrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness,\nrevellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have\nalso told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not\ninherit the kingdom of God.\"[284] Let us suppose some one, therefore,\nchaste, continent, free from covetousness, no idolater, hospitable,\ncharitable to the needy, no man's enemy, not contentious, patient,\nquiet, jealous of none, envying none, sober, frugal, but a heretic;\nit is of course clear to all that for this one fault only, that he is\na heretic, he will fail to inherit the kingdom of God. Let us suppose\nanother, a fornicator, unclean, lascivious, covetous, or even more\nopenly given to idolatry, a student of witchcraft, a lover of strife\nand contention, envious, hot-tempered, seditious, jealous, drunken, and\na reveller, but a Catholic; can it be that for this sole merit, that\nhe is a Catholic, he will inherit the kingdom of God, though his deeds\nare of the kind of which the apostle thus concludes: \"Of the which I\ntell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which\ndo such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God?\" If we say this,\nwe lead ourselves astray. For the word of God does not lead us astray,\nwhich is neither silent, nor lenient, nor deceptive through any\nflattery. Indeed, it speaks to the same effect elsewhere: \"For this ye\nknow, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, which\nis an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of\nGod. Let no man deceive you with vain words.\"[285] We have no reason,\ntherefore, to complain of the word of God. It certainly says, and says\nopenly and freely, that those who live a wicked life have no part in\nthe kingdom of God.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIX.--26. Let us therefore not flatter the Catholic who is hemmed\nin with all these vices, nor venture, merely because he is a Catholic\nChristian, to promise him the impunity which holy Scripture does not\npromise him; nor, if he has any one of the faults above mentioned,\nought we to promise him a partnership in that heavenly land. For,\nin writing to the Corinthians, the apostle enumerates the several\nsins, under each of which it is implicitly understood that it shall\nnot inherit the kingdom of God: \"Be not deceived,\" he says: \"neither\nfornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers\nof themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards,\nnor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.\"[286]\nHe does not say, those who possess all these vices together shall not\ninherit the kingdom of God; but neither these nor those: so that, as\neach is named, you may understand that no one of them shall inherit\nthe kingdom of God. As, therefore, heretics shall not possess the\nkingdom of God, so the covetous shall not inherit the kingdom of God.\nNor can we indeed doubt that the punishments themselves, with which\nthey shall be tortured who do not inherit the kingdom of God, will vary\nin proportion to the difference of their offences, and that some will\nbe more severe than others; so that in the eternal fire itself there\nwill be different tortures in the punishments, corresponding to the\ndifferent weights of guilt. For indeed it was not idly that the Lord\nsaid, \"It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of\njudgment than for thee.\"[287] But yet, so far as failing to inherit the\nkingdom of God is concerned, it is just as certain, if you choose any\none of the less heinous of these vices, as if you chose more than one,\nor some one which you saw was more atrocious; and because those will\ninherit the kingdom of God whom the Judge shall set on His right hand,\nand for those who shall not be found worthy to be set at the right\nhand nothing will remain but to be at the left, no other announcement\nis left for them to hear like goats from the mouth of the Shepherd,\nexcept, \"Depart into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his\nangels;\"[288] though in that fire, as I said before, it may be that\ndifferent punishments will be awarded corresponding to the difference\nof the sins.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XX.--27. But on the question whether we ought to prefer a\nCatholic of the most abandoned character to a heretic in whose life,\nexcept that he is a heretic, men can find nothing to blame, I do\nnot venture to give a hasty judgment. But if any one says, because\nhe is a heretic, he cannot be this only without other vices also\nfollowing,--for he is carnal and natural, and therefore must be also\nenvious, and hot-tempered, and jealous, and hostile to truth itself,\nand utterly estranged from it,--let him fairly understand, that of\nthose other faults of which he is supposed to have chosen some one less\nflagrant, a single one cannot exist by itself in any man, because he in\nturn is carnal and natural; as, to take the case of drunkenness, which\npeople have now become accustomed to talk of not only without horror,\nbut with some degree of merriment, can it possibly exist alone in any\none in whom it is found? For what drunkard is not also contentious,\nand hot-tempered, and jealous, and at variance with all soundness of\ncounsel, and at grievous enmity with those who rebuke him? Further,\nit is not easy for him to avoid being a fornicator and adulterer,\nthough he may be no heretic; just as a heretic may be no drunkard,\nnor adulterer, nor fornicator, nor lascivious, nor a lover of money,\nor given to witchcraft, and cannot well be all these together. Nor\nindeed is any one vice followed by all the rest. Supposing, therefore,\ntwo men,--one a Catholic with all these vices, the other a heretic\nfree from all from which a heretic can be free,--although they do not\nboth contend against the faith, and yet each lives contrary to the\nfaith, and each is deceived by a vain hope, and each is far removed\nfrom charity of spirit, and therefore each is severed from connection\nwith the body of the one dove; why do we recognise in one of them the\nsacrament of Christ, and not in the other, as though it belonged to\nthis or that man, whilst really it is the same in both, and belongs\nto God alone, and is good even in the worst of men? And if of the\nmen who have it, one is worse than another, it does not follow that\nthe sacrament which they have is worse in the one than in the other,\nseeing that neither in the case of two bad Catholics, if one be worse\nthan the other, does he possess a worse baptism, nor, if one of them\nbe good and another bad, is baptism bad in the bad one and good in the\ngood one; but it is good in both. Just as the light of the sun, or even\nof a lamp, is certainly not less brilliant when displayed to bad eyes\nthan when seen by better ones; but it is the same in the case of both,\nalthough it either cheers or hurts them differently according to the\ndifference of their powers.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXI.--28. With regard to the objection brought against Cyprian,\nthat the catechumens who were seized in martyrdom, and slain for\nChrist's name's sake, received a crown even without baptism, I do\nnot quite see what it has to do with the matter, unless, indeed,\nthey urged that heretics could much more be admitted with baptism\nto Christ's kingdom, to which catechumens were admitted without it,\nsince He Himself has said, \"Except a man be born of water and of the\nSpirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.\"[289] Now, in this\nmatter I do not hesitate for a moment to place the Catholic catechumen,\nwho is burning with love for God, before the baptized heretic; nor\nyet do we thereby do dishonour to the sacrament of baptism which the\nlatter has already received, the former not as yet; nor do we consider\nthat the sacrament of the catechumen[290] is to be preferred to the\nsacrament of baptism, when we acknowledge that some catechumens\nare better and more faithful than some baptized persons. For the\ncenturion Cornelius, before baptism, was better than Simon, who had\nbeen baptized. For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled with\nthe Holy Spirit;[291] Simon, even after baptism, was puffed up with an\nunclean spirit.[292] Cornelius, however, would have been convicted of\ncontempt for so holy a sacrament, if, even after he had received the\nHoly Ghost, he had refused to be baptized. But when he was baptized, he\nreceived in no wise a better sacrament than Simon; but the different\nmerits of the men were made manifest under the equal holiness of the\nsame sacrament,--so true is it that the good or ill deserving of the\nrecipient does not increase or diminish the holiness of baptism.\nBut as baptism is wanting to a good catechumen to his receiving the\nkingdom of heaven, so true conversion is wanting to a bad man though\nbaptized. For He who said, \"Except a man be born of water and of the\nSpirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,\" said also Himself,\n\"Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the\nscribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of\nheaven.\"[293] For that the righteousness of the catechumens might not\nfeel secure, it is written, \"Except a man be born again of water and of\nthe Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.\" And again, that\nthe unrighteousness of the baptized might not feel secure because they\nhad received baptism, it is written, \"Except your righteousness shall\nexceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no\ncase enter into the kingdom of heaven.\" The one were too little without\nthe other; the two make perfect the heir of that inheritance. As, then,\nwe ought not to depreciate a man's righteousness, which begins to exist\nbefore he is joined to the Church, as the righteousness of Cornelius\nbegan to exist before he was in the body of Christian men,--which\nrighteousness was not thought worthless, or the angel would not have\nsaid to him, \"Thy prayers and thine alms are come up as a memorial\nbefore God;\" nor did it yet suffice for his obtaining the kingdom of\nheaven, or he would not have been told to send to Peter,[294]--so\nneither ought we to depreciate the sacrament of baptism, even though\nit has been received outside the Church. But since it is of no avail\nfor salvation unless he who has baptism indeed in full perfection be\nincorporated into the Church, correcting also his own depravity, let us\ntherefore correct the error of the heretics, that we may recognise what\nin them is not their own but Christ's.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXII.--29. That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by\nmartyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which\nthe blessed Cyprian adduces[295] from the thief, to whom, though he\nwas not baptized, it was yet said, \"To-day shalt thou be with me in\nparadise.\"[296] On considering which again and again, I find that not\nonly martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting\nof baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may\nnot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want\nof time.[297] For neither was that thief crucified for the name of\nChrist, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because\nhe believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore,\nin the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the\nvisible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, \"With the\nheart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession\nis made unto salvation.\"[298] But the want is supplied invisibly only\nwhen the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for\nreligion, but by the necessity of the moment. For much more in the\ncase of Cornelius and his friends, than in the case of that robber,\nmight it seem superfluous that they should also be baptized with water,\nseeing that in them the gift of the Holy Spirit, which, according\nto the testimony of holy Scripture, was received by other men only\nafter baptism, had made itself manifest by every unmistakeable sign\nappropriate to those times when they spoke with tongues. Yet they were\nbaptized, and for this action we have the authority of an apostle\nas the warrant. So far ought all of us to be from being induced by\nany perfection in the inner man, if it so happen that before baptism\na person has advanced, through the workings of a pious heart, to\nspiritual understanding, to despise a sacrament which is applied to the\nbody by the hands of the minister, but which is God's own means for\nworking spiritually a man's dedication to Himself. Nor do I conceive\nthat the function of baptizing was assigned to John, so that it should\nbe called John's baptism, for any other reason except that the Lord\nHimself, who had appointed it, in not disdaining to receive the baptism\nof His servant,[299] might consecrate the path of humility, and show\nmost plainly by such an action how high a value was to be placed on His\nown baptism, with which He Himself was afterwards to baptize. For He\nsaw, like an excellent physician of eternal salvation, that overweening\npride would be found in some, who, having made such progress in the\nunderstanding of the truth and in uprightness of character that they\nwould not hesitate to place themselves, both in life and knowledge,\nabove many that were baptized, would think it was unnecessary for them\nto be baptized, since they felt that they had attained a frame of mind\nto which many that were baptized were still only endeavouring to raise\nthemselves.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIII.--30. But what is the precise value of the sanctification\nof the sacrament (which that thief did not receive, not from any want\nof will on his part, but because it was unavoidably omitted), and what\nis the effect on a man of its material application, it is not easy\nto say. Still, had it not been of the greatest value, the Lord would\nnot have received the baptism of a servant. But since we must look at\nit in itself without entering upon the question of the salvation of\nthe recipient, which it is intended to work, it shows clearly enough\nthat both in the bad, and in those who renounce the world in word\nand not in deed, it is itself complete, though they cannot receive\nsalvation unless they amend their lives. But as in the thief, to whom\nthe material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting,\nthe salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through\nhis piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is\ncomplete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting. And\nthis is the firm tradition of the universal Church, in respect of the\nbaptism of infants, who certainly are as yet unable \"with the heart\nto believe unto righteousness, and with the mouth to make confession\nunto salvation,\" as the thief could do; nay, who even, by crying and\nmoaning when the mystery is performed upon them, raise their voices in\nopposition to the mysterious words, and yet no Christian will say that\nthey are baptized to no purpose.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIV.--31. And if any one seek for divine authority in this\nmatter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as\ninstituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is\nrightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still\nwe can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism\nin the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was\nreceived by God's earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham\nwas justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the\nHoly Spirit before he was baptized. Yet the apostle says of Abraham\nhimself, that \"he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the\nrighteousness of faith,\" having already believed in his heart, so that\n\"it was counted unto him for righteousness.\"[300] Why, therefore, was\nit commanded him that he should circumcise every male child in order on\nthe eighth day,[301] though it could not yet believe with the heart,\nthat it should be counted unto it for righteousness, unless because\nthe sacrament in itself was of great avail? And this was made manifest\nby the message of an angel in the case of Moses' son; for when he\nwas carried by his mother, being yet uncircumcised, it was required,\nby manifest present peril, that he should be circumcised,[302] and\nwhen this was done, the danger of death was removed. As therefore in\nAbraham the justification of faith came first, and circumcision was\nadded afterwards as the seal of faith; so in Cornelius the spiritual\nsanctification came first in the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the\nsacrament of regeneration was added afterwards in the laver of baptism.\nAnd as in Isaac, who was circumcised on the eighth day after his\nbirth, the seal of this righteousness of faith was given first, and\nafterwards, as he imitated the faith of his father, the righteousness\nitself followed as he grew up, of which the seal had been given before\nwhen he was an infant; so in infants, who are baptized, the sacrament\nof regeneration is given first, and if they maintain a Christian piety,\nconversion also in the heart will follow, of which the mysterious\nsign had gone before in the outward body. And as in the thief the\ngracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in\nthe sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride\nor contempt, but from want of opportunity; so in infants who die\nbaptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies\nthe want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of\nage, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor\nmake confession with the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others\ntake the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be\ncomplete in their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their\ndedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves. But if\nanother were to answer for one who could answer for himself, it would\nnot be of the same avail. In accordance with which rule, we find in the\ngospel what strikes every one as natural when he reads it, \"He is of\nage, he shall speak for himself.\"[303]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXV.--32. By all these considerations it is proved that the\nsacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another;\nbut that man's salvation is made complete through the two together.\nNor are we to suppose that, if one of these be wanting, it necessarily\nfollows that the other is wanting also; because the sacrament may\nexist in the infant without the conversion of the heart; and this was\nfound to be possible without the sacrament in the case of the thief,\nGod in either case filling up what was involuntarily wanting. But when\neither of these requisites is wanting intentionally, then the man is\nresponsible for the omission. And baptism may exist when the conversion\nof the heart is wanting; but, with respect to such conversion, it may\nindeed be found when baptism has not been received, but never when it\nhas been despised. Nor can there be said in any way to be a turning of\nthe heart to God when the sacrament of God is treated with contempt.\nTherefore we are right in censuring, anathematizing, abhorring, and\nabominating the perversity of heart shown by heretics; yet it does\nnot follow that they have not the sacrament of the gospel, because\nthey have not what makes it of avail. Wherefore, when they come to\nthe true faith, and by penitence seek remission of their sins, we are\nnot flattering or deceiving them, when we instruct them by heavenly\ndiscipline for the kingdom of heaven, correcting and reforming in them\ntheir errors and perverseness, to the intent that we may by no means do\nviolence to what is sound in them, nor, because of man's fault, declare\nthat anything which he may have in him from God is either valueless or\nfaulty.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVI.--33. A few things still remain to be noticed in the epistle\nto Jubaianus; but since these will raise the question both of the past\ncustom of the Church and of the baptism of John, which is wont to\nexcite no small doubt in those who pay slight attention to a matter\nwhich is sufficiently obvious, seeing that those who had received\nthe baptism of John were commanded by the apostle to be baptized\nagain,[304] they are not to be treated in a hasty manner, and had\nbetter be reserved for another book, that the dimensions of this may\nnot be inconveniently large.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[178] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. ad Jubaian. sec. 10.\n\n[179] Gen. ii. 8-14.\n\n[180] Matt. xvi. 18, 19.\n\n[181] Cypr. _Ep._ xi. sec. 1.\n\n[182] Tit. i. 16.\n\n[183] 1 Pet. iii. 21.\n\n[184] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 9.\n\n[185] Eph. v. 26, 27.\n\n[186] Song of Sol. vi. 9.\n\n[187] Rom. xiv. 6.\n\n[188] _Retract._ ii. 18, quoted on I. xvii.\n\n[189] Cypr. _Ep._ xi. sec. 1.\n\n[190] Matt. vii. 23.\n\n[191] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 9.\n\n[192] _Ib._ lxxvii. sec. 10.\n\n[193] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxvii. sec. 10.\n\n[194] 1 Cor. vi. 10.\n\n[195] Eph. v. 5.\n\n[196] Cypr. _Ep._ lv. sec. 23.\n\n[197] 2 Cor. vi. 16.\n\n[198] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 11.\n\n[199] 1 Tim. i. 13.\n\n[200] 2 Tim. ii. 24.\n\n[201] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiv. sec. 12.\n\n[202] Eph. v. 5.\n\n[203] Col. iii. 5. Cypr. _Ep._ lv. sec. 23.\n\n[204] 1 Tim. i. 13.\n\n[205] Eph. v. 5.\n\n[206] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 11.\n\n[207] Gal. ii. 14.\n\n[208] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 11.\n\n[209] Phil. i. 18. Cyprian, like the Vulgate, reads \"annuntietur.\"\n\n[210] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 12.\n\n[211] Luke ii. 14. \"Hominibus bon\u00e6 voluntatis;\" and so the Vulgate,\nfollowing the reading [Greek: en anthr\u00f4pois eudokias].\n\n[212] Cypr. _de Zel. et Liv._ c. 1.\n\n[213] _Ib._ c. 3.\n\n[214] Wisd. ii. 24, 25.\n\n[215] Conc. Carth. _sub in._\n\n[216] 1 Cor. xi. 16.\n\n[217] This treatise is still extant. See Clark's Trans.\n\n[218] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 22.\n\n[219] Rom. ii. 21.\n\n[220] Cypr. _de Lapsis._ c. iv.\n\n[221] 1 Cor. vi. 10.\n\n[222] Ps. xv. 5.\n\n[223] Eph. v. 5.\n\n[224] Matt. xiii. 29.\n\n[225] Phil. i. 15-18.\n\n[226] Wisd. ii. 24, 25.\n\n[227] Matt. xiii. 28, 25.\n\n[228] Matt. xiii. 23; Luke viii. 15.\n\n[229] Rev. ii. 6.\n\n[230] Acts viii. 9-24.\n\n[231] Phil. ii. 21.\n\n[232] 1 Cor. xiii. 5.\n\n[233] Eph. v. 27; _Retract._ ii. 18.\n\n[234] Song of Sol. vi. 8.\n\n[235] Cypr. _Ep._ xi. sec. 1.\n\n[236] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 12.\n\n[237] Luke ix. 49, 50.\n\n[238] Matt. xii. 30.\n\n[239] Gal. ii. 14.\n\n[240] Phil. iii. 15.\n\n[241] Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.\n\n[242] Phil. i. 18; see on ch. vii. 10.\n\n[243] John i. 33.\n\n[244] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 13; 2 Tim. ii. 17.\n\n[245] 1 Cor. xv. 32, 33, 12.\n\n[246] Eph. v. 5.\n\n[247] 2 Tim. ii. 20.\n\n[248] Ps. ii. 9.\n\n[249] Cypr. _Ep._ lv. sec. 21.\n\n[250] 2 Tim. ii. 17-20.\n\n[251] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 13.\n\n[252] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 13; 2 Cor. vi. 14.\n\n[253] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 13; 2 Cor. vi. 14.\n\n[254] 1 John ii. 9.\n\n[255] Phil. i. 15, 16.\n\n[256] Cypr. _l.c._\n\n[257] Cypr. _Ep._ xi. sec. 1.\n\n[258] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 13.\n\n[259] Matt. vii. 23.\n\n[260] Matt. xxv. 41.\n\n[261] Rom. ii. 4.\n\n[262] Ps. lxxxix. 32, 33.\n\n[263] Ecclus. xxx. 23. The words \"placentes Deo\" are derived from the\nLatin version only.\n\n[264] Matt. xxiv. 13.\n\n[265] From a letter of Pope Stephen's, quoted Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec.\n14.\n\n[266] Matt. xiii. 21.\n\n[267] 2 Tim. ii. 21.\n\n[268] 2 Tim. ii. 19.\n\n[269] Matt. vii. 23.\n\n[270] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 14.\n\n[271] _Ib._ _de Laps._ sec. 4.\n\n[272] _Ib._ _Ep._ xi. sec. 1.\n\n[273] _Ib._ _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 14.\n\n[274] 1 Cor. ii. 14.\n\n[275] 1 Cor. iii. 3.\n\n[276] 2 Cor. iv. 16.\n\n[277] Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, was condemned and deposed by a\nsynod held in his own city, in 351, for teaching that there was no\ndistinction of persons in the Godhead.\n\n[278] Hos. ii. 5-7.\n\n[279] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxxiii. sec. 18.\n\n[280] 1 Cor. xiii. 3.\n\n[281] Cypr. _l.c._\n\n[282] Matt. xii. 30.\n\n[283] 1 Cor. vi. 10.\n\n[284] Gal. v. 19-21.\n\n[285] Eph. v. 5, 6.\n\n[286] 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10.\n\n[287] Matt. xi. 24.\n\n[288] Matt. xxv. 41.\n\n[289] John iii. 5.\n\n[290] Another reading, of less authority, is, \"Aut catechumeno\nsacramentum baptismi pr\u00e6ferendum putamus.\" This does not suit the\nsense of the passage, and probably sprung from want of knowledge of\nthe meaning of the \"catechumen's sacrament.\" It is mentioned in the\nthird Council of Carthage as \"the sacrament of salt\" (Conc. Carth. 3,\ncan. 5). Augustine (_de Peccat. Meritis_, ii. c. 26) says that \"what\nthe catechumens receive, though it be not the body of Christ, yet is\nholy, more holy than the food whereby our bodies are sustained, because\nit is a sacrament.\"--Cp. _de Catech. Rudibus_, c. 26. It appears to\nhave been only a taste of salt, given them as the emblem of purity and\nincorruption. See Bingham, _Orig. Eccles._ Book x. c. ii. 16.\n\n[291] Acts x. 44.\n\n[292] Acts viii. 13, 18, 19.\n\n[293] Matt. v. 20.\n\n[294] Acts x. 4, 5.\n\n[295] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 19.\n\n[296] Luke xxiii. 43.\n\n[297] In _Retract._ ii. 18, Augustine expresses a doubt whether the\nthief may not have been baptized.\n\n[298] Rom. x. 10.\n\n[299] Matt. iii 6, 13.\n\n[300] Rom. iv. 11, 3.\n\n[301] Gen. xvii. 9-14.\n\n[302] Ex. iv. 24.\n\n[303] John ix. 21.\n\n[304] Acts xix. 3-5.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK FIFTH.\n\n HE EXAMINES THE LAST PART OF THE EPISTLE OF CYPRIAN TO JUBAIANUS,\n TOGETHER WITH HIS EPISTLE TO QUINTUS, THE LETTER OF THE AFRICAN SYNOD\n TO THE NUMIDIAN BISHOPS, AND CYPRIAN'S EPISTLE TO POMPEIUS.\n\n\nCHAP. I.--1. We have the testimony of the blessed Cyprian, that the\ncustom of the Catholic Church is at present retained, when men coming\nfrom the side of heretics or schismatics, if they have received baptism\nas consecrated in the words of the gospel, are not baptized afresh. For\nhe himself proposed to himself the question, and that as coming from\nthe mouth of brethren either seeking the truth or contending for the\ntruth. For in the course of the arguments by which he wished to show\nthat heretics should be baptized again, which we have sufficiently\nconsidered for our present purpose in the former books, he says: \"But\nsome will say, What then will become of those who in times past,\ncoming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?\"[305]\nIn this question is involved the shipwreck of the whole cause of the\nDonatists, with whom our contest is on this point. For if those had\nnot really baptism who were thus received on coming from heretics, and\ntheir sins were still upon them, then, when such men were admitted to\ncommunion, either by Cyprian himself, or by those who came before him,\nwe must acknowledge that one of two things occurred,--either that the\nChurch perished then and there from the pollution of communion with\nsuch men, or that any one abiding in unity is not injured by even the\nnotorious sins of other men. But since they cannot say that the Church\nthen perished through the contamination arising from communion with\nthose who, as Cyprian says, were admitted into it without baptism,--for\notherwise they cannot maintain the validity of their own origin if\nthe Church then perished, seeing that the list of consuls proves that\nmore than forty years elapsed between the martyrdom of Cyprian and the\nburning of the sacred books,[306] from which they took occasion to make\na schism, spreading abroad the smoke of their calumnies,--it therefore\nis left for them to acknowledge that the unity of Christ is not\npolluted by any such communion, even with known offenders. And, after\nthis confession, they will be unable to discover any reason which will\njustify them in maintaining that they were bound to separate from the\nchurches of the whole world, which, as we read, were equally founded\nby the apostles, seeing that, while the others could not have perished\nfrom any admixture of offenders, of whatsoever kind, they, though\nthey would not have perished if they had remained in unity with them,\nbrought destruction on themselves in schism, by separating themselves\nfrom their brethren, and breaking the bond of peace. For the sacrilege\nof schism is most clearly evident in them, if they had no sufficient\ncause for separation. And it is clear that there was no sufficient\ncause for separation, if even the presence of notorious offenders\ncannot pollute the good while they abide in unity. But that the good,\nabiding in unity, are not polluted even by notorious offenders, we\nteach on the testimony of Cyprian, who says that \"men in past times,\ncoming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism;\" and\nyet, if the wickedness of their sacrilege, which was still upon them,\nseeing it had not been purged away by baptism, could not pollute and\ndestroy the holiness of the Church, it cannot perish by any infection\nfrom wicked men. Wherefore, if they allow that Cyprian spoke the truth,\nthey are convicted of schism on his testimony; if they maintain that he\ndoes not speak truth, let them not use his testimony on the question of\nbaptism.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. II.--2. But now that we have begun a disputation with a man of\npeace like Cyprian, let us go on. For when he had brought an objection\nagainst himself, which he knew was urged by his brethren, \"What then\nwill become of those who in times past, coming to the Church from\nheresy, were admitted without baptism? The Lord,\" he answers, \"is able\nof His mercy to grant indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts\nof His Church those who, being admitted in all honesty to His Church,\nhave fallen asleep within the Church.\" Well indeed has he assumed\nthat charity can cover the multitude of sins. But if they really had\nbaptism, and this were not rightly perceived by those who thought that\nthey should be baptized again, that error was covered by the charity of\nunity so long as it contained, not the discord and spirit of the devil,\nbut merely human infirmity, until, as the apostle says, \"if they were\notherwise minded, the Lord should reveal it to them.\"[307] But woe unto\nthose who, being torn asunder from unity by a sacrilegious rupture,\neither rebaptize, if baptism exists with both us and them, or do not\nbaptize at all, if baptism exist in the Catholic Church only. Whether,\ntherefore, they rebaptize, or fail to baptize, they are not in the bond\nof peace; wherefore let them apply a remedy to which they please of\nthese two wounds. But if we admit to the Church without baptism, we are\nof the number of those who, as Cyprian has assumed, may receive pardon\nbecause they preserved unity. But if (as is, I think, already clear\nfrom what has been said in the earlier books) Christian baptism can\npreserve its integrity even amid the perversity of heretics, then even\nthough any in those times did rebaptize, yet without departing from the\nbond of unity, they might still attain to pardon in virtue of that same\nlove of peace, through which Cyprian bears witness that those admitted\neven without baptism might obtain that they should not be separated\nfrom the gifts of the Church. Further, if it is true that with heretics\nand schismatics the baptism of Christ does not exist, how much less\ncould the sins of others hurt those who were fixed in unity, if even\nmen's own sins were forgiven when they came to it even without baptism!\nFor if, according to Cyprian, the bond of unity is of such efficacy,\nhow could they be hurt by other men's sins, who were unwilling to\nseparate themselves from unity, if even the unbaptized, who wished to\ncome to it from heresy, thereby escaped the destruction due to their\nown sins?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. III.--3. But in what Cyprian adds, saying, \"Nor yet because men\nonce have erred must there be always error, since it rather befits wise\nand God-fearing men gladly and unhesitatingly to follow truth, when it\nis clearly laid before their eyes, than obstinately and persistently to\nfight for heretics against their brethren and their fellow-priests,\"\nhe is uttering the most perfect truth; and the man who resists the\nmanifest truth is opposing himself rather than his neighbours. But, so\nfar as I can judge, it is perfectly clear and certain, from the many\narguments which I have already adduced, that the baptism of Christ\ncannot be invalidated even by the perversity of heretics, when it is\ngiven or received among them. But, granting that it is not yet certain,\nat any rate no one who has considered what has been said, even from a\nhostile point of view, will assert that the question has been decided\nthe other way. Therefore we are not striving against manifest truth,\nbut either, as I think, we are striving in behalf of what is clearly\ntrue, or, at any rate, as those may hold who think that the question\nhas not yet been solved, we are seeking for the truth. And therefore,\nif the truth be other than we think, yet we are receiving those\nbaptized by heretics with the same honesty of heart with which those\nreceived them whom Cyprian supposed, in virtue of their cleaving to\nthe unity of the Church, to be capable of pardon. But if the baptism\nof Christ, as is indicated by the many arguments used above, can\nretain its integrity amid any defect either of life or faith, whether\non the part of those who seem to be within, and yet do not belong to\nthe members of the one dove, or on the part of those whose severance\nfrom her extends to being openly without, then those who sought its\nrepetition in those former days deserved the same pardon for their\ncharity in clinging to unity, which Cyprian thought that those deserved\nfor charity of the same kind whom he believed to have been admitted\nwithout baptism. They therefore who, without any cause (since, as\nCyprian himself shows, the bad cannot hurt the good in the unity of\nthe Church), have cut themselves off from the charity which is shown\nin this unity, have lost all place of pardon, and whilst they would\nincur destruction by the very crime of schism, even though they did\nnot rebaptize those who had been baptized in the Catholic Church, of\nhow bitter punishment are they deserving, who are either endeavouring\nto give to the Catholics who have it what Cyprian affirms that they\nthemselves have not, or, as is clear from the facts of the case, are\nbringing as a charge against the Catholic Church that she has not what\neven they themselves possess?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IV.--4. But since now, as I said before, we have begun a\ndisputation with the epistles of Cyprian, I think that I should not\nseem even to him, if he were present, \"to be contending obstinately\nand persistently in defence of heretics against my brethren and my\nfellow-priests,\" when he learned the powerful reasons which move us to\nbelieve that even among heretics, who are perversely obstinate in their\nmalignant error, the baptism of Christ is yet in itself most holy,\nand most highly to be reverenced. And seeing that he himself, whose\ntestimony has such weight with us, bears witness that they were wont\nin past times to be admitted without a second baptism, I would have\nany one, who is induced by Cyprian's arguments to hold it as certain\nthat heretics ought to be baptized afresh, yet consider that those\nwho, on account of the weight of the arguments on the other side, are\nnot as yet persuaded that this should be so, hold the same place as\nthose in past time, who in all honesty admitted men who were baptized\nin heresy on the simple correction of their individual error, and who\nwere capable of salvation with them in virtue of the bond of unity.\nAnd let any one, who is led by the past custom of the Church, and by\nthe subsequent authority of a general Council, and by so many powerful\nproofs from holy Scripture, and by much evidence from Cyprian himself,\nand by the clear reasoning of truth, to understand that the baptism of\nChrist, consecrated in the words of the gospel, cannot be perverted by\nthe error of any man on earth,--let such an one understand, that they\nwho then thought otherwise, but yet preserved their charity, can be\nsaved by the same bond of unity. And herein he should also understand\nof those who, in the society of the Church dispersed throughout the\nworld, could not have been defiled by any tares, by any chaff, so long\nas they themselves desired to be fruitful corn, and who therefore\nsevered themselves from the same bond of unity without any cause\nfor the divorce, that at any rate, whichever of the two opinions be\ntrue,--that which Cyprian then held, or that which was maintained by\nthe universal voice of the Catholic Church, which Cyprian did not\nabandon,--in either case they, having most openly placed themselves\noutside in the plain sacrilege of schism, cannot possibly be saved, and\nall that they possess of the holy sacraments, and of the free gifts of\nthe one legitimate Bridegroom, is of avail, while they continue what\nthey are, for their confusion rather than the salvation of their souls.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. V.--5. Wherefore, even if heretics should be truly anxious to\ncorrect their error and come to the Church, for the very reason that\nthey believed that they had no baptism unless they received it in the\nChurch, even under these circumstances we should not be bound to yield\nto their desire for the repetition of baptism; but rather they should\nbe taught, on the one hand, that baptism, though perfect in itself,\ncould in no way profit their perversity if they would not submit to\nbe corrected; and, on the other hand, that the perfection of baptism\ncould not be impaired by their perversity, while refusing to be\ncorrected: and again, that no further perfection is added to baptism\nin them because they are submitting to correction; but that, while\nthey themselves are quitting their iniquity, that which was before\nwithin them to their destruction is now beginning to be of profit\nfor salvation. For, learning this, they will both recognise the need\nof salvation in Catholic unity, and will cease to claim as their own\nwhat is really Christ's, and will not confound the sacrament of truth,\nalthough existing in themselves, with their own individual error.\n\n6. To this we may add a further reason, that men, by a sort of hidden\ninspiration from heaven, shrink from any one who for the second\ntime receives baptism which he had already received in any quarter\nwhatsoever, insomuch that the very heretics themselves, when their\narguments start with that subject, rub their forehead in perplexity,\nand almost all their laity, even those who have grown old in their\nbody, and have conceived an obstinate animosity against the Catholic\nChurch, confess that this one point in their system displeases them;\nand many who, for the sake of gaining some secular advantage, or\navoiding some disadvantage, wish to secede to them, strive with many\nsecret efforts that they may have granted to them, as a peculiar and\nindividual privilege, that they should not be rebaptized; and some,\nwho are led to place credence in their other vain delusions and false\naccusations against the Catholic Church, are recalled to unity by this\none consideration, that they are unwilling to associate with them lest\nthey should be compelled to be rebaptized. And the Donatists, through\nfear of this feeling, which has so thorough possession of all men's\nhearts, have consented to acknowledge the baptism which was conferred\namong the followers of Maximianus, whom they had condemned, and so to\ncut short their own tongues and close their mouths, in preference to\nbaptizing again so many men of the people of Musti, and Assur\u00e6, and\nother districts, whom they received with Felicianus and Pr\u00e6textatus,\nand the others who had been condemned by them and afterwards returned\nto them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VI.--7. For when this is done occasionally in the case of\nindividuals, at great intervals of time and space, the enormity of\nthe deed is not equally felt; but if all were suddenly to be brought\ntogether who had been baptized in course of time by the aforesaid\nfollowers of Maximianus, either under pressure of the peril of death or\nat their Easter solemnities, and it were told them that they must be\nbaptized again, because what they had already received in the sacrilege\nof schism was null and void, they might indeed say what obstinate\nperseverance in their error would compel them to say, that they might\nhide the rigour and iciness of their hardness under any kind of false\nshade of consistency against the warmth of truth. But in fact, because\nthe party of Maximianus could not bear this, and because the very men\nwho would have to enforce it could not endure what must needs have been\ndone in the case of so many men at once, especially as those very men\nwould be rebaptizing them in the party of Primianus who had already\nbaptized them in the party of Maximianus, for these reasons their\nbaptism was received, and the pride of the Donatists was cut short. And\nthis course they would certainly not have chosen to adopt, had they\nnot thought that more harm would have been done to their cause by the\noffence men would have taken at the repetition of the baptism, than by\nthe reputation lost in abandoning their defence. And this I would not\nsay with any idea that we ought to be restrained by consideration of\nhuman feelings, if the truth compelled those who came from heretics to\nbe baptized afresh. But because the holy Cyprian says, \"that heretics\nmight have been all the more impelled to the necessity of coming over,\nif only they were to be rebaptized in the Catholic Church,\"[308]\non this account I have wished to place on record the intensity of\nthe repugnance to this act which is seated deeply in the heart of\nnearly every one,--a repugnance which I can believe was inspired by\nGod Himself, that the Church might be fortified by the instinct of\nrepugnance against any possible arguments which the weak cannot dispel.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VII.--8. Truly, when I look at the actual words of Cyprian, I am\nwarned to say some things which are very necessary for the solution of\nthis question. \"For if they were to see,\" he says, \"that it was settled\nand established by our formal decision and vote, that the baptism with\nwhich they are baptized in heresy is considered just and lawful, they\nwill think that they are in just and lawful possession of the Church\nalso, and all its other gifts.\" He does not say \"that they will think\nthey are in possession,\" but \"in just and lawful possession of the\ngifts of the Church.\" But we say that we cannot allow that they are _in\njust and lawful_ possession of baptism. That they are in possession of\nit we cannot deny, when we recognise the sacrament of the Lord in the\nwords of the gospel. They have therefore lawful baptism, but they do\nnot have it lawfully. For whosoever has it both in Catholic unity, and\nliving worthily of it, both has lawful baptism and has it lawfully; but\nwhosoever has it either within the Catholic Church itself, as chaff\nmixed with the wheat, or outside, as chaff carried away by the wind,\nhas indeed lawful baptism, but not lawfully. For he has it as he\nuses it. But the man does not use it lawfully who uses it against the\nlaw,--which every one does, who, being baptized, yet leads an abandoned\nlife, whether inside or without the Church.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VIII.--9. Wherefore, as the apostle said of the law, \"The law is\ngood, if a man use it lawfully,\"[309] so we may fairly say of baptism,\nBaptism is good, if a man use it lawfully. And as they who used the\nlaw unlawfully could not in that case cause that it should not be in\nitself good, or make it null and void, so any one who uses baptism\nunlawfully, either because he lives in heresy, or because he lives the\nworst of lives, yet cannot cause that the baptism should be otherwise\nthan good, or altogether null and void. And so, when he is converted\neither to Catholic unity, or to a mode of living worthy of so great a\nsacrament, he begins to have not another and a lawful baptism, but that\nsame baptism in a lawful manner. Nor does the remission of irrevocable\nsins follow on baptism, unless a man not only have lawful baptism, but\nhave it lawfully; and yet it does not follow that if a man have it not\nlawfully, so that his sins are either not remitted, or, being remitted,\nare brought on him again, therefore the sacrament of baptism should be\nin the baptized person either bad or null and void. For as Judas, to\nwhom the Lord gave a morsel, gave a place within himself to the devil,\nnot by receiving what was bad, but by receiving it badly,[310] so each\nperson, on receiving the sacrament of the Lord, does not cause that\nit is bad because he is bad himself, or that he has received nothing\nbecause he has not received it to salvation. For it was none the less\nthe body of the Lord and the blood of the Lord, even in those to whom\nthe apostle said, \"He that eateth unworthily, eateth and drinketh\ndamnation to himself.\"[311] Let the heretics therefore seek in the\nCatholic Church not what they have, but what they have not,--that is,\nthe end of the commandment, without which many holy things may be\npossessed, but they cannot profit. \"Now, the end of the commandment is\ncharity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith\nunfeigned.\"[312] Let them therefore hasten to the unity and truth of\nthe Catholic Church, not that they may have the sacrament of washing,\nif they have been already bathed in it, although in heresy, but that\nthey may have it to their health.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IX.--10. Now we must see what is said of the baptism of John.\nFor \"we read in the Acts of the Apostles, that those who had already\nbeen baptized with the baptism of John were yet baptized by Paul,\"[313]\nsimply because the baptism of John was not the baptism of Christ, but a\nbaptism allowed by Christ to John, so as to be called especially John's\nbaptism; as the same John says, \"A man can receive nothing, except it\nbe given him from heaven.\"[314] And that he might not possibly seem to\nreceive this from God the Father in such wise as not to receive it from\nthe Son, speaking presently of Christ Himself, he says, \"Of His fulness\nhave we all received.\"[315] But by the grace of a certain dispensation\nJohn received this, which was to last not for long, but only long\nenough to prepare for the Lord the way in which he must needs be the\nforerunner. And as our Lord was presently to enter on this way with\nall humility, and to lead those who humbly followed Him to perfection,\nas He washed the feet of His servants,[316] so was He willing to be\nbaptized with the baptism of a servant.[317] For as He set Himself\nto minister to the feet of those whose guide He was Himself, so He\nsubmitted Himself to the gift of John which He Himself had given, that\nall might understand what sacrilegious arrogance they would show in\ndespising the baptism which they ought each of them to receive from\nthe Lord, when the Lord Himself accepted what He Himself had bestowed\nupon a servant, that he might give it as his own; and that when John,\nthan whom no greater had arisen among them that are born of women,[318]\nbore such testimony to Christ, as to confess that he was not worthy to\nunloose the latchet of His shoe,[319] Christ might both, by receiving\nhis baptism, be found to be the humblest among men, and, by taking away\nthe place for the baptism of John, be believed to be the most high God,\nat once the teacher of humility and the giver of exaltation.\n\n11. For to none of the prophets, to no one at all in holy Scripture,\ndo we read that it was granted to baptize in the water of repentance\nfor the remission of sins, as it was granted to John; that, causing the\nhearts of the people to hang upon him through this marvellous grace,\nhe might prepare in them the way for Him whom he declared to be so\ninfinitely greater than himself. But the Lord Jesus Christ cleanses His\nChurch by such a baptism that on receiving it no other is required;\nwhile John gave a first washing with such a baptism that on receiving\nit there was further need of the baptism of the Lord,--not that the\nfirst baptism should be repeated, but that the baptism of Christ, for\nwhom he was preparing the way, might be further bestowed on those who\nhad received the baptism of John. For if Christ's humility were not\nto be commended to our notice, neither would there be any need of the\nbaptism of John; again, if the end were in John, after his baptism\nthere would be no need of the baptism of Christ. But because \"Christ is\nthe end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,\"[320]\nit was shown by John to whom men should go, and in whom, when they had\nreached Him, they should rest. The same John, therefore, set forth\nboth the exalted nature of the Lord, when he placed Him far before\nhimself, and His humility, when he baptized Him as the lowest of the\npeople. But if John had baptized Christ alone, he would be thought to\nhave been the dispenser of a better baptism, in that with which Christ\nalone was baptized, than the baptism of Christ with which Christians\nare baptized; and again, if all ought to be baptized first with the\nbaptism of John, and then with that of Christ, the baptism of Christ\nwould deservedly seem to be lacking in fulness and perfection, as not\nsufficing for salvation. Wherefore the Lord was baptized with the\nbaptism of John, that He might bend the proud necks of men to His own\nhealth-giving baptism; and He was not alone baptized with it, lest\nHe should show His own to be inferior to this, with which none but\nHe Himself had deserved to be baptized; and He did not allow it to\ncontinue longer, lest the one baptism with which He baptizes might seem\nto need the other to precede it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. X.--12. I ask, therefore, if sins were remitted by the baptism\nof John, what more could the baptism of Christ confer on those whom\nthe Apostle Paul desired to be baptized with the baptism of Christ\nafter they had received the baptism of John? But if sins were not\nremitted by the baptism of John, were those men in the days of Cyprian\nbetter than John, of whom he says himself that they \"used to seize on\nestates by treacherous frauds, and increase their gains by accumulated\nusuries,\"[321] through whose administration of baptism the remission of\nsins was yet conferred? Or was it because they were contained within\nthe unity of the Church? What then? Was John not contained within\nthat unity, the friend of the Bridegroom, the preparer of the way of\nthe Lord, the baptizer of the Lord Himself? Who will be mad enough to\nassert this? Wherefore, although my belief is that John so baptized\nwith the water of repentance for the remission of sins, that those\nwho were baptized by him received the expectation of the remission of\ntheir sins, the actual remission taking place in the baptism of the\nLord,--just as the resurrection which is expected at the last day is\nfulfilled in hope in us, as the apostle says, that \"He hath raised us\nup together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ\nJesus;\"[322] and again, \"For we are saved by hope;\"[323] or as again\nJohn himself, while he says, \"I indeed baptize you with water unto\nrepentance, for the remission of your sins,\"[324] yet says, on seeing\nour Lord, \"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the\nworld,\"[325]--nevertheless I am not disposed to contend vehemently\nagainst any one who maintains that sins were remitted even in the\nbaptism of John, but that some fuller sanctification was conferred\nby the baptism of Christ on those whom Paul ordered to be baptized\nanew.[326]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XI.--13. For we must look at the point which especially concerns\nthe matter before us (whatever be the nature of the baptism of John,\nsince it is clear that he belongs to the unity of Christ), viz., what\nis the reason for which it was right that men should be baptized again\nafter receiving the baptism of the holy John, and why they ought not\nto be baptized again after receiving the baptism of the covetous\nbishops. For no one denies that in the Lord's field John was as wheat,\nbearing an hundred-fold, if that be the highest rate of increase;\nalso no one doubts that covetousness, which is idolatry, is reckoned\nin the Lord's harvest among the chaff. Why then is a man baptized\nagain after receiving baptism from the wheat, and not after receiving\nit from the chaff? If it was because he was better than John that\nPaul baptized after John, why did not also Cyprian baptize after his\nusurious colleagues, than whom he was better beyond all comparison?\nIf it was because they were in unity with him that he did not baptize\nafter such colleagues, neither ought Paul to have baptized after John,\nbecause they were joined together in the same unity. Can it be that\ndefrauders and extortioners belong to the members of that one dove,\nand that he does not belong to it to whom the full power of the Lord\nJesus Christ was shown by the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form\nof a dove?[327] Truly he belongs most closely to it; but the others,\nwho must be separated from it either by the occasion of some scandal,\nor by the winnowing at the last day, do not by any means belong to\nit, and yet baptism was repeated after John and not after them. What\nthen is the cause, except that the baptism which Paul ordered them to\nreceive was not the same as that which was given at the hands of John?\nAnd so in the same unity of the Church, the baptism of Christ cannot\nbe repeated though it be given by an usurious minister; but those who\nreceive the baptism of John, even from the hands of John himself, ought\nto be afterwards baptized with the baptism of Christ.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XII.--14. Accordingly, I too might use the words of the blessed\nCyprian to turn the hearts of those that hear me to the consideration\nof something truly marvellous, if I were to say \"that John, who was\naccounted greater among the prophets,--he who was filled with divine\ngrace while yet in his mother's womb; he who was upheld in the spirit\nand power of Elias; who was not the adversary, but a forerunner and\nherald of the Lord; who not only foretold our Lord in words, but also\nshowed Him to the sight; who baptized Christ Himself, through whom\nall others are baptized,\"[328]--he was not worthy to baptize in such\nwise that those who were baptized by him should not be baptized again\nafter him; and shall no one think that a man should be baptized in the\nChurch after he had been baptized by the covetous, by defrauders, by\nextortioners, by usurers? Is not the answer ready to this invidious\nquestion, Why do you think this unmeet, as though either John were\ndishonoured, or the covetous man honoured? But His baptism ought not to\nbe repeated, of whom John says, \"The same is He which baptizeth with\nthe Holy Ghost.\"[329] For whoever be the minister by whose hands it is\ngiven, it is His baptism of whom it was said, \"The same is He which\nbaptizeth.\" But neither was the baptism of John himself repeated, when\nthe Apostle Paul commanded those who had been baptized by him to be\nbaptized in Christ. For what they had not received from the friend of\nthe Bridegroom, this it was right that they should receive from the\nBridegroom Himself, of whom that friend had said, \"The same is He which\nbaptizeth with the Holy Ghost.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIII.--15. For the Lord Jesus might, if He had so thought fit,\nhave given the power of His baptism to some one or more of His chief\nservants, whom He had already made His friends, such as those to whom\nHe says, \"Henceforth I call you not servants, but friends;\"[330] that,\nas Aaron was shown to be the priest by the rod that budded,[331] so in\nHis Church, when more and greater miracles are performed, the ministers\nof more excellent holiness, and the dispensers of His mysteries, might\nbe made manifest by some sign, as those who alone ought to baptize. But\nif this had been done, then though the power of baptizing were given\nthem by the Lord, yet it would necessarily be called their own baptism,\nas in the case of the baptism of John. And so Paul gives thanks to God\nthat he baptized none of those men who, as though forgetting in whose\nname they had been baptized, were for dividing themselves into factions\nunder the names of different individuals.[332] For when baptism is as\nvalid at the hands of a contemptible man as it was when given by an\napostle, it is recognised as the baptism neither of this man nor of\nthat, but of Christ; as John bears witness that he learned, in the case\nof the Lord Himself, through the appearance of the dove. For in what\nother respect he said, \"And I knew Him not,\" I cannot clearly see. For\nif he had not known Him in any sense, he could not have said to Him\nwhen He came to his baptism, \"I have need to be baptized of Thee.\"[333]\nWhat is it, therefore, that he says, \"I saw the Spirit descending from\nheaven like a dove, and it abode on Him. And I knew Him not: but He\nthat sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom\nthou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same\nis He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost?\"[334] The dove clearly\ndescended on Him after He was baptized. But while He was yet coming to\nbe baptized, John had said, \"I have need to be baptized of Thee.\" He\ntherefore already knew Him. What does he therefore mean by the words,\n\"I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same\nsaid unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and\nremaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost,\"\nsince this took place after He was baptized, unless it were that he\nknew Him in respect of certain attributes, and in respect of others\nknew Him not? He knew Him, indeed, as the Son of God, the Bridegroom,\nof whose fulness all should receive; but whereas of His fulness he\nhimself had so received the power of baptizing that it should be called\nthe baptism of John, he did not know whether He would so give it to\nothers also, or whether He would have His own baptism in such wise,\nthat at whose soever hands it was given, whether by a man that brought\nforth fruit a hundred-fold, or sixty-fold, or thirty-fold, whether by\nthe wheat or by the chaff, it should be known to be of Him alone; and\nthis he learned through the Spirit descending like a dove, and abiding\non Him.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIV.--16. Accordingly we find the apostles using the expressions,\n\"My glorying,\"[335] though it was certainly in the Lord; and \"Mine\noffice,\"[336] and \"My knowledge,\"[337] and \"My gospel,\"[338] although\nit was confessedly bestowed and given by the Lord; but no one of\nthem ever once said, \"My baptism.\" For neither is the glorying of\nall of them equal, nor do they all minister with equal powers, nor\nare they all endowed with equal knowledge, and in preaching the\ngospel one works more forcibly than another, and so one may be said\nto be more learned than another in the doctrine of salvation itself;\nbut one cannot be said to be more or less baptized than another,\nwhether he be baptized by a greater or a less worthy minister. So\nwhen \"the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery,\nfornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred,\nvariance, emulations, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders,\ndrunkenness, revellings, and such like;\"[339] if it be strange that it\nshould be said, \"Men were baptized after John, and are not baptized\nafter heretics,\" why is it not equally strange that it should be said,\n\"Men were baptized after John, and are not baptized after the envious,\"\nseeing that Cyprian himself bears witness in his epistle concerning\nenvy and malignity that the covetous are of the party of the devil, and\nCyprian himself makes it manifest from the words of the Apostle Paul,\nas we have shown above, that in the time of the apostles themselves\nthere were envious persons in the Church of Christ among the very\npreachers of the name of Christ?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XV.--17. That therefore the baptism of John was not the same\nas the baptism of Christ, has, I think, been shown with sufficient\nclearness; and therefore no argument can be drawn from it that baptism\nshould be repeated after heretics because it was repeated after John:\nsince John was not a heretic, and could have a baptism, which, though\ngranted by Christ, was yet not the very baptism of Christ, seeing that\nhe had the love of Christ; while a heretic can have at once the baptism\nof Christ and the perversity of the devil, as another within the Church\nmay have at once the baptism of Christ and the envy of the devil.\n\n18. But it will be urged that baptism after a heretic is much more\nrequired, because John was not a heretic, and yet baptism was repeated\nafter him. On this principle, a man may say, much more must we\nrebaptize after a drunkard, because John was sober, and yet baptism was\nrepeated after him. And we shall have no answer to make to such a man,\nsave that the baptism of Christ was given to those who were baptized\nby John, because they had it not; but where men have the baptism of\nChrist, no iniquity on their part can possibly effect that the baptism\nof Christ should fail to be in them.\n\n19. It is not therefore true that \"by baptizing first, the heretic\nobtains the right of baptism;\"[340] but because he did not baptize\nwith his own baptism, and though he did not possess the right of\nbaptizing, yet that which he gave is Christ's, and he who received it\nis Christ's. For many things are given wrongfully, and yet they are\nnot therefore said to be non-existent or not given at all. For neither\ndoes he who renounces the world in word only and not in deed receive\nbaptism lawfully, and yet he does receive it. For both Cyprian records\nthat there were such men in the Church in his day, and we ourselves\nexperience and lament the fact.\n\n20. But it is strange in what sense it can be said that \"baptism\nand the Church cannot in any way be separated and detached from one\nanother.\"[340] For if baptism remains inseparably in him who is\nbaptized, how can it be that he can be separated from the Church, and\nbaptism cannot? But it is clear that baptism does remain inseparably\nin the baptized person; because into whatever depth of evil, and into\nwhatever fearful whirlpool of sin the baptized person may fall, even\nto the ruin of apostasy, he yet is not bereft of his baptism. And\ntherefore, if through repentance he returns, it is not given again,\nbecause it is judged that he could not have been without it even in his\nsin. But who can ever doubt that a baptized person can be separated\nfrom the Church? For hence all the heresies have proceeded which\ndeceive by the use of Christian terms.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVI.--Wherefore, since it is manifest that the baptism remains in\nthe baptized person when he is separated from the Church, the baptism\nwhich is in him is certainly separated with him. And therefore not all\nwho retain the baptism retain the Church, just as not all who retain\nthe Church retain eternal life. Or if we say that only those retain the\nChurch who observe the commandments of God, we at once concede that\nthere are many who retain baptism, and do not retain the Church.\n\n21. Therefore the heretic is not \"the first to seize baptism,\" since\nhe has received it from the Church. Nor, though he seceded, could\nbaptism have been lost by him whom we assert no longer to retain the\nChurch, and yet allow to retain baptism. Nor does any one \"yield his\nbirthright, and give it to a heretic,\" because he says that he took\naway with him what he could not give lawfully, but what would yet be\naccording to law when given; or that he no longer has lawfully what yet\nis in accordance with law in his possession. But the birthright rests\nonly in a holy conversation and good life, to which all belong of whom\nthat bride consists as her members which has no spot or wrinkle,[341]\nor that dove that groans amid the wickedness of the many crows,--unless\nit be that, while Esau lost his birthright from his lust after a mess\nof pottage,[342] we are yet to hold that it is retained by defrauders,\nrobbers, usurers, envious persons, drunkards, and the like, over whose\nexistence in the Church of his time Cyprian groaned in his epistles.\nWherefore, either it is not the same thing to retain the Church and to\nretain the birthright in divine things, or, if every one who retains\nthe Church also retains the birthright, then all those wicked ones do\nnot retain the Church who yet both seem and are allowed by every one\nof us to give baptism within the Church; for no one, save the man who\nis wholly ignorant of sacred things, would say that they retain the\nbirthright in sacred things.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVII.--22. But, having considered and handled all these points,\nwe have now come to that peaceful utterance of Cyprian at the end of\nthe epistle, with which I am never sated, though I read and re-read\nit again and again,--so great is the pleasantness of brotherly love\nwhich breathes forth from it, so great the sweetness of charity in\nwhich it abounds. \"These things,\" he says, \"we have written unto you,\ndearest brother, shortly, according to our poor ability, prescribing\nto or prejudging no one, lest each bishop should not do what he thinks\nright, in the free exercise of his own will. We, so far as in us\nlies, do not contend on the subject of heretics with our colleagues\nand fellow-bishops, with whom we maintain concord and peace in the\nLord; especially as the apostle also says, 'If any man seem to be\ncontentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.'[343]\nWe observe patiently and gently charity of spirit, the honour of our\nbrotherhood, the bond of faith, the harmony of the priesthood. For\nthis reason also, to the best of our poor ability, by the permission\nand the inspiration of God we have written this treatise on 'The Good\nof Patience,' which we have sent to you in consideration of our mutual\nlove.\"[344]\n\n23. There are many things to be considered in these words, wherein the\nbrightness of Christian charity shines forth in this man, who \"loved\nthe beauty of the Lord's house, and the place of the tabernacle of His\nhabitation.\"[345] First, that he did not conceal what he felt; then,\nthat he set it forth so gently and peacefully, in that he maintained\nthe peace of the Church with those who thought otherwise, because\nhe understood how great healthfulness was bound up in the bond of\npeace, loving it so much, and maintaining it with sobriety, seeing\nand feeling that even men who think differently may entertain their\nseveral sentiments without breach of Christian charity. For he would\nnot say that he could maintain divine concord or the peace of the\nLord with evil men; for the good man can observe peace towards wicked\nmen, but he cannot be united with them in the peace which they have\nnot. Lastly, that prescribing to no one, and prejudging no one, lest\neach bishop should not do what he thinks right in the free exercise of\nhis own will, he has left for us also, whatsoever we may be, a place\nfor treating peacefully of those things with him. For he is present,\nnot only in his letters, but by that very charity which existed in\nso extraordinary a degree in him, and which can never die. Longing,\ntherefore, with the aid of his prayers, to cling to and be in union\nwith him, if I be not hindered by the unmeetness of my sins, I will\nlearn if I can through his letters with how great peace and comfort the\nLord administered His Church through him; and, putting on the bowels of\nhumility through the moving influence of his discourse, if, in common\nwith the Church at large, I entertain any doctrine more true than his,\nI will not prefer my heart to his, even in the point in which he,\nthough holding different views, was yet not severed from the Church\nthroughout the world. For in that, when that question was yet undecided\nfor want of full discussion, though his sentiments differed from those\nof many of his colleagues, yet he observed so great moderation, that he\nwould not mutilate the sacred fellowship of the Church of God by any\nstain of schism, a greater strength of excellence appeared in him than\nwould have been shown if, without that virtue, he had held views on\nevery point not only true, but coinciding with their own. Nor should I\nbe acting as he would wish, if I were to pretend to prefer his talent\nand his fluency of discourse and copiousness of learning to the holy\nCouncil of all nations, whereat he was assuredly present through the\nunity of his spirit, especially as he is now placed in such full light\nof truth as to see with perfect certainty what he was here seeking in\nthe spirit of perfect peace. For out of that rich abundance he smiles\nat all that here seems eloquence in us, as though it were the first\nessay of infancy; there he sees by what rule of piety he acted here,\nthat nothing should be dearer in the Church to him than unity. There,\ntoo, with unspeakable delight he beholds with what prescient and most\nmerciful providence the Lord, that He might heal our swellings, \"chose\nthe foolish things of the world to confound the wise,\"[346] and, in\nthe ordering of the members of His Church, placed all things in such\nhealthful wise, that men should not say that they were chosen to the\nhelp of the gospel for their own talent or learning, of whose source\nthey yet were ignorant, and so be puffed up with deadly pride. Oh, how\nCyprian rejoices! With how much more perfect calmness does he behold\nhow greatly it conduces to the health of the human race, that in the\nwritings even of Christian and pious orators there should be found what\nmerits blame, and in the writings of the fishermen there should nothing\nof the sort be found! And so I, being fully assured of this joy of that\nholy soul, neither in any way venture to think or say that my writings\nare free from every kind of error, nor, in opposing that opinion of\nhis, wherein it seemed to him that those who came from among heretics\nwere to be received otherwise than either they had been in former days,\nas he himself bears witness, or are now received, as is the reasonable\ncustom, confirmed by a general Council of the whole Christian world, do\nI set against him my own view, but that of the holy Catholic Church,\nwhich he so loved and loves, in which he brought forth such abundant\nfruit with tolerance, whose entirety he himself was not, but in whose\nunity he remained; whose root he never left, but, though he already\nbrought forth fruit from its root, he was purged by the heavenly\nHusbandman that he should bring forth more fruit;[347] for whose peace\nand safety, that the wheat might not be rooted out together with the\ntares, he both reproved with the freedom of truth, and endured with the\ngrace of charity, so many evils on the part of men who were placed in\nunity with himself.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVIII.--24. Whence Cyprian himself[348] again admonishes us with\nthe greatest fulness, that many who were dead in their trespasses and\nsins, although they did not belong to the body of Christ, and the\nmembers of that innocent and guileless dove (so that if she alone\nbaptized, they certainly could not baptize), yet to all appearance\nseemed both to be baptized and to baptize within the Church. Since,\ntherefore, there be dead men within the Church, who either do not\nbelong at all to that living dove, or at least do not as yet belong\nto her; and since there be dead men without, who yet more clearly do\nnot belong to her at all, or not as yet; and since it is true that\n\"another man cannot be quickened by one who himself liveth not,\"--it\nis therefore clear that those who within are baptized by such persons,\nif they approach the sacrament with true conversion of heart, are\nquickened by Him whose baptism it is. But if they renounce the world in\nword and not in deed, as Cyprian declares to be the case with some who\nare within, it is then manifest that they are not themselves quickened\nunless they be converted, and yet that they have true baptism even\nthough they be not converted. Whence also it is likewise clear that\nthose who are dead without, although they neither \"live themselves, nor\nquicken others,\" yet have the living baptism, which would profit them\nunto life so soon as they should be converted unto peace.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIX.--25. Wherefore, as regards those who received the persons\nwho came from heresy in the same baptism of Christ with which they\nhad been baptized outside the Church, and said \"that they followed\nancient custom,\" it is in vain urged against them \"that among the\nancients heresies and schisms were yet in their very infancy,[349] so\nthat those were involved in them who were seceders from the Church,\nand had originally been baptized within the Church, so that it was not\nnecessary that they should be baptized again when they returned and did\npenance.\" For so soon as each several heresy existed, and departed from\nthe communion of the Catholic Church, it was possible that, I will not\neven say the next day, but even on that very day, its votaries might\nhave baptized some who flocked to them. And therefore if this was the\nold custom, that they should be so received into the Church (as could\nnot be denied even by those who maintained the contrary part in the\ndiscussion), there can be no doubt in the mind of any one who pays\ncareful attention to the matter, that those also were so received who\nhad been baptized without in heresy.\n\n26. But I cannot see what show of reason there is in this, that the\nname of \"erring sheep\" should be denied to one whose lot it has been\nthat, while seeking the salvation which is in Christ, he has fallen\ninto the error of heretics, and been baptized in their body; while he\nis held to have become a sheep already within the body of the Catholic\nChurch herself, who has renounced the world in words and not in deeds,\nand has received baptism in such falseness of heart as this. Or if such\nan one also does not become a sheep unless after turning to God with\na true heart, then, as he is not baptized at the time when he becomes\na sheep, if he had been already baptized, but was not yet a sheep; so\nhe too, who comes from the heretics that he may become a sheep, is\nnot then to be baptized if he had been already baptized with the same\nbaptism, though he was not yet a sheep. Wherefore, since even all the\nbad that are within--the covetous, the envious, the drunkards, and\nthose that live contrary to the discipline of Christ--may be deservedly\ncalled liars, and in darkness, and dead, and antichrists, do they yet\ntherefore not baptize, on the ground that \"there can be nothing common\nbetween truth and falsehood, between light and darkness, between death\nand immortality, between Antichrist and Christ?\"\n\n27. He makes an assumption, then, not \"of mere custom,\" but \"of\nthe reason of truth itself,\" when he says that the sacrament of\nGod cannot be turned to error by the error of any men, since it is\ndeclared to exist even in those who have erred. Assuredly the Apostle\nJohn says most plainly, \"He that hateth his brother is in darkness\neven until now;\"[350] and again, \"Whosoever hateth his brother is a\nmurderer;\"[351] and why, therefore, do they baptize within the Church\nwhom Cyprian himself declares to be in the envy of malice?[352]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XX. How does a murderer cleanse and sanctify the water?[353] How\ncan darkness bless the oil? But if God is present in His sacraments\nto confirm His words by whomsoever the sacraments may be administered,\nthen both the sacraments of God are everywhere valid, and evil men whom\nthey profit not are everywhere perverse.\n\n28. But what kind of argument is this, that \"a heretic must be\nconsidered not to have baptism, because he has not the Church?\" And it\nmust be acknowledged that \"when he is baptized, he is questioned about\nthe Church.\"[354] Just as though the same question about the Church\nwere not put in baptism to him who within the Church renounces the\nworld in word and not in deed. As therefore his false answer does not\nprevent what he receives from being baptism, so also the false reply\nof the other about the holy Church does not prevent what he receives\nfrom being baptism; and as the former, if he afterwards fulfil with\ntruth what he promised in falsehood, does not receive a second baptism,\nbut only an amended life, so also in the case of the latter, if he\ncome afterwards to the Church about which he gave a false answer to\nthe question put to him, thinking that he had it when he had it not,\nthe Church herself which he did not possess is given him, but what he\nhad received is not repeated. But I cannot tell why it should be, that\nwhile God can \"sanctify the oil\" in answer to the words which proceed\nout of the mouth of a murderer, He yet cannot sanctify it on the altar\nreared by a heretic, unless it be that He who is not hindered by the\nfalse conversion of the heart of man within the Church is hindered by\nthe false erection of some wood without from deigning to be present\nin His sacraments, though no falseness on the part of men can hinder\nHim. If, therefore, what is said in the gospel, that \"God heareth not\nsinners,\"[355] extends so far that the sacraments cannot be celebrated\nby a sinner, how then does He hear a murderer praying, either over\nthe water of baptism, or over the oil, or over the eucharist, or over\nthe heads of those on whom his hand is laid? All which things are\nnevertheless done, and are valid, even at the hands of murderers,\nthat is, at the hands of those who hate their brethren, even within,\nin the Church itself. Since \"no one can give what he does not possess\nhimself,\" how does a murderer give the Holy Spirit? And yet such an one\neven baptizeth within the Church. It is God, therefore, that gives the\nHoly Spirit even when a man of this kind is baptizing.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXI.--29. But as to what he says, that \"he who comes to the\nChurch is to be baptized and renewed, that within he may be hallowed\nthrough the holy,\" what will he do, if within also he meets with those\nwho are not holy? Or can it be that the murderer is holy? And if the\nreason for his being baptized in the Church is that \"he should put\noff this very thing also that he, being a man that sought to come to\nGod, fell, through the deceit of error, on one profane,\" where is he\nafterwards to put off this, that he may chance, while seeking a man\nof God within the Church itself, to have fallen, through the deceit\nof error, on a murderer? If \"there cannot be in a man something\nthat is void and something that is valid,\" why is it possible that\nin a murderer the sacrament should be holy and his heart unholy? If\n\"whosoever cannot give the Holy Spirit cannot baptize,\" why does the\nmurderer baptize within the Church? Or how has the murderer the Holy\nSpirit, when every one that has the Holy Spirit is filled with light,\nbut \"he who hates his brother is still in darkness?\" If because \"there\nis one baptism, and one Spirit,\" therefore they cannot have the one\nbaptism who have not the one Spirit, why do the innocent man and the\nmurderer within the Church have the one baptism and not have the one\nSpirit? So therefore the heretic and the Catholic may have the one\nbaptism, and yet not have the one Church, as in the Catholic Church the\ninnocent man and the murderer may have the one baptism, though they\nhave not the one Spirit; for as there is one baptism, so there is one\nSpirit and one Church. And so the result is, that in each person we\nmust acknowledge what he already has, and to each person we must give\nwhat he has not. If \"nothing can be confirmed and ratified with God\nwhich has been done by those whom God calls His enemies and foes,\" why\nis the baptism confirmed which is given by murderers? Are we not to\ncall murderers the enemies and foes of the Lord? But \"he that hateth\nhis brother is a murderer.\" How then did they baptize who hated Paul,\nthe servant of Jesus Christ, and thereby hated Jesus Himself, since\nHe Himself said to Saul, \"Why persecutest thou me?\"[356] when he was\npersecuting His servants, and since at the last He Himself shall say,\n\"Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these that are mine,\nye did it not to me?\"[357] Wherefore all who go out from us are not of\nus, but not all who are with us are of us; just as when men thresh,\nall that flies from the threshing-floor is shown not to be corn, but\nnot all that remains there is therefore corn. And so John too says,\n\"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been\nof us, they would no doubt have continued with us.\"[358] Wherefore\nGod gives the sacrament of grace even through the hands of wicked\nmen, but the grace itself only by Himself or through His saints. And\ntherefore He gives remission of sins either of Himself, or through the\nmembers of that dove to whom He says, \"Whose soever sins ye remit,\nthey are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are\nretained.\"[359] But since no one can doubt that baptism, which is the\nsacrament of the remission of sins, is possessed even by murderers,\nwho are yet in darkness because the hatred of their brethren is not\nexcluded from their hearts, therefore either no remission of sins is\ngiven to them if their baptism is accompanied by no change of heart for\nthe better, or if the sins are remitted, they at once return on them\nagain. And we learn that the baptism is holy in itself, because it is\nof God; and whether it be given or whether it be received by men of\nsuch like character, it cannot be polluted by any perversity of theirs,\neither within, or yet outside the Church.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXII.--30. Accordingly we agree with Cyprian that heretics\ncannot give remission of sins; but we maintain that they can give\nbaptism,--which indeed in them, both when they give and when they\nreceive it, is profitable only to their destruction, as misusing so\ngreat a gift of God; just as also the malicious and envious, whom\nCyprian himself acknowledges to be within the Church, cannot give\nremission of sins, while we all confess that they can give baptism.\nFor if it was said of those who have sinned against us, \"If ye\nforgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive\nyour trespasses,\"[360] how much more impossible is it that their sins\nshould be forgiven who hate the brethren by whom they are loved, and\nare baptized in that very hatred; and yet when they are brought to the\nright way, baptism is not given them anew, but that very pardon which\nthey did not then deserve is granted them in their true conversion? And\nso even what Cyprian wrote to Quintus, and what, in conjunction with\nhis colleagues Liberalis, Caldonius, Junius, and the rest, he wrote to\nSaturninus, Maximus, and others, is all found, on due consideration,\nto be in no wise meet to be preferred as against the agreement of the\nwhole Catholic Church, of which they rejoiced that they were members,\nand from which they neither cut themselves away nor allowed others\nto be cut away who held a contrary opinion, until at length, by the\nwill of the Lord, it was made manifest, by a general Council many\nyears afterwards, what was the more perfect way, and that not by the\ninstitution of any novelty, but by confirming what was old.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIII.--31. Cyprian writes also to Pompeius[361] about this\nselfsame matter, and clearly shows in that letter that Stephen, who,\nas we learn, was then bishop of the Roman Church, not only did not\nagree with him upon the points before us, but even wrote and taught\nthe opposite views. But Stephen certainly did not \"communicate with\nheretics,\" merely because he did not dare to impugn the baptism\nof Christ, which he knew remained perfect in the midst of their\nperversity. For if none have baptism who entertain false views about\nGod, it has been proved sufficiently, in my opinion, that this may\nhappen even within the Church. \"The apostles,\" indeed, \"gave no\ninjunctions on the point;\" but the custom, which is opposed to\nCyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition,\njust as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church,\nand therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles,\nwhich yet are not mentioned in their writings.\n\n32. But it will be urged that it is written of heretics that \"they are\ncondemned of themselves.\"[362] What then? are they not also condemned\nof themselves to whom it was said, \"For wherein thou judgest another,\nthou condemnest thyself?\"[363] But to these the apostle says, \"Thou\nthat preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?\"[364] and so\nforth. And such truly were they who, being bishops and established\nin Catholic unity with Cyprian himself, used to plunder estates by\ntreacherous frauds, preaching all the time to the people the words of\nthe apostle, who says, \"Nor shall extortioners inherit the kingdom of\nGod.\"[365]\n\n33. Wherefore I will do no more than run shortly through the other\nsentiments founded on the same rules, which are in the aforesaid letter\nwritten to Pompeius. By what authority of holy Scripture is it shown\nthat it is against the commandment of God that persons coming from the\nsociety of heretics, if they have already there received the baptism\nof Christ, are not baptized again? But it is clearly shown that many\npretended Christians, though they are not joined in the same bond of\ncharity with the saints, without which anything holy that they may\nhave been able to possess is of no profit to them, yet have baptism in\ncommon with the saints, as has been already sufficiently proved with\nthe greatest fulness. He says \"that the Church, and the Spirit, and\nbaptism, are mutually incapable of separation from each other, and\ntherefore\" he wishes that \"those who are separated from the Church\nand the Holy Spirit should be understood to be separated also from\nbaptism.\" But if this is the case, then when any one has received\nbaptism in the Catholic Church, it remains so long in him as he himself\nremains in the Church, which is not so. For it is not restored to him\nwhen he returns, just because he did not lose it when he seceded. But\nas the disaffected sons have not the Holy Spirit in the same manner as\nthe beloved sons, and yet they have baptism; so heretics also have not\nthe Church as Catholics have, and yet they have baptism. \"For the Holy\nSpirit of discipline will flee deceit,\"[366] and yet baptism will not\nflee from it. And so, as baptism can continue in one from whom the Holy\nSpirit withdraws Himself, so can baptism continue where the Church is\nnot. But if \"the laying on of hands\" were not applied to one coming\nfrom heresy, he would be as it were judged to be wholly blameless;\nbut for the uniting of love, which is the greatest gift of the Holy\nSpirit, without which any other holy thing that there may be in a man\nis profitless to his salvation, hands are laid on heretics when they\nare brought to a knowledge of the truth.[367]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIV.--34. I remember that I have already discussed at sufficient\nlength the question of \"the temple of God,\" and how this saying is to\nbe taken, \"As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on\nChrist.\"[368] For neither are the covetous the temple of God, since it\nis written, \"What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?\"[369]\nAnd Cyprian has adduced the testimony of Paul to the fact that\ncovetousness is idolatry. But men put on Christ, sometimes so far as to\nreceive the sacrament, sometimes so much further as to receive holiness\nof life. And the first of these is common to good and bad alike; the\nsecond, peculiar to the good and pious. Wherefore, if \"baptism cannot\nbe without the Spirit,\" then heretics have the Spirit also,--but to\ndestruction, not to salvation, just as was the case with Saul.[370]\nFor in the Holy Spirit devils are cast out through the name of Christ,\nwhich even he was able to do who was without the Church, which called\nforth a suggestion from the disciples to their Lord.[371] Just as the\ncovetous have the Holy Spirit, who yet are not the temple of God. For\n\"what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?\" If therefore\nthe covetous have not the Spirit of God, and yet have baptism, it is\npossible for baptism to exist without the Spirit of God.\n\n35. If heresy is rendered \"unable to engender sons to God through\nChrist, because it is not the bride of Christ,\" neither can that crowd\nof evil men established within the Church, since it is also not the\nbride of Christ; for the bride of Christ is described as being without\nspot or wrinkle.[372] Therefore either not all baptized persons are\nthe sons of God, or even that which is not the bride can engender the\nsons of God. But as it is asked whether \"he is spiritually born who has\nreceived the baptism of Christ in the midst of heretics,\" so it may be\nasked whether he is spiritually born who has received the baptism of\nChrist in the Catholic Church, without being turned to God in a true\nheart, of whom it cannot be said that he has not received baptism.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXV.--36. I am unwilling to go on to handle again what Cyprian\npoured forth with signs of irritation against Stephen, as it is,\nmoreover, quite unnecessary. For they are but the selfsame arguments\nwhich have already been sufficiently discussed; and it is better\nto pass over those points which involved the danger of baneful\ndissension. But Stephen thought that we should even hold aloof from\nthose who endeavoured to destroy the primitive custom in the matter of\nreceiving heretics; whereas Cyprian, moved by the difficulty of the\nquestion itself, and being most largely endowed with the holy bowels\nof Christian charity, thought that we ought to remain at unity with\nthose who differed in opinion from ourselves. Therefore, although he\nwas not without excitement, though of a truly brotherly kind, in his\nindignation, yet the peace of Christ prevailed in their hearts, that in\nsuch a dispute no evil of schism should arise between them. But it was\nnot found that \"hence grew more abundant heresies and schisms,\" because\nwhat is of Christ in them is approved, and what is of themselves is\ncondemned; for all the more those who hold this law of rebaptizing were\ncut into smaller fragments.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVI.--37. To go on to what he says, \"that a bishop should be\n'teachable,'\"[373] adding, \"But he is teachable who is gentle and meek\nto learn; for a bishop ought not only to teach, but to learn as well,\nsince he is indeed the better teacher who daily grows and advances\nby learning better things;\"--in these words assuredly the holy man,\nendowed with pious charity, sufficiently points out that we should\nnot hesitate to read his letters in such a sense, that we should feel\nno difficulty if the Church should afterwards confirm what had been\ndiscovered by further and longer discussions; because, as there were\nmany things which the learned Cyprian might teach, so there was still\nsomething which the teachable Cyprian might learn. But the admonition\nthat he gives us, \"that we should go back to the fountain, that is,\nto apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our\ntimes,\" is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation.\nIt is handed down to us, therefore, as he himself records, by the\napostles, that there is \"one God, and one Christ, and one hope, and one\nfaith, and one Church, and one baptism.\"[374] Since then we find that\nin the times of the apostles themselves there were some who had not the\none hope, but had the one baptism, the truth is so brought down to us\nfrom the fountain itself, that it is clear to us that it is possible\nthat though there is one Church, as there is one hope, and one baptism,\nthey may yet have the one baptism who have not the one Church; just\nas even in those early times it was possible that men should have the\none baptism who had not the one hope. For how had they one hope with\nthe holy and the just, who used to say, \"Let us eat and drink, for\nto-morrow we die,\"[375] asserting that there was no resurrection of the\ndead? And yet they were among the very men to whom the same apostle\nsays, \"Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of\nPaul?\"[376] For he writes most manifestly to them, saying, \"How say\nsome among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?\"[377]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVII.--38. And in that the Church is thus described in the Song\nof Songs, \"A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut\nup, a fountain sealed: thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates,\nwith pleasant fruits;\"[378] I dare not understand this save of the\nholy and just,--not of the covetous, and defrauders, and robbers, and\nusurers, and drunkards, and the envious, of whom we yet both learn\nmost fully from Cyprian's letters, as I have often shown, and teach\nourselves, that they had baptism in common with the just, in common\nwith whom they certainly had not Christian charity. For I would that\nsome one would tell me how they \"crept into the garden enclosed and the\nfountain sealed,\" of whom Cyprian bears witness that they renounced\nthe world in word and not in deed, and that yet they were within the\nChurch. For if they both are themselves there, and are themselves the\nbride of Christ, can she then be as she is described, \"without spot or\nwrinkle,\"[379] and is the fair dove defiled with such a portion of her\nmembers? Are these the thorns among which she is a lily, as it is said\nin the same Song?[380] So far, therefore, as the lily extends, so far\ndoes \"the garden enclosed and the fountain sealed,\" namely, through all\nthose just persons who are Jews inwardly in the circumcision of the\nheart[381] (for \"the king's daughter is all glorious within\"[382]),\nin whom is the fixed number of the saints predestined before the\nfoundation of the world. But that multitude of thorns, whether in\nsecret or in open separation, is pressing on it from without, over\nand above the number. \"If I would declare them,\" it is said, \"and\nspeak of them, they are more than can be numbered.\"[383] The number,\ntherefore, of the just persons, \"who are the called according to His\npurpose,\"[384] of whom it is said, \"The Lord knoweth them that are\nHis,\"[385] is itself \"the garden enclosed, the fountain sealed, the\norchard of pomegranates with pleasant fruits.\" Of this number some live\naccording to the Spirit, and enter on the excellent way of charity; and\nwhen they \"restore a man that is overtaken in a fault in the spirit of\nmeekness, they consider themselves, lest they also be tempted.\"[386]\nAnd when it happens that they also are themselves overtaken, the\naffection of charity is but a little checked, and not extinguished; and\nagain rising up and being kindled afresh, it is restored to its former\ncourse. For they know how to say, \"My soul melteth for heaviness:\nstrengthen thou me according unto Thy word.\"[387] But when \"in anything\nthey be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto them,\"[388]\nif they abide in the burning flame of charity, and do not break the\nbond of peace. But some who are yet carnal, and full of fleshly\nappetites, are instant in working out their progress; and that they may\nbecome fit for heavenly food, they are nourished with the milk of the\nholy mysteries, they avoid in the fear of God whatever is manifestly\ncorrupt even in the opinion of the world, and they strive most\nwatchfully that they may be less and less delighted with worldly and\ntemporal matters. They observe most constantly the rule of faith which\nhas been sought out with diligence; and if in ought they stray from it,\nthey submit to speedy correction under Catholic authority, although,\nin Cyprian's words, they be tossed about, by reason of their fleshly\nappetite, with the various conflicts of phantasies. There are some also\nwho as yet live wickedly, or even lie in heresies or the superstitions\nof the Gentiles, and yet even then \"the Lord knoweth them that are\nHis.\" For, in that unspeakable foreknowledge of God, many who seem to\nbe without are in reality within, and many who seem to be within yet\nreally are without. Of all those, therefore, who, if I may so say, are\ninwardly and secretly within, is that \"enclosed garden\" composed, \"the\nfountain sealed, the orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits.\"\nThe divinely imparted gifts of these are partly peculiar to themselves,\nas in this world the charity that never faileth, and in the world to\ncome eternal life; partly they are common with evil and perverse men,\nas all the other things in which consist the holy mysteries.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVIII.--39. Hence, therefore, we have now set before us an\neasier and more simple consideration of that ark of which Noah was\nthe builder and pilot. For Peter says that in the ark of Noah, \"few,\nthat is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto\neven baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth\nof the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God).\"[389]\nWherefore, if those appear to men to be baptized in Catholic unity\nwho renounce the world in words only and not in deeds, how do they\nbelong to the mystery of this ark in whom there is not the answer of\na good conscience? Or how are they saved by water, who, making a bad\nuse of holy baptism, though they seem to be within, yet persevere to\nthe end of their days in a wicked and abandoned course of life? Or how\ncan they fail to be saved by water, of whom Cyprian himself records\nthat they were in time past simply admitted to the Church with the\nbaptism which they had received in heresy? For the same unity of the\nark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For\nCyprian himself says, \"The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon,\nand not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in\nall simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her\npale.\"[390] If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in\nthe Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the\nark, certainly by water. It is therefore possible that some who have\nbeen baptized without may be considered, through the foreknowledge of\nGod, to have been really baptized within, because within the water\nbegins to be profitable to them unto salvation; nor can they be said to\nhave been otherwise saved in the ark except by water. And again, some\nwho seemed to have been baptized within may be considered, through the\nsame foreknowledge of God, more truly to have been baptized without,\nsince, by making a bad use of baptism, they die by water, which then\nhappened to no one who was not outside the ark. Certainly it is clear\nthat, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church,\nit is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the\nbody, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the\nark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without,\nwhether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity.\nAs therefore it was not another but the same water that saved those\nwho were placed within the ark, and destroyed those who were left\nwithout the ark, so it is not by different baptisms, but by the same,\nthat good Catholics are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish.\nBut what the most blessed Cyprian thinks of the Catholic Church, and\nhow the heretics are utterly crushed by his authority, notwithstanding\nthe much I have already said, I have yet determined to set forth by\nitself, if God will, with somewhat greater fulness and perspicuity, so\nsoon as I shall have first said about his Council what I think is due\nfrom me, which, in God's will, I shall attempt in the following book.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[305] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. _ad Jubaian._ sec. 20.\n\n[306] See below, Book VII. c. ii.\n\n[307] Phil. iii. 15.\n\n[308] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 21.\n\n[309] 1 Tim. i. 8.\n\n[310] John xiii. 27.\n\n[311] 1 Cor. xi. 29.\n\n[312] 1 Tim. i. 5.\n\n[313] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 21; Acts xix. 3-5.\n\n[314] John iii. 27.\n\n[315] John i. 16.\n\n[316] John xiii. 4, 5.\n\n[317] Matt. iii. 13.\n\n[318] Matt. xi. 11.\n\n[319] John i. 27.\n\n[320] Rom. x. 4.\n\n[321] Cypr. _Serm. de Lapsis_, c. iv.\n\n[322] Eph. ii. 6.\n\n[323] Rom. viii. 24.\n\n[324] Matt. iii. 11.\n\n[325] John i. 29.\n\n[326] Acts xix. 3-5.\n\n[327] Matt. iii. 16; John i. 33.\n\n[328] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 22.\n\n[329] John i. 33.\n\n[330] John xv. 15.\n\n[331] Num. xvii. 8.\n\n[332] 1 Cor. i. 12-15.\n\n[333] Matt. iii. 14.\n\n[334] John i. 32, 33.\n\n[335] 1 Cor. ix. 15.\n\n[336] Rom. xi. 13.\n\n[337] Eph. iii. 4.\n\n[338] 2 Tim. ii. 8.\n\n[339] Gal. v. 19-21.\n\n[340] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 22.\n\n[341] Eph. v. 27. Cp. Aug. _Retract._ ii. 18, quoted above, I. xvii. 26.\n\n[342] Gen. xxv. 29-34.\n\n[343] 1 Cor. xi. 16.\n\n[344] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 22.\n\n[345] Ps. xxvi. 8.\n\n[346] 1 Cor. i. 27.\n\n[347] John xv. 2.\n\n[348] In this and the following chapter Augustine is examining the\nseventieth epistle of Cyprian to his brother Quintus, bishop in\nMauritania.\n\n[349] Apud veteres h\u00e6reses et schismata prima adhuc fuisse initia.\nMigne suggests, \"h\u00e6resis et schismatum\"--\"there was as yet only the\nfirst beginning of heresy and schisms.\"\n\n[350] 1 John ii. 9.\n\n[351] 1 John iii. 15.\n\n[352] Cypr. lxxiii. sec. 12.\n\n[353] In this and the next two chapters Augustine is examining the\nseventieth epistle of Cyprian, from himself and thirty-one other\nbishops, to Januarius, Saturninus, Maximus, and fifteen others.\n\n[354] In the question, \"Dost thou believe in eternal life and remission\nof sins through the holy Church?\" Cypr. _l.c._\n\n[355] John ix. 31.\n\n[356] Acts ix. 4.\n\n[357] Matt. xxv. 45.\n\n[358] 1 John ii. 19.\n\n[359] John xx. 23.\n\n[360] Matt. vi. 15.\n\n[361] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxi., which is examined by Augustine in the\nremaining chapters of this book.\n\n[362] Tit. iii. 11.\n\n[363] Rom. ii. 1.\n\n[364] Rom. ii. 21.\n\n[365] 1 Cor. vi. 10.\n\n[366] Wisd. i. 5.\n\n[367] Cyprian, in the laying on of hands, appears to refer to\nconfirmation, but Augustine interprets it of the restoration of\npenitents. Cp. III. xvi. 21.\n\n[368] Gal. iii. 27.\n\n[369] 2 Cor. vi. 16.\n\n[370] 1 Sam. xix. 23.\n\n[371] Mark ix. 38.\n\n[372] Eph. v. 27. Cp. Aug. _Retract._ ii. 18, quoted above, I. xvii. 26.\n\n[373] \"Docibilis;\" and so the passage (2 Tim. ii. 24) is quoted\nfrequently by Augustine. The English version, \"apt to teach,\" is more\ntrue to the original, [Greek: didaktikos]\n\n[374] See Eph. iv. 4-6.\n\n[375] 1 Cor. xv. 32.\n\n[376] 1 Cor. i. 13.\n\n[377] 1 Cor. xv. 12.\n\n[378] Cant. iv. 12, 13.\n\n[379] Eph. v. 27.\n\n[380] Cant. ii. 2.\n\n[381] Rom. ii. 29.\n\n[382] Ps. xlv. 14.\n\n[383] Ps. xl. 5.\n\n[384] Rom. viii. 28.\n\n[385] 2 Tim. ii. 19.\n\n[386] See Gal. vi. 1.\n\n[387] Ps. cxix. 28.\n\n[388] See Phil. iii. 15.\n\n[389] Pet. iii. 20, 21.\n\n[390] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 20.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK SIXTH.\n\n IN WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE, HELD UNDER THE\n AUTHORITY AND PRESIDENCY OF CYPRIAN, TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF THE\n BAPTISM OF HERETICS.\n\n\nCHAP. I.--1. It might perhaps have been sufficient, that after the\nreasons have been so often repeated, and considered, and discussed\nwith such variety of treatment, supplemented, too, with the addition\nof proofs from holy Scripture, and the concurrent testimony of so many\npassages from Cyprian himself, even those who are slow of heart should\nthus understand, as I believe they do, that the baptism of Christ\ncannot be rendered void by any perversity on the part of man, whether\nin administering or receiving it. And when we find that in those times,\nwhen the point in question was decided in a manner contrary to ancient\ncustom, after discussions carried on without violation of Christian\ncharity and unity, it appeared to certain eminent men even amongst\nthe servants of Christ, among whom the blessed Cyprian was specially\nconspicuous, that the baptism of Christ could not exist among heretics\nor schismatics, this simply arose from their not distinguishing the\nsacrament from the effect or use of the sacrament; and because its\neffect and use was not found among heretics in freeing them from\ntheir sins and setting their hearts right, the sacrament itself was\nalso thought to be wanting among them. But if we turn our eyes to the\nmultitude of chaff within the Church, since these also who are perverse\nand lead an abandoned life in unity itself appear to have no power\neither of giving or retaining remission of sins, seeing that it is not\nto the wicked but the good sons that it was said, \"Whose soever sins ye\nremit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain,\nthey are retained,\"[391] yet that such persons both have, and give,\nand receive the sacrament of baptism, was sufficiently manifest to the\npastors of the Catholic Church dispersed over the whole world, through\nwhom the original custom was afterwards confirmed by the authority of\na general Council; so that even the sheep which was straying outside,\nand had received the mark of the Lord from false plunderers outside, if\nit seek the salvation of Christian unity, is purified from error, is\nfreed from captivity, is healed of its wound, and yet the mark of the\nLord is recognised rather than rejected in it; since the mark itself\nis often impressed both by wolves and on wolves, who seem indeed to be\nwithin the fold, but yet are proved by the fruits of their conduct,\nin which they persevere even to the end, not to belong to that sheep\nwhich is one in many; because, according to the foreknowledge of God,\nas many sheep wander outside, so many wolves lurk treacherously within,\namong whom the Lord yet knoweth them that are His, which hear only the\nvoice of the Shepherd, even when He calls by the voice of men like the\nPharisees, of whom it was said, \"Whatsoever they bid you observe, that\nobserve and do.\"[392]\n\n2. For as the spiritual man, keeping \"the end of the commandment,\"\nthat is, \"charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and\nof faith unfeigned,\"[393] can see some things less clearly out of a\nbody which is yet \"corruptible and presseth down the soul,\"[394] and is\nliable to be otherwise minded in some things which God will reveal[395]\nto him in His own good time if he abide in the same charity, so in a\ncarnal and perverse man something good and useful may be found, which\nhas its origin not in the man himself, but in some other source. For as\nin the fruitful branch there is found something which must be purged\nthat it may bring forth more fruit, so also a grape is often found to\nhang on a cane that is barren and dry or fettered. And so, as it is\nfoolish to love the portions which require purging in the fruitful\nbranch, whilst he acts wisely who does not reject the sweet fruit\nwherever it may hang, so, if any one cuts himself off from unity by\nrebaptizing, simply because it seemed to Cyprian that one ought to\nbaptize again those who came from the heretics, such a man turns aside\nfrom what merits praise in that great man, and follows what requires\ncorrection, and does not even attain to the very thing he follows\nafter. For Cyprian, while grievously abhorring, in his zeal for God,\nall those who severed themselves from unity, thought that thereby they\nwere separated from baptism itself; while these men, thinking it at\nmost a slight offence that they themselves are severed from the unity\nof Christ, even maintain that His baptism is not in that unity, but\nissued forth with them. Therefore they are so far from the fruitfulness\nof Cyprian, as not even to be equal to the parts in him which needed\npurging.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. II.--3. Again, if any one not having charity, and walking in\nthe abandoned paths of a most wicked life, seems to be within whilst\nhe really is without, and at the same time does not seek for the\nrepetition of baptism even in the case of heretics, it in no wise helps\nhis barrenness, because he is not rendered fruitful with his own fruit,\nbut laden with that of others. But it is possible that some one may\nflourish in the root of charity, and may be most rightly minded in the\npoint in which Cyprian was otherwise minded, and yet there may be more\nthat is fruitful in Cyprian than in him, more that requires purging\nin him than in Cyprian. Not only, therefore, do we not compare bad\nCatholics with the blessed Cyprian, but even good Catholics we do not\nhastily pronounce to be on an equality with him whom our pious mother\nChurch counts among the few rare men of surpassing excellence and\ngrace, although these others may recognise the baptism of Christ even\namong heretics, whilst he thought otherwise; so that, by the instance\nof Cyprian, who saw one point less clearly, and yet remained most firm\nin the unity of the Church, it might be shown more clearly to heretics\nwhat a sacrilegious crime it was to break the bond of peace. For\nneither were the blind Pharisees, although they sometimes enjoined what\nwas right to be done, to be compared to the Apostle Peter, though he at\ntimes enjoined what was not right. But not only is their dryness not to\nbe compared to his greenness, but even the fruit of others may not be\ndeemed equal to his fertility. For no one now compels the Gentiles to\nJudaize, and yet no one now in the Church, however great his progress\nin goodness, may be compared with the apostleship of Peter. Wherefore,\nwhile rendering due reverence, and paying, so far as I can, the fitting\nhonour to the peaceful bishop and glorious martyr Cyprian, I yet\nventure to say that his view concerning the baptism of schismatics and\nheretics was contrary to that which was afterwards brought to light\nby a decision, not of mine, but of the whole Church, confirmed and\nstrengthened by the authority of a general Council: just as, while\npaying the reverence he deserves to Peter, the first of the apostles\nand most eminent of martyrs, I yet venture to say that he did not do\nright in compelling the Gentiles to Judaize; for this also I say, not\nof my own teaching, but according to the wholesome doctrine of the\nApostle Paul, retained and preserved throughout the whole Church.[396]\n\n4. Therefore, in discussing the opinion of Cyprian, though myself of\nfar inferior merit to Cyprian, I say that good and bad alike can have,\ncan give, can receive the sacrament of baptism,--the good, indeed, to\ntheir health and profit; the bad to their destruction and ruin,--whilst\nthe sacrament itself is of equal perfectness in both of them; and that\nit is of no consequence to its equal perfectness in all, how much\nworse the man may be that has it among the bad, just as it makes no\ndifference how much better he may be that has it among the good. And\naccordingly it makes no difference either how much worse he may be that\nconfers it, as it makes no difference how much better he may be; and so\nit makes no difference how much worse he may be that receives it, as\nit makes no difference how much better he may be. For the sacrament is\nequally holy, in virtue of its own excellence, both in those who are\nunequally just, and in those who are unequally unjust.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. III.--5. But I think that we have sufficiently shown, both from\nthe canon of Scripture, and from the letters of Cyprian himself, that\nbad men, while by no means converted to a better mind, can have, and\nconfer, and receive baptism, of whom it is most clear that they do\nnot belong to the holy Church of God, though they seem to be within\nit, inasmuch as they are covetous, robbers, usurers, envious, evil\nthinkers, and the like; whilst she is one dove,[397] modest and chaste,\na bride without spot or wrinkle,[398] a garden enclosed, a fountain\nsealed, an orchard of pomegranates with pleasant fruits,[399] with all\nsimilar properties which are attributed to her; and all this can only\nbe understood to be in the good, and holy, and just,--following, that\nis, not only the operations of the gifts of God, which are common to\ngood and bad alike, but also the inner bond of charity conspicuous in\nthose who have the Holy Spirit, to whom the Lord says, \"Whose soever\nsins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye\nretain, they are retained.\"[400]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IV.--6. And so it is clear that no good ground is shown herein\nwhy the bad man, who has baptism, may not also confer it; and as he\nhas it to destruction, so he may also confer it to destruction,--not\nbecause this is the character of the thing conferred, nor of the person\nconferring, but because it is the character of him on whom it is\nconferred. For when a bad man confers it on a good man, that is, on one\nin the bond of unity, converted with a true conversion, the wickedness\nof him who confers it makes no severance between the good sacrament\nwhich is conferred, and the good member of the Church on whom it is\nconferred. And when his sins are forgiven him on his true conversion\nto God, they are forgiven by those to whom he is united by his true\nconversion. For the same Spirit forgives them, which is given to all\nthe saints that cling to one another in love, whether they know one\nanother in the body or not. Similarly when a man's sins are retained,\nthey are assuredly retained by those from whom he, in whom they are\nretained, separates himself by dissimilarity of life, and by the\nturning away of a corrupt heart, whether they know him in the body or\nnot.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. V.--7. Wherefore all bad men are separated in the spirit from\nthe good; but if they are separated in the body also by a manifest\ndissension, they are made yet worse. But, as it has been said, it\nmakes no difference to the holiness of baptism how much worse the man\nmay be that has it, or how much worse he that confers it: yet he that\nis separated may confer it, as he that is separated may have it; but\nas he has it to destruction, so he may confer it to destruction. But\nhe on whom he confers it may receive it to his soul's health, if he,\non his part, receive it not in separation; as it has happened to many\nthat, in a catholic spirit, and with heart not alienated from the\nunity of peace, they have, under some pressure of impending death,\nturned hastily to some heretic and received from him the baptism of\nChrist without any share in his perversity, so that, whether dying\nor restored to life, they by no means remain in communion with those\nto whom they never passed in heart. But if the recipient himself has\nreceived the baptism in separation, he receives it so much the more\nto his destruction, in proportion to the greatness of the good which\nhe has not received well; and it tends the more to his destruction in\nhis separation, as it would avail the more to the salvation of one in\nunity. And so, if, reforming himself from his perverseness and turning\nfrom his separation, he should come to the Catholic peace, his sins are\nremitted through the bond of peace and the same baptism under which his\nsins were retained through the sacrilege of separation, because that is\nalways holy both in the just and the unjust, which is neither increased\nby the righteousness nor diminished by the unrighteousness of any man.\n\n8. This being the case, what bearing has it on so clear a truth, that\nmany of his fellow-bishops agreed with Cyprian in that opinion, and\nadvanced their own several opinions on the same side, except that\nhis charity towards the unity of Christ might become more and more\nconspicuous? For if he had been the only one to hold that opinion, with\nno one to agree with him, he might have been thought, in remaining, to\nhave shrunk from the sin of schism, because he found no companions in\nhis error; but when so many agreed with him, he showed, by remaining\nin unity with the rest who thought differently from him, that he\npreserved the most sacred bond of universal catholicity, not from any\nfear of isolation, but from the love of peace. Wherefore it might\nindeed seem now to be superfluous to consider the several opinions of\nthe other bishops also in that Council; but since those who are slow\nin heart think that no answer has been made at all, if to any passage\nin any discourse the answer which might be brought to bear on the spot\nbe given not there but somewhere else, it is better that by reading\nmuch they should be polished into sharpness, than that by understanding\nlittle they should have room left for complaining that the argument has\nnot been fairly conducted.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VI.--9. First, then, let us record for further consideration\nthe case proposed for decision by Cyprian himself, with which he\ninitiates the proceedings of the Council, and by which he shows a\npeaceful spirit, abounding in the fruitfulness of Christian charity.\n\"Ye have heard,\" he says, \"most beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus,\nour fellow-bishop, has written to me, consulting my poor ability about\nthe unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, and what I have written\nback to him, expressing to him the same opinion that I have expressed\nonce and again and often, that heretics coming to the Church ought to\nbe baptized, and sanctified with the baptism of the Church. Another\nletter also of Jubaianus has been read to you, in which, agreeably to\nhis sincere and religious devotion, in answer to our epistle, he not\nonly expressed his assent to it, but also gratefully acknowledged that\nhe had received instruction. It remains that we should individually\nexpress our opinions on this same subject, judging no one, and removing\nno one from the right of communion if he should entertain a different\nopinion. For neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of\nbishops, or by tyrannical terror force his colleagues to the necessity\nof obeying, since every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and\npower, has the right of free judgment, and can no more be judged by\nanother than he can himself judge another. But we are all awaiting the\njudgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of\npreferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our\nactions.\"[401]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VII.--10. I have already, I think, argued to the best of my\npower, in the preceding books, in the interests of Catholic unanimity\nand counsel, in whose unity these continued as pious members, in reply\nnot only to the letter which Cyprian wrote to Jubaianus, but also to\nthat which he sent to Quintus, and that which, in conjunction with\ncertain of his colleagues, he sent to certain other colleagues, and\nthat which he sent to Pompeius. Wherefore it seems now to be fitting\nto consider also what the others severally thought, and that with the\nliberty of which he himself would not deprive us, as he says, \"Judging\nno one, nor removing any from the right of communion if he entertain\ndifferent opinions.\" And that he did not say this with the object of\narriving at the hidden thoughts of his colleagues, extracted as it were\nfrom their secret lurking-places, but because he really loved peace\nand unity, is very easily to be seen from other passages of the same\nsort, where he wrote to individuals as to Jubaianus himself. \"These\nthings,\" he says, \"we have written very shortly in answer to you,\nmost beloved brother, according to our poor ability, not preventing\nany one of the bishops, by our writing or judgment, from acting as he\nthinks right, having a free exercise of his own judgment.\" And that\nit might not seem that any one, because of his entertaining different\nopinions in this same free exercise of his judgment, should be driven\nfrom the society of his brethren, he goes on to say, \"We, so far as\nlies in us, do not strive on behalf of heretics against our colleagues\nand fellow-bishops, with whom we maintain godly unity and the peace\nof our Lord;\" and a little later he says, \"Charity of spirit, respect\nfor our college, the bond of faith, the harmony of the priesthood, are\nby us maintained with patience and gentleness.\"[402] And so also in\nthe epistle which he wrote to Magnus, when he was asked whether there\nwas any difference in the efficacy of baptism by sprinkling or by\nimmersion, \"In this matter,\" he says, \"I am too modest and diffident\nto prevent any one by my judgment from thinking as he deems right,\nand acting as he thinks.\"[403] By which discourses he clearly shows\nthat these subjects were being handled by them at a time when they\nwere not yet received as decided beyond all question, but were being\ninvestigated with great care as being yet unrevealed. We, therefore,\nmaintaining on the subject of the identity of all baptisms what must be\nacknowledged everywhere to be the custom[404] of the universal Church,\nand what is confirmed by the decision of general Councils, and taking\ngreater confidence also from the words of Cyprian, which allowed me\neven then to hold opinions differing from his own without forfeiting\nthe right of communion, seeing that greater importance and praise were\nattached to unity, such as the blessed Cyprian and his colleagues, with\nwhom he held that Council, maintained with those of different opinions,\ndisturbing and overthrowing thereby the seditious calumnies of heretics\nand schismatics in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who, speaking by\nHis apostle, says, \"Forbearing one another in love, endeavouring to\nkeep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;\"[405] and again, by\nthe mouth of the same apostle, \"If in anything ye be otherwise minded,\nGod shall reveal even this unto you,\"[406]--we, I say, propose for\nconsideration and discussion the opinions of the holy bishops, without\nviolating the bond of unity and peace with them, in maintaining which\nwe imitate them so far as we can by the aid of the Lord Himself.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VIII.--11. C\u00e6cilius of Bilta[407] said: \"I know of one baptism\nin the one Church, and of none outside the Church. The one will be\nwhere there is true hope and sure faith. For so it is written, 'One\nfaith, one hope, one baptism.'[408] Not among heretics, where there is\nno hope and a false faith; where all things are done by a lie; where\none possessed of a devil exorcises; the question of the sacrament\nis asked by one from whose mouth and words proceeds a cancer; the\nfaithless gives faith; the guilty gives pardon for sins; and Antichrist\nbaptizes in the name of Christ; one accursed of God blesses; the dead\npromises life; the unpeaceful gives peace; the blasphemer calls on God;\nthe profane administers the priesthood; the sacrilegious sets up the\naltar. To all this is added this further evil, that the servant of the\ndevil dares to celebrate the eucharist. If this be not so, let those\nwho stand by them prove that all of it is false concerning heretics.\nSee the kind of things to which the Church is compelled to assent,\nbeing forced to communicate without baptism or the remission of sins.\nThis, brethren, we ought to shun and avoid, separating ourselves from\nso great a sin, and holding to the one baptism which is granted to the\nChurch alone.\"[409]\n\n12. To this I answer, that all who even within the Church profess\nthat they know God, but deny Him in their deeds, such as are the\ncovetous and envious, and those who, because they hate their brethren,\nare pronounced to be murderers, not on my testimony, but on that\nof the holy Apostle John,[410]--all these are both devoid of hope,\nbecause they have a bad conscience; and are faithless, because they\ndo not do what they have vowed to God; and liars, because they make\nfalse professions; and possessed of devils, because they give place\nin their heart to the devil and his angels; and their words work\ncorruption, since they corrupt good manners by evil communications;\nand they are infidels, because they laugh at the threats which God\nutters against such men; and accursed, because they live wickedly; and\nantichrists, because their lives are opposed to Christ; and cursed\nof God, since holy Scripture everywhere calls down curses on such\nmen; and dead, because they are without the life of righteousness;\nand unpeaceful, because by their contrary deeds they are at variance\nwith God's behests; and blasphemous, because by their abandoned\nacts despite is done to the name of Christian; and profane, because\nthey are spiritually shut out from that inner sanctuary of God; and\nsacrilegious, because by their evil life they defile the temple of\nGod within themselves; and servants of the devil, because they do\nservice to fraud and covetousness, which is idolatry. That of such\na kind are some, nay very many, even within the Church, is testified\nboth by Paul the apostle and by Cyprian the bishop. Why, then, do they\nbaptize? Why also are some, who renounce the world in words and not in\ndeeds, baptized without being converted from a life like this, and not\nrebaptized when they are converted? And as to what he says with such\nindignation, \"See the kind of things to which the Church is compelled\nto assent, being forced to communicate without baptism or the remission\nof sins,\" he could never have used such expressions had there not been\nthe other bishops who elsewhere forced men to such things. Whence also\nit is shown that at that time those men held the truer views who did\nnot depart from the primitive custom, which is since confirmed by the\nconsent of a general Council. But what does he mean by adding, \"This,\nbrethren, we ought to shun and avoid, separating ourselves from so\ngreat a sin?\" For if he means that he is not to do nor to approve of\nthis, that is another matter; but if he means to condemn and sever from\nhim those that hold the contrary opinion, he is setting himself against\nthe earlier words of Cyprian, \"Judging no man, nor depriving any of the\nright of communion if he differ from us.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IX.--13. The elder Felix[411] of Migirpa said: \"I think that\nevery one coming from heresy should be baptized. For in vain does any\none suppose that he has been baptized there, seeing that there is no\nbaptism save the one true baptism in the Church; for there is one Lord,\nand one faith, and one Church, in which rests the one baptism, and\nholiness, and the rest. For the things that are practised without have\nno power to work salvation.\"\n\n14. To what Felix of Migirpa said we answer as follows. If the one true\nbaptism did not exist except in the Church, it surely would not exist\nin those who depart from unity. But it does exist in them, since they\ndo not receive it when they return, simply because they had not lost it\nwhen they departed. But as regards his statement, that \"the things that\nare practised without have no power to work salvation,\" I agree with\nhim, and think that it is quite true; for it is one thing that baptism\nshould not be there, and another that it should have no power to work\nsalvation. For when men come to the peace of the Catholic Church, then\nwhat was in them before they joined it, but did not profit them, begins\nat once to profit them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. X.--15. To the declaration of Polycarp of Adrumetum,[412] that\n\"those who declare the baptism of heretics to be valid, make ours of\nnone effect,\" we answer, if that is the baptism of heretics which\nis given by heretics, then that is the baptism of the covetous and\nmurderers which is given by them within the Church. But if this be not\ntheir baptism, neither is the other the baptism of heretics; and so it\nis Christ's, by whomsoever it be given.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XI.--16. Novatus of Thamugadis[413] said: \"Though we know that\nall Scripture gives its testimony respecting saving baptism, yet we\nought to express our belief that heretics and schismatics, coming to\nthe Church with the semblance of having been baptized, ought to be\nbaptized in the unfailing fountain; and that therefore, according to\nthe testimony of the Scriptures, and according to the decree of those\nmost holy men, our colleagues,[414] all schismatics and heretics who\nare converted to the Church ought to be baptized; and that, moreover,\nall that seemed to have received ordination should be admitted as\nsimple laymen.\"\n\n17. Novatus of Thamugadis has stated what he has done; but he has\nbrought forward no proofs by which to show that he ought to have acted\nas he did. For he has made mention of the testimony of the Scriptures,\nand the decree of his colleagues, but he has not adduced out of them\nanything which we could consider.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XII.--18. Nemesianus of Tubun\u00e6[415] said: \"That the baptism\nwhich is given by heretics and schismatics is not true is everywhere\ndeclared in the holy Scriptures, inasmuch as their very prelates are\nfalse Christs and false prophets, as the Lord declares by the mouth of\nSolomon, 'Whoso trusteth in lies, the same feedeth the winds; he also\nfolloweth flying birds. For he deserteth the ways of his own vineyard,\nand hath strayed from the paths of his own field. For he walketh\nthrough pathless and dry places, and a land destined to thirst; and\nhe gathereth fruitless weeds in his hands.'[416] And again, 'Abstain\nfrom strange water, and drink not of a strange fountain, that thou\nmayest live long, and that years may be added to thy life.'[417] And\nin the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spake with His own voice, saying,\n'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter\ninto the kingdom of God.'[418] This is the Spirit which from the\nbeginning 'moved upon the face of the waters.'[419] For neither can\nthe Spirit act without the water, nor the water without the Spirit.\nIll, therefore, for themselves do some interpret, saying that by\nimposition of hands they receive the Holy Ghost, and are received into\nthe Church, when it is manifest that they ought to be born again by\nboth sacraments[420] in the Catholic Church. For then indeed will they\nbe able to become the sons of God, as the apostle says, 'Endeavouring\nto keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one\nbody, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your\ncalling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God.'[421] All this the\nCatholic Church asserts. And again he says in the gospel, 'That which\nis born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit\nis spirit; for the Spirit is God, and is born of God.'[422] Therefore\nall things whatsoever all heretics and schismatics do are carnal, as\nthe apostle says, 'Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are\nthese; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry,\nwitchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions,\nheresies, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have\nalso told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not\ninherit the kingdom of God.'[423] The apostle condemns, equally with\nall the wicked, those also who cause divisions, that is, schismatics\nand heretics. Unless therefore they receive that saving baptism which\nis one, and found only in the Catholic Church, they cannot be saved,\nbut will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord.\"\n\n19. Nemesianus of Tubun\u00e6 has advanced many passages of Scripture to\nprove his point; but he has in fact said much on behalf of the view\nof the Catholic Church, which we have undertaken to set forth and\nmaintain. Unless, indeed, we must suppose that he does not \"trust in\nwhat is false\" who trusts in the hope of things temporal, as do all\ncovetous men and robbers, and those who renounce the world in words\nbut not in deeds, of whom Cyprian yet bears witness that such men not\nonly baptize, but even are baptized within the Church.[424] For they\nthemselves also \"follow flying birds,\"[425] since they do not attain to\nwhat they desire. But not only the heretic, but every one who leads an\nevil life, \"deserteth the ways of his own vineyard, and hath strayed\nfrom the paths of his own field. And he walketh through pathless and\ndry places, and a land destined to thirst; and he gathereth fruitless\nweeds in his hands;\" because all justice is fruitful, and all iniquity\nis barren. Those, again, who \"drink strange water out of a strange\nfountain,\" are found not only among heretics, but among all who do not\nlive according to the teaching of God, and do live according to the\nteaching of the devil. For if he were speaking of baptism, he would not\nsay, \"Do not drink of a strange fountain,\" but, do not wash thyself\nin a strange fountain. Again, I do not see at all what aid he gets\ntowards proving his point from the words of our Lord, \"Except a man be\nborn of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of\nGod.\"[426] For it is one thing to say that every one who shall enter\ninto the kingdom of heaven is first born again of water and the Spirit,\nbecause except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not\nenter into the kingdom of heaven, which is the Lord's saying, and is\ntrue; another thing to say that every one who is born of water and\nthe Spirit shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is assuredly\nfalse. For Simon Magus also was born of water and of the Spirit,[427]\nand yet he did not enter into the kingdom of heaven; and this may\npossibly be the case with heretics as well. Or if only those are born\nof the Spirit who are changed with a true conversion, all who renounce\nthe world in word and not in deed are assuredly not born of the Spirit,\nbut of water only, and yet they are within the Church, according\nto the testimony of Cyprian. For we must perforce grant one of two\nthings,--either those who renounce the world deceitfully are born of\nthe Spirit, though it is to their destruction, not to salvation, and\ntherefore heretics may be so born; or if what is written, that \"the\nHoly Spirit of discipline will flee deceit,\"[428] extends to proving\nas much as this, that those who renounce the world deceitfully are not\nborn of the Spirit, then a man may be baptized with water, and not\nborn of the Spirit, and Nemesianus says in vain that neither the Spirit\ncan work without the water, nor the water without the Spirit. Indeed it\nhas been already often shown how it is possible that men should have\none baptism in common who have not one Church, as it is possible that\nin the body of the Church herself those who are sanctified by their\nrighteousness, and those who are polluted through their covetousness,\nmay not have the same one Spirit, and yet have the same one baptism.\nFor it is said \"one body,\" that is, the Church, just as it is said \"one\nSpirit\" and \"one baptism.\" The other arguments which he has adduced\nrather favour our position. For he has brought forward a proof from the\ngospel, in the words, \"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and\nthat which is born of the Spirit is spirit; for the Spirit is God, and\nborn of God;\"[429] and he has advanced the argument that therefore all\nthings that are done by any heretic or schismatic are carnal, as the\napostle says, \"The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these;\nfornication, uncleanness;\" and so he goes through the list which the\napostle there enumerates, amongst which he has reckoned heresies, since\n\"they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.\"[430]\nThen he goes on to add, that \"therefore the apostle condemns with all\nwicked men those also who cause division, that is, schismatics and\nheretics.\" And in this he does well, that when he enumerates the works\nof the flesh, among which are also heresies, he found and declared\nthat the apostle condemns them all alike. Let him therefore question\nthe holy Cyprian himself, and learn from him how many even within the\nChurch live according to the evil works of the flesh, which the apostle\ncondemns in common with the heresies, and yet these both baptize and\nare baptized. Why then are heretics alone said to be incapable of\npossessing baptism, which is possessed by the very partners in their\ncondemnation?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIII.--20. Januarius of Lamb\u00e6se[431] said: \"Following the\nauthority of the holy Scriptures, I pronounce that all heretics should\nbe baptized, and so admitted into the holy Church.\"[432]\n\n21. To him we answer, that, following the authority of the holy\nScriptures, a universal Council of the whole world decreed that the\nbaptism of Christ was not to be disavowed, even when found among\nheretics. But if he had brought forward any proof from the Scriptures,\nwe should have shown either that they were not against us, or even that\nthey were for us, as we proceed to do with him who follows.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIV.--21. Lucius of Castrum Galb\u00e6[433] said: \"Since the Lord hath\nsaid in His gospel, 'Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have\nlost his savour, that which is salted from it shall be thenceforth\ngood for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of\nmen;'[434] and seeing that again, after His resurrection, when sending\nforth His apostles, He commanded them, saying, 'All power is given unto\nme in heaven and in earth: go ye therefore, and teach all nations,\nbaptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost,'[435]--since then it is plain that heretics, that is, the\nenemies of Christ, have not the full confession of the sacrament,\nalso that schismatics cannot reason with spiritual wisdom, since they\nthemselves, by withdrawing when they have lost their savour from the\nChurch, which is one, have become contrary to it,[436] let that be done\nwhich is written, 'The houses of those that are opposed to the law must\nneeds be cleansed;'[437] and it therefore follows that those who have\nbeen polluted by being baptized by men opposed to Christ should first\nbe cleansed, and only then baptized.\"\n\n23. Lucius of Castrum Galb\u00e6 has brought forward a proof from the\ngospel, in the words of the Lord, \"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if\nthe salt have lost his savour, that which is salted from it shall be\ngood for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of\nmen;\" just as though we maintained that men when cast out were of any\nprofit for the salvation either of themselves or of any one else. But\nthose also who, though seeming to be within, are yet of such a kind,\nnot only are without spiritually, but will in the end be separated in\nthe body also. For all such are profitable for nothing. But it does\nnot therefore follow that the sacrament of baptism which is in them\nis nothing. For even in the very men who are cast out, if they return\nto their senses and come back, the salvation which had departed from\nthem returns; but the baptism does not return, because it never had\ndeparted. And in what the Lord says, \"Go therefore, and teach all\nnations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and\nof the Holy Ghost,\" He did not permit any to baptize except the good,\ninasmuch as He did not say to the bad, \"Whose soever sins ye remit,\nthey are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are\nretained.\"[438] How then do the wicked baptize within, who cannot remit\nsins? How also is it that they baptize the wicked whose hearts are not\nchanged, whose sins are yet upon them, as John says, \"He that hateth\nhis brother is in darkness even until now?\"[439] But if the sins of\nthese men are remitted when they join themselves in the close bonds\nof love to the good and just, through whom sins are remitted in the\nChurch, though they have been baptized by the wicked, so the sins of\nthose also are remitted who come from without and join themselves by\nthe inner bond of peace to the same framework of the body of Christ.\nYet the baptism of Christ should be acknowledged in both, and held\ninvalid in none, whether before they are converted, though then it\nprofit them nothing, or after they are converted, that so it may profit\nthem, as he says, \"Since they themselves, by withdrawing when they have\nlost their savour from the Church, which is one, have become contrary\nto it, let that be done which is written, 'The houses of those that are\nopposed to the law must needs be cleansed.' And it therefore follows,\"\nhe goes on to say, \"that those who have been polluted by being\nbaptized by men opposed to Christ should first be cleansed, and only\nthen baptized.\" What then? Are thieves and murderers not contrary to\nthe law, which says, \"Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal?\"[440]\n\"They must therefore needs be cleansed.\" Who deny it? And yet not only\nthose who are baptized by such within the Church, but also those who,\nbeing such themselves, are baptized without being changed in heart,\nare nevertheless exempt from further baptism when they are so changed.\nSo great is the force of the sacrament of mere baptism, that though we\nallow that a man who has been baptized and continues to lead an evil\nlife requires to be cleansed, we yet forbid him to be any more baptized.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XV.--24. Crescens of Cirta[441] said: \"The letters of our\nmost beloved Cyprian to Jubaianus, and also to Stephen,[442] having\nbeen read in so large an assembly of our most holy brethren in the\npriesthood, containing as they do so large a body of sacred testimony\nderived from the Scriptures that give us our God,[443] that we have\nevery reason to assent to them, being all united by the grace of God,\nI give my judgment that all heretics or schismatics who wish to come\nto the Catholic Church should not enter therein unless they have been\nfirst exorcised and baptized; with the obvious exception of those who\nhave been originally baptized in the Catholic Church, these being\nreconciled and admitted to the penance of the Church by the imposition\nof hands.\"\n\n25. Here we are warned once more to inquire why he says, \"Except,\nof course, those who have been originally baptized in the Catholic\nChurch.\" Is it because they had not lost what they had before received?\nWhy then could they not also transmit outside the Church what they\nwere able to possess outside? Is it that outside it is unlawfully\ntransmitted? But neither is it lawfully possessed outside, and yet it\nis possessed; so it is unlawfully given outside, but yet it is given.\nBut what is given to the person returning from heresy who had been\nbaptized inside, is given to the person coming to the Church who had\nbeen baptized outside,--that is, that he may have lawfully inside what\nbefore he had unlawfully outside. But perhaps some one may ask what was\nsaid on this point in the letter of the blessed Cyprian to Stephen,\nwhich is mentioned in this judgment, though not in the opening address\nto the Council,--I suppose because it was not considered necessary. For\nCrescens stated that the letter itself had been read in the assembly,\nwhich I have no doubt was done, if I am not mistaken, as is customary,\nin order that the bishops, being already assembled, might receive some\ninformation at the same time on the subject contained in that letter.\nFor it certainly has no bearing on the present subject; and I am more\nsurprised at Crescens having thought fit to mention it at all, than\nat its having been passed over in the opening address. But if any\none thinks that I have shrunk from bringing forward something which\nhas been urged in it that is essential to the present point, let him\nread it and see that what I say is true; or if he finds it otherwise,\nlet him convict me of falsehood. For that letter contains nothing\nwhatsoever about baptism administered among heretics or schismatics,\nwhich is the subject of our present argument.[444]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVI.--26. Nicomedes of Segerm\u00e6[445] said: \"My judgment is that\nheretics coming to the Church should be baptized, because they can\nobtain no remission of sins among sinners outside.\"\n\n27. The answer to which is: The judgment of the whole Catholic Church\nis that heretics, being already baptized with the baptism of Christ,\nalthough in heresy, should not be rebaptized on coming to the Church.\nFor if there is no remission of sins among sinners, neither can sinners\nwithin the Church remit sins; and yet those who have been baptized by\nthem are not rebaptized.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVII.--28. Monnulus of Girba[446] said: \"The truth of our mother,\nthe Catholic Church, hath continued, and still continues among us,\nbrethren, especially in the threefold nature[447] of baptism, as our\nLord says, 'Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of\nthe Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'[448] Since, therefore,\" he goes on\nto say, \"we know clearly that heretics have neither Father, Son, nor\nHoly Ghost, they ought, on coming to our mother, the Church, to be\ntruly regenerate and baptized, that the cancer which they had, and the\nwrath of condemnation, and the destructive energy of error,[449] may be\nsanctified by the holy and heavenly laver.\"\n\n29. To this we answer, That all who are baptized with the baptism that\nis consecrated in the words of the gospel have the Father, and the Son,\nand the Holy Ghost in the sacrament alone; but that in heart and in\nlife neither do those have them who live an abandoned and accursed life\nwithin.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVIII.--30. Secundinus of Cedi\u00e6[450] said: \"Since our Lord Christ\nsaid, 'He that is not with me is against me,'[451] and the Apostle\nJohn declares those who go out from the Church to be antichrists,[452]\nwithout all doubt the enemies of Christ, and those who are called\nantichrists, cannot minister the grace of the baptism which gives\nsalvation; and therefore my judgment is that those who take refuge in\nthe Church from the snares of heresy should be baptized by us, who of\nHis condescension are called the friends of God.\"\n\n31. The answer to which is, That all are the opponents of Christ,\nto whom, on their saying, \"Lord, have we not in Thy name done many\nwonderful things?\" with all the rest that is there recorded, He shall\nat the last day answer, \"I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work\niniquity,\"[453]--all which kind of chaff is destined for the fire, if\nit persevere to the last in its wickedness, whether any part of it\nfly outside before its winnowing, or whether it seem to be within.\nIf, therefore, those heretics who come to the Church are to be again\nbaptized, that they may be baptized by the friends of God, are those\ncovetous men, those robbers, murderers, the friends of God, or must\nthose whom they have baptized be baptized afresh?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIX.--32. Felix of Bagai[454] said: \"As when the blind leads the\nblind, both fall into the ditch,[455] so when a heretic baptizes a\nheretic, both fall together into death.\"\n\n33. This is true, but it does not follow that what he adds is true.\n\"And therefore,\" he says, \"the heretic must be baptized and brought\nto life, lest we who are alive should hold communion with the dead.\"\nWere they not dead who said, \"Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow\nwe die?\"[456] for they did not believe in the resurrection of the\ndead. Those then who were corrupted by their evil communications,\nand followed them, were not they likewise falling with them into\nthe pit? And yet among them there were men to whom the apostle was\nwriting as being already baptized; nor would they, therefore, if they\nwere corrected, be baptized afresh. Does not the same apostle say,\n\"To be carnally-minded is death?\"[457] and certainly the covetous,\nthe deceivers, the robbers, in the midst of whom Cyprian himself was\ngroaning, were carnally-minded. What then? Did the dead hurt him who\nwas living in unity? or who would say, that because such men had or\ngave the baptism of Christ, that it was therefore violated by their\niniquities?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XX.--34. Pollianus of Mileum[458] said: \"It is right that a\nheretic should be baptized in the holy Church.\"\n\n35. Nothing, indeed, could be expressed more shortly. But I think this\ntoo is short: It is right that the baptism of Christ should not be\ndepreciated in the Church of Christ.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXI.--36. Theogenes of Hippo Regius[459] said: \"According to\nthe sacrament of the heavenly grace of God which we have received, we\nbelieve in the one only baptism which is in the holy Church.\"\n\n37. This may be my own judgment also. For it is so balanced, that it\ncontains nothing contrary to the truth. For we also believe in the\none only baptism which is in the holy Church. Had he said, indeed, We\nbelieve in that which is in the holy Church alone, the same answer\nmust have been made to him as to the rest. But as it is, since he has\nexpressed himself in this wise, \"We believe in the one only baptism\nwhich is in the holy Church,\" so that it is asserted that it exists\nin the holy Church, but not denied that it may be elsewhere as well,\nwhatever his meaning may have been, there is no need to argue against\nthese words. For if I were questioned on the several points, first,\nwhether there was one baptism, I should answer that there was one. Then\nif I were asked, whether this was in the holy Church, I should answer\nthat it was. In the third place, if it were asked whether I believed in\nthis baptism, I should answer that I did so believe; and consequently I\nshould answer that I believed in the one baptism which is in the holy\nChurch. But if it were asked whether it was found in the holy Church\nalone, and not among heretics and schismatics, I should answer that,\nin common with the whole Church, I believed the contrary. But since he\ndid not insert this in his judgment, I should consider that it was mere\nwantonness if I added words which I did not find there, for the sake\nof arguing against them. For if he were to say, There is one water of\nthe river Euphrates, which is in Paradise, no one could gainsay the\ntruth of what he said. But if he were asked whether that water were in\nParadise and nowhere else, and were to say that this was so, he would\nbe saying what was false. For, besides Paradise, it is also in those\nlands into which it flows from that source. But who is rash enough to\nsay that he would have been likely to assert what is false, when it is\nquite possible that he was asserting what is true? Wherefore the words\nof this judgment require no contradiction, because they in no wise run\ncounter to the truth.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXII.--38. Dativus of Badis[460] said: \"We, so far as lies within\nour power, refuse to communicate with a heretic, unless he has been\nbaptized in the Church, and received remission of his sins.\"\n\n39. The answer to this is: If your reason for wishing him to be\nbaptized is that he has not received remission of sins, supposing you\nfind a man within the Church who has been baptized, though entertaining\nhatred towards his brother, since the Lord cannot lie, who says, \"If\nye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive\nyour trespasses,\"[461] will you bid such an one, when corrected, to be\nbaptized afresh? Assuredly not; so neither should you bid the heretic.\nIt is clear that we must not pass unnoticed why he did not briefly\nsay, \"We do not communicate with a heretic,\" but added, \"so far as\nlies within our power.\" For he saw that a greater number agreed with\nthis view, from whose communion, however, he and his friends could not\nseparate themselves, lest unity should be impaired, and so he added,\n\"so far as lies within our power,\"--showing beyond all doubt that he\ndid not willingly communicate with those whom he held to be without\nbaptism, but that yet all things were to be endured for the sake of\npeace and unity; just as was done also by those who thought that\nDativus and his party were in the wrong, and who held what afterwards\nwas taught by a fuller declaration of the truth, and urged by ancient\ncustom, which received the stronger confirmation of a later Council;\nyet in turn, with anxious piety, they showed toleration towards each\nother, though without violation of Christian charity they entertained\ndifferent opinions, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in\nthe bond of peace,[462] till God should reveal to one of them, were\nhe otherwise minded, even this error of his ways.[463] And to this I\nwould have those give heed, by whom unity is attacked on the authority\nof this very Council by which it is declared how much unity should be\nloved.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIII.--40. Successus of Abbir Germaniciana[464] said: \"Heretics\nmay either do everything or nothing. If they can baptize, they can\nalso give the Holy Spirit; but if they cannot give the Holy Spirit,\nbecause they do not possess the Holy Spirit, then can they not either\nspiritually baptize. Therefore we give our judgment that heretics\nshould be baptized.\"\n\n41. To this we may answer almost word for word: Murderers may either do\neverything or nothing. If they can baptize, they can also give the Holy\nSpirit; but if they cannot give the Holy Spirit, because they do not\npossess the Holy Spirit, then can they not either spiritually baptize.\nTherefore we give our judgment that persons baptized by murderers, or\nmurderers themselves who have been baptized without being converted,\nshould, when they have corrected themselves, be baptized. Yet this\nis not true. For \"whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer;\"[465]\nand Cyprian knew such men within the Church, who certainly baptized.\nTherefore it is to no purpose that words of this sort are used\nconcerning heretics.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIV.--42. Fortunatus of Thuccabori[466] said: \"Jesus Christ\nour Lord and God, the Son of God the Father and Creator, built His\nChurch upon a rock, not upon heresy, and gave the power of baptizing to\nbishops, not to heretics. Wherefore those who are outside the Church,\nand stand against Christ, scattering His sheep and flock, cannot\nbaptize outside.\"\n\n43. He added the word \"outside\" in order that he might not be answered\nwith a like brevity to Successus. For otherwise he might also have\nbeen answered word for word: Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the Son\nof God the Father and Creator, built His Church upon a rock, not\nupon iniquity, and gave the power of baptizing to bishops, not to\nthe unrighteous. Wherefore those who do not belong to the rock on\nwhich they build who hear the word of God and do it,[467] but, living\ncontrary to Christ in hearing the word and not doing it, and hereby\nbuilding on the sand, in this way scatter His sheep and flock by the\nexample of an abandoned character, cannot baptize. Might not this\nbe said with all the semblance of truth? and yet it is false. For\nthe unrighteous do baptize, since those robbers are unrighteous whom\nCyprian maintained to be at unity with himself.[468] But for this\nreason, says the Donatist, he adds \"outside.\" Why therefore can they\nnot baptize outside? Is it because they are worse from the very fact\nthat they are outside? But it makes no difference, in respect of the\nvalidity of baptism, how much worse the minister may be. For there is\nnot so much difference between bad and worse as between good and bad;\nand yet, when the bad baptizes, he gives the selfsame sacrament as the\ngood. Therefore, also, when the worse baptizes, he gives the selfsame\nsacrament as the less bad. Or is it that it is not in respect of man's\nmerit, but of the sacrament of baptism itself, that it cannot be given\noutside? If this were so, neither could it be possessed outside, and it\nwould be necessary that a man should be baptized again so often as he\nleft the Church and again returned to it.\n\n44. Further, if we inquire more carefully what is meant by \"outside,\"\nespecially as he himself makes mention of the rock on which the Church\nis built, are not they in the Church who are on the rock, and they who\nare not on the rock, not in the Church either? Now, therefore, let us\nsee whether they build their house upon a rock who hear the words of\nChrist and do them not. The Lord Himself declares the contrary, saying,\n\"Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken\nhim unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock;\" and a little\nlater, \"Every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them\nnot, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon\nthe sand.\"[469] If, therefore, the Church is on a rock, those who are\non the sand, because they are outside the rock, are necessarily outside\nthe Church. Let us recollect, therefore, how many Cyprian mentions as\nplaced within who build upon the sand, that is, who hear the words of\nChrist and do them not. And therefore, because they are on the sand,\nthey are proved to be outside the rock, that is, outside the Church;\nyet even while they are so situated, and are either not yet or never\nchanged for the better, not only do they baptize and are baptized,\nbut the baptism which they have remains valid in them though they are\ndestined to damnation.\n\n45. Neither can it be said in this place,[470] Yet who is there that\ndoeth all the words of the Lord which are written in the evangelic\nsermon itself, at the end of which He says, that he who heard the said\nwords and did them built upon a rock, and he who heard them and did\nthem not built upon the sand? For, granting that by certain persons all\nthe words are not accomplished, yet in the same sermon He has appointed\nthe remedy, saying, \"Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.\"[471] And after\nthe Lord's prayer had been recorded in detail in the same sermon, He\nsays, \"For I say unto you, if ye forgive men their trespasses, your\nheavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their\ntrespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.\"[472]\nHence also Peter says, \"For charity shall cover the multitude of\nsins;\"[473] which charity they certainly did not have, and on this\naccount they built upon the sand, of whom the same Cyprian says, that\nwithin the Church they held conversation, even in the time of the\napostles, in unkindly hatred alien from Christian charity;[474] and\ntherefore they seemed indeed to be within, but really were without,\nbecause they were not on that rock by which the Church is signified.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXV.--46. Sedatus of Tuburbo[475] said: \"Inasmuch as water,\nsanctified by the prayer of the priest in the Church, washes away sins,\njust so much does it multiply sins when infected, as by a cancer, with\nthe words of heretics. Wherefore one must strive, with all such efforts\nas conduce to peace, that no one who has been infected and tainted\nby heretical error should refuse to receive the one true baptism,\nwith which whosoever is not baptized shall not inherit the kingdom of\nheaven.\"\n\n47. To this we answer, that if the water is not sanctified, when\nthrough want of skill the priest who prays utters some words of\nerror, many, not only of the bad, but of the good brethren in the\nChurch itself, fail to sanctify the water. For the prayers of many\nare corrected every day on being recited to men of greater learning,\nand many things are found in them contrary to the Catholic faith.\nSupposing, then, that it were shown that some persons were baptized\nwhen these prayers had been uttered over the water, will they be bidden\nto be baptized afresh? Why not? Because generally the fault in the\nprayer is more than counterbalanced by the intent of him who offers\nit; and those fixed words of the gospel, without which baptism cannot\nbe consecrated, are of such efficacy, that, by their virtue, anything\nfaulty that is uttered in the prayer contrary to the rule of faith is\nmade of no effect, just as the devil is excluded by the name of Christ.\nFor it is clear that if a heretic utters a faulty prayer, he has no\ngood intent of love whereby that want of skill may be compensated, and\ntherefore he is like any envious or spiteful person in the Catholic\nChurch itself, such as Cyprian proves to exist within the Church. Or\none might offer some prayer, as not unfrequently happens, in which he\nshould speak against the rule of faith, since many rush into the use of\nprayers which are composed not only by unskilful men who love to talk,\nbut even by heretics, and in the simplicity of ignorance, not being\nable to discern their true character, use them, thinking they are good;\nand yet what is erroneous in them does not vitiate what is right, but\nrather it is rendered null thereby, just as in the man of good hope and\napproved faith, who yet is but a man, if in anything he be otherwise\nminded, what he holds aright is not thereby vitiated until God reveal\nto him also that in which he is otherwise minded.[476] But supposing\nthat the man himself is wicked and perverse, then, if he should offer\nan upright prayer, in no part contrary to the Catholic faith, it does\nnot follow that because the prayer is right the man himself is also\nright; and if over some he offers an erroneous prayer, God is present\nto uphold the words of His gospel, without which the baptism of Christ\ncannot be consecrated, and He Himself consecrates His sacrament,\nthat in the recipient, either before he is baptized, or when he is\nbaptized, or at some future time when he turns in truth to God, that\nvery sacrament may be profitable to salvation, which, were he not to be\nconverted, would be powerful to his destruction. But who is there who\ndoes not know that there is no baptism of Christ, if the words of the\ngospel in which consists the outward visible sign be not forthcoming?\nBut you will more easily find heretics who do not baptize at all, than\nany who baptize without those words. And therefore we say, not that\nevery baptism (for in many of the blasphemous rites of idols men are\nsaid to be baptized), but that the baptism of Christ, that is, every\nbaptism consecrated in the words of the gospel, is everywhere the same,\nand cannot be vitiated by any perversity on the part of any men.[477]\n\n48. We must certainly not lightly pass over in this judgment that he\nhere inserted a clause, and says, \"Wherefore we must strive, with all\nsuch efforts as conduce to peace, that no one who has been infected,\"\netc. For he had regard to those words of the blessed Cyprian in his\nopening speech, \"Judging no man, nor depriving any of the right of\ncommunion if he entertain a different view.\" See of what power is\nthe love of unity and peace in the good sons of the Church, that\nthey should choose rather to show tolerance towards those whom they\ncalled sacrilegious and profane, being admitted, as they thought,\nwithout the sacrament of baptism, if they could not correct them as\nthey thought was right, than on their account to break that holy\nbond, lest on account of the tares the wheat also should be rooted\nout,[478]--permitting, so far as rested with them, as in that noblest\njudgment of Solomon, that the infant body should rather be nourished by\nthe false mother than be cut in pieces.[479] But this was the opinion\nboth of those who held the truer view about the sacrament of baptism,\nand of those to whom God, in consideration of their great love, was\npurposing to reveal any point in which they were otherwise minded.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVI.--49. Privatianus of Sufetula[480] said: \"He who says that\nheretics have the power of baptizing should first say who it was that\nfounded heresy. For if heresy is of God, it may have the divine favour;\nbut if it be not of God, how can it either have or confer on any one\nthe grace of God?\"\n\n50. This man may thus be answered word for word: He who says that\nmalicious and envious persons have the power of baptizing, should\nfirst say who was the founder of malice and envy. For if malice and\nenvy are of God, they may have the divine favour; but if they are not\nof God, how can they either have or confer on any one the grace of\nGod? But as these words are in the same way most manifestly false, so\nare also those which these were uttered to confute. For the malicious\nand envious baptize, as even Cyprian himself allows, because he bears\ntestimony that they also are within. So therefore even heretics may\nbaptize, because baptism is the sacrament of Christ; but envy and\nheresy are the works of the devil. Yet though a man possesses them, he\ndoes not thereby cause that if he have the sacrament of Christ, it also\nshould itself be reckoned in the number of the devil's works.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVII.--51. Privatus of Sufes said: \"What can be said of the man\nwho approves the baptism of heretics, save that he communicates with\nheretics?\"\n\n52. To this we answer: It is not the baptism of heretics which we\napprove in heretics, as it is not the baptism of the covetous, or the\ntreacherous, or deceitful, or of robbers, or of envious men which we\napprove in them; for all of these are unjust, but Christ is just,\nwhose sacrament existing in them, they do not in its essence violate.\nOtherwise another man might say: What can be said of the man who\napproves the baptism of the unjust, save that he communicates with the\nunjust? And if this objection were brought against the Catholic Church\nherself, it would be answered just as I have answered the above.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVIII.--53. Hortensianus of Lares[481] said: \"How many baptisms\nthere are, let those who uphold or favour heretics determine. We assert\none baptism of the Church, which we only know in the Church. Or how\ncan those baptize any one in the name of Christ whom Christ Himself\ndeclares to be His enemies?\"\n\n54. Giving answer to this man in a like tenor of words, we say: Let\nthose who uphold or favour the unrighteous see to it: we recall to the\nChurch when we can the one baptism which we know to be of the Church\nalone, wherever it be found. Or how can they baptize any one in the\nname of Christ whom Christ Himself declares to be His enemies? For\nHe says to all the unrighteous, \"I never knew you: depart from me,\nye that work iniquity;\"[482] and yet, when they baptize, it is not\nthemselves that baptize, but He of whom John says, \"The same is He\nwhich baptizeth.\"[483]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIX.--55. Cassius of Macomades[484] said: \"Since there cannot be\ntwo baptisms, he who grants baptism unto heretics takes it away from\nhimself. I therefore declare my judgment that heretics, those objects\nfor our tears, those masses of corruption,[485] should be baptized\nwhen they begin to come to the Church, and that so being washed by\nthe sacred and divine laver, and enlightened with the light of life,\nthey may be received into the Church,--as being now made not enemies,\nbut peaceful; not strangers, but of the household of the faith of\nthe Lord; not bastards,[486] but sons of God; partaking not of error,\nbut of salvation,--with the exception of those who, being believers\ntransplanted from the Church, had gone over to heresy, and that these\nshould be restored by the laying on of hands.\"\n\n56. Another might say: Since there cannot be two baptisms, he who\ngrants baptism to the unrighteous takes it away from himself. But even\nour opponents would join us in resisting such a man when he says that\nwe grant baptism to the unrighteous, which is not of the unrighteous,\nlike their unrighteousness, but of Christ, of whom is righteousness,\nand whose sacrament, even among the unrighteous, is not unrighteous.\nWhat, therefore, they would join us in saying of the unrighteous, that\nlet them say to themselves of heretics. And therefore he should rather\nhave said as follows: I therefore give my judgment that heretics,\nthose objects for our tears, those masses of corruption, should not be\nbaptized when they begin to come to the Church, if they already have\nthe baptism of Christ, but should be corrected from their error. For\nwe may similarly say of the unrighteous, of whom the heretics are a\npart: I therefore give my judgment that the unrighteous, those objects\nfor our tears, and masses of corruption, if they have been already\nbaptized, should not be baptized again when they begin to come to\nthe Church, that is, to that rock outside which are all who hear the\nwords of Christ and do them not; but, being already washed with the\nsacred and divine laver, and now further enlightened with the light of\ntruth, should be received into the Church no longer as enemies but as\npeaceful, for the unrighteous have no peace; no longer as strangers,\nbut of the household of the faith of the Lord, for to the unrighteous\nit is said, \"How then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a\nstrange vine unto me?\"[487] no longer as bastards, but the sons of God,\nfor the unrighteous are the sons of the devil, partaking not of error\nbut of salvation, for unrighteousness cannot save. And by the Church\nI mean that rock, that dove, that garden enclosed and fountain sealed,\nwhich is recognised only in the wheat, not in the chaff, whether that\nbe scattered far apart by the wind, or appear to be mingled with the\ncorn even till the last winnowing. In vain, therefore, did Cassius add,\n\"With the exception of those who, being believers transplanted from the\nChurch, had gone over to heresy.\" For if even they themselves had lost\nbaptism by seceding, to themselves also let it be restored; but if they\nhad not lost it, let what was given by them receive due recognition.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXX.--57. Another Januarius of Vicus C\u00e6saris[488] said: \"If error\ndoes not obey truth, much more does truth refuse assent to error; and\ntherefore we stand by the Church in which we preside, so that, claiming\nher baptism for herself alone, we baptize those whom the Church has not\nbaptized.\"\n\n58. We answer: Whom the Church baptizes, those that rock baptizes\noutside which are all they who hear the words of Christ and do them\nnot. Let all, therefore, be baptized again who have been baptized by\nsuch. But if this is not done, then, as we recognise the baptism of\nChrist in these, so should we recognise it in heretics, though we\neither condemn or correct their unrighteousness and error.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXI.--59. Another Secundinus of Carpis[489] said: \"Are heretics\nChristians or not? If they are Christians, why are they not in the\nChurch of God? If they are not Christians, let them be made so.[490]\nElse what will be the reference in the discourse of the Lord, in\nwhich He says, 'He that is not with me is against me; and he that\ngathereth not with me scattereth abroad?'[491] Whence it is clear that\non strange children and the offspring of Antichrist the Holy Spirit\ncannot descend by the laying on of hands alone, since it is clear that\nheretics have not baptism.\"\n\n60. To this we answer: Are the unrighteous Christians or not? If they\nare Christians, why are they not on that rock on which the Church is\nbuilt? for they hear the words of Christ and do them not. If they are\nnot Christians, let them be made so. Else what will be the reference in\nthe discourse of our Lord, in which He says, \"He that is not with me\nis against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad?\"\nFor they scatter His sheep who lead them to the ruin of their lives by\na false imitation of the Lord. Whence it is clear that upon strange\nchildren (as all the unrighteous are called), and upon the offspring of\nAntichrist (which all are who oppose themselves to Christ), the Holy\nSpirit cannot descend by the laying on of hands alone, if there be\nnot added a true conversion of the heart; since it is clear that the\nunrighteous, so long as they are unrighteous, may indeed have baptism,\nbut cannot have the salvation of which baptism is the sacrament. For\nlet us see whether heretics are described in that psalm where the\nfollowing words are used of strange children: \"Deliver me, O Lord,\nfrom the hand of strange children, whose mouth speaketh vanity, and\ntheir right hand is a right hand of falsehood: whose sons are like\nyoung shoots well established, and their daughters polished after the\nsimilitude of the temple. Their garners are full, affording all manner\nof store; their sheep are fruitful, bringing forth plenteously in their\nstreets; their oxen are strong: there is no breaking down of their\nfence, no opening of a passage out, no complaining in their streets.\nMen deemed happy the people that is in such a case; rather blessed\nis the people whose God is the Lord.\"[492] If, therefore, those are\nstrange children who place their happiness in temporal things, and\nin the abundance of earthly prosperity, and despise the commandments\nof the Lord, let us see whether these are not the very same of whom\nCyprian so speaks, making himself also as one of them, that he may\nshow that he is speaking of men with whom he held communion in the\nsacraments: \"In not keeping,\" he says, \"the way of the Lord, nor\nobserving the heavenly commandments given us for our salvation. Our\nLord did the will of His Father, and we do not do the will of the Lord,\nbeing eager about our patrimony or our gains, following after pride,\nand so forth.\"[493] But if these could both have and transmit baptism,\nwhy is it denied that it may exist among strange children, whom he yet\nexhorts, that, by keeping the heavenly commandments conveyed to them\nthrough the only-begotten Son, they should deserve to be His brethren\nand the sons of God?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXII.--61. Victorious of Thabraca[494] said: \"If heretics may\nbaptize, and give remission of sins, why do we destroy their credit,\nand call them heretics?\"\n\n62. What if another were to say: If the unrighteous may baptize, and\ngive remission of sins, why do we destroy their credit, and call\nthem unrighteous? The answer which we should give to such an one\nconcerning the unrighteous may also be given to the other concerning\nheretics,--that is, in the first place, that the baptism with which\nthey baptize is not theirs; and secondly, that it does not follow that\nwhosoever has the baptism of Christ is also certain of the remission of\nhis sins, if he has this only in the outward sign, and is not converted\nwith a true conversion of the heart, so that he who gives remission\nshould himself have remission of his sins.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXIII.--63. Another Felix of Uthina[495] said: \"No one can\ndoubt, most holy brethren in the priesthood, that human presumption has\nnot so much power as the adorable and venerable majesty of our Lord\nJesus Christ. Remembering then the danger, we ought not only to observe\nthis ourselves, but to confirm it by our general consent, that all\nheretics who come to the bosom of our mother the Church be baptized,\nthat the heretical mind, which has been polluted by long-continued\ncorruption, may be reformed when cleansed by the sanctification of the\nlaver.\"\n\n64. Perhaps the man who has placed the strength of his case for the\nbaptizing of heretics in the cleansing away of the long-continued\ncorruption, would spare those who, having fallen headlong into\nsome heresy, had remained in it a brief space, and presently being\ncorrected, had passed from thence to the Catholic Church. Furthermore,\nhe has himself failed to observe that it might be said that all\nunrighteous persons who come to that rock, in which is understood\nthe Church, should be baptized, so that the unrighteous mind, which\nwas building outside the rock upon the sand by hearing the words of\nChrist and not doing them, might be reformed when cleansed by the\nsanctification of the laver; and yet this is not done if they have been\nbaptized already, even if it be proved that such was their character\nwhen they were baptized, that is, that they renounced the world in\nwords and not in deeds.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXIV.--65. Quietus of Burug[496] said: \"We who live by faith\nought with believing observance to obey what has been before foretold\nfor our instruction. For it is written in Solomon, 'He that is washed\nby one dead, what availeth his washing?'[497] Which assuredly he says\nof those who are washed by heretics, and of those who wash. For if they\nwho are baptized among them receive eternal life through the remission\nof their sins, why do they come to the Church? But if no salvation is\nreceived from a dead person, and they therefore, acknowledging their\nformer error, return with penance to the truth, they ought to be\nsanctified with the one life-giving baptism which is in the Catholic\nChurch.\"\n\n66. What it is to be baptized by the dead, we have already, without\nprejudice to the more careful consideration of the same scripture,\nsufficiently declared before.[498] But I would ask why it is that they\nwish heretics alone to be considered dead, when Paul the apostle has\nsaid generally of sin, \"The wages of sin is death;\"[499] and again, \"To\nbe carnally minded is death.\"[500] And when he says that a widow that\nliveth in pleasure is dead,[501] how are they not dead who renounce\nthe world in words and not in deeds? What, therefore, is the profit\nof washing in him who is baptized by them, except, indeed, that if he\nhimself also is of the same character, he has the laver indeed, but it\ndoes not profit him to salvation? But if he by whom he is baptized is\nsuch, but the man who is baptized is turned to the Lord with no false\nheart, he is not baptized by that dead person, but by that living One\nof whom it is said, \"The same is He which baptizeth.\"[502] But to what\nhe says of heretics, that if they who are baptized among them receive\neternal life through the remission of their sins, why do they come to\nthe Church? we answer: They come for this reason, that although they\nhave received the baptism of Christ up to the point of the celebration\nof the sacrament, yet they cannot attain to life eternal save through\nthe charity of unity; just as neither would those envious and malicious\nones attain to life eternal, who would not have their sins forgiven\nthem, even if they entertained hatred only against those from whom they\nsuffered wrong; since the Truth said, \"If ye forgive not men their\ntrespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses,\"[503]\nhow much less when they were hating those towards whom they were\nrewarding evil for good?[504] And yet these men, though renouncing the\nworld in words and not in deeds, would not be baptized again, if they\nshould afterwards be corrected, but they would be made holy by the one\nliving baptism. And this is indeed in the Catholic Church, but not in\nit alone, as neither is it in the saints alone who are built upon the\nrock, and of whom that one dove is composed.[505]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXV.--67. Castus of Sicca[506] said: \"He who presumes to follow\ncustom in despite of truth is either envious and evilly disposed\ntowards the brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or else he is\nungrateful towards God, by whose inspiration His Church is instructed.\"\n\n68. If this man proved that those who differed from him, and held the\nview that has since been held by the whole world under the sanction\nof a general Council, were following custom so as to despise truth,\nwe should have reason for fearing these words; but seeing that this\ncustom is found both to have had its origin in truth and to have been\nconfirmed by truth, we have nothing to fear in this judgment. And\nyet, if they were envious or evilly disposed towards the brethren, or\nungrateful towards God, see with what kind of men they were willing\nto hold communion; see what kind of men, holding different opinions\nfrom their own, they treated as Cyprian enjoined them at the first,\nnot removing them from the right of communion; see by what kind of\nmen they were not polluted in the preservation of unity; see how\ngreatly the bond of peace was to be loved; see what views they hold\nwho bring charges against us, founded on the Council of bishops, their\npredecessors, whose example they do not imitate, and by whose example,\nwhen the rights of the case are considered, they are condemned. If it\nwas the custom, as this judgment bears witness, that heretics coming\nto the Church should be received with the baptism which they already\nhad, either this was done rightly, or the evil do not pollute the good\nin unity. If it was rightly done, why do they accuse the world because\nthey are so received? But if the evil do not pollute the good in unity,\nhow do they defend themselves against the charge of sacrilegious\nseparation?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXVI.--69. Eucratius of Then\u00e6[507] said: \"Our God and Lord Jesus\nChrist, teaching the apostles with His own mouth, fully laid down our\nfaith, and the grace of baptism, and the rule of the law of the Church,\nsaying, 'Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of\nthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'[508] Therefore the\nfalse and unrighteous baptism of heretics is to be repudiated by us,\nand contradicted with all solemnity of witness, seeing that from their\nmouth issues not life, but poison, not heavenly grace, but blaspheming\nof the Trinity. And so it is plain that heretics coming to the Church\nought to be baptized with perfect and Catholic baptism, that, being\npurified from the blasphemy of their presumption, they may be reformed\nby the grace of the Holy Spirit.\"\n\n70. Clearly, if the baptism is not consecrated in the name of the\nFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it should be considered\nto be of the heretics, and repudiated as unrighteous by us with all\nsolemnity of witness; but if we discern this name in it, we do better\nto distinguish the words of the gospel from heretical error, and\napprove what is sound in them, correcting what is faulty.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXVII.--71. Libosus of Vaga[509] said: \"The Lord says in the\ngospel, 'I am the truth;'[510] He did not say, I am custom. Therefore,\nwhen the truth is made manifest, let custom yield to truth; so that, if\neven in time past any one did not baptize heretics in the Church, he\nmay now begin to baptize them.\"\n\n72. Here he has in no way tried to show how that is the truth to which\nhe says that custom ought to yield. But it is of more importance that\nhe helps us against those who have separated themselves from unity,\nby confessing that the custom existed, than that he thinks it ought\nto yield to a truth which he does not show. For the custom is of such\na nature, that if it admitted sacrilegious men to the altar of Christ\nwithout the cleansing of baptism, and polluted none of the good men\nwho remained in unity, then all who have cut themselves off from the\nsame unity, in which they could not be polluted by the contagion of any\nevil persons whatsoever, have separated themselves without reason, and\nhave committed the manifest sacrilege of schism. But if all perished in\npollution through that custom, from what cavern do they issue without\nthe original truth, and with all the cunning of calumny? If, however,\nthe custom was a right one by which heretics were thus received, let\nthem abandon their madness, let them confess their error; let them\ncome to the Catholic Church, not that they may be bathed again with\nthe sacrament of baptism, but that they may be cured from the wound of\nseverance.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXVIII.--73. Lucius of Thebaste[511] said: \"I declare my\njudgment that heretics, and blasphemers, and unrighteous men, who\nwith various words pluck away the sacred and adorable words of the\nScriptures, should be held accursed, and therefore exorcised and\nrebaptized.\"\n\n74. I too think that they should be held accursed, but not that\ntherefore they should be exorcised and rebaptized; for it is their\nown falsehood which I hold accursed, but Christ's sacrament which I\nvenerate.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXIX.--75. Eugenius of Ammedera[512] said: \"I too pronounce this\nsame judgment, that heretics should be baptized.\"\n\n76. To him we answer: But this is not the judgment which the Church\npronounces, to which also God has now revealed in a general Council the\npoint in which ye were then still otherwise minded;[513] but because\nyour charity was unimpaired, ye remained in unity.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XL.--77. Also another Felix of Ammacura[512] said: \"I too,\nfollowing the authority of the holy Scriptures, give my judgment that\nheretics should be baptized, and with them those also who maintain\nthat they have been baptized among schismatics. For if, according to\nthe warning of Christ, our fountain is sealed to ourselves,[514] let\nall the enemies of our Church understand that it cannot belong to\nothers; nor can He who is the Shepherd of our flock give the water unto\nsalvation to two different peoples. And therefore it is clear that\nneither heretics nor schismatics can receive anything heavenly, who\ndare to accept from men that are sinners and aliens from the Church.\nWhen the giver has no ground to stand upon, surely neither can the\nreceiver derive any profit.\"\n\n78. To him we answer, that the holy Scriptures nowhere have enjoined\nthat heretics baptized among heretics should be baptized afresh, but\nthat they have shown in many places that all are aliens from the Church\nwho are not on the rock, nor belong to the members of the dove, and\nyet that they baptize and are baptized, and have the sacrament of\nsalvation without salvation. But how our fountain is like the fountain\nof Paradise, in that, like it, it flows forth even beyond the bounds\nof Paradise, has been sufficiently set forth above;[515] and that He\nwho is the Shepherd of our flock cannot give the water unto salvation\nto two different peoples, that is, to one that is His own, and to\nanother that is alien, I fully agree in admitting. But does it follow\nthat because the water is not unto salvation it is not the identical\nwater? For the water of the deluge was for salvation unto those who\nwere placed within the ark, but it brought death to those without, and\nyet it was the same water. And many aliens, that is to say, envious\npersons, whom Cyprian declares and proves from Scripture to be of the\nparty of the devil, seem as it were to be within, and yet, if they were\nnot without the ark, they would not perish by water. For such men are\nslain by baptism, as the sweet savour of Christ was unto death to those\nof whom the apostle speaks.[516] Why then do not either heretics or\nschismatics receive anything heavenly, just as thorns or tares, like\nthose who were without the ark received indeed the rain from the floods\nof heaven, but to destruction, not to salvation? And so I do not take\nthe pains to refute what he said in conclusion: \"When the giver has\nno ground to stand upon, surely neither can the receiver derive any\nprofit,\" since we also say that it does not profit the receivers while\nthey receive it in heresy, consenting with the heretics; and therefore\nthey come to Catholic peace and unity, not that they may receive\nbaptism, but that what they had received may begin to profit them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLI.--79. Also another Januarius of Muzuli[517] said: \"I wonder\nthat, while all acknowledge that there is one baptism, all do not\nunderstand the unity of the same baptism. For the Church and heresy\nare two distinct things. If heretics have baptism, we have it not; but\nif we have it, heretics cannot have it. But there is no doubt that the\nChurch alone possesses the baptism of Christ, since it alone possesses\nboth the favour and the truth of Christ.\"\n\n80. Another might equally say, and say with equal want of truth:\nI wonder that, while all confess there is one baptism, all do not\nunderstand the unity of baptism. For righteousness and unrighteousness\nare two distinct things. If the unrighteous have baptism, the righteous\nhave it not; but if the righteous have it, the unrighteous cannot have\nit. But there is no doubt that the righteous alone possess the baptism\nof Christ, since they alone possess both the favour and the truth of\nChrist. This is certainly false, as they confess themselves. For those\nenvious ones also who are of the party of the devil, though placed\nwithin the Church, as Cyprian tells us, and who were well known to the\nApostle Paul, had baptism, but did not belong to the members of that\ndove which is safely sheltered on the rock.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLII.--81. Adelphius of Thasbalte[518] said: \"It is surely\nwithout cause that they find fault with the truth in false and\ninvidious terms, saying that we rebaptize, since the Church does not\nrebaptize heretics, but baptize them.\"\n\n82. Truly enough it does not rebaptize them, because it only baptizes\nthose who were not baptized before; and this earlier custom has only\nbeen confirmed in a later Council by a more careful perfecting of the\ntruth.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLIII.--83. Demetrius of the Lesser Leptis[519] said: \"We uphold\none baptism, because we claim for the Catholic Church alone what is\nher own. But those who say that heretics baptize truly and lawfully\nare themselves the men who make, not two, but many baptisms; for since\nheresies are many in number, the baptisms, too, will be reckoned\naccording to their number.\"\n\n84. To him we answer: If this were so, then would as many baptisms\nbe reckoned as there are works of the flesh, of which the apostle\nsays \"that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of\nGod;\"[520] among which are reckoned also heresies; and so many of those\nvery works are tolerated within the Church as though in the chaff, and\nyet there is one baptism for them all, which is not vitiated by any\nwork of unrighteousness.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLIV.--85. Vincentius of Thibaris[521] said: \"We know that\nheretics are worse than heathens. If they, being converted, wish to\ncome to God, they have assuredly a rule of truth, which the Lord by His\ndivine precept committed to the apostles, saying, 'Go ye, lay on hands\nin my name, cast out devils;'[522] and in another place, 'Go ye, and\nteach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of\nthe Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'[523] Therefore, first by the laying\non of hands in exorcism, secondly by regeneration in baptism, they may\ncome to the promises of Christ; but my judgment is that in no other way\nshould this be done.\"\n\n86. By what rule he asserts that heretics are worse than heathens I\ndo not know, seeing that the Lord says, \"If he neglect to hear the\nChurch, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.\"[524]\nIs a heretic worse even than such? I do not gainsay it. I do not,\nhowever, allow that because the man himself is worse than a heathen,\nthat is, than a Gentile and pagan, therefore whatever the sacrament\ncontains that is Christ's is mingled with his vices and character,\nand perishes through the corruption of such admixture. For if even\nthose who depart from the Church, and become not the followers but\nthe founders of heresies, have been baptized before their secession,\nthey continue to have baptism, although, according to the above rule,\nthey are worse than heathens; for if on correction they return, they\ndo not receive it, as they certainly would do if they had lost it.\nIt is therefore possible that a man may be worse than a heathen, and\nyet that the sacrament of Christ may not only be in him, but be not a\nwhit inferior to what it is in a holy and righteous man. For although\nto the extent of his powers he has not preserved the sacrament, but\ndone it violence in heart and will, yet so far as the sacrament's own\nnature is concerned, it has remained unhurt in its integrity even in\nthe man who despised and rejected it. Were not the people of Sodom\nheathens, that is to say, Gentiles? The Jews therefore were worse, to\nwhom the Lord says, \"It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom\nin the day of judgment than for thee;\"[525] and to whom the prophet\nsays, \"Thou hast justified Sodom,\"[526] that is to say, in comparison\nwith thee Sodom is righteous. Shall we, however, maintain that on this\naccount the holy sacraments which existed among the Jews partook of\nthe nature of the Jews themselves,--those sacraments which the Lord\nHimself also accepted, and sent the lepers whom He had cleansed to\nfulfil them,[527] of which, when Zacharias was administering them, the\nangel stood by him, and declared that his prayer had been heard while\nhe was sacrificing in the temple?[528] These same sacraments were both\nin the good men of that time, and in those bad men who were worse than\nare the heathens, seeing that they were ranked before the Sodomites for\nwickedness, and yet those sacraments were perfect and holy in both.\n\n87. For even if the Gentiles themselves could have anything holy and\nright in their doctrines, our saints did not condemn it, however much\nthe Gentiles themselves were to be detested for their superstitions\nand idolatry and pride, and the rest of their corruptions, and to\nbe punished with judgment from heaven, unless they submitted to\ncorrection. For when Paul the apostle also was saying something\nconcerning God before the Athenians, he adduced as a proof of what he\nsaid, that certain of them had said something to the same effect,[529]\nwhich certainly would not be condemned but recognised in them if they\nshould come to Christ. And the holy Cyprian uses similar evidence\nagainst the same heathens; for, speaking of the magi, he says, \"The\nchief of them, however, Hostanes, asserts both that the form of the\ntrue God cannot be seen, and also that true angels stand beside His\nseat. In which Plato also agrees in like manner, and, maintaining\nthe existence of one God, he calls the others angels or demons.\nHermes Trismegistus also speaks of one God, and confesses that He\nis incomprehensible, and past our powers of estimation.\"[530] If,\ntherefore, they were to come to the perception of salvation in Christ,\nit surely would not be said to them, This that ye have is bad, or\nfalse; but clearly it would deservedly be said, Though this in you is\nperfect and true, yet it would profit nothing unless ye came to the\ngrace of Christ. If, therefore, anything that is holy can be found and\nrightly approved in the very heathens, although the salvation which is\nof Christ is not yet to be granted to them, we ought not, even though\nheretics are worse than they, to be moved to the desire of correcting\nwhat is bad in them belonging to themselves, without being willing to\nacknowledge what is good in them of Christ. But we will set forth from\na fresh preface to consider the remaining judgments of this Council.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[391] John xx. 23.\n\n[392] Matt. xxiii. 3.\n\n[393] 1 Tim. i. 5.\n\n[394] Wisd. ix. 15.\n\n[395] See Phil. iii. 15.\n\n[396] Gal. ii. 14.\n\n[397] Cant. vi. 8.\n\n[398] Eph. v. 27; cp. Aug. _Retract._ ii. 18.\n\n[399] Cant. iv. 12, 13.\n\n[400] John xx. 23.\n\n[401] Conc. Carth., introduction.\n\n[402] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 22.\n\n[403] Cypr. _Ep._ lxix. sec. 11.\n\n[404] De baptismi simplicitate ubique agnoscendam consuetudinem. Migne\napproves of the reading of some MSS., \"De baptismi simplicitate ubique\nagnoscenda,\" etc., \"maintaining the custom of the universal Church to\nacknowledge everywhere the identity of baptism.\"\n\n[405] Eph. iv. 2, 3.\n\n[406] Phil. iii. 15.\n\n[407] Bilta was in Mauritania.\n\n[408] Eph. iv. 4, 5.\n\n[409] Conc. Carth. sec. 1.\n\n[410] 1 John iii. 15.\n\n[411] This section is wanting in the MSS. and in the edition of\nAmerbach, so that it has been supposed to have been added by Erasmus\nfrom Cyprian (Conc. Carth. sec. 2),--the name Felix, which is not found\nin Cyprian, being derived from the following section of Augustine.\nMigirpa, or Misgirpa, was in Zeugitana.\n\n[412] Adrumetum was an ancient Phoenician settlement, made a Roman\ncolony by Trajan, on the coast of the Sinus Neapolitanus, some ninety\nmiles south-east of Carthage.\n\n[413] Thamugadis, a town in Numidia, on the east side of Mount\nAurasius. The whole opinion of Novatus (Conc. Carth. sec. iv.) is\nomitted in the MSS.\n\n[414] The words in Cyprian are, \"sanctissim\u00e6 memori\u00e6 virorum.\" The\ndecree referred to is one of the Council held by Agrippinus.\n\n[415] Tubun\u00e6, a town in Mauritania C\u00e6sariensis.\n\n[416] Prov. ix. 12, according to the LXX. version, the passage being\naltogether absent in the Hebrew, and consequently in the English\nversion. The whole opinion of Nemesianus is wanting in the MSS. and\nin the edition of Amerbach; and in that of Erasmus it is somewhat\ndifferent, having been subsequently revised by the Louvain editors to\nbring it into harmony with the answer of Augustine and the text of\nCyprian (Conc. Carth. sec. 5).\n\n[417] Prov. ix. 18, according to the LXX. version only.\n\n[418] John iii. 5.\n\n[419] Gen. i. 2.\n\n[420] Viz. baptism and the laying on of hands; the latter sacramental\nordinance being similarly spoken of by Aug. _Ep._ lxxii. sec. 1, as\nefficacious only when preceded by Catholic baptism.\n\n[421] Eph. iv. 3-6.\n\n[422] Quoniam Spiritus Deus est, et de Deo natus est. These words\nare found at the end of John iii. 6 in the oldest Latin MS. (in the\nBodleian Library), and their meaning appears to be, as given in the\ntext, that whatsoever is born of the Spirit is spirit, since the Holy\nGhost, being God, and born of, or proceeding from God, in virtue of His\nsupreme power makes those to be spirits whom He regenerates. If the\nmeaning had been (as Bishop Fell takes it), that \"he who is born of the\nSpirit is born of God,\" the neuter \"de Deo natum est\" would have been\nrequired. To refer \"Spiritus Deus est,\" with Migne, to John iv. 24,\n\"God is a Spirit,\" reverses the grammar and destroys the sense of the\npassage. The above explanation is taken from the preface to Cyprian by\nthe monk of St. Maur (Maranus), p. xxxvi., quoted by Routh, _Rel. Sac._\niii. 193.\n\n[423] Gal. v. 19-21.\n\n[424] Cypr. _Ep._ xi. sec. 1.\n\n[425] Prov. ix. 12, according to the LXX. version.\n\n[426] John iii. 5.\n\n[427] Acts viii. 13.\n\n[428] Wisd. i. 5.\n\n[429] John iii. 6.\n\n[430] Gal. v. 19-21.\n\n[431] Lamb\u00e6se was one of the chief cities in the interior of Numidia,\non the confines of Mauritania.\n\n[432] Conc. Carth. sec. vi.\n\n[433] Castrum Galb\u00e6 was also in Numidia.\n\n[434] Matt. v. 13. \"Id quod salietur ex eo, ad nihilum valebit.\"\n\n[435] Matt. xxviii. 18, 19.\n\n[436] Recedendo infatuati contrarii facti sunt. Dr. Routh, from a Ms.\nin his own possession, inserts \"et\" after \"infatuati,\"--\"have lost\ntheir savour and become contrary to the Church.\"\n\n[437] Prov. xiv. 9, from the LXX.\n\n[438] John xx. 23.\n\n[439] 1 John ii. 9.\n\n[440] Ex. xx. 13, 15.\n\n[441] Cirta, an inland city of the Massyli in Numidia, was rebuilt by\nConstantine, and called Constantina.\n\n[442] See below, on sec. 25.\n\n[443] Ex Scripturis deificis.\n\n[444] There are two letters extant from Cyprian to Stephen, No. 68,\nrespecting Marcianus of Arles, who had joined Novatian, and No. 72,\non a Council concerning heretical baptism. It is clear, however, from\n_Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 1, that this Council, and consequently the letter\nto Stephen, was subsequent to the Council under consideration; and\nconsequently Augustine is right in ignoring it, and referring solely\nto the former. Dr. Routh thinks the words an interpolation, of course\nbefore Augustine's time; and they may perhaps have been inserted by\nsome one who had Cyprian's later letter to Stephen before his mind.\n\n[445] Segerm\u00e6 in Numidia.\n\n[446] Girba, formerly Meninx, an island to the south-east of the Lesser\nSyrtis.\n\n[447] In baptismi trinitate. \"Quia trina immersione expediebatur, in\nnomine Patris, Filii, et S. Spiritus.\"--_Bishop Fell._\n\n[448] Matt. xxviii. 19.\n\n[449] Erroris offectura. Other readings are \"offensa\" and \"effectura.\"\n\n[450] Cedi\u00e6 has been identified, but perhaps without sufficient reason,\nwith Quidias, or Quiza, in Mauritania C\u00e6sariensis.\n\n[451] Matt. xii. 30.\n\n[452] 1 John ii. 18.\n\n[453] Matt. vii. 22, 23.\n\n[454] Bagai, or Vacca, in the interior of Numidia. See on I. v. 7.\n\n[455] Matt. xv. 14.\n\n[456] 1 Cor. xv. 32.\n\n[457] Rom. viii. 6.\n\n[458] Mileum, or Mireum, a Roman colony in Numidia, noted as the seat\nof two Councils.\n\n[459] Hippo Regius, the see of Augustine himself, was on the coast of\nNumidia.\n\n[460] Badis in Numidia.\n\n[461] Matt. vi. 15.\n\n[462] Eph. iv. 3.\n\n[463] Phil. iii. 15.\n\n[464] Abbir Germaniciana was in Zeugitana.\n\n[465] 1 John iii. 15.\n\n[466] Thuccabori was perhaps the same as Tucca in Byzacene.\n\n[467] Matt. vii. 24.\n\n[468] Cypr. _Serm. de Laps._\n\n[469] Matt. vii. 24, 26.\n\n[470] It is pointed out by the Louvain editors that this passage shows\nthat Augustine considered our Lord's precept to comprehend everything\ncontained in the Sermon on the Mount.\n\n[471] Luke vi. 37.\n\n[472] Matt. vi. 14, 15.\n\n[473] 1 Pet. iv. 8.\n\n[474] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 12.\n\n[475] Tuburbo was in Zeugitana.\n\n[476] Phil. iii. 15.\n\n[477] See above, III. cc. xiv. xv.\n\n[478] Matt. xiii. 29.\n\n[479] 1 Kings iii. 26.\n\n[480] Sufetula was a town of Byzacene, twenty-five miles from Sufes, of\nwhich the name is a diminutive.\n\n[481] Lares was a town of importance in Byzacene.\n\n[482] Matt. vii. 23.\n\n[483] John i. 33.\n\n[484] Macomades was in Numidia.\n\n[485] Flebiles et tabidos. This is otherwise taken of the repentant\nheretics, \"Melting with the grief and wretchedness of penitence;\" but\nBishop Fell points out that the interpretation in the text is supported\nby an expression in c. xxxiii. 63: Mens h\u00e6retica, qu\u00e6 diuturna tabe\npolluta est.\n\n[486] Adulteros. So all the MSS. of Augustine, though in Cyprian is\nsometimes found \"adulterinos.\" In classical Latin, however, \"adulter\"\nis sometimes used in the sense of \"adulterinus.\" Cassius seems to have\nhad in mind Heb. xii. 8, \"Then are ye bastards, and not sons.\"\n\n[487] Jer. ii. 21.\n\n[488] Vicus C\u00e6saris is unknown, unless it be the same as Nova C\u00e6saris\nin Numidia.\n\n[489] Carpis was in Zeugitana, on the borders of Tunis.\n\n[490] Fiant. Another reading in some MSS. of Cyprian (not found in\nthose of Augustine) is, \"quomodo Christianos faciunt,\" which is less in\nharmony with the context.\n\n[491] Matt. xii. 30.\n\n[492] Ps. cxliv. 11-15, from the LXX.\n\n[493] Cypr. _Ep._ xi. ad Clericos, sec. 1.\n\n[494] Thabraca was on the coast of Numidia, the frontier town towards\nZeugitana, at the mouth of the Tucca.\n\n[495] Uthina was in Zeugitana.\n\n[496] Burug or Burca was in Mauritania C\u00e6sariensis.\n\n[497] In the Eng. version this is, \"He that washeth himself after\ntouching a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his\nwashing?\"--Ecclus. xxxiv. 25.\n\n[498] _Contra Parmenianum_, II. x. 22.\n\n[499] Rom. vi. 23.\n\n[500] Rom. viii. 6.\n\n[501] 1 Tim. v. 6.\n\n[502] John i. 33.\n\n[503] Matt. vi. 15.\n\n[504] Ps. xxxv. 12.\n\n[505] Cant. vi. 9.\n\n[506] Sicca was in Zeugitana.\n\n[507] Then\u00e6 was in Byzacene.\n\n[508] Matt. xxviii. 19.\n\n[509] Vaga was in Numidia.\n\n[510] John xiv. 6.\n\n[511] Thebaste was in Numidia.\n\n[512] Ammedera and Ammacura were in Numidia.\n\n[513] Phil. iii. 15.\n\n[514] See Cant. iv. 12.\n\n[515] Ch. xxi. 37.\n\n[516] 2 Cor. ii. 15.\n\n[517] Muzuli is perhaps the same as Mazula in Numidia.\n\n[518] Thasbalte was in Byzacene.\n\n[519] Leptis the Lesser was in Byzacene, the Greater being in Tripoli.\n\n[520] Gal. v. 21.\n\n[521] Thibaris, perhaps the same as Tabora in Mauritania C\u00e6sariensis.\n\n[522] Mark xvi. 15-18.\n\n[523] Matt. xxviii. 19.\n\n[524] Matt. xviii. 17.\n\n[525] Matt. xi. 24.\n\n[526] Ezek. xvi. 51.\n\n[527] Luke xvii. 14.\n\n[528] Luke i. 11, 13.\n\n[529] Acts xvii. 28.\n\n[530] Cypr. _de Idol. Vanitate_.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK SEVENTH.\n\nIN WHICH THE REMAINING JUDGEMENTS OF THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE ARE\nEXAMINED.\n\n\nCHAP. I.--1. Let us not be considered troublesome to our readers, if we\ndiscuss the same question often and from different points of view. For\nalthough the holy Catholic Church throughout all nations be fortified\nby the authority of primitive custom and of a general Council against\nthose arguments which throw some darkness over the question about\nbaptism, whether it can be the same among heretics and schismatics that\nit is in the Catholic Church, yet, since a different opinion has at one\ntime been entertained in the unity of the Church itself, by men who are\nin nowise to be despised, and especially by Cyprian, whose authority\nmen endeavour to use against us who are far removed from his charity,\nwe are therefore compelled to make use of the opportunity of examining\nand considering all that we find on this subject in his Council and\nletters, in order, as it were, to handle at some considerable length\nthis same question, and to show how it has more truly been the decision\nof the whole body of the Catholic Church, that heretics or schismatics,\nwho have received baptism already in the body from which they came,\nshould be admitted with it into the communion of the Catholic Church,\nbeing corrected in their error, and rooted and grounded in the faith,\nthat, so far as concerns the sacrament of baptism, there should not be\nan addition of something that was wanting, but a turning to profit of\nwhat was in them. And the holy Cyprian indeed, now that the corruptible\nbody no longer presseth down the soul, nor the earthly tabernacle\npresseth down the mind that museth upon many things,[531] sees with\ngreater clearness that truth to which his charity made him deserving\nto attain. May he therefore help us by his prayers, while we labour\nin the mortality of the flesh as in a darksome cloud, that if the\nLord so grant it, we may imitate so far as we can the good that was in\nhim. But if he thought otherwise than right on any point, and persuaded\ncertain of his brethren and colleagues to entertain his views in a\nmatter which he now sees clearly through the revelation of Him whom he\nloved, let us, who are far inferior to his merits, yet following, as\nour weakness will allow, the authority of the Catholic Church of which\nhe was himself a conspicuous and most noble member, strive our utmost\nagainst heretics and schismatics, seeing that they, being cut off from\nthe unity which he maintained, and barren of the love with which he\nwas fruitful, and fallen away from the humility in which he stood, are\ndisavowed and condemned the more by him, in proportion as he knows that\nthey wish to search out his writings for purposes of treachery, and are\nunwilling to imitate what he did for the maintenance of peace,--like\nthose who, calling themselves Nazarene Christians, and circumcising the\nforeskin of their flesh after the fashion of the Jews, being heretics\nby birth in that error from which Peter, when straying from the truth,\nwas recalled by Paul,[532] persist in the same to the present day.\nAs therefore they have remained in their perversity cut off from the\nbody of the Church, while Peter has been crowned in the primacy of the\napostles through the glory of martyrdom, so these men, while Cyprian,\nthrough the abundance of his love, has been received into the portion\nof the saints through the brightness of his passion, are obliged to\nrecognise themselves as exiles from unity, and, in defence of their\ncalumnies, set up a citizen of unity as an opponent against the very\nhome of unity. Let us therefore go on to examine the other judgments of\nthat Council after the same fashion.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. II.--2. Marcus of Mactaris[533] said: \"It is not to be wondered\nat if heretics, being enemies and opponents of the truth, claim to\nthemselves what has been entrusted and vouchsafed to other men. What is\nmarvellous is that some of us, traitors to the truth, uphold heretics\nand oppose Christians; therefore we decree that heretics should be\nbaptized.\"\n\n3. To him we answer: It is indeed much more to be wondered at, and\ndeserving of expressions of great praise, that Cyprian and his\ncolleagues had such love for unity that they continued in unity with\nthose whom they considered to be traitors to the truth, without any\napprehension of being polluted by them. For when Marcus said, \"It is\nmarvellous that some of us, traitors to the truth, uphold heretics and\noppose Christians,\" it seemed natural that he should add, Therefore\nwe decree that communion should not be held with them. This he did\nnot say; but what he does say is, \"Therefore we decree that heretics\nshould be baptized,\" adhering to what the peaceful Cyprian had enjoined\nin the first instance, saying, \"Judging no man, nor removing any from\nthe right of communion if he entertain a different opinion.\" While,\ntherefore, the Donatists calumniate us and call us _traditors_, I\nshould be glad to know, supposing that any Jew or pagan were found,\nwho, after reading the records of that Council, should call both us\nand them, according to their own rules, traitors to the truth, how we\nshould be able to make our joint defence so as to refute and wash away\nso grave a charge. They give the name of _traditors_ to men whom they\nwere never able in times past to convict of the offence, and whom they\ncannot now show to be involved in it, being themselves rather shown to\nbe liable to the same charge. But what has this to do with us? What\nshall we say of them who, by their own showing, are unquestionably\ntraitors? For if we, however falsely, are called _traditors_, because,\nas they allege, we took part in the same communion with _traditors_, we\nhave all taken part with the traitors in question, seeing that in the\ntime of the blessed Cyprian the party of Donatus had not yet separated\nitself from unity. For the delivery of the sacred books, from which\nthey began to be called _traditors_, occurred somewhat more than forty\nyears after his martyrdom. If, therefore, we are _traditors_, because\nwe sprang from _traditors_, as they believe or pretend, we both of us\nderive our origin from those other traitors. For there is no room for\nsaying that they did not communicate with these traitors, since they\ncall them men of their own party. In the words of the Council which\nthey are most forward to quote, \"Some of us,\" it declares, \"traitors to\nthe truth, uphold heretics.\" To this is added the testimony of Cyprian,\nshowing clearly that he remained in communion with them when he says,\n\"Judging no man, nor removing any from the right of communion if he\nentertain a different opinion.\" For those who entertained a different\nopinion were the very persons whom Marcus calls traitors to the truth\nbecause they upheld heretics, as he maintains, by receiving them into\nthe Church without baptism. That it was, moreover, the custom that they\nshould be so received, is testified both by Cyprian himself in many\npassages, and by some bishops in this Council. Whence it is evident\nthat, if heretics have not baptism, the Church of Christ of those days\nwas full of traitors, who upheld them by receiving them in this way. I\nwould urge, therefore, that we plead our cause in common against the\ncharge of treason which they cannot disavow, and therein our special\ncase will be argued against the charge of delivering the books, which\nthey could not prove against us. But let us argue the point as though\nthey had convicted us; and what we shall answer jointly to those who\nurge against both of us the general treason of our forefathers, that\nwe will answer to these men who urge against us that our forefathers\ngave up the sacred books. For as we were dead because our forefathers\ndelivered up the books, which caused them to divide themselves from\nus, so both we and they themselves are dead through the treason of\nour forefathers, from whom both we and they are sprung. But since\nthey say they live, they hold that that treason does not in any way\naffect them, therefore neither are we affected by the delivery of the\nbooks. And it should be observed that, according to them, the treason\nis indisputable: while, according to us, there is no truth either in\nthe former charge of treason, because we say that heretics also may\nhave the baptism of Christ; nor in the latter charge of delivering\nthe books, because in that they were themselves beaten. They have\ntherefore no reason for separating themselves by the wicked sin of\nschism, because, if our forefathers were not guilty of delivering up\nthe books, as we say, there is no charge which can affect us at all;\nbut if they were guilty of the sin, as these men say, then it is just\nas far from affecting us as the sin of those other traitors is from\naffecting either us or them. And hence, since there is no charge that\ncan implicate us from the unrighteousness of our forefathers, the\ncharge arising against them from their own schism is manifestly proved.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. III.--4. Satius of Siccilibba[534] said: \"If heretics receive\nforgiveness of their sins in their own baptism, it is without reason\nthat they come to the Church. For since it is for sins that men are\npunished in the day of judgment, heretics have nothing to fear in the\njudgment of Christ if they have obtained remission of their sins.\"\n\n5. This too might also have been our own judgment; but let its author\nbeware in what spirit it was said. For it is expressed in terms of such\nimport, that I should feel no compunction in consenting and subscribing\nto it in the same spirit in which I too believe that heretics may\nindeed have the baptism of Christ, but cannot have the remission of\ntheir sins. But he does not say, If heretics baptize or are baptized,\nbut \"If heretics,\" he says, \"receive forgiveness of their sins in their\nown baptism, it is without reason that they come to the Church.\" For\nif we were to set in the place of heretics those whom Cyprian knew\nwithin the Church as renouncing the world in words alone and not in\ndeeds, we also might express this same judgment, in just so many words,\nwith the most perfect truth. If those who only seem to be converted\nreceive forgiveness of their sins in their own baptism, it is without\nreason that they are afterwards led on to a true conversion. For since\nit is for sins that men are punished in the day of judgment, those\nwho renounce the world in words and not in deeds have nothing to fear\nin the judgment of Christ if they have obtained remission of their\nsins. But this reasoning is only made perfect by some such context as\nis formed by the addition of the words. But they ought to fear the\njudgment of Christ, and to lose no time in being converted in the truth\nof their hearts; and when they have done this, it is certainly not\nnecessary that they should be baptized a second time. It was possible,\ntherefore, for them to receive baptism, and either not to receive\nremission of their sins, or to be burdened again at once with the load\nof sins which were forgiven them; and so the same is the case also with\nthe heretics.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IV.--6. Victor of Gor[535] said: \"Seeing that sins are forgiven\nonly in the baptism of the Church, he who admits heretics to communion\nwithout baptism is guilty of two errors contrary to reason; for, on\nthe one hand, he does not cleanse the heretics, and, on the other, he\ndefiles the Christians.\"\n\n7. To this we answer that the baptism of the Church exists even among\nheretics, though they themselves are not within the Church; just as\nthe water of Paradise was found in the land of Egypt, though that land\nwas not itself in Paradise. We do not therefore admit heretics to\ncommunion without baptism; and since they come with their waywardness\ncorrected, we receive not their sins, but the sacraments of Christ.\nAnd, in respect of the remission of their sins, we say again here\nexactly what we said above. And certainly, in regard of what he says\nat the end of his judgment, declaring that he \"is guilty of two errors\ncontrary to reason, seeing that on the one hand he does not cleanse\nthe heretics, and on the other he defiles the Christians,\" Cyprian\nhimself is the first and the most earnest in repudiating this with the\ncolleagues who agreed with him. For neither did he think that he was\ndefiled, when, on account of the bond of peace, he decreed that it was\nright to hold communion with such men, when he used the words, \"Judging\nno one, nor removing any from the right of communion if he entertain a\ndifferent opinion.\" Or, if heretics defile the Church by being admitted\nto communion without being baptized, then the whole Church has been\ndefiled in virtue of that custom which has been so often recorded here.\nAnd just as those men call us _traditors_ because of our forefathers,\nin whom they were able to prove nothing of the sort when they laid\nthe charge against them, so, if every man partakes of the character\nof those with whom he may have held communion, all were then made\nheretics. And if every one who asserts this is mad, it must be false\nthat Victor says, when he declares that \"he who admits heretics to\ncommunion without baptism, not only fails to cleanse the heretics, but\npollutes the Christians as well.\" Or if this be true, they were then\nnot admitted without baptism, but those men had the baptism of Christ,\nalthough it was given and received among heretics, who were so admitted\nin accordance with that custom which these very men acknowledged to\nexist; and on the same grounds they are even now rightly admitted in\nthe same manner.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. V.--8. Aurelius of Utica[536] said: \"Since the apostle says that\nwe ought not to be partakers with the sins of other men,[537] what else\ndoes he do but make himself partaker with the sins of other men, who\nholds communion with heretics without the baptism of the Church? And\ntherefore I pronounce my judgment that heretics should be baptized,\nthat they may receive remission of their sins, and so communion be\nallowed to them.\"\n\n9. The answer is: Therefore Cyprian and all those bishops were\npartakers in the sins of other men, inasmuch as they remained in\ncommunion with such men, when they removed no one from the right of\ncommunion who entertained a different opinion. Where, then, is the\nChurch? Then, to say nothing for the moment of heretics,--since the\nwords of this judgment are applicable also to other sinners, such\nas Cyprian saw with lamentation to be in the Church with him, whom,\nwhile he confuted them, he yet tolerated,--where is the Church, which,\naccording to these words, must be held to have perished from that very\nmoment by the contagion of their sins? But if, as is the most firmly\nestablished truth, the Church both has remained and does remain, the\npartaking of the sins of others, which is forbidden by the apostle,\nmust be considered only to consist in consenting to them. But let\nheretics be baptized again, that they may receive remission of their\nsins, if the wayward and the envious are baptized again, who, seeing\nthat they renounced the world in words and not in deeds, were indeed\nable to receive baptism, but did not obtain remission of their sins, as\nthe Lord says, \"If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will\nyour Father forgive your trespasses.\"[538]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VI.--10. Iambus of Germaniciana[539] said: \"Those who approve\nthe baptism of heretics disapprove ours, so as to deny that such as\nare, I will not say washed, but defiled outside the Church, ought to be\nbaptized within the Church.\"\n\n11. To him we answer, that none of our party approves the baptism of\nheretics, but all the baptism of Christ, even though it be found in\nheretics who are as it were chaff outside the Church, as it may be\nfound in other unrighteous men who are as chaff within the Church.\nFor if those who are baptized without the Church are not washed, but\ndefiled, assuredly those who are baptized outside the rock on which the\nChurch is built are not washed, but defiled. But all are without the\nsaid rock who hear the words of Christ and do them not. Or if it be the\ncase that they are washed indeed in baptism, but yet continue in the\ndefilement of their unrighteousness, from which they were unwilling to\nbe changed for the better, the same is true also of the heretics.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VII.--12. Lucianus of Rucuma[540] said: \"It is written, 'And\nGod saw the light that it was good, and God divided the light from\nthe darkness.'[541] If light and darkness can agree, then can there\nbe something in common between us and heretics. Therefore I give my\njudgment that heretics should be baptized.\"\n\n13. To him the answer is: If light and darkness can agree, then can\nthere be something common between the righteous and unrighteous. Let\nhim therefore declare his judgment that those unrighteous should be\nbaptized afresh whom Cyprian confuted within the Church itself; or let\nhim who can say if those are not unrighteous who renounce the world in\nwords and not in deeds.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VIII.--14. Pelagianus of Luperciana[542] said: \"It is written,\n'Either the Lord is God, or Baal is God.'[543] So now either the Church\nis the Church, or heresy is the Church. Further, if heresy be not the\nChurch, how can the baptism of the Church exist among heretics?\"\n\n15. To him we may answer as follows: Either Paradise is Paradise, or\nEgypt is Paradise. Further, if Egypt be not Paradise, how can the water\nof Paradise be in Egypt? But it will be said to us that it extends even\nthither by flowing forth from Paradise. In like manner, therefore,\nbaptism extends to heretics. Also we say: Either the rock is the\nChurch, or the sand is the Church. Further, since the sand is not the\nChurch, how can baptism exist with those who build upon the sand by\nhearing the words of Christ and doing them not?[544] And yet it does\nexist with them; and in like manner also it exists among the heretics.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IX.--16. Jader of Midila[545] said: \"We know that there is but\none baptism in the Catholic Church, and therefore we ought not to admit\na heretic unless he has been baptized in our body, lest he should think\nthat he has been baptized outside the Catholic Church.\"\n\n17. To him our answer is, that if this were said of those unrighteous\nmen who are outside the rock, it certainly would be falsely said. And\nso it is therefore also in the case of heretics.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. X.--18. Likewise another Felix of Marazana[546] said: \"There is\none faith, one baptism,[547] but of the Catholic Church, to which alone\nis given authority to baptize.\"\n\n19. What if another were to say as follows: One faith, one baptism, but\nof the righteous only, to whom alone authority is given to baptize?\nAs these words might be refuted, so also may the judgment of Felix be\nrefuted. Do even the unrighteous, who are not[548] changed in heart in\nbaptism, while they renounce the world in words and not in deeds, yet\nbelong to the members of the Church? Let them consider whether such a\nChurch is the actual rock, the very dove, the bride herself without\nspot or wrinkle.[549]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XI.--20. Paul of Bobba[550] said: \"I for my part am not moved if\nsome fail to uphold the faith and truth of the Church, seeing that the\napostle says, 'For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief\nmake the faith of God of none effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true,\nbut every man a liar.'[551] But if God be true, how can the truth of\nbaptism be in the company of heretics, where God is not?\"\n\n21. To him we answer: What, is God among the covetous? And yet baptism\nexists among them; and so also it exists among heretics. For they among\nwhom God is, are the temple of God. \"But what agreement hath the temple\nof God with idols?\"[552] Further, Paul considers, and Cyprian agrees\nwith him, that covetousness is idolatry; and Cyprian himself again\nassociates with his colleagues, who were robbers, but yet baptized,\nwith great reward of toleration.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XII.--22. Pomponius of Dionysiana[553] said: \"It is manifest that\nheretics cannot baptize and give remission of sins, seeing that no\npower is given to them that they should be able either to loose or bind\nanything on earth.\"\n\n23. The answer is: This power is not given to murderers either, that\nis, to those who hate their brothers. For it was not said to such as\nthese, \"Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and\nwhose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.\"[554] And yet they\nbaptize, and both Paul tolerates them in the same communion of baptism,\nand Cyprian acknowledges them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIII.--24. Venantius of Tinisa[555] said: \"If a husband, going\non a journey into foreign countries, had entrusted the guardianship\nof his wife to a friend, he would surely keep her that was entrusted\nto his care with the utmost diligence, that her chastity and holiness\nmight not be defiled by any one. Christ our Lord and God, when going to\nthe Father, committed His bride to our care: do we keep her uncorrupt\nand undefiled, or do we betray her purity and chastity to adulterers\nand corrupters? For he who makes the baptism of Christ common with\nheretics betrays the bride of Christ to adulterers.\"\n\n25. We answer: What of those who, when they are baptized, turn\nthemselves to the Lord with their lips and not with their heart? do\nnot they possess an adulterous mind? Are not they themselves lovers\nof the world, which they renounce in words and not in deeds; and they\ncorrupt good manners through evil communications, saying, \"Let us\neat and drink; for to-morrow we die?\"[556] Did not the discourse of\nthe apostle take heed even against such as these, when he says, \"But\nI fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his\nsubtilty, so your minds also should be corrupted from the simplicity\nthat is in Christ?\"[557] When, therefore, Cyprian held the baptism of\nChrist to be in common with such men, did he therefore betray the bride\nof Christ into the hands of adulterers, or did he not rather recognise\nthe necklace of the Bridegroom even on an adulteress?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIV.--26. Aymnius of Ausnaga[558] said: \"We have received one\nbaptism, which same also we administer; but he who says that authority\nis given to heretics also to baptize, the same makes two baptisms.\"\n\n27. To him we answer: Why does not he also make two baptisms who\nmaintains that the unrighteous also can baptize? For although the\nrighteous and unrighteous are in themselves opposed to one another, yet\nthe baptism which the righteous give, such as was Paul, or such as was\nalso Cyprian, is not contrary to the baptism which those unrighteous\nmen were wont to give who hated Paul, whom Cyprian understands to have\nbeen not heretics, but bad Catholics; and although the moderation\nwhich was found in Cyprian, and the covetousness which was found in his\ncolleagues, are in themselves opposed to one another, yet the baptism\nwhich Cyprian used to give was not contrary to the baptism which his\ncolleagues who opposed him used to give, but one and the same with it,\nbecause in both cases it is He that baptizes of whom it is said, \"The\nsame is He which baptizeth.\"[559]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIV.--28. Saturninus of Victoriana[560] said: \"If heretics may\nbaptize, they are excused and defended in doing unlawful things; nor\ndo I see why either Christ called them His adversaries, or the apostle\ncalled them antichrists.\"\n\n29. To him we answer: We say that heretics have no authority to baptize\nin the same sense in which we say that defrauders have no authority\nto baptize. For not only to the heretic, but to the sinner, God says,\n\"What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest\ntake my statutes in thy mouth?\" To the same person He assuredly says,\n\"When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him.\"[561] How\nmuch worse, therefore, are those who did not consent with thieves, but\nthemselves were wont to plunder farms with treacherous deceits? Yet\nCyprian did not consent with them, though he did tolerate them in the\ncorn-field of the Catholic Church, lest the wheat should be rooted\nout together with it. And yet at the same time the baptism which they\nthemselves conferred was the very selfsame baptism, because it was\nnot of them, but of Christ. As therefore they, although the baptism\nof Christ be recognised in them, were yet not excused and defended in\ndoing unlawful things, and Christ rightly called those His adversaries\nwho were destined, by persevering in such things, to hear the doom,\n\"Depart from me, ye that work iniquity,\"[562] whence also they are\ncalled antichrists, because they are contrary to Christ while they live\nin opposition to His words, so likewise is it the case with heretics.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVI.--30. Another Saturninus of Tucca[563] said: \"The Gentiles,\nalthough they worship idols, yet acknowledge and confess the supreme\nGod, the Father and Creator. Against Him Marcion blasphemes, and some\nmen do not blush to approve the baptism of Marcion.[564] How do such\npriests either maintain or vindicate the priesthood of God, who do not\nbaptize the enemies of God, and hold communion with them while they are\nthus unbaptized?\"\n\n31. The answer is this: Truly when such terms as this are used, all\nmoderation is passed; nor do they take into consideration that even\nthey themselves hold communion with such men, \"judging no one, nor\nremoving any from the right of communion if he entertain a contrary\nopinion.\" But Saturninus has used an argument in this very judgment of\nhis, which might furnish materials for his admonition (if he would pay\nattention to it), that in each man what is wrong should be corrected,\nand what is right should be approved, since he says, \"The Gentiles,\nalthough they worship idols, yet acknowledge and confess the supreme\nGod, the Father and Creator.\" If, then, any Gentile of such a kind\nshould come to God, would he wish to correct and change this point in\nhim that he acknowledged and confessed God the Father and Creator? I\ntrow not. But he would amend in him his idolatry, which was an evil in\nhim; and he would give to him the sacraments of Christ, which he did\nnot possess; and anything that was wayward which he found in him he\nwould correct; and anything which had been wanting he would supply. So\nalso in the Marcionist heretic he would acknowledge the perfectness of\nbaptism, he would correct his waywardness, he would teach him Catholic\ntruth.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVII.--32. Marcellus of Zama[565] said: \"Since sins are remitted\nonly in the baptism of the Church, he who does not baptize a heretic\nholds communion with a sinner.\"\n\n33. What, does he who holds communion with one who does this not hold\ncommunion with a sinner? But what else did all of them do, in judging\nno one, or removing from the right of communion any one who entertained\na different opinion? Where, then, is the Church? Are those things not\nan obstacle to those who are patient, and tolerate the tares lest\nthe wheat should be rooted out together with them? I would have them\ntherefore say, who have committed the sacrilege of schism by separating\nthemselves from the whole world, how it comes that they have in their\nmouths the judgment of Cyprian, while they do not have in their hearts\nthe patience of Cyprian. But to this Marcellus we have an answer in\nwhat has been said above concerning baptism and the remission of sins,\nexplaining how there can be baptism in a man although there be in him\nno remission of his sins.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVIII.--34. Iren\u00e6us of Ululi[566] said: \"If the Church does\nnot baptize a heretic, because it is said that he has been baptized\nalready, then heresy is the greater.\"\n\n35. The answer is: On the same principle it might be said, If therefore\nthe Church does not baptize the covetous man, because it is said that\nhe has been baptized already, then covetousness is the greater. But\nthis is false, therefore the other is also false.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIX.--36. Donatus of Cibaliana[566] said: \"I acknowledge one\nChurch, and one baptism that appertains thereto. If there is any one\nwho says that the grace of baptism exists among heretics, he must first\nshow and prove that the Church exists with them.\"\n\n37. To him we answer: If you say that the grace of baptism is identical\nwith baptism, then it exists among heretics; but if baptism is the\nsacrament or outward sign of grace, while the grace itself is the\nabolition of sins, then the grace of baptism does not exist with\nheretics. But so there is one baptism and one Church, just as there is\none faith. As therefore the good and bad, not having one hope, can yet\nhave one baptism, so those who have not one common Church can have one\ncommon baptism.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XX.--38. Zozimus of Tharassa[567] said: \"When a revelation has\nbeen made of the truth, error must give way to truth; inasmuch as Peter\nalso, who before was wont to circumcise, gave way to Paul when he\ndeclared the truth.\"[568]\n\n39. The answer is: This may also be considered as the expression of our\njudgment too, and this is just what has been done in respect of this\nquestion of baptism. For after that the truth had been more clearly\nrevealed, error gave way to truth, when that most wholesome custom was\nfurther confirmed by the authority of a general Council. It is well,\nhowever, that they so constantly bear in mind that it was possible\neven for Peter, the chief of the apostles, to have been at one time\nminded otherwise than the truth required; which we believe, without any\ndisrespect to Cyprian, to have been the case with him, and that with\nall our love for Cyprian, for it is not right that he should be loved\nwith greater love than Peter.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXI.--40. Julianus of Telepte[569] said: \"It is written, 'A\nman can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven;'[570] if\nheresy is from heaven, it can give baptism.\"\n\n41. Let him hear another also saying: If covetousness is from heaven,\nit can give baptism. And yet the covetous do confer it; so therefore\nalso may the heretics.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXII.--42. Faustus of Timida Regia[571] said: \"Let not these\npersons flatter themselves who favour heretics. He who interferes with\nthe baptism of the Church on behalf of heretics makes them Christians,\nand us heretics.\"\n\n43. To him we answer: If any one were to say that a man who, when he\nreceived baptism, had not received remission of his sins, because he\nentertained hatred towards his brother in his heart, was nevertheless\nnot to be baptized again when he dismissed that hatred from his heart,\ndoes such a man interfere with the baptism of the Church on behalf of\nmurderers, or does he make them righteous and us murderers? Let him\ntherefore understand the same also in the case of heretics.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIII.--44. Geminius of Furni[572] said: \"Certain of our\ncolleagues may prefer heretics to themselves, they cannot prefer them\nto us: and therefore what we have once decreed we hold, that we should\nbaptize those who come to us from heretics.\"\n\n45. This man also acknowledges most openly that certain of his\ncolleagues entertained opinions contrary to his own: whence again and\nagain the love of unity is confirmed, because they were separated from\none another by no schism, till God should reveal to one or other of\nthem anything wherein they were otherwise minded.[573] But to him our\nanswer is, that his colleagues did not prefer heretics to themselves,\nbut that, as the baptism of Christ is acknowledged in the covetous, in\nthe fraudulent, in robbers, in murderers, so also they acknowledged it\nin heretics.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIV.--46. Rogatianus of Nova[574] said: \"Christ established\nthe Church, the devil heresy: how can the synagogue of Satan have the\nbaptism of Christ?\"\n\n47. To him our answer is: Is it true that because Christ established\nthe well-affectioned, and the devil the envious, therefore the party\nof the devil, which is proved to be among the envious, cannot have the\nbaptism of Christ?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXV.--48. Therapius of Bulla[575] said: \"If a man gives up and\nbetrays the baptism of Christ to heretics, what else can he be said to\nbe but a Judas to the Bride of Christ?\"\n\n49. How great a condemnation have we here of all schismatics, who have\nseparated themselves by wicked sacrilege from the inheritance of Christ\ndispersed throughout the whole world, if Cyprian held communion with\nsuch as was the traitor Judas, and yet was not defiled by them; or\nif he was defiled, then were all made such as Judas; or if they were\nnot, then the evil deeds of those who went before do not belong to\nthose who came after, even though they were the offspring of the same\ncommunion. Why, therefore, do they cast in our teeth the _traditores_,\nagainst whom they did not prove their charge, and do not cast in their\nown teeth Judas, with whom Cyprian and his colleagues held communion?\nBehold the Council in which these men are wont to boast! We indeed say,\nthat he who approves the baptism of Christ even in heretics, does not\nbetray to heretics the baptism of Christ; just in the same way as he\ndoes not betray to murderers the baptism of Christ who approves the\nbaptism of Christ even in murderers: but inasmuch as they profess to\nprescribe to us from the decrees of this Council what opinions we ought\nto hold, let them first assent to it themselves. See how therein were\ncompared to the traitor Judas, all who said that heretics, although\nbaptized in heresy, yet should not be baptized again. Yet with such\nCyprian was willing to hold communion, when he said, \"Judging no man,\nnor depriving any of the right of communion if he entertain a contrary\nopinion.\" But that there had been men of such a sort in former times\nwithin the Church, is made clear by the sentence in which he says: \"But\nsome one will say, What, then, shall be done with these men who in\ntimes past were admitted into the Church without baptism?\"[576] That\nsuch had been the custom of the Church, is testified again and again\nby the very men who compose this Council. If, therefore, any one who\ndoes this \"can be said to be nothing else but a Judas to the Bride of\nChrist,\" according to the terms in which the judgment of Therapius is\ncouched; but Judas, according to the teaching of the gospel, was a\ntraitor; then all those men held communion with traitors who at that\ntime uttered those very judgments, and before they uttered them they\nall had become traitors through that custom which at that time was\nretained by the Church. All, therefore--that is to say, both we and\nthey themselves who were the offspring of that unity--are traitors. But\nwe defend ourselves in two ways: first, because without prejudice to\nthe right of unity, as Cyprian himself declared in his opening speech,\nwe do not assent to the decrees of this Council in which this judgment\nwas pronounced; and secondly, because we hold that the wicked in no\nway hurt the good in Catholic unity, until at the last the chaff be\nseparated from the wheat. But our opponents, inasmuch as they both\nshelter themselves as it were under the decrees of this Council, and\nmaintain that the good perish as by a kind of infection from communion\nwith the wicked, have no resource to save them from allowing both\nthat the earlier Christians, whose offspring they are, were traitors,\ninasmuch as they are convicted by their own Council; and that the deeds\nof those who went before them do reflect on them, since they throw in\nour teeth the deeds of our ancestors.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVI.--50. Also another Lucius of Membresa[577] said: \"It is\nwritten, 'God heareth not sinners.'[578] How can he who is a sinner be\nheard in baptism?\"\n\n51. We answer: How is the covetous man heard, or the robber, and\nusurer, and murderer? Are they not sinners? And yet Cyprian, while he\nfinds fault with them in the Catholic Church, yet tolerates them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVII.--52. Also another Felix of Buslaceni[579] said: \"In\nadmitting heretics to the Church without baptism, let no one place\ncustom before reason and truth; for reason and truth always exclude\ncustom.\"\n\n53. To him our answer is: You do not show the truth; you confess the\nexistence of the custom. We should therefore do right in maintaining\nthe custom which has since been confirmed by a general Council, even if\nthe truth were still concealed, which we believe to have been already\nmade manifest.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVIII.--54. Another Saturninus of Abitini[580] said: \"If\nAntichrist can give to any one the grace of Christ, then can heretics\nalso baptize, who are called Antichrists.\"\n\n55. What if another were to say, If a murderer can give the grace of\nChrist, then can they also baptize that hate their brethren, who are\ncalled murderers? For certainly he would seem in a way to speak the\ntruth, and yet they can baptize; in like manner, therefore, can the\nheretics as well.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIX.--56. Quintus of Aggya[581] said: \"He who has a thing can\ngive it; but what can the heretics give, who are well known to have\nnothing?\"\n\n57. To him our answer is: If, then, any man can give a thing who has\nit, it is clear that heretics can give baptism: for when they separate\nfrom the Church, they have still the sacrament of washing which they\nhad received while in the Church; for when they return they do not\nagain receive it, because they had not lost it when they withdrew from\nthe Church.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXX.--58. Another Julianus of Marcelliana[582] said: \"If a man\ncan serve two masters, God and mammon,[583] then baptism also can serve\ntwo, the Christian and the heretic.\"\n\n59. Truly, if it can serve the self-restrained and the covetous man,\nthe sober and the drunken, the well-affectioned and the murderer, why\nshould it not also serve the Christian and the heretic?--whom, indeed,\nit does not really serve; but it ministers to them, and is administered\nby them, for salvation to those who use it right, and for judgment to\nsuch as use it wrong.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXI.--60. Tenax of Horrea Celiae[584] said: \"There is one\nbaptism, but of the Church; and where the Church is not, there baptism\nalso cannot be.\"\n\n61. To him we answer: How then comes it that it may be where the rock\nis not, but only sand; seeing that the Church is on the rock, and not\non sand?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXII.--62. Another Victor of Assura[585] said: \"It is\nwritten, that 'there is one God and one Christ, one Church and one\nbaptism.'[586] How then can any one baptize in a place where there is\nnot either God, or Christ, or the Church?\"\n\n63. How can any one baptize either in that sand, where the Church is\nnot, seeing that it is on the rock; nor God and Christ, seeing that\nthere is not there the temple of God and Christ?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXIII.--64. Donatulus of Capsa[587] said: \"I also have always\nentertained this opinion, that heretics, who have gained nothing\noutside the Church, should be baptized when they are converted to the\nChurch.\"\n\n65. To this the answer is: They have, indeed, gained nothing outside\nthe Church, but that is nothing towards salvation, not nothing\ntowards the sacrament. For salvation is peculiar to the good; but the\nsacraments are common to the good and bad alike.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXIV.--66. Verulus of Rusiccada[588] said: \"A man that is a\nheretic cannot give that which he has not; much more is this the case\nwith a schismatic, who has lost what he had.\"\n\n67. We have already shown that they still have it, because they do not\nlose it when they separate themselves. For they do not receive it again\nwhen they return: wherefore, if it was thought that they could not give\nit because they were supposed not to have it, let it now be understood\nthat they can give it, because it is understood that they also have it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXV.--68. Pudentianus of Cuiculi[589] said: \"My recent\nordination to the episcopate induced me, brethren, to wait and hear\nwhat my elders would decide. For it is plain that heresies have and\ncan have nothing; and so, if any come from them, it is determined\nrighteously that they should be baptized.\"\n\n69. As, therefore, we have already answered those who went before, for\nwhose judgment this man was waiting, so be it understood that we have\nanswered himself.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXVI.--70. Peter of Hippo Diarrhytus[590] said: \"Since there is\none baptism in the Catholic Church, it is clear that a man cannot be\nbaptized outside the Church; and therefore I give my judgment, that\nthose who have been bathed in heresy or in schism ought to be baptized\non coming to the Church.\"\n\n71. There is one baptism in the Catholic Church, in such a sense that,\nwhen any have gone out from it, it does not become two in those who go\nout, but remains one and the same. What, therefore, is recognised in\nthose who return, should also be recognised in those who received it\nfrom men who have separated themselves, since they did not lose it when\nthey went apart into heresy.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXVII.--72. Likewise another Lucius of Ausafa[591] said:\n\"According to the motion of my mind and of the Holy Spirit, since\nthere is one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one Christ,\nand one hope, one Spirit, one Church, there ought also to be only one\nbaptism. And therefore I say, both that if anything has been set on\nfoot or done among the heretics, that it ought to be rescinded; and\nalso, that they who come out from among the heretics should be baptized\nin the Church.\"\n\n73. Let it therefore be pronounced of no effect that they baptize,\nwho hear the words of God and do them not, when they shall begin to\npass from unrighteousness to righteousness, that is, from the sand to\nthe rock. And if this is not done, because what there was in them of\nChrist was not violated by their unrighteousness, then let this also be\nunderstood in the case of heretics: for neither is there the same hope\nin the unrighteous, so long as they are on the sand, as there is in\nthose who are upon the rock; and yet there is in both the same baptism,\nalthough as it is said that there is one hope, so also is it said that\nthere is one baptism.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXVIII.--74. Felix of Gurgites[592] said: \"I give my judgment,\nthat, according to the precepts of the holy Scriptures, those who have\nbeen unlawfully baptized outside the Church by heretics, if they wish\nto flee to the Church, should obtain the grace of baptism where it is\nlawfully given.\"\n\n75. Our answer is: Let them indeed begin to have in a lawful manner to\nsalvation what they before had unlawfully to destruction; because each\nman is justified under the same baptism, when he has turned himself to\nGod with a true heart, as that under which he was condemned, when on\nreceiving it he renounced the world in words alone, and not in deeds.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXIX.--76. Pusillus of Lamasba[593] said: \"I believe that\nbaptism is not unto salvation except within the Catholic Church.\nWhatsoever is without the Catholic Church is mere pretence.\"\n\n77. This indeed is true, that \"baptism is not unto salvation except\nwithin the Catholic Church.\" For in itself it can indeed exist outside\nthe Catholic Church as well; but there it is not unto salvation,\nbecause there it does not work salvation; just as that sweet savour of\nChrist is certainly not unto salvation in them that perish,[594] though\nfrom a fault not in itself, but in them. But \"whatsoever is without\nthe Catholic Church is mere pretence,\" yet only in so far as it is not\nCatholic. But there may be something Catholic outside the Catholic\nChurch, just as the name of Christ could exist outside the congregation\nof Christ, in which name he who did not follow with the disciples\nwas casting out devils.[595] For there may be pretence also within\nthe Catholic Church, as is unquestionable in the case of those who\nrenounce the world in words and not in deeds, and yet the pretence is\nnot Catholic. As, therefore, there is in the Catholic Church something\nwhich is not Catholic, so there may be something which is Catholic\noutside the Catholic Church.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XL.--78. Salvianus of Gazaufala[596] said: \"It is generally known\nthat heretics have nothing; and therefore they come to us, that they\nmay receive what previously they did not have.\"\n\n79. Our answer is: On this theory, the very men who founded heresies\nare not heretics themselves, because they separated themselves from the\nChurch, and certainly they previously had what they received there. But\nif it is absurd to say that those are not heretics through whom the\nrest became heretics, it is therefore possible that a heretic should\nhave what turns to his destruction through his evil use of it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLI.--80. Honoratus of Tucca[597] said: \"Since Christ is the\ntruth, we ought to follow the truth rather than custom; that we may\nsanctify by the baptism of the Church the heretics who come to us,\nsimply because they could receive nothing outside.\"\n\n81. This man, too, is a witness to the custom, in which he gives us the\ngreatest assistance, whatever else he may appear to say against us. But\nthis is not the reason why heretics come over to us, because they have\nreceived nothing outside, but that what they did receive may begin to\nbe of use to them: for this it could not be outside in any wise.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLII.--82. Victor of Octavus[598] said: \"As ye yourselves also\nknow, I have not been long appointed a bishop, and therefore I waited\nfor the counsel of my seniors. This therefore I express as my opinion,\nthat whosoever comes from heresy should undoubtedly be baptized.\"\n\n83. What, therefore, has been answered to those for whom he waited, may\nbe taken as the answer also to himself.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLIII.--84. Clarus of Mascula[598] said: \"The sentence of our\nLord Jesus Christ is manifest, when He sent forth His apostles, and\ngave the power which had been given Him of His Father to them alone,\nwhose successors we are, governing the Church of the Lord with the\nsame power, and baptizing those who believe the faith. And therefore\nheretics, who, being without, have neither power nor the Church of\nChrist, cannot baptize any one with His baptism.\"\n\n85. Are, then, ill-affectioned murderers successors of the apostles?\nWhy, then, do they baptize? Is it because they are not outside? But\nthey are outside the rock, to which the Lord gave the keys, and on\nwhich He said that He would build His Church.[599]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLIV.--86. Secundianus of Thambei[600] said: \"We ought not to\ndeceive heretics by our too great forwardness, that not having been\nbaptized in the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and having therefore\nnot received remission of their sins, they may not impute to us, when\nthe day of judgment comes, that we have been the cause of their not\nbeing baptized, and not having obtained the indulgence of the grace of\nGod. On which account, since there is one Church and one baptism, when\nthey are converted to us, let them receive together with the Church the\nbaptism also of the Church.\"\n\n87. Nay, when they are transferred to the rock, and joined to the\nsociety of the Dove, let them receive the remission of their sins,\nwhich they could not have outside the rock and outside the Dove,\nwhether they were openly without, like the heretics, or apparently\nwithin, like the abandoned Catholics; of whom, however, it is clear\nthat they both have and confer baptism without remission of sins, when\neven from themselves it is received by men, who, being not changed for\nthe better, honour God with their lips, while their heart is far from\nHim.[601] Yet it is true that there is one baptism, just as there is\none Dove, though those who are not in the one communion of the Dove may\nyet have baptism in common.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLV.--88. Also another Aurelius of Chullabi[602] said: \"The\nApostle John has laid down in his epistle the following precept: 'If\nthere come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not\ninto your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God\nspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.'[603] How can such men be admitted\nwithout consideration into the house of God, who are forbidden to be\nadmitted into our private house? Or how can we hold communion with\nthem without the baptism of Christ, when, if we only so much as bid\nthem God speed, we are partakers of their evil deeds?\"\n\n89. In respect of this testimony of John there is no need of further\ndisputation, since it has no reference at all to the question of\nbaptism, which we are at present discussing. For he says, \"If any come\nunto you, and bring not the doctrine of Christ.\" But heretics leaving\nthe doctrine of their error are converted to the doctrine of Christ,\nthat they may be incorporated with the Church, and may begin to belong\nto the members of that Dove whose sacrament they previously had; and\ntherefore what previously they lacked belonging to it is given to\nthem, that is to say, peace and charity out of a pure heart, and of a\ngood conscience, and of faith unfeigned.[604] But what they previously\nhad belonging to the Dove is acknowledged, and received without any\ndepreciation; just as in the adulteress God recognises His gifts, even\nwhen she is following her lovers; because when after her fornication\nis corrected she is turned again to chastity, those gifts are not laid\nto her charge, but she herself is corrected.[605] But just as Cyprian\nmight have defended himself, if this testimony of John had been cast\nin his teeth, whilst he was holding communion with men like these, so\nlet those against whom it is spoken make their own defence. For to the\nquestion before us, as I said before, it has no reference at all. For\nJohn says that we are not to bid God speed to men of strange doctrine;\nbut Paul the apostle says, with even greater vehemence, \"If any man\nthat is called a brother be covetous, or a drunkard,\" or anything of\nthe sort, with such an one no not to eat;[606] and yet Cyprian used\nto admit to fellowship, not with his private table, but with the\naltar of God, his colleagues who were usurers, and treacherous, and\nfraudulent, and robbers. But in what manner this may be defended has\nbeen sufficiently set forth in other books already.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLVI.--90. Litteus of Gemelli[607] said: \"'If the blind lead the\nblind, both shall fall into the ditch.'[608] Since, therefore, it is\nclear that heretics can give no light[609] to any one, as being blind\nthemselves, therefore their baptism is invalid.\"\n\n91. Neither do we say that it is valid for salvation so long as they\nare heretics, just as it is of no value to those murderers of whom we\nspoke so long as they hate their brethren: for they also themselves are\nin darkness, and if any one follows them they fall together into the\nditch; and yet it does not follow that they either have not baptism or\nare unable to confer it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLVII.--92. Natalis of Oea[610] said: \"It is not only I myself\nwho am present, but also Pompeius of Sabrata,[610] and Dioga of Leptis\nMagna,[610] who commissioned me to represent their views, being absent\nindeed in body, but present in spirit, who deliver this same judgment\nas our colleagues, that heretics cannot have communion with us, unless\nthey have been baptized with the baptism of the Church.\"\n\n93. He means, I suppose, that communion which belongs to the society of\nthe Dove; for in the partaking of the sacraments they doubtless held\ncommunion with them, judging no man, nor removing any from the right of\ncommunion if he held a different opinion. But with whatever reference\nhe spoke, there is no great need for these words being refuted. For\ncertainly a heretic would not be admitted to communion, unless he had\nbeen baptized with the baptism of the Church. But it is clear that the\nbaptism of the Church exists even among heretics if it be consecrated\nwith the words of the gospel; just as the gospel itself belongs to the\nChurch, and has nothing to do with their waywardness, but certainly\nretains its own holiness.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLVIII.--94. Junius of Neapolis[611] said: \"I do not depart from\nthe judgment which we once pronounced, that we should baptize heretics\non their coming to the Church.\"\n\n95. Since this man has adduced no argument nor proof from the\nScriptures, he need not detain us long.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLIX.--96. Cyprian of Carthage said: \"My opinion has been set\nforth with the greatest fulness in the letter which has been written\nto our colleague Jubaianus,[612] that heretics being called enemies of\nChrist and antichrists according to the testimony of the gospel and the\napostles, should, when they come to the Church, be baptized with the\none baptism of the Church, that from enemies they may be made friends,\nand that from antichrists they may be made Christians.\"\n\n97. What need is there of further disputation here, seeing that we have\nalready handled with the utmost care that very epistle to Jubaianus\nof which he has made mention? And as to what he has said here, let us\nnot forget that it might be said of all unrighteous men who, as he\nhimself bears witness, are in the Catholic Church, and whose power of\npossessing and of conferring baptism is not questioned by any of us.\nFor they come to the Church, who pass to Christ from the party of the\ndevil, and build upon the rock, and are incorporated with the Dove,\nand are placed in security in the garden enclosed and fountain sealed;\nwhere none of those are found who live contrary to the precepts of\nChrist, wherever they may seem to be. For in the epistle which he wrote\nto Magnus, while discussing this very question, he himself warned us at\nsufficient length, and in no ambiguous terms, of what kind of society\nwe should understand that the Church consists. For he says, in speaking\nof a certain man, \"Let him become an alien and profane, an enemy to the\npeace and unity of the Lord, not dwelling in the house of God, that is\nto say, in the Church of Christ, in which none dwell save those who are\nof one heart and of one mind.\"[613] Let those, therefore, who would lay\ninjunctions on us on the authority of Cyprian, pay attention for a time\nto what we here say. For if only those who are of one heart and of one\nmind dwell in the Church of Christ, beyond all question those were not\ndwelling in the Church of Christ, however much they might appear to\nbe within, who of envy and contention were announcing Christ without\ncharity; by whom he understands, not the heretics and schismatics who\nare mentioned by the Apostle Paul,[614] but false brethren holding\nconversation with him within, who certainly ought not to have baptized,\nbecause they were not dwelling in the Church, in which he himself\nsays that none dwell save those who are of one heart and of one mind:\nunless, indeed, any one be so far removed from the truth as to say\nthat those were of one heart and of one mind who were envious and\nmalevolent, and contentious without charity; and yet they used to\nbaptize: nor did the detestable waywardness which they displayed in\nany degree violate or diminish from the sacrament of Christ, which was\nhandled and dispensed by them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. L.--98. It is indeed worth while to consider the whole of the\npassage in the aforesaid letter to Magnus, which he has put together\nas follows: \"Not dwelling,\" he says, \"in the house of God--that is to\nsay, in the Church of Christ--in which none dwell save those that are\nof one heart and of one mind, as the Holy Spirit says in the Psalms,\nspeaking of 'God that maketh men to be of one mind in an house.'[615]\nFinally, the very sacrifices of the Lord declare that Christians are\nunited among themselves by a firm and inseparable love for one another.\nFor when the Lord calls bread, which is compacted together by the union\nof many grains, His body,[616] He is signifying one people, whom He\nbore, compacted into one body; and when He calls wine, which is pressed\nout from a multitude of branches and clusters and brought together\ninto one, His blood,[617] He also signifies one flock joined together\nby the mingling of a multitude united into one.\" These words of the\nblessed Cyprian show that he both understood and loved the glory of the\nhouse of God, which house he asserted to consist of those who are of\none heart and of one mind, proving it by the testimony of the prophets\nand the meaning of the sacraments, and in which house certainly were\nnot found those envious persons, those malevolent without charity,\nwho nevertheless used to baptize. From whence it is clear that the\nsacrament of Christ can both be in and be administered by those who are\nnot in the Church of Christ, in which Cyprian himself bears witness\nthat there are none dwelling save those who are of one heart and of one\nmind. Nor can it indeed be said that they are allowed to baptize so\nlong as they are undetected, seeing that the Apostle Paul did not fail\nto detect those of whose ministry he bears unquestionable testimony in\nhis epistle, saying that he rejoices that they also were proclaiming\nChrist. For he says of them, \"Whether in pretence or in truth, Christ\nis preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.\"[618]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LI.--99. Taking all these things, therefore, into consideration,\nI think that I am not rash in saying that there are some in the\nhouse of God after such a fashion as not to be themselves the very\nhouse of God, which is said to be built upon a rock,[619] which is\ncalled the one dove,[620] which is styled the beauteous bride without\nspot or wrinkle,[621] and a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed,\na well of living water, an orchard of pomegranates with pleasant\nfruits,[622] which house also received the keys, and the power of\nbinding and loosing.[623] If any one shall neglect this house when it\narrests and corrects him, the Lord says, \"Let him be unto thee as an\nheathen man and a publican.\"[624] Of this house it is said, \"Lord,\nI have loved the habitation of Thy house, and the place where Thine\nhonour dwelleth;\"[625] and, \"He maketh men to be of one mind in an\nhouse;\"[626] and, \"I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into\nthe house of the Lord;\"[627] and, \"Blessed are they that dwell in Thy\nhouse, O Lord; they will be still praising Thee;\"[628] with countless\nother passages to the same effect. This house is also called wheat,\nbringing forth fruit with patience, some thirty-fold, some sixty-fold,\nand some an hundred-fold.[629] This house is also in vessels of gold\nand of silver,[630] and in precious stones and imperishable woods. To\nthis house it is said, \"Forbearing one another in love, endeavouring\nto keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;\"[631] and, \"For\nthe temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.\"[632] For this house is\ncomposed of those that are good and faithful, and of the holy servants\nof God dispersed throughout the world, and bound together by the unity\nof the Spirit, whether they know each other personally or not. But we\nhold that others are said to be in the house after such a sort, that\nthey belong not to the substance of the house, nor to the society of\nfruitful and peaceful justice, but only as the chaff is said to be\namong the corn; for that they are in the house we cannot deny, when the\napostle says, \"But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold\nand of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and\nsome to dishonour.\"[633] Of this countless multitude are found to be\nnot only the crowd which within the Church afflicts the heart of the\nsaints, who are so few in comparison with so vast a host, but also the\nheresies and schisms which exist in those who have burst the meshes of\nthe net, and may now be said to be rather out of the house than in the\nhouse, of whom it is said, \"They went out from us, but they were not\nof us.\"[634] For they are more thoroughly separated, now that they are\nalso divided from us in the body, than are those who live within the\nChurch in a carnal and worldly fashion, and are separated from us in\nthe spirit.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LII.--100. Of all these several classes, then, no one doubts\nrespecting those first, who are in the house of God in such a sense as\nthemselves to be the house of God, whether they be already spiritual,\nor as yet only babes nurtured with milk, but still making progress,\nwith earnestness of heart, towards that which is spiritual, that such\nmen both have baptism so as to be of profit to themselves, and transmit\nit to those who follow their example so as to benefit them; but that in\nits transmission to those who are false, whom the Holy Spirit shuns,\nthough they themselves, so far as lies with them, confer it so as to\nbe of profit, yet the others receive it in vain, since they do not\nimitate those from whom they receive it. But they who are in the great\nhouse after the fashion of vessels to dishonour, both have baptism\nwithout profit to themselves, and transmit it without profit to those\nwho follow their example: those, however, receive it with profit, who\nare united in heart and character, not to their ministers, but to the\nholy house of God. But those who are more thoroughly separated, so as\nto be rather out of the house than in the house, have baptism without\nany profit to themselves; and, moreover, there is no profit to those\nwho receive it from them, unless they be compelled by urgent necessity\nto receive it, and their heart in receiving it does not depart from the\nbond of unity: yet nevertheless they possess it, though the possession\nbe of no avail; and it is received from them, even when it is of no\nprofit to those who so receive it, though, in order that it may become\nof use, they must depart from their heresy or schism, and cleave to\nthat house of God. And this ought to be done, not only by heretics and\nschismatics, but also by those who are in the house through communion\nin the sacraments, yet so as to be outside the house through the\nperversity of their character. For so the sacrament begins to be of\nprofit even to themselves, which previously was of no avail.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LIII.--101. The question is also commonly raised, whether baptism\nis to be held valid which is received from one who had not himself\nreceived it, if, from some promptings of curiosity, he had chanced to\nlearn how it ought to be conferred; and whether it makes no difference\nin what spirit the recipient receives it, whether in mockery or in\nsincerity: if in mockery, whether the difference arises when the\nmockery is of deceit, as in the Church, or in what is thought to be\nthe Church; or when it is in jest, as in a play: and which is the more\naccursed, to receive it deceitfully in the Church, or in heresy or\nschism without deceit, that is to say, with full sincerity of heart;\nor whether it be worse to receive it deceitfully in heresy or in good\nfaith in a play, if any one were to be moved by a sudden feeling of\nreligion in the midst of his acting. And yet, if we compare such an\none even with him who receives it deceitfully in the Catholic Church\nitself, I should be surprised if any one were to doubt which of the\ntwo should be preferred; for I do not see of what avail the intention\nof him who gives in truth can be to him who receives deceitfully. But\nlet us consider, in the case of some one also giving it in deceit,\nwhen both the giver and the recipient are acting deceitfully in the\nunity of the Catholic Church itself, whether this should rather be\nacknowledged as baptism, or that which is given in a play, if any one\nshould be found who received it faithfully from a sudden impulse of\nreligion: or whether it be not true that, so far as the men themselves\nare concerned, there is a very great difference between the believing\nrecipient in a play, and the mocking recipient in the Church; but that\nin regard to the genuineness of the sacrament there is no difference.\nFor if it makes no difference in respect to the genuineness of the\nsacrament within the Catholic Church itself, whether certain persons\ncelebrate it in truth or in deceit, so long as both still celebrate\nthe same thing, I cannot see why it should make a difference outside,\nseeing that he who receives it is not cloaked by his deceit, but he is\nchanged by his religious impulse. Or have those truthful persons among\nwhom it is celebrated more power for the confirmation of the sacrament,\nthan those deceitful men by whom and in whom it is celebrated can exert\nfor its invalidation? And yet, if the deceit be subsequently brought\nto light, no one seeks a repetition of the sacrament; but the fraud is\neither punished by excommunication or set right by penitence.\n\n102. But the safe course for us is, not to advance with any rashness of\njudgment in setting forth a view which has neither been started in any\nprovincial Council of the Catholic Church nor established in a general\none; but to assert, with all the confidence of a voice that cannot be\ngainsaid, what has been confirmed by the consent of the universal\nChurch, under the direction of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ.\nNevertheless, if any one were to press me--supposing I were duly seated\nin a Council in which a question were raised on points like these--to\ndeclare what my own opinion was, without reference to the previously\nexpressed views of others, whose judgment I would rather follow, if\nI were under the influence of the same feelings as led me to assert\nwhat I have said before, I should have no hesitation in saying that\nall men possess baptism who have received it in any place, from any\nsort of men, provided that it were consecrated in the words of the\ngospel, and received without deceit on their part with some degree of\nfaith; although it would be of no profit to them for the salvation\nof their souls if they were without charity, by which they might be\ngrafted into the Catholic Church. For \"though I have faith,\" says the\napostle, \"so that I could remove mountains, but have not charity, I\nam nothing.\"[635] Just as already, from the established decrees of\nour predecessors, I have no hesitation in saying that all those have\nbaptism who, though they receive it deceitfully, yet receive it in the\nChurch, or where the Church is thought to be by those in whose society\nit is received, of whom it was said, \"They went out from us.\"[636] But\nwhen there was no society of those who so believed, and when the man\nwho received it did not himself hold such belief, but the whole thing\nwas done as a farce, or a comedy, or a jest,--if I were asked whether\nthe baptism which was thus conferred should be approved, I should\ndeclare my opinion that we ought to pray for the declaration of God's\njudgment through the medium of some revelation, seeking it with united\nprayer and earnest groanings of suppliant devotion, humbly deferring\nall the time to the decision of those who were to give their judgment\nafter me, in case they should set forth anything as already known and\ndetermined. And, therefore, how much the more must I be considered to\nhave given my opinion now without prejudice to the utterance of more\ndiligent research or authority higher than my own!\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LIV.--103. But now I think that it is fully time for me to bring\nto their due termination these books also on the subject of baptism, in\nwhich our Lord God has shown to us, through the words of the peaceful\nBishop Cyprian and his brethren who agreed with him, how great is the\nlove which should be felt for catholic unity; so that even where they\nwere otherwise minded until God should reveal even this to them,[637]\nthey should rather bear with those who thought differently from\nthemselves, than sever themselves from them by a wicked schism; whereby\nthe mouths of the Donatists are wholly closed, even if we say nothing\nof the followers of Maximian. For if the wicked pollute the good in\nunity, then even Cyprian himself already found no Church to which he\ncould be joined. But if the wicked do not infect the good in unity,\nthen the sacrilegious Donatist has no ground to set before himself for\nseparation. But if baptism is both possessed and transferred by the\nmultitude of others who work the works of the flesh, of which it is\nsaid, that \"they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of\nGod,\"[638] then it is possessed and transferred also by heretics, who\nare numbered among those works; because they could have transferred it\nhad they remained, and did not lose it by their secession. But men of\nthis kind confer it on their fellows as fruitlessly and uselessly as\nthe others who resemble them, inasmuch as they shall not inherit the\nkingdom of God. And as, when those others are brought into the right\npath, it is not that baptism begins to be present, having been absent\nbefore, but that it begins to profit them, having been already in them;\nso is it the case with heretics as well. Whence Cyprian and those who\nthought with him could not impose limits on the Catholic Church, which\nthey would not mutilate. But in that they were otherwise minded we feel\nno fear, seeing that we too share in their veneration for Peter; yet in\nthat they did not depart from unity we rejoice, seeing that we, like\nthem, are founded on the rock.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[531] Wisd. ix. 15.\n\n[532] Gal. ii. 11.\n\n[533] Mactaris was in Byzacene.\n\n[534] Siccilibba was in Zeugitana.\n\n[535] Gor is variously supposed to be Garra in Mauritania, or Garriana\nin Byzacene.\n\n[536] Utica, the well-known city in Zeugitana, where Cato died.\n\n[537] 1 Tim. v. 22.\n\n[538] Matt. vi. 15.\n\n[539] Germaniciana Nova was in Byzacene.\n\n[540] Rucuma was in Zeugitana.\n\n[541] Gen. i. 4.\n\n[542] The position of Luperciana is unknown.\n\n[543] See 1 Kings xviii. 21.\n\n[544] Matt. vii. 24-27.\n\n[545] Midila was in Numidia.\n\n[546] Marazana was in Byzacene.\n\n[547] Eph. iv. 5.\n\n[548] Nec ... mutati. \"Nec\" is restored by Migne from the MSS.\n\n[549] Eph. v. 27. See _Retract._ ii. 18, quoted on I. xvii. 26.\n\n[550] Bobba was in Mauritania Tingitana.\n\n[551] Rom. iii. 3, 4.\n\n[552] 2 Cor. vi. 16.\n\n[553] Dionysiana was in Byzacene.\n\n[554] John xx. 23.\n\n[555] Tinisa was in Zeugitana.\n\n[556] 1 Cor. xv. 33, 32.\n\n[557] 2 Cor. xi. 3.\n\n[558] Ausnaga was in Zeugitana.\n\n[559] John i. 33.\n\n[560] Victoriana was in Byzacene.\n\n[561] Ps. l. 16, 18.\n\n[562] Matt. vii. 23.\n\n[563] Tucca was in Numidia.\n\n[564] He is alluding to Stephen, bishop of Rome, of whom Cyprian says\nin his seventy-fourth epistle (to Pompeius): \"Why has the perverse\nobstinacy of our brother Stephen burst out to such a point, that\nhe should even contend that sons of God are born of the baptism of\nMarcion, and others who blaspheme against God the Father?\"\n\n[565] Zama was in Numidia, famous for Hannibal's defeat by Scipio.\n\n[566] Ululi and Cibaliana were both in Byzacene.\n\n[567] Tharassa was in Numidia.\n\n[568] Gal. ii. 11.\n\n[569] Telepte, or Thala, was in Byzacene.\n\n[570] John iii. 27.\n\n[571] Timida Regia was in Zeugitana.\n\n[572] Furni was in Zeugitana.\n\n[573] Phil. iii. 15.\n\n[574] Nova was in Zeugitana.\n\n[575] Bulla Regia was an inland town of Numidia.\n\n[576] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. sec. 20.\n\n[577] Membresa was in Zeugitana.\n\n[578] John ix. 31.\n\n[579] Buslaceni is probably Byzacium, the capital of Byzacene, since we\nknow that it was also called Bizica Lucana.\n\n[580] Abitini was in Byzacene.\n\n[581] Aggya, probably the same as Aggiva.\n\n[582] The position of Marcelliana is unknown.\n\n[583] Matt. vi. 24.\n\n[584] Horrea Celiae was a village of Byzacene, ten miles north of\nHadrumetum.\n\n[585] Assura was in Zeugitana.\n\n[586] See Eph. iv. 4-6.\n\n[587] Capsa was in Byzacene.\n\n[588] Rusiccada was at the mouth of the Thapsus, in Numidia.\n\n[589] Cuiculi was in Numidia C\u00e6sariensis.\n\n[590] Hippo Diarrhytus was on the coast of Zeugitana.\n\n[591] Ausafa was in Zeugitana.\n\n[592] Gurgites was in Byzacene.\n\n[593] Lamasba was in Numidia.\n\n[594] 2 Cor. ii. 15.\n\n[595] Mark ix. 38.\n\n[596] Gazaufala was in Numidia.\n\n[597] Tucca was in Mauritania C\u00e6sariensis.\n\n[598] Octavus and Mascula were in Numidia.\n\n[599] Matt. xvi. 18, 19.\n\n[600] Thambei was in Byzacene.\n\n[601] Isa. xxix. 13.\n\n[602] Chullabi, or Cululi, was in Byzacene.\n\n[603] 2 John 10, 11.\n\n[604] 1 Tim. i. 5.\n\n[605] Hos. ii.\n\n[606] 1 Cor. v. 11.\n\n[607] Gemelli was a Roman colony in Numidia.\n\n[608] Matt. xv. 14.\n\n[609] Illuminare; baptism being often called [Greek: ph\u00f4tismos].\n\n[610] Sabrata, Oea, and Leptis Magna, were the three cities whose\ncombination gave its name to Tripolis. The privilege of bishops to\ngive their votes by proxy in a Council appears to have existed in very\nearly times, and is perhaps referable to the example of St. Paul's\ninterference in the Council of Ach\u00e6an Bishops, though absent in body, 1\nCor. v. 4.\n\n[611] Neapolis was in Zeugitana.\n\n[612] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii.\n\n[613] Cypr. _Ep._ lxix. sec. 4.\n\n[614] Phil. i. 15, 17.\n\n[615] Ps. lxviii. 6, from the LXX.\n\n[616] John vi. 51.\n\n[617] Matt. xxvi. 26-29.\n\n[618] Phil. i. 18.\n\n[619] Matt. xvi. 18.\n\n[620] Cant. vi. 9.\n\n[621] Eph. v. 27; cp. _Retract._ ii. 18.\n\n[622] Cant. iv. 12, 13.\n\n[623] Matt. xvi. 19.\n\n[624] Matt. xviii. 17.\n\n[625] Ps. xxvi. 8.\n\n[626] Ps. lxviii. 6, from the LXX.\n\n[627] Ps. cxxii. 1.\n\n[628] Ps. lxxxiv. 4.\n\n[629] Matt. xiii. 23; Luke viii. 15.\n\n[630] 2 Tim. ii. 20.\n\n[631] Eph. iv. 2, 3.\n\n[632] 1 Cor. iii. 17.\n\n[633] 2 Tim. ii. 20. In _Retract._ ii. 18, Augustine says that he\nthinks the meaning of this last passage to be, not as Cyprian took it,\n_Ep._ liv. sec. 2, that the vessels of gold and silver are the good,\nwhich are to honour; the vessels of wood and earth the wicked, which\nare to dishonour: but that the material of the vessels refers to the\noutward appearance of the several members of the Church, and that in\neach class some will be found to honour, and some to dishonour. This\ninterpretation he derives from Tychonius.\n\n[634] 1 John ii. 19.\n\n[635] 1 Cor. xiii. 2.\n\n[636] 1 John ii. 19.\n\n[637] Phil. iii. 15.\n\n[638] Gal. v. 19-21.\n\n\n\n\nTHE THREE BOOKS OF AUGUSTINE,\n\nBISHOP OF HIPPO,\n\nIN ANSWER TO\n\nTHE LETTERS OF PETILIAN, THE DONATIST,\n\nBISHOP OF CIRTA.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK FIRST.\n\n WRITTEN IN THE FORM OF A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE CATHOLICS, IN WHICH\n THE FIRST PORTION OF THE LETTER WHICH PETILIAN HAD WRITTEN TO HIS\n ADHERENTS IS EXAMINED AND REFUTED.\n\n_Augustine, to the well-beloved brethren that belong to the care of our\ndiocese, greeting in the Lord._\n\n\nCHAP. I.--1. Ye know that we have often wished to bring forward into\nopen notoriety, and to confute, not so much from our own arguments as\nfrom theirs, the sacrilegious error of the Donatist heretics; whence it\ncame to pass that we wrote letters even to some of their leaders,--not\nindeed for purposes of communion with them, for of that they had\nalready in times past rendered themselves unworthy by dissenting\nfrom the Church; nor yet in terms of reproach, but of a conciliatory\ncharacter, with the view that, having discussed the question with us\nwhich caused them to break off from the holy communion of the whole\nworld, they might, on consideration of the truth, be willing to be\ncorrected, and might not defend the headstrong perversity of their\npredecessors with a yet more foolish obstinacy, but might be reunited\nto the Catholic stock, so as to bring forth the fruits of charity.\nBut as it is written, \"I am for peace, but when I speak they are for\nwar,\"[639] so they rejected my letters, just as they hate the very\nname of peace, in whose interests they were written. Now, however,\nas I was in the church of Constantina, Absentius being present, with\nmy colleague Fortunatus, his bishop, the brethren brought before my\nnotice a letter, which they said that a bishop of the said schism had\naddressed to his presbyters, as was set forth in the superscription\nof the letter itself. When I had read it, I was so amazed to find\nthat in his very first words he cut away the very roots of the whole\nclaims of his party to communion, that I was unwilling to believe\nthat it could be the letter of a man who, if fame speaks truly, is\nespecially conspicuous among them for learning and eloquence. But some\nof those who were present when I read it, being acquainted with the\nstyle and character of his composition, gradually persuaded me that\nit was undoubtedly his address. I thought, however, that whoever the\nauthor might be, it required refutation, lest the writer should seem to\nhimself, in the company of the inexperienced, to have written something\nof weight against the Catholic Church.\n\n2. The first point, then, that he lays down in his letter is the\nstatement, \"that we find fault with them for the repetition of baptism,\nwhile we ourselves pollute our souls with a laver stained with guilt.\"\nBut to what profit is it that I should reproduce all his insulting\nterms? For, since it is one thing to strengthen proofs, another thing\nto meddle with abusive words by way of refutation, let us rather turn\nour attention to the mode in which he has sought to prove that we\ndo not possess baptism, and that therefore they do not require the\nrepetition of what was already present, but confer what hitherto was\nwanting. For he says: \"What we look for is the conscience of the giver\nto cleanse that of the recipient.\" But supposing the conscience of\nthe giver is concealed from view, and perhaps defiled with sin, how\nwill it be able to cleanse the conscience of the recipient, if, as he\nsays, \"what we look for is the conscience of the giver to cleanse that\nof the recipient?\" For if he should say that it makes no matter to\nthe recipient what amount of evil may lie concealed from view in the\nconscience of the giver, perhaps that ignorance may have such a degree\nof efficacy as this, that a man cannot be defiled by the guilt of the\nconscience of him from whom he receives baptism, so long as he is\nunaware of it. Let it then be granted that the guilty conscience of his\nneighbour cannot defile a man so long as he is unaware of it, but is it\ntherefore clear that it can further cleanse him from his own guilt?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. II.--3. Whence, then, is a man to be cleansed who receives\nbaptism, when the conscience of the giver is polluted without the\nknowledge of him who is to receive it? Especially when he goes on\nto say, \"For he who receives faith from the faithless receives not\nfaith, but guilt.\" There stands before us one that is faithless\nready to baptize, and he who should be baptized is ignorant of his\nfaithlessness: what think you that he will receive? Faith, or guilt?\nIf you answer faith, then you will grant that it is possible that a\nman should receive not guilt, but faith, from him that is faithless;\nand the former saying will be false, that \"he who receives faith\nfrom the faithless receives not faith, but guilt.\" For we find that\nit is possible that a man should receive faith even from one that is\nfaithless, if he be not aware of the faithlessness of the giver. For\nhe does not say, He who receives faith from one that is openly and\nnotoriously faithless; but he says, \"He who receives faith from the\nfaithless receives not faith, but guilt;\" which certainly is false when\na person is baptized by one who hides his faithlessness. But if he\nshall say, Even when the faithlessness of the baptizer is concealed,\nthe recipient receives not faith from him, but guilt, then let them\nrebaptize those who are well known to have been baptized by men who in\ntheir own body have long concealed a life of guilt, but have eventually\nbeen detected, convicted, and condemned.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. III.--For, so long as they escaped detection, they could not\nbestow faith on any whom they baptized, but only guilt, if it be true\nthat whosoever receives faith from one that is faithless receives not\nfaith, but guilt. Let them therefore be baptized by the good, that\nthey may be enabled to receive not guilt, but faith.\n\n4. But how, again, shall they have any certainty about the good who are\nto give them faith, if what we look to is the conscience of the giver,\nwhich is unseen by the eyes of the proposed recipient? Therefore,\naccording to their judgment, the salvation of the spirit is made\nuncertain, so long as in opposition to the holy Scriptures, which say,\n\"It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man,\"[640]\nand, \"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man,\"[641] they remove the\nhope of those who are to be baptized from the Lord their God, and\npersuade them that it should be placed in man; the practical result\nof which is, that their salvation becomes not merely uncertain, but\nactually null and void. For \"salvation belongeth unto the Lord,\"[642]\nand \"vain is the help of man.\"[643] Therefore, whosoever places his\ntrust in man, even in one whom he knows to be just and innocent, is\naccursed. Whence also the Apostle Paul finds fault with those who said\nthey were of Paul, saying, \"Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye\nbaptized in the name of Paul?\"[644]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IV.--5. Wherefore, if they were in error, and would have perished\nhad they not been corrected, who wished to be of Paul, what must we\nsuppose to be the hope of those who wished to be of Donatus? For they\nuse their utmost endeavours to prove that the origin, root, and head\nof the baptized person is none other than the individual by whom he\nis baptized. The result is, that since it is very often a matter of\nuncertainty what kind of man the baptizer is, the hope therefore of the\nbaptized being of uncertain origin, of uncertain root, of uncertain\nhead, is of itself uncertain altogether. And since it is possible\nthat the conscience of the giver may be in such a condition as to\nbe accursed and defiled without the knowledge of the recipient, it\nresults that, being of an accursed origin, accursed root, accursed\nhead, the hope of the baptized may prove to be vain and ungrounded. For\nPetilian expressly states in his epistle, that \"everything consists\nof an origin and root; and if it have not something for a head, it is\nnothing.\" And since by the origin and root and head of the baptized\nperson he wishes to be understood the man by whom he is baptized, what\ngood does the unhappy recipient derive from the fact that he does\nnot know how bad a man his baptizer really is? For he does not know\nthat he himself has a bad head, or actually no head at all. And yet\nwhat hope can a man have, who, whether he is aware of it or not, has\neither a very bad head or no head at all? Can we maintain that his very\nignorance forms a head, when his baptizer is either a bad head or none\nat all? Surely any one who thinks this is unmistakeably without a head.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. V.--6. We ask, therefore, since he says, \"He who receives faith\nfrom the faithless receives not faith, but guilt,\" and immediately adds\nto this the further statement, that \"everything consists of an origin\nand root; and if it have not something for a head, it is nothing;\"--we\nask, I say, in a case where the faithlessness of the baptizer is\nundetected: If, then, the man whom he baptizes receives faith, and not\nguilt; if, then, the baptizer is not his origin and root and head,\nwho is it from whom he receives faith? where is the origin from which\nhe springs? where is the root of which he is a shoot? where the head\nwhich is his starting-point? Can it be, that when he who is baptized\nis unaware of the faithlessness of his baptizer, it is then Christ who\nis the origin and root and head? Alas for human rashness and conceit!\nWhy do you not allow that it is always Christ who gives faith, for\nthe purpose of making a man a Christian by giving it? Why do you not\nallow that Christ is always the origin of the Christian, that the\nChristian always plants his root in Christ, that Christ is the head of\nthe Christian? Do we then maintain that, even when spiritual grace is\ndispensed to those that believe by the hands of a holy and faithful\nminister, it is still not the minister himself who justifies, but that\nOne of whom it is said, that \"He justifieth the ungodly?\"[645] But\nunless we admit this, either the Apostle Paul was the head and origin\nof those whom he had planted, or Apollos the root of those whom he had\nwatered, rather than He who had given them faith in believing; whereas\nthe same Paul says, \"I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the\nincrease: so then neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that\nwatereth, but God that giveth the increase.\"[646] Nor was the apostle\nhimself their root, but rather He who says, \"I am the vine, ye are the\nbranches.\"[647] How, too, could he be their head, when he says, that\n\"we, being many, are one body in Christ,\"[648] and expressly declares\nin many passages that Christ Himself is the head of the whole body?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VI.--7. Wherefore, whether a man receive the sacrament of baptism\nfrom a faithful or a faithless minister, his whole hope is in Christ,\nthat he fall not under the condemnation that \"cursed is he that placeth\nhis hope in man.\" Otherwise, if each man is born again in spiritual\ngrace of the same sort as he by whom he is baptized, and if when he who\nbaptizes him is manifestly a good man, then he himself gives faith,\nhe is himself the origin and root and head of him who is being born;\nwhilst, when the baptizer is faithless without its being known, then\nthe baptized person receives faith from Christ, then he derives his\norigin from Christ, then he is rooted in Christ, then he boasts in\nChrist as his head,--in that case all who are baptized should wish\nthat they might have faithless baptizers, and be ignorant of their\nfaithlessness: for however good their baptizers might have been, Christ\nis certainly beyond comparison better still; and He will then be the\nhead of the baptized, if the faithlessness of the baptizer shall escape\ndetection.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VII.--8. But if it is perfect madness to hold such a view (for\nit is Christ always that justifieth the ungodly, by changing his\nungodliness into Christianity; it is from Christ always that faith\nis received, Christ is always the origin of the regenerate and the\nhead of the Church), what weight, then, will those words have, which\nthoughtless readers value by their sound, without inquiring what\ntheir inner meaning is? For the man who does not content himself with\nhearing the words with his ear, but considers the meaning of the\nphrase, when he hears, \"What we look to is the conscience of the giver,\nthat it may cleanse the conscience of the recipient,\" will answer, The\nconscience of man is often unknown to me, but I am certain of the mercy\nof Christ: when he hears, \"He who receives faith from the faithless\nreceives not faith, but guilt,\" will answer, Christ is not faithless,\nfrom whom I receive not guilt, but faith: when he hears, \"Everything\nconsists of an origin and root; and if it have not something for a\nhead, is nothing,\" will answer, My origin is Christ, my root is Christ,\nmy head is Christ. When he hears, \"Nor does anything well receive\nsecond birth, unless it be born again of good seed,\" he will answer,\nThe seed of which I am born again is the Word of God, which I am warned\nto hear with attention, even though he through whom I hear it does\nnot himself do what he preaches; according to the words of the Lord,\nwhich make me herein safe, \"All whatsoever they bid you observe, that\nobserve and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do\nnot.\"[649] When he hears, \"What perversity must it be, that he who is\nguilty through his own sins should make another free from guilt!\" he\nwill answer, No one makes me free from guilt but He who died for our\nsins, and rose again for our justification. For I believe, not in the\nminister by whose hands I am baptized, but in Him who justifieth the\nungodly, that my faith may be counted unto me for righteousness.[650]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VIII.--9. When he hears, \"Every good tree bringeth good fruit,\nbut a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit: do men gather grapes of\nthorns?\"[651] and, \"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart\nbringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure\nbringeth forth evil things;\"[652] he will answer, This therefore is\ngood fruit, that I should be a good tree, that is, a good man; that\nI should show forth good fruit, that is, good works. But this will\nbe given to me, not by him that planteth, nor by him that watereth,\nbut by God that giveth the increase. For if the good tree be the good\nbaptizer, so that his good fruit should be the man whom he baptizes,\nthen any one who has been baptized by a bad man, even if his\nwickedness be not manifest, will have no power to be good, for he is\nsprung from an evil tree. For a good tree is one thing; a tree whose\nquality is concealed, but yet bad, is another. Or if, when the tree is\nbad, but hides its badness, then whosoever is baptized by it is born\nnot of it, but of Christ; then they are justified with more perfect\nholiness who are baptized by the bad who hide their evil nature, than\nthey who are baptized by the manifestly good.[653]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IX.--10. Again, when he hears, \"He that is washed by one dead,\nhis washing profiteth him nought,\"[654] he will answer, \"Christ, being\nraised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over\nHim:\"[655] of whom it is said, \"The same is He which baptizeth with the\nHoly Ghost.\"[656] But they are baptized by the dead, who are baptized\nin the temples of idols. For even they themselves do not suppose that\nthey receive the sanctification which they look for from their priests,\nbut from their gods; and since these were men, and are dead in such\nsort as to be now neither upon earth nor in the rest of heaven,[657]\nthey are truly baptized by the dead: and the same answer will hold good\nif there be any other way in which these words of holy Scripture may\nbe examined, and profitably discussed and understood. For if in this\nplace I understand a baptizer who is a sinner, the same absurdity will\nfollow, that whosoever has been baptized by an ungodly man, even though\nhis ungodliness be undiscovered, is yet washed in vain, as though\nbaptized by one dead. For he does not say, He that is baptized by one\nmanifestly dead, but absolutely, \"by one dead.\" And if they consider\nany man to be dead whom they know to be a sinner, but any one in their\ncommunion to be alive, even though he manages most adroitly to conceal\na life of wickedness, in the first place with accursed pride they claim\nmore for themselves than they ascribe to God, that when a sinner is\nunveiled to them he should be called dead, but when he is known by\nGod he is held to be alive. In the next place, if that sinner is to\nbe called dead who is known to be such by men, what answer will they\nmake about Optatus, whom they were afraid to condemn though they had\nlong known his wickedness? Why are those who were baptized by him not\nsaid to have been baptized by one dead? Did he live because faith was\nin his company?[658]--an elegant and well-turned saying of some early\ncolleagues of their own, which they themselves are wont to quote with\npride, not understanding that at the death of the haughty Goliath it\nwas his own sword by which his head was cut off.[659]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. X.--11. Lastly, if they are willing to give the name of dead\nneither to the wicked man whose sin is hidden, nor to him whose sin\nis manifest, but who has yet not been condemned by them, but only to\nhim whose sin is manifest and condemned, so that whosoever is baptized\nby him is himself baptized by the dead, and his washing profits\nhim nothing; what are we to say of those whom their own party have\ncondemned \"by the unimpeachable voice of a general Council,\"[660]\ntogether with Maximianus and the others who ordained him,--I mean\nFelicianus of Musti, and Pr\u00e6textatus of Assura, of whom I speak in the\nmeantime, who are counted among the twelve ordainers of Maximianus,\nas erecting an altar in opposition to their altar at which Primianus\nstands? They at any rate are reckoned by them among the dead. To this\nwe have the express testimony of the noble decree of that Council of\ntheirs which formerly called forth shouts of unreserved[661] applause\nwhen it was recited among them for the purpose of being decreed, but\nwhich would now be received in silence if we should chance to recite\nit in their ears; whereas they should rather have been slow at first\nto rejoice in its eloquence, lest they should afterwards come to mourn\nover it when its credit was destroyed. For in it they speak in the\nfollowing terms of the followers of Maximianus, who were shut out from\ntheir communion: \"Seeing that the shipwrecked members of certain men\nhave been dashed by the waves of truth upon the sharp rocks, and after\nthe fashion of the Egyptians, the shores are covered with the bodies\nof the dying; whose punishment is intensified in death itself, since\nafter their life has been wrung from them by the avenging waters, they\nfail to find so much as burial.\" In such gross terms, indeed, do they\ninsult those who were guilty of schism from their body, that they call\nthem dead and unburied; but certainly they ought to have wished that\nthey might obtain burial, if it were only that they might not have\nseen Optatus Gildonianus advancing with a military force, and like a\nsweeping wave that dashes beyond its fellows, sucking back Felicianus\nand Pr\u00e6textatus once again within their pale, out of the multitude of\nbodies lying unburied on the shore.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XI.--12. Of these I would ask, whether by coming to their sea\nthey were restored to life, or whether they are still dead there? For\nif still they are none the less corpses, then the laver cannot in\nany way profit those who are baptized by such dead men. But if they\nhave been restored to life, yet how can the laver profit those whom\nthey baptized before outside, while they were lying without life, if\nthe passage, \"He who is baptized by the dead, of what profit is his\nbaptism to him,\" is to be understood in the way in which they think?\nFor those whom Pr\u00e6textatus and Felicianus baptized while they were\nyet in communion with Maximianus are now retained among them, sharing\nin their communion, without being again baptized, together with the\nsame men who baptized them--I mean Felicianus and Pr\u00e6textatus: taking\noccasion by which fact, if it were not that they cherish the beginning\nof their own obstinacy, instead of considering the certain end of their\nspiritual salvation, they would certainly be bound to vigilance, and\nought to recover the soundness of their senses, so as to breathe again\nin Catholic peace; if only, laying aside the swelling of their pride,\nand overcoming the madness of their stubbornness, they would take heed\nand see what monstrous sacrilege it is to curse the baptism of the\nforeign churches, which we have learned from the sacred books were\nplanted in primitive times, and to receive the baptism of the followers\nof Maximianus, whom they have condemned with their own lips.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XII.--13. But our brethren themselves, the sons of the aforesaid\nchurches, were both ignorant at the time, and still are ignorant, of\nwhat has been done so many years ago in Africa: wherefore they at any\nrate cannot be defiled by the charges which have been brought, on the\npart of the Donatists, against the Africans, without even knowing\nwhether they were true. But the Donatists having openly separated and\ndivided themselves off, although they are even said to have taken part\nin the ordination of Primianus, yet condemned the said Primianus,\nordained another bishop in opposition to Primianus, baptized outside\nthe communion of Primianus, rebaptized after Primianus, and returned\nto Primianus with their disciples who had been baptized by themselves\noutside, and never rebaptized by any one inside. If such a union\nwith the party of Maximianus does not pollute the Donatists, how can\nthe mere report concerning the Africans pollute the foreigners? If\nthe lips meet together without offence in the kiss of peace, which\nreciprocally condemned each other, why is each man that is condemned\nby them in the churches very far removed by the intervening sea from\ntheir jurisdiction, not saluted with a kiss as a faithful Catholic, but\ndriven forth with a blast of indignation as an impious pagan? And if,\nin receiving the followers of Maximianus, they made peace in behalf of\ntheir own unity, far be it from us to find fault with them, save that\nthey cut their own throats by their decision, that whereas, to preserve\nunity in their schism, they collect together again what had been parted\nfrom themselves, they yet scorn to reunite their schism itself to the\ntrue unity of the Church.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIII.--14. If, in the interests of the unity of the party of\nDonatus, no one rebaptizes those who were baptized in a wicked schism,\nand men, who are guilty of a crime of such enormity as to be compared\nby them in their Council to those ancient authors of schism whom the\nearth swallowed up alive,[662] are either unpunished after separation,\nor restored again to their position after condemnation; why is it\nthat, in defence of the unity of Christ, which is spread throughout\nthe whole inhabited world, of which it has been predicted that it\nshall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends\nof the earth,[663]--a prediction which seems from actual proof to be\nin process of fulfilment; why is it that, in defence of this unity,\nthey do not acknowledge the true and universal law of that inheritance\nwhich rings forth from the books that are common to us all: \"I shall\ngive Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of\nthe earth for Thy possession?\"[664] In behalf of the unity of Donatus,\nthey are not compelled to call together again what they have scattered\nabroad, but are warned to hear the cry of the Scriptures: why will they\nnot understand that they meet with such treatment through the mercy\nof God, that since they brought false charges against the Catholic\nChurch, by contact as it were with which they were unwilling to defile\ntheir own excessive sanctity, they should be compelled by the sovereign\nauthority of Optatus Gildonianus to receive again and associate with\nthemselves true offences of the greatest enormity, condemned by the\ntrue voice, as they say, of their own general Council? Let them at\nlength perceive how they are filled with the true crimes of their own\nparty, after inventing fictitious crimes wherewith to charge their\nbrethren, when, even if the charges had been true, they ought at length\nto feel how much should be endured in the cause of peace, and in behalf\nof Christ's peace to return to a Church which did not condemn crimes\nundiscovered, if on behalf of the peace of Donatus they were ready to\npardon such as were condemned.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIV.--15. Therefore, brethren, let it suffice us that they should\nbe admonished and corrected on the one point of their conduct in\nthe matter of the followers of Maximianus. We do not ransack ancient\narchives, we do not bring to light the contents of time-honoured\nlibraries, we do not publish our proofs to distant lands; but we bring\nin, as arbiters betwixt us, all the proofs derived from our ancestors,\nwe spread abroad the witness that cries aloud throughout the world.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XV.--16. Look at the states of Musti and Assura: there are many\nstill remaining in this life and in this province who have severed\nthemselves, and many from whom they have severed themselves; many\nwho have erected an altar, and many against whom that altar has been\nerected; many who have condemned, and many who have been condemned;\nwho have received, and who have been received; who have been baptized\noutside, and not baptized again within: if all these things in the\ncause of unity defile, let the defiled hold their tongues; if these\nthings in the cause of unity do not defile, let them submit to\ncorrection, and terminate their strife.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVI.--17. As for the words which follow in his letter, the\nwriter himself could scarcely fail to laugh at them, when, having made\nan unlearned and lying use of the proof in which he quotes the words\nof Scripture, \"He who is washed by the dead, what profiteth him his\nwashing?\" he endeavours to show to us \"how far a _traditor_ being still\nin life may be accounted dead.\" And then he goes on further to say:\n\"That man is dead who has not been worthy to be born again in true\nbaptism; he is likewise dead, who, although born in genuine baptism,\nhas joined himself to a _traditor_.\" If, therefore, the followers of\nMaximianus are not dead, why do the Donatists say, in their general\nCouncil, that \"the shores are covered with their dying bodies?\" But if\nthey are dead, whence is there life in the baptism which they gave?\nAgain, if Maximianus is not dead, why is a man baptized again who had\nbeen baptized by him? But if he is dead, why is not also Felicianus of\nMusti dead with him, who ordained him, and might have died beyond the\nsea with some African colleague or another who was a _traditor_? Or, if\nhe also is himself dead, how is there life with him in your society in\nthose who, having been baptized outside by him who is dead, have never\nbeen baptized again within?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVII.--18. Then he further adds: \"Both are without the life of\nbaptism, both he who never had it at all, and he who had it but has\nlost it.\" He therefore never had it, whom Felicianus, the follower of\nMaximianus or Pr\u00e6textatus, baptized outside; and these men themselves\nhave lost what once they had. When, therefore, these were received\nwith their followers, who gave to those whom they baptized what\npreviously they did not have? and who restored to themselves what they\nhad lost? But they took away with them the form of baptism, but lost\nthe veritable excellence of baptism by their wicked schism. Why do you\nrepudiate the form itself, which is holy at all times and all places,\nin the Catholics whom you have not heard, whilst you are willing to\nacknowledge it in the followers of Maximianus whom you have punished?\n\n19. But whatever he seemed to himself to say by way of accusation\nabout the traitor Judas, I see not how it can concern us, who are\nnot proved by them to have betrayed our trust; nor, indeed, if such\ntreason were proved on the part of any who before our time have\ndied in our communion, would that treason in any way defile us by\nwhom it was disavowed, and to whom it was displeasing. For if they\nthemselves are not defiled by offences condemned by themselves, and\nafterwards condoned, how much less can we be defiled by what we\nhave disavowed so soon as we have heard of them! However weighty,\ntherefore, his invective against _traditors_, let him be assured that\nthey are condemned by me in precisely the same terms. But yet I make\na distinction; for he accuses one on my side who has long been dead\nwithout having been condemned in any investigation made by me. I point\nto a man adhering closely to his side, who had been condemned by him,\nor at least had been separated by a sacrilegious schism, and whom he\nreceived again with undiminished honour.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVIII.--20. He says: \"You who are a most abandoned _traditor_\nhave come out in the character of a persecutor and murderer of us who\nkeep the law.\" If the followers of Maximianus kept the law when they\nseparated from you, then we may acknowledge you as a keeper of the\nlaw, when you are separated from the Church spread abroad throughout\nthe world. But if you raise the question of persecutions, I at once\nreply: If you have suffered anything unjustly, this does not concern\nthose who, though they disapprove of men who act in such a way,[665]\nyet endure them for the peace that is in unity, in a manner deserving\nof all praise. Wherefore you have nothing to bring up against the\nLord's wheat, who endure the chaff that is among them till the last\nwinnowing, from whom you never would have separated yourself, had you\nnot shown yourself lighter than chaff by flying away under the blast of\ntemptation before the coming of the Winnower. But not to leave this one\nexample, which the Lord hath thrust back in their teeth, to close the\nmouths of these men, for their correction if they will show themselves\nto be wise, but for their confusion if they remain in their folly: if\nthose are more just that suffer persecution than those who inflict\nit, then those same followers of Maximianus are the more just, whose\nbasilica was utterly overthrown, and who were grievously maltreated by\nthe military following of Optatus, when the mandates of the proconsul,\nordering that all of them should be shut out of the basilicas, were\nmanifestly procured by the followers of Primianus. Wherefore, if, when\nthe emperors hated their communion, they ventured on such violent\nmeasures for the persecution of the followers of Maximianus, what would\nthey do if they were enabled to work their will by being in communion\nwith kings? And if they did such things as I have mentioned for the\ncorrection of the wicked, why are they surprised that Catholic emperors\nshould decree with greater power that they should be worked upon\nand corrected who endeavour to rebaptize the whole Christian world,\nwhen they have no ground for differing from them? seeing that they\nthemselves bear witness that it is right to bear with wicked men even\nwhere they have true charges to bring against them in the cause of\npeace, since they received those whom they had themselves condemned,\nacknowledging the honours conferred among themselves, and the baptism\nadministered in schism. Let them at length consider what treatment they\ndeserve at the hands of the Christian powers of the world, who are\nthe enemies of Christian unity throughout the world. If, therefore,\ncorrection be bitter, yet let them not fail to be ashamed; lest, when\nthey begin to read what they themselves have written, they be overcome\nwith laughter, when they do not find in themselves what they wish to\nfind in others, and fail to recognise[666] in their own case what they\nfind fault with in their neighbours.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIX.--21. What, then, does he mean by quoting in his letter the\nwords with which our Lord addressed the Jews: \"Wherefore, behold, I\nsend unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye\nshall kill and crucify, and some of them shall ye scourge\"?[667] For\nif by the wise men and the scribes and the prophets they would have\nthemselves be understood, while we were as it were the persecutors of\nthe prophets and wise men, why are they unwilling to speak with us,\nseeing they are sent to us? For, indeed, if the man who wrote that\nepistle which we are at this present moment answering, were to be\npressed by us to acknowledge it as his own, stamping its authenticity\nwith his signature, I question much whether he would do it, so\nthoroughly afraid are they of our possessing any words of theirs. For\nwhen we were anxious by some means or other to procure the latter\npart of this same letter, because those from whom we obtained it were\nunable to describe the whole of it, no one who was asked for it was\nwilling to give it to us, so soon as they knew that we were making a\nreply to the portion which we had. Therefore, when they read how the\nLord says to the prophet, \"Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like\na trumpet, and show my people their transgression,\"[668] these men\nwho are sent to us as prophets have no fears on this score, but take\nevery precaution that their crying may not be heard by us: which they\ncertainly would not fear if what they spoke of us were true. But their\napprehension is not groundless, as it is written in the Psalm, \"The\nmouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped.\"[669] For if the reason\nthat they do not receive our baptism be that we are a generation of\nvipers--to use the expression in his epistle--why did they receive the\nbaptism of the followers of Maximianus, of whom their Council speaks\nin the following terms: \"Because the enfolding of a poisoned womb has\nlong concealed the baneful offspring of a viper's seed, and the moist\nconcretions of conceived iniquity have by slow heat flowed forth into\nthe members of serpents?\" Is it not therefore of themselves also that\nit is said in the same Council, \"The poison of asps is under their\nlips, their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet are\nswift to shed blood; destruction and unhappiness is in their ways, and\nthe way of peace have they not known\"?[670] And yet they now hold these\nmen themselves in undiminished honour, and receive within their body\nthose whom these men had baptized without.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XX.--22. Wherefore all this about the generation of vipers,\nand the poison of asps under their lips, and all the other things\nwhich they have said against those which have not known the way of\npeace, are really, if they would but speak the truth, more strictly\napplicable to themselves, since for the sake of the peace of Donatus\nthey received the baptism of these men, in respect of which they used\nthe expressions quoted above in the wording of the decree of the\nCouncil; but the baptism of the Church of Christ dispersed throughout\nthe world, from which peace itself came into Africa, they repudiate,\nto the sacrilegious wounding of the peace of Christ. Which, therefore,\nare rather the false prophets, who come in sheep's clothing, whilst\ninwardly they are ravening wolves,[671]--they who either fail to detect\nthe wicked in the Catholic Church, and communicate with them in all\ninnocence, or else for the sake of the peace of unity are bearing with\nthose whom they cannot separate from the threshing-floor of the Lord\nbefore the Winnower shall come; or they who do in schism what they\ncensure in the Catholic Church, and receive in their own separation,\nwhen manifest to all and condemned by their own voice, what they\nprofess that they shun in the unity of the Church when it calls for\ntoleration, and does not even certainly exist?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXI.--23. Lastly, it has been said, as he himself has also\nquoted, \"Ye shall know them by their fruits:\"[672] let us therefore\nexamine into their fruits. You bring up against our predecessors their\ndelivery of the sacred books. This very charge we urge with greater\nprobability against their accusers themselves. And not to carry our\nsearch too far, in the same city of Constantina your predecessors\nordained Silvanus bishop at the very outset of his schism. He,\nwhile he was still a sub-deacon, was most unmistakeably entered as\na _traditor_ in the archives of the city. If you on your side bring\nforward documents against our predecessors, all that we ask is equal\nterms,--that we should either believe both to be true or both to be\nfalse. If both are true, you are unquestionably guilty of schism, who\nhave pretended that you avoid offences in the communion of the whole\nworld, which you had commonly among you in the small fragment of your\nown sect. But again, if both are false, you are unquestionably guilty\nof schism, who, on account of the false charges of giving up the sacred\nbooks, are staining yourselves with the heinous offence of severance\nfrom the Church. But if we have something to urge in accusation while\nyou have nothing, or if our charges are true whilst yours are false, it\nis no longer matter of discussion how thoroughly your mouths are closed.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXII.--24. What if the holy and true Church of Christ were to\nconvince and overcome you, even if we held no documents in support of\nour cause, or only such as were false, while you had possession of\nsome genuine proofs of delivery of the sacred books? what would then\nremain for you, except that, if you would, you should show your love\nof peace, or otherwise should hold your tongues?[673] For whatever, in\nthat case, you might bring forward in evidence, I should be able to say\nwith the greatest ease and the most perfect truth, that then you are\nbound to prove as much to the full and catholic unity of the Church\nalready spread abroad and established throughout so many nations, to\nthe end that you should remain within, and that those whom you convict\nshould be expelled. And if you have endeavoured to do this, certainly\nyou have not been able to make good your proof; and being vanquished or\nenraged, you have separated yourselves, with all the heinous guilt of\nsacrilege, from the guiltless men who could not condemn on insufficient\nproof. But if you have not even endeavoured to do this, then with most\naccursed and unnatural blindness you have cut yourselves off from the\nwheat of Christ, which grows throughout His whole fields, that is,\nthroughout the whole world, until the end, because you have taken\noffence at a few tares in Africa.[674]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIII.--25. In conclusion, the Testament is said to have been\ngiven to the flames by certain men in the time of persecution. Now\nlet its lessons be read, from whatever source it has been brought to\nlight. Certainly in the beginning of the promises of the Testator this\nis found to have been said to Abraham: \"In thy seed shall all the\nnations of the earth be blessed;\"[675] and this saying is truthfully\ninterpreted by the apostle: \"To thy seed,\" he says, \"which is\nChrist.\"[676] No betrayal on the part of any man has made the promises\nof God of none effect. Hold communion with all the nations of the\nearth, and then you may boast that you have preserved the Testament\nfrom the destruction of the flames. But if you will not do so, which\nparty is the rather to be believed to have insisted on the burning of\nthe Testament, save that which will not assent to its teaching when\nit is brought to light? For how much more certainly, without any\nsacrilegious rashness, can he be held to have joined the company of\n_traditors_ who now persecutes with his tongue the Testament which\nthey are said to have persecuted with the flames! You charge us with\nthe persecution: the true wheat of the Lord answers you, \"Either it\nwas done justly, or it was done by the chaff that was among us.\" What\nhave you to say to this? You object that we have no baptism: the same\ntrue wheat of the Lord answers you, that the form of the sacrament\neven within the Church fails to profit some, as it did no good to\nSimon Magus when he was baptized, much more it fails to profit those\nwho are without. Yet that baptism remains in them when they depart, is\nproved from this, that it is not restored to them when they return.\nNever, therefore, except by the greatest shamelessness, will you be\nable to cry out against that wheat, or to call them false prophets clad\nin sheep's clothing, whilst inwardly they are ravening wolves; since\neither they do not know the wicked in the unity of the Catholic Church,\nor for the sake of unity bear with those whom they know.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIV.--26. But let us turn to the consideration of your fruits.\nI pass over the tyrannous exercise of authority in the cities, and\nespecially in the estates of other men; I pass over the madness of the\nCircumcelliones, and the sacrilegious and profane adoration of the\nbodies of those who had thrown themselves of their own accord over\nprecipices, the revellings of drunkenness, and the ten years' groaning\nof the whole of Africa under the cruelty of the one man Optatus\nGildonianus: all this I pass over, because there are certain among you\nwho cry out that these things are, and have ever been, displeasing to\nthem. But they say that they bore with them in the cause of peace,\nbecause they could not put them down; wherein they condemn themselves\nby their own judgment: for if indeed they felt such love for peace,\nthey never would have rent in twain the bond of unity. For what madness\ncan be greater, than to be willing to abandon peace in the midst of\npeace itself, and to be anxious to retain it in the midst of discord?\nTherefore, for the sake of those who pretend that they do not see the\nevils of this same faction of Donatus, which all men see and blame,\nignoring them even to the extent of saying of Optatus himself, \"What\ndid he do?\" \"Who accused him?\" \"Who convicted him?\" \"I know nothing,\"\n\"I saw nothing,\" \"I heard nothing,\"--for the sake of these, I say, who\npretend that they are ignorant of what is generally notorious, the\nparty of Maximianus has arisen, through whom their eyes are opened, and\ntheir mouths are closed: for they openly sever themselves; they openly\nerect altar against altar; they are openly in a Council[677] called\nsacrilegious and vipers, and swift to shed blood, to be compared with\nDathan and Abiram and Korah, and are condemned in cutting terms of\nabhorrence; and are as openly received again with undiminished honours\nin company with those whom they have baptized. Such are the fruits of\nthese men, who do all this for the peace of Donatus, that they may\nclothe themselves in sheep's clothing, and reject the peace of Christ\nthroughout the world that they may be ravening wolves within the fold.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXV.--27. I think that I have left unanswered none of the\nstatements in the letter of Donatus, so far at least as relates to what\nI have been able to find in that part of which we are in possession. I\nshould be glad if they would produce the other part as well, in case\nthere should be anything in it which does not admit of refutation.\nBut as for these answers which we have made to him, with the help of\nGod, I admonish your Christian love, that ye not only communicate them\nto those who seek for them, but also force them on those who show no\nlonging for them. Let them answer anything they will; and if they\nshrink from sending a reply to us, let them at any rate send letters\nto their own party, only not forbidding that the contents should be\nshown to us. For if they do this, they show their fruits most openly,\nby which they are proved to demonstration to be ravening wolves\ndisguised in sheep's clothing, in that they secretly lay snares for\nour sheep, and openly shrink from giving any answer to the shepherds.\nWe only lay to their charge the sin of schism, in which they are all\nmost thoroughly involved,--not the offences of certain of their party,\nwhich some of them declare to be displeasing to themselves. If they, on\nthe other hand, abstain from charging us with the sins of other men,\nthey have nothing they can lay to our charge, and therefore they are\nwholly unable to defend themselves from the charge of schism; because\nit is by a wicked severance that they have separated themselves from\nthe threshing-floor of the Lord, and from the innocent company of the\ncorn that is growing throughout the world, on account of charges which\neither are false, and invented by themselves, or even if true, involve\nthe chaff alone.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVI.--28. But it is possible that you may expect of me that I\nshould go on to refute what he has introduced about Manich\u00e6us. Now,\nin respect of this, the only thing that offends me is that he has\ncensured a most pestilent and pernicious error--I mean the heresy of\nthe Manich\u00e6ans--in terms of wholly inadequate severity, if indeed\nthey amount to censure at all, though the Catholic Church has broken\ndown his defences by the strongest evidence of truth.[678] For the\ninheritance of Christ, established in all nations, is secure against\nheresies which have been shut out from the inheritance; but, as the\nLord says, \"How can Satan cast out Satan?\"[679] so how can the error of\nthe Donatists have power to overthrow the error of the Manich\u00e6ans?[680]\n\nCHAP. XXVII.--29. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, though that error is\nexposed and overcome in many ways, and dare not oppose the truth on\nany show of reason whatsoever, but only with the unblushing obstinacy\nof impudence; yet, not to load your memory with a multitude of proofs,\nI would have you bear in mind this one action of the followers of\nMaximianus, confront them with this one fact, thrust this in their\nteeth, to make them hold their treacherous tongues, destroy their\ncalumny with this, as it were a three-pronged dart destroying a\nthree-headed monster. They charge us with betrayal of the sacred books;\nthey charge us with persecution; they charge us with false baptism:\nto all their charges make the same answer about the followers of\nMaximianus. For they think that the proofs are lost which show that\ntheir predecessors gave the sacred volumes to the flames; but this\nat least they cannot hide, that they have received with unimpaired\nhonours those who were stained with the sacrilege of schism. Also they\nthink that those most violent persecutions are hidden, which they\ndirect against any who oppose them whenever they are able; but whilst\nspiritual persecution surpasses bodily persecution, they received with\nundiminished honours the followers of Maximianus, whom they themselves\npersecuted in the body, and of whom they themselves said, \"Their feet\nare swift to shed blood;\"[681] and this at any rate they cannot hide.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVIII. Finally, they think that the question of baptism is\nhidden, with which they deceive wretched souls. But whilst they say\nthat none have baptism who were baptized outside the communion of the\none Church, they received with undiminished honours the followers\nof Maximianus, with those whom they baptized in schism outside the\nDonatist communion, and this at least they cannot hide.\n\n30. \"But these things,\" they say, \"bring no pollution in the cause of\npeace; and it is well to bend to mercy the rigour of extreme severity,\nthat broken branches may be grafted in anew.\" Accordingly, in this way\nthe whole question is settled, by defeat in them, by the impossibility\nof defeat for us; for if the name of peace be assumed for even the\nfaintest shadow of defence to justify the bearing with wicked men\nin schism, then beyond all doubt the violation of true peace itself\ninvolves detestable guilt, with nothing to be said in its defence\nthroughout the unity of the world.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIX.--31. These things, brethren, I would have you retain as the\nbasis of your action and preaching with untiring gentleness: love men,\nwhile you destroy errors; take of the truth without pride; strive for\nthe truth without cruelty. Pray for those whom you refute and convince\nof error. For the prophet prays to God for mercy upon such as these,\nsaying, \"Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek Thy name, O\nLord.\"[682] And this, indeed, the Lord has done already, so as to fill\nthe faces of the followers of Maximianus with shame in the sight of all\nmankind: it only remains that they should learn how to blush to their\nsoul's health. For so they will be able to seek the name of the Lord,\nfrom which they are turned away to their utter destruction, whilst they\nexalt their own name in the place of that of Christ. May ye live and\npersevere in Christ, and be multiplied, and abound in the love of God,\nand in love towards one another, and towards all men, brethren well\nbeloved.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[639] Ps. cxx. 7.\n\n[640] Ps. cxviii. 8.\n\n[641] Jer. xvii. 5.\n\n[642] Ps. iii. 8.\n\n[643] Ps. lx. 11.\n\n[644] 1 Cor. i. 13.\n\n[645] Rom. iv. 5.\n\n[646] 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.\n\n[647] John xv. 5.\n\n[648] Rom. xii. 5.\n\n[649] Matt. xxiii. 3.\n\n[650] Rom. iv. 25, 5.\n\n[651] Matt. vii. 17, 16.\n\n[652] Matt. xii. 35.\n\n[653] See below, Book II. vi. 12.\n\n[654] So the Donatists commonly quoted Ecclus. xxxiv. 25, which is\nmore correctly rendered in our version, \"He that washeth himself after\nthe touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth\nhis washing?\" Augustine (_Retract._ i. 21, sec. 3) says that the\nmisapplication was rendered possible by the omission in many African\nMss. of the second clause, \"and touches it again.\"\n\n[655] Rom. vi. 9.\n\n[656] John i. 33.\n\n[657] Cp. _Contra Cresconium_, Book II. xxv. 30: \"Ita mortui sunt, ut\nneque super terras, neque in requie sanctorum sint.\"\n\n[658] Migne suggests as an emendation, \"quod Deus illi comes erat,\" as\nin II. xxiii. 53, xxxvii. 87, etc.\n\n[659] 1 Sam. xvii. 51.\n\n[660] That of Bagai. See on _de Bapt._ I. v. 7.\n\n[661] Ore latissimo acclamaverunt. The Louvain edition has \"l\u00e6tissimo,\"\nboth here and _Contra Crescon._ IV. xli. 48.\n\n[662] Num. xvi. 31-35.\n\n[663] Ps. lxxii. 8.\n\n[664] Ps. ii. 8.\n\n[665] Qui talia facientes quamvis improbent. A comparison of the\nexplanation of this passage in _Contra Crescon._ III. xli. 45, shows\nthe probability of Migne's conjecture, \"quamvis improbe,\" \"who endure\nthe men that act in such a way, however monstrous their conduct may be.\"\n\n[666] Nec in se agnoscunt. The reading of the Louvain edition gives\nbetter sense, \"Et in se agnoscunt,\" \"and discover in themselves.\"\n\n[667] Matt. xxiii. 34.\n\n[668] Isa. lviii. 1.\n\n[669] Ps. lxiii. 11.\n\n[670] Ps. xiv. 5-7, from the LXX. only.\n\n[671] Matt. vii. 15.\n\n[672] Matt. vii. 16.\n\n[673] \"Obmutescatis\" is the most probable conjecture of Migne for\n\"obtumescatis,\" which could only mean, \"you should swell with\nconfusion.\"\n\n[674] See below, II. xvi. 36, III. lvii. 69, lviii. 70; and _Contra\nCresconium_, III. xxix. 33, IV. lvi. 66.\n\n[675] Gen. xxii. 18.\n\n[676] Gal. iii. 16.\n\n[677] That of Bagai.\n\n[678] Veritatis fortissimis documentis Catholica expugnat; and so the\nMSS. The earlier editors, apparently not understanding the omission of\n\"ecclesia,\" read \"veritas.\"\n\n[679] Mark iii. 23.\n\n[680] See II. xviii. 40, 41.\n\n[681] Ps. xiv. 6, from the LXX. only.\n\n[682] Ps. lxxxiii. 16.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK SECOND.[683]\n\n IN WHICH AUGUSTINE REPLIES TO ALL THE SEVERAL STATEMENTS IN THE LETTER\n OF PETILIANUS, AS THOUGH DISPUTING WITH AN ADVERSARY FACE TO FACE.\n\n\nCHAP. I.--1. That we made a full and sufficient answer to the first\npart of the letter of Petilianus, which was all that we had been able\nto find, will be remembered by all who were able to read or hear what\nwe replied. But since the whole of it was afterwards found and copied\nby our brethren, and sent to us with the view that we should answer\nit as a whole, this task was one which our pen could not escape,--not\nthat he says anything new in it, to which answer has not been already\nmade in many ways and at various times; but still, on account of the\nbrethren of slower comprehension, who, when they read a matter in\nany place, cannot always refer to everything that has been said upon\nthe same subject, I will comply with those who urge me by all means\nto reply to every point, and that as though we were carrying on the\ndiscussion face to face in the form of a dialogue. I will set down\nthe words of his epistle under his name, and I will give the answer\nunder my own name, as though it had all been taken down by reporters\nwhile we were debating. And so there will be no one who can complain\neither that I have passed anything over, or that they have been unable\nto understand it for want of distinction between the parties to the\ndiscussion; at the same time that the Donatists themselves, who are\nunwilling to argue the question in our presence, as is shown by the\nletters which they have circulated among their party, may thus not fail\nto find the truth answering them point by point, just as though they\nwere discussing the matter with us face to face.\n\n2. In the very beginning of the letter PETILIANUS said: \"Petilianus,\na bishop, to his well-beloved brethren, fellow-priests, and deacons,\nappointed ministers with us throughout our diocese in the gospel,\ngrace be to you and peace, from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus\nChrist.\"\n\n3. AUGUSTINE answered: I acknowledge the apostolic greeting. You see\nwho you are that employ it, but see from what source you have learned\nwhat you say. For in these terms Paul salutes the Romans, and in\nthe same terms the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the\nColossians, the Philippians, the Thessalonians. What madness is it,\ntherefore, to be unwilling to share the salvation of peace with those\nvery Churches in whose epistles you learned its form of salutation?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. II.--4. PETILIANUS said: \"Those who have polluted their souls\nwith a guilty laver, under the name of baptism, reproach us with\nbaptizing twice,--than whose obscenity, indeed, any kind of filth is\nmore cleanly, seeing that through a perversion of cleanliness they have\ncome to be made fouler by their washing.\"\n\n5. AUGUSTINE answered: We are neither made fouler by our washing, nor\ncleaner by yours. But when the water of baptism is given to any one in\nthe name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it is\nneither ours nor yours, but His of whom it was said to John, \"Upon whom\nthou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is\nHe which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.\"[684]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. III.--6. PETILIANUS said: \"For what we look to is the conscience\nof the giver, to cleanse that of the recipient.\"\n\n7. AUGUSTINE answered: We therefore need have no anxiety about the\nconscience of Christ. But if you assert any man to be the giver, be\nhe who he may, there will be no certainty about the cleansing of the\nrecipient, because there is no certainty about the conscience of the\ngiver.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IV.--8. PETILIANUS said: \"For he who receives faith from the\nfaithless, receives not faith but guilt.\"\n\n9. AUGUSTINE answered: Christ is not faithless, from whom the\nfaithful man receives not guilt but faith. For he believeth on Him\nthat justifieth the ungodly, that his faith may be counted for\nrighteousness.[685]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. V.--10. PETILIANUS said: \"For everything consists of an origin\nand root; and if it have not something for a head, it is nothing: nor\ndoes anything well receive second birth, unless it be born again of\ngood seed.\"\n\n11. AUGUSTINE answered: Why will you put yourself forward in the room\nof Christ, when you will not place yourself under Him? He is the\norigin, and root, and head of him who is being born, and in Him we\nfeel no fear, as we must in any man, whoever he may be, lest he should\nprove to be false and of abandoned character, and we should be found\nto be sprung from an abandoned source, growing from an abandoned root,\nunited to an abandoned head. For what man can feel secure about a man,\nwhen it is written, \"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man?\"[686] But\nthe seed of which we are born again is the word of God, that is, the\ngospel. Whence the apostle says, \"For in Christ Jesus I have begotten\nyou through the gospel.\"[687] And yet he allows even those to preach\nthe gospel who were preaching it not in purity, and rejoices in their\npreaching;[688] because, although they were preaching it not in purity,\nbut seeking their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's,[689]\nyet the gospel which they preached was pure. And the Lord had said\nof certain of like character, \"Whatsoever they bid you observe, that\nobserve and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do\nnot.\"[690] If, therefore, what is in itself pure is preached in purity,\nthen the preacher himself also, in that he is a partner with the word,\nhas his share in begetting the believer; but if he himself be not\nregenerate, and yet what he preaches be pure, then the believer is born\nnot from the barrenness of the minister, but from the fruitfulness of\nthe word.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VI.--12. PETILIANUS said: \"This being the case, brethren, what\nperversity must it be, that he who is guilty through his own sins\nshould make another free from guilt, when the Lord Jesus Christ says,\n'Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth\nforth evil fruit: do men gather grapes of thorns?[691] And again: 'A\ngood man, out of the good treasure of the heart, bringeth forth good\nthings: and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil\nthings.'\"[692]\n\n13. AUGUSTINE answered: No man, even though he be not guilty through\nhis own sins, can make his neighbour free from sin, because he is not\nGod. Otherwise, if we were to expect that out of the innocence of the\nbaptizer should be produced the innocence of the baptized, then each\nwill be the more innocent in proportion as he may have found a more\ninnocent person by whom to be baptized; and will himself be the less\ninnocent in proportion as he by whom he is baptized is less innocent.\nAnd if the man who baptizes happens to entertain hatred against another\nman, this will also be imputed to him who is baptized. Why, therefore,\ndoes the wretched man hasten to be baptized,--that his own sins may be\nforgiven him, or that those of others may be reckoned against him? Is\nhe like a merchant ship, to discharge one burden, and to take on him\nanother? But by the good tree and its good fruit, and the corrupt tree\nand its evil fruit, we are wont to understand men and their works, as\nis consequently shown in those other words which you also quoted: \"A\ngood man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good\nthings: and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil\nthings.\" But when a man preaches the word of God, or administers the\nsacraments of God, he does not, if he is a bad man, preach or minister\nout of his own treasure; but he will be counted among those of whom it\nis said, \"Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do\nnot ye after their works:\" for they bid you observe what is God's, but\ntheir works are their own. For if it is as you say, that is, if the\nfruit of those who baptize consist in the baptized persons themselves;\nyou declare a great woe against Africa, if a young Optatus has sprung\nup for every one that Optatus baptized.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VII.--14. PETILIANUS said: \"And again, 'He who is baptized by\none that is dead, his washing profiteth him nothing.'[693] He did not\nmean that the baptizer was a corpse, a lifeless body, the remains of\na man ready for burial, but one lacking the Spirit of God, who is\ncompared to a dead body, as He declares to a disciple in another place,\naccording to the witness of the gospel. For His disciple says, 'Lord,\nsuffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him,\nFollow me, and let the dead bury their dead.'[694] The father of the\ndisciple was not baptized. He declared him as a pagan to belong to the\ncompany of pagans; unless he said this of the unbelieving, The dead\ncannot bury the dead. He was dead, therefore, not as smitten by some\ndeath, but as smitten even during life. For he who so lives as to be\ndoomed to eternal death is tortured by a death in life. To be baptized,\ntherefore, by the dead, is to have received not life but death. We\nmust therefore consider and declare how far the _traditor_ is to be\naccounted dead while yet alive. He is dead who has not deserved to be\nborn again with a true baptism; he is likewise dead who, having been\nborn again with a true baptism, has become involved with a _traditor_.\nBoth are wanting in the life of baptism,--both he who never had it\nat all, and he who had it and has lost it. For the Lord Jesus Christ\nsays, 'There shall come to that man seven spirits more wicked than the\nformer one, and the last state of that man shall be worse than the\nfirst.'\"[695]\n\n15. AUGUSTINE answered: Seek with greater care to know in what sense\nthe words which you have quoted from Scripture in proof of your\nposition were really uttered, and how they should be understood. For\nthat all unrighteous persons are wont to be called dead in a mystical\nsense is clear enough; but Christ, to whom true baptism belongs, which\nyou say is false because of the faults of men, is alive, sitting at\nthe right hand of the Father, and He will not die any more through\nany infirmity of the flesh: death will no more have dominion over\nHim.[696] And they who are baptized with His baptism are not baptized\nby one who is dead. And if it so happen that certain ministers,\nbeing deceitful workers, seeking their own, not the things which are\nJesus Christ's, proclaiming the gospel not in purity, and preaching\nChrist of contention and envy, are to be called dead because of their\nunrighteousness, yet the sacrament of the living God does not die even\nin one that is dead. For that Simon was dead who was baptized by Philip\nin Samaria, who wished to purchase the gift of God for money;[697] but\nthe baptism which he had lived in him still to work his punishment.\n\n16. But how false the statement is which you make, that \"both are\nwanting in the life of baptism, both he who never had it at all, and he\nwho had it and has lost it,\" you may see from this, that in the case of\nthose who apostatize after having been baptized, and who return through\npenitence, baptism is not restored to them, as it would be restored\nif it were lost. In what manner, indeed, do your dead men baptize\naccording to your interpretation? Must we not reckon the drunken among\nthe dead (to say nothing of the rest, and to mention only what is well\nknown and of daily experience among all), seeing that the apostle\nsays of the widow, \"But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she\nliveth?\"[698] In the next place, in that Council of yours, in which\nyou condemned Maximianus with his advisers or his ministers, have you\nforgotten with what eloquence you said, \"Even after the manner of the\nEgyptians, the shores are full of the bodies of the dying, on whom the\nweightier punishment falls in death itself, in that, after their life\nhas been wrung from them by the avenging waters, they have not found\nso much as burial?\" And yet you yourselves may see whether or no one\nof them, Felicianus, has been brought to life again; yet he has with\nhim within the communion of your body those whom he baptized outside.\nAs therefore he is baptized by One that is alive who is clothed with\nthe baptism of the living Christ, so he is baptized by the dead who is\nwrapped in the baptism of the dead Saturn, or any one like him; that\nwe may set forth in the meanwhile, with what brevity we may, in what\nsense the words which you have quoted may be understood without any\ncavilling on the part of any one of us. For, in the sense in which\nthey are received by you, you make no effort to explain them, but only\nstrive to entangle us together with yourselves.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VIII.--17. PETILIANUS said: \"We must consider, I say, and declare\nhow far the treacherous _traditor_ is to be accounted dead while yet in\nlife. Judas was an apostle when he betrayed Christ; and the same man\nwas already dead, having spiritually lost the office of an apostle,\nbeing destined afterwards to die by hanging himself, as it is written:\n'I have sinned,' says he, 'in that I have betrayed the innocent blood;\nand he departed, and went and hanged himself'[699] The traitor perished\nby the rope: he left the rope for others like himself, of whom the Lord\nChrist cried aloud to the Father, 'Father, those that Thou gavest me\nI have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that\nthe Scripture might be fulfilled.'[700] For David of old had passed\nthis sentence on him who was to betray Christ to the unbelievers: 'Let\nanother take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a\nwidow.'[701] See how mighty is the spirit of the prophets, that it was\nable to see all future things as though they were present, so that a\ntraitor who was to be born hereafter should be condemned many centuries\nbefore. Finally, that the said sentence should be completed, the holy\nMatthias received the bishopric of that lost apostle. Let no one be\nso dull, no one so faithless, as to dispute this: Matthias won for\nhimself a victory, not a wrong, in that he carried off the spoils of\nthe traitor from the victory of the Lord Christ. Why then, after this,\ndo you claim to yourself a bishopric as the heir of a worse traitor?\nJudas betrayed Christ in the flesh to the unbelievers; you in the\nspirit madly betrayed the holy gospel to the flames of sacrilege. Judas\nbetrayed the Lawgiver to the unbelievers; you, as it were, betraying\nall that he had left, gave up the law of God to be destroyed by men.\nWhilst, had you loved the law, like the youthful Maccabees, you would\nhave welcomed death for the sake of the laws of God (if indeed that can\nbe said to be death to men which makes them immortal because they died\nfor the Lord); for of those brethren we learn that one replied to the\nsacrilegious tyrant with these words of faith: 'Thou like a fury takest\nus out of this present life; but the King of the world (who reigns for\never, and of His kingdom there shall be no end) shall raise us up who\nhave died for His laws, unto everlasting life.'[702] If you were to\nburn with fire the testament of a dead man, would you not be punished\nas the falsifier of a will? What therefore is likely to become of you\nwho have burned the most holy law of our God and Judge? Judas repented\nof his deed even in death; you not only do not repent, but stand forth\nas a persecutor and butcher of us who keep the law, whilst you are the\nmost wicked of _traditors_.\"\n\n18. AUGUSTINE answered: See what a difference there is between your\ncalumnious words and our truthful assertions. Listen for a little\nwhile. See how you have exaggerated the sin of delivering up the\nsacred books, comparing us in most odious terms, like some sophistical\ninventor of charges, with the traitor Judas. But when I shall have\nanswered you on this point with the utmost brevity,--I did not do what\nyou assert; I did not deliver up the sacred books; your charge is\nfalse; you will never be able to prove it,--will not all that smoke of\nmighty words presently vanish away? Or will you perchance endeavour\nto prove the truth of what you say? This, then, you should do first;\nand then you might rise against us, as against men who were already\nconvicted, with whatever mass of invective you might choose. Here is\none absurdity: behold again a second.\n\n19. You yourself, when speaking of the foretelling of the condemnation\nof Judas, used these expressions: \"See how mighty is the spirit of the\nprophets, that it was able to see all future things as though they\nwere present, so that a traitor who was to be born hereafter should be\ncondemned many centuries before;\" and yet you did not see that in the\nsame sure prophecy, and certain and unshaken truth, in which it was\nforetold that one of the disciples should hereafter betray the Christ,\nit was also foretold that the whole world should hereafter believe\nin Christ. Why did you pay attention in the prophecy to the man who\nbetrayed Christ, and in the same place give no heed to the world for\nwhich Christ was betrayed? Who betrayed Christ? Judas. To whom did he\nbetray Him? To the Jews. What did the Jews do to Him? \"They pierced my\nhands and my feet,\" says the Psalmist. \"I may tell all my bones: they\nlook and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast\nlots upon my vesture.\"[703] Of what importance, then, that is which is\nbought at such a price, I would have you read a little later in the\npsalm itself: \"All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto\nthe Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before\nThee. For the kingdom is the Lord's; and He is the governor among the\nnations.\"[704] But who is able to suffice for the quotation of all the\nother innumerable prophetic passages which bear witness to the world\nthat is destined to believe? Yet you quote a prophecy because you see\nin it the man who sold Christ: you do not see in it the possession\nwhich Christ bought by being sold. Here is the second absurdity: behold\nagain the third.\n\n20. Among the many other expressions in your invective, you said: \"If\nyou were to burn with fire the testament of a dead man, would you\nnot be punished as the falsifier of a will? What therefore is likely\nto become of you who have burned the most holy law of our God and\nJudge?\" In these words you have paid no attention to what certainly\nought to have moved you, to the question of how it might be that we\nshould burn the testament, and yet stand fast in the inheritance which\nwas described in that testament; but it is marvellous that you have\npreserved the testament and lost the inheritance. Is it not written\nin that testament, \"Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen\nfor thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy\npossession?\"[705] Take part in this inheritance, and you may bring what\ncharges you will against me about the testament. For what madness is\nit, that while you shrank from committing the testament to the flames,\nyou should yet strive against the words of the testator! We, on the\nother hand, though we hold in our hands the records of the Church\nand of the State, in which we read that those who ordained a rival\nbishop[706] in opposition to C\u00e6cilianus were rather the betrayers of\nthe sacred books, yet do not on this account insult you, or pursue\nyou with invectives, or mourn over the ashes of the sacred pages in\nyour hands, or contrast the burning torments of the Maccabees with the\nsacrilege of your fear, saying, \"You should deliver your own limbs to\nthe flames rather than the utterances of God.\" For we are unwilling\nto be so absurd as to excite an empty uproar against you on account\nof the deeds of others, which you either know nothing of, or else\nrepudiate. But in that we see you separated from the communion of the\nwhole world (a sin both of the greatest magnitude, and manifest to all\nmankind, and common to you all), if I were desirous of exaggerating,\nI should find time failing me sooner than words. And if you should\nseek to defend yourself on this charge, it could only be by bringing\naccusations against the whole world, of such a kind that, if they\ncould be maintained, you would simply be furnishing matter for further\naccusation against yourself; if they could not be maintained, there\nis in them no defence for you. Why therefore do you puff yourself up\nagainst me about the betrayal of the sacred books, which concerns\nneither you nor me if we abide by the agreement not to charge each\nother with the sins of other men, and which, if that agreement does not\nstand, affects you rather than me? And yet, even without any violation\nof that agreement, I think I may say with perfect justice that he\nshould be deemed a partner with him who delivered up Christ who has not\ndelivered himself up to Christ in company with the whole world. \"Then,\"\nsays the apostle, \"then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to\nthe promise.\"[707] And again he says, \"Heirs of God, and joint-heirs\nwith Christ.\"[708] And the same apostle shows that the seed of Abraham\nbelongs to all nations, from the promise which was given to Abraham,\n\"In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.\"[709]\nWherefore I consider that I am only making a fair demand in asking\nthat we should for a moment consider the testament of God, which has\nalready long been opened, and that we should consider every one to be\nhimself an heir of the traitor whom we do not find to be a joint-heir\nwith Him whom he betrayed; that every one should belong to him who\nsold Christ who denies that Christ has bought the whole world. For\nwhen He showed Himself after His resurrection to His disciples, and\ngave His limbs to those who doubted, that they should handle them, He\nsays this to them, \"For thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ\nto suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day: and that\nrepentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among\nall nations, beginning at Jerusalem.\"[710] See from what an inheritance\nyou estrange yourselves! see what an Heir you resist! Can it really\nbe that a man would spare Christ if He were walking here on earth who\nspeaks against Him while He sits in heaven? Do you not yet understand\nthat whatever you allege against us you allege against His words? A\nChristian world is promised and believed in: the promise is fulfilled,\nand it is denied. Consider, I entreat of you, what you ought to suffer\nfor such impiety. And yet, if I know not what you have suffered,--if I\nhave not seen it, have not wrought it,--then do you to-day, who do not\nsuffer the violence of my persecution, render to me an account of your\nseparation. But you are likely to say over and over again what, unless\nyou prove it, can affect no one, and if you prove it, has no bearing\nupon me.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IX.--21. PETILIANUS said: \"Hemmed in, therefore, by these\noffences, you cannot be a true bishop.\"\n\n22. AUGUSTINE answered: By what offences? What have you shown? What\nhave you proved? And if you have proved charges on the part of I know\nnot whom, what has that to do with the seed of Abraham, in which all\nthe nations of the earth are blessed?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. X.--23. PETILIANUS said: \"Did the apostles persecute any one? or\ndid Christ betray any one?\"\n\n24. AUGUSTINE answered: I might indeed say that Satan himself was worse\nthan all wicked men; and yet the apostle delivered a man over to him\nfor the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit might be saved in\nthe day of the Lord Jesus.[711] And in the same way he delivered over\nothers, of whom he says, \"Whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they\nmay learn not to blaspheme.\"[712] And the Lord Christ drove out the\nimpious merchants from the temple with scourges; in which connection we\nalso find advanced the testimony of Scripture, where it says, \"The zeal\nof Thine house hath eaten me up.\"[713] So that we do find the apostle\ndelivering over to condemnation, and Christ a persecutor. All this I\nmight say, and put you into no small heat and perturbation, so that\nyou would be compelled to inquire, not into the complaints of those\nwho suffer, but into the intention of those who cause the suffering.\nBut do not trouble yourself about this; I do not say this. But I do\nsay that it has nothing to do with the seed of Abraham, which is in\nall nations, if anything has been done to you which ought not to have\nbeen done, perhaps by the chaff among the harvest of the Lord, which in\nspite of this is found among all nations. Do you therefore render an\naccount of your separation. But first, consider what kind of men you\nhave among you, with whom you would not wish to be reproached; and see\nhow unjustly you act, when you cast in our teeth the acts of other men,\neven if you proved what you assert. Therefore it will be found that\nthere is no ground for your separation.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XI.--25. PETILIANUS said: \"Yet some will be found to say, We are\nnot the sons of a _traditor_. Any one is the son of that man whose\ndeeds he imitates. For those are most assuredly sons, and at the same\ntime bear a strong resemblance to their parents, who are born in the\nlikeness of their parents, not only as being of their flesh and blood,\nbut in respect of their characters and deeds.\"\n\n26. AUGUSTINE answered: A little while ago you were saying nothing\ncontrary to us, now you even begin to say something in our favour. For\nthis proposition of yours binds you to as much as this, that if you\nshall fail to-day to convict us, with whom you are arguing, of being\n_traditors_ and murderers, and anything else with which you charge\nus, you will then be wholly powerless to hurt us by any charge of\nthe kind which you may prove against those who have gone before us.\nFor we cannot be the sons of those to whose deeds our actions bear\nno resemblance. And see to what you have committed yourself. If you\nshould be so successful as to convict some man, even of our own times,\nand living with us, of any guilt of the kind, that is in no way to the\nprejudice of all the nations of the earth who are blessed in the seed\nof Abraham, by separating yourself from whom you are found to be guilty\nof sacrilege. Accordingly, unless (as is altogether impossible) you\nare acquainted with all men that exist throughout the world, and have\nnot only made yourself familiar with all their characters and deeds,\nbut have also proved that they are as bad as you describe, you have no\nground for reproaching all the world, which is among the saints, with\nparentage of I know not what description, to whom you prove that they\nare like. Nor will it help you at all, even if you are able to show\nthat those who are not of the same character take the holy sacraments\nin common with those who are. In the first place, because you ought\nyourselves to look at those with whom you celebrate those sacraments,\nto whom you give them, from whom you receive them, and whom you would\nbe unwilling to have cast up against you as a reproach. And again, if\nall those are the sons of Judas, who was the devil among the apostles,\nwho imitate his deeds, why do we not call those the sons of the\napostles who make such men partakers, not in their own deeds, but in\nthe sacraments of the Lord, as the apostles partook of the supper of\nthe Lord in company with that traitor? and in this way they are very\ndifferent from you, who cast in the teeth of men who are striving for\nthe preservation of unity the very thing that you do to the rending\nasunder of unity.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XII.--27. PETILIANUS said: \"The Lord Jesus said to the Jews\nconcerning Himself, 'If I do not the works of my Father, believe me\nnot.'\"[714]\n\n28. AUGUSTINE answered: I have already answered above, This is both\ntrue, and makes for us against you.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIII.--29. PETILIANUS said: \"Over and over again He reproaches\nthe false speakers and liars in such terms as these: 'Ye are the\nchildren of the devil, for he also was a slanderer from the beginning,\nand abode not in the truth.'\"\n\n30. AUGUSTINE answered: We are not wont to say, \"He was a slanderer,\"\nbut \"He was a murderer.\"[715] But we ask how it was that the devil was\na murderer from the beginning; and we find that he slew the first man,\nnot by drawing a sword, nor by applying to him any bodily violence,\nbut by persuading him to sin, and thus driving him from the happiness\nof Paradise. What then was Paradise is now represented by the Church.\nTherefore those are the sons of the devil who slay men by withdrawing\nthem from the Church. But as by the words of God we know what was the\nsituation of Paradise, so now by the words of Christ we have learned\nwhere the Church is to be found: \"Throughout all nations,\" He says,\n\"beginning at Jerusalem.\" Whosoever, therefore, separates a man from\nthat complete whole to place him in any single part, is proved to\nbe a son of the devil and a murderer. But see, further, what is the\napplication of the expression which you yourself employed in saying\nof the devil, \"He was a slanderer, and abode not in the truth.\" For\nyou bring an accusation against the whole world on account of the sins\nof others, though even those others themselves you were more able to\naccuse than to convict; and you abode not in the truth of Christ.\nFor He says that the Church is \"throughout all nations, beginning at\nJerusalem;\" but ye say that it is in the party of Donatus.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIV.--31. PETILIANUS said: \"In the third place, also, He calls\nthe madness of persecutors in like manner by this name, 'Ye generation\nof vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold,\nI send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them\nye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in their\nsynagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may\ncome all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of\nrighteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye\nslew between the temple and the altar.'[716] Are they then really the\nsons of vipers according to the flesh, and not rather serpents in mind,\nand three-tongued malice, and deadliness of touch, and burning with the\nspirit of poison? They have truly become vipers, who by their bites\nhave vomited forth death against the innocent people.\"\n\n32. AUGUSTINE answered: If I were to say that this is said of men of\ncharacter like unto yourselves, you would reply, \"Prove it.\" What\nthen, have you proved it? Or if you think that it is proved by the\nmere fact of its being uttered, there is no need to repeat the same\nwords. Pronounce the same judgment against yourselves as coming from\nus to you. See you not that I too have proved it, if this amounts to\nproof? And yet I would have you learn what is really meant by proof.\nFor indeed I do not even seek for evidence from without to enable me to\nprove you vipers. For be well assured that this very fact marks in you\nthe nature of vipers, that you have not in your mouth the foundation\nof truth, but the poison of slanderous abuse, as it is written, \"The\npoison of asps is under their lips.\"[717] And because this might be\nsaid indiscriminately by any one against any one, as though it were\nasked, Under whose lips? he immediately adds, \"Their mouth is full of\ncursing and bitterness.\"[718] When, therefore, you say such things as\nthis against men dispersed throughout the whole world, of whom you know\nnothing whatsoever, and many of whom have never heard the name either\nof C\u00e6cilianus or of Donatus, and when you do not hear them answering\namid silence. Nothing of what you say has reference to us; we never saw\nit; we never did it; we are totally at a loss to understand what you\nare saying,--seeing that you desire nothing else than to say what you\nare entirely powerless to prove, how can you help allowing that your\nmouth is full of cursing and bitterness? See, therefore, whether you\ncan possibly show that you are not vipers,[719] unless you show that\nall Christians throughout all nations of the world are _traditors_,\nand murderers, and anything but Christians. Nay, in very truth, even\nthough you should be able to know and set before us the lives and deeds\nof every individual man throughout the world, yet before you can do\nthat, seeing that you act as you do without any consideration, your\nmouth is that of a viper, your mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.\nShow to us now, if you can, what prophet, what wise man, what scribe we\nhave slain, or crucified, or scourged in our synagogues. Look how much\nlabour you have expended without in any way being able to prove that\nDonatus and Marculus were prophets, or wise men, or scribes, because,\nin fact, they were nothing of the sort. But even if you could prove as\nmuch as this, what progress would you have made towards proving that\nthey had been killed by us, when even we ourselves did not so much as\nknow them? and how much less the whole world, whom you calumniate with\npoisonous mouth?[720] Or whence will you be able to prove that we have\na spirit like that of those who murdered them, when you actually cannot\nshow that they were murdered by any one at all? Look carefully to all\nthese points, see whether you can prove any single one of them either\nabout the whole world, or to the satisfaction of the whole world,--in\nyour persevering calumnies against which you show that the charges are\ntrue in you, which you falsely propagate against the world.\n\n33. Further, even if we should desire to prove you to be slayers of the\nprophets, it would be too long a task to collect the evidence through\nall the several instances of the slaughter which your infuriated\nleaders of the Circumcelliones, and the actual crowds of men inflamed\nby wine and madness, not only have committed since the beginning of\nyour schism, but even continue to commit at the present time. To take\nthe case nearest at hand. Let the divine utterances be produced, which\nare commonly in the hands of both of us. Let us consider those to be\nmurderers of the prophets whom we find contradicting the words of the\nprophets. What more learned definition could be given? What could admit\nof speedier proof? You would be acting less cruelly in piercing the\nbodies of the prophets with a sword, than in endeavouring to destroy\nthe words of the prophets with your tongue. The prophet says, \"All\nthe ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord.\"[721]\nBehold and see how this is being done, how it is being fulfilled. But\nyou not only close your ears in disbelief against what is said, but\nyou even thrust out your tongues in madness to speak against what is\nalready being done. Abraham heard the promise, \"In thy seed shall\nall the nations of the earth be blessed;\"[722] and \"he believed, and\nit was counted unto him for righteousness.\"[723] You see the fact\naccomplished, and you cry out against it; and you will not that it\nshould be counted unto you for unrighteousness, as it fairly would be\ncounted, even if your refusal to believe was not on the accomplishment,\nbut only on the utterance of the prophecy. Nay, not only are you not\nwilling that it should be counted unto you for unrighteousness, but\neven what you suffer as the punishment of this impiety you would fain\nhave counted unto you for righteousness. Or if your conduct is not a\npersecution of the prophets, because your instrument is not the sword\nbut the tongue, what was the reason of its being said under divine\ninspiration, \"The sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows,\nand their tongue a sharp sword?\"[724] But what time would suffice me\nto collect from all the prophets all the testimonies to the Church\ndispersed throughout the world, all of which you endeavour to destroy\nand render nought by contradicting them? But you are caught; for\n\"their sound is gone out into all lands, and their words to the end\nof the world.\"[725] I will, however, advance this one saying from the\nmouth of the Lord, who is the Witness of witnesses: \"All things must\nbe fulfilled,\" He says, \"which were written in the law of Moses, and\nin the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.\" And what these\nwere let us hear from Himself: \"Then opened He their understanding,\nthat they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus\nit is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise\nfrom the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of\nsins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at\nJerusalem.\"[726] See what it is that is written in the law of Moses,\nand in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning the Lord. See what\nthe Lord Himself revealed about Himself and about the Church, making\nHimself manifest, uttering promises about the Church. But for you,\nsee that you resist such manifest proofs as these, and as you cannot\ndestroy them, endeavour to pervert them, what would you do, if you\nwere to come across the bodies of the prophets, when you rage so madly\nagainst the utterances of the prophets, as not even to hearken to the\nLord when He is fulfilling, and making manifest, and expounding the\nprophets? For do you not, to the utmost of your power, strive to slay\nthe Lord Himself, since even to Himself you will not yield?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XV.--34. PETILIANUS said: \"David also spoke of you as persecutors\nin the following terms: 'Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their\ntongues have they deceived; the poison of asps is under their lips.\nTheir mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift\nto shed blood. Destruction and unhappiness is in their ways, and the\nway of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their\neyes. Have all the workers of wickedness no knowledge, who eat up my\npeople as they eat bread?'\"[727]\n\n35. AUGUSTINE answered: Their throat is an open sepulchre, whence\nthey breathe out death by lies. For \"the mouth that belieth slayeth\nthe soul.\"[728] But if nothing is more true than that which Christ\nsaid, that His Church should be throughout all nations, beginning\nat Jerusalem, then there is nothing more false than that which you\nsay, that it is in the party of Donatus. But the tongues which have\ndeceived are the tongues of those who, whilst they are acquainted with\ntheir own deeds, not only say that they are just men, but that they\nare justifiers of men, which is said of One only \"that justifieth the\nungodly,\"[729] and that because \"He is just and the justifier.\"[730]\nAs regards the poison of asps, and the mouth full of cursing and\nbitterness, we have said enough already. But you have yourselves said\nthat the followers of Maximianus had feet swift to shed blood, as is\ntestified by the sentence of your general Council, so often quoted in\nthe records of the proconsular province and of the state. But they,\nso far as we hear, never killed any one in the body. You evidently,\ntherefore, understood that the blood of the soul was shed in spiritual\nmurder by the sword of schism, which you condemned in Maximianus. See\nthen if your feet are not swift to shed blood, when you cut off men\nfrom the unity of the whole world, if you were right in saying it of\nthe followers of Maximianus, because they cut off some from the party\nof Donatus. Are we again without the knowledge of the way of peace, who\nstudy to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? and yet\ndo you possess that knowledge, who resist the discourse which Christ\nheld with His disciples after His resurrection, of so peaceful a nature\nthat He began it with the greeting, \"Peace be unto you;\"[731] and that\nso strenuously that you are proved to be saying nothing less to Him\nthan this, \"What Thou saidst of the unity of all nations is false;\nwhat we say of the offence of all nations is true?\" Who would say such\nthings as this if they had the fear of God before their eyes? See,\ntherefore, if in daily saying things like this you are not trying to\ndestroy the people of God dispersed throughout the world, eating them\nup as it were bread.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVI.--36. PETILIANUS said: \"The Lord Christ also warns us,\nsaying, 'Beware of false prophets, which come unto you in sheep's\nclothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves; and ye shall know them\nby their fruits.'\"[732]\n\n37. AUGUSTINE answered: If I were to inquire of you by what fruits you\nknow us to be ravening wolves, you are sure to answer by charging us\nwith the sins of other men, and these such as were never proved against\nthose who are said to have been guilty of them. But if you should ask\nof me by what fruits we know you rather to be ravening wolves, I bring\nagainst you the charge of schism, which you will deny, but which I\nwill straightway go on to prove; for, as a matter of fact, you do not\ncommunicate with all the nations of the earth, nor with those Churches\nwhich were founded by the labour of the apostles. Hereupon you will\nsay, \"I do not communicate with _traditors_ and murderers.\" The seed\nof Abraham answers you, \"These are those charges which you made, which\nare either not true, or have no reference to me.\" But these I set aside\nfor the present; do you meanwhile show me the Church. Now that voice\nwill sound in my ears which the Lord showed was to be avoided in the\nfalse prophets who made a show of their several parties, and strove to\nestrange men from the Catholic Church, \"Lo, here is Christ, or there.\"\nBut do you think that the true sheep of Christ are so utterly destitute\nof sense, who are told, \"Believe it not,\"[733] that they will hearken\nto the wolf when he says, \"Lo, here is Christ,\" and will not hearken\nto the Shepherd when He says, \"Throughout all nations, beginning at\nJerusalem?\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVII.--38. PETILIANUS said: \"Thus, thus, thou wicked persecutor,\nunder whatsoever cloak of righteousness thou hast concealed thyself,\nunder whatsoever name of peace thou wagest war with kisses, under\nwhatsoever title of unity thou endeavourest to ensnare the race of\nmen,--thou, who up to this time art cheating and deceiving, thou art\nthe true son of the devil, showing thy parentage by thy character.\"\n\n39. AUGUSTINE answered: Consider in reply that these things have been\nsaid by us against you; and that you may know to which of us they are\nmore appropriate, call to mind what I have said before.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVIII.--40. PETILIANUS said: \"Nor is it, after all, so strange\nthat you assume to yourself the name of bishop without authority.\nThis is the true custom of the devil, to choose in preference a mode\nof deceiving by which he usurps to himself a word of holy meaning,\nas the apostle declares to us: 'And no marvel,' he says; 'for Satan\nhimself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no\ngreat thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of\nrighteousness.'[734] Nor is it therefore a marvel if you falsely call\nyourself a bishop. For even those fallen angels, lovers of the maidens\nof the world, who were corrupted by the corruption of their flesh,\nthough, from having stripped themselves of divine excellence, they have\nceased to be angels, yet retain the name of angels, and always esteem\nthemselves as angels, though, being released from the service of God,\nthey have passed from the likeness of their character into the army\nof the devil, as the great God declares, 'My spirit shall not always\nstrive with man, for that he also is flesh.'[735] To those guilty ones\nand to you the Lord Christ will say, 'Depart from me, ye cursed ones,\ninto everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.'[736] If\nthere were no evil angels, the devil would have no angels; of whom the\napostle says, that in the judgment of the resurrection they shall be\ncondemned by the saints: 'Know ye not,' says he, 'that we shall judge\nangels?'[737] If they were true angels, men would not have authority\nto judge the angels of God. So too those sixty apostles, who, when the\ntwelve were left alone with the Lord Christ, departed in apostasy from\nthe faith, are so far yet considered among wretched men to be apostles,\nthat from them Manich\u00e6us and the rest entangle many souls in many\ndevilish sects which they destroyed[738] that they might take them in\ntheir snares. For indeed the fallen Manich\u00e6us, if fallen he was, is not\nto be reckoned among those sixty, if it be that we can find his name\nas an apostle among the twelve, or if he was ordained by the voice of\nChrist when Matthias was elected into the place of the traitor Judas,\nor another thirteenth like Paul, who calls himself the last[739] of the\napostles, expressly that any one who was later than himself might not\nbe held to be an apostle. For these are his words: 'For I am the last\nof the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I\npersecuted the Church of God.'[740] And do not flatter yourselves in\nthis: he was a Jew that had done this. You too, as Gentiles, may work\ndestruction upon us. For you carry on war without licence, against whom\nwe may not fight in turn. For you desire to live when you have murdered\nus; but our victory is either to escape or to be slain.\"\n\n41. AUGUSTINE answered: See how you have quoted the testimony of holy\nScripture, or how you have understood it, when it has no bearing at all\nupon the present point at issue. For all that you have brought forward\nwas simply said to prove that there are false bishops, just as there\nare false angels and false apostles. Now we too know quite well that\nthere are false angels and false apostles, and, as the true apostle\nsays, false brethren also;[741] but, seeing that charges such as yours\nmay be brought by either side against the other, what is required\nis a certain degree of proof, and not mere empty words. But if you\nwould see to which of us the charge of falseness more truly applies,\nrecall to mind what we have said before, and you will see it there set\nforth, that we may not become tedious to our readers by repeating the\nsame thing over and over again. And yet how is the Church dispersed\nthroughout the world affected either by what you may have found to say\nabout its chaff, which is mixed with it throughout the whole world; or\nby what you said of Manich\u00e6us and the other devilish sects? For if the\nwheat is not affected by anything which is said even about the chaff\nwhich is still mingled with it, how much less are the members of Christ\ndispersed throughout the whole world affected by monstrosities[742]\nwhich have been so long and so openly separated from it?[743]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIX.--42. PETILIANUS said: \"The Lord Jesus Christ commands us,\nsaying, 'When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another;\nand if they persecute you in that, flee yet into a third; for verily I\nsay unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till\nthe Son of man be come.'[744] If He gives us this warning in the case\nof Jews and pagans, you who call yourself a Christian ought not to\nimitate the dreadful deeds of the Gentiles. Or do you serve God in such\nwise that we should be murdered at your hands? You do err, you do err,\nif you are wretched enough to entertain such a belief as this. For God\ndoes not have butchers for His priests.\"\n\n43. AUGUSTINE answered: To flee from one state to another from the\nface of persecution has not been enjoined as precept or permission on\nheretics or schismatics, such as you are; but it was enjoined on the\npreachers of the gospel, whom you resist. And this we may easily prove\nin this wise: you are now in your own cities, and no man persecutes\nyou. You must therefore come forth, and give an account of your\nseparation. For it cannot be maintained that, as the weakness of the\nflesh is excused when it yields before the violence of persecution,\nso truth also ought to yield to falsehood. Furthermore, if you are\nsuffering persecution, why do you not retire from the cities in which\nyou are, that you may fulfil the instructions which you quote out of\nthe gospel? But if you are not suffering persecution, why are you\nunwilling to reply to us? Or if the fact be that you are afraid lest,\nwhen you should have made reply, you then should suffer persecution,\nin that case how are you following the example of those preachers to\nwhom it was said, \"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of\nwolves?\" To whom it was also further said, \"Fear not them which kill\nthe body, but are not able to kill the soul.\"[745] And how do you\nescape the charge of acting contrary to the injunction of the Apostle\nPeter, who says, \"Be ready always to give an answer to every man that\nasketh you a reason of the faith and hope that is in you?\"[746] And,\nlastly, wherefore are you ever eager to annoy the Catholic Churches\nby the most violent disturbances, whenever it is in your power, as is\nproved by innumerable instances of simple fact? Wherefore in such a\ncase did you not hearken to the voice of the Lord, when He says, \"But\nI say unto you, that ye resist not evil?\"[747] Or, allowing that it\nis possible that in some cases it should be right for violent men to\nbe resisted by bodily force, and that it does not violate the precept\nwhich we receive from the Lord, \"But I say unto you, that ye resist\nnot evil,\" why may it not also be that a pious man should eject an\nimpious man, or a just man him that is unjust, in the exercise of duly\nand lawfully constituted authority, from seats which are unlawfully\nusurped, or retained to the despite of God? For you would not say that\nthe false prophets suffered persecution at the hands of Elijah, in\nthe same sense that Elijah suffered persecution from the wickedest of\nkings?[748] Or that because the Lord was scourged by His persecutors,\ntherefore those whom He Himself drove out of the temple with scourges\nare to be put in comparison with His sufferings? It remains, therefore,\nthat we should acknowledge that there is no other question requiring\nsolution, except whether you have been pious or impious in separating\nyourselves from the communion of the whole world. For if it shall\nbe found that you have acted impiously, you would not be surprised\nif there should be no lack of ministers of God by whom you might be\nscourged, seeing that you suffer persecution not from us, but as it is\nwritten, from their own abominations.[749]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XX.--44. PETILIANUS said: \"The Lord Christ cries again from\nheaven to Paul, 'Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for\nthee to kick against the pricks.'[750] He was then called Saul, that he\nmight afterwards receive his true name in baptism. But for you it is\nnot hard so often to persecute Christ in the persons of His priests,\nthough the Lord Himself cries out, 'Touch not mine anointed.'[751]\nReckon up all the deaths of the saints, and so often have you murdered\nChrist, who lives in each of them.[752] Lastly, if you are not guilty\nof sacrilege, then a saint cannot be a murderer.\"\n\n45. AUGUSTINE answered: Defend yourselves from the charge of the\npersecution which those men suffered at the hands of your party who\nseparated themselves from you with the followers of Maximianus, and\ntherein you will find our defence. For if you say that you committed\nno such deeds, we simply read to you the records of the proconsular\nprovince and the state. If you say that you were right in persecuting\nthem, why are you unwilling to suffer the like yourselves? If you say,\n\"But we caused no schism,\" then let this be inquired into, and, till\nit is decided whether it be so or not, let no one make accusation\nagainst persecutors. If you say that even schismatics ought not to have\nsuffered persecution, I ask whether it is also the case that they ought\nnot to have been driven out of the basilicas, in which they lay snares\nfor the leading astray of the weak, even though it were done by duly\nconstituted authorities? If you say that this also should not have been\ndone, first restore the basilicas to the followers of Maximianus, and\nthen discuss the point with us. If you say that it was right, then see\nwhat they ought to suffer at the hands of duly constituted authority,\nwho, in resisting it, \"resist the ordinance of God.\" Wherefore the\napostle expressly says, \"For he beareth not the sword in vain: for he\nis the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that doeth\nevil.\"[753] But even if this had been discovered after the truth had\nbeen searched out with all diligence, that not even after public trial\nought schismatics to undergo any punishment, or be driven from the\npositions which they have occupied, for their treachery and deceit; and\nif you should say that you are vexed that the followers of Maximianus\nshould have suffered such conduct at the hands of some of you,--why\ndoes not the wheat of the Lord cry out with the more freedom from the\nwhole field of the Lord, that is, from the world, and say, Neither\nare we at all affected by what the tares and the chaff amongst us\ndo, seeing that it is contrary to our wish? If you confess that it\nis sufficient to clear you of responsibility, that all the evil that\nis done by men of your party is done in opposition to your wishes,\nwhy then have you separated yourselves? For if your reason for not\nseparating from the unrighteous among the party of Donatus is that\neach man bears his own burden, why have you separated yourselves from\nthose throughout the world whom you think, or profess to think, to be\nunrighteous? Is it that you might all share equally in bearing the\nburden of schism?\n\n46. And when we ask of you which of your party you can prove to have\nbeen slain by us, I indeed can remember no law issued by the emperors\nto the effect that you should be put to death. Those indeed whose\ndeaths you quote most frequently to bring us into odium, Marculus and\nDonatus, present a great question,--whether they threw themselves\ndown a precipice, as your teaching does not hesitate to encourage by\nexamples of daily occurrence, or whether they were thrown down by the\ntrue command of some authority. For if it is a thing incredible that\nthe leaders of the Circumcelliones should have wrought upon themselves\na death in accordance with their custom, how much more incredible it\nis that the Roman authorities should have been able to condemn them\nto a punishment at variance with custom! Accordingly, in considering\nthis matter, which you think excessive in its hatefulness, supposing\nwhat you say is true, what is there in it which bears upon the Lord's\nwheat? Let the chaff which flew away outside accuse the chaff which yet\nremained within; for it is not possible that it should all be separated\ntill the winnowing at the last day. But if what you say is false,\nwhat wonder is it if, when the chaff is carried away as it were by a\nlight blast of dissension, it even attacks the wheat of the Lord with\nfalse accusations? Wherefore, on the consideration of all such odious\naccusations, the wheat of Christ, which is ordered to grow together\nwith the tares throughout the field, that is, throughout the whole\nworld, makes this answer to you with a free and fearless voice: If you\ncannot prove what you say, it has no application to any one; and if you\nprove it, it yet does not apply to me. The result of which is, that\nwhosoever has separated himself from the unity of the wheat on account\nof the offences chargeable against the tares, or against the chaff, is\nunable to defend himself from the charge of murder which is involved\nin the mere offence of dissension and schism, as the Scripture says,\n\"Whoso hateth his brother is a murderer.\"[754]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXI.--47. PETILIANUS said: \"Accordingly, as we have said, the\nLord Christ cried, 'Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for\nthee to kick against the pricks. And he said, Who art Thou, Lord? And\nthe Lord said, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And he,\ntrembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? And\nthe Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be\ntold thee what thou must do.' And so presently it goes on, 'But Saul\narose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man.'\nSee here how blindness, coming in punishment of madness, obscures the\nlight in the eyes of the persecutor, not to be again expelled except\nby baptism! Let us see, therefore, what he did in the city. 'Ananias,'\nit is said, 'entered into the house to Saul, and putting his hands\non him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto\nthee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest\nreceive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately\nthere fell from his eyes as it had been scales; and he received sight\nforthwith, and arose, and was baptized.'[755] Seeing therefore that\nPaul, being freed by baptism from the offence of persecution, received\nagain his eyesight freed from guilt, why will not you, a persecutor and\n_traditor_, blinded by false baptism, be baptized by those whom you\npersecute?\"\n\n48. AUGUSTINE answered: You do not prove that I, whom you wish to\nbaptize afresh, am either a persecutor or a _traditor_. And if you\nprove this charge against any one, yet the persecutor and _traditor_\nis not to be baptized afresh, if he has been baptized already with\nthe baptism of Christ. For the reason why it was necessary that Paul\nshould be baptized was that he had never been washed in any baptism\nof the kind. Therefore what you have chosen to insert about Paul has\nno point of resemblance with the case which you are arguing with us.\nBut if you had not inserted this, you would have found no place for\nyour childish declamation, \"See how blindness comes in punishment of\nmadness, not to be again expelled except by baptism!\" For with how much\nmore force might one exclaim against you, See how blindness comes in\npunishment of madness, which, finding its similitude in Simon, not in\nPaul, is not expelled from you even when you have received baptism?\nFor if persecutors ought to be baptized by those whom they persecute,\nthen let Primianus be baptized by the followers of Maximianus, whom he\npersecuted with the utmost eagerness.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXII.--49. PETILIANUS said: \"It may be urged that Christ said\nto His apostles, as you are constantly quoting against us, 'He that\nis washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every\nwhit.' Now if you discuss those words in all their fulness, you are\nbound by what immediately follows. For this is what He said, in His\nvery words: 'He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but\nis clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For He knew who\nshould betray Him; therefore said He, Ye are not all clean.'[756]\nWhosoever, therefore, has incurred the guilt of treason, has forfeited,\nlike you, his baptism. Again, after that the betrayer of Christ had\nhimself been condemned, He thus more fully confirmed His words to the\neleven apostles: 'Now are ye clean through the word which I have spoken\nunto you. Abide in me, and I in you.'[757] And again He said to these\nsame eleven, 'Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.'[758]\nSeeing, then, that these things were said to the eleven apostles, when\nthe traitor, as we have seen, had been condemned, you likewise, being\n_traditors_, are similarly without both peace and baptism.\"\n\n50. AUGUSTINE answered: If therefore every _traditor_ has forfeited his\nbaptism, it will follow that every one who, having been baptized by\nyou, has afterwards become a _traditor_, ought to be baptized afresh.\nAnd if you do not do this, you yourselves sufficiently prove the\nfalseness of the saying, \"Whosoever therefore has incurred the guilt of\ntreason, has forfeited, like you, his baptism.\" For if he has forfeited\nit, let him return and receive it again; but if he returns and does\nnot receive it, it is clear that he had not forfeited it. Again, if\nthe reason why it was said to the apostles, \"Now are ye clean,\" and\n\"My peace I give unto you,\" was that the traitor had already left\nthe room, then was not that supper of so great a sacrament clean and\nable to give peace, which He distributed to all before his going out?\nAnd if you venture to say this with your eyes closed against the\ntruth, what can we do save exclaim the more, See how blindness comes\nin punishment of the madness of those who wish to be, as the apostle\nsays, \"teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor\nwhereof they affirm?\"[759] And yet, unless blindness came in the way of\ntheir pertinacity, it was not a very difficult matter that you should\nunderstand and see that the Lord did not say in the presence of Judas,\nYe are not yet clean, but \"Now are ye clean.\" He added, however, \"But\nnot all,\" because there was one there who was not clean; yet if he\nhad been polluting the others by his presence, it would not have been\ndeclared to them, \"Now are ye clean,\" but, as I said before, Ye are\nnot yet clean. But, after Judas had gone out, He said to them, \"Now\nare ye clean,\" and did not add the words, But not all, because he had\nnow departed in whose presence indeed, as had been said to them, they\nwere already clean, but not all, because there was one there unclean.\nWherefore in these words the Lord rather declared that in the one\ncompany of men receiving the same sacraments, the uncleanness of some\nmembers cannot hurt the clean. Certainly, if you think that there are\namong us men like Judas, you might apply to us the words, \"Ye are\nclean, but not all.\" But this is not what you say; but you say that\nbecause of the presence of some who are unclean, therefore we are all\nunclean. This the Lord did not say to the disciples in the presence of\nJudas, and therefore whoever says this has not learned from the good\nMaster what He says.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIII.--51. PETILIANUS said: \"But if you say that we give baptism\ntwice over, truly it is rather you who do this, who slay men who have\nbeen baptized; and this we do not say because you baptize them, but\nbecause you cause each one of them, by the act of slaying him, to be\nbaptized in his own blood. For the baptism of water or of the Spirit is\nas it were doubled when the blood of the martyr is wrung from him. And\nso our Saviour also Himself, after being baptized in the first instance\nby John, declared that He must be baptized again, not this time with\nwater nor with the Spirit, but with the baptism of blood, the cross\nof suffering, as it is written, 'James and John, the sons of Zebedee,\ncame unto Him, saying, Master, we would that Thou shouldest do for us\nwhatsoever we shall desire. And He said unto them, What would ye that\nI should do for you? They said unto Him, Grant that we may sit, one on\nThy right hand, and the other on Thy left hand, in Thy glory. But Jesus\nsaid unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that\nI drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?\nAnd they said unto Him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall\nindeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am\nbaptized withal shall ye be baptized,'[760] and so forth. If these are\ntwo baptisms, you commend us by your malice, we must needs confess. For\nwhen you kill our bodies, then we do celebrate a second baptism; but it\nis that we are baptized with our baptism and with blood, like Christ.\nBlush, blush, ye persecutors. Ye make martyrs like unto Christ, who\nare sprinkled with the baptism of blood after the water of the genuine\nbaptism.\"\n\n52. AUGUSTINE answered: In the first place, we reply without delay that\nwe do not kill you, but you kill yourselves by a true death, when you\ncut yourselves off from the living root of unity. In the next place, if\nall who are killed are baptized in their own blood, then all robbers,\nall unrighteous, impious, accursed men, who are put to death by the\nsentence of the law, are to be considered martyrs, because they are\nbaptized in their own blood. But if only those are baptized in their\nown blood who are put to death for righteousness' sake, since theirs\nis the kingdom of heaven,[761] you have already seen that the first\nquestion is why you suffer, and only afterwards should we ask what you\nsuffer. Why therefore do you puff out your cheeks before you have shown\nthe righteousness of your deeds? Why does your tongue resound before\nyour character is approved? If you have made a schism, you are impious;\nif you are impious, you die as one guilty of sacrilege, when you are\npunished for impiety; if you die as one guilty of sacrilege, how are\nyou baptized in your blood? Or do you say, I have not made a schism?\nLet us then inquire into this. Why do you make an outcry before you\nprove your case?\n\n53. Or do you say, Even if I am guilty of sacrilege, I ought not to\nbe slain by you? It is one question as to the enormity of my action,\nwhich you never prove with any truth, another as to the baptism of\nyour blood, from whence you derive your boast. For I never killed\nyou, nor do you prove that you are killed by any one. Nor even if you\nwere to prove it would it in any way affect me, whoever it was that\nkilled you, whether he did it justly in virtue of power lawfully given\nby the Lord, or committed the crime of murder, like the chaff of the\nLord's harvest, through some evil desire; just as you are in no way\nconcerned with him who in recent times, with an intolerable tyranny,\nattended even by a company of soldiers, not because he feared any\none, but that he might be feared by all, oppressed widows, destroyed\npupils, betrayed the patrimonies of other men, annulled the marriages\nof other men, contrived the sale of the property of the innocent,\ndivided the price of the property when sold with its mourning owners.\nI should seem to be saying all this out of the invention of my own\nhead, if it were not sufficiently obvious of whom I speak without the\nmention of his name.[762] And if all this is undoubtedly true, then\njust as you are not concerned with this, so neither are we concerned\nwith anything you say, even though it were true. But if that colleague\nof yours, being really a just and innocent man, is maligned by a lying\ntale, then should we also learn in no way to give credit to reports,\nwhich have been spread abroad of innocent men, as though they had\ndelivered up the sacred books, or murdered any of their fellow-men.\nTo this we may add, that I refer to a man who lived with you, whose\nbirthday you were wont to celebrate with such large assemblies, with\nwhom you joined in the kiss of peace in the sacraments, in whose hands\nyou placed the Eucharist, to whom in turn you extended your hands to\nreceive it from his ministering, whose ears, when they were deaf amid\nthe groanings of all Africa, you durst not offend by free speech; for\npaying to whom, even indirectly, a most witty compliment, by saying\nthat in the Count[763] he had a god for his companion, some one of your\nparty was extolled to the skies. But you reproach us with the deeds\nof men with whom we never lived, whose faces we never saw, in whose\nlifetime we were either boys, or perhaps as yet not even born. What is\nthe meaning, then, of your great unfairness and perversity, that you\nshould wish to impose on us the burdens of those whom we never knew,\nwhilst you will not bear the burdens of your friends? \"When thou sawest\na thief, then thou consentedst with him.\"[764] If he whom you saw did\nnot pollute you, why do you reproach me with one whom I could not have\nseen? Or do you say, I did not consent with him, because his deeds were\ndispleasing to me? But, at any rate, you went up to the altar of God\nwith him. Come now, if you would defend yourself, make a distinction\nbetween your two positions, and say that it is one thing to consent\ntogether for sin, as the two elders consented together when they laid a\nplot against the chastity of Susannah, and another thing to receive the\nsacrament of the Lord in company with a thief, as the apostles received\neven that first supper in company with Judas. I am all in favour of\nyour defence. But why do you not consider how much more easily, in\nthe course of your defence, you have acquitted all the nations and\nboundaries of the earth, throughout which the inheritance of Christ\nis dispersed? For if it was possible for you to see a thief, and to\nshare the sacraments with the thief whom you saw, and yet not to share\nhis sin, how much less was it possible for the remotest nations of the\nearth to have anything in common with the sins of African _traditors_\nand persecutors, supposing your charges and assertions to be true, even\nthough they held the sacraments in common with them? Or do you say, I\nsaw in him the bishop, I did not see in him the thief? Say what you\nwill. I allow this defence also, and in this the world is acquitted of\nthe charges which you brought against it. For if it was permitted you\nto ignore the character of a man whom you knew, why is the whole world\nnot allowed to be ignorant of those it never knew, unless, indeed, the\nDonatists are allowed to be ignorant of what they do not wish to know,\nwhile the nations of the earth may not be ignorant of what they cannot\nknow?\n\n54. Or do you say, Theft is one thing, delivery of the sacred books or\npersecution is another? I grant there is a difference, nor is it worth\nwhile now to show wherein that difference consists. But listen to the\nsummary of the argument. If he could not make you a thief, because his\nthieving was displeasing in your sight, who can make men _traditors_\nor murderers to whom such treachery or murder is abhorrent? First,\nthen, confess that you share in all the evil of Optatus, whom you knew,\nand even so reproach me with any evil which was found in those whom I\nknew not. And do not say to me, But my charges are serious, yours but\ntrifling. You must first acknowledge them, however trifling they may\nbe in your case, not before I on my side confess the charges against\nme, but before I can allow you to say these serious things about me\nat all. Did Optatus, whom you knew, make you a thief by being your\ncolleague, or not? Answer me one or the other. If you say he did not,\nI ask why he did not,--because he was not a thief himself? or because\nyou do not know it? or because you disapprove of it? If you say,\nBecause he himself was not a thief, much more ought we not to believe\nthat those with whom you reproach us were of such a character as you\nassert. For if we must not believe of Optatus what both Christians and\npagans and Jews, ay, and what both our party and yours assert, how\nmuch less should we believe what you assert of any one? But if you\nsay, Because you do not know it, all the nations of the earth answer\nyou, Much more do we not know of all that you reproach us with in\nthese men. But if you say, Because you disapproved of it, they answer\nyou with the same voice, Although you have never proved the truth of\nwhat you say, yet acts like these are viewed by us with disapproval.\nBut if you say, Lo, Optatus, whom I knew, made me a thief because he\nwas my colleague, and I was in the habit of going to the altar with\nhim when he committed those deeds; but I do not greatly heed it,\nbecause the fault was trivial, but your party made you a _traditor_\nand a murderer,--I answer that I do not allow that I too am made a\n_traditor_ and a murderer by the sins of other men, just because you\nconfess that you are made a thief by the sin of another man; for it\nmust be remembered that you are proved a thief, not by our judgment,\nbut by your own confession. For we say that every man must bear his\nown burden, as the apostle is our witness.[765] But you, of your own\naccord, have taken the burden of Optatus on your own shoulders, not\nbecause you committed the theft, or consented to it, but because you\ndeclared your conviction that what another did applied to you. For, as\nthe apostle says, when speaking of food, \"I know, and am persuaded by\nthe Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him\nthat esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean;\"[766] by\nthe same rule, it may be said that the sins of others cannot implicate\nthose who disapprove of them; but if any one thinks that they affect\nhim, then he is affected by them. Wherefore you do not convict us of\nbeing _traditors_ or murderers, even though you were to prove something\nof the sort against those who share the sacraments with us; but the\nguilt of theft is fastened on you, even if you disapprove of everything\nthat Optatus did, not in virtue of our accusation, but by your own\ndecision. And that you may not think this a trivial fault, read what\nthe apostle says, \"Nor shall thieves inherit the kingdom of God.\"[767]\nBut those who shall not inherit the kingdom of God will certainly not\nbe on His right hand among those to whom it shall be said, \"Come, ye\nblessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the\nfoundation of the world.\" If they are not there, where will they be\nexcept on the left hand? Therefore among those to whom it shall be\nsaid, \"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for\nthe devil and his angels.\"[768] In vain, therefore, do you indulge in\nyour security, thinking it a trivial fault which separates you from the\nkingdom of God, and sends you into everlasting fire. How much better\nwill you do to betake yourself to true confusion, saying, Every one of\nus shall bear his own burden, and the winnowing fan at the last day\nshall separate the chaff from the wheat!\n\n55. But it is evident that you are afraid of its being forthwith said\nto you, \"Why then, whilst you attempt to place on some men's backs the\nburdens of their neighbours, have you dared to separate yourselves from\nthe Lord's corn, dispersed throughout the world, before the winnowing\nat the last day?\" Accordingly, you who disapprove of the deeds of your\nparty, whilst you are taking precautions against being charged with\nthe schism which you all have made, are involving yourselves also in\ntheir sins which you did not commit; and while the shrewd Petilianus\nis afraid of my being able to say that I am not such as he thinks\nC\u00e6cilianus was, he is obliged to confess that he himself is such as he\nknows Optatus to have been. Or are you not such as the common voice of\nAfrica proclaims him to have been? Then neither are we such as those\nwith whom you reproach us are either suspected to have been by your\nmistake, or calumniously asserted to have been by your madness, or\nproved to have been by the truth. Much less is the wheat of the Lord\nin all the nations of the earth of such a character, seeing that it\nnever heard the names of those of whom you speak. There is therefore\nno reason why you should perish in such sin of separation and such\nsacrilege of schism. And yet, if you are made to suffer for this great\nimpiety by the judgment of God, you say that you are even baptized in\nyour blood; so that you are not content with feeling no remorse for\nyour division, but you must even glory in your punishment.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIV.--56. PETILIANUS said: \"But you will answer that you abide\nby the same declaration, 'He that is once washed needeth not save to\nwash his feet.'[769] Now the 'once' is once that has authority, once\nthat is confirmed by the truth.\"\n\n57. AUGUSTINE answered: Baptism in the name of the Father and of the\nSon and of the Holy Ghost[770] has Christ for its authority, not any\nman, whoever he may be; and Christ is the truth, not any man.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXV.--58. PETILIANUS said: \"For when you in your guilt perform\nwhat is false, I do not celebrate baptism twice, which you have never\ncelebrated once.\"\n\n59. AUGUSTINE answered: In the first place, you do not convict us of\nguilt. And if a guilty man baptizes with a false baptism, then none of\nthose have true baptism who are baptized by men in your party, that\nare, I do not say openly, but even secretly guilty. For if he who\ngives baptism gives something that is God's, if he is already guilty in\nthe sight of God, how can he be giving something that is God's, if a\nguilty man cannot give true baptism? But in reality you wait till he is\nguilty in your sight as well, as though what he proposes to confer were\nsomething that belonged to you.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVI.--60. PETILIANUS said: \"For if you mix what is false with\nwhat is true, falsehood often imitates the truth by treading in its\nsteps. Just in the same way a picture imitates the true man of nature,\ndepicting with its colours the false resemblance of truth. And in the\nsame way, too, the brilliancy of a mirror catches the countenance,\nso as to represent the eyes of him who gazes on it. In this way it\npresents to each comer his own countenance, so that the very features\nof the comer meet themselves in turn; and of such virtue is the\nfalsehood of a clear mirror, that the very eyes which see themselves\nrecognise themselves as though in some one else. And even when a shadow\nstands before it, it doubles the reflection, dividing its unity in\ngreat part through a falsehood. Must we then hold that anything is\ntrue, because a lying representation is given of it? But it is one\nthing to paint a man, another to give birth to one. For does any one\nrepresent fictitious children to a man who wishes for an heir? or would\nany one look for true heirs in the falsehood of a picture? Truly it is\na proof of madness to fall in love with a picture, letting go one's\nhold of what is true.\"\n\n61. AUGUSTINE answered: Are you then really not ashamed to call the\nbaptism of Christ a lie, even when it is found in the most false\nof men? Far be it from any one to suppose that the wheat of the\nLord, which has been commanded to grow among the tares throughout\nthe whole field, that is, throughout the whole of this world, until\nthe harvest, that is, until the end of the world,[771] can have\nperished in consequence of your evil words. Nay, even among the very\ntares themselves, which are commanded not to be gathered, but to be\ntolerated even to the end, and among the very chaff, which shall only\nbe separated from the wheat by the winnowing at the last day,[772]\ndoes any one dare to say that any baptism is false which is given and\nreceived in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy\nGhost? Would you say that those whom you depose from their office,\nwhether as your colleagues or your fellow-priests, on the testimony\nof women whom they have seduced (since examples of this kind are not\nwanting anywhere), were false or true before their crime was proved\nagainst them? You will certainly answer, False. Why then were they able\nboth to have and to give true baptism? Why did not their falseness as\nmen corrupt in them the truth of God? Is it not most truly written,\n\"For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit?\"[773] Seeing then\nthat the Holy Spirit fled from them, how came it that the truth of\nbaptism was in them, except because what the Holy Spirit fled from was\nthe falseness of man, not the truth of the sacrament? Further, if even\nthe deceitful have the true baptism, how do they have it who possess\nit in truthfulness? Whence you ought to observe that it is rather your\nconversation which is coloured with childish pigments; and accordingly,\nhe who neglects the living Word to take pleasure in such colouring is\nhimself loving the picture in the place of the reality.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVII.--62. PETILIANUS said: \"It will be urged against us,\nthat the Apostle Paul said, 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism.'[774]\nWe profess that there is only one; for it is certain that those who\ndeclare that there are two are mad.\"\n\n63. AUGUSTINE replied: These words of yours are arguments against\nyourselves; but in your madness you are not aware of it. For the men\nwho say there are two baptisms are those who declare their opinion\nthat the just and the unjust have different baptisms; whereas it\nbelongs neither to one party nor the other, but in both of them is\none, being Christ's, although they themselves are not one: and yet the\nbaptism, which is one, the just have to salvation, the unjust to their\ndestruction.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVIII.--64. PETILIANUS said: \"But yet, if I may be allowed the\ncomparison, it is certain that the sun appears double to the insane,\nalthough it only be that a dark blue cloud often meets it, and its\ndiscoloured surface, being struck by the brightness, while the rays of\nthe sun are reflected from it, seems to send forth as it were rays of\nits own. So in the same way in the faith of baptism, it is one thing to\nseek for reflections, another to recognise the truth.\"\n\n65. AUGUSTINE answered: What are you saying, if I may ask? When a dark\nblue cloud reflects the rays of the sun with which it is struck, is it\nonly to the insane, and not to all who look on it, that there appear to\nbe two suns? But when it appears so to the insane as such, it appears\nto them alone. But if I may say so without being troublesome, I would\nhave you take care lest saying such things and talking in such a way\nshould be itself a sign of madness. I suppose, however, that what you\nmeant to say was this,--that the just had the truth of baptism, the\nunjust only its reflection. And if this be so, I venture to say that\nthe reflection was found in that man of your party,[775] to whom not\nGod, but a certain Count,[776] was God; but that the truth was either\nin you or in him who uttered the witty saying against Optatus, when\nhe said that \"in the Count he had a god for his companion.\"[777] And\ndistinguish between those who were baptized by either of these, and\nin the one party approve the true baptism, in the others exclude the\nreflection, and introduce the truth.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIX.--66. PETILIANUS said: \"But to pass rapidly through\nthese minor points: can he be said to lay down the law who is not a\nmagistrate of the court? or is what he lays down to be considered law,\nwhen in the character of a private person he disturbs public rights? Is\nit not rather the case that he not only involves himself in guilt, but\nis held to be a forger, and that which he composes a forgery?\"\n\n67. AUGUSTINE answered: What if your private person, whom you deem a\nforger, were to set forth to any one the law of the emperor? Would not\nthe man, when he had compared it with the law of those who have the\ngenuine law, and found it to be identically the same, lay aside all\ncare about the source from which he had obtained it, and consider\nonly what he had obtained? For what the forger gives is false when he\ngives it of his own falseness; but when something true is given by any\nperson, even though he be a forger, yet, although the giver be not\ntruthful, the gift is notwithstanding true.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXX.--68. PETILIANUS said: \"Or if any one chance to recollect the\nchants of a priest, is he therefore to be deemed a priest, because with\nsacrilegious mouth he publishes the strain of a priest?\"\n\n69. AUGUSTINE answered: In this question you are speaking just as\nthough we were at present inquiring what constituted a true priest, not\nwhat constituted true baptism. For that a man should be a true priest,\nit is requisite that he should be clothed not with the sacrament alone,\nbut with righteousness, as it is written, \"Let thy priests be clothed\nwith righteousness.\"[778] But if a man be a priest in virtue of the\nsacrament alone, as was the high priest Caiaphas, the persecutor of\nthe one most true Priest, then even though he himself be not truthful,\nyet what he gives is true, if he gives not what is his own but what\nis God's; as it is said of Caiaphas himself, \"This spake he not of\nhimself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied.\"[779] And yet,\nto use the same simile which you employed yourself: if you were to hear\neven from any one that was profane the prayer of the priest couched in\nthe words suitable to the mysteries of the gospel, can you possibly\nsay to him, Your prayer is not true, though he himself may be not only\nno true priest, but not a priest at all? seeing that the Apostle Paul\nsaid that certain testimony of I know not what Cretan prophet was true,\nthough he was not reckoned among the prophets of God; for he says,\n\"One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said the Cretians are\nalways liars, evil beasts, slow bellies: this witness is true.\"[780]\nIf, therefore, the apostle even himself bore witness to the testimony\nof some obscure prophet of a foreign race, because he found it to be\ntrue, why do not we, when we find in any one what belongs to Christ,\nand is true even though the man with whom it may be found be deceitful\nand perverse, why do not we in such a case make a distinction between\nthe fault which is found in the man, and the truth which he has not of\nhis own but of God's? and why do we not say, This sacrament is true,\nas Paul said, \"This witness is true?\" Does it at all follow that we\nsay, The man himself also is truthful, because we say, This sacrament\nis true? Just as I would ask whether the apostle counted that prophet\namong the prophets of the Lord, because he confirmed the truth of what\nhe found to be true in him. Likewise the same apostle, when he was at\nAthens, perceived a certain altar among the altars of the false gods,\non which was the inscription, \"To the unknown God.\" And this testimony\nhe made use of to build them up in Christ, to the extent of quoting the\ninscription in his sermon, and adding, \"Whom, therefore, ye ignorantly\nworship, Him declare I unto you.\" Did he, because he found that altar\neither among the altars of idols, or set up by sacrilegious hands,\ntherefore condemn or reject what he found in it that was true? or did\nhe, because of the truth which he found upon it, therefore persuade\nthem that they ought also to follow the sacrilegious practices of the\npagans? Surely he did neither of the two; but presently, when, as he\njudged fitting, he wished to introduce to their knowledge the Lord\nHimself, unknown to them, but known to him, he says among other things,\nthat \"He is not far from every one of us: for in Him we live, and move,\nand have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said.\"[781]\nCan it be said that here also, because he found among the sacrilegious\nthe evidence of truth, he either approved their wickedness because of\nthe evidence, or condemned the evidence because of their wickedness?\nBut it is unavoidable that you should be always in the wrong, so long\nas you do despite to the sacraments of God because of the faults\nof men, or think that we take upon ourselves the sacrilege even of\nyour schism, for the sake of the sacraments of God, to which we are\nunwilling to do despite in you.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXI.--70. PETILIANUS said: \"'For there is no power but of\nGod,'[782] none in any man of power; as the Lord Jesus Christ answered\nPontius Pilate, 'Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except\nit were given thee from above.'[783] And again, in the words of John,\n'A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.'[784]\nTell us, therefore, _traditor_, when you received the power of\nimitating the mysteries.\"\n\n71. AUGUSTINE answered: Tell us rather thyself when the power of\nbaptizing was lost by the whole world through which is dispersed the\ninheritance of Christ, and by all that multitude of nations in which\nthe apostles founded the Churches. You will never be able to tell\nus,--not only because you have calumniated them, and do not prove them\nto be _traditors_, but because, even if you did prove this, yet no\nguilt on the part of any evil-doers, whether they be unsuspected, or\ndeceitful, or be tolerated as the tares or as the chaff, can possibly\noverthrow the promises, so that all the nations of the earth should not\nbe blessed in the seed of Abraham; in which promises you deprive them\nof their share when you will not have the communion of unity with all\nnations of the earth.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXII.--72. PETILIANUS said: \"For although there is only one\nbaptism, yet it is consecrated in three several grades. John gave\nwater without the name of the Trinity, as he declared himself, saying,\n'I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but He that cometh\nafter me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He\nshall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.'[785] Christ gave\nthe Holy Spirit, as it is written, 'He breathed on them, and saith\nunto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.'[786] And the Comforter Himself\ncame on the apostles as a fire burning with rustling flames. O true\ndivinity, which seemed to blaze, not to burn! as it is written, 'And\nsuddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a rushing mighty wind,\nand it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared\nunto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of\nthem. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak\nwith other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.'[787] But you,\nO persecutor, have not even the water of repentance, seeing that you\nhold the power not of the murdered John, but of the murderer Herod.\nYou therefore, O _traditor_, have not the Holy Spirit of Christ; for\nChrist did not betray others to death, but was Himself betrayed. For\nyou, therefore, the fire in the spirit in Hades is full of life,--that\nfire which, surging with hungry tongues of flame, will be able to burn\nyour limbs to all eternity without consuming them, as it is written\nof the punishment of the guilty in hell, 'Neither shall their fire be\nquenched.'\"[788]\n\n73. AUGUSTINE answered: You are the calumnious slanderer, not the\ntruthful arguer. Will you not at length cease to make assertions of a\nkind which, if you do not prove them, can apply to nobody; and even if\nyou prove them, certainly cannot apply to the unity of the whole world,\nwhich is in the saints as in the wheat of God? If we too were pleased\nto return calumnies for calumnies, we too might possibly be able to\ngive vent to eloquent slanders. We too might use the expression, \"With\nrustling flames;\" but to me an expression never sounds in any way\neloquent which is inappropriate in its use. We too might say, \"Surging\nwith hungry tongues of flame;\" but we do not wish that the tongues of\nflame in our writings, when they are read by any one in his senses,\nshould be judged hungry for want of the sap of weightiness, or that the\nreader himself, while he finds in them no food of useful sentiments,\nshould be left to suffer from the hunger of excessive emptiness. See,\nI declare that your Circumcelliones are burning, not with rustling\nbut with headlong flames. If you answer, What is that to us? why do\nnot you, when you reproach with any one whom you will, not listen in\nturn to our answer, We too know nothing of it? If you answer, You do\nnot prove the fact, why may not the whole world answer you in turn,\nNeither do you prove it? Let us agree therefore, if you please, that\nyou should not charge us with the guilt of the wicked men whom you\nconsider to belong to us, and that we should abstain from similar\ncharges against you. So you will see, by this just agreement, confirmed\nand ratified, that you have no charge which you can bring against the\nseed of Abraham, as found in all the nations of the earth. But I find\nwithout difficulty a grievous charge to bring against you: Why have\nyou impiously separated yourselves from the seed of Abraham, which is\nin all nations of the earth? Against this charge you certainly have\nno means whereby you may defend yourselves. For we each of us clear\nourselves of the sins of other men; but this, that you do not hold\ncommunion with all the nations of the earth, which are blessed in the\nseed of Abraham, is a very grievous crime, of which not some but all of\nyou are guilty.\n\n74. And yet you know, as you prove by your quotation, that the Holy\nSpirit descended in such wise, that those who were then filled with\nit spake with divers tongues: what was the meaning of that sign and\nprodigy? Why then is the Holy Spirit given now in such wise, that no\none to whom it is given speaks with divers tongues, except because\nthat miracle then prefigured that all nations of the earth should\nbelieve, and that thus the gospel should be found to be in every\ntongue? Just as it was foretold in the psalm so long before: \"There\nis no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.\" This was\nsaid with reference to those men who were destined, after receiving\nthe Holy Spirit, to speak with every kind of tongue. But because this\npassage itself signified that the gospel should be found hereafter in\nall nations and languages, and that the body of Christ should sound\nforth throughout all the world in every tongue, therefore he goes on\nto say, \"Their sound is gone out throughout all the earth, and their\nwords to the ends of the world.\" Hence it is that the true Church is\nhidden from no one. And hence comes that which the Lord Himself says\nin the gospel, \"A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.\"[789] And\ntherefore David continues in the same psalm, \"In the sun hath He placed\nHis tabernacle,\" that is, in the open light of day; as we read in the\nBook of Kings, \"For thou didst it secretly; but I will do this thing\nbefore all Israel, and before the sun.\"[790] And He Himself is \"as a\nbridegroom coming out of His chamber, and rejoiceth as a giant to run\nHis race. His going forth is from the end of heaven:\" here you have\nthe coming of the Lord in the flesh. \"And His circuit unto the ends\nof it:\" here you have His resurrection and ascension. \"And there is\nnothing hid from the heat thereof:\"[791] here you have the coming of\nthe Holy Spirit, whom He sent in tongues of fire, that He might make\nmanifest the glowing heat of charity, which he certainly cannot have\nwho does not keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace with the\nChurch, which is throughout all languages.\n\n75. Next, however, with regard to your statement that there is indeed\none baptism,[792] but that it is consecrated in three several grades,\nand to your having distributed the three forms of it to three persons\nafter such fashion, that you ascribe the water to John, the Holy Spirit\nto the Lord Jesus Christ, and, in the third place, the fire to the\nComforter sent down from above,--consider for a moment in how great\nan error you are involved. For you were brought to entertain such an\nopinion simply from the words of John: \"I indeed baptize you with\nwater: but He that cometh after me is mightier than I: He shall baptize\nyou with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.\"[793] Nor were you willing to\ntake into consideration that the three things are not attributed to\nthree persons taken one by one,--water to John, the Holy Spirit to\nChrist, fire to the Comforter,--but that the three should rather be\nreferred to two persons--one of them to John, the other two to our\nLord. For neither is it said, I indeed baptize you with water: but He\nthat cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to\nbear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost: and the Comforter, who\nis to come after Him, He shall baptize you with fire; but \"I indeed,\"\nHe says, \"with water: but He that cometh after me with the Holy Ghost,\nand with fire.\" One he attributes to himself, two to Him that cometh\nafter him. You see, therefore, how you have been deceived in the\nnumber. Listen further. You said that there was one baptism consecrated\nin three stages--water, the Holy Spirit, and fire; and you assigned\nthree persons to the three stages severally--John to the water, Christ\nto the Spirit, the Comforter to the fire. If, therefore, the water of\nJohn bears reference to the same baptism which is commended as being\none, it was not right that those should have been baptized a second\ntime by the command of the Apostle Paul whom he found to have been\nbaptized by John. For they already had water, belonging, as you say,\nto the same baptism; so that it remained that they should receive the\nHoly Spirit and fire, because these were wanting in the baptism of\nJohn, that their baptism might be completed, being consecrated, as you\nassert, in three stages. But since they were ordered to be baptized\nby the authority of an apostle, it is sufficiently made manifest that\nthat water with which John baptized had no reference to the baptism of\nChrist, but belonged to another dispensation suited to the exigencies\nof the times.\n\n76. Lastly, when you wished to prove that the Holy Spirit was given\nby Christ, and had brought forward as a proof from the gospel, that\nJesus on rising from the dead breathed into the face of His disciples,\nsaying, \"Receive ye the Holy Ghost;\"[794] and when you wished to prove\nthat that last fire which was named in connection with baptism was\nfound in the tongues of fire which were displayed on the coming of\nthe Holy Ghost, how came it into your head to say, \"And the Comforter\nHimself came upon the apostles as a fire burning with rustling flames,\"\nas though there were one Holy Spirit whom He gave by breathing on the\nface of His disciples, and another who, after His ascension, came on\nthe apostles? Are we to suppose, therefore, that there are two Holy\nSpirits? Who will be found so utterly mad as to assert this? Christ\ntherefore Himself gave the same Holy Spirit, whether by breathing on\nthe face of the disciples, or by sending Him down from heaven on the\nday of Pentecost, with undoubted commendation of His holy sacrament.\nAccordingly it was not that Christ gave the Holy Spirit, and the\nComforter gave the fire, that the saying might be fulfilled, \"With the\nHoly Spirit, and with fire;\" but the same Christ Himself gave the Holy\nSpirit in both cases, making it manifest while He was yet on earth by\nHis breathing, and when He was ascended into heaven by the tongues\nof flame. For that you may know that the words of John, \"He shall\nbaptize you with the Holy Ghost,\" were not fulfilled at the time when\nHe breathed on His disciples' face, so that they should require to\nbe baptized, when the Comforter should come, not with the Spirit any\nlonger, but with fire, I would have you remember the most outspoken\nwords of Scripture, and see what the Lord Himself said to them when He\nascended into heaven: \"John truly baptized you with water; but ye shall\nbe baptized with the Holy Ghost, whom ye shall receive not many days\nhence at Pentecost.\"[795] What could be plainer than this testimony?\nBut, according to your interpretation, what He should have said was\nthis: John verily baptized you with water; but ye were baptized with\nthe Holy Spirit when I breathed on your faces; and next in due order\nshall ye be baptized with fire, which ye shall receive not many\ndays hence;--in order that by this means the three stages should be\ncompleted, in which you say that the one baptism was consecrated. And\nso it proves to be the case that you are still ignorant of the meaning\nof the words, \"He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with\nfire;\" and you are rash enough to be willing to teach what you do not\nknow yourselves.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXIII.--77. PETILIANUS said: \"But that I may thoroughly\ninvestigate the baptism in the name of the Trinity, the Lord Christ\nsaid to His apostles: 'Go ye, and baptize all nations, in the name of\nthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to\nobserve all things whatsoever I have commanded you.'[796] Whom do you\nteach, _traditor_? Him whom you condemn? Whom do you teach, _traditor_?\nHim whom you slay? Once more, whom do you teach? Him whom you have\nmade a murderer? How then do you baptize in the name of the Trinity?\nYou cannot call God your Father. For when the Lord Christ said,\n'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of\nGod,'[797] you who have not peace at your heart cannot have God for\nyour Father. Or how, again, can you baptize in the name of the Son, who\nbetray that Son Himself, who do not imitate the Son of God in any of\nHis sufferings or crosses? Or how, again, can you baptize in the name\nof the Holy Ghost, when the Holy Ghost came only on those apostles who\nwere not guilty of treason? Seeing, therefore, that God is not your\nFather, neither are you truly born again with the water of baptism. No\none of you is born perfectly. You in your impiety have neither father\nnor mother. Seeing, then, that you are of such a kind, ought I not to\nbaptize you, even though you wash yourselves a thousand times, after\nthe similitude of the Jews, who as it were baptize the flesh?\"\n\n78. AUGUSTINE answered: Certainly you had proposed thoroughly to\ninvestigate the baptism in the name of the Trinity, and you had set\nus to listen with much attention; but following, as it would seem,\nwhat is the easiest course to you, how soon have you returned to your\ncustomary abuse! This you carry out with genuine fluency. For you set\nbefore yourself what victims you please, against whom to inveigh with\nwhatsoever bitterness you please: in the midst of which vast latitude\nof discourse you are driven into the greatest straits if any one does\nbut use the little word, Prove it. For this is what is said to you by\nthe seed of Abraham; and since in him all nations of the earth are\nblessed, they care but little when they are cursed by you. But yet,\nsince you are treating of baptism, which you consider to be true when\nit is found in a just man, but false when it is found in the unjust,\nsee how I too, if I were to investigate baptism in the name of the\nTrinity according to your rule, might say, with great fulness, as it\nseems to me, that he has not God for his father who in a Count has God\nfor his companion,[798] nor believes that any is his Christ, save him\nfor whose sake he has endured suffering; and that he has not the Holy\nGhost who burned the wretched Africa in so very different a fashion\nwith tongues of fire. How then can they have baptism, or how can they\nadminister it in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost? Surely you must now perceive that baptism can exist in an\nunrighteous man, and be administered by an unrighteous man, and that\nno unrighteous baptism, but such as is just and true,--not because it\nbelongs to the unrighteous man, but because it is of God. And herein I\nam uttering no calumny against you, as you never cease to do, on some\npretence or other, against the whole world; and, what is even more\nintolerable, you do not even bring any proof about the very points on\nwhich you found your calumnies. But I know not how this can possibly be\nendured, because you not only bring calumnies against holy men about\nunrighteous men, but you even bring a charge against the holy baptism\nitself, which must needs be holy in any man, however unrighteous he\nmay be, from a comparison with the infection arising from the sins of\nwicked men, so that you say that baptism partakes of the character of\nhim by whom it is possessed, or administered, or received. Furthermore,\nif a man partakes of the character of him in whose company he\napproaches sacred mysteries, and if the sacraments themselves partake\nof the character of the men in whom they are, holy men may well be\nsatisfied to find consolation in the thought that they only fare like\nholy baptism itself in hearing false accusations from your lips. But\nit would be well for you to see how you are condemned out of your own\nmouths, if both the sober among you are counted as drunken from the\ninfection of the drunken in your ranks, and the merciful among you\nbecome robbers from the infection of the robbers, and whatever evil\nis found among you in the persons of wicked men is perforce shared\nby those who are not wicked; and if baptism itself is unclean in all\nof you who are unclean, and if it is of different kinds according to\nthe varying character of uncleanness itself, as it must be if it is\nperforce of the same character as the man by whom it is possessed\nor administered. These suppositions most undoubtedly are false; and\naccordingly they in no wise injure us, when you bring them forward\nagainst us without looking back upon yourselves. But they do injure\nyou, because, when you bring them forward falsely, they do not fall on\nus; but, since you imagine them to be true, they recoil upon yourselves.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXIV.--79. PETILIANUS said: \"For if the apostles were allowed\nto baptize those whom John had washed with the baptism of repentance,\nshall it not likewise be allowed to me to baptize men guilty of\nsacrilege like yourselves?\"\n\n80. AUGUSTINE answered: Where then is what you said above, that there\nwas not one baptism of John and another of Christ, but that there was\none baptism, consecrated in three stages, of which three stages John\ngave the water, Christ the Spirit, and the Comforter the fire? Why then\ndid the apostles repeat the water in the case of those to whom John\nhad already administered water belonging to the one baptism which is\nconsecrated in three stages? Surely you must see how necessary it is\nthat every one should understand the meaning of what he is discussing.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXV.--81. PETILIANUS said: \"Nor indeed will it be possible\nthat the Holy Spirit should be implanted in the heart of any one by\nthe laying on of the hands of the priest, unless the water of a pure\nconscience has gone before to give him birth.\"\n\n82. AUGUSTINE answered: In these few words of yours two errors are\ninvolved; and one of them, indeed, has no great bearing on the question\nwhich is being discussed between us, but yet it helps to convict you of\nwant of skill. For the Holy Spirit came upon a hundred and twenty men,\nwithout the laying on of any person's hands, and again upon Cornelius\nthe centurion and those who were with him, even before they were\nbaptized.[799] But the second error in these words of yours entirely\noverthrows your whole case. For you say that the water of a pure\nconscience must necessarily precede to give new birth, before the Holy\nSpirit can follow on it. Accordingly, either all the water consecrated\nin the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is\nwater of a pure conscience, not for the merits of those by whom it is\nadministered, or by whom it is received, but in virtue of the stainless\nmerits of Him who instituted this baptism; or else, if only a pure\nconscience on the part both of the ministrant and the recipient can\nproduce the water of a pure conscience, what do you make of those whom\nyou find to have been baptized by men who bore a conscience stained\nwith as yet undiscovered guilt, especially if there exist among the\nsaid baptized persons any one who should confess that he at the time\nwhen he was baptized had a bad conscience, in that he might possibly\nhave desired to use that opportunity for the accomplishment of some\nsinful act? When, therefore, it shall be made clear to you that neither\nthe man who administered baptism, nor the man who received it, had\na pure conscience, will you give your judgment that he ought to be\nbaptized afresh? You will assuredly neither say nor do anything of the\nsort. The purity therefore of baptism is entirely unconnected with\nthe purity or impurity of the conscience either of the giver or the\nrecipient. Will you therefore dare to say that the deceiver, or the\nrobber, or the oppressor of the fatherless and widows, or the sunderer\nof marriages, or the betrayer, the seller, the divider of the patrimony\nof other men,[800] was a man of pure conscience? Or will you further\ndare to say that those were men of pure conscience, whom it is hard\nto imagine wanting in such times,--men who made interest with the man\nI have described, that they might be baptized, not for the sake of\nChrist, nor for the sake of eternal life, but to conciliate earthly\nfriendships, and to satisfy earthly desires? Further, if you do not\nventure to say that these were men of pure conscience, then if you find\nany of their number who have been baptized, give to them the water of a\npure conscience, which they as yet have not received; and if you will\nnot do this, then leave off casting in our teeth a matter which you\ndo not understand, lest you should be forced to answer in reply to us\nabout a matter which you know full well.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXVI.--83. PETILIANUS said: \"Which Holy Spirit certainly\ncannot come on you, who have not been washed even with the baptism of\nrepentance; but the water of the _traditor_, which most truly needs to\nbe repented of, does but work pollution.\"\n\n84. AUGUSTINE answered: As a matter of fact, not only do you not prove\nus to be _traditors_, but neither did your fathers prove that our\nfathers were guilty of that sin; though, even if that had been proved,\nthe consequence would have been that they would not be our fathers,\naccording to your earlier assertion, seeing that we had not followed\ntheir deeds: yet neither should we on their account be severed from the\ncompanionship of unity, and from the seed of Abraham, in which all\nnations of the earth are blessed.[801] However, if the water of Christ\nbe one thing, and the water of the _traditor_ another, because Christ\nwas not a _traditor_, why should not the water of Christ be one thing,\nand the water of a robber another, since certainly Christ was not a\nrobber? Do you therefore baptize again after baptism by your robber,\nand I will baptize again after the _traditor_, who is neither mine nor\nyours; or, if one must believe the documents which are produced, who\nis both mine and yours; or, if we are to believe the communion of the\nwhole world rather than the party of Donatus, who is not mine, but\nyours. But, by a better and a sounder judgment, because it is according\nto the words of the apostle, every one of us shall bear his own\nburden;[802] nor is either that robber yours, if you are not yourselves\nrobbers; nor does any _traditor_ belong to any one either of us or\nyou, who is not himself a _traditor_. And yet we are Catholics, who,\nfollowing the spirit of that judgment, do not desert the unity of the\nChurch; but you are heretics, who, on account of charges, whether true\nor false, which you have brought against certain men, are unwilling to\nmaintain Christian charity with the seed of Abraham.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXVII.--85. PETILIANUS said: \"But that the truth of this may be\nmade manifest from the apostles, we are taught by their actions, as it\nis written: 'It came to pass that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul,\nhaving passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus: and finding\nthere certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy\nGhost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as\nheard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what\nthen were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said\nPaul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto\nthe people, that they should believe on Him which should come after\nhim, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized\nin the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon\nthem, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and\nprophesied. And all the men were about twelve.'[803] If, therefore,\nthey were baptized that they might receive the Holy Ghost, why do not\nyou, if you wish to receive the Holy Ghost, take measures to obtain a\ntrue renewing, after your falsehoods? And if we do ill in urging this,\nwhy do you seek after us? or, at any rate, if it is an offence, condemn\nPaul in the first instance; which Paul certainly washed off what had\nalready existed, whereas we in you give baptism which as yet does not\nexist. For you do not, as we have often said before, wash with a true\nbaptism; but you bring on men an ill repute by your empty name of a\nfalse baptism.\"\n\n86. AUGUSTINE answered: We bring no accusation against Paul, who gave\nto men the baptism of Christ because they had not the baptism of\nChrist, but the baptism of John, according to their own reply; for,\nbeing asked, Unto what were ye baptized? they answered, Unto John's\nbaptism; which has nothing to do with the baptism of Christ, and is\nneither a part of it nor a step towards it. Otherwise, either at that\ntime the water of the baptism of Christ was renewed a second time, or\nif the baptism of Christ was then made perfect by the two waters, the\nbaptism is less perfect which is given now, because it is not given\nwith the water which was given at the hands of John. But either one of\nthese opinions it is impious and sacrilegious to entertain. Therefore\nPaul gave the baptism of Christ to those who had not the baptism of\nChrist, but only the baptism of John.\n\n87. But why the baptism of John, which is not necessary now, was\nnecessary at that time, I have already explained; and the question has\nno bearing on the point at issue between us at the present time, except\nso far as that it may appear that the baptism of John was one thing,\nthe baptism of Christ another,--just as that baptism was a different\nthing with which the apostle says that our fathers were baptized in the\ncloud and in the sea, when they passed through the Red Sea under the\nguidance of Moses.[804] For the law and the prophets up to the time of\nJohn the Baptist had sacraments which foreshadowed things to come; but\nthe sacraments of our time bear testimony that that has come already\nwhich the former sacraments foretold should come. John therefore was\na foreteller of Christ nearer to Him in time than all who went before\nhim. And because all the righteous men and prophets of former times\ndesired to see the fulfilment of what, through the revelation of the\nSpirit, they foresaw would come to pass,--whence also the Lord Himself\nsays, \"That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those\nthings which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things\nwhich ye hear, and have not heard them,\"[805]--therefore it was said\nof John that he was more than a prophet, and that among all that were\nborn of women there was none greater than he;[806] because to the\nrighteous men who went before him it was only granted to foretell the\ncoming of Christ, but to John it was given both to foretell Him in His\nabsence and to behold His presence, so that it should be found that\nto him was made manifest what the others had desired. And therefore\nthe sacrament of his baptism is still connected with the foretelling\nof Christ's coming, though as of something very soon to be fulfilled,\nseeing that up to his time there were still foretellings of the first\ncoming of our Lord, of which coming we have now announcements, but\nno longer predictions. But the Lord, teaching the way of humility,\ncondescended to make use of the sacraments which He found here in\nreference to the foretelling of His coming, not in order to assist\nthe operation of His cleansing, but as an example for our piety, that\nso He might show to us with what reverence we ought to receive those\nsacraments which bear witness that He is already come, when He did\nnot disdain to make use of those which foreshadowed His coming in the\nfuture. And John, therefore, though the nearest to Christ in point of\ntime, and within one year of the same age with Him, yet, while he was\nbaptizing, went before the way of Christ who was still to come; for\nwhich reason it was said of him, \"Behold, I send my messenger before\nThy face, which shall prepare Thy way before Thee.\"[807] And he himself\npreached, saying, \"There cometh one mightier than I after me.\"[808] In\nlike manner, therefore, the circumcision on the eighth day, which was\ngiven to the patriarchs, foretold our justification, to the putting\naway of carnal lusts through the resurrection of our Lord, which took\nplace after the seventh day, which is the Sabbath-day, on the eighth,\nthat is, the Lord's day, which fell on the third day after His burial;\nyet the infant Christ received the same circumcision of the flesh, with\nits prophetic signification. And as the Passover, which was celebrated\nby the Jews with the slaying of a lamb, prefigured the passion of our\nLord and His departure from this world to the Father, yet the same Lord\ncelebrated the same Passover with His disciples, when they reminded\nHim of it, saying, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the\nPassover?[809] so too He Himself also received the baptism of John,\nwhich formed a part of the latest foretelling of His coming. But as the\nJews' circumcision of the flesh is one thing, and the ceremony which we\nobserve on the eighth day after persons are baptized is another;[810]\nand the Passover which the Jews still celebrate with the slaying of\na lamb is one thing,[811] and that which we receive in the body and\nblood of our Lord is another,--so the baptism of John was one thing,\nthe baptism of Christ is another. For by the former series of rites\nthe latter were foretold as destined to arrive; by these latter the\nothers are declared to be fulfilled. And even though Christ received\nthe others, yet are they not necessary for us, who have received the\nLord Himself who was foretold in them. But when the coming of our Lord\nwas as yet recent, it was necessary for any one who had received the\nformer that he should be imbued with the latter also; but it was wholly\nneedless that any one who had been so imbued should be compelled to go\nback to the former rites.\n\n88. Wherefore do not seek to raise confusion out of the baptism of\nJohn, the source and intention of which was either such as I have here\nset forth; or if any other better explanation of it can be given, this\nmuch still is clear, that the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ\nare two distinct and separate things, and that the former was expressly\ncalled the baptism of John, as is clear both from the answer of those\nmen whose case you quoted, and from the words of our Lord Himself,\nwhen He says, \"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of\nmen?\"[812] But the latter is never called the baptism of C\u00e6cilianus,\nor of Donatus, or of Augustine, or of Petilianus, but the baptism of\nChrist. For if you think that we are shameless, because we will not\nallow that any one should be baptized after baptism from us, although\nwe see that men were baptized again who had received the baptism of\nJohn, who certainly is incomparably greater than ourselves, will you\nmaintain that John and Optatus were of equal dignity? The thing appears\nridiculous. And yet I fancy that you do not hold them to be equals,\nbut consider Optatus the greater of the two. For the apostle baptized\nafter baptism by John: you venture to baptize no one after baptism\nby Optatus. Was it because Optatus was in unity with you? I know not\nwith what heart a theory like this can be maintained, if the friend\nof the Count,[813] who had in the Count a god for his companion, is\nsaid to have been in unity, and the friend of the Bridegroom to have\nbeen excluded from it. But if John was pre-eminently in unity, and far\nmore excellent and greater than all of us and all of you, and yet the\nApostle Paul baptized after him, why do you then not baptize after\nOptatus? Unless indeed it be that your blindness brings you into such\na strait that you should say that Optatus had the power of giving the\nHoly Spirit, and that John had not! And if you do not say this, for\nfear of being ridiculed for your madness even by the insane themselves,\nwhat answer will you be able to make when you are asked why men should\nhave required to be baptized after receiving baptism from John, while\nno one needs to be baptized after receiving it from Optatus, unless\nit be that the former were baptized with the baptism of John, while,\nwhenever any one is baptized with the baptism of Christ, whether he be\nbaptized by Paul or by Optatus, there is no difference in the nature\nof his baptism, though there is so great a difference between Paul and\nOptatus? Return then, O ye transgressors, to a right mind,[814] and\ndo not seek to weigh the sacraments of God by considerations of the\ncharacters and deeds of men. For the sacraments are holy through Him to\nwhom they belong; but when taken in hand worthily, they bring reward,\nwhen unworthily, judgment. And although the men are not one who take\nin hand the sacrament of God worthily or unworthily, yet that which is\ntaken in hand, whether worthily or unworthily, is the same; so that it\ndoes not become better or worse in itself, but only turns to the life\nor death of those who handle it in either case. And in respect of what\nyou said, that \"in those whom Paul baptized after they had received the\nbaptism of John, he washed off what had already existed,\" you certainly\nwould not have said it had you taken a moment to consider what you\nwere saying. For if the baptism of John required washing off, it must,\nbeyond all doubt, have had some foulness in it. Why then should I press\nyou further? Recollect or read, and see whence John received it, so\nshall you see against whom you have uttered that blasphemy; and when\nyou have discovered this, your heart will surely be beaten, if a rein\nbe not set on your tongue.\n\n89. To come next to what you think you say against us with so much\npoint: \"If we do ill in urging this, why do you seek after us?\" cannot\nyou even yet call to mind that only those are sought after who have\nperished? Or is the incapacity for seeing this an element in your\nruin? For the sheep might say to the shepherd with equal absurdity,\nIf I do wrong in straying from the flock, why do you search after\nme? not understanding that the very reason why it is being sought is\nbecause it thinks there is no need for seeking it. But who is there\nthat seeks for you, either through His Scriptures, or by catholic and\nconciliatory voices, or by the scourgings of temporal afflictions, save\nonly Him who dispenses that mercy to you in all things? We therefore\nseek you that we may find you; for we love you that you should have\nlife, with the same intensity with which we hate your error, that it\nmight be destroyed which seeks to ruin you, so long as it is not itself\ninvolved in your destruction. And would to God that we might seek you\nin such a manner as even to find, and be able to say with rejoicing of\neach one of you, \"He was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is\nfound!\"[815]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXVIII.--90. PETILIANUS said: \"If you declare that you hold the\nCatholic Church, the word 'catholic' is merely the Greek equivalent for\nentire or whole. But it is clear that you are not in the whole, because\nyou have gone aside into the part.\"\n\n91. AUGUSTINE answered: I too indeed have attained to a very slight\nknowledge of the Greek language, scarcely to be called knowledge at\nall, yet I am not shameless in saying that I know that [Greek: holon]\nmeans not \"one,\" but \"the whole;\" and that [Greek: kath' holon] means\n\"according to the whole:\" whence the Catholic Church received its name,\naccording to the saying of the Lord, \"It is not for you to know the\ntimes and the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power. But\nye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:\nand ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in Judea,\nand in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.\"[816] Here\nyou have the origin of the name \"Catholic.\" But you are so bent upon\nrunning with your eyes shut against the mountain which grew out of a\nsmall stone, according to the prophecy of Daniel, and filled the whole\nearth,[817] that you actually tell us that we have gone aside into a\npart, and are not in the whole among those whose communion is spread\nthroughout the whole earth. But just in the same way as, supposing you\nwere to say that I was Petilianus, I should not be able to find any\nmethod of refuting you unless I were to laugh at you as being in jest,\nor mourn over you as being mad, so in the present case I see that I\nhave no other choice but this; and since I do not believe that you are\nin jest, you see what alternative remains.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXIX.--92. PETILIANUS said: \"But there is no fellowship of\ndarkness with light, nor any fellowship of bitterness with the sweet\nof honey; there is no fellowship of life with death, of innocence\nwith guilt, of water with blood; the lees have no fellowship with\noil, though they are related to it as being its dregs, but everything\nthat is reprobate will flow away. It is the very sink of iniquity;\naccording to the saying of John, 'They went out from us, but they\nwere not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have\ncontinued with us.'[818] There is no gold among their pollution: all\nthat is precious has been purged away. For it is written, 'As gold is\ntried in the furnace, so also are the just tried by the harassing of\ntribulation.'[819] Cruelty is not a part of gentleness, nor religion\na part of sacrilege; nor can the party of Macarius in any way be part\nof us, because he pollutes the likeness of our rite. For the enemy's\nline, which fills up an enemy's name, is no part of the force to which\nit is opposed; but if it is truly to be called a part, it will find a\nsuitable motto in the judgment of Solomon, 'Let their part be cut off\nfrom the earth.'\"[820]\n\n93. AUGUSTINE answered: What is it but sheer madness to utter these\ntaunts without proving anything? You look at the tares throughout the\nworld, and pay no heed to the wheat, although both have been bidden to\ngrow together throughout the whole of it. You look at the seed sown by\nthe wicked one, which shall be separated in the time of harvest,[821]\nand you pay no heed to the seed of Abraham, in which all nations of\nthe earth shall be blessed.[822] Just as though you were already a\npurged mass, and virgin honey, and refined oil, and pure gold, or\nrather the very similitude of a whited wall. For, to say nothing of\nyour other faults, do the drunken form a portion of the sober, or are\nthe covetous reckoned among the portion of the wise? If men of gentle\ntemper appropriate the term of light, where shall the madness of the\nCircumcelliones be esteemed to be, excepting in the darkness? Why\nthen is baptism, given by men like these, held valid among you, and\nthe same baptism of Christ not held valid, by whatsoever men it may\nbe administered throughout the world? You see, in fact, that you are\nseparated from the communion of the whole world in so far as this, that\nyou are not indeed all drunk, nor all of you covetous, nor all men of\nviolence, but that you are all heretics, and, in virtue of this, are\nall impious and all sacrilegious.\n\n94. But as to your saying that the whole world that rejoices in\nChristian communion is the party of Macarius, who with any remnant of\nsanity in his brain could make such a statement? But because we say\nthat you are of the party of Donatus, you therefore seek for a man\nof whose party you may say we are; and, being in a great strait, you\nmention the name of some obscure person, who, if he is known in Africa,\nis certainly unknown in any other quarter of the globe. And therefore\nhearken to the answer made to you by all the seed of Abraham from every\ncorner of the earth: Of that Macarius, to whose party you assert us to\nbelong, we know absolutely nothing. Can you reply in turn that you know\nnothing of Donatus? But even if we were to say that you are the party\nof Optatus, which of you can say that he is unacquainted with Optatus,\nunless in the sense that he does not know him personally, as perhaps\nhe does not know Donatus either? But you acknowledge that you rejoice\nin the name of Donatus, do you also take any pleasure in the name of\nOptatus? What then can the name of Donatus profit you, when all of you\nalike are polluted by Optatus? What advantage can you derive from the\nsobriety of Donatus, when you are defiled by the drunkenness of the\nCircumcelliones? What, according to your views, are you profited by the\ninnocence of Donatus, when you are stained by the rapacity of Optatus?\nFor this is your mistake, that you think that the unrighteousness of a\nman has more power in infecting his neighbour than the righteousness\nof a man has in purifying those around him. Therefore, if two share\nin common the sacraments of God, the one a just man, the other an\nunrighteous one, but so that neither the former should imitate the\nunrighteousness of the latter, nor the latter the righteousness of\nthe former, you say that the result is not that both are made just,\nbut that both are made unrighteous; so that also that holy thing,\nwhich both receive in common, becomes unclean and loses its original\nholiness. When does unrighteousness find for herself such advocates as\nthese, through whose madness she is esteemed victorious? How comes it\nthen that, in the midst of such mistaken perversity, you congratulate\nyourselves upon the name of Donatus, when it shows not that Petilianus\ndeserves to be what Donatus is, but that Donatus is compelled to be\nwhat Optatus is? But let the house of Israel say, \"God is my portion\nfor ever;\"[823] let the seed of Abraham say in all nations, \"The Lord\nis the portion of mine inheritance.\"[824] For they know how to speak\nthrough the gospel of the glory of the blessed God. For you, too,\nthrough the sacrament which is in you, like Caiaphas the persecutor\nof the Lord, prophesy without being aware of it.[825] For what in\nGreek is expressed by the word [Greek: Makarios] is in our language\nsimply \"Blessed;\" and in this way certainly we are of the party of\nMacarius, the Blessed One. For what is more blessed than Christ, of\nwhose party we are, after whom all the ends of the earth are called,\nand to whom they all are turned, and in whose sight all the countries\nof the nations worship? Therefore the party of this Macarius, that is\nto say, of this Blessed One, feels no apprehension at your last curse,\ndistorted from the words of Solomon, lest it should perish from the\nearth. For what is said by him of the impious you endeavour to apply to\nthe inheritance of Christ, and you strive to prove that this has been\nachieved with inexpressible impiety; for when he was speaking of the\nimpious, he says, \"Let their portion perish from off the earth.\"[826]\nBut when you say, with reference to the words of Scripture, \"I shall\ngive Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance,\"[827] and \"all the ends of\nthe world shall remember and turn unto the Lord,\"[828] that the promise\ncontained in them has already perished from the earth, you are seeking\nto turn against the inheritance of Christ what was foretold about the\nlot of the impious; but so long as the inheritance of Christ endures\nand increases, you are perishing in saying such things. For you are not\nin every case prophesying through the sacrament of God, since in this\ncase you are merely uttering evil wishes through your own madness.\nBut the prophecy of the true prophets is more powerful than the evil\nspeaking of the false prophets.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XL.--95. PETILIANUS said: \"Paul the apostle also bids us, 'Be\nye not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath\nrighteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with\ndarkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath\nhe that believeth with an infidel?\"[829]\n\n96. AUGUSTINE answered: I recognise the words of the apostle; but\nhow they can help you I cannot see at all. For which of us says that\nthere is any fellowship between righteousness and unrighteousness,\neven though the righteous and the unrighteous, as in the case of Judas\nand Peter, should be alike partakers of the sacraments? For from one\nand the same holy thing Judas received judgment to himself and Peter\nsalvation, just as you received the sacrament with Optatus, and, if you\nwere unlike him, were not therefore partakers in his robberies. Or is\nrobbery not unrighteousness? Who would be mad enough to assert that?\nWhat fellowship was there, then, on the part of your righteousness with\nhis unrighteousness, when you approached together to the same altar?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLI.--97. PETILIANUS said: \"And, again, he taught us that schisms\nshould not arise, in the following terms: 'Now this I say, that every\none of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and\nI of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye\nbaptized in the name of Paul?'\"[830]\n\n98. AUGUSTINE answered: Remember all of you who read this, it was\nPetilianus who quoted these words from the apostle. For who could have\nbelieved that he would have brought forward words which tell so much\nfor us against himself?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLII.--99. PETILIANUS said: \"If Paul uttered these words to the\nunlearned and to the righteous, I say this to you who are unrighteous,\nIs Christ divided, that you should separate yourselves from the Church?\"\n\n100. AUGUSTINE answered: I am afraid lest any one should think that in\nthis work of mine the writer has made a mistake, and has written the\nheading _Petilianus said_, when he ought to have written _Augustine\nanswered_. But I see what your object is: you wished, as it were, to\npreoccupy the ground, lest we should bring those words in testimony\nagainst you. But what have you really done, except to cause them to\nbe quoted twice? If, therefore, you are so much pleased with hearing\nthe words which make against you, as to render it necessary that they\nshould be repeated, hear, I pray you, these words as coming from me,\nPetilianus: Is Christ divided, that you should separate yourselves from\nthe Church?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLIII.--101. PETILIANUS said: \"Can it be that the traitor Judas\nhung himself for you, or did he imbue you with his character, that,\nfollowing his deeds, you should seize on the treasures of the Church,\nand sell for money to the powers of this world us who are the heirs of\nChrist?\"\n\n102. AUGUSTINE answered: Judas did not die for us, but Christ, to\nwhom the Church dispersed throughout the world says, \"So shall I\nhave wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me: for I trust in Thy\nword.\"[831] When, therefore, I hear the words of the Lord, saying,\n\"Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea,\nand in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth,\"[832] and\nthrough the voice of His prophet, \"Their sound is gone out through\nall the earth, and their words into the ends of the world,\"[833] no\nbodily admixture of evil ever is able to disturb me, if I know how to\nsay, \"Be surety to Thy servant for good: let not the proud oppress\nme.\"[834] I do not, therefore, concern myself about a vain calumniation\nwhen I have a substantial promise. But if you complain about matters\nor places appertaining to the Church, which you used once to hold, and\nhold no longer, then the Jews also may say that they are righteous,\nand reproach us with unrighteousness, because the Christians now\noccupy the place in which of old they impiously reigned. What then\nis there unfitting, if, according to a similar will of the Lord, the\nCatholics now hold the things which formerly the heretics used to\nhave? For against all such men as this, that is to say, against all\nimpious and unrighteous men, those words of the Lord have force, \"The\nkingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation\nbringing forth the fruits thereof;\"[835] or is it written in vain, \"The\nrighteous shall eat of the labours of the impious?\"[836] Wherefore you\nought rather to be amazed that you still possess something, than that\nthere is something which you have lost. But neither need you wonder\neven at this, for it is by degrees that the whitened wall falls down.\nYet look back at the followers of Maximianus, see what places they\npossessed, and by whose agency and under whose attacks they were driven\nfrom them, and do you venture, if you can, to say that to suffer things\nlike these is righteousness, while to do them is unrighteousness. In\nthe first place, because you did the deed, and they suffered them; and\nsecondly, because, according to the rule of this righteousness, you are\nfound to be inferior. For they were driven from the ancient places by\nCatholic emperors acting through judges, while you are not even driven\nforth by the mandates of the emperors themselves from the basilicas of\nunity. For what reason is this, save that you are of less merit, not\nonly than the rest of your colleagues, but even than those very men\nwhom you assuredly condemned as guilty of sacrilege by the mouth of\nyour general Council?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLIV.--103. PETILIANUS said: \"For we, as it is written, when we\nare baptized, put on Christ who was betrayed;[837] you, when you are\ninfected, put on Judas the betrayer.\"\n\n104. AUGUSTINE answered: I also might say, You when you are infected\nput on Optatus the betrayer, the robber, the oppressor, the separater\nof husband and wife; but far be it from me that the desire of returning\nan evil word should provoke me into any falsehood: for neither do you\nput on Optatus, nor we Judas. Therefore, if each one who comes to us\nshall answer to our questions that he has been baptized in the name\nof Optatus, he shall be baptized in the name of Christ; and if you\nbaptized any that came from us and said that they had been baptized in\nthe name of the traitor Judas, in that case we have no fault to find\nwith what you have done. But if they had been baptized in the name of\nChrist, do you not see what an error you commit in thinking that the\nsacraments of God can undergo change through any changeableness of\nhuman sins, or be polluted by defilement in the life of any man?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLV.--105. PETILIANUS said: \"But if these are the parties, the\nname of member of a party is no prejudice against us. For there are\ntwo ways, the one narrow, in which we walk; the other is for the\nimpious, wherein they shall perish. And yet, though the designations\nbe alike, there is a great difference in the reality, that the way of\nrighteousness should not be defiled by fellowship in a name.\"\n\n106. AUGUSTINE answered: You have been afraid of the comparison of your\nnumbers with the multitude throughout the world; and therefore, in\norder to win praise for the scantiness of your party, you have sought\nto bring in the comparison of yourself walking in the narrow path.\nWould to God that you had betaken yourself not to its praise, but to\nthe path itself! Truly you would have seen that there was the same\nscantiness in the Church of all nations; but that the righteous are\nsaid to be few in comparison with the multitude of the unrighteous,\njust as, in comparison with the chaff, there may be said to be few\ngrains of corn in the most abundant crop, and yet these very grains of\nthemselves, when brought into a heap, fill the barn. For the followers\nof Maximianus themselves will surpass you in this scantiness of number,\nif you think that righteousness consists in this, as well as in the\npersecution involved in the loss of places which they held.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLVI.--107. PETILIANUS said: \"In the first Psalm David separates\nthe blessed from the impious, not indeed making them into parties,\nbut excluding all the impious from holiness. 'Blessed is the man that\nwalketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of\nsinners.' Let him who had strayed from the path of righteousness, so\nthat he should perish, return to it again. 'Nor sitteth in the seat of\nthe scornful.' When he gives this warning, O ye miserable men, why do\nyou sit in that seat? 'But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and\nin His law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree\nplanted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his\nseason: his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall\nprosper. The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind\ndriveth away.' He blindeth their eyes, so that they should not see.\n'Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in\nthe congregation of the righteous. For the Lord knoweth the way of the\nrighteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.'\"\n\n108. AUGUSTINE answered: Who is there in the Scriptures that would not\ndistinguish between these two classes of men? But you in your evil\nspeak indiscriminately, charge the corn with the offences of the chaff;\nand being yourselves mere chaff, you boast yourselves to be the only\ncorn. But the true prophets declare that both these classes have been\nmingled together throughout the whole world, that is, throughout the\nwhole corn-field of the Lord, until the winnowing which is to take\nplace on the day of judgment. But I advise you to read that first\nPsalm in the Greek version, and then you will not venture to reproach\nthe whole world with being of the party of Macarius; because you will\nperhaps come to understand of what Macarius there is a party among\nall the saints, who throughout all nations are blessed in the seed of\nAbraham. For what stands in our language as \"Blessed is the man,\" is\nin Greek [Greek: Makarios an\u00ear]. But that Macarius who offends you,\nif he is a bad man, neither belongs to this division, nor is to its\nprejudice. But if he is a good man, let him prove his own work, that he\nmay have glory in himself alone, and not in another.[838]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLVII.--109. PETILIANUS said: \"But the same Psalmist has sung\nthe praises of our baptism. 'The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not\nwant. He maketh me to lie down in the green pastures: He leadeth me\nbeside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: He leadeth me in the\npaths of righteousness for His name's sake. Yea, though I walk through\nthe valley of the shadow of death,'--though the persecutor, he means,\nshould slay me,--'I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod\nand Thy staff comfort me.' It was by this that it conquered Goliath,\nbeing armed with the anointing oil. 'Thou hast prepared a table before\nme in the presence of mine enemies: Thou anointest my head with oil;\nmy cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all\nthe days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for\never.'\"[839]\n\n110. AUGUSTINE answered: This psalm speaks of those who receive baptism\naright, and use as holy what is so holy. For those words have no\nreference even to Simon Magus, who yet received the same holy baptism;\nand because he would not use it in a holy way, he did not therefore\npollute it, or show that in such cases it should be repeated. But since\nyou have made mention of Goliath, listen to the psalm which treats of\nGoliath himself, and see that he is portrayed in a new song; for there\nit is said, \"I will sing a new song unto Thee, O God: upon a psaltery,\nand an instrument of ten strings, will I sing praise unto Thee.\"[840]\nAnd see whether he belongs to this song who refuses to communicate\nwith the whole earth. For elsewhere it is said, \"O sing unto the Lord\na new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth.\"[841] Therefore the\nwhole earth, with whom you are not in unity, sings the new song. And\nthese too are the words of the whole earth, \"The Lord is my shepherd,\nI shall not want,\" etc. These are not the words of the tares, though\nthey be endured until the harvest in the same crop. They are not the\nwords of the chaff, but of the wheat, although they are nourished by\none and the same rain, and are threshed out on the same threshing-floor\nat the same time, till they shall be separated the one from the other\nby the winnowing at the last day. And yet these both assuredly have\nthe same baptism, though they are not the same themselves. But if\nyour party also were the Church of God, you would certainly confess\nthat this psalm has no application to the infuriated bands of the\nCircumcelliones. Or if they too themselves are led through the paths\nof righteousness, why do you deny that they are your associates, when\nyou are reproached with them, although, for the most part, you console\nyourselves for the scantiness of your section, not by the rod and staff\nof the Lord, but by the cudgels of the Circumcelliones, with which you\nthink that you are safe even against the Roman laws,--to bring oneself\ninto collision with which is surely nothing less than to walk through\nthe valley of the shadow of death? But he with whom the Lord is, fears\nno evils. Surely, however, you will not venture to say that the words\nwhich are sung in this song belong even to those infuriated men, and\nyet you not only acknowledge, but ostentatiously set forth the fact\nthat they have baptism. These words, therefore, are not used by any\nwho are not refreshed by the holy water, as are all the righteous men\nof God; not by those who are brought to destruction by using it, as\nwas that magician when baptized by Philip: and yet the water itself\nin both kinds of men is the same, and of the same degree of sanctity.\nThese words are not used except by those who will belong to the right\nhand; but yet both sheep and goats feed in the same pasture under one\nShepherd, until they shall be separated, that they may receive their\ndue reward. These words are not used except by those who, like Peter,\nreceive life from the table of the Lord, not judgment, as did Judas;\nand yet the supper was itself the same to both, but it was not of the\nsame profit to both, because they were not one. These words are not\nused except by those who, by being anointed with the sacred oil, are\nblessed in spirit also, as was David; not merely consecrated in the\nbody only, as was Saul: and yet, as they had both received the same\noutward sign, it was not the sacrament, but the personal merit that was\ndifferent in the two cases. These words are not used except by those\nwho, with converted heart, receive the cup of the Lord unto eternal\nlife; not by those who eat and drink damnation to themselves, as the\napostle says:[842] and yet, though they are not one, the cup which they\nreceive is one, exerting its power on the martyrs that they should\nobtain a heavenly reward, not on the Circumcelliones, that they should\nmark precipices with death. Remember, therefore, that the characters\nof bad men in no wise interfere with the virtue of the sacraments, so\nthat their holiness should either be destroyed, or even diminished;\nbut that they injure the unrighteous men themselves, that they should\nhave them as witnesses of their damnation, not as aids to health. For\nbeyond all doubt you should have taken into consideration the actual\nconcluding words of this psalm, and have understood that, on account of\nthose who forsake the faith after they have been baptized, it cannot be\nsaid by all who receive holy baptism that \"I will dwell in the house\nof the Lord for ever:\" and yet, whether they abide in the faith, or\nwhether they have fallen away, though they themselves are not one,\ntheir baptism is one, and though they themselves are not both holy, yet\nthe baptism in both is holy; because even apostates, if they return,\nare not baptized as though they had lost the sacrament, but undergo\nhumiliation, because they have done despite to it remaining in them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLVIII.--111. PETILIANUS said: \"Yet that you should not call\nyourselves holy, in the first place, I declare that no one has holiness\nwho has not led a life of innocence.\"\n\n112. AUGUSTINE answered: Show us the tribunal where you have been\nenthroned as judge, that the whole world should stand for trial before\nyou, and with what eyes you have inspected and discussed, I do not say\nthe consciences, but even the acts of all men, that you should say that\nthe whole world has lost its innocence. He who was carried up as far\nas the third heaven says, \"Yea, I judge not mine own self;\"[843] and\ndo you venture to pronounce sentence on the whole world, throughout\nwhich the inheritance of Christ is spread abroad? In the next place,\nif what you have said appears to you to be sufficiently certain, that\n\"no one has holiness who has not led a life of innocence,\" I would ask\nyou, if Saul had not the holiness of the sacrament, what was in him\nthat David reverenced? But if he had innocence, why did he persecute\nthe innocent? For it was on account of the sanctity of his anointing\nthat David honoured him while alive, and avenged him after he was dead;\nand because he cut off so much as a scrap from his garment, he trembled\nwith a panic-stricken heart. Here you see that Saul had not innocence,\nand yet he had holiness,--not the personal holiness of a holy life\n(for that no one can have without innocence), but the holiness of the\nsacrament of God, which is holy even in unrighteous men.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLIX.--113. PETILIANUS said: \"For, granting that you faithless\nones are acquainted with the law, without any prejudice to the law\nitself, I may say so much as this, the devil knows it too. For in the\ncase of righteous Job he answered the Lord God concerning the law as\nthough he were himself righteous, as it is written, 'And the Lord said\nunto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none\nlike him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth\nGod and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity,\nalthough thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause. And\nSatan answered the Lord, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will\nhe give for his life.'[844] Behold he speaks in legal phrase, even when\nhe is striving against the law. And a second time he endeavoured thus\nto tempt the Lord Christ with his discourse, as it is written, 'The\ndevil taketh Jesus into the holy city, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of\nthe temple, and saith unto Him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself\ndown: for it is written, He shall give His angels charge over thee; and\nin their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy\nfoot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou\nshalt not tempt the Lord thy God.'[845] You know the law, I say, as\ndid the devil, who is conquered in his endeavours, and blushes in his\ndeeds.\"\n\n114. AUGUSTINE answered: I might indeed ask of you in what law the\nwords are written which the devil used when he was uttering calumnies\nagainst the holy man Job, if the position which I am set to prove\nwere this, that you yourself are unacquainted with the law which you\nassert the devil to have known; but as this is not the question at\nissue between us, I pass it by. But you have endeavoured in such sort\nto prove that the devil is skilled in the law, as though we maintained\nthat all who know the law are just. Accordingly, I do not see in what\nmanner you are assisted by what you have chosen to quote concerning\nthe devil,--unless, indeed, it may be that we should be thereby\nreminded how you imitate the devil himself. For as he brought forward\nthe words of the law against the Author of the law, so you also out\nof the words of the law bring accusation against men whom you do not\nknow, that you may resist the promises of God which are made in that\nvery self-same law. Then I should be glad if you would tell me in\nwhose honour do those confessors of yours achieve their martyrdom,\nwhen they throw themselves over precipices,--in honour of Christ, who\nthrust the devil from Him when he made a like suggestion, or rather\nin honour of the devil himself, who suggested such a deed to Christ?\nThere are two especially vile and customary deaths resorted to by those\nwho kill themselves,--hanging and the precipice. You assuredly said in\nthe earlier part of this epistle, \"The traitor hung himself: he left\nthis death to all who are like him.\" This has no application whatever\nto us; for we refuse to reverence with the name of martyr any who\nhave strangled themselves. With how much greater show of reason might\nwe say against you, That master of all traitors, the devil, wished\nto persuade Christ to throw Himself headlong down, and was repulsed!\nWhat, therefore, must we say of those whom he persuaded with success?\nWhat, indeed, except that they are the enemies of Christ, the friends\nof the devil, the disciples of the seducer, the fellow-disciples of\nthe traitor? For both have learned to kill themselves from the same\nmaster,--Judas by hanging himself, the others by throwing themselves\nover precipices.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. L.--115. PETILIANUS said: \"But that we may destroy your arguments\none by one, if you call yourselves by the name of priests, it was said\nby the Lord God, through the mouth of His prophet, 'The vengeance of\nthe Lord is upon the false priests.'\"\n\n116. AUGUSTINE answered: Seek rather what you may say with truth, not\nwhence you may derive abusive words; and what you may teach, not what\nreproaches you may cast in our teeth.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LI.--117. PETILIANUS said: \"If you wretched men claim for\nyourselves a seat, as we said before, you assuredly have that one of\nwhich the prophet and psalmist David speaks as being the seat of the\nscornful.[846] For to you it is rightly left, seeing that the holy\ncannot sit therein.\"\n\n118. AUGUSTINE answered: Here again you do not see that this is no kind\nof argument, but empty abuse. For this is what I said a little while\nago, You utter the words of the law, but take no heed against whom you\nutter them; just as the devil uttered the words of the law, but failed\nto perceive to whom he uttered them. He wished to thrust down our Head,\nwho was presently to ascend on high; but you wish to reduce to a small\nfraction the body of that same Head which is dispersed throughout the\nentire world. Certainly you yourself said a little time before that we\nknow the law, and speak in legal terms, but blush in our deeds. Thus\nmuch indeed you say without a proof of anything; but even though you\nwere to prove it of some men, you would not be entitled to assert it\nof these others. However, if all men throughout all the world were of\nthe character which you most vainly charge them with, what has the\nchair done to you of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and which\nAnastasius fills to-day; or the chair of the Church of Jerusalem, in\nwhich James once sat, and in which John sits to-day, with which we are\nunited in catholic unity, and from which you have severed yourselves\nby your mad fury? Why do you call the apostolic chair a seat of the\nscornful? If it is on account of the men whom you believe to use the\nwords of the law without performing it, do you find that our Lord Jesus\nChrist was moved by the Pharisees, of whom He says, \"They say, and\ndo not,\" to do any despite to the seat in which they sat? Did He not\ncommend the seat of Moses, and maintain the honour of the seat, while\nHe convicted those that sat in it? For He says, \"They sit in Moses'\nseat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and\ndo; but do ye not after their works: for they say, and do not.\"[847]\nIf you were to think of these things, you would not, on account of men\nwhom you calumniate, do despite to the apostolic seat, in which you\nhave no share. But what else is conduct like yours but ignorance of\nwhat to say, combined with want of power to abstain from evil-speaking?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LII.--119. PETILIANUS said: \"If you suppose that you can offer\nsacrifice, God Himself thus speaks of you as most abandoned sinners:\n'The wicked man,' He says, 'that sacrificeth a calf is as if he cut\noff a dog's neck; and he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered\nswine's blood.'[848] Recognise herein your sacrifice, who have already\npoured out human blood. And again He says, 'Their sacrifices shall\nbe unto them as the bread of mourners; all that eat thereof shall be\npolluted.'\"[849]\n\n120. AUGUSTINE answered: We say that in the case of every man the\nsacrifice that is offered partakes of the character of him who\napproaches to offer it, or approaches to partake of it; and that those\neat of the sacrifices of such men, who in approaching to them partake\nof the character of those who offer them. Therefore, if a bad man offer\nsacrifice to God, and a good man receive it at his hands, the sacrifice\nis to each man of such character as he himself has shown himself to\nbe, since we find it also written that \"unto the pure all things are\npure.\"[850] In accordance with this true and catholic judgment, you too\nare free from pollution by the sacrifice of Optatus, if you disapproved\nof his deeds. For certainly his bread was the bread of mourners,\nseeing that all Africa was mourning under his iniquities. But the evil\ninvolved in the schism of all your party makes this bread of mourners\ncommon to you all. For, according to the judgment of your Council,\nFelicianus of Musti was a shedder of man's blood. For you said, in\ncondemning them,[851] \"Their feet are swift to shed blood.\"[852] See\ntherefore what kind of sacrifice he offers whom you hold to be a\npriest, when you have yourselves convicted him of sacrilege. And if you\nthink that this is in no way to your prejudice, I would ask you how the\nemptiness of your calumnies can be to the prejudice of the whole world?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LIII.--121. PETILIANUS said: \"If you make prayer to God, or\nutter supplication, it profits you absolutely nothing whatsoever.\nFor your blood-stained conscience makes your feeble prayers of no\neffect; because the Lord God regards purity of conscience more than\nthe words of supplication, according to the saying of the Lord Christ,\n'Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the\nkingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in\nheaven.'[853] The will of God unquestionably is good, for therefore we\npray as follows in the holy prayer, 'Thy will be done in earth, as it\nis in heaven,'[854] that, as His will is good, so it may confer on us\nwhatever may be good. You therefore do not do the will of God, because\nyou do what is evil every day.\"\n\n122. AUGUSTINE answered: If we on our side were to utter against you\nall that you assert against us, would not any one who heard us consider\nthat we were rather insane litigants than Christian disputants, if he\nhimself were in his senses? We do not, therefore, render railing for\nrailing. For it is not fitting that the servant of the Lord should\nstrive; but he should be gentle unto all men, willing to learn, in\nmeekness instructing those that oppose themselves.[855] If, therefore,\nwe reproach you with those who daily do what is evil among you, we\nare guilty of striving unbefittingly, accusing one for the sins of\nanother. But if we admonish you, that as you are unwilling that these\nthings should be brought against yourselves, so you should abstain from\nbringing against us the sins of other men, we then in meekness are\ninstructing you, solely in the hopes that some time you will return to\na better mind.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LIV.--123. PETILIANUS said: \"But if it should so happen, though\nwhether it be so I cannot say, that you cast out devils, neither will\nthis in you do any good; because the devils themselves yield neither\nto your faith nor to your merits, but are driven out in the name of the\nLord Jesus Christ.\"\n\n124. AUGUSTINE answered: God be thanked that you have at length\nconfessed that the invocation of the name of Christ may be of profit\nfor the salvation of others, even though it be invoked by sinners!\nHence, therefore, you may understand that when the name of Christ is\ninvoked, the sins of one man do not stand in the way of the salvation\nof another. But to determine in what manner we invoke the name of\nChrist, we require not your judgment, but the judgment of Christ\nHimself who is invoked by us; for He alone can know in what spirit He\nis invoked. Yet from His own words we are assured that He is invoked to\ntheir salvation by all nations, who are blessed in the seed of Abraham.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LV.--125. PETILIANUS said: \"Even though you do very virtuous\nactions, and perform miraculous works, yet on account of your\nwickedness the Lord does not know you; even so, according to the words\nof the Lord Himself, 'Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have\nwe not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils?\nand in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto\nthem, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.'\"[856]\n\n126. AUGUSTINE answered: We acknowledge the word of the Lord. Hence\nalso the apostle says, \"Though I have all faith, so that I could remove\nmountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.\"[857] Here therefore we\nmust inquire who it is that has charity: you will find that it is no\none else but those who are lovers of unity. For as to the driving out\nof devils, and as to the working of miracles, seeing that very many\ndo not do such things who yet belong to the kingdom of God, and very\nmany do them who do not belong to it, neither our party nor your party\nhave any cause for boasting, if any of them chance to have this power,\nsince the Lord did not think it right that even the apostles, who could\ntruly do such things both to profit and salvation, should boast in\nthings like this, when He says to them, \"In this rejoice not, that the\nspirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names\nare written in heaven.\"[858] Wherefore all those things which you have\nadvanced from the writings of the gospel I also might repeat to you,\nif I saw you working the powerful acts of signs and miracles; and so\nmight you repeat them to me, if you saw me doing things of a like sort.\nLet us not, therefore, say one to another what may equally be said on\nthe other side as well; and, putting aside all quibbles, since we are\ninquiring where the Church of Christ is to be found, let us listen to\nthe words of Christ Himself, who redeemed it with His own blood: \"Ye\nshall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and\nin Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.\"[859] You see\nthen who it is with whom a man refuses to communicate who will not\ncommunicate with this Church, which is spread throughout all the world,\nif at least you hear whose words these are. For what is a greater proof\nof madness than to hold communion with the sacraments of the Lord, and\nto refuse to hold communion with the words of the Lord? Such men at\nany rate are likely to say, In Thy name have we eaten and drunken, and\nto hear the words, \"I never knew you,\"[860] seeing that they eat His\nbody and drink His blood in the sacrament, and do not recognise in the\ngospel His members which are spread abroad throughout the earth, and\ntherefore are not themselves counted among them in the judgment.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LVI.--127. PETILIANUS said: \"But even if, as you yourselves\nsuppose, you are following the law of the Lord in purity, let us\nnevertheless consider the question of the most holy law itself in a\nlegal form. The Apostle Paul says, 'The law is good, if a man use it\nlawfully.'[861] What then does the law say? 'Thou shalt not kill.'\nWhat Cain the murderer did once, you have often done, in slaying your\nbrethren.\"\n\n128. AUGUSTINE answered: We do not wish to be like you: for there are\nnot wanting words which might be uttered, as you too utter these; and\nknown also, for you do not know these; and set forth in the conduct of\na life, as these are not set forth by you.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LVII.--129. PETILIANUS said: \"It is written, 'Thou shalt not\ncommit adultery.' Each one of you, even though he be chaste in his\nbody, yet in spirit is an adulterer, because he pollutes his holiness.\"\n\n130. AUGUSTINE answered: These words also might be spoken with truth\nagainst certain both of our number and of yours; but if their deeds\nare condemned by us and you alike, they belong to neither us nor you.\nBut you wish that what you say against certain men, without proving\nit even in their especial case, should be taken just as if you had\nestablished it,--not in the case of some who have fallen away from the\nseed of Abraham, but in reference to all the nations of the earth who\nare blessed in the seed of Abraham.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LVIII.--131. PETILIANUS said: \"It is written, 'Thou shalt not\nbear false witness against thy neighbour.' When you falsely declare to\nthe kings of this world that we hold your opinions, do you not make up\na falsehood?\"\n\n132. AUGUSTINE answered: If those are not our opinions which you hold,\nneither were they your opinions which you received from the followers\nof Maximianus. But if they were therefore yours, because they were\nguilty of a sacrilegious schism in not communicating with the party of\nDonatus, take heed what ground you occupy, and with whose inheritance\nyou refuse communion, and consider what answer you can make, not to\nthe kings of this world, but to Christ your King. Of Him it is said,\n\"He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto\nthe ends of the earth.\"[862] From what river does it mean, save that\nwhere He was baptized, and where the dove descended on Him, that\nmighty token of charity and unity? But you refuse communion with this\nunity, and occupy as yet the place of unity; and you bring us into\ndisfavour with the kings of this world in making use of the edicts of\nthe proconsul to expel your schismatics from the place of the party of\nDonatus. These are not mere words flying at random through the empty\nvoid: the men are still alive, the states bear witness to the fact,\nthe archives of the proconsuls and of the several towns are quoted in\nevidence of it. Let then the voice of calumny be at length silent,\nwhich would bring up against the whole earth the kings of this world,\nthrough whose proconsuls you, yourselves a fragment, would not spare\nthe fragment which was separated from you. When then we say that you\nhold our opinions, we are not shown to be bearing false witness, unless\nyou can show that we are not in the Church of Christ, which indeed you\nnever cease alleging, but never will be able to establish; nay, in real\ntruth, when you say this, you are bringing a charge of false witness\nno longer against us, but against the Lord Himself. For we are in the\nChurch which was foretold by His own testimony, and where He bore\nwitness to His witnesses, saying, \"Ye shall be witnesses unto me both\nin Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost\npart of the earth.\" But you show yourselves to be false witnesses not\nonly from this, that you resist this truth, but also in the very trial\nin which you joined issue with the schism of Maximianus. For if you\nwere acting according to the law of Christ, how much more consistently\ndo certain Christian emperors frame ordinances in accordance with it,\nif even pagan proconsuls can follow its behests in passing judgment?\nBut if you thought that even the laws of an earthly empire were to be\nsummoned to your aid, we do not blame you for this. It is what Paul\ndid when he bore witness before his adversaries that he was a Roman\ncitizen.[863] But I would ask by what earthly laws it is ordained that\nthe followers of Maximianus should be driven from their place? You\nwill find no law whatever to this effect. But, in point of fact, you\nhave chosen to expel them under laws which have been passed against\nheretics, and against yourselves among their number. You, as though by\nsuperior strength, have prevailed against the weak. Whence they, being\nwholly powerless, say that they are innocent, like the wolf in the\npower of the lion. Yet surely you could not use laws which were passed\nagainst yourselves as instruments against others, except by the aid\nof false witness. For if those laws are founded on truth, then do you\ncome down from the position which you occupy; but if on falsehood, why\ndid you use them to drive others from the Church? But how if they both\nare founded on truth, and could not be used by you for the expulsion\nof others except with the aid of falsehood? For that the judges might\nsubmit to their authority, they were willing to expel heretics from\nthe Church, from which they ought first to have expelled yourselves;\nbut you declared yourselves to be Catholics, that you might escape the\nseverity of the laws which you employed to oppress others. It is for\nyou to determine what you appear to yourselves among yourselves; at any\nrate, under those laws you are not Catholics. Why then have you either\nmade them false, if they are true, by your false witness, or made use\nof them, if they are false, for the oppression of others?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LIX.--133. PETILIANUS said: \"It is written, 'Thou shalt not covet\nanything that is thy neighbour's.'[864] You plunder what is ours, that\nyou may have it for your own.\"\n\n134. AUGUSTINE answered: All things of which unity was in possession\nbelong to none other than ourselves, who remain in unity, not in\naccordance with the calumnies of men, but with the words of Christ,\nin whom all the nations of the whole earth are blessed. Nor do we\nseparate ourselves from the society of the wheat, on account of the\nunrighteous men whom we cannot separate from the wheat of the Lord\nbefore the winnowing at the judgment; and if there are any things\nwhich you who are cut off begin already to possess, we do not, because\nthe Lord has given to us what has been taken away from you, therefore\ncovet our neighbours' goods, seeing that they have been made ours by\nthe authority of Him to whom all things belong; and they are rightly\nours, for you were wont to use them for purposes of schism, but we use\nthem for the promotion of unity. Otherwise your party might reproach\neven the first people of God with coveting their neighbours' goods,\nseeing that they were driven forth before their face by the power of\nGod, because they used the land amiss; and the Jews in turn themselves,\nfrom whom the kingdom was taken away, according to the words of the\nLord, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,[865] may\nbring a charge against that nation of coveting their neighbours' goods,\nbecause the Church of Christ is in possession where the persecutors of\nChrist were wont to reign. And, after all, when it has been said to\nyourselves, You are coveting the goods of other men, because you have\ndriven out from the basilicas the followers of Maximianus, you are at a\nloss to find any answer that you can make.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LX.--135. PETILIANUS said: \"Under what law, then, do you make out\nthat you are Christians, seeing that you do what is contrary to the\nlaw?\"\n\n136. AUGUSTINE answered: You are anxious for strife, and not for\nargument.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXI.--137. PETILIANUS said: \"But the Lord Christ says, 'Whosoever\nshall do and teach them, the same shall be called the greatest in\nthe kingdom of heaven.' But He condemns you wretched men as follows:\n'Whosoever shall break one of these commandments, he shall be called\nthe least in the kingdom of heaven.'\"\n\n138. AUGUSTINE answered: When you happen to quote the testimony of\nScripture as other than it really is, and it does not bear on the\nquestion which is at issue between us, I am not greatly concerned; but\nwhen it interferes with the matter on hand, unless it is quoted truly,\nthen I think that you have no right to find fault if I remind you how\nthe passage really stands. For you must be aware that the verse which\nyou quoted is not as you quoted it, but rather thus: \"Whosoever shall\nbreak one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so,\nshall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall\ndo and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of\nheaven.\" And immediately He continues, \"For I say unto you, That except\nyour righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and\nPharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.\"[866]\nFor elsewhere He shows and proves of the Pharisees that they say and do\nnot. It is these, therefore, to whom He is referring also here, when\nHe said, \"Whosoever shall break one of these commandments, and shall\nteach men so,\"--that is, shall teach in words what he has violated in\ndeeds; whose righteousness He says that our righteousness must excel,\nin that we must both keep the commandments and teach men so. And yet\nnot even on account of those Pharisees, with whom you compare us,--not\nfrom any motives of prudence, but from malice,--did our Lord enjoin\nthat the seat of Moses should be deserted, which seat He doubtless\nmeant to be a figure of His own; for He said indeed that they who sat\nin Moses' seat were ever saying and not doing, but warns the people\nto do what they say, and not to do what they do,[867] lest the chair,\nwith all its holiness, should be deserted, and the unity of the flock\ndivided through the faithlessness of the shepherds.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXII.--139. PETILIANUS said: \"And again it is written, 'Every\nsin which a man shall sin is without the body: but he that sinneth in\nthe Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world,\nneither in the world to come.'\"\n\n140. AUGUSTINE answered: This too is not written as you have quoted\nit, and see how far it has led you astray. The apostle, writing to the\nCorinthians, says, \"Every sin that a man doeth is without the body:\nbut he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.\"[868]\nBut this is one thing, and that is another which the Lord said in the\ngospel: \"All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men:\nbut whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven\nhim, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.\"[869] But you\nhave begun a sentence from the writing of the apostle, and ended it as\nthough it were one from the gospel, which I fancy you have done not\nwith any intention to deceive, but through mistake; for neither passage\nhas any bearing on the matter in hand. And why you have said this, and\nin what sense you have said it, I am wholly unable to perceive, unless\nit be that, whereas you had said above that all were condemned by the\nLord who had broken any one of His commandments, you have considered\nsince how many there are in your party who break not one but many of\nthem; and lest an objection should be brought against you on that\nscore, you have sought, by way of surpassing the difficulty, to bring\nin a distinction of sins, whereby it might be seen that it is one\nthing to break a commandment in respect of which pardon may easily be\nobtained, another thing to sin against the Holy Ghost, which shall\nreceive no forgiveness, either in this world or in the world to come.\nIn your dread, therefore, of infection from sin, you were unwilling to\npass this over in silence; and again, in your dread of a question too\ndeep for your powers, you wish to touch cursorily on it in passing, in\nsuch a state of agitation, that, just as men who are setting about a\ntask in haste, and consequent confusion, are wont to fasten their dress\nor shoes awry, so you have not thought fit either to see what belongs\nto what, or in what context or what sense the passage which you quote\noccurs. But what is the nature of that sin which shall not be forgiven,\neither in this world or in the world to come, you are so far from\nknowing, that, though you believe that we are actually living in it,\nyou yet promise us forgiveness of it through your baptism. And yet how\ncould this be possible, if the sin be of such a nature that it cannot\nbe forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXIII.--141. PETILIANUS said: \"But wherein do you fulfil the\ncommandments of God? The Lord Christ said, 'Blessed are the poor in\nspirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.' But you by your malice in\npersecution breathe forth the riches of madness.\"\n\n142. AUGUSTINE answered: Address that rather to your own\nCircumcelliones.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXIV.--143. PETILIANUS said: \"'Blessed are the meek: for they\nshall inherit the earth.' You therefore, not being meek, have lost both\nheaven and earth alike.\"\n\n144. AUGUSTINE answered: Again and again you may hear the Lord saying,\n\"Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and\nin Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.\"[870] How is it,\nthen, that those men have not lost heaven and earth, who, in order\nto avoid communicating with all the nations of the earth, despise the\nwords of Him that sitteth in heaven? For, in proof of your meekness, it\nis not your words but the cudgels of the Circumcelliones which should\nbe examined. You will say, What has that to do with us? Just as though\nwe were making the remark with any other object except to extract that\nanswer from you. For the reason that your schism is a valid charge\nagainst you is that you do not allow that you are chargeable with\nanother's sin, whereas you have separated from us for no other reason\nbut that you charge us with the sins of other men.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXV.--145. PETILIANUS said: \"'Blessed are they that mourn: for\nthey shall be comforted.' You, our butchers, are the cause of mourning\nin others; you do not mourn yourselves.\"\n\n146. AUGUSTINE answered: Consider for a short space to how many, and\nwith what intensity, the cry of \"Praises be to God,\" proceeding from\nyour armed men, has caused others to mourn.[871] Do you say again, What\nis that to us? Then I too will rejoin again in your own words, What is\nthat to us? What is it to all the nations of the earth? What is it to\nthose who praise the name of the Lord from the rising of the sun to\nthe setting of the same? What is it to all the earth, which sings a\nnew song? What is it to the seed of Abraham, in which all the nations\nof the earth are blessed?[872] And so the sacrilege of your schism is\nchargeable on you, just because the evil deeds of your companions are\nnot chargeable on you; and because you are aware from this that the\ndeeds of those on whose account you separated from the world, even if\nyou proved your charges to be true, do not involve the world in sin.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXVI.--147. PETILIANUS said: \"'Blessed are they which do hunger\nand thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.' To you it\nseems to be righteousness that you thirst after our blood.\"\n\n148. AUGUSTINE answered: What shall I say unto thee, O man, except that\nthou art calumnious? The unity of Christ, indeed, is hungering and\nthirsting after all of you; and I would that it might swallow you up,\nfor then would you be no longer heretics.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXVII.--149. PETILIANUS said: \"'Blessed are the merciful: for\nthey shall obtain mercy.' But how shall I call you merciful when you\ninflict punishment on the righteous? Shall I not rather call you a most\nunrighteous communion, so long as you pollute souls?\"\n\n150. AUGUSTINE answered: You have proved neither point,--neither that\nyou yourselves are righteous, nor that we inflict punishment on even\nthe unrighteous; and yet, even as false flattery is generally cruel,\nso just correction is ever merciful. For whence is that which you do\nnot understand: \"Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness;\nand let him reprove me?\" For while he says this of the severity of\nmerciful correction, the Psalmist immediately went on to say of the\ngentleness of destructive flattery, \"But the oil of sinners shall not\nbreak my head.\"[873] Do you therefore consider whither you are called,\nand from what you are summoned away. For how do you know what feelings\nhe entertains towards you whom you suppose to be cruel? But whatever be\nhis feelings, every one must bear his own burden both with us and with\nyou. But I would have you cast away the burden of schism which you all\nof you are bearing, that you may bear your good burdens in unity; and\nI would bid you mercifully correct, if you should have the power, all\nthose who are bearing evil burdens; and if this be beyond your power, I\nwould bid you bear with them in peace.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXVIII.--151. PETILIANUS said: \"'Blessed are the pure in heart:\nfor they shall see God.' When will you see God, who are possessed with\nblindness in the impure malice of your hearts?\"\n\n152. AUGUSTINE answered: Wherefore say you this? Can it be that we\nreproach all nations with the dark and hidden things which are declared\nby men, and do not choose to understand the manifest sayings which God\nspake in olden time of all the nations of the earth? This is indeed\ngreat blindness of heart; and if you do not recognise it in yourselves,\nthat is even greater blindness.\n\n * * * * *\n\n153. PETILIANUS said: \"'Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be\ncalled the children of God.'[874] You make a pretence of peace by your\nwickedness, and seek unity by war.\"\n\n154. AUGUSTINE answered: We do not make a pretence of peace by\nwickedness, but we preach peace out of the gospel; and if you were at\npeace with it, you would be at peace also with us. The risen Lord, when\npresenting Himself to the disciples, not only that they should gaze on\nHim with their eyes, but also that they should handle Him with their\nhands, began His discourse to them with the words, \"Peace be unto you.\"\nAnd how this peace itself was to be maintained, He disclosed to them\nin the words which followed. For \"then opened He their understanding,\nthat they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus is\nit written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the\ndead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be\npreached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.\"[875]\nIf you will keep peace with these words, you will not be at variance\nwith us. For if we seek unity by war, our war could not be praised\nin more glorious terms, seeing that it is written, \"Thou shalt love\nthy neighbour as thyself.\"[876] And again it is written, \"No man ever\nyet hated his own flesh.\"[877] And yet the flesh lusteth against the\nspirit, and the spirit against the flesh.[878] But if no man ever yet\nhated his own flesh, and yet a man lusteth against his own flesh,\nhere you have unity sought by war, that the body, being subject to\ncorrection, may be brought under submission. But what the spirit does\nagainst the flesh, waging war with it, not in hatred, but in love, this\nthose who are spiritual do against those who are carnal, that they may\ndo towards them what they do towards themselves, because they love\ntheir neighbours as neighbours indeed. But the war which the spiritual\nwage is that correction which is in love: their sword is the word of\nGod. To such a war they are aroused by the trumpet of the apostle\nsounding with a mighty force: \"Preach the word; be instant in season,\nout of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and\ndoctrine.\"[879] See then that we act not with the sword, but with the\nword. But you answer what is not true, while you accuse us falsely. You\ndo not correct your own faults, and you bring against us those of other\nmen. Christ bears true witness concerning the nations of the earth;\nyou, in opposition to Christ, bear false witness against the nations of\nthe earth. If we were to believe you rather than Christ, you would call\nus peacemakers; because we believe Christ rather than you, we are said\nto make a pretence of peace by our wickedness. And while you say and do\nsuch things as this, you have the further impudence to quote the words,\n\"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of\nGod.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXIX.--155. PETILIANUS said: \"Though the Apostle Paul says, 'I\ntherefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you, brethren, that ye\nwalk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness\nand meekness, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the\nunity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.'\"[880]\n\n156. AUGUSTINE answered: If you would not only say these words, but\nhearken to them as well, you would put up even with known evils for\nthe sake of peace, instead of inventing new ones for the sake of\nquarrelling, if it were only because you subsequently learned, for\nthe sake of the peace of Donatus, to put up with the most flagrant\nand notorious wickedness of Optatus. What madness is this that you\ndisplay? Those who are known are borne with, that a fragment may not\nbe further split up; those of whom nothing is known are defamed, that\nthey themselves may not remain in the undivided whole.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXX.--157. PETILIANUS said: \"To you the prophet says, 'Peace,\npeace; and where is there peace?'\"[881]\n\n158. AUGUSTINE answered: It is you that say this to us, not the\nprophet. We therefore answer you: If you ask where peace is to be\nfound, open your eyes, and see of whom it is said, \"He maketh wars to\ncease in all the world.\"[882] If you ask where peace is to be found,\nopen your eyes to see that city which cannot be hidden, because it is\nbuilt upon a hill; open your eyes to see the mountain itself, and let\nDaniel show it to you, growing out of a small stone, and filling the\nwhole earth.[883] But when the prophet says to you, \"Peace, peace; and\nwhere is there peace?\" what will you show? Will you show the party of\nDonatus, unknown to the countless nations to whom Christ is known? It\nis surely not the city which cannot be hid; and whence is this, except\nthat it is not founded on the mountain? \"For He is our peace, who hath\nmade both one,\"[884]--not Donatus, who has made one into two.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXI.--159. PETILIANUS said: \"'Blessed are they which are\npersecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of\nheaven.'[885] You are not blessed; but you make martyrs to be blessed,\nwith whose souls the heavens are filled, and the earth has flourished\nwith their memory. You therefore do not honour them yourselves, but you\nprovide us with objects of honour.\"\n\n160. AUGUSTINE answered: The plain fact is, that if it had not been\nsaid, \"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake,\"\nbut had been said instead, Blessed are they who throw themselves over\nprecipices, then heaven would have been filled with your martyrs. Of a\ntruth we see many flowers on the earth blooming from their bodies; but,\nas the saying goes, the flower is dust and ashes.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXII.--161. PETILIANUS said: \"Since then you are not blessed\nby falsifying the commands of God, the Lord Christ condemns you by\nHis divine decrees: 'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!\nfor ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go\nin yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe\nunto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and\nland to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him twofold\nmore the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, scribes and\nPharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin,\nand have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy,\nand faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other\nundone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.\nWoe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto\nwhited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but are\nwithin full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye\nalso outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of\nhypocrisy and iniquity.'\"[886]\n\n162. AUGUSTINE answered: Tell me whether you have said anything which\nmay not equally be said against you in turn by any slanderous and\nevil-speaking tongue. But from what has been said by me before, any\none who wishes may find out that these things may be said against you,\nnot by way of empty abuse, but with the support of truthful testimony.\nAs, however, the opportunity is presented to us, we must not pass this\nby. There is no doubt that to the ancient people of God circumcision\nstood in the place of baptism. I ask, therefore, putting the case that\nthe Pharisees, against whom those words you quote are spoken, had made\nsome proselyte, who, if he were to imitate them, would, as it is said,\nbecome twofold more the child of hell than themselves, supposing that\nhe were to be converted, and desire to imitate Simeon, or Zacharias, or\nNathanael, would it be necessary that he should be circumcised again\nby them? And if it is absurd to put this case, why, although in empty\nfashion and with empty sounds you compare us to men like this, do you\nnevertheless baptize after us? But if you are really men like this,\nhow much better and how much more in accordance with truth do we act\nin not baptizing after you, as neither was it right that those whom\nI have mentioned should be circumcised after the worst of Pharisees!\nFurthermore, when such men sit in the seat of Moses, for which the Lord\npreserved its due honour, why do you blaspheme the apostolic chair on\naccount of men whom, justly or unjustly, you compare with these?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXIII.--163. PETILIANUS said: \"But these things do not alarm us\nChristians; for of the evil deeds which you are destined to commit we\nhave before a warning given us by the Lord Christ. 'Behold,' He says,\n'I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves.'[887] You fill up\nthe measure of the madness of wolves, who either lay or are preparing\nto lay snares against the Churches in precisely the same way in which\nwolves, with their mouths wide open against the fold, even with\ndestructive eagerness, breathe forth panting anger from their jaws,\nsuffused with blood.\"\n\n164. AUGUSTINE answered: I should be glad to utter the same sentiment\nagainst you, but not in the words which you have used: they are too\ninappropriate, or rather mad. But what was required was, that you\nshould show that we were wolves and that you were sheep, not by the\nemptiest of evil-speaking, but by some distinct proofs. For when I too\nhave said, We are sheep, and you are wolves, do you think that there is\nany difference caused by the fact that you express the idea in swelling\nwords? But listen whilst I prove what I assert. For the Lord says in\nthe gospel, as you know full well, whether you please it or not, \"My\nsheep hear my voice, and follow me.\"[888] There are many sayings of\nthe Lord on different subjects; but supposing, for example, that any\none were in doubt whether the same Lord had risen in the body, and\nHis words were to be quoted where He says, \"Handle me, and see; for a\nspirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have;\"--if even after\nthis he should be unwilling to acquiesce in the belief that His body\nhad risen from the dead, surely such a man could not be reckoned among\nthe sheep of the Lord, because he would not hear His voice. And so too\nnow, when the question between us is, Where is the Church? whilst we\nquote the words that follow in the same passage of the gospel, where,\nafter His resurrection, He gave His body even to be handled by those\nwho were in doubt, in which He showed the future wide extent of the\nChurch, saying, \"Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to\nsuffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance\nand remission of sins should be preached in His name throughout all\nnations, beginning at Jerusalem;\"[889] whereas you will not communicate\nwith all nations, in whom these words have been fulfilled, how are you\nthe sheep of this Shepherd, whose words you not only do not obey when\nyou have heard them, but even fight against them? And so we show to you\nfrom this that you are not sheep. But listen further whence we show\nyou that, on the contrary, you are wolves. For necessarily, when it\nis shown by His own words where the Church is to be found, it is also\nclear where we must look for the fold of Christ. Whenever, therefore,\nany sheep separate themselves from this fold, which is expressly\npointed out and shown to us by the unmistakeable declaration of the\nLord,--and that, I will not say because of charges falsely brought,\nbut on account of charges brought, as no one can deny, with great\nuncertainty against their fellow-men, and consequently slay those sheep\nwhich they have torn and alienated from the life of unity and Christian\nlove,--is it not evident that they are ravening wolves? But it will\nbe said that these very men themselves praise and preach the Lord\nChrist. They are therefore those of whom He says Himself, \"They come\nunto you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.\nBy their fruits ye shall know them.\"[890] The sheep's clothing is seen\nin the praises of Christ; the fruits of their wolfish nature in their\nslanderous teeth.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXIV.--165. PETILIANUS said: \"O wretched _traditors_! Thus\nindeed it was fitting that Scripture should be fulfilled. But in you I\ngrieve for this, that you have shown yourselves worthy to fulfil the\npart of wickedness.\"\n\n166. AUGUSTINE answered: I might rather say, O wretched _traditors!_\nif I were minded, or rather if justice urged me to cast up against\nall of you the deeds of some among your number. But as regards what\nbears on all of you, O wretched heretics, I on my part will quote\nthe remainder of your words; for it is written, \"There must be also\nheresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest\namong you.\"[891] Therefore \"it was fitting thus that Scripture should\nbe fulfilled. But in you I grieve for this, that you have shown\nyourselves worthy to fulfil the part of wickedness.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXV.--167. PETILIANUS said: \"But to us the Lord Christ, in\nopposition to your deadly commands, commanded simple patience and\nharmlessness. For what says He? 'A new commandment I give unto you,\nThat ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love\none another.' And again, 'By this shall all men know that ye are my\ndisciples, if ye have love one to another.'\"[892]\n\n168. AUGUSTINE answered: If you did not transfer these words, so widely\ndiffering from your character, to the surface of your talk, how could\nyou be covering yourselves with sheep's clothing?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXVI.--169. PETILIANUS said: \"Paul also, the apostle, whilst\nhe was suffering fearful persecutions at the hands of all nations,\nendured even more grievous troubles at the hands of false brethren, as\nhe bears witness of himself, being oftentimes afflicted: 'In perils\nby the heathen, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils among\nfalse brethren.'[893] And again he says, 'Be ye followers of me, even\nas I also am of Christ.'[894] When, therefore, false brethren like\nyourselves assault us, we imitate the patience of our master Paul under\nour dangers.\"\n\n170. AUGUSTINE answered: Certainly those of whom you speak are false\nbrethren, of whom the apostle thus complains in another place, where\nhe is extolling the natural sincerity of Timothy: \"I have no man,\"\nhe says, \"like-minded, who will naturally care for your state. For\nall seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's.\"[895]\nUndoubtedly he was speaking of those who were with him at the time when\nhe was writing that epistle; for it could not be that all Christians in\nevery quarter of the earth were seeking their own, and not the things\nwhich were Jesus Christ's. It was of those, therefore, as I said, who\nwere with him at the time when he was writing the words which you have\nquoted, that he uttered this lamentation. For who else was it to whom\nhe referred, when he says in another place, \"Without were fightings,\nwithin were fears,\"[896] except those whom he feared all the more\nintensely because they were within? If, therefore, you would imitate\nPaul, you would be tolerant of false brethren within, not a slanderer\nof the innocent without.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXVII.--171. PETILIANUS said: \"For what kind of faith is that\nwhich is in you which is devoid of charity? when Paul himself says,\n'Though I speak with the tongues of men, and have the knowledge of\nangels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a\ntinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand\nall mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that\nI could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And\nthough I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my\nbody to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.'\"\n\n172. AUGUSTINE answered: This is what I said just now, that you were\ndesirous to be clad in sheep's clothing, that, if possible, the sheep\nmight feel your bite before it had any consciousness of your approach.\nIs it not that praise of charity in which you indulge that commonly\nproves your calumny in the clearest light of truth? Will you bring it\nabout that those arms shall be no longer ours, because you endeavour\nto appropriate them first? Furthermore, these arms are endowed with\nlife: from whatever quarter they are launched, they recognise whom\nthey should destroy. If they have been sent forth from our hands, they\nwill fix themselves in you; if they are aimed by you, they recoil upon\nyourselves. For in these apostolic words, which commend the excellence\nof charity, we are wont to show to you how profitless it is to man that\nhe should be in possession of faith or of the sacraments, when he has\nnot charity, that, when you come to Catholic unity, you may understand\nwhat it is that is conferred on you, and how great a thing it is of\nwhich you were at least to some extent in want; for Christian charity\ncannot be preserved except in the unity of the Church: and that so you\nmay see that without it you are nothing, even though you may be in\npossession of baptism and faith, and through this latter may be able\neven to remove mountains. But if this is your opinion as well, let us\nnot repudiate and reject in you either the sacraments of God which we\nknow, or faith itself, but let us hold fast charity, without which we\nare nothing even with the sacraments and with faith. But we hold fast\ncharity if we cling to unity; while we cling to unity, if we do not\nmake a fictitious unity in a party by our own words, but recognise it\nin a united whole through the words of Christ.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXVIII.--173. PETILIANUS said: \"And again, 'Charity suffereth\nlong, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself,\nis not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not\nher own.' But you seek what belongs to other men. 'Is not easily\nprovoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth\nin the truth; beareth all things, endureth all things. Charity never\nfaileth.'[897] This is to say, in short, Charity does not persecute,\ndoes not inflame emperors to take away the lives of other men; does not\nplunder other men's goods; does not go on to murder men whom it has\nspoiled.\"\n\n174. AUGUSTINE answered: How often must I tell you the same thing? If\nyou do not prove these charges, they tell against no one in the world;\nand if you prove them, they have no bearing upon us; just as those\nthings have no bearing upon you which are daily done by the furious\ndeeds of the insane, by the luxury of the drunken, by the blindness\nof the suicides, by the tyranny of robbers. For who can fail to see\nthat what I say is true? But now if charity were in you, it would\nrejoice in the truth. For how neatly it is said under covering of the\nsheep's clothing, \"Charity beareth all things, endureth all things!\"\nbut when you come to the test, the wolf's teeth cannot be concealed.\nFor when, in obedience to the words of Scripture, \"forbearing one\nanother in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the\nbond of peace,\"[898] charity would compel you, even if you knew of any\nevils within the Church, I do not say to consent to them, but yet to\ntolerate them if you could not prevent them, lest, on account of the\nwicked who are to be separated by the winnowing-fan at the last day,\nyou should at the present time sever the bond of peace by breaking off\nfrom the society of good men, you, resisting her influence, and being\ncast out by the wind of levity, charge the wheat with being chaff,\nand declare that what you invent of the wicked holds good through the\nforce of contagion even in the righteous. And when the Lord has said,\n\"The field is the world, the harvest is the end of the world,\" though\nHe said of the wheat and of the tares, \"Let both grow together until\nthe harvest,\"[899] you endeavour by your words to bring about a belief\nthat the wheat has perished throughout the main portion of the field,\nand only continued to exist in your little corner,--being desirous\nthat Christ should be proved a liar, but you the man of truth. And you\nspeak, indeed, against your own conscience; for no one who in any way\nlooks truly at the gospel will venture in his heart to say that in all\nthe many nations throughout which is heard the response of Amen, and\namong whom Alleluia is sung almost with one single voice, no Christians\nare to be found. And yet, that it may not appear that the party of\nDonatus, which does not communicate with the several nations of the\nworld, is involved in error, if any angel from heaven, who could see\nthe whole world, were to declare that outside your communion good and\ninnocent men were nowhere to be found, there is little doubt that you\nwould rejoice over the iniquity of the human race, and boast of having\ntold the truth before you had received assurance of it. How then is\nthere in you that charity which rejoices not in iniquity? But be not\ndeceived. Throughout the field, that is, throughout the world, there\nwill be found the wheat of the Lord growing till the end of the world.\nChrist has said this: Christ is truth. Let charity be in you, and let\nit rejoice in the truth. Though an angel from heaven preach unto you\nanother gospel contrary to His gospel, let him be accursed.[900]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXIX.--175. PETILIANUS said: \"Lastly, what is the justification\nof persecution? I ask you, you wretched men, if it so be that you think\nthat your sin rests on any authority of law.\"\n\n176. AUGUSTINE answered: He who sins, sins not on the authority of the\nlaw, but against the authority of the law. But since you ask what is\nthe justification of persecution, I ask you in turn whose voice it is\nthat says in the psalm, \"Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him\nwill I cut off.\"[901] Seek therefore the reason or the measure of the\npersecution, and do not display your gross ignorance by finding fault\nin general terms with those who persecute the unrighteous.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXX.--177. PETILIANUS said: \"But I answer you, on the other\nhand, that Jesus Christ never persecuted any one. And when the apostles\nfound fault with certain parties, and suggested that He should have\nrecourse to persecution (He Himself having come to create faith by\ninviting men to Him, rather than by compelling them), those apostles\nsay, 'Many lay on hands in Thy name, and are not with us:' but Jesus\nsaid, 'Let them alone: if they are not against you, they are on your\nside.'\"\n\n178. AUGUSTINE answered: You say truly that you will bring forth out of\nyour store with greater abundance things which are not written in the\nScriptures. For if you wish to bring forth proofs from holy Scripture,\nwill you bring forth even those which you cannot find therein? But it\nis in your own power to multiply your lies according to your will. For\nwhere is what you quoted written? or when was that either suggested to\nour Lord, or answered by our Lord? \"Many lay on hands in Thy name, and\nare not with us,\" are words that no one of the disciples ever uttered\nto the Son of God; and therefore neither could the answer have been\nmade by Him, \"Let them alone: if they are not against you, they are on\nyour side.\" But there is something somewhat like it which we really do\nread in the gospel,--that a suggestion was made to the Lord about a\ncertain man who was casting out devils in His name, but did not follow\nHim with His disciples; and in that case the Lord does say, \"Forbid\nhim not: for he that is not against us is for us.\"[902] But this has\nnothing to do with pointing out parties whom the Lord is supposed to\nhave spared. And if you have been deceived by an apparent resemblance\nof sentiment, this is not a lie, but merely human infirmity. But if\nyou wished to cast a mist of falsehood over those who are unskilled\nin holy Scripture, then may you be pricked to the heart, and covered\nwith confusion and corrected. Yet there is a point which we would urge\nin respect of this very man of whom the suggestion was made to our\nLord. For even as at that time, beyond the communion of the disciples,\nthe holiness of Christ was yet of the greatest efficacy, even so now,\nbeyond the communion of the Church, the holiness of the sacraments\nis of avail. For neither is baptism consecrated save in the name of\nthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. But who will be so\nutterly insane as to declare that the name of the Son may be of avail\neven beyond the communion of the Church, but that this is not possible\nwith the names of the Father and of the Holy Ghost? or that it may be\nof avail in healing a man, but not in consecrating baptism? But it is\nmanifest that outside the communion of the Church, and the most holy\nbond of unity, and the most excellent gift of charity, neither he by\nwhom the devil is cast out nor he who is baptized obtains eternal life;\njust as those do not obtain it, who through communion in the sacraments\nseem indeed to be within, and through the depravity of their character\nare understood to be without. But that Christ persecuted even with\nbodily chastisement those whom He drove with scourges from the temple,\nwe have already said above.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXXI.--179. PETILIANUS said: \"But the holy apostle said this:\n'In any way, whatsoever it may be,' he says, 'let Christ be preached.'\"\n\n180. AUGUSTINE answered: You speak against yourself; but yet, since\nyou speak on the side of truth, if you love it, let what you say be\ncounted for you. For I ask of you of whom it was that the Apostle\nPaul said this? Let us, if you please, trace this a little further\nback. \"Some,\" he says, \"preach Christ even of envy and strife; and\nsome also of good will. The one preach Christ of contention, not\nsincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds; but the other of\nlove, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then?\nnotwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ\nis preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.\"[903] We\nsee that they preached what was in itself holy, and pure, and true,\nbut yet not in a pure manner, but of envy and contention, without\ncharity, without purity. Certainly a short time ago you appeared to be\nurging the praises of charity as against us, according to the witness\nof the apostle, that where there is no charity, whatever there is is\nof no avail; and yet you see that in those there is no charity, and\nthere was with them the preaching of Christ, of which the apostle\nsays here that he rejoices. For it is not that he rejoices in what is\nevil in them, but in what is good in the name of Jesus Christ. In him\nassuredly there was the charity which \"rejoiceth not in iniquity, but\nrejoiceth in the truth.\"[904] The envy, moreover, which was in them\nis an evil proceeding from the devil, for by this he has both killed\nand cast down. Where then were these wicked men whom the apostle thus\ncondemns, and in whom there was so much that was good to cause him\nto rejoice? Were they within, or without? Choose which you will. If\nthey were within, then Paul knew them, and yet they did not pollute\nhim. And so you would not be polluted in the unity of the whole world\nby those of whom you make certain charges, whether these be true, or\nfalsehoods invented by yourselves. But if they were without, then you\nsee that even in those who were without, and who certainly cannot\nbelong to everlasting life, since they have not charity, and do not\nabide in unity, there is yet found the holiness of the name of Christ,\nso that the apostle joyfully confirms their teaching, on account of the\nintrinsic holiness of the name, although he repudiates them. We are\nright, therefore, in not doing wrong to the actual name, when those\ncome to us who were without; but we correct the individuals, while we\ndo honour to the name. Do you therefore take heed, and see how wickedly\nyou act in the case of those whose acts as it seems you condemn, by\ntreating as naught the sacrament of the name of Christ, which is holy\nin them. And you, indeed, as is shown by your words, think that those\nmen of whom the apostle spoke were outside the limits of the Church.\nTherefore, when you fear persecution from the Catholics, of which\nyou speak in order to create odium against us, you have confirmed in\nheretics the name of Christ to which you do despite by rebaptizing.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXXII.--181. PETILIANUS said: \"If then there are not some to\nwhom all this power of faith is found to be in opposition, on what\nprinciple do you persecute, so as to compel men to defile themselves?\"\n\n182. AUGUSTINE answered: We neither persecute you, except so far as\ntruth persecutes falsehood; nor has it anything to do with us if any\none has persecuted you in other ways, just as it has nothing to do with\nyou if any of your party do likewise; nor do we compel you to defile\nyourselves, but we persuade you to be cured.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXXIII.--183. PETILIANUS said: \"But if authority had been\ngiven by some law for persons to be compelled to what is good, you\nyourselves, unhappy men, ought to have been compelled by us to embrace\nthe purest faith. But far be it, far be it from our conscience to\ncompel any one to embrace our faith.\"\n\n184. AUGUSTINE answered: No one is indeed to be compelled to embrace\nthe faith against his will; but by the severity, or one might rather\nsay, by the mercy of God, it is common for treachery to be chastised\nwith the scourge of tribulation. Is it the case, because the best\nmorals are chosen by freedom of will, that therefore the worst morals\nare not punished by integrity of law? But yet discipline to punish an\nevil manner of living is out of the question, except where principles\nof good living which had been learned have come to be despised. If any\nlaws, therefore, have been enacted against you, you are not thereby\nforced to do well, but are only prevented from doing ill.[905] For no\none can do well unless he has deliberately chosen, and unless he has\nloved what is in free will; but the fear of punishment, even if it does\nnot share in the pleasures of a good conscience, at any rate keeps\nthe evil desire from escaping beyond the bounds of thought. Who are\nthey, however, that have enacted laws by which your audacity could be\nrepressed? Are they not those of whom the apostle says that \"they bear\nnot the sword in vain; for they are the ministers of God, revengers to\nexecute wrath on them that do evil?\"[906] The whole question therefore\nis, whether you are not doing ill, who are charged by the whole world\nwith the sacrilege of so great a schism. And yet, neglecting the\ndiscussion of this question, you talk on irrelevant matters; and while\nyou live as robbers, you boast that you die as martyrs.[907] And, through\nfear either of the laws themselves, or of the odium which you might\nincur, or else because you are unequal to the task of resisting, I\ndo not say so many men, but so many Catholic nations, you even glory\nin your gentleness, that you do not compel any to join your party.\nAccording to your way of talking, the hawk, when he has been prevented\nby flight from carrying off the fowls, might call himself a dove. For\nwhen have you ever had the power without using it? And hence you show\nhow you would do more if you only could. When Julian, envying the peace\nof Christ, restored to you the churches which belonged to unity, who\ncould tell of all the massacres which were committed by you, when the\nvery devils rejoiced with you at the opening of their temples? In the\nwar with Firmus and his party, let Mauritania C\u00e6sariensis itself be\nasked to tell us what the Moor Rogatus[907] suffered at your hands.\nIn the time of Gildo, because one of your colleagues[908] was his\nintimate friend, let the followers of Maximianus be our witnesses to\ntheir sufferings. For if one might appeal to Felicianus himself, who is\nnow with you, on his oath, whether Optatus did not compel him against\nhis will to return to your communion, he would not dare to open his\nlips, especially if the people of Musti could behold his face, who\nwere witnesses to everything that was done. But let them, as I have\nsaid, be witnesses to what they have suffered at the hands of those\nwith whom they acted in such wise towards Rogatus. The Catholic Church\nherself, though strengthened by the assistance of Catholic princes\nruling by land and sea, was savagely attacked by hostile troops in\narms under Optatus. It was this that first made it necessary to urge\nbefore the vicar Servanus that the law should be put in force against\nyou which imposes a fine of ten pounds of gold, which none of you have\never paid to this very day, and yet you charge us with cruelty. But\nwhere could you find a milder course of proceeding, than that crimes of\nsuch magnitude on your part should be punished by the imposition of a\npecuniary fine? Or who could enumerate all the deeds which you commit\nin the places which you hold, of your own sovereign will and pleasure,\neach one as he can, without any friendship on the part of judges or any\nothers in authority? Who is there of our party, among the inhabitants\nof our towns, who has not either learned something of this sort from\nthose who came before him, or experienced it for himself? Is it not the\ncase that at Hippo, where I am, there are not wanting some who remember\nthat your leader Faustinus gave orders, in the time of his supreme\npower, in consequence of the scanty numbers of the Catholics in the\nplace, that no one should bake their bread for them, insomuch that a\nbaker, who was the tenant of one of our deacons, threw away the bread\nof his landlord unbaked, and though he was not sentenced to exile under\nany law, he cut him off from all share in the necessaries of life not\nonly in a Roman state,[909] but even in his own country, and not only\nin his own country, but in his own house? Why, even lately, as I myself\nrecall with mourning to this day, did not Crispinus of Calama, one of\nyour party, having bought a property, and that only copyhold,[910]\nboldly and unhesitatingly immerse in the waters of a second baptism\nno less than eighty souls, murmuring with miserable groans under the\nsole influence of terror; and this in a farm belonging to the Catholic\nemperors, by whose laws you were forbidden even to be in any Roman\ncity?[911] But what else was it, save such deeds as these of yours,\nthat made it necessary for the very laws to be passed of which you\ncomplain? The laws, indeed, are very far from being proportionate to\nyour offences; but, such as they are, you may thank yourselves for\ntheir existence. Indeed, should we not certainly be driven on all\nsides from the country by the furious attacks of your Circumcelliones,\nwho fight under your command in furious troops, unless we held you as\nhostages in the towns, who might well be unwilling to endure under\nany circumstances the mere gaze of the people, and the censure of all\nhonourable men, from very shame, if not from fear? Do not therefore\nsay, \"Far be it, far be it from our conscience, to force any one to\nembrace our faith.\" For you do it when you can; and when you do not do\nit, it is because you are unable, either from fear of the laws or the\nodium which would accompany it, or because of the numbers of those who\nwould resist.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXXIV.--185. PETILIANUS said: \"For the Lord Christ says, 'No man\ncan come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.'[912]\nBut why do we not permit each several person to follow his free will,\nsince the Lord God Himself has given free will to men, showing to\nthem, however, the way of righteousness, lest any one by chance should\nperish from ignorance of it? For He said, 'I have placed before thee\ngood and evil. I have set fire and water before thee: stretch forth\nthine hand unto whether thou wilt.' From which choice, you wretched\nmen, you have chosen for yourselves not water, but rather fire. 'But\nyet,' He says, 'stretch forth thine hand unto the good, that thou\nmayest live.'[913] You who will not choose the good, have, by your own\nsentence, declared that you do not wish to live.\"\n\n186. AUGUSTINE answered: If I were to propose to you the question\nhow God the Father draws men to the Son, when He has left them to\nthemselves in freedom of action, you would perhaps find it difficult\nof solution. For how does He draw them to Him if He leaves them to\nthemselves, so that each should choose what he pleases? And yet both\nthese facts are true; but this is a truth which few have intellect\nenough to penetrate. As therefore it is possible that, after leaving\nmen to themselves in free will, the Father should yet draw them to the\nSon, so is it also possible that those warnings which are given by\nthe correction of the laws do not take away free will. For whenever\na man suffers anything that is harsh and unpleasing, he is warned\nto consider why it is that he is suffering, so that, if he shall\ndiscover that he is suffering in the cause of justice, he may choose\nthe good that consists in the very act of suffering as he does in\nthe cause of justice; but if he sees that it is unrighteousness for\nwhich he suffers, he may be induced, from the consideration that he is\nsuffering and being tormented most fruitlessly, to change his purpose\nfor the better, and may at the same time escape both the fruitless\nannoyance and the unrighteousness itself, which is likely to prove\nyet more hurtful and pernicious in the mischief it produces. And so\nyou, when kings make any enactments against you, should consider that\nyou are receiving a warning to consider why this is being done to\nyou. For if it is for righteousness' sake, then are they truly your\npersecutors; but you are the blessed ones, who, being persecuted for\nrighteousness' sake, shall inherit the kingdom of heaven:[914] but\nif it is because of the iniquity of your schism, what are they more\nthan your correctors; while you, like all the others who are guilty\nof various crimes, and pay the penalty appointed by the law, are\nundoubtedly unhappy both in this world and in that which is to come? No\none, therefore, takes away from you your free will. But I would urge\nyou diligently to consider which you would rather choose,--whether to\nlive corrected in peace, or, by persevering in malice, to undergo real\npunishment under the false name of martyrdom. But I am addressing you\njust as though you were suffering something proportionate to your sin,\nwhereas you are committing sins of such enormity and reigning in such\nimpunity. You are so furious, that you cause more terror than a war\ntrumpet with your cry of \"_Praise to God_;\" so full of calumny, that\neven when you throw yourselves over precipices without any provocation,\nyou impute it to our persecutions.\n\n187. He says also, like the kindest of teachers, \"You who will not\nchoose the good, have, by your own sentence, declared that you do\nnot wish to live.\" According to this, if we were to believe your\naccusations, we should live in kindness; but because we believe the\npromises of God, we declare by our own sentence that we do not wish to\nlive. You remember well, it seems to me, what the apostles answered\nto the Jews when they were desired to abstain from preaching Christ.\nThis therefore we also say, that you should answer us whether we ought\nrather to obey God or man.[915] _Traditors_, offerers of incense,\npersecutors: these are the words of men against men. Christ remained\nonly in the love of Donatus: these are the words of men extolling the\nglory of a man under the name of Christ, that the glory of Christ\nHimself may be diminished. For it is written, \"In the multitude\nof people is the king's honour: but in the want of people is the\ndestruction of the prince:\"[916] these, therefore, are the words of\nmen. But those words in the gospel, \"It behoved Christ to suffer, and\nto rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission\nof sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning\nat Jerusalem,\"[917] are the words of Christ, showing forth the glory\nwhich He received from His Father in the wideness of His kingdom. When\nwe have heard them both, we choose in preference the communion of the\nChurch, and prefer the words of Christ to the words of men. I ask, who\nis there that can say that we have chosen what is evil, except one who\nshall say that Christ taught what was evil?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXXV.--188. PETILIANUS said: \"Is it then the case that God has\nordered the massacre even of schismatics? and if He were to issue\nsuch an order at all, you ought to be slain by some barbarians and\nScythians, not by Christians.\"\n\n189. AUGUSTINE answered: Let your Circumcelliones remain quiet, and let\nme entreat you not to terrify us about barbarians. But as to whether we\nor you are schismatics, let the question be put neither to you nor to\nme, but to Christ, that He may show where His Church is to be found.\nRead the gospel then, and there you find the answer, \"In Jerusalem,\nand in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the\nearth.\"[918] If any one, therefore, is not found within the Church, let\nnot any further question be put to him, but let him either be corrected\nor converted, or else, being detected, let him not complain.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXXVI.--190. PETILIANUS said: \"For neither has the Lord God at\nany time rejoiced in human blood, seeing that He was even willing that\nCain, the murderer of his brother, should continue to exist in his\nmurderer's life.\"\n\n191. AUGUSTINE answered: If God was unwilling that death should be\ninflicted on him who slew his brother, preferring that he should\ncontinue to exist in his murderer's life, see whether this be not\nthe cause why, seeing that the heart of the king is in the hand of\nGod, whereby he has himself enacted many laws for your correction\nand reproof, yet no law of the king has commanded that you should be\nput to death, perhaps with this very object, that any one of you who\npersists in the obstinate self-will of his sacrilegious madness should\nbe tortured with the punishment of the fratricide Cain, that is to\nsay, with the life of a murderer. For we read that many were slain in\nmercy by Moses the servant of the Lord; for in that he prayed thus in\nintercession to the Lord for their wicked sacrilege, saying, \"O Lord,\nif Thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee,\nout of the book which Thou hast written,\"[919] his unspeakable charity\nand mercy are plainly shown. Could it be, then, that he was suddenly\nchanged to cruelty, when, on descending from the mount, he ordered so\nmany thousands to be slain? Consider, therefore, whether it may not\nbe a sign of greater anger on the part of God, that, whilst so many\nlaws have been enacted against you, you have not been ordered by any\nemperor to be put to death. Or do you think that you are not to be\ncompared to that fratricide? Hearken to the Lord speaking through His\nprophet: \"From the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the\nsame, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place\nincense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name\nshall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.\"[920] On\nthis brother's sacrifice you show that you look with malignant eyes,\nover and above the respect which God pays to it; and if ye have ever\nheard that \"from the rising of the sun, unto the going down of the\nsame, the Lord's name is to be praised,\"[921] which is that living\nsacrifice of which it is said, \"Offer unto God thanksgiving,\"[922] then\nwill your countenance fall like that of yonder murderer. But inasmuch\nas you cannot kill the whole world, you are involved in the same\nguilt by your mere hatred, according to the words of John, \"Whosoever\nhateth his brother is a murderer.\"[923] And I would that any innocent\nbrother might rather fall into the hands of your Circumcelliones, to\nbe murdered by their weapons, than be subjected to the poison of your\ntongue and rebaptized.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXXVII.--192. PETILIANUS said: \"We advise you, therefore, if\nso be that you will hear it willingly, and even though you do not\nwillingly receive it, yet we warn you that the Lord Christ instituted\nfor Christians, not any form of slaying, but one of dying only. For if\nHe loved men who thus delight in battle, He would not have consented to\nbe slain for us.\"\n\n193. AUGUSTINE answered: Would that your martyrs would follow the form\nthat He prescribed! they would not throw themselves over precipices,\nwhich He refused to do at the bidding of the devil.[924] But when you\npersecute our ancestors with false witness even now that they are\ndead, whence have you received this form? In that you endeavour to\nstain us with the crimes of men we never knew, while you are unwilling\nthat the most notorious misdeeds of your own party should be reckoned\nagainst you, whence have you received this form? But we are too much\nyielding to our own conceit if we find fault about ourselves, when we\nsee that you utter false testimony against the Lord Himself, since\nHe Himself both promised and made manifest that His Church should\nextend throughout all nations, and you maintain the contrary. This\nform, therefore, you did not receive even from the Jewish persecutors\nthemselves; for they persecuted His body while He was walking on the\nearth: you persecute His gospel as He is seated in heaven. Which gospel\nendured more meekly the flames of furious kings than it can possibly\nendure your tongues; for while they blazed, unity remained, and this it\ncannot do amid your words. They who desired that the word of God should\nperish in the flames did not believe that it could be despised if read.\nThey would not, therefore, set their flames to work upon the gospel, if\nyou would let them use your tongues against the gospel. In the earlier\npersecution the gospel of Christ was sought by some in their rage, it\nwas betrayed by others in their fear; it was burned by some in their\nrage, it was hidden by others in their love; it was attacked, but none\nwere found to speak against its truth. The more accursed share of\npersecution was reserved for you when the persecution of the heathen\nwas exhausted. Those who persecuted the name of Christ believed in\nChrist: now those who are honoured for the name of Christ are found to\nspeak against His truth.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXXVIII.--194. PETILIANUS said: \"Here you have the fullest\npossible proof that a Christian may take no part in the destruction of\nanother. But the first establishing of this principle was in the case\nof Peter, as it is written, 'Simon Peter having a sword, drew it, and\nsmote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. Then said\nJesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath. F or all they that\ntake the sword shall perish with the sword.'\"[925]\n\n195. AUGUSTINE answered: Why then do you not restrain the weapons of\nthe Circumcelliones with such words as these? Should you think that\nyou were going beyond the words of the gospel if you should say, All\nthey that take the cudgel shall perish with the cudgel? Withhold not\nthen your pardon, if our ancestors were unable to restrain the men\nby whom you complain that Marculus was thrown down a precipice; for\nneither is it written in the gospel, He that useth to throw men down\na precipice shall be cast therefrom. And would that, as your charges\nare either false or out of date, so the cudgels of those friends of\nyours would cease! And yet, perhaps, you take it ill that, if not by\nforce of law, at any rate in words, we take away their armour from your\nlegions in saying that they manifest their rage with sticks alone. For\nthat was the ancient fashion of their wickedness, but now they have\nadvanced too far. For amid their drunken revellings, and amid the free\nlicence of assembling together, wandering in the streets, jesting,\ndrinking, chambering in company with women who have no husbands, they\nhave learned not only to brandish cudgels, but to wield swords and\nwhirl slings. But why should I not say to them (God knows with what\nfeelings I say it and with what feelings they receive it!), Madmen, the\nsword of Peter, though drawn from motives not yet free from fleshly\nimpurity, was yet drawn in defence of the body of Christ against the\nbody of His persecutor, but your arms are portioned out against the\ncause of Christ; but the body of which He is the head, that is, His\nChurch, extends throughout all nations? He Himself has said this,\nand has ascended into heaven, whither the fury of the Jews could not\nfollow Him; and it is your fury which attacks His members in the body,\nwhich on His ascension He commended to our care. In defence of those\nmembers all men rage against you, all men resist you, as many as being\nin the Catholic Church, and possessing as yet but little faith, are\ninfluenced by the same motives as Peter was when he drew his sword\nin the name of Christ. But there is a great difference between your\npersecution and theirs. You are like the servant of the Jews' high\npriest; for in the service of your princes you arm yourselves against\nthe Catholic Church, that is, against the body of Christ. But they are\nsuch as Peter then was, fighting even with the strength of their bodies\nfor the body of Christ, that is, the Church. But if they are bidden\nto be still, as Peter then was bidden, how much more should you be\nwarned that, laying aside the madness of heresy, you should join the\nunity of those members for which they so fight? But, being wounded by\nsuch men as these, you hate us also; and, as though you had lost your\nright ears, you do not hear the voice of Christ as He sits at the right\nhand of the Father. But to whom shall I address myself, or how shall I\naddress myself to them, seeing that in them I find no time wherein to\nspeak? for even early in the morning they are reeking with wine, drunk,\nit may be already in the day, it may be still from overnight. Moreover,\nthey utter threats, and not they only, but their own bishops utter\nthreats concerning them, being ready to deny that what they have done\nhas any bearing on them. May the Lord grant to us a song of degrees, in\nwhich we may say, \"My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace.\nI am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.\"[926] For thus says\nthe body of Christ, which throughout the whole world is assailed by\nheretics, by some here, by others there, and by all alike wherever they\nmay be.[927]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LXXXIX.--196. PETILIANUS said: \"Therefore I say, He ordained\nthat we should undergo death for the faith, which each man should do\nfor the communion of the Church. For Christianity makes progress by\nthe deaths of its followers. For if death were feared by the faithful,\nno man would be found to live with perfect faith. For the Lord Christ\nsays, 'Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth\nalone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.'\"[928]\n\n197. AUGUSTINE answered: I should be glad to know which of your party\nit was who first threw himself over a precipice. For truly that grain\nof corn was fruitful from which so great a crop of similar suicides has\nsprung. Tell me, when you make mention of the words of the Lord, that\nHe says a grain of wheat shall die and bring forth much fruit, why do\nyou envy the real fruit, which has most truly[929] sprung up throughout\nthe whole world, and bring up against it all the charges of the tares\nor chaff which you have ever either heard of or invented?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XC.--198. PETILIANUS said: \"But you scatter thorns and tares, not\nseeds of corn, so that you ought to be burned together with them at the\nlast judgment. We do not utter curses; but every thorny conscience is\nbound under this penalty by the sentence which God has pronounced.\"\n\n199. AUGUSTINE answered: Surely, when you mention tares, it might\nbring to your minds the thought of wheat as well; for both have been\ncommanded to grow together in the field until the harvest. But you fix\nthe eye of malice fiercely on the tares, and maintain, in opposition\nto the express declaration of Christ, that they alone have grown\nthroughout the earth, with the exception of Africa alone.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XCI.--200. PETILIANUS said: \"Where is the saying of the Lord\nChrist, 'Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him\nthe other also?'[930] Where is the patience which He displayed when\nthey spat upon His face, who Himself with His most holy spittle opened\nthe eyes of the blind? Where is the saying of the Apostle Paul, 'If\na man smite you in the face?' Where is that other saying of the same\napostle, 'In stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths\noft?'[931] He makes mention of the sufferings which he underwent, not\nof the deeds which he performed. It had been enough for the Christian\nfaith that these things should be done by the Jews: why do you,\nwretched men, do these others in addition?\"\n\n201. AUGUSTINE answered: Is it then really so, that when men smite you\non the one cheek, you turn to them the other? This is not the report\nthat your furious bands won for you by wandering everywhere throughout\nthe whole of Africa with dreadful wickedness. I would fain have it that\nmen should make a bargain with you, that, in accordance with the old\nlaw, you should seek but \"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,\"[932]\ninstead of bringing out cudgels in return for the words which greet\nyour ears.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XCII.--202. PETILIANUS said: \"But what have you to do with the\nkings of this world, in whom Christianity has never found anything\nsave envy towards her? And to teach you shortly the truth of what I\nsay: A king persecuted the brethren of the Maccabees.[933] A king also\ncondemned the three children to the sanctifying flames, being ignorant\nwhat he did, seeing that he himself was fighting against God.[934]\nA king sought the life of the infant Saviour.[935] A king exposed\nDaniel, as he thought, to be eaten by wild beasts.[936] And the Lord\nChrist Himself was slain by a king's most wicked judge.[937] Hence\nit is that the apostle cries out, 'We speak wisdom among them that\nare perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of\nthis world, that come to nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a\nmystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world\nunto our glory; which none of the princes of this world knew: for had\nthey known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.'[938]\nBut grant that this was said of the heathen kings of old. Yet you,\nrulers of this present age, because you desire to be Christians, do\nnot allow men to be Christians, seeing that, when they are believing\nin all honesty of heart, you draw them by the defilement and mist of\nyour falsehood wholly over to your wickedness, that with their arms,\nwhich were provided against the enemies of the state, they should\nassail the Christians, and should think that, at your instigation, they\nare doing the work of Christ if they kill us whom you hate, according\nto the saying of the Lord Christ: 'The time cometh,' He says, 'that\nwhosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.'[939] It\nmakes no matter therefore to you, false teachers, whether the kings of\nthis world desire to be heathens, which God forbid, or Christians, so\nlong as you cease not in your efforts to arm them against the family\nof Christ. But do you not know, or rather, have you not read, that the\nguilt of one who instigates a murder is greater than the guilt of him\nwho carries it out? Jezebel had excited the king her husband to the\nmurder of a poor and righteous man, yet husband and wife alike perished\nby an equal punishment.[940] Nor indeed is your mode of urging on kings\ndifferent from that by which the subtle persuasion of women has often\nurged kings on to guilt. For the wife of Herod earned and obtained the\nboon by means of her daughter, that the head of John should be brought\nto table in a charger.[941] Similarly the Jews forced on Pontius Pilate\nthat he should crucify the Lord Jesus, whose blood Pilate prayed might\nremain in vengeance upon them and on their children.[942] So therefore\nyou also overwhelm yourselves with our blood by your sin. For it does\nnot follow that because it is the hand of the judge that strikes the\nblow, your calumnies therefore are not rather guilty of the deed. For\nthe prophet David says, speaking in the person of Christ, 'Why do the\nheathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the\nearth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against\nthe Lord, and against His Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands\nasunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the\nheavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall\nHe speak unto them in His wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure.\nYet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the\ndecree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I\nbegotten Thee. Ask of me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine\ninheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.\nThou shalt break them with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in\npieces like a potter's vessel.' And he warned the kings themselves in\nthe following precepts, that they should not, like ignorant men devoid\nof understanding, seek to persecute the Christians, lest they should\nthemselves be destroyed,--which precepts I would that we could teach\nthem, seeing that they are ignorant of them; or, at least, that you\nwould show them to them, as doubtless you would do if you desired that\nthey should live; or, at any rate, if neither of the other courses be\nallowed, that your malice would have permitted them to read them for\nthemselves. The first Psalm of David would certainly have persuaded\nthem that they should live and reign as Christians; but meanwhile\nyou deceive them, so long as they entrust themselves to you. For you\nrepresent to them things that are evil, and you hide from them what\nis good. Let them then at length read this, which they should have\nread already long ago. For what does he say, 'Be wise now therefore, O\nye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with\nfear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,\nand ye perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little.\nBlessed are all they that put their trust in Him.'[943] You urge on\nemperors, I say, with your persuasions, even as Pilate, whom, as we\nshowed above, the Jews urged on, though he himself cried aloud, as\nhe washed his hands before them all, 'I am innocent of the blood of\nthis just person,'[944]--as though a person could be clear from the\nguilt of a sin who had himself committed it. But, to say nothing of\nancient examples, observe, from instances taken from your own party,\nhow very many of your emperors and judges have perished in persecuting\nus. To pass over Nero, who was the first to persecute the Christians,\nDomitian perished almost in the same way as Nero, as also did Trajan,\nGeta,[945] Decius, Valerian, Diocletian; Maximian also perished, at\nwhose command that men should burn incense to their gods, burning the\nsacred volumes, Marcellinus indeed first, but after him also Mensurius\nof Carthage, and C\u00e6cilianus, escaped death from the sacrilegious\nflames, surviving like some ashes or cinders from the burning. For the\nconsciousness of the guilt of burning incense involved you all, as many\nas agreed with Mensurius. Macarius perished, Ursacius[946] perished,\nand all your counts perished in like manner by the vengeance of God.\nFor Ursacius was slain in a battle with the barbarians, after which\nbirds of prey with their savage talons, and the greedy teeth of dogs\nwith their biting, tore him limb from limb. Was not he too a murderer\nat your suggestion, who, like king Ahab, whom we showed to have been\npersuaded by a woman, slew a poor and righteous man?[947] So you too\ndo not cease to murder us, who are just and poor (poor, that is, in\nworldly wealth; for in the grace of God no one of us is poor). For even\nif you do not murder a man with your hands, you do not cease to do so\nwith your butcherous tongues. For it is written, 'Death and life are in\nthe power of the tongue.'[948] All, therefore, who have been murdered,\nyou, the instigator of the deed, have slain. Nor indeed does the hand\nof the butcher glow save at the instigation of your tongue; and that\nterrible heat of the breast is inflamed by your words to take the blood\nof others,--blood that shall take a just vengeance upon him who shed\nit.\"\n\n203. AUGUSTINE answered: If I were to answer adequately, and as I\nought, to this passage, which has been exaggerated and arranged at such\nlength by you, where you speak in invidious terms against us concerning\nthe kings of this world, I am much afraid that you would accuse me\ntoo of having wished to excite the anger of kings against you. And\nyet, whilst you are borne after your own fashion by the violence of\nthis invective against all Catholics, you certainly do not pass me by.\nI will endeavour, however, to show, if I can, that it is rather you\nwho have been guilty of this offence by speaking as you have done,\nthan myself by answering as I shall do. And first of all, see how you\nyourself oppose yourself; for certainly you prefaced the passage which\nyou quoted with the words, \"What have you to do with the kings of this\nworld, in whom Christianity has never found anything save envy towards\nher?\" In these words you certainly cut off from us all access to the\nkings of this world. And a little later you say, \"And he warned the\nkings themselves in the following precepts, that they should not, like\nignorant men devoid of understanding, seek to persecute the Christians,\nlest they should be themselves destroyed,--which precepts I would that\nwe could teach them, seeing that they are ignorant of them; or, at\nleast, that you would show them to them, as doubtless you would do if\nyou desired that they should live.\" In what way then do you wish us\nto be the instructors of kings? And indeed those of our body who have\nany friendship with Christian kings commit no sin if they make a right\nuse of that friendship; but if any are elated by it, they yet sin far\nless grievously than you. For what had you, who thus reproach us,--what\nhad you to do with a heathen king, and what is worse, with Julian,\nthe apostate and enemy of the name of Christ, to whom, when you were\nbegging that the basilicas should be restored to you as though they\nwere your own, you ascribed this meed of praise, \"that in him justice\nalone was found to have a place?\"--in which words (for I believe that\nyou understand the Latin tongue) both the idolatry and the apostasy of\nJudas are styled justice. I hold in my hands the petition which your\nancestors presented; the memorial[949] which embodied their request;\nthe chronicles, where they made their representation. Watch and attend.\nTo the enemy of Christ, to the apostate, the antagonist of Christians,\nthe servant of the devil, that friend, that representative, that\nPontius of yours, made supplication in such words as these: \"Go to\nthen, and say to us, What have you to do with the kings of this world?\"\nthat as deaf men you may read to the deaf nations what you as well as\nthey refuse to hear: \"Thou beholdest the mote that is in thy brother's\neye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye.\"[950]\n\n204. \"What,\" say you, \"have you to do with the kings of this world,\nin whom Christianity has never found anything save envy towards her?\"\nHaving said this, you endeavoured to reckon up what kings the righteous\nhad found to be their enemies, and did not consider how many more might\nbe enumerated who have proved their friends. The patriarch Abraham was\nboth most friendly treated, and presented with a token of friendship,\nby a king who had been warned from heaven not to defile his wife.[951]\nIsaac his son likewise found a king most friendly to him.[952] Jacob,\nbeing received with honour by a king in Egypt, went so far as to\nbless him.[953] What shall I say of his son Joseph, who, after the\ntribulation of a prison, in which his chastity was tried as gold is\ntried in the fire, being raised by Pharaoh to great honours,[954] even\nswore by the life of Pharaoh,[955]--not as though puffed up with vain\nconceit, but being not unmindful of his kindness. The daughter of a\nking adopted Moses.[956] David took refuge with a king of another race,\ncompelled thereto by the unrighteousness of the king of Israel.[957]\nElijah ran before the chariot of a most wicked king,--not by the\nking's command, but from his own loyalty.[958] Elisha thought it\ngood to offer of his own accord to the woman who had sheltered him\nanything that she might wish to have obtained from the king through\nhis intercession.[959] But I will come to the actual times when the\npeople of God were in captivity, in which, to use a mild expression,\na strange forgetfulness came over you. For, wishing to prove that\nChristianity has never found anything in kings saving envy towards her,\nyou made mention of the three children and Daniel, who suffered at\nthe hands of persecuting kings, and you could not derive instruction\nfrom circumstances not occurring near, but in the very same passages,\nviz. from the conduct of the king himself after the miracle of the\nflames which did no hurt, whether as shown in praising and setting\nforth the name of God, or in honouring the three children themselves,\nor from the esteem in which the king held Daniel, and the gifts with\nwhich he honoured him, nothing loth to receive them, when he, rendering\nthe honour that was due to the king's power, as sufficiently appears\nfrom his own words, did not hesitate to use the gift with which he\nwas endowed by God, in interpreting the king's dream. And when, in\nconsequence, the king was compelled by the men who envied the holy\nprophet, and heaped calumnies upon him with sacrilegious madness, most\nunwillingly to cast him into the den of lions, sadly though he did it,\nyet he had the conviction that he would be safe through the help and\nprotection of his God. Accordingly, when Daniel, by the miraculous\nrepression of the lions' rage, had been preserved unhurt, when the\nfriendly voice of the king spoke first to him in accents of anxiety,\nhe himself replied with benediction from the den, \"O king, live for\never!\"[960] How came it that, when your argument was turning on the\nvery same subject, when you were yourself quoting the examples of the\nservants of God in whose case these things were done, you either failed\nto see, or were unwilling to see, or seeing and knowing, were silent,\nin a manner which I know not how you will defend, about those instances\nof friendship felt by kings for the saints? But if it were not that,\nas a defender of the basest cause, you are hindered by the desire of\nbuilding up falsehood, and thereby turned away either as unwilling or\nas ignorant from the light of truth, there can be no doubt that you\ncould, without any difficulty, recall some good kings as well as some\nbad ones, and some friendly to the saints as well as some unfriendly.\nAnd we cannot but wonder that your Circumcelliones thus throw\nthemselves from precipices. Who was running after you, I pray? What\nMacarius, what soldier was pursuing you? Certainly none of our party\nthrust you into this abyss of falsehood. Why then did you thus run\nheadlong with your eyes shut, so that when you said, \"What have you to\ndo with the kings of this world?\" you did not add, In whom Christianity\nhas often found envy towards herself, instead of boldly venturing to\nsay, \"In whom Christianity has never found anything save envy towards\nher?\" Was it really true that you neither thought yourself, nor\nconsidered that those who read your writings would think, how many\ninstances of kings there were that went against your views? Does he not\nknow what he says?\n\n205. Or do you think that, because those whom I have mentioned belonged\nto olden times, therefore they form no argument against you, because\nyou did not say, In whom _righteousness_ has never found anything\nsave envy towards her, but \"In whom _Christianity_ has never found\nanything saving envy towards her,\"--meaning, perhaps, that it should\nbe understood that they began to show envy towards the righteous from\nthe time when they began to bear the name of Christians? What then is\nthe meaning of those examples from olden times, by which you even more\nimprudently wished to prove what you had so imprudently ventured to\nassert? For was it not before Christ was born inf the world that the\nMaccabees, and the three children, and Daniel, did and suffered what\nyou told of them? And again, why was it, as I asked just now, that you\noffered a petition to Julian, the undoubted foe of Christianity? Why\ndid you seek to recover the basilicas from him? Why did you declare\nthat only righteousness found a place with him? If it is the foe of\nChristianity that hears such things as these, what then are they from\nwhom he hears them? But it should be observed that Constantine, who was\ncertainly no foe to the name of Christian, but rather rendered glorious\nby it, being mindful of the hope which he maintained in Christ, and\ndeciding most justly on behalf of His unity, was not worthy to be\nacknowledged by you, even when you yourselves appealed to him. Both\nthese were emperors in Christian times, but yet not both of them were\nChristians. But if both of them were foes of Christianity, why did you\nthus appeal to one of them? why did you thus present a petition to\nthe other? For on your ancestors making their petition, Constantine\nhad given an episcopal judgment both at Rome and at Arles; and yet\nthe first of them you accused before him, from the other you appealed\nto him. But if, as is the case, one of them had believed in Christ,\nthe other had apostatized from Christ, why is the Christian despised\nwhile furthering the interests of unity, the apostate praised while\nfavouring deceit? Constantine ordered that the basilicas should be\ntaken from you, Julian that they should be restored. Do you wish to\nknow which of these actions is conducive to Christian peace? The one\nwas done by a man who had believed in Christ, the other by one who\nhad abandoned Christ. O how you would wish that you could say, It was\nindeed ill done that supplication should so be made to Julian; but\nwhat has that to do with us? But if you were to say this, the Catholic\nChurch would also conquer in these same words, whose saints dispersed\nthroughout the world are much less concerned with what you say of\nthose towards whom you feel as you may be disposed to feel. But it is\nbeyond your power to say, It was ill done that supplication should so\nbe made to Julian. Your throat is closed; your tongue is checked by an\nauthority close at home. It was Pontius that did it. Pontius presented\nthe petition; Pontius declared that the apostate was most righteous;\nPontius set forth that only righteousness found a place with the\napostate. That Pontius made a petition to him in these words, we have\nthe express evidence of Julian himself, mentioning him by name, without\nany disguise. Your representations still exist. It is no uncertain\nrumour, but public documents that bear witness to the fact. Can it be,\nthat because the apostate made some concession to your prayer, to the\ndetriment of the unity of Christ, you therefore find truth in what\nwas said, that only righteousness found a place with him? but because\nChristian emperors decide against your wishes, since this appears\nto them most likely to contribute to the unity of Christ, therefore\nthey are called the foes of Christianity? Such folly may all heretics\ndisplay; and may they regain wisdom, so that they should be no longer\nheretics.\n\n206. And when is that fulfilled, you will say, which the Lord declares,\n\"The time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he\ndoeth God service?\"[961] At any rate, neither can this be said of\nthe heathen, who persecuted Christians, not for the sake of God, but\nfor the sake of their idols. You do not see that if this had been\nsaid of these emperors who rejoice in the name of Christian, their\nchief command would certainly have been this, that you should have\nbeen put to death; and this command they never gave at all. But the\nmen of your party, by opposing the laws in hostile fashion, bring\ndeserved punishment on themselves; and their own voluntary deaths,\nso long as they think that they bring odium on us, they consider in\nno wise ruinous to themselves. But if they think that that saying of\nChrist refers to kings who honour the name of Christ, let them ask\nwhat the Catholic Church suffered in the East, when Valens the Arian\nwas emperor. There indeed I might find what I should understand to be\nsufficient fulfilment of the saying of the Lord, \"The time cometh,\nthat whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service,\"\nthat heretics should not claim, as conducing to their especial glory,\nthe injunctions issued against their errors by Catholic emperors. But\nwe remember that that time was fulfilled after the ascension of our\nLord, of which holy Scripture is known by all to be a witness. The\nJews thought that they were doing a service to God when they put the\napostles to death. Among those who thought that they were showing\nservice to God was even our Saul, though not ours as yet; so that\namong his causes for confidence which were past and to be forgotten,\nhe enumerates the following: \"An Hebrew,\" he says, \"of the Hebrews;\nas touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the\nChurch.\"[962] Here was one who thought that he did God service when he\ndid what presently he suffered himself. For forty Jews bound themselves\nby an oath that they would slay him, when he caused that this should be\nmade known to the tribune, so that under the protection of a guard of\narmed men he escaped their snares.[963] But there was no one yet to say\nto him, What have you to do (not with kings, but) with tribunes and the\narms of kings? There was no one to say to him, Dare you seek protection\nat the hand of soldiers, when your Lord was dragged by them to undergo\nHis suffering? There were as yet no instances of madness such as\nyours; but there were already examples being prepared, which should be\nsufficient for their refutation.\n\n207. Moreover, with what terrible force did you venture to set forth\nand utter the following: \"But to say nothing of ancient examples,\nobserve, from instances taken from your own party, how very many of\nyour emperors and judges have perished in persecuting us.\" When I read\nthis in your letter, I waited with the most earnest expectation to see\nwhat you were going to say, and whom you were going to enumerate, when,\nlo and behold! as though passing them over, you began to quote to me\nNero, Domitian, Trajan, Geta, Decius, Valerian, Diocletian, Maximian.\nI acknowledge that there were more; but you have altogether forgotten\nagainst whom you are arguing. Were not all of these pagans, persecuting\ngenerally the Christian name on behalf of their idols? Be vigilant,\nthen; for the men whom you mention were not of our communion. They were\npersecuting the whole aggregate of unity itself, from which we, as you\nthink, or you, as Christ teaches, have gone forth. But you had proposed\nto show that our emperors and judges had perished in consequence of\npersecuting you. Or is it that you yourself do not require that we\nshould reckon these, because, in mentioning them, you passed them over,\nsaying, \"To pass over Nero;\" and with this reservation did you mean to\nrun through all the rest? What then was the use of their being quoted,\nif they had nothing to do with the matter? But what has it to do with\nme? I now join with you in leaving these. Next, let that larger number\nwhich you promised to us be produced, unless, indeed, it may be that\nthey cannot be found, inasmuch as you said that they had perished.\n\n208. For now you go on to make mention of the bishops whom you are wont\nto accuse of having delivered up the sacred books, concerning whom we\non our part are wont to answer: Either you fail in your proof, and so\nit concerns no one at all; or you succeed, and then it still has no\nconcern with us. For they have borne their own burden, whether it be\ngood or bad; and we indeed believe that it was good. But of whatever\ncharacter it was, yet it was their own; just as your bad men have\nborne their own burden, and neither you theirs nor they yours. But the\ncommon and most evil burden of you all is schism. This we have already\noften said before. Show us, therefore, not the names of bishops, but\nthe names of our emperors and judges, who have perished in persecuting\nyou. For this is what you had proposed, this is what you had promised,\nthis is what you had caused us most eagerly to expect. \"Hear,\" he says,\n\"Macarius perished, Ursacius perished, and all your counts perished\nin like manner, by the vengeance of God.\" You have mentioned only\ntwo by name, and neither of them was emperor. Who would be satisfied\nwith this, I ask? Are you not utterly dissatisfied with yourself? You\npromise that you will mention a vast number of emperors and judges of\nour party who perished in persecuting you; and then, without a word\nof emperors, you mention two who were either judges or counts. For as\nto what you add, \"And all your counts perished in like manner by the\nvengeance of God,\" it has nothing to do with the matter. For on this\nprinciple you might some time ago have closed your argument, without\nmentioning the name of any one at all. Why then have you not made\nmention of our emperors, that is to say, of emperors of our communion?\nWere you afraid that you should be indicted for high treason? Where\nis the fortitude that marks the Circumcelliones? And further, what\ndo you mean by introducing those whom you mentioned above in such\nnumbers? They might with more right say to you, Why did you seek out\nus? For they did nothing to assist your cause, and yet you mentioned\nthem by name. What kind of man, then, must you be, who fear to mention\nthose by name, who, as you say, have perished? At any rate, you might\nmention more of the judges and counts, of whom you seem to feel no\nfear. But yet you stopped at Macarius and Ursacius. Are these two whom\nyou mention the vast number of whom you spoke? Are you thinking of the\nlesson which we learned as boys? For if you were to ask of me what\nnumber two is, singular or plural, what could I answer, except that it\nwas plural? But even so I am still not without the means of reply. I\ntake away Macarius from your list; for you certainly have not told us\nhow he perished. Or do you maintain that any one who persecutes you,\nunless he be immortal on the face of this earth, is to be deemed when\nhe dies to have died because of you? What if Constantine had not lived\nto enjoy so long a reign, and such prolonged prosperity, who was the\nfirst to pass many decrees against your errors? And what if Julian, who\ngave you back the basilicas, had not been so speedily snatched away\nfrom life?[964] In that case, when would you make an end of talking\nsuch nonsense as you do, seeing that even now you are unwilling to\nhold your tongues? And yet neither do we say that Julian died so soon\nbecause he gave back the basilicas to you. For we might be equally\nprolix with you in this, but we are unwilling to be equally foolish.\nWell, then, as I had begun to say, from these two we will take away\nMacarius. For when you had mentioned the names of two, Macarius and\nUrsacius, you repeated the name of Ursacius with the view of showing us\nhow he deserved his death; and you said, \"For Ursacius was slain in a\nbattle with the barbarians, after which birds of prey with their savage\ntalons, and the greedy teeth of dogs with their biting, tore him limb\nfrom limb.\" Whence it is quite clear, since it is your custom to excite\ngreater odium against us on account of Macarius, insomuch that you call\nus not Ursacians but Macarians, that you would have been sure to say\nby far the most concerning him, had you been able to say anything of\nthe sort about his death. Of these two, therefore, when you used the\nplural number, if you take away Macarius, there remains Ursacius alone,\na proper name of the singular number. Where is therefore the fulfilment\nof your threatening and tremendous promise of so many who should\nsupport your argument?\n\n209. By this time all men who are in any degree acquainted with the\nmeaning of words must understand, it seems to me, how ridiculous it is\nthat, when you had said, \"Macarius perished, Ursacius perished, and\nall your counts perished in like manner, by the vengeance of God,\"\nas though men were calling upon you to prove the fact, whereas, in\nreality, neither hearer nor reader was calling on you for anything\nfurther whatsoever, you immediately strung together a long argument\nin order to prove that all our counts perished in like manner by the\nvengeance of God. \"For Ursacius,\" you say, \"was slain in a battle with\nthe barbarians, after which birds of prey with their savage talons,\nand the greedy teeth of dogs with their biting, tore him limb from\nlimb.\" In the same way, any one else, who was similarly ignorant of the\nmeaning of what he says, might assert that all your bishops perished\nin prison by the vengeance of God; and when asked how he could prove\nthis fact, he might at once add, For Optatus, having been accused of\nbelonging to the company of Gildo, was put to death in a similar way.\nFrivolous charges such as these we are compelled to listen to, to\nconsider, to refute; only we are apprehensive for the weak, lest, from\nthe greater slowness of their intellect, they should fall speedily\ninto your toils. But Ursacius, of whom you speak, if it be the case\nthat he lived a good life, and really died as you assert, will receive\nconsolation from the promise of God, who says, \"Surely your blood of\nyour lives will I require: at the hand of every beast will I require\nit.\"[965]\n\n210. But as to the calumnious charges which you bring against us,\nsaying that by us the wrath of the kings of the world is excited\nagainst you, so long as we do not teach them the lesson of holy\nScripture, but rather suggest our own desire of war, I do not imagine\nthat you are so absolutely deaf to the eloquence of the sacred books\nthemselves as that you should not rather fear that they should be\nacquainted with it. But whether you so will or no, they gain entrance\nto the Church; and even if we hold our tongues, they give heed to the\nreaders: and, to say nothing of the rest, they especially listen with\nthe most marked attention to that very psalm which you quoted. For you\nsaid that we do not teach them, nor, so far as we can help it, allow\nthem to become acquainted with the words of Scripture: \"Be wise now\ntherefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve\nthe Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He\nbe angry,\"[966] etc. Believe that even this is sung, and that they\nhear it. But, at any rate, they hear what is written above in the\nsame psalm, which you, unless I am mistaken, were only unwilling to\npass over, for fear you should be understood to be afraid. They hear\ntherefore this as well: \"The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son;\nthis day have I begotten Thee. Ask of me, and I shall give Thee the\nheathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth\nfor Thy possession.\"[967] On hearing which, they cannot but marvel\nthat some should be found to speak against this inheritance of Christ,\nendeavouring to reduce it to a little corner of the earth; and in\ntheir marvel they perhaps ask, on account of what they hear in what\nfollows, \"Serve the Lord with fear,\" wherein they can serve Him, in so\nfar as they are kings. For all men ought to serve God,--in one sense,\nin virtue of the condition common to them all, in that they are men;\nin another sense, in virtue of their several gifts, whereby this man\nhas one function on the earth, and that man has another. For no man,\nas a private individual, could command that idols should be taken from\nthe earth, which it was so long ago foretold should come to pass.[968]\nAccordingly, when we take into consideration the social condition of\nthe human race, we find that kings, in the very fact that they are\nkings, have a service which they can render to the Lord in a manner\nwhich is impossible for any who have not the power of kings.\n\n211. When, therefore, they think over what you quote, they hear also\nwhat you yourself quoted concerning the three children, and hear it\nwith circumstances of marvellous solemnity. For that same Scripture is\nmost of all sung in the Church at a time when the very festal nature\nof the season excites additional fervour even in those who, during\nthe rest of the year, are more given to be sluggish. What then do you\nthink must be the feelings of Christian emperors, when they hear of the\nthree children being cast into the burning fiery furnace because they\nwere unwilling to consent to the wickedness of worshipping the image of\nthe king,[969] unless you suppose that they consider that the pious\nliberty of the saints cannot be overcome either by the power of kings,\nor by any enormity of punishment, and that they rejoice that they are\nnot of the number of those kings who used to punish men that despised\nidols as though they were guilty of sacrilege? But, further, when they\nhear in what follows that the same king, terrified by the marvellous\nsight of, not only the three children, but the very flames performing\nservice unto God, himself too began to serve God in fear, and to\nrejoice with reverence, and to learn submission, do they not understand\nthat the reason that this was recorded, and set forth with such\npublicity, was that an example might be set both before the servants of\nGod, to prevent them from committing sacrilege in obedience to kings,\nand before kings themselves, that they should show themselves religious\nby belief in God? Being willing, therefore, on their part, from the\nadmonition of the very psalm which you yourself inserted in your\nwritings, both to be wise, and to receive instruction, and to serve\nGod with fear, and to rejoice unto Him with reverence, and to learn\nsubmission, with what attention do they listen to what that king said\nafterwards! For he said that he would make a decree for all the people\nover whom he ruled, that whosoever should speak blasphemy against the\nGod of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego should perish, and their house\nbe utterly destroyed. And if they know that he made this decree that\nblasphemy should not be uttered against the God who tempered the force\nof the fire, and liberated the three children, they surely go on to\nconsider what decrees they ought to make in their kingdom, that the\nsame God who has granted remission of sins, and given freedom to the\nwhole earth, should not be treated with scorn among the faithful in\ntheir realm.\n\n212. See therefore, when Christian kings make any decree against\nyou in defence of Catholic unity, that it be not the case that with\nyour lips you are accusing them of being unlearned, as it were, in\nholy Scripture, while in your hearts you are grieving that they are\nso well acquainted with its teaching. For who could put up with the\nsacrilegious and hateful fallacy which you advance in the case of one\nand the same Daniel, to find fault with kings because he was cast into\nthe den of lions, and to refuse praise to kings in that he was raised\nto exalted honour, seeing that, even when he was cast into the den of\nlions, the king himself was more inclined to believe that he would be\nsafe than that he would be destroyed, and, in anxiety for him, refused\nto eat his food? And then do you dare to say to Christians, \"What\nhave you to do with the kings of the world?\" because Daniel suffered\npersecution at a king's hands, and yet not look back upon the same\nDaniel faithfully interpreting dreams to kings, calling a king lord,\nreceiving gifts and honours from a king? And so again do you dare, in\nthe case of the aforesaid three children, to excite the flames of odium\nagainst kings, because, when they refused to worship the statue, they\nwere cast into the flames, while at the same time you hold your tongue,\nand say nothing about their being thus extolled and honoured by the\nking? Granted that the king was a persecutor when he cast Daniel into\nthe lions' den; but when, on receiving him safely out again, in his\njoy and congratulations he cast in his enemies to be torn in pieces\nand devoured by the same lions, what was he then,--a persecutor, or\nnot?[970] I call on you to answer me. For if he was, why did not Daniel\nhimself resist him, as he might so easily have done in virtue of his\ngreat friendship for him, while yet you bid us restrain kings from\npersecuting men? But if he was not a persecutor, because he avenged\nwith prompt justice the outrage committed against a holy man, what kind\nof vengeance, I would ask, must be exacted from kings for indignities\noffered to the sacraments of Christ, if the limbs of the prophet\nrequired such a vengeance because they were exposed to danger? Again,\nI acknowledge that the king, as indeed is manifest, was a persecutor\nwhen he cast the three children into the furnace because they refused\nto worship his image; but I ask whether he was still a persecutor when\nhe set forth the decree that all who should blaspheme against the\none true God should be destroyed, and their whole house laid waste?\nFor if he was a persecutor, why do you answer Amen to the words of a\npersecutor?[971] But if he was not a persecutor, why do you call those\npersecutors who deter you from the madness of blasphemy? For if they\ncompel you to worship an idol, then they are like the impious king, and\nyou are like the three children; but if they are preventing you from\nfighting against Christ, it is you who are impious if you attempt to do\nthis. But what they may be if they forbid this with terrible threats,\nI do not presume to say. Do you find some other name for them, if you\nwill not call them pious emperors.\n\n213. If I had been the person to bring forward these examples of Daniel\nand the three children, you would perhaps resist, and declare that they\nought not to have been brought from those times in illustration of our\ndays; but God be thanked that you yourself brought them forward, to\nprove the point, it is true, which you desired to establish, but you\nsee that their force was rather in favour of what you least would wish\nto prove. Perhaps you will say that this proceeds from no deceit of\nyours, but from the fallibility of human nature. Would that this were\ntrue! Amend it, then. You will not lose in reputation; nay, it marks\nunquestionably the higher mind to extinguish the fire of animosity by\na frank confession, than merely to escape the mist of falsehood by\nacuteness of the understanding.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XCIII.--214. PETILIANUS said: \"Where is the law of God? where is\nyour Christianity, if you not only commit murders and put men to death,\nbut also order such things to be done?\"\n\n215. AUGUSTINE answered: In reply to this, see what the fellow-heirs\nof Christ say throughout the world. We neither commit murders, and put\nmen to death, nor order such things to be done; and you are raging much\nmore madly than those who do such things, in that you put such things\ninto the minds of men in opposition to the hopes of everlasting life.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XCIV.--216. PETILIANUS said: \"If you wish that we should be your\nfriends, why do you drag us to you against our will? But if you wish\nthat we should be your foes, why do you kill your foes?\"\n\n217. AUGUSTINE answered: We neither drag you to us against your will,\nnor do we kill our foes; but whatever we do in our dealings with you,\nthough we may do it contrary to your inclination, yet we do it from\nour love to you, that you may voluntarily correct yourselves, and live\nan amended life. For no one lives against his will; and yet a boy,\nin order to learn this lesson of his own free will,[972] is beaten\ncontrary to his inclination, and that often by the very man that is\nmost dear to him. And this, indeed, is what the kings would desire to\nsay to you if they were to strike you, for to this end their power has\nbeen ordained of God. But you cry out even when they are not striking\nyou.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XCV.--218. PETILIANUS said: \"But what reason is there, or what\ninconsistency of emptiness, in desiring communion with us so eagerly,\nwhen all the time you call us by the false title of heretics?\"\n\n219. AUGUSTINE answered: If we so eagerly desired communion with\nheretics, we should not be anxious that you should be converted from\nthe error of heresy; but when the very object of our negotiations\nwith you is that you should cease to be heretics, how are we eagerly\ndesiring communion with heretics? For, in fact, it is dissension\nand division that make you heretics; but peace and unity make men\nCatholics. When, then, you come over from your heresy to us, you cease\nto be what we hate, and begin to be what we love.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XCVI.--220. PETILIANUS said: \"Choose, in short, which of the\ntwo alternatives you prefer. If innocence is on your side, why do you\npersecute us with the sword? Or if you call us guilty, why do you, who\nare yourselves innocent, seek for our company?\"\n\n221. AUGUSTINE answered: O most ingenious dilemma, or rather most\nfoolish verbosity! Is it not usual for the choice of two alternatives\nto be offered to an antagonist, when it is impossible that he\nshould adopt both? For if you should offer me the choice of the two\npropositions, that I should say either that we were innocent, or that\nwe were guilty; or, again, of the other pair of propositions, viz.\nthose concerning you, I could not escape choosing either one or the\nother. But as it is, you offer me the choice of these two, whether we\nare innocent or you are guilty, and wish me to say which of these two I\nchoose for my reply. But I refuse to make a choice; for I assert them\nboth, that we are innocent, and that you are guilty. I say that we\nare innocent of the false and calumnious accusations which you bring\nagainst us, so far as any of us, being in the Catholic Church, can say\nwith a safe conscience that we have neither given up the sacred books,\nnor taken part in the worship of idols, nor murdered any man, nor been\nguilty of any of the other crimes which you allege against us; and that\nany who may have committed any such offences, which, however, you have\nnot proved in any case, have thereby shut the doors of the kingdom of\nheaven, not against us, but against themselves; \"for every man shall\nbear his own burden.\"[973] Here you have your answer on the first head.\nAnd I further say that you are all guilty and accursed,--not some of\nyou owing to the sins of others, which are wrought among you by certain\nof your number, and are censured by certain others, but all of you by\nthe sin of schism; from which most heinous sacrilege no one of you\ncan say that he is free, so long as he refuses to hold communion with\nthe unity of all nations, unless, indeed, he be compelled to say that\nChrist has told a lie concerning the Church which is spread abroad\namong all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.[974] And so you have my\nsecond answer. See how I have made you two replies, of which you were\ndesirous that we should be reduced to choose the one. At any rate, you\nshould have taken notice that both assertions might be made by us; and\ncertainly, if this was what you wished, you should have asked it as a\nfavour of us that we should choose one or the other, when you saw that\nit was in our power to choose both.\n\n222. But \"if innocence is on your side, why do you persecute us with\nthe sword?\" Look back for a moment on your troops, which are not now\narmed after the ancient fashion of their fathers only with cudgels, but\nhave further added to their equipment axes and lances and swords, and\ndetermine for yourselves to which of us the question best belongs, \"Why\ndo you persecute us with the sword?\" \"Or if you call us guilty,\" say\nyou, \"why do you, who are yourselves innocent, seek for our company?\"\nHere I answer very briefly. The reason why you, being guilty, are\nsought after by the innocent, is that you may cease to be guilty, and\nbegin to be innocent. Here then I have chosen both of the alternatives\nconcerning us, and answered both of those concerning you: only do you\nin turn choose one of the two. Are you innocent or guilty? Here you\ncannot choose to make the two assertions, and yet choose both, if so it\npleases you. For at any rate you cannot be innocent in reference to the\nsame circumstances in respect of which you are guilty. If therefore you\nare innocent, do not be surprised that you are invited to be at peace\nwith your brethren; but if you are guilty, do not be surprised that you\nare sought for punishment by kings. But since of these two alternatives\nyou assume one for yourselves, and the other is alleged of you by\nus,--for you assume to yourselves innocence, and it is alleged of you\nby us that you are living impiously,--hear again once more what I shall\nsay on either head. If you are innocent, why do you speak against the\ntestimony of Christ? But if you are guilty, why do you not fly for\nrefuge to His mercy? For His testimony, on the one hand, is to the\nunity of the world, and His mercy, on the other, is in brotherly love.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XCVII.--223. PETILIANUS said: \"Lastly, as we have often said\nbefore, how great is your presumption, that you should speak as you\npresume to do of kings, when David says, 'It is better to trust in the\nLord than to put confidence in man: it is better to trust in the Lord\nthan to put confidence in princes!'\"[975]\n\n224. AUGUSTINE answered: We put no confidence in man, but, so far as\nwe can, we warn men to place their trust in the Lord; nor do we put\nconfidence in princes, but, so far as we can, we warn princes to put\nconfidence in the Lord. And though we may seek aid from princes to\npromote the advantage of the Church, yet do we not put confidence\nin them. For neither did the apostle himself put confidence in that\ntribune, in the sense in which the Psalmist talks of putting confidence\nin princes, from whom he obtained for himself that an escort of armed\nmen should be assigned to him; nor did he put confidence in the\narmed men, by whose protection he escaped the snares of the wicked\nones, in any such sense as that of the Psalmist where he speaks of\nputting confidence in men.[976] But neither do we find fault with you\nyourselves, because you sought from the emperor that the basilicas\nshould be restored to you, as though you had put your trust in Julian\nthe prince; but we find fault with you, that you have despaired of the\nwitness of Christ, from whose unity you have separated the basilicas\nthemselves. For you received them at the bidding of an enemy of Christ,\nthat in them you should despise the commands of Christ, whilst you\nfind force and truth in what Julian ordained, saying, \"This, moreover,\non the petition of Rogatianus, Pontius, Cassianus, and other bishops,\nnot without an intermixture of clergy, is added to complete the whole,\nthat those proceedings which were taken to their prejudice wrongly and\nwithout authority being all annulled, everything should be restored to\nits former position;\" and yet you find nothing that has either force\nof truth in what Christ ordained, saying, \"Ye shall be witnesses unto\nme both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the\nuttermost ends of the earth.\"[977] We entreat you, let yourselves be\nreformed. Return to this most manifest unity of the whole world; and\nlet all things be restored to their former position, not in accordance\nwith the words of the apostate Julian, but in accordance with the words\nof our Saviour Christ. Have pity on your own soul. We are not now\ncomparing Constantine and Julian in order to show how different they\nare. We are not saying, If you have not placed confidence in a man and\nin a prince, when you said to a pagan and apostate emperor, that \"in\nhim justice only found a place,\" seeing that the party of Donatus has\nuniversally employed the prayers and the proclamation in which those\nwords occur, as is proved by the records of the audience; much less\nought we to be accused by you, as though we put our confidence in any\nman or prince, if without any blasphemous flattery we obtained any\nrequest from Constantine or from the other Christian emperors; or if\nthey themselves, without our asking for it, but remembering the account\nwhich they shall render to the Lord, under whose words they tremble\nwhen they hear what you yourself have quoted, \"Be wise now therefore, O\nye kings,\" etc., and many other sayings of the sort, make any ordinance\nof their own accord in support of the unity of the Catholic Church.\nBut I say nothing about Constantine. It is Christ and Julian that we\ncontrast before you; nay, more than this, it is God and man, the Son\nof God and the son of hell, the Saviour of our souls and the destroyer\nof his own. Why do you maintain the proclamation of Julian in the\noccupation of the basilicas, and yet not maintain the gospel of Christ\nin embracing the peace of the Church? We too cry out, Let all things\nthat have been done amiss be restored to their ancient condition. The\ngospel of Christ is of greater antiquity than the proclamation of\nJulian; the unity of Christ is of greater antiquity than the party of\nDonatus; the prayers of the Church to the Lord on behalf of the unity\nof the Church are of greater antiquity than the prayers of Rogatianus,\nand Pontius, and Cassianus, to Julian on behalf of the party of\nDonatus. Are proceedings wrongly taken when kings forbid division? and\nare they not wrongly taken when bishops divide unity? Is that wrong\naction when kings minister to the witness of Christ in defence of the\nChurch? and is it not wrong action when bishops contradict the witness\nof Christ in order to deny the Church? We entreat you, therefore, that\nthe words of Julian himself, to whom you thus made supplication, may be\nlistened to, not in opposition to the gospel, but in accordance with\nthe gospel, and that all things which have been done amiss may be\nrestored to their former condition.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XCVIII.--225. PETILIANUS said: \"On you, yes you, you wretched\nmen, I call, who, being dismayed with the fear of persecution, whilst\nyou seek to save your riches, not your souls, love not so much the\nfaithless faith of the traitors, as the wickedness of the very men\nwhose protection you have won unto yourselves,--just in the same way\nas sailors, shipwrecked in the waves, plunge into the waves by which\nthey must be overwhelmed, and in the great danger of their lives seek\nunmistakeably the very object of their dread; just as the madness of a\ntyrant, that he may be free from apprehension of any person whatsoever,\ndesires to be feared, though this is fraught with peril to himself: so,\nso you fly for refuge to the citadel of wickedness, being willing to\nlook on the loss or punishment of the innocent if you may escape fear\nfor yourselves. If you consider that you escape danger when you plunge\ninto ruin, truly also it is a faith that merits condemnation to observe\nthe faith of a robber. Lastly, it is trafficking in a madman's gains\nto lose your own souls in order not to lose your wealth. For the Lord\nChrist says, 'If a man shall gain the whole world, and lose his own\nsoul, what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'\"[978]\n\n226. AUGUSTINE answered: That exhortation of yours would be useful,\nI cannot but acknowledge, if any one were to employ it in a good\ncause. It is undoubtedly well that you have tried to deter men from\npreferring their riches to their souls. But I would have you, who have\nheard these words, listen also for a time to us; for we also say this,\nbut listen in what sense. If kings threaten to take away your riches,\nbecause you are not Jews according to the flesh, or because you do not\nworship idols or devils, or because you are not carried about into any\nheresies, but abide in Catholic unity, then choose rather that your\nriches should perish, that you perish not yourselves; but be careful\nto prefer neither anything else, nor the life of this world itself to\neternal salvation, which is in Christ. But if kings threaten you with\nloss or condemnation, simply on the ground that you are heretics,\nsuch things are terrifying you not in cruelty, but in mercy; and your\ndetermination not to fear is a sign not of bravery, but of obstinacy.\nHear then the words of Peter, where he says, \"What glory is it, if,\nwhen ye be buffeted for your faults, ye take it patiently?\"[979]\nso that herein you have neither consolation upon earth, nor in the\nworld to come life everlasting; but you have here the miseries of the\nunfortunate, and there the hell of heretics. Do you see, therefore,\nmy brother, with whom I am now arguing, that you ought first to show\nwhether you hold the truth, and then to exhort men that in upholding it\nthey should be ready to give up all the blessings which they possess\nin this present world? And so, when you do not show this, because you\ncannot,--not that the talent is wanting, but because the cause is\nbad,--why do you hasten by your exhortations to make men both beggars\nand ignorant, both in want and wandering from the truth, in rags and\ncontentions, household drudges and heretics, both losing their temporal\ngoods in this world, and finding eternal evils in the judgment of\nChrist? But the cautious son, who, while he stands in dread of his\nfather's rod, keeps away from the lair of the serpent, escapes both\nblows and destruction; whereas he who despises the pains of discipline,\nwhen set in rivalry with his own pernicious will, is both beaten and\ndestroyed. Do you not now understand, O learned man, that he who has\nresigned all earthly goods in order to maintain the peace of Christ,\npossesses God; whereas he who has lost even a very few coins in behalf\nof the party of Donatus is devoid of heart?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XCIX.--227. PETILIANUS said: \"But we who are poor in spirit[980]\nare not apprehensive for our wealth, but rather feel a dread of wealth.\nWe, 'as having nothing, and yet possessing all things,'[981] look on\nour soul as our wealth, and by our punishments and blood purchase to\nourselves the everlasting riches of heaven. So again the same Lord\nsays, 'Whosoever shall lose his substance, shall find it again an\nhundredfold.'\"\n\n228. AUGUSTINE answered: It is not beside the purpose to inquire into\nthe true meaning of this passage also. For where my purpose is not\ninterfered with by any mistake which you make, or any false impression\nwhich you convey in quoting from the Scriptures, I do not concern\nmyself about the matter. It is not then written, \"Whosoever shall lose\nhis substance,\" but \"Whosoever shall lose his life for my sake.\"[982]\nAnd the passage about substance is not, \"Whosoever shall lose,\" but\n\"Every one that hath forsaken;\"[983] and that not only with reference\nto substance of money, but many other things besides. But you meanwhile\nhave not lost your substance; but whether you have forsaken it, in\nthat you so boast of poverty, I cannot say. And if by any chance my\ncolleague Fortunatus may know this, being in the same city with you, he\nnever told me, because I had never asked him. However, even if you had\ndone this, you have yet yourself quoted the testimony of the apostle\nagainst yourself in this very epistle which you have written: \"Though I\nbestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be\nburned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.\"[984] For if you\nhad charity, you would not bring charges against the whole world, which\nknows nothing of you, and of which you know no more,--no, not even\nsuch charges as are founded on the proved offences of the Africans.\nIf you had charity, you would not picture to yourself a false unity\nin your calumnies, but you would learn to recognise the unity that is\nmost clearly set forth in the words of the Lord: \"Unto the uttermost\npart of the earth.\"[985] But if you did not do this, why do you boast\nas though you had done it? Are you really so filled with fear of\nriches, that, having nothing, you possess all things? Tell that to your\ncolleague Crispinus, who lately bought a farm near our city of Hippo,\nthat he might there plunge men into the lowest abyss of error.[986]\nWhence I too know this all too well. You perhaps are not aware of it,\nand therefore shout out in security, \"We stand in fear of riches.\" And\nhence I am surprised that that cry of yours has been allowed to pass\nCrispinus, so as to reach us. For between Constantina, where you are,\nand Hippo, where I am, lies Calama, where he is, nearer indeed to our\nside, but still between us. I wonder, therefore, how it was that he did\nnot first intercept this cry, and strike it back so that it should not\nreach to our ears; and that he did not, in opposition to you, recite in\nmuch more copious phrase a eulogy on riches. For he not only stands in\nno fear of riches, but he actually loves them. And certainly, before\nyou utter anything about the rest, you should rehearse such views to\nhim. If he makes no corrections, then we have our answer ready. But for\nyourself, if it be true that you are poor, you have with you my brother\nFortunatus. You will be more likely with such sentiments to please him,\nwho is my colleague, than Crispinus, who is your own.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. C.--229. PETILIANUS said: \"Inasmuch as we live in the fear of\nGod, we have no fear of the punishments and executions which you wreak\nwith the sword; but the only thing which we avoid is that by your most\nwicked communion you destroy men's souls, according to the saying of\nthe Lord Himself: 'Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able\nto kill the soul; but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both\nsoul and body in hell.'\"[987]\n\n230. AUGUSTINE answered: You do the destruction which you speak of,\nnot with a visible sword, but with that of which it is said, \"The sons\nof men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp\nsword.\"[988] For with this sword of accusation and calumny against\nthe world of which you are wholly ignorant, you destroy the souls of\nthose who lack experience. But if you find fault with a most wicked\ncommunion, as you term it, I would bid you presently, not with my\nwords, but with your own, to ascend, descend, enter, turn yourself\nabout, change sides, be such as was Optatus. But if you return to your\nsenses, and shall find that you are not such as he, not because he\nrefused to partake of the sacraments with you, but because you took\noffence at what he did, then you will acquit the world of crimes which\ndo not belong to it, and you will find yourself involved in the sin of\nschism.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. CI.--231. PETILIANUS said: \"You therefore, who prefer rather\nto be washed with the most false of baptisms than to be regenerate,\nnot only do not lay aside your sins, but also load your souls with\nthe offences of criminals. For as the water of the guilty has been\nabandoned by the Holy Spirit, so it is clearly filled full of the\noffences of the _traditors_. To any wretched man, then, who is baptized\nby one of this sort, we would say, If you have wished to be free from\nfalsehood, you are really drenched with falsity. If you desired to shut\nout the sins of the flesh, you will, as the conscience of the guilty\ncomes upon you, be partakers likewise of their guilt. If you wished to\nextinguish the flames of avarice, you are drenched with deceit, you are\ndrenched with wickedness, you are drenched also with madness. Lastly,\nif you believe that faith is identical in the giver and the receiver,\nyou are drenched with the blood of a brother by him who slays a man.\nAnd so it comes to pass that you, who had come to baptism free from\nsin, return from baptism guilty of the sin of murder.\"\n\n232. AUGUSTINE answered: I should like to come to argument with those\nwho shouted assent when they either heard or read those words of yours.\nFor such men have not ears in their heart, but their heart in their\nears. Yet let them read again and again, and consider, and find out for\nthemselves, not what the sound of those words is, but what they mean.\nFirst of all, to sift the meaning of the last clause, \"So it comes\nto pass,\" you say, \"that you who had come to baptism free from sin,\nreturn from baptism guilty of the sin of murder:\" tell me, to begin\nwith, who there is that comes to baptism free from sin, with the single\nexception of Him who came to be baptized, not that His iniquity should\nbe purged away, but that an example of humility might be given us? For\nwhat shall be forgiven to one free from sin? Or are you indeed endowed\nwith such an eloquence, that you can show to us some innocence which\nyet committeth sin? Do you not hear the words of Scripture saying, \"No\none is clean from sin in Thy sight, not even the infant whose life is\nbut of a single day upon the earth?\"[989] For whence else is it that\none hastens even with infants to seek remission of their sins? Do you\nnot hear the words of another Scripture, \"In sin did my mother conceive\nme?\"[990] In the next place, if a man returns a murderer, who had come\nwithout the guilt of murder, merely because he receives baptism at a\nmurderer's hands, then all they who returned from receiving baptism at\nthe hands of Optatus were made partakers with Optatus. Go now, and see\nwith what face you cast in our teeth that we excite the wrath of kings\nagainst you. Are you not afraid that as many satellites of Gildo will\nbe sought for among you, as there are men who may have been baptized by\nOptatus? Do you see at length how that sentence of yours, like an empty\nbladder, has rattled not only with a meaningless sound, but on your own\nhead?\n\n233. To go on to the other earlier arguments which you have set before\nus to be refuted, they are of such a nature that we must needs allow\nthat every one returns from baptism endued with the character of him by\nwhom he is baptized; but God forbid that those whom you baptize should\nreturn from you infected with the same madness as possesses you when\nyou make such a statement! And what a dainty sound there was in your\nwords, \"You are drenched with deceit, you are drenched with wickedness,\nyou are drenched also with madness!\" Surely you would never pour forth\nwords like this unless you were, not drenched, but filled even to\nrepletion with madness. Is it then true, to say nothing of the rest,\nthat all who come untainted with covetousness to receive baptism at the\nhands of your covetous colleagues, or the priests of your party, return\nguilty of covetousness, and that those who run in soberness to the\nwhirlpool of intoxication to be baptized return in drunkenness? If you\nentertain and teach such views as this, you will have the effrontery\neven to quote, as making against us, the passage which you advanced\nsome little time ago: \"It is better to trust in the Lord than to put\nany confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put\nany confidence in princes.\"[991] What is the meaning of your teaching,\nI would ask, save only this, that we should put our confidence, not in\nthe Lord, but in man, when you say that the baptized person is made\nto resemble him who has baptized him? And since you assume this as the\nfundamental principle of your baptism, are men to place their trust in\nyou? and are those to place their trust in princes who were disposed to\nplace it in the Lord? Truly I would bid them hearken not to you, but\nrather to those proofs which you have urged against ourselves, ay, and\nto words more awful yet; for not only is it written, \"It is better to\ntrust in the Lord than to put confidence in man,\" but also, \"Cursed be\nthe man that trusteth in man.\"[992]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. CII.--234. PETILIANUS said: \"Imitate indeed the prophets, who\nfeared to have their holy souls deceived with false baptism. For\nJeremiah says of old that among impious men water is as one that lies.\n'Water,' he says, 'that lies has not faith.'\"\n\n235. AUGUSTINE answered: Any one that hears these words, without\nbeing acquainted with the Scriptures, and who does not believe that\nyou are either so far astray as not to know what you are saying, or\ndeceiving in such wise that he whom you have deceived should not know\nwhat he says, would believe that the prophet Jeremiah, wishing to be\nbaptized, had taken precautions not to be baptized by impious men, and\nhad used these words with this intent. For what was your object in\nsaying, previous to your quotation of this passage, \"Imitate indeed\nthe prophets, who feared to have their holy souls deceived with false\nbaptism?\" Just as though, in the days of Jeremiah, any one were\nwashed with the sacrament of baptism, except so far as the Pharisees\nalmost every moment bathed themselves, and their couches and cups and\nplatters, with the washings which the Lord condemned, as we read in\nthe gospel.[993] How then could Jeremiah have said this, as though\nhe desired to be baptized, and sought to avoid being baptized by\nimpious men? He said it, then, when he was complaining of a faithless\npeople, by the corruption of whose morals he was vexed, not wishing\nto associate with their deeds; and yet he did not separate himself\nbodily from their congregation, nor seek other sacraments than those\nwhich the people received as suitable to that time, according to the\nlaw of Moses. To this people, therefore, in their evil mode of life,\nhe gave the name of \"a wound,\" with which the heart of the righteous\nman was grievously smitten, whether speaking thus of himself, or\nforeshadowing in himself what he foresaw would come to pass. For he\nspeaks as follows: \"O Lord, remember me, and visit me; make clear my\ninnocence before those who persecute me in no spirit of long-suffering:\nknow that for Thy sake I have suffered rebuke from those that scorn\nThy words. Make their portion complete; and Thy word shall be unto me\nthe joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by Thy name, O\nLord God of hosts. I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, but was\nafraid of the presence of Thy hand; I sat alone, because I was filled\nwith bitterness. Why do those who make me sad prevail against me? My\nwound is grievous; whence shall I be healed? It is become unto me as\nlying water, that has no faith.\"[994] In all this it is manifest what\nthe prophet wished to be understood, but manifest only to those who\ndo not wish to distort to their own perverse cause the meaning of\nwhat they read. For Jeremiah says that his wound has become unto him\nas lying water, which cannot inspire faith; but he wished that by his\nwound those should be understood who made him sad by the evil conduct\nof their lives. Whence also the apostle says, \"Without were fightings,\nwithin were fears;\"[995] and again, \"Who is weak, and I am not weak?\nwho is offended, and I burn not?\"[996] And because he had no hopes that\nthey could be reformed, therefore he said, \"Whence shall I be healed?\"\nas though his own pain must needs continue so long as those among whom\nhe was compelled to live continued what they were. But that a people\nis commonly understood under the appellation of water is shown in the\nApocalypse, where we understand \"many waters\" to mean \"many peoples,\"\nnot by any conjecture of our own, but by an express explanation in\nthe place itself.[997] Abstain then from blaspheming the sacrament of\nbaptism from any misunderstanding, or rather error, even when found\nin a man of most abandoned character; for not even in the lying Simon\nwas the baptism which he received a lying water,[998] nor do all the\nliars of your party administer a lying water when they baptize in the\nname of the Trinity. For neither do they begin to be liars only when\nthey are betrayed and convicted, and so forced to acknowledge their\nmisdeeds; but rather they were already liars, when, being adulterers\nand accursed, they pretended to be chaste and innocent.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. CIII.--236. PETILIANUS said: \"David also said, 'The oil of the\nsinner shall not anoint my head.' Who is it, therefore, that he calls\na sinner? Is it I who suffer your violence, or you who persecute the\ninnocent?\"\n\n237. AUGUSTINE answered: As representing the body of Christ, which is\nthe Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth,\ndispersed throughout the world, on account of the gospel which was\npreached, according to the words of the apostle, \"to every creature\nwhich is under heaven:\"[999] as representing the whole world, of which\nDavid, whose words you cannot understand, has said, \"The world also\nis stablished, that it cannot be moved;\"[1000] whereas you contend\nthat it not only has been moved, but has been utterly destroyed: as\nrepresenting this, I answer, I do not persecute the innocent. But\nDavid said, \"The oil of the sinner,\" not of the _traditor_; not of\nhim who offers incense, not of the persecutor, but \"of the sinner.\"\nWhat then will you make of your interpretation? See first whether you\nare not yourself a sinner. It is nothing to the point if you should\nsay, I am not a _traditor_, I am not an offerer of incense, I am not\na persecutor. I myself, by the grace of God, am none of these, nor\nis the world, which cannot be moved. But say, if you dare, I am not\na sinner. For David says, \"The oil of the sinner.\" For so long as\nany sin, however light, be found in you, what ground have you for\nmaintaining that you are not concerned in the expression that is used,\n\"The oil of the sinner?\" For I would ask whether you use the Lord's\nprayer in your devotions? For if you do not use that prayer, which\nour Lord taught His disciples for their use, where have you learned\nanother, proportioned to your merits, as exceeding the merits of the\napostles? But if you pray, as our great Master deigned to teach us,\nhow do you say, \"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that\ntrespass against us?\" For in this petition we are not referring to\nthose sins which have already been forgiven us in baptism. Therefore\nthese words in the prayer either exclude you from being a petitioner\nto God, or else they make it manifest that you too are a sinner. Let\nthose then come and kiss your head who have been baptized by you,\nwhose heads have perished through your oil. But see to yourself, both\nwhat you are and what you think about yourself. Is it really true that\nOptatus, whom pagans, Jews, Christians, men of our party, men of your\nparty, all proclaim throughout the whole of Africa to have been a\nthief, a traitor, an oppressor, a contriver of schism; not a friend,\nnot a client, but a tool of him[1001] whom one of your party declared\nto have been his count, companion, and god,--is it true that he was\nnot a sinner in any conceivable interpretation of the term? What then\nwill they do whose heads were anointed by one guilty of a capital\noffence? Do not those very men kiss your heads, on whose heads you pass\nso serious a judgment by this interpretation which you place upon the\npassage? Truly I would bid you bring them forth, and admonish them to\nheal themselves. Or is it rather your heads which should be healed, who\nrun so grievously astray? What then, you will ask, did David really\nsay? Why do you ask me? rather ask himself. He answers you in the verse\nabove: \"The righteous shall smite me in kindness, and shall reprove me;\nbut let not the oil of the sinner anoint my head.\"[1002] What could\nbe plainer? what more manifest? I had rather, he says, be healed by a\nrebuke administered in kindness, than be deceived and led astray by\nsmooth flattery, coming on me as an ointment on my head. The self-same\nsentiment is found elsewhere in Scripture under other words: \"Better\nare the wounds of a friend than the proffered kisses of an enemy.\"[1003]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. CIV.--238. PETILIANUS said: \"But he thus praises the ointment of\nconcord among brethren: 'Behold how good and how pleasant it is for\nbrethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment\nupon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard; that\nwent down to the skirts of his garments; as the dew of Hermon, and as\nthe dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord\ncommanded the blessing, even life for evermore.'[1004] Thus, he says,\nis unity anointed, even as the priests are anointed.\"\n\n239. AUGUSTINE answered: What you say is true. For that priesthood in\nthe body of Christ had an anointing, and its salvation is secured by\nthe bond of unity. For indeed Christ Himself derives His name from\nchrism, that is, from anointing. Him the Hebrews call the Messiah,\nwhich word is closely akin to the Phoenician language, as is the\ncase with very many other Hebrew words, if not with almost all.[1005]\nWhat then is meant by the head in that priesthood, what by the beard,\nwhat by the skirts of the garments? So far as the Lord enables me\nto understand, the head is none other than the Saviour of the body,\nof whom the apostle says, \"And He is the head of the body, the\nChurch.\"[1006] By the beard is not unsuitably understood fortitude.\nTherefore, on those who show themselves to be brave in His Church, and\ncling to the light of His countenance, to preach the truth without\nfear, there descends from Christ Himself, as from the head, a sacred\nointment, that is to say, the sanctification of the Spirit. By the\nskirts of the garments we are here given to understand that which is at\nthe top of the garments, whereby the head of Him who gives the clothing\npasses on its way. By this are signified those who are perfected in\nfaith within the Church. For in the skirts is perfection. And I presume\nyou must remember what was said to a certain rich man: \"If thou wilt\nbe perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and\nthou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me.\"[1007] He\nindeed went away sorrowful, slighting what was perfect, choosing what\nwas imperfect. But does it follow that there were wanting those who\nwere so made perfect by such a surrender of earthly things, that the\nointment of unity descended upon them, as from the head upon the skirts\nof the garments? For, putting aside the apostles, and those who were\nimmediately associated with those leaders and teachers of the Church,\nwhom we understand to be represented with greater dignity and more\nconspicuous fortitude in the beard, read in the Acts of the Apostles,\nand see those who \"brought the prices of the things that were sold, and\nlaid them at the apostles' feet. Neither said any of them that ought\nof the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things\ncommon: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had\nneed. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of\none soul.\"[1008] I doubt not that you are aware that it is so written.\nRecognise, therefore, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to\ndwell together in unity. Recognise the beard of Aaron; recognise the\nskirts of the spiritual garments. Search the Scriptures themselves,\nand see where those things began to be done; you will find that it\nwas in Jerusalem. From this skirt of the garment is woven together\nthe whole fabric of unity throughout all nations. By this the Head\nentered into the garment, that Christ should be clothed with all the\nvariety of the several nations of the earth, because in this skirt of\nthe garment appeared the actual variety of tongues. Why, therefore,\nis the Head itself, whence that ointment of unity descended, that is,\nthe spiritual fragrance of brotherly love,--why, I say, is the Head\nitself exposed to your resistance, while it testifies and declares that\n\"repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among\nall nations, beginning at Jerusalem?\"[1009] And by this ointment you\nwish the sacrament of chrism to be understood, which is indeed holy\nas among the class of visible signs, like baptism itself, but yet can\nexist even among the worst of men, wasting their life in the works of\nthe flesh, and never destined to possess the kingdom of heaven, and\nhaving therefore nothing to do either with the beard of Aaron, or with\nthe skirts of his garments, or with any fabric of priestly clothing.\nFor where do you intend to place what the apostle enumerates as \"the\nmanifest works of the flesh, which,\" he says, \"are these; fornication,\nuncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, poisonings, hatred, variance,\nemulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders,\ndrunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before,\nas I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things\nshall not inherit the kingdom of God?\"[1010] I put aside fornications,\nwhich are committed in secret; interpret uncleanness as you please,\nI am willing to put it aside as well. Let us put on one side also\npoisons, since no one is openly a compounder or giver of poisons. I\nput aside also heresies, since you will have it so. I am in doubt\nwhether I ought to put aside idolatry, since the apostle classes with\nit covetousness, which is openly rife among you. However, setting aside\nall these, are there none among you lascivious, none covetous, none\nopen in their indulgence of enmities, none fond of strife, or fond of\nemulation, wrathful, given to seditions, envious, drunken, wasting\ntheir time in revellings? Are none of such a character anointed among\nyou? Do none die well known among you to be given to such things, or\nopenly indulging in them? If you say there are none, I would have you\nconsider whether you do not come under the description yourself, since\nyou are manifestly telling lies in the desire for strife. But if you\nare yourself severed from men of this sort, not by bodily separation,\nbut by dissimilarity of life, and if you behold with lamentation\ncrowds like these around your altars, what shall we say, since they\nare anointed with holy oil, and yet, as the apostle assures us with\nthe clearness of truth, shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Must we\ndo such impious despite to the beard of Aaron and to the skirts of his\ngarments, as to suppose that they are to be placed there? Far be that\nfrom us. Separate therefore the visible holy sacrament, which can exist\nboth in the good and in the bad,--in the former for their reward, in\nthe latter for judgment; separate it from the invisible unction of\ncharity, which is the peculiar property of the good. Separate them,\nseparate them, ay, and may God separate you from the party of Donatus,\nand call you back again into the Catholic Church, whence you were torn\nby them while yet a catechumen, to be bound by them in the bond of a\ndeadly distinction. Now are ye not in the mountains of Zion, the dew\nof Hermon on the mountains of Zion, in whatever sense that be received\nby you; for you are not in the city upon a hill, which has this as\nits sure sign, that it cannot be hid. It is known therefore unto\nall nations. But the party of Donatus is unknown to the majority of\nnations, therefore is it not the true city.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. CV.--240. PETILIANUS said: \"Woe unto you, therefore, who, by\ndoing violence to what is holy, cut away the bond of unity; whereas the\nprophet says, 'If the people shall sin, the priest shall pray for them:\nbut if the priest shall sin, who will pray for him?'\"\n\n241. AUGUSTINE answered: I seemed too a little while ago, when we were\ndisputing about the oil of the sinner, to anoint your forehead, in\norder that you might say, if you dared, whether you yourself were not\na sinner. You have had the hardihood to say as much. What a portentous\nsin! For in that you assert yourself to be a priest, what else have\nyou maintained by quoting this testimony of the prophet, save that you\nare wholly without sin? For if you have sin, who is there that shall\npray for you, according to your interpretation of the words? For thus\nyou puff yourselves off in the ears of the wretched people, quoting\nfrom the prophet: \"If the people shall sin, the priest shall pray for\nthem: but if the priest shall sin, who will pray for him?\"[1011] to\nthe intent that they may believe you to be without sin, and entrust\nthe wiping away of their sins to your prayers. Truly ye are great men,\nexalted above your fellows, heavenly, godlike, angels indeed rather\nthan men, who pray for the people, and will not have the people pray\nfor you! Are you more righteous than Paul, more perfect than that great\napostle, who was wont to commend himself to the prayers of those whom\nhe taught? \"Continue,\" he says, \"in prayer, and watch in the same with\nthanksgiving; withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a\ndoor of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also\nin bonds; that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak.\"[1012] See\nhow prayer is made for an apostle, which you would have not made for a\nbishop. Do you perceive of how devilish a nature your pride is? Prayer\nis made for an apostle, that he may make manifest the mystery of Christ\nas he ought to speak. Accordingly, if you had a pious people under\nyou, you ought to have exhorted them to pray for you, that you might\nnot give utterance as you ought not. Are you more righteous than the\nevangelist John, who says, \"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive\nourselves, and the truth is not in us?\"[1013] Finally, are you more\nrighteous than Daniel, whom you yourself quoted in this very epistle,\ngoing so far as to say, \"The most righteous king cast forth Daniel, as\nhe supposed, to be devoured by wild beasts?\"--a thing which he never\ndid suppose, since he said to Daniel himself, in the most friendly\nspirit, as the context of the lesson shows, \"Thy God, whom thou servest\ncontinually, He will deliver thee.\"[1014] But on this subject we have\nalready said much. With regard to the question now before us, viz. that\nDaniel was most righteous, it is proved not by your testimony, though\nthat might be sufficient for me in the argument which I hold with you,\nbut by the testimony of the Spirit of God, speaking also by the mouth\nof Ezekiel, where he named three men of most eminent righteousness,\nNoah, Daniel, and Job, who, he said, were the only men that could be\nsaved from a certain excessive wrath of God, which was hanging over\nall the rest.[1015] A man, therefore, of the highest righteousness,\none of three conspicuous for righteousness, prays, and says, \"Whiles\nI was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin, and the sin of\nmy people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my\nGod.\"[1016] And you say that you are without sin, because forsooth\nyou are a priest; and if the people sin, you pray for them: but if\nyou sin, who shall pray for you? For clearly by the impiety of such\narrogance you show yourself to be unworthy of the mediation of that\nPriest whom the prophet would have to be understood in these words,\nwhich you do not understand. For now that no one may ask why this was\nsaid, I will explain it, so far as by God's grace I shall be able. God\nwas preparing the minds of men, by His prophet, to desire a Priest of\nsuch a sort that none should pray for Him. He was Himself prefigured\nin the times of the first people and the first temple, in which all\nthings were figures for our ensample. Therefore the high priest used to\nenter alone into the holy of holies, that he might make supplication\nfor the people, which did not enter with the priest into that inner\nsanctuary;[1017] just as our High Priest is entered into the secret\nplaces of the heavens, into that truer holy of holies, whilst we for\nwhom He prays are still placed here.[1017] It is with this reference\nthat the prophet says, \"If the people shall sin, the priest shall pray\nfor them: but if the priest shall sin, who will pray for him?\" Seek\ntherefore a priest of such a kind that he cannot sin, nor need that\none should pray for him. And for this reason prayer is made for the\napostles by the people;[1018] but for that Priest who is the Master and\nLord of the apostles is prayer not made. Hear John confessing this, and\nsaying, \"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin\nnot. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus\nChrist the righteous, and He is the propitiation for our sins.\"[1019]\n\"_We_ have,\" he says; and \"for _our_ sins.\" I pray you, learn humility,\nthat you may not fall, or rather, that in time you may arise again. For\nhad you not already fallen, you never would have used such words.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. CVI.--242. PETILIANUS said: \"And that none who is a layman may\nclaim to be free from sin, they are all bound by this prohibition: 'Be\nnot partakers of other men's sins.'\"\n\n243. AUGUSTINE answered: You are mistaken _toto coelo_, as the saying\nis, by reason of your pride, whilst, by reason of your humility, you\nare unwilling to communicate with the whole world. For, in the first\nplace, this was not spoken to a layman; and, in the second place, you\nare wholly ignorant in what sense it was spoken. The apostle, writing\nto Timothy, gives this warning to none other than Timothy himself, to\nwhom he says in another place, \"Neglect not the gift that is in thee,\nwhich was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of\nthe presbytery.\"[1020] And by many other proofs it is made clear that\nhe was not a layman. But in that he says, \"Be not partaker of other\nmen's sins,\"[1021] he means, Be not partaker voluntarily, or with\nconsent. And hence he immediately subjoins directions how he shall\nobey the injunction, saying, \"Keep thyself pure.\" For neither was\nPaul himself partaker of other men's sins, because he endured false\nbrethren, over whom he groans, in bodily unity; nor did the apostles\nwho preceded him partake of the thievery and crime of Judas, because\nthey partook of the holy supper with him when he had already sold his\nLord, and been pointed out as the traitor by that Lord.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. CVII.--244. PETILIANUS said: \"By this sentence, again, the\napostle places in the same category those who have fellowship in the\nconsciousness of evil. 'Worthy of death,' he says, 'are both those\nwho do such things, and those who have pleasure in them that do\nthem.'\"[1022]\n\n245. AUGUSTINE answered: I care not in what manner you have used these\nwords, they are true. And this is the substance of the teaching of\nthe Catholic Church, that there is a great difference between those\nwho consent because they take pleasure in such things, and those who\ntolerate while they dislike them. The former make themselves chaff,\nwhile they follow the barrenness of the chaff; the latter are the\ngrain. Let them wait for Christ, who bears the winnowing-fan, that they\nmay be separated from the chaff.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. CVIII.--246. PETILIANUS said: \"Come therefore to the Church, all\nye people, and flee the company of _traditors_, if you would not also\nperish with them. For that you may the more readily know that, while\nthey are themselves guilty, they yet entertain an excellent opinion of\nour faith, let me inform you that I baptize their polluted ones; they,\nthough may God never grant them such an opportunity, receive those who\nare made mine by baptism,--which certainly they would not do if they\nrecognised any defects in our baptism. See therefore how holy that is\nwhich we give, when even our sacrilegious enemy fears to destroy it.\"\n\n247. AUGUSTINE answered: Against this error I have said much already,\nboth in this work and elsewhere. But since you think that in this\nsentence you have so strong a confirmation of your vain opinions, that\nyou deemed it right to end your epistle with these words, that they\nmight remain as it were the fresher in the minds of your readers, I\nthink it well to make a short reply. We recognise in heretics that\nbaptism, which belongs not to the heretics but to Christ, in such sort\nas in fornicators, in unclean persons or effeminate, in idolaters,\nin poisoners, in those who are fond of contention, in the envious,\nin drunkards, in revellers; and in men like these we hold valid the\nbaptism which is not theirs but Christ's. For of men like these, and\namong them are included heretics also, none, as the apostle says, shall\ninherit the kingdom of heaven.[1023] Nor are they to be considered\nas being in the body of Christ, which is the Church, simply because\nthey are materially partakers of the sacraments. For the sacraments\nindeed are holy, even in such men as these, and shall be of force in\nthem to greater condemnation, because they handle and partake of them\nunworthily. But the men themselves are not within the constitution of\nthe Church, which grows in its members through connection and contact\nwith Christ, to the exaltation of God. For that Church is founded on a\nrock, as the Lord says, \"Upon this rock I will build my Church.\"[1024]\nBut they build on the sand, as the same Lord says, \"Every one that\nheareth these sayings, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a\nfoolish man, which built his house upon the sand.\"[1025] But that you\nmay not suppose that the Church which is upon a rock is in one part\nonly of the earth, and does not extend even to its furthest boundaries,\nhear her voice groaning from the psalm, amid the evils of her\npilgrimage. For she says, \"From the end of the earth will I cry unto\nThee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the Rock that is higher\nthan I. For Thou hast been a shelter for me, and a strong tower from\nthe enemy.\"[1026] See how she cries from the end of the earth. She is\nnot therefore in Africa alone, nor only among the Africans, who send\na bishop from Africa to Rome to a few Montenses,[1027] and into Spain\nto the house of one lady.[1028] See how she is exalted on a rock. All,\ntherefore, are not to be deemed to be in her which build upon the sand,\nthat is, which hear the words of Christ and do them not, even though\nboth among us and among you they have and transmit the sacrament of\nbaptism. See how her hope is in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy\nGhost,--not in Peter or in Paul, still less in Donatus or Petilianus.\nWhat we fear, therefore, to destroy, is not yours, but Christ's;\nand it is holy of itself, even in sacrilegious hands. For we cannot\nreceive those who come from you, unless we destroy in them whatsoever\nappertains to you. For we destroy the treachery of the deserter, not\nthe stamp of the sovereign. Accordingly, do you yourself consider and\nannul what you said: \"I,\" say you, \"baptize their polluted ones; they,\nthough may God never grant them such an opportunity, receive those who\nare made mine by baptism.\" For you do not baptize men who are infected,\nbut you rebaptize them, so as to infect them. But we do not receive\nmen who are made yours by baptism; but we destroy that error of yours\nwhereby they are made yours, and we receive the baptism of Christ,\nby which they are baptized. Therefore it is not without significance\nthat you introduce the words, \"Though may God never grant them such\nan opportunity.\" For you said, \"They, though may God never grant them\nsuch an opportunity, receive those who are made mine by baptism.\" And\nin this, while you intend the meaning to be, \"May God never give them\nthe opportunity of receiving such as are mine,\" I suppose that, without\nknowing what it meant, you said, \"May God never make them mine that you\nshould receive them.\" For we pray that those may not be really yours\nwho come over at the present moment to the Catholic Church. Nor do they\ncome over so as to be ours by right of baptism, but by fellowship with\nus, and that with us they may belong to Christ, in virtue of their\nbaptism.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[683] Written about the beginning of 402 A.D.\n\n[684] John i. 33.\n\n[685] Rom. iv. 5.\n\n[686] Jer. xvii. 5.\n\n[687] I Cor. iv. 15.\n\n[688] Phil. i. 17, 18.\n\n[689] Phil. ii. 21.\n\n[690] Matt. xxiii. 3.\n\n[691] Matt. vii. 17, 16.\n\n[692] Matt. xii. 35.\n\n[693] Ecclus. xxxiv. 25; see on I. ix. 10.\n\n[694] Matt. viii. 21, 22.\n\n[695] See Matt. xii. 45.\n\n[696] Rom. vi. 9.\n\n[697] Acts viii. 13, 18, 19.\n\n[698] 1 Tim. v. 6.\n\n[699] Matt. xxvii. 4, 5.\n\n[700] John xvii. 12.\n\n[701] Ps. cix. 8, 9.\n\n[702] 2 Macc. vii. 9. The words in brackets are not in the original\nGreek.\n\n[703] Ps. xxii. 16-18.\n\n[704] Ps. xxii. 27, 28.\n\n[705] Ps. ii. 8.\n\n[706] Majorinus, ordained by the Numidian bishops in 311 A.D.\n\n[707] Gal. iii. 29.\n\n[708] Rom. viii. 17.\n\n[709] Gen. xxii. 18.\n\n[710] Luke xxiv. 46, 47.\n\n[711] 1 Cor. v. 5.\n\n[712] 1 Tim. i. 20.\n\n[713] John ii. 15-17.\n\n[714] John x. 37.\n\n[715] John viii. 44.\n\n[716] Matt. xxiii. 33-35.\n\n[717] Ps. xiv. 5, from the LXX. only.\n\n[718] Ps. xiv. 6.\n\n[719] Another reading is, \"_nos_ esse viperas.\"\n\n[720] See below, c. xx. 46; and _Contra Crescon_. III. xlix. 54.\n\n[721] Ps. xxii. 27.\n\n[722] Gen. xxii. 18.\n\n[723] Rom. iv. 3.\n\n[724] Ps. lvii. 5.\n\n[725] Ps. xix. 5.\n\n[726] Luke xxiv. 44-47.\n\n[727] Ps. xiv. 5-8, from the LXX., the last verse only being in the\nHebrew.\n\n[728] Wisd. i. 11.\n\n[729] Rom. iv. 5.\n\n[730] Rom. iii. 26.\n\n[731] John xx. 19, 21.\n\n[732] Matt. vii. 15, 16.\n\n[733] Matt. xxiv. 23.\n\n[734] 2 Cor. xi. 14, 15.\n\n[735] Gen. vi. 3.\n\n[736] Matt. xxv. 41.\n\n[737] 1 Cor. vi. 3.\n\n[738] \"Perdiderunt,\" which Migne thinks may be a confusion for\n\"perierunt.\"\n\n[739] Novissimus.\n\n[740] 1 Cor. xv. 9.\n\n[741] 2 Cor. xi. 26.\n\n[742] Portenta.\n\n[743] Down to this point Augustine had already answered Petilianus in\nthe First Book, as he says himself below, III. 1. 61.\n\n[744] Matt. x. 23.\n\n[745] Matt. x. 16, 28.\n\n[746] 1 Pet. iii. 15.\n\n[747] Matt. v. 39.\n\n[748] 1 Kings xviii.\n\n[749] Wisd. xii. 23.\n\n[750] Acts ix. 4, 5.\n\n[751] Ps. cv. 15.\n\n[752] Vivacem Christum.\n\n[753] Rom. xiii. 2, 4.\n\n[754] 1 John iii. 15.\n\n[755] Acts ix. 4-18.\n\n[756] John xiii. 10, 11.\n\n[757] John xv. 3, 4.\n\n[758] John xiv. 27.\n\n[759] 1 Tim. i. 7.\n\n[760] Mark x. 35-39.\n\n[761] Matt. v. 10.\n\n[762] Optatus Gildonianus is the person to whom he refers.\n\n[763] Gildo, from subservience to whom Optatus received the name\nGildonianus, was \"Comes Afric\u00e6.\" The play on the meanings of \"Comes,\"\nin the expression \"quod Comitem haberet Deum,\" is incapable of direct\ntranslation. Cp. xxxvii. 88; ciii. 237.\n\n[764] Ps. l. 18.\n\n[765] Gal. vi. 5.\n\n[766] Rom. xiv. 14.\n\n[767] 1 Cor. vi. 10.\n\n[768] Matt. xxv. 34, 41.\n\n[769] John xiii. 10.\n\n[770] Matt. xxviii. 19.\n\n[771] Matt. xiii. 24-30, 36-43.\n\n[772] Matt. iii. 12.\n\n[773] Wisd. i. 5.\n\n[774] Eph. iv. 5.\n\n[775] Optatus.\n\n[776] Gildo.\n\n[777] See above, on xxiii. 53.\n\n[778] Ps. cxxxii. 9.\n\n[779] John xi. 51.\n\n[780] Tit. i. 12, 13.\n\n[781] Acts xvii. 23, 27, 28.\n\n[782] Rom. xiii. 1.\n\n[783] John xix. 11.\n\n[784] John iii. 27.\n\n[785] Matt. iii. 11.\n\n[786] John xx. 22.\n\n[787] Acts ii. 2-4.\n\n[788] Isa. lxvi. 24.\n\n[789] Matt. v. 14.\n\n[790] 2 Sam. xii. 12.\n\n[791] Ps. xix. 3-6, from the LXX.\n\n[792] Eph. iv. 5.\n\n[793] Matt. iii. 11.\n\n[794] John xx. 22.\n\n[795] Acts i. 5.\n\n[796] Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.\n\n[797] Matt. v. 9.\n\n[798] See above, xxiii. 53.\n\n[799] Acts i. 15, ii. 4, x. 44.\n\n[800] Optatus Gildonianus.\n\n[801] Gen. xxii. 18.\n\n[802] Gal. vi. 5.\n\n[803] Acts xix. 1-7.\n\n[804] 1 Cor. x. 1, 2.\n\n[805] Matt. xiii. 17.\n\n[806] Matt. xi. 9, 11.\n\n[807] Mark i. 2; cp. Mal. iii. 1.\n\n[808] Mark i. 7.\n\n[809] Matt. xxvi. 17.\n\n[810] In his treatise on the Sermon on the Mount, Book II. iv. 12,\nAugustine again compares the \"celebratio octavarum dierum, quas in\nregeneratione novi hominis celebramus\" with the circumcision on the\neighth day; and in _Serm._ 376 he says that the heads of the rebaptized\nwere uncovered on the eighth day, as a token of liberty. Cp. _Epist._\nII. xvii. 32, and Bingham, _Orig. Sacr._ XII. iv. 3.\n\n[811] Augustine apparently supposed that the sacrifice of the paschal\nlamb was still observed among the Jews of the dispersion; cp.\n_Retract._ I. x. 2. It was, however, forbidden them to sacrifice the\nPassover except in the place which the Lord should choose to place His\nname there; and hence the Jews, though they observe the other paschal\nsolemnities, abstain from the sacrifice of the lamb.\n\n[812] Matt. xxi. 25.\n\n[813] Gildo; see above, xxiii. 53.\n\n[814] See Isa. xlvi. 8.\n\n[815] Luke xv. 32.\n\n[816] Acts i. 7, 8.\n\n[817] Dan. ii. 35.\n\n[818] 1 John ii. 19.\n\n[819] Apparently from Wisd. iii. 6.\n\n[820] Prov. ii. 22.\n\n[821] Matt. xiii. 24-30.\n\n[822] Gen. xxii. 18.\n\n[823] Ps. lxxiii. 26.\n\n[824] Ps. xvi. 5.\n\n[825] John xi. 51.\n\n[826] Prov. ii. 22.\n\n[827] Ps. ii. 8.\n\n[828] Ps. xxii. 27.\n\n[829] 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15.\n\n[830] 1 Cor. i. 12, 13.\n\n[831] Ps. cxix. 42.\n\n[832] Acts i. 8.\n\n[833] Ps. xix. 4.\n\n[834] Ps. cxix. 122.\n\n[835] Matt. xxi. 43.\n\n[836] See Ps. cv. 44.\n\n[837] Gal. iii. 27.\n\n[838] Gal. vi. 4.\n\n[839] Ps. xxiii.\n\n[840] Ps. cxliv. 9.\n\n[841] Ps. xcvi. 1.\n\n[842] 1 Cor. xi. 29.\n\n[843] 1 Cor. iv. 3.\n\n[844] Job ii. 3, 4.\n\n[845] Matt. v. 5-7.\n\n[846] Ps. i. 1.\n\n[847] Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.\n\n[848] Isa. lxvi. 3.\n\n[849] Hos. ix. 4.\n\n[850] Tit. i. 15.\n\n[851] In the Council of Bagai.\n\n[852] Ps. xiv. 3, from the LXX.\n\n[853] Matt. vii. 21.\n\n[854] Matt. vi. 10.\n\n[855] 2 Tim. ii. 24, 25.\n\n[856] Matt. vii. 22, 23.\n\n[857] 1 Cor. xiii. 2.\n\n[858] Luke x. 20.\n\n[859] Acts i. 8.\n\n[860] Matt. vii. 22.\n\n[861] 1 Tim. i. 8.\n\n[862] Ps. lxxii. 8.\n\n[863] Acts xxii. 25.\n\n[864] Ex. xx. 13-17.\n\n[865] Matt. xxi. 43.\n\n[866] Matt. v. 19, 20.\n\n[867] Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.\n\n[868] 1 Cor. vi. 18.\n\n[869] Matt. xii. 31, 32.\n\n[870] Acts. i. 8.\n\n[871] The older editions have, \"Quam multum et quantum luctum dederint\nDeo (Erasmus alone _ideo_) laudes amatorum vestrorum:\" \"How much\nand how great grief have the praises of your lovers caused to God?\"\nMigne restored the reading translated above (\"Quam multis ... _Deo\nlaudes_ armatorum vestrorum\"), _Deo laudes_ being the cry of the\nCircumcelliones. Cp. Aug. in Ps. cxxxii. 6: \"A quibus plus timetur _Deo\nlaudes_ quam fremitus leonis;\" and _ib._: \"_Deo laudes_ vestrum plorant\nhomines.\"\n\n[872] Gen. xxii. 18.\n\n[873] Ps. cxli. 5, from the LXX.\n\n[874] Matt. v. 3-9.\n\n[875] Luke xxiv. 36, 45-47.\n\n[876] Matt. xxii. 39.\n\n[877] Eph. v. 29.\n\n[878] Gal. v. 17.\n\n[879] 2 Tim. iv. 2.\n\n[880] Eph. iv. 1-3.\n\n[881] See Jer. viii. 11.\n\n[882] Ps. xlvi. 9.\n\n[883] Dan. ii. 35.\n\n[884] Eph. ii. 14.\n\n[885] Matt. v. 10.\n\n[886] Matt. xxiii. 13, 15, 23, 24, 27, 28.\n\n[887] Matt. x. 16.\n\n[888] John x. 27.\n\n[889] Luke xxiv. 39, 46, 47.\n\n[890] Matt. vii. 15, 16.\n\n[891] 1 Cor. xi. 19.\n\n[892] John xiii. 34, 35.\n\n[893] 2 Cor. xi. 26.\n\n[894] 1 Cor. xi. 1.\n\n[895] Phil. ii. 20, 21.\n\n[896] 2 Cor. vii. 5.\n\n[897] 1 Cor. xiii. 1-8.\n\n[898] Eph. iv. 2, 3.\n\n[899] Matt. xiii. 38, 39, 30.\n\n[900] Gal. i. 8.\n\n[901] Ps. ci. 5.\n\n[902] Luke ix. 49, 50.\n\n[903] Phil. i. 15-18.\n\n[904] 1 Cor. xiii. 6.\n\n[905] See below, xciv. 217, and _c. Gaudentium_, I. xxv. 28 sqq.\n\n[906] Rom. xiii. 4.\n\n[907] Augustine speaks of the Moor Rogatus, bishop of Cartenna in\nMauritania C\u00e6sariensis, in his ninety-third epistle, to Vincentius,\nc. iii. 11. We learn from the eighty-seventh epistle, to Emeritus,\nsec. 10, that the followers of Rogatus called the other Donatists\n_Firmiani_, because they had been subjected to much cruelty at their\nhands under the authority of Firmus.\n\n[908] Optatus of Thaumugade, the friend of Gildo.\n\n[909] Augustine mentions again in his thirty-fifth epistle, to\nEusebius, sec. 3, that Hippo had received the Roman citizenship. His\nargument is that, even if not a native of the place, the deacon should\nhave been safe from molestation wherever Roman laws prevailed.\n\n[910] Emphyteuticam. The land, therefore, was held under the emperors,\nand less absolutely in the power of the owner than if it had been\nfreehold.\n\n[911] Augustine remonstrates with Crispinus on the point, _Epist._ lxvi.\n\n\n[913] See Ecclus. xv. 16, 17.\n\n[914] Matt. v. 10; 1 Pet. ii. 20.\n\n[915] Acts v. 29.\n\n[916] Prov. xiv. 28.\n\n[917] Luke xxiv. 46, 47.\n\n[918] Acts i. 8.\n\n[919] Ex. xxxii. 28, 31.\n\n[920] Mal. i. 11.\n\n[921] Ps. cxiii. 3.\n\n[922] Ps. l. 14.\n\n[923] 1 John iii. 15.\n\n[924] Matt. iv. 6, 7.\n\n[925] John xviii. 10, 11; Matt. xxvi. 52.\n\n[926] Ps. cxx. 6, 7.\n\n[927] See _Contr. Cresc._ l. III. c. lxvii., l. IV. cc. lx. lxi.\n\n[928] John xii. 24.\n\n[929] Veracissime. Another reading is \"feracissime,\" \"most abundantly.\"\n\n[930] Matt. v. 39.\n\n[931] 2 Cor. xi. 20, 23.\n\n[932] Deut. xix. 21.\n\n[933] 2 Mac. vii.\n\n[934] Dan. iii.\n\n[935] Matt. ii. 16.\n\n[936] Dan. vi.\n\n[937] Matt. xxvii. 26.\n\n[938] 1 Cor. ii. 6-8.\n\n[939] John xvi. 2.\n\n[940] 1 Kings xxi.\n\n[941] Matt. xiv. 8, 9.\n\n[942] Matt. xxvii. 24-26.\n\n[943] Ps. ii.\n\n[944] Matt. xxvii. 24.\n\n[945] Some editions have Varius in the place of Geta, referring to\nAurelius Antoninus Heliogabalus, of whom Lampridius asserts that he\nderived the name of Varius from the doubtfulness of his parentage. The\nMSS. agree, however, in the reading \"Getano,\" which was a name of the\nsecond son of Severus, the brother of Caracalla.\n\n[946] Optatus defends the cause of Macarius at great length in his\nthird book against Parmenianus. Of Ursacius he says in the same place:\n\"You are offended at the times of a certain Leontius, of Ursacius,\nMacarius, and others.\" And Augustine, in his third book against\nCresconius, c. xx., introduces an objection of the Donatists against\nhimself: \"But so soon as Silvanus, bishop of Cirta, had refused to\ncommunicate with Ursacius and Zenophilus the persecutors, he was\ndriven into exile,\" Usuardus, deceived by a false story made up by\nthe Donatists, enters in his Martyrology that a pseudo-martyr Donatus\nsuffered on the 1st of March, under Ursacius and Marcellinus, to this\neffect: \"On the same day of the holy martyr Donatus, who suffered under\nUrsacius the judge and the tribune Marcellinus.\"\n\n[947] 1 Kings xxi.\n\n[948] Prov. xviii. 21.\n\n[949] Constitutio quam impetraverunt. Some editions have \"quam dederunt\nConstantio;\" but there is no place for Constantius in this history of\nthe Donatists, nor was any boon either sought or obtained from him in\ntheir name. The Louvain editors therefore restored \"constitutio,\" which\nis the common reading of the MSS.\n\n[950] Matt. vii. 3.\n\n[951] Gen. xx.\n\n[952] Gen. xxvi. 11.\n\n[953] Gen. xlvii.\n\n[954] Gen. xxxix., xli.\n\n[955] Gen. xlii. 15.\n\n[956] Ex. ii. 10.\n\n[957] 1 Sam. xxvii.\n\n[958] 1 Kings xviii. 44-46.\n\n[959] 2 Kings iv. 13.\n\n[960] Dan. iii.-vi.\n\n[961] John xvi. 2.\n\n[962] Phil. iii. 5, 6.\n\n[963] Acts xxiii. 12-33.\n\n[964] The reign of Constantine lasted about thirty-two years, from 306\nto 337 A.D. Julian died, after an independent reign, subsequent to the\ndeath of Constantius, of only one year and seven months, at the age of\nthirty, in a war against the Persians, in 363 A.D.\n\n[965] Gen. ix. 5.\n\n[966] Ps. ii. 10-12.\n\n[967] Ps. ii. 7, 8.\n\n[968] Isa. ii. 18; Zech. xiii. 2.\n\n[969] Simulacri; and so the MSS. The older editions have \"adorandi\nsimulacra;\" but the singular is more forcible in its special reference\nto the image on the plain of Dura. Dan. iii.\n\n[970] Dan. ii.-vi.\n\n[971] This is illustrated by the words of Augustine, _Epist. 105, ad\nDonatistas_, sec. 7: \"Do ye not know that the words of the king were,\n'I thought it good to show the signs and wonders that the high God\nhath wrought toward me. How great are His signs! and how mighty are\nHis wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His dominion\nfrom generation to generation' (Dan. iv. 2, 3)? Do you not, when you\nhear this, answer _Amen_, and by saying this in a loud voice, place\nyour seal on the king's decree by a holy and solemn act?\" In the Gothic\nliturgy this declaration was made on Easter Eve (when the third chapter\nof Daniel is still read in the Roman Church), and the people answered\n\"_Amen_.\"\n\n[972] Nam nemo vivit invitus; et tamen puer ut hoc volens discat,\ninvitus vapulat. Perhaps a better reading is, \"Nam nemo _vult_ invitus;\net tamen puer ut volens discat,\" etc., leaving out \"hoc,\" which is\nwanting in the Fleury MSS.: \"No one wishes against his will; and yet a\nboy, wishing to learn, is beaten against his will.\"\n\n[973] Gal. vi. 5.\n\n[974] Luke xxiv. 47.\n\n[975] Ps. cxviii. 8, 9.\n\n[976] Acts xxiii. 12-33.\n\n[977] Acts i. 8.\n\n[978] Matt. xvi. 26.\n\n[979] 1 Pet. ii. 20.\n\n[980] Matt. v. 3.\n\n[981] 2 Cor. vi. 10.\n\n[982] Matt. xvi. 25.\n\n[983] Matt. xix. 29.\n\n[984] 1 Cor. xiii. 3.\n\n[985] Acts i. 8.\n\n[986] See above, c. lxxxiii.\n\n[987] Matt. x. 28.\n\n[988] Ps. lvii. 4.\n\n[989] Job xiv., according to the LXX.\n\n[990] Ps. li. 7.\n\n[991] Ps. cxviii. 8, 9.\n\n[992] Jer. xvii. 5.\n\n[993] Matt. xxiii. 25.\n\n[994] Jer. xv. 15-18, according to the LXX.\n\n[995] 2 Cor. vii. 5.\n\n[996] 2 Cor. xi. 29.\n\n[997] Rev. xvii. 15.\n\n[998] Acts viii. 13.\n\n[999] Col. i. 23.\n\n[1000] Ps. xciii. 1.\n\n[1001] Gildo.\n\n[1002] Ps. cxli. 5, from the LXX.\n\n[1003] Prov. xxvii. 6, from the LXX.\n\n[1004] Ps. cxxxiii.\n\n[1005] Compare _Tract. 15 in Joannem_, n. 27: \"Messiah was anointed.\nThe Greek for 'anointed' is 'Christ,' the Hebrew, Messiah; whence also\nin Phoenician we have 'Messe' for 'anoint.' For these languages,\nthe Hebrew, Phoenician, and Syrian, are closely cognate, as well\nas geographically bordering on each other.\" See also Max M\u00fcller's\n_Lectures on the Science of Language_, series I. p. 267: \"The ancient\nlanguage of Phoenicia, to judge from inscriptions, was most closely\nallied to Hebrew.\"\n\n[1006] Col. i. 18.\n\n[1007] Matt. xix. 21.\n\n[1008] Acts iv. 32-35.\n\n[1009] Luke xxiv. 47.\n\n[1010] Gal. v. 19-21.\n\n[1011] Apparently misquoted from 1 Sam. ii. 25.\n\n[1012] Col. iv. 2-4.\n\n[1013] 1 John i. 8.\n\n[1014] Dan. vi. 16.\n\n[1015] Ezek. xiv. 14.\n\n[1016] Dan. ix. 20.\n\n[1017] Lev. xvi.; Heb. ix. 7.\n\n[1018] Acts xiv. 22.\n\n[1019] 1 John ii. 1, 2.\n\n[1020] 1 Tim. iv. 14.\n\n[1021] 1 Tim. v. 22.\n\n[1022] See Rom. i. 32.\n\n[1023] Gal. v. 19-21.\n\n[1024] Matt. xvi. 18.\n\n[1025] Matt. vii. 26.\n\n[1026] Ps. lxi. 2, 3.\n\n[1027] That the Donatists were called at Rome _Montenses_, is observed\nby Augustine, _de Hoeresibus_, c. xxix., and _Epist._ liii. 2;\nand before him by Optatus, Book II. That they were also called\n_Cutzupitani_, or _Cutzupit\u00e6_, we learn from the same epistle, and from\nhis treatise de _Unitate Eccles\u00e6_, c. iii.\n\n[1028] Lucilla.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK THIRD.\n\n IN THIS BOOK AUGUSTINE REFUTES THE SECOND LETTER[1029] WHICH\n PETILIANUS WROTE TO HIM AFTER HAVING SEEN THE FIRST OF AUGUSTINE'S\n EARLIER BOOKS. THIS LETTER HAD BEEN FULL OF VIOLENT LANGUAGE; AND\n AUGUSTINE RATHER SHOWS THAT THE ARGUMENTS of PETILIANUS HAD BEEN\n DEFICIENT AND IRRELEVANT, THAN BRINGS FORWARD ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF\n HIS OWN STATEMENTS.\n\n\nCHAP. I.--1. Being able to read, Petilianus, I have read your letter,\nin which you have shown with sufficient clearness that, in supporting\nthe party of Donatus against the Catholic Church, you have neither been\nable to say anything to the purpose, nor been allowed to hold your\ntongue. What violent emotions did you endure, what a storm of feelings\nsurged within your heart, on reading the answer which I made, with\nall possible brevity and clearness, to that portion of your letter\nwhich alone at that time had come into my hands! For you saw that the\ntruth which we maintain and defend was confirmed with such strength\nof argument, and illustrated with such abundant light, that you could\nnot find anything which could be said against it, whereby the charges\nwhich we make might be refuted. You observed, also, that the attention\nof many who had read it was fixed on you, since they desired to know\nwhat you would say, what you would do, how you would escape from the\ndifficulty, how you would make your way out of the strait in which the\nword of God had encompassed you. Hereupon you, when you ought to have\nshown contempt for the opinion of the foolish ones, and to have gone\non to adopt sound and truthful sentiments, preferred rather to do what\nScripture has foretold of men like you: \"Thou hast loved evil more than\ngood, and lying rather than to speak righteousness.\"[1030] Just as if\nI in turn were willing to recompense unto you railing for railing; in\nwhich case, what should we be but two evil speakers, so that those who\nread our words would either preserve their self-respect by throwing us\naside with abhorrence, or eagerly devour what we wrote to gratify their\nmalice? For my own part, since I answer every one, whether in writing\nor by word of mouth, even when I have been attacked with insulting\naccusations, in such language as the Lord puts in my mouth, restraining\nand crushing the stings of empty indignation in the interests of my\nhearer or reader, I do not strive to prove myself superior to my\nadversary by abusing him, but rather to be a source of health in him by\nconvicting him of his error.\n\n2. For if those who take into consideration what you have written have\nany feelings whatsoever, how did it serve you in the cause which is at\nissue between us respecting the Catholic communion and the party of\nDonatus, that, leaving a matter which was in a certain sense of public\ninterest, you should have been led by private animosity to attack the\nlife of an individual with malicious revilings, just as though that\nindividual were the question in debate? Did you think so badly, I do\nnot say of Christians, but of the whole human race, as not to suppose\nthat your writings might come into the hands of some prudent men,\nwho would lay aside all thoughts of individuals like us, and inquire\nrather into the question which was at issue between us, and pay heed,\nnot to who and what we were, but to what we might be able to advance\nin defence of the truth or against error? You should have paid respect\nto these men's judgment, you should have guarded yourself against\ntheir censure, lest they should think that you could find nothing to\nsay, unless you set before yourself some one whom you might abuse by\nany means within your power. But one may see by the thoughtlessness\nand foolishness of some men, who listen eagerly to the quarrels of\nany learned disputants, that while they take notice of the eloquence\nwherewith you lavish your abuse, they do not perceive with what truth\nyou are refuted. At the same time, I think your object partly was\nthat I might be driven, by the necessity of defending myself, to\ndesert the very cause which I had undertaken; and that so, while men's\nattention was turned to the words of opponents who were engaged not in\ndisputation, but in quarrelling, the truth might be obscured, which\nyou are so afraid should come to light and be well known among men.\nWhat therefore was I to do in opposing such a design as this, except to\nkeep strictly to my subject, neglecting rather my own defence, praying\nwithal that no personal calumny may lead me to withdraw from it? I will\nexalt the house of my God, whose honour I have loved, with the tribute\nof a faithful servant's voice, but myself I will humiliate and hold of\nno account. \"I had rather be a door-keeper in the house of my God, than\nto dwell in the tents of unrighteousness.\"[1031] I will therefore turn\nmy discourse from you, Petilianus, for a time, and direct it rather to\nthose whom you have endeavoured to turn away from me by your revilings,\nas though my endeavour rather were that men should be converted unto\nme, and not rather with me unto God.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. II.--3. Hear therefore, all ye who have read his revilings, what\nPetilianus has vented against me with more anger than consideration.\nTo begin with, I will address you in the words of the apostle, which\ncertainly are true, whatever I myself may be: \"Let a man so account of\nus as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.\nMoreover, it is required of stewards, that a man be found faithful.\nBut with me it is a very small matter that I should be judged of you,\nor of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.\" With regard\nto what immediately follows, although I do not venture to apply to\nmyself the words, \"For I am conscious of nothing in myself,\"[1032] yet\nI say confidently in the sight of God, that I am conscious in myself\nof none of those charges which Petilianus has brought against my life\nsince the time when I was baptized in Christ; \"yet am I not hereby\njustified: but He that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing\nbefore the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the\nhidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the\nhearts; and then shall every man have praise of God. And these things,\nbrethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself; that ye might learn\nin us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of\nyou be puffed up for one against another.\"[1033] \"Therefore let no\nman glory in men: for all things are yours; and ye are Christ's; and\nChrist is God's.\"[1034] Again I say, \"Let no man glory in men;\" nay,\noftentimes I repeat it, \"Let no man glory in men.\" If you perceive\nanything in us which is deserving of praise, refer it all to His\npraise, from whom is every good gift and every perfect gift; for it\nis \"from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom\nis no variableness, neither shadow of turning.\"[1035] For what have\nwe which we did not receive? and if we have received it, let us not\nboast as though we had not received it.[1036] And in all these things\nwhich you know to be good in us, be ye our followers, at any rate, if\nwe are Christ's;[1037] but if, on the other hand, you either suspect,\nor believe, or see that any evil is in us, hold fast to that saying of\nthe Lord's, in which you may safely resolve not to desert His Church\nbecause of men's ill deeds: Whatsoever we bid you observe, that observe\nand do; but whatsoever evil works you think or know to be in us, those\ndo ye not.[1038] For this is not the time for me to justify myself\nbefore you, when I have undertaken, neglecting all considerations of\nself, to recommend to you what is for your salvation, that no one\nshould make his boast of men. For \"cursed be the man that trusteth in\nman.\"[1039] So long as this precept of the Lord and His apostle be\nadhered to and observed, the cause which I serve will be victorious,\neven if I myself, as my enemy would fain have thought, am faint and\noppressed in my own cause. For if you cling most firmly to what I\nurge on you with all my might, that every one is cursed who places\nhis trust in man, so that none should make his boast of man, then you\nwill in no wise desert the threshing-floor of the Lord on account of\nthe chaff which either is now being dispersed beneath the blast of the\nwind of pride, or will be separated by the final winnowing;[1040]\nnor will you fly from the great house on account of the vessels made\nto dishonour;[1041] nor will you quit the net through the breaches\nmade in it because of the bad fish which are to be separated on the\nshore;[1042] nor will you leave the good pastures of unity, because of\nthe goats which are to be placed on the left when the Good Shepherd\nshall divide the flock;[1043] nor will you separate yourselves by\nan impious secession, because of the mixture of the tares, from the\nsociety of that good wheat, whose source is that grain that dies and is\nmultiplied thereby, and that grows together throughout the world until\nthe harvest. For the field is the world,--not only Africa; and the\nharvest is the end of the world,[1044]--not the era of Donatus.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. III.--4. These comparisons of the gospel you doubtless recognise.\nNor can we suppose them given for any other purpose, except that no\none should make his boast in man, and that no one should be puffed up\nfor one against another, or divided one against another, saying, \"I am\nof Paul,\" when certainly Paul was not crucified for you, nor were you\nbaptized in the name of Paul, much less in that of C\u00e6cilianus, or of\nany one of us,[1045] that you may learn, that so long as the chaff is\nbeing bruised with the corn, so long as the bad fishes swim together\nwith the good in the nets of the Lord, till the time of separation\nshall come, it is your duty rather to endure the admixture of the bad\nout of consideration for the good, than to violate the principle of\nbrotherly love towards the good from any consideration of the bad.\nFor this admixture is not for eternity, but for time alone; nor is it\nspiritual, but corporal. And in this the angels will not be liable\nto err, when they shall collect the bad from the midst of the good,\nand commit them to the burning fiery furnace. For the Lord knoweth\nthose which are His. And if a man cannot depart bodily from those who\npractise iniquity so long as time shall last, at any rate, let every\none that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity itself.[1046]\nFor in the meantime he may separate himself from the wicked in life,\nand in morals, and in heart and affections, and in the same respects\ndepart from his society; and separation such as this should always be\nmaintained. But let the separation in the body be waited for till the\nend of time, faithfully, patiently, bravely. In consideration of which\nexpectation it is said, \"Wait on the Lord; be of good courage, and\nHe shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, upon the Lord.\"[1047]\nFor the greatest palm of toleration is won by those who, among false\nbrethren that have crept in unawares, seeking their own, and not the\nthings of Jesus Christ, yet show that they on their part seek not to\ndisturb the love which is not their own, but Jesus Christ's, by any\nturbulent or rash dissension, nor to break the unity of the Lord's\nnet, in which are gathered together fish of every kind, till it is\ndrawn to the shore, that is, till the end of time, by any wicked strife\nfostered in the spirit of pride: whilst each might think himself to\nbe something, being really nothing, and so might lead himself astray,\nand wish that sufficient reason might be found for the separation\nof Christian peoples in the judgment of himself or of his friends,\nwho declare that they know beyond all question certain wicked men\nunworthy of communion in the sacraments of the Christian religion:\nthough whatever it may be that they know of them, they cannot persuade\nthe universal Church, which, as it was foretold, is spread abroad\nthroughout all nations, to give credit to their tale. And when they\nrefuse communion with these men, as men whose character they know, they\ndesert the unity of the Church; whereas they ought rather, if there\nreally were in them that charity which endureth all things, themselves\nto bear what they know in one nation, lest they should separate\nthemselves from the good whom they were unable throughout all nations\nto fill with the teaching of evil alien to them. Whence even, without\ndiscussing the case, in which they are convicted by the weightiest\nproofs of having uttered calumnies against the innocent, they are\nbelieved with greater probability to have invented false charges of\ngiving up the sacred books, when they are found to have themselves\ncommitted the far more heinous crime of wicked division in the Church.\nFor even, if whatever imputations they have cast of giving up the\nsacred books were true, yet they in no wise ought to have abandoned\nthe society of Christians, who are commended by holy Scripture even to\nthe ends of the world, on considerations which they have been familiar\nwith, while these men showed that they were not acquainted with them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IV.--5. Nor would I therefore be understood to urge that\necclesiastical discipline should be set at naught, and that every one\nshould be allowed to do exactly as he pleased, without any check,\nwithout a kind of healing chastisement, a lenity which should inspire\nfear, the severity of love. For then what will become of the precept\nof the apostle, \"Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded,\nsupport the weak, be patient toward all men; see that none render evil\nfor evil unto any man?\"[1048] At any rate, when he added these last\nwords, \"See that none render evil for evil unto any man,\" he showed\nwith sufficient clearness that there is no rendering of evil for evil\nwhen one chastises those that are unruly, even though for the fault of\nunruliness be administered the punishment of chastising. The punishment\nof chastising therefore is not an evil, though the fault be an evil.\nFor indeed it is the steel, not of an enemy inflicting a wound, but of\na surgeon performing an operation. Things like this are done within\nthe Church, and that spirit of gentleness within its pale burns with\nzeal towards God, lest the chaste virgin which is espoused to one\nhusband, even Christ, should in any of her members be corrupted from\nthe simplicity which is in Christ, as Eve was beguiled by the subtilty\nof the serpent.[1049] Notwithstanding, far be it from the servants of\nthe father of the family that they should be unmindful of the precept\nof their Lord, and be so inflamed with the fire of holy indignation\nagainst the multitude of the tares, that while they seek to gather them\nin bundles before the time, the wheat should be rooted up together with\nthem. And of this sin these men would be held to be guilty, even though\nthey showed that those were true charges which they brought against the\n_traditors_ whom they accused; because they separated themselves in a\nspirit of impious presumption, not only from the wicked, whose society\nthey professed to be avoiding, but also from the good and faithful in\nall nations of the world, to whom they could not prove the truth of\nwhat they said they knew; and with themselves they drew away into the\nsame destruction many others over whom they had some slight authority,\nand who were not wise enough to understand that the unity of the Church\ndispersed throughout the world was on no account to be forsaken for\nother men's sins. So that, even though they themselves knew that they\nwere pressing true charges against certain of their neighbours, yet in\nthis way a weak brother, for whom Christ died, was perishing through\ntheir knowledge;[1050] whilst, being offended at other men's sins, he\nwas destroying in himself the blessing of peace which he had with the\ngood brethren, who partly had never heard such charges, partly had\nshrunk from giving hasty credence to what was neither discussed nor\nproved, partly, in the peaceful spirit of humility, had left these\ncharges, whatsoever they might be, to the cognizance of the judges of\nthe Church, to whom the whole matter had been referred, across the sea.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. V.--6. Do you, therefore, holy scions of our one Catholic\nmother, beware with all the watchfulness of which you are capable,\nin due submission to the Lord, of the example of sin and error such\nas this. With however great light of learning and of reputation he\nmay shine, however much he may boast himself to be a precious stone,\nwho endeavours to lead you after him, remember always that that brave\nwoman who alone is lovely only to her husband, whom holy Scripture\nportrays to us in the last chapter of the Book of Proverbs, is more\nprecious than any precious stones. Let no one say, I will follow\nsuch an one, for it was even he that made me a Christian; or, I will\nfollow such an one, for it was even he that baptized me. For \"neither\nis he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that\ngiveth the increase.\"[1051] And \"God is love; and he that dwelleth\nin love, dwelleth in God, and God in him.\"[1052] No one also that\npreaches the name of Christ, and handles or administers the sacrament\nof Christ, is to be followed in opposition to the unity of Christ.\n\"Let every man prove his own work; and then shall he have rejoicing\nin himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his\nown burden,\"[1053]--the burden, that is, of rendering an account; for\n\"every one of us shall give an account of himself. Let us not therefore\njudge one another any more.\"[1054] For, so far as relates to the\nburdens of mutual love, \"bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil\nthe law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when\nhe is nothing, he deceiveth himself.\"[1055] Let us therefore \"forbear\none another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in\nthe bond of peace;\"[1056] for no one who gathers outside that peace is\ngathering with Christ; but \"he that gathereth not with Him scattereth\nabroad.\"[1057]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VI.--7. Furthermore, whether concerning Christ, or concerning His\nChurch, or any other matter whatsoever which is connected with your\nfaith and life, to say nothing of ourselves, who are by no means to be\ncompared with him who said, \"Though we,\" at any rate, as he went on to\nsay, \"Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than\nthat which\" ye have received in the lawful and evangelical Scriptures,\n\"let him be accursed.\"[1058] While carrying out this principle of\naction in our dealings with you, and with all whom we desire to gain\nin Christ, and, amongst other things, while preaching the holy Church\nwhich we read of as promised in the epistles of God, and see to be\nfulfilled according to the promises in all nations of the world, we\nhave earned, not the rendering of thanks, but the flames of hatred,\nfrom those whom we desire to have attracted into His most peaceful\nbosom; as though we had bound them fast in that party for which they\ncannot find any defence that they should make; or as though we so\nlong before had given injunctions to prophets and apostles that they\nshould insert in their books no proofs by which it might be shown that\nthe party of Donatus was the Church of Christ. And we indeed, dear\nbrethren, when we hear false charges brought against us by those whom\nwe have offended by preaching the eloquence of truth, and confuting\nthe vanity of error, have, as you know, the most abundant consolation.\nFor if, in the matters which they lay to my charge, the testimony of\nmy conscience does not stand against me in the sight of God, where\nno mortal eye can reach, not only ought I not to be cast down, but I\nshould even rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is my reward in\nheaven.[1059] For in fact I ought to consider, not how bitter, but how\nfalse is what I hear, and how true He is in defence of whose name I am\nexposed to it, and to whom it is said, \"Thy name is as ointment poured\nforth.\"[1060] And deservedly does it smell sweet in all nations, though\nthose who speak evil of us endeavour to confine its fragrance within\none corner of Africa. Why therefore should we take amiss that we are\nreviled by men who thus detract from the glory of Christ, whose party\nand schism find offence in what was foretold so long before of His\nascent into the heavens, and of the pouring forth of His name, as of\nthe savour of ointment: \"Be Thou exalted, O God, above the heavens: let\nThy glory be above all the earth?\"[1061]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VII.--8. Whilst we bear the testimony of God to this and the\nlike effect against the vain speaking of men, we are forced to undergo\nbitter insults from the enemies of the glory of Christ. Let them say\nwhat they will, whilst He exhorts us, saying, \"Blessed are they which\nare persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of\nheaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you,\nand shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake.\"\nWhat He says in the first instance, \"for righteousness' sake,\" He has\nrepeated in the words that He uses afterwards, \"for my sake;\" seeing\nthat He \"is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification,\nand redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth,\nlet him glory in the Lord.\"[1062] And when He says, \"Rejoice, and be\nexceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven,\"[1063] if I hold in\na good conscience what is said \"for righteousness' sake,\" and \"for my\nsake,\" whosoever wilfully detracts from my reputation is against his\nwill contributing to my reward. For neither did He only instruct me by\nHis word, without also confirming me by His example. Follow the faith\nof the holy Scriptures, and you will find that Christ rose from the\ndead, ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father.\nFollow the charges brought by His enemies, and you will presently\nbelieve that He was stolen from the sepulchre by His disciples. Why\nthen should we, while defending His house to the best of the abilities\ngiven us by God, expect to meet with any other treatment from His\nenemies? \"If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how\nmuch more shall they call them of His household?\"[1064] If, therefore,\nwe suffer, we shall also reign with Him. But if it be not only the\nwrath of the accuser that strikes the ear, but also the truth of the\naccusation that stings the conscience, what does it profit me if the\nwhole world were to exalt me with perpetual praise? So neither the\neulogy of him who praises has power to heal a guilty conscience, nor\ndoes the insult of him who reviles wound the good conscience. Nor,\nhowever, is your hope which is in the Lord deceived, even though we\nchance to be in secret what our enemies wish us to be thought; for you\nhave not placed your hope in us, nor have you ever heard from us any\ndoctrine of the kind. You therefore are safe, whatever we may be, who\nhave learned to say, \"I have trusted in the Lord; therefore I shall not\nslide;\"[1065] and \"In God have I put my trust: I will not be afraid\nwhat man can do unto me.\"[1066] And to those who endeavour to lead you\nastray to the earthly heights of proud men, you know how to answer, \"In\nthe Lord put I my trust: how say ye to my soul, Flee as a bird to your\nmountain?\"[1067]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VIII.--9. Nor is it only you that are safe, whatever we may be,\nbecause you are satisfied with the very truth of Christ which is in\nus, in so far as it is preached through us, and everywhere throughout\nthe world, and because, listening to it willingly, so far as it is set\nforth by the humble ministry of our tongue, you also think well and\nkindly of us,--for so your hope is in Him whom we preach to you out of\nHis loving-kindness, which extends over you,--but further, all of you,\nwho also received the sacrament of holy baptism from our ministering,\nmay well rejoice in the same security, seeing that you were baptized,\nnot into us, but into Christ. You did not therefore put on us, but\nChrist; nor did I ask you whether you were converted unto me, but unto\nthe living God; nor whether you believed in me, but in the Father,\nthe Son, and the Holy Ghost. But if you answered my question with\ntruthful hearts, you were placed in a state of salvation, not by the\nputting away of the filth of the flesh, but by the answer of a good\nconscience towards God;[1068] not by a fellow-servant, but by the Lord;\nnot by the herald, but by the judge. For it is not true, as Petilianus\ninconsiderately said, that \"the conscience of the giver,\" or, as he\nadded, \"the conscience of him who gives in holiness, is what we look\nfor to wash the conscience of the recipient.\" For when something is\ngiven that is of God, it is given in holiness, even by a conscience\nwhich is not holy. And certainly it is beyond the power of the\nrecipient to discern whether the said conscience is holy or not holy;\nbut that which is given he can discern with clearness. That which is\nknown to Him who is ever holy is received with perfect safety, whatever\nbe the character of the minister at whose hands it is received. For\nunless the words which are spoken from Moses' seat were necessarily\nholy, He that is the Truth would never have said, \"Whatsoever they bid\nyou observe, that observe and do.\" But if the men who uttered holy\nwords were themselves holy, He would not have said, \"Do not ye after\ntheir works: for they say, and do not.\"[1069] For it is true that in no\nway do men gather grapes of thorns, because grapes never spring from\nthe root of a thorn; but when the shoot of the vine has entwined itself\nin a thorn hedge, the fruit which hangs upon it is not therefore looked\nupon with dread, but the thorn is avoided, while the grape is plucked.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IX.--10. Therefore, as I have often said before, and am desirous\nto bring home to you, whatsoever we may be, you are safe, who have God\nfor your Father and His Church for your mother. For although the goats\nmay feed in company with the sheep, yet they shall not stand on the\nright hand; although the chaff may be bruised together with the wheat,\nit shall not be gathered into the barn; although the bad fish may swim\nin company with the good within the Lord's nets, they shall not be\ngathered into vessels. Let no man make his boast even in a good man:\nlet no man shun the good gifts of God even in a bad man.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. X.--11. Let these things suffice you, my beloved Christian\nbrethren of the Catholic Church, so far as the present business is\nconcerned; and if you hold fast to this in Catholic affection, so\nlong as you are one sure flock of the one Shepherd, I am not too much\nconcerned with the abuse that any enemy may lavish on me, your partner\nin the flock, or, at any rate, your watch-dog, so long as he compels\nme to bark rather in your defence than in my own. And yet, if it were\nnecessary for the cause that I should enter on my own defence, I should\ndo so with the greatest brevity and the greatest ease, joining freely\nwith all men in condemning and bearing witness against the whole period\nof my life before I received the baptism of Christ, so far as relates\nto my evil passions and my errors, lest, in defending that period,\nI should seem to be seeking my own glory, not His, who by His grace\ndelivered me even from myself. Wherefore, when I hear that life of\nmine abused, in whatever spirit he may be acting who abuses it, I am\nnot so thankless as to be grieved. However much he finds fault with\nany vice of mine, I praise him in the same degree as my physician. Why\nthen should I disturb myself about defending those past and obsolete\nevils in my life, in respect of which, though Petilianus has said much\nthat is false, he has yet left more that is true unsaid? But concerning\nthat period of my life which is subsequent to my baptism, to you who\nknow me I speak unnecessarily in telling of those things which might be\nknown to all mankind; but those who know me not ought not to act with\nsuch unfairness towards me as to believe Petilianus rather than you\nconcerning me. For if one should not give credence to the panegyrics of\na friend, neither should one believe the detraction of an enemy. There\nremain, therefore, those things which are hidden in a man, in which\nconscience alone can bear testimony, which cannot be a witness before\nmen. Herein Petilianus says that I am a Manich\u00e6an, speaking of the\nconscience of another man; I, speaking of my own conscience, aver that\nI am not. Choose which of us you had sooner believe. Notwithstanding,\nsince there is not any need even of this short and easy defence on my\npart, where the question at issue is not concerning the merits of any\nindividual, whoever he may be, but concerning the truth[1070] of the\nwhole Church, I have more also to say to any of you, who, being of the\nparty of Donatus, have read the evil words which Petilianus has written\nabout me, which I should not have heard from him if I had had no care\nabout the loss of your salvation; but then I should have been wanting\nin the bowels of Christian love.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XI.--12. What wonder is it then, if, when I draw in the grain\nthat has been shaken forth from the threshing-floor of the Lord,\ntogether with the soil and chaff, I suffer injury from the dust that\nrebounds against me; or that, when I am diligently seeking after the\nlost sheep of my Lord, I am torn by the briars of thorny tongues? I\nentreat you, lay aside for a time all considerations of party feeling,\nand judge with some degree of fairness between Petilianus and myself.\nI am desirous that you should be acquainted with the cause of the\nChurch; he, that you should be familiar with mine. For what other\nreason than because he dares not bid you disbelieve my witnesses,\nwhom I am constantly citing in the cause of the Church,--for they\nare prophets and apostles, and Christ Himself, the Lord of prophets\nand apostles,--whereas you easily give him credit in whatever he may\nchoose to say concerning me, a man against a man, and one, moreover, of\nyour own party against a stranger to you? Petilianus therefore reigns\nsupreme. Whenever he aims any abuse at me, of whatever character it may\nbe, you all applaud and shout assent. This cause he has found wherein\nthe victory is possible for him, but only with you for judges. He will\nseek for neither proof nor witness; for all that he has to prove in his\nwords is this, that he lavishes most copious abuse on one whom you most\ncordially hate. For whereas, when the testimony of divine Scripture is\nquoted in such abundance and in such express terms in favour of the\nCatholic Church, he remains silent amidst your grief, he has chosen\nfor himself a subject on which he may speak amidst applause from you;\nand though really conquered, yet, pretending that he stands unmoved,\nhe may make statements concerning me like this, and even worse than\nthis. It is enough for me,[1071] in respect of the cause which I am\nnow pleading, that whatsoever I may be found to be, yet the Church for\nwhich I speak is unconquered.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XII.--13. For I am a man of the threshing-floor of Christ: if\na bad man, then part of the chaff; if good, then of the grain. The\nwinnowing-fan of this threshing-floor is not the tongue of Petilianus;\nand hereby, whatever evil he may have uttered, even with truth, against\nthe chaff of this threshing-floor, this in no way prejudices its grain.\nBut whereinsoever he has cast any revilings or calumnies against the\ngrain itself, its faith is tried on earth, and its reward increased\nin the heavens. For where men are holy servants of the Lord, and are\nfighting with holiness for God, not against Petilianus, or any flesh\nand blood like him, but against principalities and powers, and the\nrulers of the darkness of this world,[1072] such as are all enemies\nof the truth, to whom I would that we could say, \"Ye were sometimes\ndarkness, but now are ye light in the Lord,\"[1073]--where the servants\nof God, I say, are waging such a war as this, then all the calumnious\nrevilings that are uttered by their enemies, which cause an evil report\namong the malicious and those that are rash in believing, are weapons\non the left hand: it is with such as these that even the devil is\ndefeated. For when we are tried by good report, whether we resist the\nexaltation of ourselves to pride, and are tried by evil report, whether\nwe love even those very enemies by whom it is invented against us,\nthen we overcome the devil by the armour of righteousness on the right\nhand and on the left. For when the apostle had used the expression,\n\"By the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,\"\nhe at once goes on to say, as if in explanation of the terms, \"By\nhonour and dishonour, by evil report and good report,\"[1074] and so\nforth,--reckoning honour and good report among the armour on the right\nhand, dishonour and evil report among that upon the left.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIII.--14. If, therefore, I am a servant of the Lord, and a\nsoldier that is not reprobate, with whatever eloquence Petilianus\nstands forth reviling me, ought I in any way to be annoyed that he has\nbeen appointed for me as a most accomplished craftsman of the armour\non the left? It is necessary that I should fight in this armour as\nskilfully as possible in defence of my Lord, and should smite with\nit the enemy against whom I wage an unseen fight, who in all cunning\nstrives and endeavours, with the most perverse and ancient craftiness,\nthat this should lead me to hate Petilianus, and so be unable to\nfulfil the command which Christ has given, that we should \"love our\nenemies.\"[1075] But from this may I be saved by the mercy of Him who\nloved me, and gave Himself for me, so that, as He hung upon the cross,\nHe said, \"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do;\"[1076]\nand so taught me to say of Petilianus, and all other enemies of mine\nlike him, \"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIV.--15. Furthermore, if I have obtained from you, in accordance\nwith my earnest endeavours, that, laying aside from your minds all\nprejudice of party, you should be impartial judges between Petilianus\nand myself, I will show to you that he has not replied to what I\nwrote, that you may understand that he has been compelled by lack\nof truth to abandon the dispute, and also see what revilings he has\nallowed himself to utter against the man who so conducted it that he\nhad no reply to make. And yet what I am going to say displays itself\nwith such manifest clearness, that, even though your minds were\nestranged from me by party prejudice and personal hatred, yet, if\nyou would only read what is written on both sides, you could not but\nconfess among yourselves, in your inmost hearts, that I have spoken\ntruth.\n\n16. For, in replying to the former part of his writings, which then\nalone had come into my hands, without taking any notice of his wordy\nand sacrilegious revilings, where he says, \"Let those men cast in our\nteeth our twice-repeated baptism, who, under the name of baptism,\nhave polluted their souls with a guilty washing; whom I hold to be so\nobscene that no manner of filth is less clean than they; whose lot\nit has been, by a perversion of cleanliness, to be defiled by the\nwater wherein they washed;\" I thought that what follows was worthy\nof discussion and refutation, where he says, \"For what we look for\nis the conscience of the giver, that the conscience of the recipient\nmay thereby be cleansed;\" and I asked what means were to be found for\ncleansing one who receives baptism when the conscience of the giver is\npolluted, without the knowledge of him who is to receive the sacrament\nat his hands.[1077]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XV.--17. Read now the most profuse revilings which he has poured\nforth whilst puffed up with indignation against me, and see whether\nhe has given me any answer, when I ask what means are to be found for\ncleansing one who receives baptism when the conscience of the giver\nis polluted, without the knowledge of him who receives the sacrament\nat his hands. I beg of you to search minutely, to examine every page,\nto reckon every line, to ponder every word, to sift the meaning of\neach syllable, and tell me, if you can discover it, where he has made\nanswer to the question, What means are to be found for cleansing the\nconscience of the recipient who is unaware that the conscience of the\ngiver is polluted?\n\n18. For how did it bear upon the point that he added a phrase which\nhe said was suppressed by me, maintaining that he had written in the\nfollowing terms: \"The conscience of him who gives in holiness is\nwhat we look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient?\" For to\nprove to you that it was not suppressed by me, its addition in no way\nhinders my inquiry, or makes up the deficiency which was found in him.\nFor in the face of those very words I ask again, and I beg of you to\nsee whether he has given any answer, If \"the conscience of him who\ngives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the\nrecipient,\" what means are to be found for cleansing the conscience of\nthe recipient when the conscience of the giver is stained with guilt,\nwithout the knowledge of him who is to receive the sacrament at his\nhands? I insist upon an answer being given to this. Do not allow that\nany one should be prejudiced by revilings irrelevant to the matter in\nhand. If the conscience of him who gives in holiness is what we look\nfor,--observe that I do not say \"the conscience of him who gives,\"\nbut that I added the words, \"of him who gives in _holiness_,\"--if the\nconscience, then, of him who gives in holiness is what we look for,\nwhat means are to be found for cleansing one who receives baptism when\nthe conscience of the giver is polluted, without the knowledge of him\nwho is to receive the sacrament at his hands?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVI.--19. Let him go now, and with panting lungs and swollen\nthroat find fault with me as a mere dialectician. Nay, let him summon,\nnot me, but the science of dialectics itself, to the bar of popular\nopinion as a forger of lies, and let him open his mouth to its widest\nagainst it, with all the noisiest uproar of a special pleader. Let him\nsay whatever he pleases before the inexperienced, that so the learned\nmay be moved to wrath, while the ignorant are deceived. Let him call\nme, in virtue of my rhetoric, by the name of the orator Tertullus,\nby whom Paul was accused;[1078] and let him give himself the name of\nAdvocate,[1079] in virtue of the pleading in which he boasts his\nformer power, and for this reason delude himself with the notion that\nhe is, or rather was, a namesake of the Holy Ghost. Let him, with all\nmy heart, exaggerate the foulness of the Manich\u00e6ans, and endeavour to\ndivert it on to me by his barking. Let him quote all the exploits of\nthose who have been condemned, whether known or unknown to me; and let\nhim turn into the calumnious imputation of a prejudged crime, by some\nnew right entirely his own, the fact that a former friend of mine there\nnamed me in my absence to the better securing of his own defence. Let\nhim read the titles that have been placed upon my letters by himself or\nby his friends, as suited their pleasure, and boast that he has, as it\nwere, involved me hopelessly in their expressions. When I acknowledge\ncertain eulogies of bread, uttered in all simplicity and merriment, let\nhim take away my character with the absurd imputations of poisonous\nbaseness and madness. And let him entertain so bad an opinion of your\nunderstanding, as to imagine that he can be believed when he declares\nthat pernicious love-charms were given to a woman, not only with the\nknowledge, but actually with the complicity[1080] of her husband. What\nthe man who was afterwards to ordain me bishop[1081] wrote about me\nin anger, while I was as yet a priest, he may freely seek to use as\nevidence against me. That the same man sought and obtained forgiveness\nfrom a holy Council for the wrong he thus had done me, he is equally\nat liberty to ignore as being in my favour,--being either so ignorant\nor so forgetful of Christian gentleness, and the commandment of the\ngospel, that he brings as an accusation against a brother what is\nwholly unknown to that brother himself, as he humbly entreats that\npardon may in kindness be extended to him.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVII.--20. Let him further go on, in his discourse of many but\nmanifestly empty words, to matters of which he is wholly ignorant,\nor in which rather he abuses the ignorance of the mass of those who\nhear him, and from the confession of a certain woman, that she had\ncalled herself a catechumen of the Manich\u00e6ans, being already a full\nmember of the Catholic Church, let him say or write what he pleases\nconcerning their baptism,--not knowing, or pretending not to know,\nthat the name of catechumen is not bestowed among them upon persons to\ndenote that they are at some future time to be baptized, but that this\nname is given to such as are also called Hearers, on the supposition\nthat they cannot observe what are considered the higher and greater\ncommandments, which are observed by those whom they think right to\ndistinguish and honour by the name of Elect. Let him also maintain\nwith wonderful rashness, either as himself deceived or as seeking to\ndeceive, that I was a priest among the Manich\u00e6ans. Let him set forth\nand refute, in whatever sense seems good to him, the words of the\nthird book of my _Confessions_, which, both in themselves, and from\nmuch that I have said before and since, are perfectly clear to all who\nread them. Lastly, let him triumph in my stealing his words, because I\nhave suppressed two of them, as though the victory were his upon their\nrestoration.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XVIII.--21. Certainly in all these things, as you can learn or\nrefresh your memory by reading his letter, he has given free scope to\nthe impulse of his tongue, with all the licence of boasting which he\nchose to use, but nowhere has he told us where means are to be found\nfor cleansing the conscience of the recipient, when that of the giver\nhas been stained with sin without his knowing it. But amid all his\nnoise, and after all his noise, serious as it is, too terrible as he\nhimself supposes it to be, I deliberately, as it is said, and to the\npurpose,[1082] ask this question once again: If the conscience of\nhim who gives in holiness is what we look for, what means are to be\nfound for cleansing one who receives baptism without knowing that the\nconscience of the giver is stained with sin? And throughout his whole\nepistle I find nothing said in answer to this question.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XIX.--22. For perhaps some one of you will say to me, All these\nthings which he said against you he wished to have force for this\npurpose, that he might take away your character, and through you\nthe character of those with whom you hold communion, that neither\nthey themselves, nor those whom you endeavour to bring over to your\ncommunion, may hold you to be of any further importance. But, in\ndeciding whether he has given no answer to the words of your epistle,\nwe must look at them in the light of the passage in which he proposed\nthem for consideration. Let us then do so: let us look at his writings\nin the light of that very passage. Passing over, therefore, the passage\nin which I sought to introduce my subject to the reader, and to ignore\nthose few prefatory words of his, which were rather insulting than\nrelevant to the subject under discussion, I go on to say, \"He says,\n'What we look for is the conscience of the giver, to cleanse that of\nthe recipient.' But supposing the conscience of the giver is concealed\nfrom view, and perhaps defiled with sin, how will it be able to cleanse\nthe conscience of the recipient, if, as he says, 'what we look for is\nthe conscience of the giver, to cleanse that of the recipient?' For\nif he should say that it makes no matter to the recipient what amount\nof evil may be concealed from view in the conscience of the giver,\nperhaps that ignorance may have such a degree of efficacy as this, that\na man cannot be defiled by the guilt of the conscience of him from\nwhom he receives baptism, so long as he is unaware of it. Let it then\nbe granted that the guilty conscience of his neighbour cannot defile\na man so long as he is unaware of it; but is it therefore clear that\nit can further cleanse him from his own guilt? Whence then is a man to\nbe cleansed who receives baptism, when the conscience of the giver is\npolluted without the knowledge of him who is to receive it, especially\nwhen he goes on to say, 'For he who receives faith from the faithless\nreceives not faith but guilt?'\"[1083]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XX.--23. All these statements in my letter Petilianus set before\nhimself for refutation. Let us see, therefore, whether he has refuted\nthem; whether he has made any answer to them at all. For I add the\nwords which he calumniously accuses me of having suppressed, and,\nhaving done so, I ask him again the same question in an even shorter\nform; for by adding these two words he has helped me much in shortening\nthis proposition. If the conscience of him who gives in holiness is\nwhat we look for to cleanse that of the recipient, and if he who has\nreceived his faith wittingly from one that is faithless, receives not\nfaith but guilt, where shall we find means to cleanse the conscience of\nthe recipient, when he has not known that the conscience of the giver\nis stained with guilt, and when he receives his faith unwittingly from\none that is faithless? I ask, where shall we find means to cleanse\nit? Let him tell us; let him not pass off into another subject; let\nhim not cast a mist over the eyes of the inexperienced. To end with,\nat any rate, after many tortuous circumlocutions have been interposed\nand thoroughly worked out, let him at last tell us where we shall find\nmeans to cleanse the conscience of the recipient when the stains of\nguilt in the conscience of the faithless baptizer are concealed from\nview, if the conscience of him who gives in holiness is what we look\nfor to cleanse that of the recipient, and if he who has received his\nfaith wittingly from one that is faithless, receives not faith but\nguilt? For the man in question receives it from a faithless man, who\nhas not the conscience of one who gives in holiness, but a conscience\nstained with guilt, and veiled from view. Where then shall we find\nmeans to cleanse his conscience? whence then does he receive his faith?\nFor if he is neither then cleansed, nor then receives faith, when the\nfaithlessness and guilt of the baptizer are concealed, why, when these\nare afterwards brought to light and condemned, is he not then baptized\nafresh, that he may be cleansed and receive faith? But if, while the\nfaithlessness and guilt of the other are concealed, he is cleansed\nand does receive faith, whence does he obtain his cleansing, whence\ndoes he receive faith, when there is not the conscience of one that\ngives in holiness to cleanse the conscience of the recipient? Let him\ntell us this; let him make reply to this: Whence does he obtain his\ncleansing, whence does he receive faith, if the conscience of him that\ngives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the\nrecipient, seeing that this does not exist, when the baptizer conceals\nhis character of faithlessness and guilt? To this no answer has been\nmade whatever.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXI.--24. But see, when he is reduced to straits in the argument,\nhe again makes an attack on me full of mist and wind, that the calm\nclearness of the truth may be obscured; and through the extremity of\nhis want he becomes full of resources, shown not in saying what is\ntrue, but in unbought empty revilings. Hold fast, with the keenest\nattention and utmost perseverance, what he ought to answer,--that is,\nwhere means may be found for cleansing the conscience of the recipient\nwhen the stains in that of the giver are concealed,--lest possibly\nthe blast of his eloquence should wrest this from your hands, and\nyou in turn should be carried away by the dark tempest of his turgid\ndiscourse, so as wholly to fail in seeing whence he has digressed,\nand to what point he should return; and see where the man can wander,\nwhilst he cannot stand in the matter which he has undertaken. For see\nhow much he says, through having nothing that he ought to say. He\nsays \"that I slide in slippery places, but am held up; that I neither\ndestroy nor confirm the objections that I make; that I devise uncertain\nthings in the place of certainty; that I do not permit my readers to\nbelieve what is true, but cause them to look with increased suspicion\non what is doubtful.\" He says \"that I have the accursed talents of\nthe Academic philosopher Carneades.\"[1084] He endeavours to insinuate\nwhat the Academics think of the falseness or the falsehood of human\nsensation, showing in this also that he is wholly without knowledge of\nwhat he says. He declares that \"it is said by them that snow is black,\nwhereas it is white; and that silver is black; and that a tower is\nround, or free from projections, when it is really angular; that an\noar is broken in the water, while it is whole.\" And all this because,\nwhen he had said that \"the conscience of him that gives,\" or \"of him\nthat gives in holiness, is what we look for to cleanse the conscience\nof the recipient,\" I said in reply, What if the conscience of the giver\nbe hidden from sight, and possibly be stained with guilt? Here you\nhave his black snow, and black silver, and his tower round instead of\nangular, and the oar in the water broken while yet whole, in that I\nsuggested a state of the case which might be conceived, and could not\nreally exist, that the conscience of the giver might be hidden from\nview, and possibly might be stained with guilt!\n\n25. Then he continues in the same strain, and cries out: \"What is that\n_what if?_ what is that _possibly?_ except the uncertain and wavering\nhesitation of one who doubts, of whom your poet says,--\n\n 'What if I now return to those who say,\n What if the sky should fall?'\"[1085]\n\nDoes he mean that when I said, What if the conscience of the giver be\nhidden from sight, and possibly be stained with guilt? that it is much\nthe same as if I had said, What if the sky should fall? There certainly\nis the phrase What if, because it is possible that it may be hidden\nfrom view, and it is possible that it may not. For when it is not known\nwhat the giver is thinking of, or what crime he has committed, then\nhis conscience is certainly hidden from the view of the recipient;\nbut when his sin is plainly manifest, then it is not hidden. I used\nthe expression, And possibly may be stained with guilt, because it is\npossible that it may be hidden from view and yet be pure; and again,\nit is possible that it may be hidden from view and be stained with\nguilt. This is the meaning of the What if; this the meaning of the\nPossibly. Is this at all like \"What if the sky should fall?\" O how\noften have men been convicted, how often have they confessed themselves\nthat they had consciences stained with guilt and adultery, whilst men\nwere unwittingly baptized by them after they were degraded by the sin\nsubsequently brought to light, and yet the sky did not fall! What have\nwe here to do with Pilus and Furius,[1086] who defended the cause of\ninjustice against justice? What have we here to do with the atheist\nDiagoras,[1087] who denied that there was any God, so that he would\nseem to be the man of whom the prophet spoke beforehand, \"The fool\nhath said in his heart, there is no God?\"[1088] What have we here to\ndo with these? Why were their names brought in, except that they might\nmake a diversion in favour of a man who had nothing to say? that while\nhe is at any rate saying something, though needlessly, about these,\nthe matter in hand may seem to be progressing, and an answer may be\nsupposed to be made to a question which remains without an answer?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXII.--26. Lastly, if these two or three words, What if, and\nPossibly, are so absolutely intolerable, that on their account we\nshould have aroused from their long sleep the Academics, and Carneades,\nand Pilus, and Furius, and Diagoras, and black snow, and the falling\nof the sky, and everything else that is equally senseless and absurd,\nlet them be removed from our argument. For, as a matter of fact, it\nis by no means impossible to express what we desire to say without\nthem. There is quite sufficient for our purpose in what is found a\nlittle later, and has been introduced by himself from my letter: \"By\nwhat means then is he to be cleansed who receives baptism when the\nconscience of the giver is polluted, and that without the knowledge\nof him who is to receive the sacrament?\"[1089] Do you acknowledge\nthat here there is no What if, no Possibly? Well then, let an answer\nbe given. Give close heed, lest he be found to answer this in what\nfollows. \"But,\" says he, \"I bind you in your cavilling to the faith of\nbelieving, that you may not wander further from it. Why do you turn\naway your life from errors by arguments of folly? Why do you disturb\nthe system of belief in respect of matters without reason? By this\none word I bind and convince you.\" It was Petilianus that said this,\nnot I. These words are from the letter of Petilianus; but from that\nletter, to which I just now added the two words which he accuses me of\nhaving suppressed, showing that, notwithstanding their addition, the\npertinency of my question, to which he makes no answer, remains with\ngreater brevity and simplicity. It is beyond dispute that these two\nwords are, In holiness, and Wittingly: so that it should not be, \"The\nconscience of him who gives,\" but \"The conscience of him who gives _in\nholiness_;\" and that it should not be, \"He who has received his faith\nfrom one that is faithless,\" but \"He who has _wittingly_ received his\nfaith from one that is faithless.\" And yet I had not really suppressed\nthese words; but I had not found them in the copy which was placed in\nmy hands. It is possible enough that it was incorrect; nor indeed is it\nwholly beyond the possibility of belief that even by this suggestion\nAcademic fury should be roused against me, and that it should be\nasserted that, in declaring the copy to be incorrect, I had said much\nthe same sort of thing as if I had declared that snow was black. For\nwhy should I repay in kind his rash suggestion, and say that, though he\npretends that I suppressed the words, he really added them afterwards\nhimself, since the copy, which is not angry, can confirm that mark of\nincorrectness, without any abusive rashness on my part?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIII.--27. And, in the first place, with regard to that first\nexpression, \"Of him who gives in holiness,\" it does not interfere in\nthe least with my inquiry, by which he is so much distressed, whether\nI use the expression, \"If the conscience of him that gives is what\nwe look for,\" or the fuller phrase, \"If the conscience of him that\ngives in holiness is what we look for, to cleanse the conscience of\nthe recipient,\" by what means then is he to be cleansed who receives\nbaptism if the conscience of the giver is polluted, without the\nknowledge of him who is to receive the sacrament? And with regard\nto the other word that is added, \"wittingly,\" so that the sentence\nshould not run, \"He who has received his faith from one that is\nfaithless,\" but \"He who has wittingly received his faith from one that\nis faithless, receives not faith but guilt,\" I confess that I had said\nsome things as though the word were absent, but I can easily afford\nto do without them; for they caused more hindrance to the facility of\nmy argument than they gave assistance to its possibility. For how much\nmore readily, how much more plainly and shortly, can I put the question\nthus: \"If the conscience of him who gives in holiness is what we look\nfor to cleanse the conscience of the recipient,\" and \"if he who has\nwittingly received his faith from one that is faithless receives not\nfaith but guilt,\" by what means is he cleansed, from whom the stain on\nthe conscience of him who gives, but not in holiness, is hidden? and\nwhence does he receive true faith, who is baptized unwittingly by one\nthat is faithless? Let it be declared whence this shall be, and then\nthe whole theory of baptism will be disclosed; then all that is matter\nof investigation will be brought to light,--but only if it be declared,\nnot if the time be consumed in evil-speaking.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIV.--28. Whatever, therefore, he finds in these two\nwords,--whether he brings calumnious accusations about their\nsuppression, or boasts of their being added,--you perceive that it in\nno way hinders my question, to which he can find no answer that he\ncan make; and therefore, not wishing to remain silent, he takes the\nopportunity of making an attack upon my character,--retiring, I should\nhave said, from the discussion, except that he had never entered on it.\nFor just as though the question were about me, and not about the truth\nof the Church, or of baptism, therefore he says that I, by suppressing\nthese two words, have argued as though it were no stumblingblock in the\nway of my conscience that I have ignored what he calls the sacrilegious\nconscience of him who polluted me. But if this were so, the addition of\nthe word \"wittingly,\" which is thus introduced, would be in my favour,\nand its suppression would tell against me. For if I had wished that\nmy defence should be urged on the ground that I should be supposed to\nhave been unacquainted with the conscience of the man that baptized me,\nthen I would accept Petilianus as having spoken in my behalf, since he\ndoes not say in general terms, \"He that has received his faith from one\nthat is faithless,\" but \"He that has wittingly received his faith from\none that is faithless, receives not faith but guilt;\" so that hence\nI might boast that I had received not guilt, but faith, since I could\nsay I did not receive it wittingly from one that was faithless, but was\nunacquainted with the conscience of him that gave it. See, therefore,\nand reckon carefully, if you can, what an amount of superfluous words\nhe wastes on the one phrase, \"I was unacquainted with,\" which he\ndeclares that I have used; whereas I never used it at all,--partly\nbecause the question under discussion was not concerning me, so that I\nshould need to use it; partly because no fault was apparent in him that\nbaptized me, so that I should be forced to say in my defence that I had\nbeen unacquainted with his conscience.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXV.--29. And yet Petilianus, to avoid answering what I have\nsaid, sets before himself what I have not, and draws men's attention\naway from the consideration of his debt, lest they should exact\nthe answer which he ought to make. He constantly introduces the\nexpressions, \"I have been unacquainted with,\" \"I say,\" and makes\nanswer, \"But if you were unacquainted with;\" and, as though convicting\nme, so that it should be out of my power to say, \"I was unacquainted\nwith,\" he quotes Mensurius, C\u00e6cilianus, Macarius, Taurinus, Romanus,\nand declares that \"they had acted in opposition to the Church of God,\nas I could not fail to know, seeing that I am an African, and already\nwell advanced in years:\" whereas, so far as I hear, Mensurius died\nin the unity of the communion of the Church, before the faction of\nDonatus separated itself therefrom; whilst I had read the history of\nC\u00e6cilianus, that they themselves had referred his case to Constantine,\nand that he had been once and again acquitted by the judges whom that\nemperor had appointed to try the matter, and again a third time by the\nsovereign himself, when they appealed to him. But whatever Macarius\nand Taurinus and Romanus did, either in their judicial or executive\nfunctions, in behalf of unity as against their pertinacious madness,\nit is beyond doubt that it was all done in accordance with the laws,\nwhich these same persons made it unavoidable should be passed and put\nin force, by referring the case of C\u00e6cilianus to the judgment of the\nemperor.\n\n30. Among many other things which are wholly irrelevant, he says that\n\"I was so hard hit by the decision of the proconsul Messianus, that I\nwas forced to fly from Africa.\" And in consequence of this falsehood\n(to which, if he was not the author of it, he certainly lent malicious\nears when others maliciously invented it), how many other falsehoods\nhad he the hardihood not only to utter, but actually to write with\nwondrous rashness, seeing that I went to Milan before the consulship of\nBanto, and that, in pursuance of the profession of rhetorician which\nI then followed, I recited a panegyric in his honour as consul on\nthe first of January, in the presence of a vast assembly of men; and\nafter that journey I only returned to Africa after the death of the\ntyrant Maximus: whereas the proconsul Messianus heard the case of the\nManich\u00e6ans after the consulship of Banto, as the day of the chronicles\ninserted by Petilianus himself sufficiently shows. And if it were\nnecessary to prove this for the satisfaction of those who are in doubt,\nor believe the contrary, I could produce many men, illustrious in their\ngeneration, as most sufficient witnesses to all that period of my life.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVI.--31. But why do we make inquiry into these points? Why do\nwe both suffer and cause unnecessary delay? Are we likely to find out\nby such a course as this what means we are to use for cleansing the\nconscience of the recipient, who does not know that the conscience of\nthe giver is stained with guilt? whence the man is to receive faith\nwho is unwittingly baptized by one that is faithless?--the question\nwhich Petilianus had proposed to himself to answer in my epistle,\nthen going on to say anything else he pleased except what the matter\nin hand required. How often has he said, \"If ignorant you were,\"--as\nthough I had said, what I never did say, that I was unacquainted with\nthe conscience of him who baptized me. And he seemed to have no other\nobject in all that his evil-speaking mouth poured forth, except that\nhe should appear to prove that I had not been ignorant of the misdeeds\nof those among whom I was baptized, and with whom I was associated\nin communion, understanding fully, it would seem, that ignorance\ndid not convict me of guilt. See then that if I were ignorant, as\nhe has repeated so often, beyond all doubt I should be innocent of\nall these crimes. Whence then should I receive faith, seeing that I\nwas baptized unwittingly by one that was faithless? For he has not\nrepeated \"If ignorant you were\" so often without purpose, but simply\nto prevent my being reputed innocent, esteeming beyond all doubt that\nno man's innocence is violated if he unwittingly receives his faith\nfrom one that is faithless, and is not acquainted with the stains on\nthe conscience of him that gives, but not in holiness. Let him say,\ntherefore, by what means such men are to be cleansed, whence they are\nto receive not guilt but faith. But let him not deceive you. Let him\nspeak; let him not, while uttering much, say nothing; or rather, let\nhim not say much while saying nothing. Next, to urge a point which\noccurs to me, and must not be passed over,--if I am guilty because I\nhave not been ignorant, to use his own phraseology, and I am proved not\nto have been ignorant, because I am an African, and already advanced in\nyears, let him grant that the youths of other nations throughout the\nworld are not guilty, who had no opportunity either from their race, or\nfrom that age you bring against me, of knowing the points that are laid\nto our charge, be they true, or be they false; and yet they, if they\nhave fallen into your hands, are rebaptized without any considerations\nof such a kind.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVII.--32. But this is not what we are now inquiring. Let him\nrather answer (what he wanders off into the most irrelevant matter in\norder to avoid answering) by what means the conscience of the recipient\nis cleansed who is unacquainted with the stain on the conscience of\nthe giver, if the conscience of one that gives in holiness is what we\nlook for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient? and from what\nsource he receives faith who is unwittingly baptized by one that is\nfaithless, if he that has wittingly received his faith from one that\nis faithless, receives not faith but guilt? Omitting, therefore, his\nrevilings, which he has cast at me without any sound consideration, let\nus still notice that he does not say what we demand in what follows.\nBut I should like to look at the garrulous mode in which he has set\nthis forth, as though he were sure to overwhelm us with confusion.\n\"But let us return,\" he says, \"to that argument of your fancy, whereby\nyou seem to have represented to yourself in a form of words the persons\nyou baptize. For since you do not see the truth, it would have been\nmore seemly to have imagined what was probable.\" These words of his\nown, Petilianus put forth by way of preface, being about to state the\nwords that I had used. Then he went on to quote: \"Behold, you say, the\nfaithless man stands ready to baptize, but he who is to be baptized\nknows nothing of his faithlessness.\"[1090] He has not quoted the whole\nof my proposition and question; and presently he begins to ask me in\nhis turn, saying, \"Who is the man, and from what corner has he started\nup, that you propose to us? Why do you seem to see a man who is the\nproduce of your imagination, in order to avoid seeing one whom you are\nbound to see, and to examine and test most carefully? But since I see\nthat you are unacquainted with the order of the sacrament, I tell you\nthis as shortly as I can: you were bound both to examine your baptizer,\nand to be examined by him.\" What is it, then, that we were waiting for?\nThat he should tell us by what means the conscience of the recipient is\nto be cleansed, who is unacquainted with the stain on the conscience of\nhim that gives but not in holiness, and whence the man is to receive\nnot guilt but faith, who has received baptism unwittingly from one that\nis faithless. All that we have heard is that the baptizer ought most\ndiligently to be examined by him who wishes to receive not guilt but\nfaith, that the latter may make himself acquainted with the conscience\nof him that gives in holiness, which is to cleanse the conscience of\nthe recipient. For the man that has failed to make this examination,\nand has unwittingly received baptism from one that is faithless, from\nthe very fact that he did not make the examination, and therefore did\nnot know of the stain on the conscience of the giver, was incapacitated\nfrom receiving faith instead of guilt. Why therefore did he add what he\nmade so much of adding,--the word _wittingly_, which he calumniously\naccused me of having suppressed? For in his unwillingness that the\nsentence should run, \"He who has received his faith from one that is\nfaithless, receives not faith but guilt,\" he seems to have left some\nhope to the man that acts unwittingly. But now, when he is asked whence\nthat man is to receive faith who is baptized unwittingly by one that is\nfaithless, he has answered that he ought to have examined his baptizer;\nso that, beyond all doubt, he refuses the wretched man permission even\nto be ignorant, by not finding out from what source he may receive\nfaith, unless he has placed his trust in the man that is baptizing him.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXVIII.--33. This is what we look upon with horror in your party;\nthis is what the sentence of God condemns, crying out with the utmost\ntruth and the utmost clearness, \"Cursed be the man that trusteth in\nman.\"[1091] This is what is most openly forbidden by holy humility and\napostolic love, as Paul declares, \"Let no man glory in men.\"[1092] This\nis the reason that the attack of empty calumnies and of the bitterest\ninvectives grows even fiercer against us, that when human authority is\nas it were overthrown, there may remain no ground of hope for those to\nwhom we administer the word and sacrament of God in accordance with the\ndispensation entrusted unto us. We make answer to them: How long do you\nrest your support on man? The venerable society of the Catholic Church\nmakes answer to them: \"Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from Him cometh\nmy salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; He is my defence;\nI shall not be greatly moved.\"[1093] For what other reason have they\nhad for removing from the house of God, except that they pretended\nthat they could not endure those vessels made to dishonour, from which\nthe house shall not be free until the day of judgment? whereas all\nthe time they rather appear, by their deeds and by the records of the\ntime, to have themselves been vessels of this kind, while they threw\nthe imputation in the teeth of others; of which said vessels made\nunto dishonour, in order that no one should on their account remove\nin confusion of mind from the great house, which alone belongs to the\ngreat Father of our family, the servant of God, one who was good and\nfaithful, or was capable of receiving faith in baptism, as I have\nshown above, expressly says, \"Truly my soul waiteth upon God\" (on God,\nyou see, and not on man): \"from Him cometh my salvation\" (not from\nman). But Petilianus would refuse to ascribe to God the cleansing and\npurifying of a man, even when the stain upon the conscience of him who\ngives, but not in holiness, is hidden from view, and any one receives\nhis faith unwittingly from one that is faithless, \"I tell you this,\"\nhe says, \"as shortly as I can: you were bound both to examine your\nbaptizer, and to be examined by him.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXIX.--34. I entreat of you, pay attention to this: I ask where\nthe means shall be found for cleansing the conscience of the recipient,\nwhen he is not acquainted with the stain upon the conscience of him\nthat gives but not in holiness, if the conscience of him that gives\nin holiness is waited for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient?\nand from what source he is to receive faith, who is unwittingly\nbaptized by one that is faithless, if whosoever has received his faith\nwittingly from one that is faithless, receives not faith but guilt?\nand he answers me, that both the baptizer and the baptized should be\nsubjected to examination. And for the proof of this point, out of\nwhich no question arises, he adduces the example of John, in that he\nwas examined by those who asked him who he claimed to be,[1094] and\nthat he also in turn examined those to whom he says, \"O generation of\nvipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?\"[1095] What\nhas this to do with the subject? What has this to do with the question\nunder discussion? God had vouchsafed to John the testimony of most\neminent holiness of life, confirmed by the previous witness of the\nnoblest prophecy, both when he was conceived, and when he was born. But\nthe Jews put their question, already believing him to be a saint, to\nfind out which of the saints he maintained himself to be, or whether he\nwas himself the saint of saints, that is, Christ Jesus. So much favour\nindeed was shown to him, that credence would at once have been given to\nwhatever he might have said about himself. If, therefore, we are to\nfollow this precedent in declaring that each several baptizer is now to\nbe examined, then each must also be believed, whatever he may say of\nhimself. But who is there that is made up of deceit, whom we know that\nthe Holy Spirit flees from, in accordance with the Scripture,[1096]\nwho would not wish the best to be believed of him, or who would\nhesitate to bring this about by the use of any words within his reach?\nAccordingly, when he shall have been asked who he is, and shall have\nanswered that he is the faithful dispenser of God's ordinances, and\nthat his conscience is not polluted with the stain of any crime, will\nthis be the whole examination, or will there be a further more careful\ninvestigation into his character and life? Assuredly there will. But it\nis not written that this was done by those who asked John who he was in\nthe desert of Jordan.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXX.--35. Accordingly this precedent is wholly without bearing\non the matter in hand. We might rather say that the declaration of\nthe apostle sufficiently inculcates this care, when he says, \"Let\nthese also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon,\nbeing found blameless.\"[1097] And since this is done anxiously and\nhabitually in both parties, by almost all concerned, how comes it\nthat so many are found to be reprobates subsequently to the time of\nhaving undertaken this ministry, except that, on the one hand, human\ncare is often deceived, and, on the other hand, those who have begun\nwell occasionally deteriorate? And since things of this sort happen so\nfrequently as to allow no man to hide them or to forget them, what is\nthe reason that Petilianus now teaches us insultingly, in a few words,\nthat the baptizer ought to be examined by the candidate for baptism,\nsince our question is, by what means the conscience of the recipient is\nto be cleansed, when the stain on the conscience of him that gives, but\nnot in holiness, has been concealed from view, if the conscience of one\nthat gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of\nthe recipient. \"Since I see,\" he says, \"that you are unacquainted with\nthe order of the sacrament, I tell you this as shortly as I can: you\nwere bound both to examine your baptizer, and to be examined by him.\"\nWhat an answer to make! He is surrounded in so many places by such\na multitude of men that have been baptized by ministers who, having\nin the first instance seemed righteous and chaste, have subsequently\nbeen convicted and degraded in consequence of the disclosure of their\nfaults; and he thinks that he is avoiding the force of this question,\nin which we ask by what means the conscience of the recipient is to be\ncleansed, when he is unacquainted with the stain upon the conscience\nof him that gives but not in holiness, if the conscience of one that\ngives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the\nrecipient,--he thinks, I say, that he is avoiding the force of this\nquestion, by saying shortly that the baptizer ought to be examined.\nNothing is more unfortunate than not to be consistent with truth, by\nwhich every one is so shut in, that he cannot find a means of escape.\nWe ask from whom he is to receive faith who is baptized by one that is\nfaithless? The answer is, \"He ought to have examined his baptizer.\" Is\nit therefore the case that, since he does not examine him, and so even\nunwittingly receives his faith from one that is faithless, he receives\nnot faith but guilt? Why then are those men not baptized afresh, who\nare found to have been baptized by men that are detected and convicted\nreprobates, while their true character was yet concealed?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXI.--36. \"And where,\" he says, \"is the word that I added,\n_wittingly?_ so that I did not say, He that has received his faith from\none that is faithless; but, He that has received his faith _wittingly_\nfrom one that is faithless, receives not faith but guilt.\" He therefore\nwho received his faith unwittingly from one that was faithless,\nreceived not guilt but faith; and accordingly I ask from what source\nhe has received it? And being thus placed in a strait, he answers, \"He\nought to have examined him.\" Granted that he ought to have done so;\nbut, as a matter of fact, he did not, or he was not able: what is your\nverdict about him? Was he cleansed, or was he not? If he was cleansed,\nI ask from what source? For the polluted conscience of him that gave\nbut not in holiness, with which he was unacquainted, could not cleanse\nhim. But if he was not cleansed, command that he be so now. You give no\nsuch orders, therefore he was cleansed. Tell me, by what means? Do you,\nat any rate, tell me what Petilianus has failed to tell. For I propose\nto you the very same words which he was unable to answer. \"Behold, the\nfaithless man stands ready to baptize; but he who is to be baptized\nknows nothing of his faithlessness: what do you think that he will\nreceive,--faith, or guilt?\"[1098] This is sufficient as a constant form\nof question: answer, or search diligently to find what he has answered.\nYou will find abuse that has already been convicted. He finds fault\nwith me, as though in derision, maintaining that I ought to suggest\nwhat is probable for consideration, since I cannot see the truth. For,\nrepeating my words, and cutting my sentence in two, he says, \"Behold,\nyou say, the faithless man stands ready to baptize; but he who is to\nbe baptized knows nothing of his faithlessness.\" Then he goes on to\nask, \"Who is the man, and from what corner has he started up, that you\npropose to us?\" Just as though there were some one or two individuals,\nand such cases were not constantly occurring everywhere on either\nside! Why does he ask of me who the man in question is, and from what\ncorner he has started up, instead of looking round, and seeing that\nthe churches are few and far between, whether in cities or in country\ndistricts, which do not contain men detected in crimes, and degraded\nfrom the ministry? While their true character was concealed, while they\nwished to be thought good, though really bad, and to be reputed chaste,\nthough really guilty of adultery, so long they were involved in deceit;\nand so the Holy Spirit, according to the Scripture, was fleeing from\nthem.[1099] It is from the crowd, therefore, of these men who hitherto\nconcealed their character that the faithless man whom I suggested\nstarted up. Why does he ask me whence he started up, shutting his eyes\nto all this crowd, from which sufficient noise arises to satisfy the\nblind, if we take into consideration none but those who might have been\nconvicted and degraded from their office?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXII.--37. What shall we say of what he himself advanced in his\nepistle, that \"Quodvultdeus, having been convicted of two adulteries,\nand cast out from among you, was received by those of our party?\"[1100]\nWhat then (I would speak without prejudice to this man, who proved his\ncase to be a good one, or at least persuaded men that it was so), when\nsuch men among you, being as yet undetected, administer baptism, what\nis received at their hands,--faith, or guilt? Surely not faith, because\nthey have not the conscience of one who gives in holiness to cleanse\nthe conscience of the recipient. But yet not guilt either, in virtue\nof that added word: \"For he that has received his faith _wittingly_\nfrom one that is faithless, receives not faith but guilt.\" But when\nmen were baptized by those of whom I speak, they were surely ignorant\nwhat sort of men they were. Furthermore, not receiving faith from their\nbaptizers, who had not the conscience of one that gives in holiness,\nand not receiving guilt, because they were baptized not knowing but\nin ignorance of their faults, they therefore remained without faith\nand without guilt. They are not, therefore, in the number of men of\nsuch abandoned character. But neither can they be in the number of\nthe faithful, because, as they could not receive guilt, so neither\ncould they receive faith from their baptizers. But we see that they\nare reputed by you in the number of the faithful, and that no one of\nyou declares his opinion that they ought to be baptized, but all of\nyou hold valid the baptism which they have already received. They have\ntherefore received faith; and yet they have not received it from those\nwho had not the conscience of one that gives in holiness, to cleanse\nthe conscience of the recipient. Whence then did they receive it? This\nis the point from which I make my effort; this is the question that I\npress most earnestly; to this I do most urgently demand an answer.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXIII.--38. See now how Petilianus, to avoid answering this\nquestion, or to avoid being proved to be incapable of answering it,\nwanders off vainly into irrelevant matter in abuse of us, accusing\nus and proving nothing; and when he chances to make an endeavour to\nresist, with something like a show of fighting for his cause, he is\neverywhere overcome with the greatest ease. But yet he nowhere gives\nan answer of any kind to this one question which we ask: If the\nconscience of one that gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse\nthe conscience of the recipient, by what means is he to be cleansed\nwho received baptism while the conscience of the giver was polluted,\nwithout the knowledge of him who was to receive it? for in these words,\nwhich he quoted from my epistle, he set me forth as asking a question,\nwhile he showed himself as giving no answer. For after saying what I\nhave just now recited, and when, on being brought into a great strait\non every side, he had been compelled to say that the baptizer ought to\nbe examined by the candidate for baptism, and the candidate in turn by\nthe baptizer; and when he had tried to fortify this statement by the\nexample of John, in hopes that he might find auditors either of the\ngreatest negligence or of the greatest ignorance, he then went on to\nadvance other testimonies of Scripture wholly irrelevant to the matter\nin hand, as the saying of the eunuch to Philip, \"See, here is water;\nwhat doth hinder me to be baptized?\"[1101] \"inasmuch as he knew,\" says\nhe, \"that those of abandoned character were prevented;\" arguing that\nthe reason why Philip did not forbid him to be baptized was because he\nhad proved, in his reading of the Scriptures, how far he believed in\nChrist,--as though he had prohibited Simon Magus. And again, he urges\nthat the prophets were afraid of being deceived by false baptism, and\nthat therefore Isaiah said, \"Lying water that has not faith,\"[1102] as\nthough showing that water among faithless men is lying; whereas it is\nnot Isaiah but Jeremiah that says this of lying men, calling the people\nin a figure water, as is most clearly shown in the Apocalypse.[1103]\nAnd again, he quotes as words of David, \"Let not the oil of the sinner\nanoint my head,\" when David has been speaking of the flattery of the\nsmooth speaker deceiving with false praise, so as to lead the head\nof the man praised to wax great with pride. And this meaning is made\nmanifest by the words immediately preceding in the same psalm. For he\nsays, \"Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness; and let him\nreprove me: but the oil of the sinner shall not break my head.\"[1104]\nWhat can be clearer than this sentence? what more manifest? For he\ndeclares that he had rather be reproved in kindness with the sharp\ncorrection of the righteous, so that he may be healed, than anointed\nwith the soft speaking of the flatterer, so as to be puffed up with\npride.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXIV.--39. Petilianus quotes also the warning of the Apostle\nJohn, that we should not believe every spirit, but try the spirits\nwhether they are of God,[1105] as though this care should be bestowed\nin order that the wheat should be separated from the chaff in this\npresent world before its time, and not rather for fear that the wheat\nshould be deceived by the chaff; or as though, even if the lying spirit\nshould have said something that was true, it was to be denied, because\nthe spirit whom we should abominate had said it. But if any one thinks\nthis, he is mad enough to contend that Peter ought not to have said,\n\"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,\"[1106] because the\ndevils had already said something to the same effect.[1107] Seeing,\ntherefore, that the baptism of Christ, whether administered by an\nunrighteous or a righteous man, is nothing but the baptism of Christ,\nwhat a cautious man and faithful Christian should do is to avoid the\nunrighteousness of man, not to condemn the sacraments of God.\n\n40. Assuredly in all these things Petilianus gives no answer to the\nquestion, If the conscience of one that gives in holiness is what we\nlook for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient, by what means is\nhe to be cleansed who receives baptism, when the conscience of the\ngiver is polluted without the knowledge of the proposed recipient? A\ncertain Cyprian, a colleague of his from Thubursicubur, was caught in\na brothel with a woman of most abandoned character, and was brought\nbefore Primianus of Carthage, and condemned. Now, when this man\nbaptized before he was detected and condemned, it is manifest that he\nhad not the conscience of one that gives in holiness, so as to cleanse\nthe conscience of the recipient. By what means then have they been\ncleansed, who at this day, after he has been condemned, are certainly\nnot washed again? It was not necessary to name the man, save only to\nprevent Petilianus from repeating, \"Who is the man, and from what\ncorner has he started up, that you propose to us?\" Why did not your\nparty examine that baptizer, as John, in the opinion of Petilianus, was\nexamined? Or was the real fact this, that they examined him so far as\nman can examine man, but were unable to find him out, as he long lay\nhid with cunning falseness?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXV.--Was the water administered by this man not lying? or is\nthe oil of the fornicator not the oil of the sinner? or must we hold\nwhat the Catholic Church says, and what is true, that that water and\nthat oil are not his by whom they were administered, but His whose name\nwas then invoked? Why did they who were baptized by that hypocrite,\nwhose sins were concealed, fail to try the spirit, to prove that it was\nnot of God? For the Holy Spirit of discipline was even then fleeing\nfrom the hypocrite.[1108] Was it that He was fleeing from him, but\nat the same time not deserting His sacraments, though ministered by\nhim? Lastly, since you do not deny that those men have been already\ncleansed, whom you take no care to have cleansed now that he is\ncondemned, see whether, after shedding over the subject so many mists\nin so many different ways, Petilianus, after all, in any place gives\nany answer to the question by what means these men have been cleansed,\nif what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient is the\nconscience of one that gives in holiness, such as the man who was\nsecretly unclean could not have had.\n\n41. Making, then, no answer to this which is so urgently asked of him,\nand, in the next place, even seeking for himself a latitude of speech,\nhe says, \"Since both prophets and apostles have been cautious enough\nto fear these things, with what face do you say that the baptism of\nthe sinner is holy to those who believe with a good conscience?\" Just\nas though I or any Catholic maintained that that baptism was of the\nsinner which is administered or received with a sinner to officiate,\ninstead of being His in virtue of belief in whose name the candidate\nis baptized! Then he goes off to an invective against the traitor\nJudas, saying against him whatever he can, quoting the testimony of the\nprophets uttered concerning him so long a time before, as though he\nwould steep the Church of Christ dispersed throughout the world, whose\ncause is involved in this discussion, in the impiety of the traitor\nJudas,--not considering what this very thing should have recalled to\nhis mind, that we ought no more to doubt that that is the Church of\nChrist which is spread abroad throughout the world, since this was\nprophesied with truth so many years before, than we ought to doubt\nthat it was necessary that Christ should be betrayed by one of His\ndisciples, because this was prophesied in like manner.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXVI.--42. But after this, when Petilianus came to that\nobjection of ours, that they allowed the baptism of the followers of\nMaximianus, whom they had condemned,[1109]--although in the statement\nof this question he thought it right to use his own words rather than\nmine; for neither do we assert that the baptism of sinners is of profit\nto us, seeing that we maintain it to belong not only to no sinners,\nbut to no men whatsoever, in that we are satisfied that it is Christ's\nalone,--having put the question in this form, he says, \"Yet you\nobstinately aver that it is right that the baptism of sinners should\nbe of profit to you, because we too, according to your statement,\nmaintained the baptism of criminals whom we justly condemned.\" When he\ncame to this question, as I said before, even all the show of fight\nwhich he had made deserted him. He could not find any way to go, any\nmeans of escape, any path by which, either through subtle watching or\nbold enterprise, he could either secretly steal away, or sally forth\nby force. \"Although this,\" he says, \"I will demonstrate in my second\nbook, how great the difference is between those of our party and those\nof yours whom you call innocent, yet, in the meantime, first extricate\nyourselves from the offences with which you are acquainted in your\ncolleagues, and then seek out the mode of dealing with those whom we\ncast out.\" Would any one, any man upon the earth, give an answer like\nthis, save one who is setting himself against the truth, against which\nhe cannot find any answer that can be made? Accordingly, if we too were\nto use the same words: In the meantime, first extricate yourselves\nfrom the offences with which you are acquainted in your colleagues,\nand then bring up against us any charge connected with those whom you\nhold to be wicked amongst us,--what is the result? Have we both won\nthe victory, or are we both defeated? Nay, rather He has gained the\nvictory for His Church and in His Church, who has taught us in His\nScriptures that no man should glory in men, and that he that glorieth\nshould glory in the Lord.[1110] For behold in our case, who assert with\nthe eloquence of truth that the man who believes is not justified by\nhim by whom he is baptized, but by Him of whom it is written, \"To him\nthat believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted\nfor righteousness,\"[1111] since we do not glory in men, and strive, when\nwe glory, to glory in the Lord in virtue of His own gift, how wholly\nsafe are we, whatever fault or charge Petilianus may have been able to\nprove concerning certain men of our communion! For among us, whatever\nwicked men are either wholly undetected, or, being known to certain\npersons, are yet tolerated for the sake of the bond of unity and peace,\nin consideration of other good men to whom their wickedness is unknown,\nand before whom they could not be convicted, in order that the wheat\nmay not be rooted up together with the tares, yet they so bear the\nburden of their own wickedness, that no one shares it with them except\nthose who are pleased with their unrighteousness. Nor indeed have we\nany apprehension that those whom they baptize cannot be justified,\nsince they believe in Him that justifieth the ungodly, that their faith\nmay be counted for righteousness.[1111]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXVII.--43. Furthermore, according to our tenets, neither he of\nwhom Petilianus said that he was cast forth by us for the sin of the\nmen of Sodom, another being appointed in his place, and that afterwards\nhe was actually restored to our college,--talking all the time without\nknowing what he was saying,--nor he whom he declares to have been\npenitent among you, in whatever degree their respective cases do or\ndo not admit of any defence, can either of them prejudice the Church,\nwhich is spread abroad throughout all nations, and increases in the\nworld until the harvest. For if they were really wicked members of it\nthat you accuse, then they were already not in it, but among the chaff;\nbut if they are good, while you defame their character with unrighteous\naccusations, they are themselves being tried like gold, while you\nburn after the similitude of chaff. Yet the sins of other men do not\ndefile the Church, which is spread abroad throughout the whole world,\naccording to most faithful prophecies, waiting for the end of the world\nas for its shore, on which, when it is landed, it will be freed from\nthe bad fish, in company with which the inconvenience of nature might\nbe borne without sin within the same nets of the Lord, so long as it\nwas not right to be impatiently separated from them. Nor yet is the\ndiscipline of the Church on this account neglected by constant and\ndiligent and prudent ministers of Christ, in whose province crimes are\nin such wise brought to light that they cannot be defended on any plea\nof probability. Innumerable proofs of this may be found in those who\nhave been bishops or clergy of the second degree of orders, and now,\nbeing degraded, have either gone abroad into other lands through shame,\nor have gone over to you yourselves or to other heresies, or are known\nin their own districts; of whom there is so great a multitude dispersed\nthroughout the earth, that if Petilianus, bridling for a time his\nrashness in speaking, had taken them into consideration, he would never\nhave fallen into so manifestly false and groundless a misconception,\nas to think that we ought to join in what he says: None of you is free\nfrom guilt, where no one that is guilty is condemned.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXVIII.--44. For, to pass over others dwelling in different\nquarters of the earth,--for you will scarcely find any place in which\nthis kind of men is not represented, from whom it may appear that\noverseers and ministers are wont to be condemned even in the Catholic\nChurch,--we need not look far to find the example of Honorius of\nMilevis. But take the case of Splendonius, whom Petilianus ordained\npriest after he had been condemned in the Catholic Church, and\nrebaptized by himself, whose condemnation in Gaul, communicated to us\nby our brethren, our colleague Fortunatus caused to be publicly read\nin Constantina, and whom the same Petilianus afterwards cast forth on\nexperience of his abominable deceit. From the case of this Splendonius,\nwhen was there a time when he might not have been reminded after what\nfashion wicked men are degraded from their office even in the Catholic\nChurch? I wonder on what precipice of rashness his heart was resting\nwhen he dictated those words in which he ventured to say, \"No one of\nyou is free from guilt, where no one that is guilty is condemned.\"\nWherefore the wicked, being bodily intermingled with the good, but\nspiritually separated from them in the Catholic Church, both when they\nare undetected through the infirmity of human nature, and when they\nare condemned from considerations of discipline, in every case bear\ntheir own burden. And in this way those are free from danger who are\nbaptized by them with the baptism of Christ, if they keep free from\nshare in their sins either by imitation or consent; seeing that in\nlike manner, if they were baptized by the best of men, they would not\nbe justified except by Him that justifieth the ungodly: since to those\nthat believe on Him that justifieth the ungodly their faith is counted\nfor righteousness.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XXXIX.--45. But as for you, when the case of the followers of\nMaximianus is brought up against you, who, after being condemned by\nthe sentence of a Council of 310 bishops;[1112] after being utterly\ndefeated in the same Council, quoted in the records of so many\nproconsuls, in the chronicles of so many municipal towns; after being\ndriven forth from the basilicas of which they were in possession, by\nthe order of the judges, enforced by the troops of the several cities,\nwere yet again received with all honour by you, together with those\nwhom they had baptized outside the pale of your communion, without any\nquestion respecting their baptism,--when confronted, I say, with their\ncase, you can find no reply to make. Indeed, you are vanquished by an\nexpressed opinion, not indeed true, but proceeding from yourselves,\nby which you maintain that men perish for the faults of others in\nthe same communion of the sacraments, and that each man's character\nis determined by that of the man by whom he is baptized,--that he is\nguilty if his baptizer is guilty, innocent if he is innocent. But if\nthese views are true, there can be no doubt that, to say nothing of\ninnumerable others, you are destroyed by the sins of the followers\nof Maximianus, whose guilt your party, in so large a Council, has\nexaggerated even to the proportions of the sin of those whom the earth\nswallowed up alive. But if the faults of the followers of Maximianus\nhave not destroyed you, then are these opinions false which you\nentertain; and much less have certain indefinite unproved faults of the\nAfricans been able to destroy the entire world. And accordingly, as\nthe apostle says, \"Every man shall bear his own burden;\"[1113] and the\nbaptism of Christ is no one's except Christ's; and it is to no purpose\nthat Petilianus promises that he will take as the subject of his second\nbook the charges which we bring concerning the followers of Maximianus,\nentertaining too low an opinion of men's intellects, as though they do\nnot perceive that he has nothing to say.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XL.--46. For if the baptism which Pr\u00e6textatus and Felicianus\nadministered in the communion of Maximianus was their own, why was\nit received by you in those whom they baptized as though it were the\nbaptism of Christ? But if it is truly the baptism of Christ, as indeed\nit is, and yet could not profit those who had received it with the\nguilt of schism, what do you say that you could have granted to those\nwhom you have received into your body with the same baptism, except\nthat, now that the offence of their accursed division is wiped out\nby the bond of peace, they should not be compelled to receive the\nsacrament of the holy laver as though they had it not, but that, as\nwhat they had was before for their destruction, so it should now begin\nto be of profit to them? Or if this is not granted to them in your\ncommunion, because it could not possibly be that it should be granted\nto schismatics among schismatics, it is at any rate granted to you in\nthe Catholic communion, not that you should receive baptism as though\nit were lacking in you, but that the baptism which you have actually\nreceived should be of profit to you. For all the sacraments of Christ,\nif not combined with the love which belongs to the unity of Christ,\nare possessed not unto salvation, but unto judgment. But since it is\nnot a true verdict, but your verdict, \"that through the baptism of\ncertain _traditors_ the baptism of Christ has perished from the world\nin general,\" it is with good reason that you cannot find any answer\nto make respecting the recognition of the baptism of the followers of\nMaximianus.\n\n47. See therefore, and remember with the most watchful care, how\nPetilianus has made no answer to that very question, which he proposes\nto himself in such terms as to seem to make it a starting-point from\nwhich to say something. For the former question he has dismissed\naltogether, and has not wished to speak of it to us, because I suppose\nit was beyond his power; nor is he at any time, up to the very end\nof his volume, going to say anything about it, though he quoted it\nfrom the first part of my epistle as though it were a matter calling\nfor refutation. For even though he has added the two words which he\naccused me of having suppressed, as though they were the strongest\nbulwarks of his position, he yet lies wholly defenceless, unable to\nfind any answer to make when he is asked, If the conscience of one that\ngives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the\nrecipient, where are we to find means for cleansing the conscience of\nthe man who is unacquainted with the conscience of him that gives,\nbut not in holiness? and if it be the case that any one who has\nreceived his faith from one that is faithless, receives not faith but\nguilt, from what source is he to receive not guilt but faith, who is\nunwittingly baptized by one that is faithless? To this question it has\nlong been manifest from what he says that he has made no answer.\n\n48. In the next place, he has gone on, with calumnious mouth, to abuse\nmonasteries and monks, finding fault also with me, as having been the\nfounder of this kind of life.[1114] And what this kind of life really\nis he does not know at all, or rather, though it is perfectly well\nknown throughout all the world, he pretends that he is unacquainted\nwith it. Then, asserting that I had said that Christ was the baptizer,\nhe has also added certain words from my epistle as though I had\nset this forth as my own sentiment, when I had really quoted it as\nhis and yours, as I will presently show clearly to the best of my\nability.[1115] Then he has endeavoured to show us, in many unnecessary\nwords, that Christ does not baptize, but that baptism is administered\nin His name, at once in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of\nthe Holy Ghost; of which Trinity itself he has said, either because\nit was what he wished, or because it was all that he could say, that\n\"Christ is the centre of the Trinity.\" In the next place, he has taken\noccasion of the names of the sorcerers Simon and Barjesus to vent\nagainst us what insults he thought fit. Then he goes on, keeping in\nguarded suspense the case of Optatus of Thamugas, that he might not be\nsteeped in the odium that arose from it, denying that either he or his\nparty could have passed judgment upon him, and actually intimating in\nrespect of him, that he was crushed in consequence of suggestions from\nmyself.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLI.--49. Lastly, he has ended his epistle with an exhortation\nand warning to his own party, that they should not be deceived by us,\nand with a lamentation over those of our party, that we had made them\nworse than they had been before. Having therefore carefully considered\nand discussed these points, as appears with sufficient clearness\nfrom the words of the epistle which he wrote, Petilianus has made no\nanswer at all to the position which I advanced to begin with in my\nepistle, when I asked, Supposing it to be true, as he asserts, that\nthe conscience of one that gives--or rather, to add what he considers\nso great a support to his argument--that the conscience of one that\ngives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the\nrecipient, by what means he who receives baptism is to be cleansed,\nwhen, if the conscience of the giver is polluted, it is without the\nknowledge of the proposed recipient? Whence it is not surprising that\na man resisting in the cause of falsehood, pressed hard in the straits\nof the truth that contradicts it, should have chosen rather to gasp\nforth mad abuse, than to walk in the path of that truth which cannot be\novercome.\n\n50. And now I would beg of you to pay especial attention to the next\nfew words, that I may show you clearly what he has been afraid of in\nnot answering this, and that I may bring into the light what he has\nendeavoured to shroud in obscurity. It certainly was in his power, when\nwe asked by what means he is to be cleansed, who receives baptism when\nthe conscience of the giver is polluted without the knowledge of the\nproposed recipient, to answer with the greatest ease, From our Lord\nGod; and at any rate to say with the utmost confidence, God wholly\ncleanses the conscience of the recipient, when he is unacquainted with\nthe stain upon the conscience of him that gives but not in holiness.\nBut when a man had already been compelled by the tenets of your sect\nto rest the cleansing of the recipient on the conscience of the giver,\nin that he had said, \"For the conscience of him that gives,\" or \"of\nhim that gives in holiness, is looked for to cleanse the conscience of\nthe recipient,\" he was naturally afraid lest any one should seem to\nbe better baptized by a wicked man who concealed his wickedness, than\nby one that was genuinely and manifestly good; for in the former case\nhis cleansing would depend not on the conscience of one that gave in\nholiness, but on the most excellent holiness of God Himself. With this\napprehension, therefore, that he might not be involved in so great an\nabsurdity, or rather madness, as not to know where he could make his\nescape, he was unwilling to say by what means the conscience of the\nrecipient should be cleansed, when he does not know of the stain upon\nthe conscience of him that gives but not in holiness; and he thought it\nbetter, by making a general confusion with his quarrelsome uproar, to\nconceal what was asked of him, than to give a reply to his question,\nwhich should at once discomfit him; never, however, thinking that our\nletter could be read by men of such good understanding, or that his\nwould be read by those who had read ours as well, to which he has\nprofessed to make an answer.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLII.--51. For what I just now said is put with the greatest\nclearness in that very epistle of mine, in answering which he has said\nnothing; and I would beg of you to listen for a few moments to what he\nthere has done. And although you are partisans of his, and hate us,\nyet, if you can, bear it with equanimity. For in his former epistle, to\nthe first portion of which--the only portion which had then come into\nour hands--I had in the first instance made my reply, he had so rested\nthe hope that is found in baptism in the baptizer, as to say, \"For\neverything consists of an origin and root; and if anything has not a\nhead, it is nothing.\" Since then Petilianus had said this, not wishing\nanything to be understood by the origin and root and head of baptizing\na man, except the man by whom he might be baptized, I made a comment,\nand said: \"We ask, therefore, in a case where the faithlessness of\nthe baptizer is undetected, if then the man whom he baptizes receives\nfaith and not guilt? if then the baptizer is not his origin and root\nand head, who is it from whom he receives faith? where is the origin\nfrom which he springs? where is the root of which he is a shoot? where\nthe head which is his starting-point? Can it be that, when he who is\nbaptized is unaware of the faithlessness of his baptizer, it is then\nChrist who is the origin and root and head?\" This therefore I say and\nexclaim now also, as I did there as well: \"Alas for human rashness and\nconceit! Why do you not allow that it is always Christ who gives faith,\nfor the purpose of making a man a Christian by giving it? Why do you\nnot allow that Christ is always the origin of the Christian, that the\nChristian always plants his root in Christ, that Christ is the Head\nof the Christian? Will it then be urged that, even where spiritual\ngrace is dispensed to those that believe by the hands of a holy and\nfaithful minister, it is still not the minister himself who justifies,\nbut that One of whom it is said, 'He justifieth the ungodly?'[1116]\nBut unless we admit this, either the Apostle Paul was the head and\norigin of those whom he had planted, or Apollos the root of those whom\nhe had watered, rather than He who had given them faith in believing;\nwhereas the same Paul says, 'I have planted, Apollos watered; but God\ngave the increase. So that neither is he that planteth anything, nor\nhe that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.'[1117] Nor was the\napostle himself their root, but rather He who says, 'I am the vine,\nye are the branches.'[1118] How, too, could he be their head, when he\nsays that 'we, being many, are one body in Christ,'[1119] and expressly\ndeclares in many passages that Christ Himself is the Head of the whole\nbody? Wherefore, whether a man receive the sacrament of baptism from a\nfaithful or a faithless minister, his whole hope is in Christ, that he\nfall not under the condemnation, that 'Cursed is he that placeth his\nhope in man!'\"[1120]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLIII.--52. These things, I think, I put with clearness and truth\nin my former epistle, when I made answer to Petilianus. These things I\nhave also now quoted, intimating and commending to you the truth that\nour faith rests on something else altogether than man, and that we\nbelieve that the Lord Christ is the cleanser and the justifier of men\nthat believe in Him that justifieth the ungodly, that their faith may\nbe counted unto them for righteousness, whether the man who administers\nthe baptism be righteous, or such an impious and deceitful man as the\nHoly Spirit flees. Then I went on to point out what absurdity would\nfollow were it otherwise, and I said, as I say now: \"Otherwise, if each\nman is born again in spiritual grace of the same sort as he by whom\nhe is baptized, and if, when he who baptizes him is manifestly a good\nman, then he himself gives faith, he is himself the origin and root and\nhead of him who is being born; whilst, when the baptizer is faithless\nwithout its being known, then the baptized person receives faith from\nChrist, then he derives his origin from Christ, then he is rooted in\nChrist, then he boasts in Christ as his head; in that case all who are\nbaptized should wish that they might have faithless baptizers, and\nbe ignorant of their faithlessness. For however good their baptizers\nmight have been, Christ is certainly beyond comparison better still,\nand He will then be the Head of the baptized if the faithlessness of\nthe baptizer shall escape detection. But if it be perfect madness to\nhold such a view (for it is Christ always that justifieth the ungodly,\nby changing his ungodliness into Christianity; it is from Christ always\nthat faith is received; Christ is always the origin of the regenerate,\nand the Head of the Church), what weight then will those words have,\nwhich thoughtless readers value by their sound, without inquiring what\ntheir inner meaning is?\"[1121] This much I said at that time; this is\nwritten in my epistle.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLIV.--53. Then a little after, as he had said, \"This being so,\nbrethren, what perversity must that be, that he who is guilty by reason\nof his own faults should make another free from guilt, whereas the\nLord Jesus Christ says, 'Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit,\nbut a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit: do men gather grapes of\nthorns?'[1122] and again, 'A good man, out of the good treasure of\nthe heart, bringeth forth good things: and an evil man, out of the\nevil treasure, bringeth forth evil things,'\"[1123]--by which words\nPetilianus showed with sufficient clearness, that the man who baptizes\nis to be looked on as the tree, and he who is baptized as the fruit:\nto this I had answered, If the good tree is the good baptizer, and his\ngood fruit he whom he has baptized, then any one who has been baptized\nby a bad man, even if his wickedness be not manifest, cannot by any\npossibility be good, for he is sprung from an evil tree. For a good\ntree is one thing; a tree whose quality is concealed, but yet bad, is\nanother. What else did I wish to be understood by those words, except\nwhat I had stated a little above, that the tree and its fruit do not\nrepresent him that baptizes and him that is baptized; but that the man\nought to be received as signified by the tree, his works and his life\nby the fruit, which are always good in the good man, and evil in the\nevil man, lest this absurdity should follow, that a man should be bad\nwhen baptized by a bad man, even though his wickedness were concealed,\nbeing, as it were, the fruit of a tree whose quality was unknown, but\nyet bad? To which he has answered nothing whatsoever.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLV.--54. But that neither he nor any one of you might say\nthat, when any one of concealed bad character is the baptizer, then\nhe whom he baptizes is not his fruit, but the fruit of Christ, I went\non immediately to point out what a foolish error is consequent also\non that opinion; and I repeated, though in other words, what I had\nsaid shortly before: If, when the quality of the tree is concealed,\nbut evil, any one who may have been baptized by it is born, not of\nit, but of Christ, then they are justified with greater holiness who\nare baptized by wicked men, whose wickedness is concealed, than they\nwho are baptized by men that are genuinely and manifestly good.[1124]\nPetilianus then, being hemmed in by these embarrassing straits, said\nnothing about the earlier part on which these remarks depended, and in\nhis answer so quoted this absurd consequence of his error as though I\nhad stated it as my own opinion, whereas it was really stated in order\nthat he might perceive the amount of evil consequent on his opinion,\nand so be forced to alter it. Imposing, therefore, this deceit on those\nwho hear and read his words, and never for a moment supposing that\nwhat we have written could be read, he begins a vehement and petulant\ninvective against me, as though I had thought that all who are baptized\nought to wish that they might have as their baptizers men who are\nfaithless, without knowing this themselves, since, however good the men\nmight be whom they had to baptize them, Christ is incomparably better,\nwho will then be the head of the person baptized, if the faithless\nbaptizer conceal his true character. As though, too, I had thought\nthat those were justified with greater holiness who are baptized by\nevil men, whose character is concealed, than those who are baptized by\nmen that are genuinely and manifestly good; when this marvellous piece\nof madness was only mentioned by me as following necessarily on the\nopinion of those who think with Petilianus, that a man, when baptized,\nbears the same relation to his baptizer as fruit does to the tree from\nwhich it springs,--good fruit springing from a good tree, evil fruit\nfrom an evil tree,--seeing that they, when they are bidden by me to\nanswer whose fruit they think a man that is baptized to be when he is\nbaptized by one of secretly bad character, since they do not venture\nto rebaptize him, are compelled to answer, that then he is not the\nfruit of that man of secretly bad character, but that he is the fruit\nof Christ. And so they are followed by a consequence contrary to their\ninclination, which none but a madman would entertain,--that if a man is\nthe fruit of his baptizer when he is baptized by one that is genuinely\nand manifestly good, but when he is baptized by one of secretly bad\ncharacter, he is then not his fruit, but the fruit of Christ,--it\ncannot but follow that they are justified with greater holiness who are\nbaptized by men of secretly bad character, than those who are baptized\nby men who are genuinely and manifestly good.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLVI.--55. Now, seeing that when Petilianus attributes this to\nme as though it were my opinion, he makes it an occasion for a serious\nand vehement invective against me, he at any rate shows, by the very\nforce of his indignation, how great a sin it is in his opinion to\nentertain such views; and, accordingly, whatever he has wished it to\nappear that he said against me for holding this opinion will be found\nto have been really said against himself, who is proved to entertain\nthe view. For he shows herein by how great force on the side of truth\nhe is overcome, when he cannot find any other door of escape except\nto pretend that it was I who entertained the views which really are\nhis own. Just as if those whom the apostle confutes for maintaining\nthat there was no resurrection from the dead, were to wish to bring an\naccusation against the same apostle, on the ground that he said, \"Then\nis Christ not risen,\" and to maintain that the preaching of the apostle\nwas vain, and the faith of those who believed in it was also vain, and\nthat false witnesses were found against God in those who had said that\nHe raised up Christ from the dead. This is what Petilianus wished to\ndo to me, never expecting that any one could read what I had written,\nwhich he could not answer, though very anxious that men should believe\nhim to have answered it. But just as, if any one had done this to the\napostle, the whole calumnious accusation would have recoiled on the\nhead of those who made it so soon as the entire passage in his epistle\nwas read, and the preceding words restored, on which any one who reads\nthem must perceive that those which I have quoted depend, in the same\nway, so soon as the preceding words of my epistle are restored, the\naccusation which Petilianus brings against me is cast back with all the\ngreater force upon his own head, from which he had striven to remove it.\n\n56. For the apostle, in confuting those who denied that there was any\nresurrection of the dead, corrects their view by showing the absurdity\nwhich follows those who entertain this view, however loth they may\nbe to admit the consequence, in order that, while they shrink in\nabhorrence from what is impious to say, they may correct what they have\nventured to believe. His argument continues thus: \"But if there be no\nresurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: and if Christ be\nnot risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.\nYea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have testified\nof God that He raised up Christ; whom He raised not up, if so be that\nthe dead rise not,\"[1125] in order that, while they fear to say that\nChrist had not risen, with the other wicked and accursed conclusions\nwhich follow from such a statement, they may correct what they said\nin a spirit of folly and infidelity, that there is no resurrection\nof the dead. If, therefore, you take away what stands at the head\nof this argument, \"_If_ there be no resurrection of the dead,\" the\nrest is spoken amiss, and yet must be ascribed to the apostle. But\nif you restore the supposition on which the rest depends, and place\nas the hypothesis from which you start, \"There is no resurrection of\nthe dead,\" then the conclusion will follow rightly, \"Then is Christ\nnot risen, and our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain,\"\nwith all the rest that is appended to it. And all these statements of\nthe apostle are wise and good, since whatever evil they have in them\nis to be imputed to those who denied the resurrection of the dead.\nIn the same manner also, in my epistle, take away my supposition,\nIf every one is born again in spiritual grace of the same character\nas he by whom he is baptized, and if, when the man who baptizes is\ngenuinely and manifestly good, he does of himself give faith, he is\nthe origin and root and head of him who is being born again; but when\nthe baptizer is a wicked man, and undetected in his wickedness, then\neach man who is baptized receives his faith from Christ, derives his\norigin from Christ, is rooted in Christ, makes his boast in Christ\nas his Head:--take away, I say, this hypothesis, on which all that\nfollows depends, and there remains a saying of the worst description\nwhich must fairly be ascribed to me, viz., that all who are baptized\nshould desire that they should have faithless men to baptize them,\nand be ignorant of their faithlessness. For however good men they may\nhave to baptize them, Christ is incomparably better, who will then\nbe the Head of the baptized, if the baptizer be a faithless man, but\nundetected.[1126] But let the statements that you make be restored, and\nthen it will forthwith be found that this which depends upon it and\nfollows in close connection from it is not my sentiment, and that any\nevil which it contains is retorted on the opinion which you maintain.\nIn like manner, take away the supposition, If the good baptizer is the\ngood tree, so that he whom he has baptized is his good fruit, and if,\nwhen the character of an evil tree is concealed, then any one that\nhas been baptized by it is born, not of it, but of Christ,--take away\nthis hypothesis, which you were compelled to confess had its origin\nin your sect and in the letter of Petilianus, and the mad conclusion\nwhich follows from it will be mine, to be ascribed to me alone, Then\nthey are justified with greater holiness who are baptized by undetected\nevil men, than they who are baptized by men that are genuinely and\nmanifestly good.[1127] But restore the hypothesis on which this\ndepends, and you will at once see both that I have been right in making\nthis statement for your correction, and that all that with good reason\ndispleases you in this opinion has recoiled upon your own head.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLVII.--57. Furthermore, in like manner as those who denied\nthe resurrection of the dead could in no way defend themselves from\nthe evil consequences which the apostle proved to follow from their\npremises, in order to refute their error, saying, \"Then is not Christ\nraised,\" with the other conclusions of similar atrocity, unless they\nchanged their opinions, and acknowledged that there was a resurrection\nof the dead; so is it necessary that you should change your opinion,\nand cease to rest on man the hope of those who are baptized, if you\ndo not wish to have imputed to you what we say for your refutation\nand correction, that they are justified with greater holiness who are\nbaptized by undetected evil men than those that are baptized by men\nthat are genuinely and manifestly good. For if you make your first\nassertion, see what I say, unless some one shall suppress this a second\ntime, and make out that I have entertained the opinion which I quote\nfor your refutation and correction. See what I lay down as my premiss,\nfrom which hangs the statement which I shall subsequently make: If you\nrest the hope of those who are to be baptized on the man by whom they\nare baptized, and if you maintain, as Petilianus wrote, that the man\nwho baptizes is the origin and root and head of him that is baptized;\nif you receive as the good tree the good man who baptizes, and as\nhis good fruit the man who has been baptized by him; then you put it\ninto our heads to ask from what origin he springs, from what root he\nshoots up, to what head he is joined, from what tree he is born, who\nis baptized by an undetected bad man? For to this inquiry belongs also\nthe following, to which I have over and over again maintained that\nPetilianus has given no reply: By what means is a man to be cleansed\nwho receives baptism while he is ignorant of the stain upon the\nconscience of him that gives but not in holiness? for this conscience\nof him that gives, or of him that gives in holiness, Petilianus wishes\nto be the origin, root, head, seed, tree from which the sanctification\nof the baptized has its existence,--springs, begins, sprouts forth, is\nborn.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLVIII.--58. When we ask, therefore, by what means the man is\nto be cleansed whom you do not baptize again in your communion, even\nwhen it has been made clear that he has been baptized by some one who,\non account of some concealed iniquity, did not at the time possess the\nconscience of one that gives in holiness, what answer do you intend\nto make, except that he is cleansed by Christ or by God, although,\nindeed, Christ is Himself God over all, blessed for ever,[1128] or by\nthe Holy Spirit, since He too is Himself God, because this Trinity of\nPersons is one God? Whence Peter, after saying to a man, \"Thou hast\ndared to lie to the Holy Ghost,\" immediately went on to add what was\nthe nature of the Holy Ghost, saying, \"Thou hast not lied unto men, but\nunto God.\"[1129] Lastly, even if you were to say that he was cleansed\nand purified by an angel when he is unacquainted with the pollution in\nthe conscience of him that gives but not in holiness, take notice that\nit is said of the saints, when they shall have risen to eternal life,\nthat they shall then be equal to the angels of God.[1130] Any one,\ntherefore, that is cleansed even by an angel is cleansed with greater\nholiness than if he were cleansed by any kind of conscience of man.\nWhy then are you unwilling that it should be said to you, If cleansing\nis wrought by the hands of a man when he is genuinely and manifestly\ngood; but when the man is evil, but undetected in his wickedness, then\nsince he has not the conscience of one that gives in holiness, it is\nno longer he, but God, or an angel, that cleanses; therefore they who\nare baptized by undetected evil men are justified with greater holiness\nthan those who are baptized by men that are genuinely and manifestly\ngood? And if this opinion is displeasing to you, as in reality it ought\nto be displeasing to every one, then take away the source from which\nit springs, correct the premiss to which it is indissolubly bound; for\nif these do not precede as hypotheses, the other will not follow as a\nconsequence.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XLIX.--59. Do not therefore any longer say, \"The conscience\nof one that gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the\nconscience of the recipient,\" lest you be asked, When a stain on the\nconscience of the giver is concealed, who cleanses the conscience of\nthe recipient? And when you shall have answered, Either God or an\nangel (since there is no other answer which you possibly can make),\nthen should follow a consequence whereby you would be confounded: Those\nthen are justified with greater holiness who are baptized by undetected\nevil men, so as to be cleansed by God or by an angel, than those who\nare baptized by men who are genuinely and manifestly good, who cannot\nbe compared with God or with the angels. But prevail upon yourselves\nto say what is said by Truth and by the Catholic Church, that not only\nwhen the minister of baptism is evil, but also when he is holy and\ngood, hope is still not to be placed in man, but in Him that justifieth\nthe ungodly, in whom if any man believe, his faith is counted for\nrighteousness.[1131] For when we say, Christ baptizes, we do not mean\nby a visible ministry, as Petilianus believes, or would have men think\nthat he believes, to be our meaning, but by a hidden grace, by a hidden\npower in the Holy Spirit, as it is said of Him by John the Baptist,\n\"The same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.\"[1132] Nor has He,\nas Petilianus says, now ceased to baptize; but He still does it, not by\nany ministry of the body, but by the invisible working of His majesty.\nFor in that we say, He Himself baptizes, we do not mean, He Himself\nholds and dips in the water the bodies of the believers; but He Himself\ninvisibly cleanses, and that He does to the whole Church without\nexception. Nor, indeed, may we refuse to believe the words of the\nApostle Paul, who says concerning Him, \"Husbands, love your wives, even\nas Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might\nsanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.\"[1133]\nHere you see that Christ sanctifies; here you see that Christ also\nHimself washes, Himself purifies with the self-same washing of water by\nthe word, wherein the ministers are seen to do their work in the body.\nLet no one, therefore, claim unto himself what is of God. The hope of\nmen is only sure when it is fixed on Him who cannot deceive, since\n\"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man,\"[1134] and \"Blessed is that\nman that maketh the Lord His trust.\"[1135] For the faithful steward\nshall receive as his reward eternal life; but the unfaithful steward,\nwhen he dispenses his lord's provisions to his fellow-servants, must\nin no wise be conceived to make the provisions useless by his own\nunfaithfulness. For the Lord says, \"Whatsoever they bid you observe,\nthat observe and do; but do not ye after their works.\"[1136] And this\nis therefore the injunction that is given us against evil stewards,\nthat the good things of God should be received at their hands, but that\nwe should beware of their own evil life, by reason of its unlikeness to\nwhat they thus dispense.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. L.--60. But if it is clear that Petilianus has made no answer\nto those first words of my epistle, and that, when he has endeavoured\nto make an answer, he has shown all the more clearly how incapable he\nwas of answering, what shall I say in respect of those portions of\nmy writings which he has not even attempted to answer, on which he\nhas not touched at all? And yet if any one shall be willing to review\ntheir character, having in his possession both my writings and those\nof Petilianus, I think he will understand by what confirmation they\nare supported. And that I may show you this as shortly as I can, I\nwould beg you to call to mind the proofs that were advanced from holy\nScripture, or refresh your memory by reading both what he has brought\nforward as against me, and what I have brought forward in my answer as\nagainst you, and see how I have shown that the passages which he has\nbrought forward are antagonistic not to me, but rather to yourselves;\nwhilst he has altogether failed to touch those which I brought forward\nas especially necessary, and in that one passage of the apostle which\nhe has endeavoured to make use of as though it favoured him, you will\nsee how he found himself without the means of making his escape.\n\n61. For the portion of this epistle which he wrote to his\nadherents--from the beginning down to the passage in which he says,\n\"This is the commandment of the Lord to us, 'When they persecute you\nin this city, flee ye into another;'[1137] and if they persecute you\nin that also, flee ye to a third\"--came first into my hands, and to\nit I made a reply; and when this reply of ours had fallen, in turn,\ninto his hands, he wrote in answer to it this which I am now refuting,\nshowing that he has made no reply to mine. In that first portion,\ntherefore, of his writings to which I first replied, these are the\npassages of Scripture which he conceives to be opposed to us: \"Every\ngood tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth\nforth evil fruit. Do men gather grapes of thorns?\"[1138] And again:\n\"A good man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth\ngood things; and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth\nevil things.\"[1139] And again: \"When a man is baptized by one that is\ndead, his washing profiteth him nothing.\"[1140] From these passages\nhe is anxious to show that the man who is baptized is made to partake\nof the character of him by whom he is baptized; I, on the other hand,\nhave shown in what sense these passages should be received, and that\nthey could in no wise aid his view. But as for the other expressions\nwhich he has used against evil and accursed men, I have sufficiently\nshown that they are applicable to the Lord's wheat, dispersed, as was\nforetold and promised, throughout the world, and that they might rather\nbe used by us against you. Examine them again, and you will find it so.\n\n62. But the passages which I have advanced to assert the truth of the\nCatholic Church, are the following: As regards the question of baptism,\nthat our being born again, cleansed, justified by the grace of God,\nshould not be ascribed to the man who administered the sacrament, I\nquoted these: \"It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence\nin man;\"[1141] and, \"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man;\"[1142] and\nthat, \"Salvation belongeth unto the Lord;\"[1143] and that, \"Vain is the\nhelp of man;\"[1144] and that, \"Neither is he that planteth anything,\nneither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase;\"[1145] and\nthat He in whom men believe justifieth the ungodly, that his faith may\nbe counted to him for righteousness.[1146] But in behalf of the unity\nof the Church itself, which is spread abroad throughout all the world,\nwith which you do not hold communion, I urged that the following\npassages were prophesied of Christ: that \"He shall have dominion also\nfrom sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth;\"[1147]\nand, \"I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the\nuttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession;\"[1148] and that the\ncovenant of God made with Abraham may be quoted in behalf of our,\nthat is, of the Catholic, communion, in which it is written, \"In thy\nseed shall all nations of the earth be blessed;\"[1149] which seed the\napostle interprets, saying, \"And to thy seed, which is Christ.\"[1150]\nWhence it is evident that in Christ not only Africans or Africa, but\nall the nations through which the Catholic Church is spread abroad,\nshould receive the blessing which was promised so long before. And\nthat the chaff is to be with the wheat even to the time of the last\nwinnowing, that no one may excuse the sacrilege of his own separation\nfrom the Church by calumnious accusations of other men's offences, if\nhe shall have left or deserted the communion of all nations; and to\nshow that the society of Christians may not be divided on account of\nevil ministers, that is, evil rulers in the Church, I further quoted\nthe passage, \"All whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;\nbut do not ye after their works: for they say and do not.\"[1151] With\nregard to these passages of holy Scripture which I advanced to prove my\npoints, he neither showed how they ought to be otherwise interpreted,\nso as to prove that they neither made for us nor against you, nor was\nhe willing to touch them in any way. Nay, his whole object was, could\nit have been achieved, that by the tumultuous outpouring of his abuse,\nit might never occur to any one at all, who after reading my epistle\nmight have been willing to read his as well, that these things had been\nsaid by me.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LI.--63. Next, listen for a short time to the kind of way in\nwhich he has tried to use, in his own behalf, the passages which I had\nadvanced from the writings of the Apostle Paul. \"For you asserted,\" he\nsays, \"that the Apostle Paul finds fault with those who used to say\nthat they were of the Apostle Paul, saying, 'Was Paul crucified for\nyou? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?'[1152] Wherefore, if they\nwere in error, and would have perished had they not been corrected,\nbecause they wished to be of Paul, what hope can there possibly be for\nthose who have wished to be of Donatus? For this is their sole object,\nthat the origin, and root, and head of him that is baptized should be\nnone other than he by whom he is baptized.\"[1153] These words, and this\nconfirmation from the writings of the apostle, he has quoted from my\nepistle, and he has proposed to himself the task of refuting them. Go\non then, I beg of you, to see how he has fulfilled the task. For he\nsays, \"This assertion is meaningless, and inflated, and childish, and\nfoolish, and something very far from a true exposition of our faith.\nFor you would only be right in asserting this, if we were to say, We\nhave been baptized in the name of Donatus, or Donatus was crucified for\nus, or we have been baptized in our own name. But since such things\nas this neither have been said nor are said by us,--seeing that we\nfollow the formula of the holy Trinity,--it is clear that you are mad\nto bring such accusations against us. Or if you think that we have been\nbaptized in the name of Donatus, or in our own name, you are miserably\ndeceived, and at the same time confess in your sacrilege that you on\nyour part defile your wretched selves in the name of C\u00e6cilianus.\" This\nis the answer which Petilianus has made to those arguments of mine, not\nsupposing--or rather making a noise that no one might suppose--that he\nhas made no answer at all which could bear in any way upon the question\nwhich is under discussion. For who could fail to see that this witness\nof the apostle has been adduced by us with all the more propriety, in\nthat you do not say that you were baptized in the name of Donatus, or\nthat Donatus was crucified for you, and yet separate yourselves from\nthe communion of the Catholic Church out of respect to the party of\nDonatus; as also those whom Paul was rebuking certainly did not say\nthat they had been baptized in the name of Paul, or that Paul had been\ncrucified for them, and yet they were making a schism in the name\nof Paul. As therefore in their case, for whom Christ, not Paul, was\ncrucified, and who were baptized in the name of Christ, not of Paul,\nand who yet said, \"I am of Paul,\" the rebuke is used with all the more\npropriety, \"Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name\nof Paul?\" to make them cling to Him who was crucified for them, and in\nwhose name they were baptized, and not be guilty of division in the\nname of Paul; so in your case, also, the rebuke, Was Donatus crucified\nfor you? or were ye baptized in the name of Donatus? is used all the\nmore appositely, because you do not say, We were baptized in the name\nof Donatus, and yet desire to be of the party of Donatus. For you know\nthat it was Christ who was crucified for you, and Christ in whose\nname you were baptized; and yet, out of respect to the name and party\nof Donatus, you show such obstinacy in fighting against the unity of\nChrist, who was crucified for you, and in whose name you were baptized.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LII.--64. But if you wish to see that the object of Petilianus\nin his writings really was to prove \"that the origin, and root, and\nhead of him that is baptized is none other than he by whom he is\nbaptized,\" and that this has not been asserted by me without meaning,\nor childishly, or foolishly, review the beginning of the epistle itself\nto which I made my reply, or rather pay careful attention to me as I\nquote it. \"The conscience,\" he says, \"of one that gives in holiness is\nwhat we look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient; for he\nwho has received his faith from one that is faithless, receives not\nfaith but guilt.\" And as though some one had said to him, Whence do\nyou derive your proof of this? he goes on to say, \"For everything has\nits existence from a source and root; and if anything has not a head,\nit is nothing; nor does anything well confer a new birth, unless it be\nborn again of good seed. And this being so, brethren, what perversity\nmust it be to maintain that he who is guilty by reason of his own\noffences should make another free from guilt; whereas our Lord Jesus\nChrist says, 'A good tree bringeth forth good fruit: do men gather\ngrapes of thorns?' And again, 'A good man, out of the good treasure\nof his heart, bringeth forth good things; and an evil man, out of the\nevil treasure, bringeth forth evil things.' And again, 'When a man is\nbaptized by one that is dead, his washing profiteth him nothing.'\" You\nsee to what end all these things tend, viz. that the conscience of him\nthat gives in holiness (lest any one, by receiving his faith from one\nthat is faithless, should receive not faith but guilt) should be itself\nthe origin, and root, and head, and seed of him that is baptized. For,\nwishing to prove that the conscience of one that gives in holiness\nis what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient, and\nthat he receives not faith but guilt, who wittingly receives his faith\nfrom one that is faithless, he has added immediately afterwards, \"For\neverything has its existence from a source and root; and if anything\nhas not a head, it is nothing; nor does anything well confer a new\nbirth, unless it be born again of good seed.\" And for fear that any\none should be so dull as still not to understand that in each case he\nis speaking of the man by whom a person is baptized, he explains this\nafterwards, and says, \"This being so, brethren, what perversity must\nit be to maintain that he who is guilty by reason of his own offences\nshould make another free from guilt; whereas our Lord Jesus Christ\nsays, 'A good tree bringeth forth good fruit: do men gather grapes of\nthorns?'\" And lest, by some incredible stupidity of understanding, the\nhearer or seer should be blind enough not to see that he is speaking\nof the man that baptizes, he adds another passage, where he actually\nspecifies the man. \"And again,\" he says, \"'A good man, out of the good\ntreasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things; and an evil man,\nout of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things;' and again,\n'When a man is baptized by one that is dead, his washing profiteth him\nnothing.'\" Certainly it is now plain, certainly he needs no longer any\ninterpreter, or disputant, or demonstrator, to show that the object\nof his party is to prove that the origin, and root, and head of him\nthat is baptized is none other than he by whom he is baptized. And\nyet, being overwhelmed by the force of truth, and as though forgetful\nof what he had said before, Petilianus acknowledges afterwards to me\nthat Christ is the origin and root of them that are regenerate, and the\nHead of the Church, and not any one that may happen to be the dispenser\nand minister of baptism. For having said that the apostles used to\nbaptize in the name of Christ, and set forth Christ as the foundation\nof their faith, to make men Christians, and being fain to prove this,\ntoo, by passages and examples from holy Scripture, just as though we\nwere denying it, he says, \"Where is now that voice, from which issued\nthe noise of those minute and constant petty questionings, wherein,\nin the spirit of envy and self-conceit, you uttered many involved\nsayings about Christ, and for Christ, and in Christ, in opposition to\nthe rashness and haughtiness of men? Lo, Christ is the origin, Christ\nis the head, Christ is the root of the Christian.\" When, therefore,\nI heard this, what could I do but give thanks to Christ, who had\ncompelled the man to make confession? All those things, therefore, are\nfalse which he said in the beginning of his epistle, when he wished to\npersuade us that the conscience of one that gives in holiness must be\nlooked for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient; and that when\none has wittingly received his faith from one that is faithless, he\nreceives not faith but guilt. For, wishing as it were to show clearly\nhow much rested in the man that baptizes, he had added what he seems to\nthink most weighty proofs, saying, \"For everything has its existence\nfrom a source and root; and if anything has not a head, it is nothing.\"\nBut afterwards, when he says what we also say, \"Lo, Christ is the\norigin, Christ is the head, Christ is the root of the Christian,\" he\nwipes out what he had said before, \"that the conscience of one that\ngives in holiness is the origin, and root, and head of the recipient.\"\nThe truth, therefore, has prevailed, so that the man who is desirous\nto receive the baptism of Christ should not rest his hope upon the man\nwho administers the sacrament, but should approach in all security to\nChrist Himself, as to the source which is not changed, to the root\nwhich is not plucked up, to the head which is not cast down.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LIII.--65. Then who is there that could fail to perceive from\nwhat a vein of conceit it proceeds, that in explaining as it were the\ndeclaration of the apostle, he says, \"He who said, 'I planted, Apollos\nwatered, but God gave the increase,' surely meant nothing else than\nthis, that 'I made a man a catechumen in Christ, Apollo baptized him;\nGod confirmed what we had done?'\" Why then did not Petilianus add\nwhat the apostle added, and I especially took pains to quote, \"So then\nneither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but\nGod that giveth the increase?\"[1154] And if he be willing to interpret\nthis on the same principle as what he has set down above, it follows\nbeyond all doubt, that neither is he that baptizeth anything, but God\nthat giveth the increase. For what matter does it make in reference to\nthe question now before us, in what sense it has been said, \"I planted,\nApollos watered,\"--whether it is really to be taken as equivalent to\nhis saying, \"I made a catechumen, Apollos baptized him;\" or whether\nthere be any other more apposite interpretation?--for in the mean time,\naccording to his own interpretation of the words, neither is he that\nmakes the catechumen anything, neither he that baptizes, but God that\ngives the increase. But there is a great difference between confirming\nwhat another does, and doing anything oneself. For He who gives the\nincrease does not confirm a tree or a vine, but creates it. For by\nthat increase it comes to pass that even a piece of wood planted in\nthe ground produces and establishes a root; by that increase it comes\nto pass that a seed cast into the earth puts forth a shoot. But why\nshould we make a longer dissertation on this point? It is enough that,\naccording to Petilianus himself, neither he that makes a catechumen,\nnor he that baptizes, is anything, but God that gives the increase.\nBut when would Petilianus say this, so that we should understand that\nhe meant, Neither is Donatus of Carthage anything, neither Januarius,\nneither Petilianus? When would the swelling of his pride permit him to\nsay this, which now causes the man to think himself to be something,\nwhen he is nothing, deceiving himself?[1155]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LIV.--66. Finally, again, a little afterwards, when he resolved\nand was firmly purposed, as it were, to reconsider once more the\nwords of the apostle which we had brought up against him, he was\nunwilling to set down this that I had said, preferring something else\nin which by some means or other the swelling of human pride might\nfind means to breathe. \"For to reconsider,\" he says, \"those words of\nthe apostle, on which you founded an argument against us; he said,\n'What is Apollos, what is Paul, save only ministers of Him in whom ye\nhave believed?'[1156] What else, for example, does he say to all of\nus than this, What is Donatus of Carthage, what is Januarius, what\nis Petilianus, save only ministers of Him in whom ye have believed?\"\nI did not bring forward this passage of the apostle, but I did bring\nforward that which he has been unwilling to quote, \"Neither he that\nplanteth is anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth\nthe increase.\" But Petilianus was willing to insert those words of\nthe apostle, in which he asks what is Paul, and what is Apollos, and\nanswers that \"They are ministers of Him in whom ye have believed.\"\nThis the muscles of the heretic's neck could bear; but he was wholly\nunable to endure the other, in which the apostle did not ask and answer\nwhat he was, but said that he was nothing. But now I am willing to ask\nwhether it be true that the minister of Christ is nothing. Who will say\nso much as this? In what sense, therefore, is it true that \"Neither\nis he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that\ngiveth the increase,\" except that he who is something in one point of\nview may be nothing in another? For ministering and dispensing the word\nand sacrament he is something, but for purifying and justifying he is\nnothing, seeing that this is not accomplished in the inner man, except\nby Him by whom the whole man was created, and who while He remained\nGod was made man,--by Him, that is, of whom it was said, \"Purifying\ntheir hearts by faith;\"[1157] and \"To him that believeth on Him that\njustifieth the ungodly.\"[1158] And this testimony Petilianus has been\nwilling to set forth in my words, whilst in his own he has neither\nhandled it, nor even touched it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LV.--67. A minister, therefore, that is a dispenser of the\nword and sacrament of the gospel, if he is a good man, becomes a\nfellow-partner in the working of the gospel; but if he is a bad man, he\ndoes not therefore cease to be a dispenser of the gospel. For if he is\ngood, he does it of his own free will; but if he is a bad man,--that\nis, one who seeks his own and not the things of Jesus Christ,--he\ndoes it unwillingly, for the sake of other things which he is seeking\nafter. See, however, what the same apostle has said: \"For if I do this\nthing willingly,\" he says, \"I have a reward; but if against my will, a\ndispensation of the gospel is committed unto me;\"[1159] as though he\nwere to say, If I, being good, announce what is good, I attain unto\nit also myself; but if, being evil, I announce it, yet I announce\nwhat is good. For has he in any way said, If I do it against my will,\nthen shall I not be a dispenser of the gospel? Peter and the other\ndisciples announce the good tidings, as being good themselves. Judas\ndid it against his will, but yet, when he was sent, he announced it\nin common with the rest. They have a reward; to him a dispensation\nof the gospel was committed. But they who received the gospel at the\nmouth of all those witnesses, could not be cleansed and justified\nby him that planted, or by him that watered, but by Him alone that\ngives the increase. For neither are we going to say that Judas did\nnot baptize, seeing that he was still among the disciples when that\nwhich is written was being accomplished, \"Jesus Himself baptized not,\nbut His disciples.\"[1160] Are we to suppose that, because he had not\nbetrayed Christ, therefore he who had the bag, and bare what was put\ntherein,[1161] was still enabled to dispense grace without prejudice to\nthose who received it, though he could not be an upright guardian of\nthe money entrusted to his care? Or if he did not baptize, at any rate\nwe must acknowledge that he preached the gospel. But if you consider\nthis a trifling function, and of no importance, see what you must\nthink of the Apostle Paul himself, who said, \"For Christ sent me not\nto baptize, but to preach the gospel.\"[1162] To this we may add, that\naccording to this, Apollos begins to be more important, who watered\nby baptizing, than Paul, who planted by preaching the gospel, though\nPaul claims to himself the relation of father towards the Corinthians\nin virtue of this very act, and does not grant this title to those\nwho came to them after him. For he says, \"Though ye have ten thousand\ninstructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ\nJesus I have begotten you through the gospel.\"[1163] He says, \"I\nhave begotten you\" to the same men to whom he says in another place,\n\"I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, and\nI baptized also the household of Stephanas.\"[1164] He had begotten\nthem, therefore, not through himself, but through the gospel. And even\nthough he had been seeking his own, and not the things of Jesus Christ,\nand had been doing this unwillingly, so as to receive no reward for\nhimself, yet he would have been dispensing the treasure of the Lord;\nand this, though evil himself, he would not have been making evil or\nuseless to those who received it well.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LVI.--68. And if this is rightly said of the gospel, with how\nmuch greater certainty should it be said of baptism, which belongs to\nthe gospel in such wise, that without it no one can reach the kingdom\nof heaven, and with it only if to the sacrament be added righteousness?\nFor He who said, \"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he\ncannot enter into the kingdom of God,\"[1165] said Himself also, \"Except\nyour righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and\nPharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.\"[1166]\nThe form of the sacrament is given through baptism, the form of\nrighteousness through the gospel. Neither one without the other leads\nto the kingdom of heaven. Yet even men of inferior learning can baptize\nperfectly, but to preach the gospel perfectly is a task of much greater\ndifficulty and rarity. Therefore the teacher of the Gentiles, that was\nsuperior in excellence to the majority, was sent to preach the gospel,\nnot to baptize; because the latter could be done by many, the former\nonly by a few, of whom he was chief. And yet we read that he said in\ncertain places, \"My gospel;\"[1167] but he never called baptism either\nhis, or any one's else by whom it was administered. For that baptism\nalone which John gave is called John's baptism.[1168] This that man\nreceived as the special pledge of his ministry, that the preparatory\nsacrament of washing should even be called by the name of him by whom\nit was administered; whereas the baptism which the disciples of Christ\nadministered was never called by the name of any one of them, that it\nshould be understood to be His alone of whom it is said, \"Christ loved\nthe Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse\nit with the washing of water by the word.\"[1169] If, therefore, the\ngospel, which is Christ's, but so that a minister also may call it his\nin virtue of his office of administering it, can be received by a man\neven at the hands of an evil minister without danger to himself, if\nhe does according to what he says, and not after the example of what\nhe does, how much more may any one who comes in good faith to Christ\nreceive without fear of contagion from an evil minister the baptism of\nChrist, which none of the apostles so administered as to dare to call\nit his own?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LVII.--69. Furthermore, if, whilst I have continued without\nintermission to prove how entirely the passages of Scripture which\nPetilianus has quoted against us have failed to hurt our cause, he\nhimself has in some cases not touched at all what I have quoted, and\npartly, when he has endeavoured to handle them, has shown that the\nonly thing that he could do was to fail in finding an escape from\nthem, you require no long exhortation or advice in order to see what\nyou ought to maintain, and what you should avoid. But it may be that\nthis has been the kind of show that he has made in dealing with the\ntestimony of holy Scripture, but that he has not been without force\nin the case of the documentary evidence found in the records of the\nschism itself. Let us then see in the case of these too, though it is\nsuperfluous to inquire into them after testimony from the word of God,\nwhat he has quoted, or what he has proved. For, after pouring forth a\nviolent invective against _traditors_, and quoting loudly many passages\nagainst them from the holy books themselves, he yet said nothing which\ncould prove his opponents to be _traditors_. But I quoted the case\nof Silvanus of Cirta, who held his own see some little time before\nhimself, who was expressly declared in the Municipal Chronicles to have\nbeen a _traditor_ while he was yet a sub-deacon. Against this fact he\ndid not venture to whisper a syllable. And yet you cannot fail to see\nhow strong the pressure was which must have been urging him to reply,\nthat he might show a man, who was his predecessor, not only one of his\nparty, but a partner, so to speak, in his see, to have been innocent\nof the crime of delivering up the sacred books, especially as you rest\nthe whole strength of your cause on the fact that you give the name of\n_traditor_ to all whom you either pretend or believe to have been the\nsuccessors of _traditors_ in the path of their communion. Although,\nthen, the very exigencies of your cause would seem to compel him to\nundertake the defence of a citizen even of Russicadia, or Calama, or\nany other city of your party, whom I should declare to be a _traditor_,\non the authority of the Municipal Chronicles, yet he did not open\nhis mouth even in defence of his own predecessor. For what reason,\nexcept that he could not find any mist dark enough to deceive the\nminds of even the slowest and sleepiest of men? For what could he have\nsaid, except that the charges brought against Silvanus were false?\nBut we quote the words of the Chronicles, both as to the date of the\nfact, and as to the time of the information laid before Zenophilus\nthe ex-consul.[1170] And how could he resist this evidence, being\nencompassed on every side by the most excellent cause of the Catholics,\nwhilst yours was bad as bad could be? For which reason I quote these\nwords from my epistle to which he would fain be thought to have replied\nin this which I am now refuting, that you may see for yourselves how\nimpregnable the position must be against which he has been able to find\nno safer weapon than silence.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LVIII.--70. For when he quoted a passage from the gospel as\nmaking against us, where our Lord says, \"They will come to you in\nsheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves: ye shall\nknow them by their fruits,\"[1171]--I answered and said, \"Then let us\nconsider their fruits;\" and then I at once went on to add the following\nwords: \"You bring up against them their delivery of the sacred books.\nThis very charge we urge with greater probability against their\naccusers themselves. And not to carry our search too far: in the same\ncity of Constantina, your predecessors ordained Silvanus bishop at the\nvery outset of his schism. He, while he was still a sub-deacon, was\nmost unmistakeably entered as a _traditor_ in the archives of the city.\nIf you, on your side, bring forward documents against our predecessors,\nall that we ask is equal terms, that we should either believe both to\nbe true, or both to be false. If both are true, you are unquestionably\nguilty of schism, who have pretended that you avoid offences in the\ncommunion of the whole world, though these were common among you in\nyour own fragmentary sect. But again, if both are false, you are\nunquestionably guilty of schism, who, on account of the false charges\nof _traditors_, are staining yourselves with the heinous offence\nof severance from the Church. But if we have something to urge in\naccusation, while you have nothing, or if our charges are true, whilst\nyours are false, it is no longer matter of discussion how thoroughly\nyour mouths are closed. What if the holy and true Church of Christ were\nto convince and overcome you, even if we held no documents in support\nof our cause, or only such as were false, while you had possession of\nsome genuine proof of delivery of the sacred books, what would then\nremain for you, except that, if you would, you should show your love of\npeace, or otherwise should hold your tongues? For whatever in that case\nyou might bring forward in evidence, I should be able to say with the\ngreatest ease and with the most perfect truth, that then you are bound\nto prove as much to the full and Catholic unity of the Church, already\nspread abroad and established throughout so many nations, to the end\nthat you should remain within, and that those whom you convict should\nbe expelled. And if you have endeavoured to do this, certainly you\nhave not been able to make good your proof; and, being vanquished or\nenraged, you have separated yourselves, with all the heinous guilt of\nsacrilege, from the guiltless men who could not condemn on insufficient\nproof. But if you have not even endeavoured to do this, then with most\naccursed and unnatural blindness you have cut yourselves off from the\nwheat of Christ, which grows throughout His whole fields, that is,\nthroughout the whole world until the end, because you have taken\noffence at a few tares in Africa.\"[1172] To this, which I have quoted\nfrom my former epistle, Petilianus has made no answer whatsoever. And,\nat all events, you see that in these few words is comprised the whole\nquestion which is at issue between us. For what should he endeavour to\nsay, when, whatever course he chose, he was sure to be defeated?\n\n71. For when documents are brought forward relating to the _traditors_,\nboth by us against the men of your party, and by you against the men\nof our party, (if indeed any really are brought forward on your side,\nfor to this very day we are left in total ignorance of them; nor indeed\ncan we believe that Petilianus would have omitted to insert them in his\nletter, seeing that he has taken so much pains to secure the quotation\nand insertion of those portions of the Chronicles which bear on the\nmatter in opposition to me),--but still, as I began to say, if such\ndocuments are brought forward both by us and by you,--documents of\nwhose existence we are wholly ignorant to this very day,--surely you\nmust acknowledge that either both are true, or both false, or ours true\nand yours false, or yours true and ours false; for there is no further\nalternative that can be suggested.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. LIX.--But according to all these four hypotheses, the truth is\non the side of the communion of the Catholic Church. For if both are\ntrue, then you certainly should not have deserted the communion of the\nwhole world on account of men such as you too had among yourselves.\nBut if both are false, you should have guarded against the guilt of\nmost accursed division, which had not even any pretext to allege of any\ndelivery of the sacred books. If ours are true and yours are false, you\nhave long been without anything to say for yourselves. If yours are\ntrue and ours are false, we have been liable to be deceived, in common\nwith the whole world, not about the truth of the faith, but about the\nunrighteousness of men. For the seed of Abraham, dispersed throughout\nthe world, was bound to pay attention, not to what you said you knew,\nbut to what you proved to the judges. Whence have we any knowledge of\nwhat was done by those men who were accused by your ancestors, even\nif the allegations made against them were true, so long as they were\nheld to be not true but false, either by the judges who took cognisance\nof the case, or at least by the general body of the Church dispersed\nthroughout the world, which was only bound to pay heed to the sentence\nof the judges? God does not necessarily pardon any human guilt that\nothers in the weakness of human judgment fail to discover; yet I\nmaintain that no one is rightly deemed guilty for having believed a man\nto be innocent who was not convicted. How then do you prove the world\nto be guilty, merely because it did not know what possibly was really\nguilt in the Africans,--its ignorance arising either from the fact that\nno one reported the sin to it, or from its having given credence, in\nrespect of the information which was given, rather to the judges who\ntook cognisance of the case, than to the murmurers who were defeated?\nSo far, then, Petilianus deserves all praise, in that, when he saw\nthat on this point I was absolutely impregnable, he passed it by in\nsilence. Yet he does not deserve praise for his attempts to obscure\nin a mist of words other points which were equally impregnable, which\nyet he thought could be obscured; or for having put me in the place of\nhis cause, when the cause left him nothing to say; while even about\nmyself he could say nothing except what was either altogether false,\nor undeserving of any blame, or without any bearing whatsoever upon\nme. But, in the meantime, are you, whom I have made judges between\nPetilianus and myself, possessed of discrimination enough to decide in\nany degree between what is true and what is false, between what is mere\nempty swelling and what is solid, between what is troubled and what is\ncalm, between inflammation and soundness, between divine predictions\nand human assumptions, between bringing an accusation and establishing\nit, between proofs and fictions, between pleading a cause and leading\none away from it? If you have such power of discrimination, well and\ngood; but if you have it not, we shall not repent of having bestowed\nour pains on you; for even though your heart be not converted unto\npeace, yet our peace shall return unto ourselves.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1029] Possidius, in the third chapter of his _Indiculus_, designates\nthis third book as \"One book against the second letter of the same.\"\n\n[1030] Ps. lii. 3.\n\n[1031] Ps. lxxxiv. 10.\n\n[1032] Nihil enim mihi conscius sum.\n\n[1033] 1 Cor. iv. 1-6.\n\n[1034] 1 Cor. iii. 21, 23.\n\n[1035] Jas. i. 17.\n\n[1036] 1 Cor. iv. 7.\n\n[1037] 1 Cor. iv. 16.\n\n[1038] Matt. xxiii. 3.\n\n[1039] Jer. xvii. 5.\n\n[1040] Matt. iii. 12.\n\n[1041] 2 Tim. ii. 20.\n\n[1042] Matt. xiii. 47, 48.\n\n[1043] Matt. xxv. 32, 33.\n\n[1044] Matt. xiii. 24-40.\n\n[1045] 1 Cor. i. 12, 13.\n\n[1046] 2 Tim. ii. 19.\n\n[1047] Ps. xxvii. 14.\n\n[1048] 1 Thess. v. 14, 15.\n\n[1049] 2 Cor. xi. 2, 3.\n\n[1050] 1 Cor. viii. 11.\n\n[1051] 1 Cor. iii. 7.\n\n[1052] 1 John iv. 16.\n\n[1053] Gal. vi. 4, 5.\n\n[1054] Rom. xiv. 12, 13.\n\n[1055] Gal. vi. 2, 3.\n\n[1056] Eph. iv. 2, 3.\n\n[1057] Matt. xii. 30.\n\n[1058] Gal. i. 8.\n\n[1059] Matt. v. 12.\n\n[1060] Cant. i. 3.\n\n[1061] Ps. lvii. 11.\n\n[1062] 1 Cor. i. 30, 31.\n\n[1063] Matt. v. 10-12.\n\n[1064] Matt. x. 25.\n\n[1065] Ps. xxvi. 1.\n\n[1066] Ps. lvi. 11.\n\n[1067] Ps. xi. 1.\n\n[1068] 1 Pet. iii. 21.\n\n[1069] Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.\n\n[1070] Some editors have \"unitate,\" but Amerbach and the MSS.,\n\"veritate;\" and this is supported by sec. 28 below: \"De ecclesi\u00e6 vel\nbaptismi veritate;\" and sec. 22 of the treatise _de Unico Baptismo_:\n\"Ambulantibus in ecclesi\u00e6 veritate.\"\n\n[1071] Ubi vobis faventibus loquatur, et victus verum simulans statum,\ntalia vel etiam sceleratiora dicat in me. Mihi sat est ad rem, etc.\nMorel (_Elem. Crit._ pp. 326-328) suggests as an improvement, \"Ubi\nvobis faventibus loquatur et victus. Verum si millies tantum talia vel\netiam sceleratiora dicat in me, mihi sat est,\" etc.,--\"on which he may\nspeak amidst applause from you, even when beaten. But if he were to\nmake a thousand times as many statements concerning me,\" etc.\n\n[1072] Eph. vi. 12.\n\n[1073] Eph. v. 8.\n\n[1074] 2 Cor. vi. 7, 8.\n\n[1075] Luke vi. 35.\n\n[1076] Luke xxiii. 34.\n\n[1077] See above, Book I. c. i. sec. 2.\n\n[1078] Acts xxiv. 1.\n\n[1079] Paracleti.\n\n[1080] \"Favente,\" which is wanting in the MSS., was inserted in the\nmargin by Erasmus, as being needed to complete the sense.\n\n[1081] Megalius, bishop of Calama, primate of Numidia, was the\nbishop who ordained Augustine, as we find in c. viii. of his life by\nPossidius. Augustine makes further reply to the same calumny, which was\ngathered from a letter of Megalius, in Contra _Cresconium_, Book III.\nc. lxxx. sec. 92, and Book IV. c. lxiv. secs. 78, 79.\n\n[1082] Lente, ut dicitur, et bene. Morel (_Element. Crit._ pp. 140,\n141) suggests as an amendment, \"lene,\" as suiting better with \"lente.\"\n\n[1083] See Book I. c. i. secs. 2, 3.\n\n[1084] Lactantius, Book V. c. xiv., tells us of the talents of\nCarneades, recording that when he was sent on an embassy to Rome by\nthe Athenians, he spoke there first in defence of justice, and then on\nthe following day in opposition to it; and that he was in the habit of\nspeaking with such force on either side, as to be able to refute any\narguments advanced by anybody else.\n\n[1085] Ter. _Heaut._ IV. iii. 41.\n\n[1086] In _de Civ. Dei_, Book II. c. xxi., Augustine mentions L. Furius\nPhilus, one of the interlocutors in Cicero's _Laelus_, as maintaining\nthis same view. From the similarity of the name, it has been thought\nthat here Furius and Pilus are only one man.\n\n[1087] The MSS. here and below have Protagoras. Both were atheists,\naccording to Cicero, _Nat. Deor._ I. i. 2, and Lactantius, Book I. c. i.\n\n[1088] Ps. xiv. 1.\n\n[1089] See Book I. c. ii. sec. 3.\n\n[1090] See Book I. c. ii. sec. 3.\n\n[1091] Jer. xvii. 5.\n\n[1092] 1 Cor. iii. 21.\n\n[1093] Ps. lxii. 1, 2.\n\n[1094] John i. 22.\n\n[1095] Matt. iii. 7.\n\n[1096] Wisd. i. 5.\n\n[1097] 1 Tim. iii. 10.\n\n[1098] Book I. c. ii. sec. 2.\n\n[1099] Wisd. i. 5.\n\n[1100] The Council of Carthage, held on 13th September 401, passed a\ndecree in favour of receiving the clergy of the Donatists with full\nrecognition of their orders.\n\n[1101] Acts viii. 36.\n\n[1102] Jer. xv. 18. See Book II. c. cii. sec. 234, 235.\n\n[1103] Rev. xvii. 15.\n\n[1104] Ps. cxli. 5. See Book II. c. ciii. sec. 236, 237.\n\n[1105] 1 John iv. 1.\n\n[1106] Matt. xvi. 16.\n\n[1107] Matt. viii. 29; Mark i. 24; Luke viii. 28.\n\n[1108] Wisd. i. 5.\n\n[1109] See Book I. c. x. sec. 11, 12.\n\n[1110] 1 Cor. iii. 21, and i. 31.\n\n[1111] Rom. iv. 5.\n\n[1112] That of Bagai.\n\n[1113] Gal. vi. 5.\n\n[1114] See Possidius' _Life of St. Augustine_, cc. v.-xi.\n\n[1115] See c. xlv. sec. 54.\n\n[1116] Rom. iv. 5.\n\n[1117] 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.\n\n[1118] John xv. 5.\n\n[1119] Rom. xii. 5.\n\n[1120] Book I. c. v. secs. 6, 7.\n\n[1121] Book I. c. vi. secs. 6, 7.\n\n[1122] Matt. vii. 17, 16.\n\n[1123] Matt. xii. 35.\n\n[1124] See Book I. cc. vii. viii. secs. 8, 9.\n\n[1125] 1 Cor. xv. 13-15.\n\n[1126] See Book I. c. vi. sec. 7.\n\n[1127] See Book I. c. viii. sec. 9.\n\n[1128] Rom. ix. 5.\n\n[1129] Acts v. 3, 4.\n\n[1130] Matt. xxii. 30.\n\n[1131] Rom. iv. 5.\n\n[1132] John i. 33.\n\n[1133] Eph. v. 25, 26.\n\n[1134] Jer. xvii. 5.\n\n[1135] Ps. xl. 4.\n\n[1136] Matt. xxiii. 3.\n\n[1137] Matt. x. 23.\n\n[1138] Matt. vii. 17, 16.\n\n[1139] Matt. xii. 35.\n\n[1140] Ecclus. xxxiv. 25. See Book I. c. ix. sec. 10.\n\n[1141] Ps. cxviii. 8.\n\n[1142] Jer. xvii. 5.\n\n[1143] Ps. iii. 8.\n\n[1144] Ps. lx. 11.\n\n[1145] 1 Cor. iii. 7.\n\n[1146] Rom. iv. 5.\n\n[1147] Ps. lxxii. 8.\n\n[1148] Ps. ii. 8.\n\n[1149] Gen. xxii. 18.\n\n[1150] Gal. iii. 16.\n\n[1151] Matt. xxiii. 3.\n\n[1152] 1 Cor. i. 13.\n\n[1153] See Book I. cc. iii. iv. secs. 4, 5.\n\n[1154] 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.\n\n[1155] Gal. vi. 3.\n\n[1156] Ministri ejus cui credidistis. See 1 Cor. iii. 4, 5.\n\n[1157] Acts xv. 9.\n\n[1158] Rom. iv. 5.\n\n[1159] 1 Cor. ix. 17.\n\n[1160] John iv. 2.\n\n[1161] John xii. 6.\n\n[1162] 1 Cor. i. 17.\n\n[1163] 1 Cor. iv. 15.\n\n[1164] 1 Cor. i. 14.\n\n[1165] John iii. 5.\n\n[1166] Matt. v. 20.\n\n[1167] 2 Tim. ii. 8.\n\n[1168] Acts xix. 3.\n\n[1169] Eph. v. 25, 26.\n\n[1170] See Book III. _c. Cresconium_, cc. xxvii. xxviii. secs. 30, 32.\n\n[1171] Matt. vii. 15, 16.\n\n[1172] See Book I. cc. xxi. xxii. secs. 23, 24.\n\n\n\n\n A TREATISE\n CONCERNING\n THE CORRECTION OF THE DONATISTS;\n FORMING EPISTLE 185 IN MIGNE'S EDITION OF AUGUSTINE'S\n WORKS.\n\n A LETTER OF AUGUSTINE[1173] TO BONIFACE, WHO, AS WE LEARN FROM EPISTLE\n 220, WAS TRIBUNE, AND AFTERWARDS COUNT IN AFRICA. IN IT AUGUSTINE\n SHOWS THAT THE HERESY OF THE DONATISTS HAS NOTHING IN COMMON WITH THAT\n OF ARIUS; AND POINTS OUT THE MODERATION WITH WHICH IT WAS POSSIBLE TO\n RECALL THE HERETICS TO THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH THROUGH AWE OF THE\n IMPERIAL LAWS. HE ADDS REMARKS CONCERNING THE SAVAGE CONDUCT OF THE\n DONATISTS AND CIRCUMCELLIONES, CONCLUDING WITH A DISCUSSION OF THE\n UNPARDONABLE NATURE OF THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST.\n\n\nCHAP. I.--1. I must express my satisfaction, and congratulations, and\nadmiration, my son Boniface, in that, amid all the cares of wars and\narms, you are eagerly anxious to know concerning the things that are\nof God. From hence it is clear that in you it is actually a part of\nyour military valour to serve in truth the faith which is in Christ.\nTo place, therefore, briefly before your Grace the difference between\nthe errors of the Arians and the Donatists, the Arians say that\nthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are different in substance;\nwhereas the Donatists do not say this, but acknowledge the unity of\nsubstance in the Trinity. And if some even of them have said that the\nSon was inferior to the Father, yet they have not denied that He is\nof the same substance; whilst the greater part of them declare that\nthey hold entirely the same belief regarding the Father and the Son\nand the Holy Ghost as is held by the Catholic Church. Nor is this the\nactual question in dispute with them; but they carry on their unhappy\nstrife solely on the question of communion, and in the perversity of\ntheir error maintain rebellious hostility against the unity of Christ.\nBut sometimes, as we have heard, some of them, wishing to conciliate\nthe Goths, since they see that they are not without a certain amount\nof power, profess to entertain the same belief as they. But they are\nrefuted by the authority of their own leaders; for Donatus himself, of\nwhose party they boast themselves to be, is never said to have held\nthis belief.\n\n2. Let not, however, things like these disturb thee, my beloved\nson. For it is foretold to us that there must needs be heresies and\nstumbling-blocks, that we may be instructed among our enemies; and\nthat so both our faith and our love may be the more approved,--our\nfaith, namely, that we should not be deceived by them; and our love,\nthat we should take the utmost pains we can to correct the erring ones\nthemselves; not only watching that they should do no injury to the\nweak, and that they should be delivered from their wicked error, but\nalso praying for them, that God would open their understanding, and\nthat they might comprehend the Scriptures. For in the sacred books,\nwhere the Lord Christ is made manifest, there is also His Church\ndeclared; but they, with wondrous blindness, whilst they would know\nnothing of Christ Himself save what is revealed in the Scriptures, yet\nform their notion of His Church from the vanity of human falsehood,\ninstead of learning what it is on the authority of the sacred books.\n\n3. They recognise Christ together with us in that which is written,\n\"They pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they\nlook and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast\nlots upon my vesture;\" and yet they refuse to recognise the Church in\nthat which follows shortly after: \"All the ends of the world shall\nremember, and turn unto the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations\nshall worship before Thee. For the kingdom is the Lord's; and He is the\nGovernor among the nations.\"[1174] They recognise Christ together with\nus in that which is written, \"The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my\nSon, this day have I begotten Thee;\" and they will not recognise the\nChurch in that which follows: \"Ask of me, and I shall give Thee the\nheathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for\nThy possession.\"[1175] They recognise Christ together with us in that\nwhich the Lord Himself says in the gospel, \"Thus it behoved Christ to\nsuffer, and to rise from the dead the third day;\" and they will not\nrecognise the Church in that which follows: \"And that repentance and\nremission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations,\nbeginning at Jerusalem.\"[1176] And the testimonies in the sacred books\nare without number, all of which it has not been necessary for me to\ncrowd together into this book. And in all of them, as the Lord Christ\nis made manifest, whether in accordance with His Godhead, in which\nHe is equal to the Father, so that, \"In the beginning was the Word,\nand the Word was with God, and the Word was God;\" or according to the\nhumility of the flesh which He took upon Him, whereby \"the Word was\nmade flesh, and dwelt among us;\"[1177] so is His Church made manifest,\nnot in Africa alone, as they most impudently venture in the madness of\ntheir vanity to assert, but spread abroad throughout the world.\n\n4. For they prefer to the testimonies of Holy Writ their own\ncontentions, because, in the case of C\u00e6cilianus, formerly a bishop\nof the Church of Carthage, against whom they brought charges which\nthey were and are unable to substantiate, they separated themselves\nfrom the Catholic Church,--that is, from the unity of all nations.\nAlthough, even if the charges had been true which were brought by them\nagainst C\u00e6cilianus, and could at length be proved to us, yet, though\nwe might pronounce an anathema upon him even in the grave,[1178] we\nare still bound not for the sake of any man to leave the Church, which\nrests for its foundation on divine witness, and is not the figment of\nlitigious opinions, seeing that it is better to trust in the Lord than\nto put confidence in man.[1179] For we cannot allow that if C\u00e6cilianus\nhad erred,--a supposition which I make without prejudice to his\nintegrity,--Christ should therefore have forfeited His inheritance. It\nis easy for a man to believe of his fellow-men either what is true or\nwhat is false; but it marks abandoned impudence to desire to condemn\nthe communion of the whole world on account of charges alleged against\na man, of which you cannot establish the truth in the face of the world.\n\n5. Whether C\u00e6cilianus was ordained by men who had delivered up the\nsacred books, I do not know. I did not see it, I heard it only from\nhis enemies. It is not declared to me in the law of God, or in the\nutterances of the prophets, or in the holy poetry of the Psalms, or\nin the writings of any one of Christ's apostles, or in the eloquence\nof Christ Himself. But the evidence of all the several scriptures\nwith one accord proclaims the Church spread abroad throughout the\nworld, with which the faction of Donatus does not hold communion. The\nlaw of God declared, \"In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth\nbe blessed.\"[1180] The Lord said by the mouth of His prophet, \"From\nthe rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name\nshall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be\noffered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great\namong the heathen.\"[1181] The Lord said through the Psalmist, \"He shall\nhave dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends\nof the earth.\"[1182] The Lord said by His apostle, \"The gospel is come\nunto you, as it is in all the world, and bringeth forth fruit.\"[1183]\nThe Son of God said with His own mouth, \"Ye shall be witnesses unto\nme, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto\nthe uttermost part of the earth.\"[1184] C\u00e6cilianus, the bishop of the\nChurch of Carthage, is accused with the contentiousness of men; the\nChurch of Christ, established among all nations, is recommended by\nthe voice of God. Mere piety, truth, and love forbid us to receive\nagainst C\u00e6cilianus the testimony of men whom we do not find in the\nChurch, which has the testimony of God; for those who do not follow the\ntestimony of God have forfeited the weight which otherwise would attach\nto their testimony as men.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. II.--6. I would add, moreover, that they themselves, by making it\nthe subject of an accusation, referred the case of C\u00e6cilianus to the\ndecision of the Emperor Constantine; and that, even after the bishops\nhad pronounced their judgment,[1185] finding that they could not crush\nC\u00e6cilianus, they brought him in person before the above-named emperor\nfor trial, in the most determined spirit of persecution. And so they\nwere themselves the first to do what they censure in us, in order that\nthey may deceive the unlearned, saying that Christians ought not to\ndemand any assistance from Christian emperors against the enemies of\nChrist. And this, too, they did not dare to deny in the conference\nwhich we held at the same time in Carthage: nay, they even venture to\nmake it a matter of boasting that their fathers had laid a criminal\nindictment against C\u00e6cilianus before the emperor; adding furthermore a\nlie, to the effect that they had there worsted him, and procured his\ncondemnation. How then can they be otherwise than persecutors, seeing\nthat when they persecuted C\u00e6cilianus by their accusations, and were\novercome by him, they sought to claim false glory for themselves by a\nmost shameless lie; not only considering it no reproach, but glorying\nin it as conducive to their praise, if they could prove that C\u00e6cilianus\nhad been condemned on the accusation of their fathers? But in regard to\nthe manner in which they were overcome at every turn in the conference\nitself, seeing that the records are exceedingly voluminous, and it\nwould be a serious matter to have them read to you while you are\noccupied in other matters that are essential to the peace of Rome,\nperhaps it may be possible to have a digest[1186] of them read to you,\nwhich I believe to be in the possession of my brother and fellow-bishop\nOptatus; or if he has not a copy, he might easily procure one from the\nchurch at Sitifa; for I can well believe that even that volume will\nprove wearisome enough to you from its lengthiness, amid the burden of\nyour many cares.\n\n7. For the Donatists met with the same fate as the accusers of the holy\nDaniel.[1187] For as the lions were turned against them, so the laws\nby which they had proposed to crush an innocent victim were turned\nagainst the Donatists; save that, through the mercy of Christ, the\nlaws which seemed to be opposed to them are in reality their truest\nfriends; for through their operation many of them have been, and are\ndaily being reformed, and return God thanks that they are reformed,\nand delivered from their ruinous madness. And those who used to hate\nare now filled with love; and now that they have recovered their right\nminds, they congratulate themselves that these most wholesome laws\nwere brought to bear against them, with as much fervency as in their\nmadness they detested them; and are filled with the same spirit of\nardent love towards those who yet remain as ourselves, desiring that\nwe should strive in like manner that those with whom they had been\nlike to perish might be saved. For both the physician is irksome to\nthe raging madman, and a father to his undisciplined son,--the former\nbecause of the restraint, the latter because of the chastisement which\nhe inflicts; yet both are acting in love. But if they were to neglect\ntheir charge, and allow them to perish, this mistaken kindness would\nmore truly be accounted cruelty. For if the horse and mule, which have\nno understanding, resist with all the force of bites and kicks the\nefforts of the men who treat their wounds in order to cure them; and\nyet the men, though they are often exposed to danger from their teeth\nand heels, and sometimes meet with actual hurt, nevertheless do not\ndesert them till they restore them to health through the pain and\nannoyance which the healing process gives,--how much more should man\nrefuse to desert his fellow-man, or brother to desert his brother, lest\nhe should perish everlastingly, being himself now able to comprehend\nthe vastness of the boon accorded to himself in his reformation, at the\nvery time that he complained of suffering persecution?\n\n8. As then the apostle says, \"As we have therefore opportunity, let\nus do good unto all men, not being weary in well-doing,\"[1188] so\nlet all be called to salvation, let all be recalled from the path of\ndestruction,--those who may, by the sermons of Catholic preachers;\nthose who may, by the edicts of Catholic princes; some through\nthose who obey the warnings of God, some through those who obey the\nemperor's commands. For, moreover, when emperors enact bad laws on\nthe side of falsehood as against the truth, those who hold a right\nfaith are approved, and, if they persevere, are crowned; but when the\nemperors enact good laws on behalf of the truth against falsehood,\nthen those who rage against them are put in fear, and those who\nunderstand are reformed. Whosoever, therefore, refuses to obey the\nlaws of the emperors which are enacted against the truth of God, wins\nfor himself a great reward; but whosoever refuses to obey the laws of\nthe emperors which are enacted in behalf of truth, wins for himself\ngreat condemnation. For in the times, too, of the prophets, the kings\nwho, in dealing with the people of God, did not prohibit nor annul the\nordinances which were issued contrary to God's commands, are all of\nthem censured; and those who did prohibit and annul them are praised\nas deserving more than other men. And king Nebuchadnezzar, when he was\na servant of idols, enacted an impious law that a certain idol should\nbe worshipped; but those who refused to obey his impious command acted\npiously and faithfully. And the very same king, when converted by a\nmiracle from God, enacted a pious and praiseworthy law on behalf of the\ntruth, that every one who should speak anything amiss against the true\nGod, the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, should perish utterly,\nwith all his house.[1189] If any persons disobeyed this law, and\njustly suffered the penalty imposed, they might have said what these\nmen say, that they were righteous, because they suffered persecution\nthrough the law enacted by the king: and this they certainly would have\nsaid, had they been as mad as these who make divisions between the\nmembers of Christ, and spurn the sacraments of Christ, and take credit\nfor being persecuted, because they are prevented from doing such things\nby the laws which the emperors have passed to preserve the unity of\nChrist; and boast falsely of their innocence, and seek from men the\nglory of martyrdom, which they cannot receive from our Lord.\n\n9. But true martyrs are such as those of whom the Lord says, \"Blessed\nare they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake.\"[1190] It is\nnot, therefore, those who suffer persecution for their unrighteousness,\nand for the divisions which they impiously introduce into Christian\nunity, but those who suffer for righteousness' sake, that are\ntruly martyrs. For Hagar also suffered persecution at the hands of\nSarah;[1191] and in that case she who persecuted was righteous, and\nshe unrighteous who suffered persecution. Are we to compare with this\npersecution which Hagar suffered the case of holy David, who was\npersecuted by unrighteous Saul?[1192] Surely there is an essential\ndifference, not in respect of his suffering, but because he suffered\nfor righteousness' sake. And the Lord Himself was crucified with two\nthieves;[1193] but those who were joined in their suffering were\nseparated by the difference of its cause. Accordingly, in the psalm, we\nmust interpret of the true martyrs, who wish to be distinguished from\nfalse martyrs, the verse in which it is said, \"Judge me, O Lord, and\ndistinguish[1194] my cause from an ungodly nation.\"[1195] He does not\nsay, Distinguish my punishment, but \"Distinguish my cause.\" For the\npunishment of the impious may be the same; but the cause of the martyrs\nis always different. To whose mouth also the words are suitable, \"They\npersecute me wrongfully; help Thou me;\"[1196] in which the Psalmist\nclaimed to have a right to be helped in righteousness, because his\nadversaries persecuted him wrongfully; for if they had been right in\npersecuting him, he would have deserved not help, but correction.\n\n10. But if they think that no one can be justified in using\nviolence,--as they said in the course of the conference that the true\nChurch must necessarily be the one which suffers persecution, not the\none inflicting it,--in that case I no longer urge what I observed\nabove; because, if the matter stand as they maintain that it does, then\nC\u00e6cilianus must have belonged to the true Church, seeing that their\nfathers persecuted him, by pressing his accusation even to the tribunal\nof the emperor himself. For we maintain that he belonged to the true\nChurch, not merely because he suffered persecution, but because he\nsuffered it for righteousness' sake; but that they were alienated from\nthe Church, not merely because they persecuted, but because they did\nso in unrighteousness. This, then, is our position. But if they make\nno inquiry into the causes for which each person inflicts persecution,\nor for which he suffers it, but think that it is a sufficient sign of\na true Christian that he does not inflict persecution, but suffers it,\nthen beyond all question they include C\u00e6cilianus in that definition,\nwho did not inflict, but suffered persecution; and they equally exclude\ntheir own fathers from the definition, for they inflicted, but did not\nsuffer it.\n\n11. But this, I say, I forbear to urge. Yet one point I must press: If\nthe true Church is the one which actually suffers persecution, not the\none which inflicts it, let them ask the apostle of what Church Sarah\nwas a type, when she inflicted persecution on her handmaid. For he\ndeclares that the free mother of us all, the heavenly Jerusalem, that\nis to say, the true Church of God, was prefigured in that woman who\ncruelly entreated her handmaid.[1197] But if we investigate the story\nfurther, we shall find that the handmaid rather persecuted Sarah by her\nhaughtiness, than Sarah the handmaid by her severity: for the handmaid\nwas doing wrong to her mistress; the mistress only imposed on her a\nproper discipline in her haughtiness. Again I ask, if good and holy\nmen never inflict persecution upon any one, but only suffer it, whose\nwords they think that those are in the psalm where we read, \"I have\npursued mine enemies, and overtaken them; neither did I turn again till\nthey were consumed.\"[1198] If, therefore, we wish either to declare\nor to recognise the truth, there is a persecution of unrighteousness,\nwhich the impious inflict upon the Church of Christ; and there is\na righteous persecution, which the Church of Christ inflicts upon\nthe impious. She therefore is blessed in suffering persecution for\nrighteousness' sake; but they are miserable, suffering persecution\nfor unrighteousness. Moreover, she persecutes in the spirit of love,\nthey in the spirit of wrath; she that she may correct, they that they\nmay overthrow; she that she may recall from error, they that they may\ndrive headlong into error. Finally, she persecutes her enemies and\narrests them, until they become weary in their vain opinions, so that\nthey should make advance in the truth; but they, returning evil for\ngood, because we take measures for their good, to secure their eternal\nsalvation, endeavour even to strip us of our temporal safety, being\nso in love with murder, that they commit it on their own persons,\nwhen they cannot find victims in any others. For in proportion as\nthe Christian charity of the Church endeavours to deliver them from\nthat destruction, so that none of them should die, so their madness\nendeavours either to slay us, that they may feed the lust of their own\ncruelty, or even to kill themselves, that they may not seem to have\nlost the power of putting men to death.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. III.--12. But those who are unacquainted with their habits\nthink that they only kill themselves now that all the mass of the\npeople are freed from the fearful madness of their usurped dominion,\nin virtue of the laws which have been passed for the preservation\nof unity. But those who know what they were accustomed to do before\nthe passing of the laws, do not wonder at their deaths, but call to\nmind their character; and especially how vast crowds of them used to\ncome in procession to the most frequented ceremonies of the pagans,\nwhile the worship of idols still continued,--not with the view of\nbreaking the idols, but that they might be put to death by those who\nworshipped them. For if they had sought to break the idols under the\nsanction of legitimate authority, they might, in case of anything\nhappening to them, have had some shadow of a claim to be considered\nmartyrs; but their only object in coming was, that while the idols\nremained uninjured, they themselves might meet with death. For it was\nthe general custom of the strongest youths among the worshippers of\nidols, for each of them to offer in sacrifice to the idols themselves\nany victims that he might have slain. Some went so far as to offer\nthemselves for slaughter to any travellers whom they met with arms,\nusing violent threats that they would murder them if they failed to\nmeet with death at their hands. Sometimes, too, they extorted with\nviolence from any passing judge that they should be put to death by\nthe executioners, or by the officer of his court. And hence we have\na story, that a certain judge played a trick upon them, by ordering\nthem to be bound and led away, as though for execution, and so escaped\ntheir violence, without injury to himself or them. Again, it was their\ndaily sport to kill themselves, by throwing themselves over precipices,\nor into the water, or into the fire. For the devil taught them these\nthree modes of suicide, so that, when they wished to die, and could not\nfind any one whom they could terrify into slaying them with his sword,\nthey threw themselves over the rocks, or committed themselves to the\nfire or the eddying pool. But who can be thought to have taught them\nthis, having gained possession of their hearts, but he who actually\nsuggested to our Saviour Himself, as a duty sanctioned by the law,\nthat He should throw Himself down from a pinnacle of the temple?[1199]\nAnd his suggestion they would surely have thrust far from them, had\nthey carried Christ, as their Master, in their hearts. But since they\nhave rather given place within them to the devil, they either perish\nlike the herd of swine, whom the legion of devils drove down from the\nhill-side into the sea,[1200] or, being rescued from that destruction,\nand gathered together in the loving bosom of our Catholic mother\nChurch, they are delivered, brought to be healed of the devil, saying\nthat ofttimes he was wont to fall into the fire, and oft into the\nwater.[1201]\n\n13. Whence it appears that great mercy is shown towards them, when by\nthe force of those very imperial laws they are in the first instance\nrescued against their will from that sect in which, through the\nteaching of lying devils, they learned those evil doctrines, so that\nafterwards they might be made whole in the Catholic Church, becoming\naccustomed to the good teaching and example which they find in it. For\nmany of the men whom we now admire in the unity of Christ, for the\npious fervour of their faith, and for their charity, give thanks to God\nwith great joy that they are no longer in that error which led them to\nmistake those evil things for good,--which thanks they would not now be\noffering willingly, had they not first, even against their will, been\nsevered from that impious association. And what are we to say of those\nwho confess to us, as some do every day, that even in the olden days\nthey had long been wishing to be Catholics; but they were living among\nmen among whom those who wished to be Catholics could not be so through\nthe infirmity of fear, seeing that if any one there said a single\nword in favour of the Catholic Church, he and his house were utterly\ndestroyed at once? Who is mad enough to deny that it was right that\nassistance should have been given through the imperial decrees, that\nthey might be delivered from so great an evil, whilst those whom they\nused to fear are compelled in turn to fear, and are either themselves\ncorrected through the same terror, or, at any rate, whilst they pretend\nto be corrected, they abstain from further persecution of those who\nreally are, to whom they formerly were objects of continual dread?\n\n14. But if they have chosen to destroy themselves, in order to prevent\nthe deliverance of those who had a right to be delivered, and have\nsought in this way to alarm the pious hearts of the deliverers, so\nthat in their apprehension that some few abandoned men might perish,\nthey should allow others to lose the opportunity of deliverance from\ndestruction, who were either already unwilling to perish, or might have\nbeen saved from it by the employment of compulsion; what is in this\ncase the function of Christian charity, especially when we consider\nthat those who utter threats of their own violent and voluntary\ndeaths are very few in number in comparison with the nations that are\nto be delivered? What then is the function of brotherly love? Does\nit, because it fears the shortlived fires of the furnace for a few,\ntherefore abandon all to the eternal fires of hell? and does it leave\nso many, who are either already desirous, or hereafter are not strong\nenough to pass to life eternal, to perish everlastingly, while taking\nprecautions that some few should not perish by their own hand, who are\nonly living to be a hindrance in the way of the salvation of others,\nwhom they will not permit to live in accordance with the doctrines of\nChrist, in the hopes that some day or other they may teach them too to\nhasten their death by their own hand, in the manner which now causes\nthem themselves to be a terror to their neighbours, in accordance with\nthe custom inculcated by their devilish tenets? or does it rather save\nall whom it can, even though those whom it cannot save should perish in\ntheir own infatuation? For it ardently desires that all should live,\nbut it more especially labours that not all should die. But thanks be\nto the Lord, that both amongst us--not indeed everywhere, but in the\ngreat majority of places--and also in the other parts of Africa, the\npeace of the Catholic Church both has gained and is gaining ground,\nwithout any of these madmen being killed. But those deplorable deeds\nare done in places where there is an utterly furious and useless set of\nmen, who were given to such deeds even in the days of old.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IV.--15. And indeed, before those laws were put in force by\nthe emperors of the Catholic faith, the doctrine of the peace and\nunity of Christ was beginning by degrees to gain ground, and men were\ncoming over to it even from the faction of Donatus, in proportion as\neach learned more, and became more willing, and more master of his\nown actions; although, at the same time, among the Donatists herds of\nabandoned men were disturbing the peace of the innocent for one reason\nor another in the spirit of the most reckless madness. What master was\nthere who was not compelled to live in dread of his own servant, if\nhe had put himself under the guardianship of the Donatists? Who dared\neven threaten one who sought his ruin with punishment? Who dared to\nexact payment of a debt from one who consumed his stores, or from any\ndebtor whatsoever, that sought their assistance or protection? Under\nthe threat of beating, and burning, and immediate death, all documents\ncompromising the worst of slaves were destroyed, that they might depart\nin freedom. Notes of hand that had been extracted from debtors were\nreturned to them. Any one who had shown a contempt for their hard words\nwere compelled by harder blows to do what they desired. The houses of\ninnocent persons who had offended them were either razed to the ground\nor burned. Certain heads of families of honourable parentage, and\nbrought up with a good education, were carried away half dead after\ntheir deeds of violence, or bound to the mill, and compelled by blows\nto turn it round, after the fashion of the meanest beasts of burden.\nFor what assistance from the laws rendered by the civil powers was ever\nof any avail against them? What official ever ventured so much as to\nbreathe in their presence? What agents ever exacted payment of a debt\nwhich they had been unwilling to discharge? Who ever endeavoured to\navenge those who were put to death in their massacres? Except, indeed,\nthat their own madness took revenge on them, when some, by provoking\nagainst themselves the swords of men, whom they obliged to kill them\nunder fear of instant death, others by throwing themselves over sundry\nprecipices, others by water, others by fire, gave themselves over on\nthe several occasions to a voluntary death, and gave up their lives as\nofferings to the dead by punishments inflicted with their own hands\nupon themselves.\n\n16. These deeds were looked upon with horror by many who were firmly\nrooted in the same superstitious heresy; and accordingly, when they\nsupposed that it was sufficient to establish their innocence that they\nwere ill contented with such conduct, it was urged against them by the\nCatholics: If these evil deeds do not pollute your innocence, how then\ndo you maintain that the whole Christian world has been polluted by\nthe alleged sins of C\u00e6cilianus, which are either altogether calumnies,\nor at least not proved against him? How come you, by a deed of gross\nimpiety, to separate yourselves from the unity of the Catholic Church,\nas from the threshing-floor of the Lord, which must needs contain, up\nto the time of the final winnowing, both corn which is to be stored in\nthe garner, and chaff that is to be burned up with fire?[1202] And thus\nsome were so convinced by argument as to come over to the unity of the\nCatholic Church, being prepared even to meet the hostility of abandoned\nmen; whilst the greater number, though equally convinced, and though\ndesirous to do the same, yet dared not make enemies of these men, who\nwere so unbridled in their violence, seeing that some who had come over\nto us experienced the greatest cruelty at their hands.\n\n17. To this we may add, that in Carthage itself some of the bishops\nof the same party, making a schism among themselves, and dividing the\nparty of Donatus among the lower orders of the Carthaginian people,\nordained as bishop against bishop a certain deacon named Maximianus,\nwho could not brook the control of his own diocesan. And as this\ndispleased the greater part of them, they condemned the aforesaid\nMaximianus, with twelve others who had been present at his ordination,\nbut gave the rest that were associated in the same schism a chance of\nreturning to their communion on an appointed day. But afterwards some\nof these twelve, and certain others of those who had had the time of\ngrace allowed to them, but had only returned after the day appointed,\nwere received by them without degradation from their orders; and they\ndid not venture to baptize a second time those whom the condemned\nministers had baptized outside the pale of their communion. This\naction of theirs at once made strongly against them on the side of the\nCatholic party, so that their mouths were wholly closed. And on the\nmatter being diligently spread abroad, as was only right, in order\nto cure men's souls of the evils of schism, and when it was shown in\nevery possible direction by the sermons and discussions of the Catholic\ndivines, that to maintain the peace of Donatus they had not only\nreceived back those whom they had condemned, with full recognition of\ntheir orders, but had even been afraid to declare that baptism to be\nvoid which had been administered outside their Church by men whom they\nhad condemned or even suspended; whilst, in violation of the peace of\nChrist, they cast in the teeth of all the world the stain conveyed by\ncontact with some sinners, it matters little with whom, and declared\nbaptism to be consequently void which had been administered even in\nthe very Churches whence the gospel itself had come to Africa;--seeing\nall this, very many began to be confounded, and blushing before what\nthey saw to be mostly manifest truth, they submitted to correction in\ngreater numbers than was their wont; and men began to breathe with\na somewhat freer sense of liberty from their cruelty, and that to a\nconsiderably greater extent in every direction.\n\n18. Then indeed they blazed forth with such fury, and were so\nexcited by the goadings of hatred, that scarcely any churches of our\ncommunion could be safe against their treachery and violence and most\nundisguised robberies; scarcely any road secure by which men could\ntravel to preach the peace of the Catholic Church in opposition to\ntheir madness, and convict the rashness of their folly by the clear\nenunciation of the truth. They went so far, besides, in proposing\nhard terms of reconciliation, not only to the laity or to any of the\nclergy, but even in a measure to certain of the Catholic bishops.\nFor the only alternative offered was to hold their tongues about the\ntruth, or to endure their savage fury. But if they did not speak about\nthe truth, not only was it impossible for any one to be delivered\nby their silence, but many were even sure to be destroyed by their\nsubmitting to be led astray; while if, by their preaching the truth,\nthe rage of the Donatists was again provoked to vent its madness,\nthough some would be delivered, and those who were already on our side\nwould be strengthened, yet the weak would again be deterred by fear\nfrom following the truth. When the Church, therefore, was reduced to\nthese straits in its affliction, any one who thinks that anything was\nto be endured, rather than that the assistance of God, to be rendered\nthrough the agency of Christian emperors, should be sought, does not\nsufficiently observe that no good account could possibly be rendered\nfor neglect of this precaution.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. V.--19. But as to the argument of those men who are unwilling\nthat their impious deeds should be checked by the enactment of\nrighteous laws, when they say that the apostles never sought such\nmeasures from the kings of the earth, they do not consider the\ndifferent character of that age, and that everything comes in its\nown season. For what emperor had as yet believed in Christ, so as to\nserve Him in the cause of piety by enacting laws against impiety, when\nas yet the declaration of the prophet was only in the course of its\nfulfilment, \"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain\nthing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and their rulers take\ncounsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed;\" and\nthere was as yet no sign of that which is spoken a little later in\nthe same psalm: \"Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed,\nye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with\ntrembling.\"[1203] How then are kings to serve the Lord with fear,\nexcept by preventing and chastising with religious severity all those\nacts which are done in opposition to the commandments of the Lord? For\na man serves God in one way in that he is man, in another way in that\nhe is also king. In that he is man, he serves Him by living faithfully,\nbut in that he is also king, he serves Him by enforcing with suitable\nrigour such laws as ordain what is righteous, and punish what is the\nreverse. Even as Hezekiah served Him, by destroying the groves and\nthe temples of the idols, and the high places which had been built in\nviolation of the commandments of God;[1204] or even as Josiah served\nHim, by doing the same things in his turn;[1205] or as the king of the\nNinevites served Him, by compelling all the men of his city to make\nsatisfaction to the Lord;[1206] or as Darius served Him, by giving the\nidol into the power of Daniel to be broken, and by casting his enemies\ninto the den of lions;[1207] or as Nebuchadnezzar served Him, of whom\nI have spoken before, by issuing a terrible law to prevent any of his\nsubjects from blaspheming God.[1208] In this way, therefore, kings can\nserve the Lord, even in so far as they are kings, when they do in His\nservice what they could not do were they not kings.\n\n20. Seeing, then, that the kings of the earth were not yet serving the\nLord in the time of the apostles, but were still imagining vain things\nagainst the Lord and against His Anointed, that all might be fulfilled\nwhich was spoken by the prophets, it must be granted that at that time\nacts of impiety could not possibly be prevented by the laws, but were\nrather performed under their sanction. For the order of events was\nthen so rolling on, that even the Jews were killing those who preached\nChrist, thinking that they did God service in so doing, just as Christ\nhad foretold,[1209] and the heathen were raging against the Christians,\nand the patience of the martyrs was overcoming them all. But so soon as\nthe fulfilment began of what is written in a later psalm, \"All kings\nshall fall down before Him; all nations shall serve Him,\"[1210] what\nsober-minded man could say to the kings, \"Let not any thought trouble\nyou within your kingdom as to who restrains or attacks the Church of\nyour Lord; deem it not a matter in which you should be concerned, which\nof your subjects may choose to be religious or sacrilegious,\" seeing\nthat you cannot say to them, \"Deem it no concern of yours which of your\nsubjects may choose to be chaste, or which unchaste?\" For why, when\nfree-will is given by God to man, should adulteries be punished by the\nlaws, and sacrilege allowed? Is it a lighter matter that a soul should\nnot keep faith with God, than that a woman should be faithless to her\nhusband? Or if those faults which are committed not in contempt but in\nignorance of religious truth are to be visited with lighter punishment,\nare they therefore to be neglected altogether?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VI.--21. It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that\nmen should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be\ndriven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that\nbecause the former course produces the better men, therefore those who\ndo not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage\n(as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in\nbeing first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards\nbe influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had\nalready learned in word. Some, indeed, set before us the sentiments of\na certain secular author, who said,\n\n \"'Tis well, I ween, by shame the young to train,\n And dread of meanness, rather than by pain.\"[1211]\n\nThis is unquestionably true. But whilst those are better who are guided\naright by love, those are certainly more numerous who are corrected by\nfear. For, to answer these persons out of their own author, we find him\nsaying in another place,\n\n \"Unless by pain and suffering thou art taught,\n Thou canst not guide thyself aright in aught.\"[1212]\n\nBut, moreover, holy Scripture has both said concerning the former\nbetter class, \"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth\nout fear;\"[1213] and also concerning the latter lower class, which\nfurnishes the majority, \"A servant will not be corrected by words; for\nthough he understand, he will not answer.\"[1214] In saying, \"He will\nnot be corrected by words,\" he did not order him to be left to himself,\nbut implied an admonition as to the means whereby he ought to be\ncorrected; otherwise he would not have said, \"He will not be corrected\nby words,\" but without any qualification, \"He will not be corrected.\"\nFor in another place he says that not only the servant, but also the\nundisciplined son, must be corrected with stripes, and that with great\nfruits as the result; for he says, \"Thou shalt beat him with the rod,\nand shalt deliver his soul from hell;\"[1215] and elsewhere he says,\n\"He that spareth the rod hateth his son.\"[1216] For, give us a man who\nwith right faith and true understanding can say with all the energy of\nhis heart, \"My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall\nI come and appear before God?\"[1217] and for such an one there is no\nneed of the terror of hell, to say nothing of temporal punishments or\nimperial laws, seeing that with him it is so indispensable a blessing\nto cleave unto the Lord, that he not only dreads being parted from that\nhappiness as a heavy punishment, but can scarcely even bear delay in\nits attainment. But yet, before the good sons can say they have \"a\ndesire to depart, and to be with Christ,\"[1218] many must first be\nrecalled to their Lord by the stripes of temporal scourging, like evil\nslaves, and in some degree like good-for-nothing fugitives.\n\n22. For who can possibly love us more than Christ, who laid down His\nlife for His sheep?[1219] And yet, after calling Peter and the other\napostles by His words alone, when He came to summon Paul, who was\nbefore called Saul, subsequently the powerful builder of His Church,\nbut originally its cruel persecutor, He not only constrained him with\nHis voice, but even dashed him to the earth with His power; and that He\nmight forcibly bring one who was raging amid the darkness of infidelity\nto desire the light of the heart, He first struck him with physical\nblindness of the eyes. If that punishment had not been inflicted, he\nwould not afterwards have been healed by it; and since he had been wont\nto see nothing with his eyes open, if they had remained unharmed, the\nScripture would not tell us that at the imposition of Ananias' hands,\nin order that their sight might be restored, there fell from them as\nit had been scales, by which the sight had been obscured.[1220] Where\nis what the Donatists were wont to cry: Man is at liberty to believe\nor not believe? Towards whom did Christ use violence? Whom did He\ncompel? Here they have the Apostle Paul. Let them recognise in his\ncase Christ first compelling, and afterwards teaching; first striking,\nand afterwards consoling. For it is wonderful how he who entered the\nservice of the gospel in the first instance under the compulsion of\nbodily punishment, afterwards laboured more in the gospel than all they\nwho were called by word only;[1221] and he who was compelled by the\ngreater influence of fear to love, displayed that perfect love which\ncasts out fear.\n\n23. Why, therefore, should not the Church use force in compelling\nher lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their\ndestruction? Although even men who have not been compelled, but only\nled astray, are received by their loving mother with more affection if\nthey are recalled to her bosom through the enforcement of terrible but\nsalutary laws, and are the objects of far more deep congratulation than\nthose whom she had never lost. Is it not a part of the care of the\nshepherd, when any sheep have left the flock, even though not violently\nforced away, but led astray by tender words and coaxing blandishments,\nto bring them back to the fold of his master when he has found them,\nby the fear or even the pain of the whip, if they show symptoms of\nresistance; especially since, if they multiply with growing abundance\namong the fugitive slaves and robbers, he has the more right in that\nthe mark of the master is recognised on them, which is not outraged in\nthose whom we receive but do not rebaptize? For the wandering of the\nsheep is to be corrected in such wise that the mark of the Redeemer\nshould not be destroyed on it. For even if any one is marked with the\nroyal stamp by a deserter who is marked with it himself, and the two\nreceive forgiveness,[1222] and the one returns to his service, and\nthe other begins to be in the service in which he had no part before,\nthat mark is not effaced in either of the two, but rather it is\nrecognised in both of them, and approved with the honour which is due\nto it because it is the king's. Since then they cannot show that the\ndestination is bad to which they are compelled, they maintain that they\nought to be compelled by force even to what is good. But we have shown\nthat Paul was compelled by Christ; therefore the Church, in trying to\ncompel the Donatists, is following the example of her Lord, though in\nthe first instance she waited in the hopes of needing to compel no one,\nthat the prediction of the prophet might be fulfilled concerning the\nfaith of kings and peoples.\n\n24. For in this sense also we may interpret without absurdity the\ndeclaration of the blessed Apostle Paul, when he says, \"Having in\na readiness to avenge all disobedience, when your obedience is\nfulfilled.\"[1223] Whence also the Lord Himself bids the guests in\nthe first instance to be invited to His great supper, and afterwards\ncompelled; for on His servants making answer to Him, \"Lord, it is done\nas Thou hast commanded, and yet there is room,\" He said to them, \"Go\nout into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in.\"[1224]\nIn those, therefore, who were first brought in with gentleness, the\nformer obedience is fulfilled; but in those who were compelled, the\ndisobedience is avenged. For what else is the meaning of \"Compel them\nto come in,\" after it had previously said, \"Bring in,\" and the answer\nhad been made, \"Lord, it is done as Thou commanded, and yet there\nis room?\" If He had wished it to be understood that they were to be\ncompelled by the terrifying force of miracles, many divine miracles\nwere rather wrought in the sight of those who were first called,\nespecially in the sight of the Jews, of whom it was said, \"The Jews\nrequire a sign;\"[1225] and, moreover, among the Gentiles themselves the\ngospel was so commended by miracles in the time of the apostles, that\nhad these been the means by which they were ordered to be compelled,\nwe might rather have had good grounds for supposing, as I said before,\nthat it was the earlier guests who were compelled. Wherefore, if the\npower which the Church has received by divine appointment in its\ndue season, through the religious character and the faith of kings,\nbe the instrument by which those who are found in the highways and\nhedges--that is, in heresies and schisms--are compelled to come in,\nthen let them not find fault with being compelled, but consider whether\nthey be so compelled. The supper of the Lord is the unity of the body\nof Christ, not only in the sacrament of the altar, but also in the\nbond of peace. Of the Donatists themselves, indeed, we can say that\nthey compel no man to any good thing; for whomsoever they compel, they\ncompel to nothing else but evil.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VII.--25. However, before those laws were sent into Africa by\nwhich men are compelled to come in to the sacred Supper, it seemed to\ncertain of the brethren, of whom I was one, that although the madness\nof the Donatists was raging in every direction, yet we should not ask\nof the emperors to ordain that heresy should absolutely cease to be,\nby sanctioning a punishment to be inflicted on all who wished to live\nin it; but that they should rather content themselves with ordaining\nthat those who either preached the Catholic truth with their voice,\nor established it by their study, should no longer be exposed to the\nfurious violence of the heretics. And this they thought might in some\nmeasure be effected, if they would take the law which Theodosius,\nof pious memory, enacted generally against heretics of all kinds,\nto the effect that any heretical bishop or clergyman, being found\nin any place, should be fined ten pounds of gold, and confirm it in\nmore express terms against the Donatists, who denied that they were\nheretics; but with such reservations, that the fine should not be\ninflicted upon all of them, but only in those districts where the\nCatholic Church suffered any violence from their clergy, or from the\nCircumcelliones, or at the hands of any of their people; so that, after\na formal complaint had been made by the Catholics who had suffered the\nviolence, the bishops or other ministers should forthwith be obliged,\nunder the commission given to the officers, to pay the fine. For we\nthought that in this way, if they were terrified, and no longer dared\ndo anything of the sort, the Catholic truth might be freely taught and\nheld under such conditions, that while no one was compelled to it, any\none might follow it who was anxious to do so without intimidation, so\nthat we might not have false and pretended Catholics. And although\na different view was held by other brethren, who either were more\nadvanced in years, or had experience of many states and places where we\nsaw the true Catholic Church firmly established, which had, however,\nbeen planted and confirmed by God's great goodness at a time when men\nwere compelled to come in to the Catholic communion by the laws of\nprevious emperors, yet we carried our point, to the effect that the\nmeasure which I have described above should be sought in preference\nfrom the emperors: it was decreed in our council,[1226] and envoys were\nsent to the court of the count.\n\n26. But God in His great mercy, knowing how necessary was the terror\ninspired by these laws, and a kind of medicinal inconvenience for\nthe cold and wicked hearts of many men, and for that hardness of\nheart which cannot be softened by words, but yet admits of softening\nthrough the agency of some little severity of discipline, brought it\nabout that our envoys could not obtain what they had undertaken to\nask. For our arrival had already been anticipated by the serious\ncomplaints of certain bishops from other districts, who had suffered\nmuch ill-treatment at the hands of the Donatists themselves, and had\nbeen thrust out from their sees; and, in particular, the attempt to\nmurder Maximianus, the Catholic bishop of the Church of Bagai, under\ncircumstances of incredible atrocity, had caused measures to be taken\nwhich left our deputation nothing to do. For a law had already been\npublished, that the heresy of the Donatists, being of so savage a\ndescription that mercy towards it really involved greater cruelty than\nits very madness wrought, should for the future be prevented not only\nfrom being violent, but from existing with impunity at all; but yet\nno capital punishment was imposed upon it, that even in dealing with\nthose who were unworthy, Christian gentleness might be observed, but\na pecuniary fine was ordained, and sentence of exile was pronounced\nagainst their bishops or ministers.\n\n27. With regard to the aforesaid bishop of Bagai, in consequence of his\nclaim being allowed in the ordinary courts, after each party had been\nheard in turn, in a basilica[1227] of which the Donatists had taken\npossession, as being the property of the Catholics, they rushed upon\nhim as he was standing at the altar, with fearful violence and cruel\nfury, beat him savagely with cudgels and weapons of every kind, and\nat last with the very boards of the broken altar. They also wounded\nhim with a dagger in the groin so severely, that the effusion of blood\nwould have soon put an end to his life, had not their further cruelty\nproved of service for its preservation; for, as they were dragging\nhim along the ground thus severely wounded, the dust forced into the\nspouting vein stanched the blood, whose effusion was rapidly on the\nway to cause his death. Then, when they had at length abandoned him,\nsome of our party tried to carry him off with psalms; but his enemies,\ninflamed with even greater rage, tore him from the hands of those who\nwere carrying him, inflicting grievous punishment on the Catholics,\nwhom they put to flight, being far superior to them in numbers, and\neasily inspiring terror by their violence. Finally, they threw him\ninto a certain elevated tower, thinking that he was by this time\ndead, though in fact he still breathed. Lighting then on a soft heap\nof earth, and being espied by the light of a lamp by some men who were\npassing by at night, he was recognised and picked up, and being carried\nto a religious house, by dint of great care, was restored in a few days\nfrom his state of almost hopeless danger. Rumour, however, had carried\nthe tidings even across the sea that he had been killed by the violence\nof the Donatists; and when afterwards he himself went abroad, and was\nmost unexpectedly seen to be alive, he showed, by the number, the\nseverity, and the freshness of his wounds, how fully rumour had been\njustified in bringing tidings of his death.\n\n28. He sought assistance, therefore, from the Christian emperor, not\nso much with any desire of revenging himself, as with the view of\ndefending the Church entrusted to his charge. And if he had omitted to\ndo this, he would have deserved not to be praised for his forbearance,\nbut to be blamed for negligence. For neither was the Apostle Paul\ntaking precautions on behalf of his own transitory life, but for the\nChurch of God, when he caused the plot of those who had conspired to\nslay him to be made known to the Roman captain, the effect of which\nwas, that he was conducted by an escort of armed soldiers to the place\nwhere they proposed to send him, that he might escape the ambush\nof his foes.[1228] Nor did he for a moment hesitate to invoke the\nprotection of the Roman laws, proclaiming that he was a Roman citizen,\nwho at that time could not be scourged;[1229] and again, that he might\nnot be delivered to the Jews who sought to kill him, he appealed to\nC\u00e6sar,[1230]--a Roman emperor, indeed, but not a Christian. And by this\nhe showed sufficiently plainly what was afterwards to be the duty of\nthe ministers of Christ, when in the midst of the dangers of the Church\nthey found the emperors Christians. And hence, therefore, it came about\nthat a religious and pious emperor, when such matters were brought to\nhis knowledge, thought it well, by the enactment of most pious laws,\nentirely to correct the error of this great impiety, and to bring those\nwho bore the standards of Christ against the cause of Christ into the\nunity of the Catholic Church, even by terror and compulsion, rather\nthan merely to take away their power of doing violence, and to leave\nthem the freedom of going astray, and perishing in their error.\n\n29. Presently, when the laws themselves arrived in Africa, in the first\nplace those who were already seeking an opportunity for doing so, or\nwere afraid of the raging madness of the Donatists, or were previously\ndeterred by a feeling of unwillingness to offend their friends, at\nonce came over to the Church. Many, too, who were only restrained by\nthe force of custom handed down in their homes from their parents,\nbut had never before considered what was the groundwork of the heresy\nitself,--had never, indeed, wished to investigate and contemplate its\nnature,--beginning now to use their observation, and finding nothing\nin it that could compensate for such serious loss as they were called\nupon to suffer, became Catholics without any difficulty; for, having\nbeen made careless by security, they were now instructed by anxiety.\nBut when all these had set the example, it was followed by many who\nwere less qualified of themselves to understand what was the difference\nbetween the error of the Donatists and Catholic truth.\n\n30. Accordingly, when the great masses of the people had been received\nby the true mother with rejoicing into her bosom, there remained\noutside cruel crowds, persevering with unhappy animosity in that\nmadness. Even of these the greater number communicated in feigned\nreconciliation, and others escaped notice from the scantiness of\ntheir numbers. But those who feigned conformity, becoming by degrees\naccustomed to our communion, and hearing the preaching of the truth,\nespecially after the conference and disputation which took place\nbetween us and their bishops at Carthage, were to a great extent\nbrought to a right belief. Yet in certain places, where a more\nobstinate and implacable body prevailed, whom the smaller number that\nentertained better views about communion with us could not resist,\nor where the masses were under the influence of a few more powerful\nleaders, whom they followed in a wrong direction, our difficulties\ncontinued somewhat longer. Of these places there are a few in which\ntrouble still exists, in the course of which the Catholics, and\nespecially the bishops and clergy, have suffered many terrible\nhardships, which it would take too long to go through in detail, seeing\nthat some of them had their eyes put out, and one bishop his hands\nand tongue cut off, while some were actually murdered. I say nothing\nof massacres of the most cruel description, and robberies of houses,\ncommitted in nocturnal burglaries, with the burning not only of private\nhouses, but even of churches,--some being found abandoned enough to\ncast the sacred books into the flames.\n\n31. But we were consoled for the suffering inflicted on us by these\nevils, by the fruit which resulted from them. For wherever such deeds\nwere committed by unbelievers, there Christian unity has advanced with\ngreater fervency and perfection, and the Lord is praised with greater\nearnestness for having deigned to grant that His servants might win\ntheir brethren by their sufferings, and might gather together into\nthe peace of eternal salvation through His blood His sheep who were\ndispersed abroad in deadly error. The Lord is powerful and full of\ncompassion, to whom we daily pray that He will give repentance to the\nrest as well, that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the\ndevil, by whom they are taken captive at his will,[1231] though now\nthey only seek materials for calumniating us, and returning to us evil\nfor good; because they have not the knowledge to make them understand\nwhat feelings and love we continue to have towards them, and how we are\nanxious, in accordance with the injunction of the Lord, given to His\npastors by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, to bring again that which\nwas driven away, and to seek that which was lost.[1232]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. VIII.--32. But they, as we have sometimes said before in other\nplaces, do not charge themselves with what they do to us; while, on\nthe other hand, they charge us with what they do to themselves. For\nwhich of our party is there who would desire, I do not say that one\nof them should perish, but should even lose any of his possessions?\nBut if the house of David could not earn peace on any other terms\nexcept that Absalom his son should have been slain in the war which\nhe was waging against his father, although he had most carefully\ngiven strict injunctions to his followers that they should use their\nutmost endeavours to preserve him alive and safe, that his paternal\naffection might be able to pardon him on his repentance, what remained\nfor him except to weep for the son that he had lost, and to console\nhimself in his sorrow by reflecting on the acquisition of peace for\nhis kingdom?[1233] The same, then, is the case with the Catholic\nChurch, our mother; for when war is waged against her by men who are\ncertainly different from sons, since it must be acknowledged that from\nthe great tree, which by the spreading of its branches is extended\nover all the world, this little branch in Africa is broken off, whilst\nshe is willing in her love to give them birth, that they may return\nto the root, without which they cannot have the true life, at the\nsame time if she collects the remainder in so large a number by the\nloss of some, she soothes and cures the sorrow of her maternal heart\nby the thoughts of the deliverance of such mighty nations; especially\nwhen she considers that those who are lost perish by a death which\nthey brought upon themselves, and not, like Absalom, by the fortune\nof war. And if you were to see the joy of those who are delivered in\nthe peace of Christ, their crowded assemblies, their eager zeal, the\ngladsomeness with which they flock together, both to hear and sing\nhymns, and to be instructed in the word of God; the great grief with\nwhich many of them recall to mind their former error, the joy with\nwhich they come to the consideration of the truth which they have\nlearned, with the indignation and detestation which they feel towards\ntheir lying teachers, now that they have found out what falsehoods\nthey disseminated concerning our sacraments; and how many of them,\nmoreover, acknowledge that they long ago desired to be Catholics, but\ndared not take the step in the midst of men of such violence,--if, I\nsay, you were to see the congregations of these nations delivered from\nsuch perdition, then you would say that it would have been the extreme\nof cruelty, if, in the fear that certain desperate men, in number not\nto be compared with the multitudes of those who were rescued, might be\nburned in fires which they voluntarily kindled for themselves, these\nothers had been left to be lost for ever, and to be tortured in fires\nwhich shall not be quenched.\n\n33. For if two men were dwelling together in one house, which we knew\nwith absolute certainty to be upon the point of falling down, and they\nwere unwilling to believe us when we warned them of the danger, and\npersisted in remaining in the house; if it were in our power to rescue\nthem, even against their will, and we were afterwards to show them the\nruin threatening their house, so that they should not dare to return\nagain within its reach, I think that if we abstained from doing it, we\nshould well deserve the charge of cruelty. And further, if one of them\nshould say to us, Since you have entered the house to save our lives,\nI shall forthwith kill myself; while the other was not indeed willing\nto come forth from the house, nor to be rescued, but yet had not the\nhardihood to kill himself: which alternative should we choose,--to\nleave both of them to be overwhelmed in the ruin, or that, while one at\nany rate was delivered by our merciful efforts, the other should perish\nby no fault of ours, but rather by his own? No one is so unhappy as not\nto find it easy enough to decide what should be done in such a case.\nAnd I have proposed the question of two individuals,--one, that is to\nsay, who is lost, and one who is delivered; what then must we think\nof the case where some few are lost, and an innumerable multitude of\nnations are delivered? For there are actually not so many persons who\nthus perish of their own free will, as there are estates, villages,\nstreets, fortresses, municipal towns, cities, that are delivered by the\nlaws under consideration from that fatal and eternal destruction.\n\n34. But if we were to consider the matter under discussion with yet\ngreater care, I think that if there were a large number of persons in\nthe house which was going to fall, and any single one of them could be\nsaved, and when we endeavoured to effect his rescue, the others were\nto kill themselves by jumping out of the windows, we should console\nourselves in our grief for the loss of the rest by the thoughts of\nthe safety of the one; and we should not allow all to perish without\na single rescue, in the fear lest the remainder should destroy\nthemselves. What then should we think of the work of mercy to which we\nought to apply ourselves, in order that men may attain eternal life and\nescape eternal punishment, if true reason and benevolence compel us to\ngive such aid to men, in order to secure for them a safety which is not\nonly temporal, but very short,--for the brief space of their life on\nearth?\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. IX.--35. As to the charge that they bring against us, that we\ncovet and plunder their possessions, I would that they would become\nCatholics, and possess in peace and love with us, not only what they\ncall theirs, but also what confessedly belongs to us. But they are so\nblinded with the desire of uttering calumnies, that they do not observe\nhow inconsistent their statements are with one another. At any rate,\nthey assert, and seem to make it a subject of most invidious complaint\namong themselves, that we constrain them to come in to our communion\nby the violent authority of the laws,--which we certainly should not\ndo by any means, if we wished to gain possession of their property.\nWhat avaricious man ever wished for another to share his possessions?\nWho that was inflamed with the desire of empire, or elated by the\npride of its possession, ever wished to have a partner? Let them at\nany rate look on those very men who once belonged to them, but now\nare our brethren joined to us by the bond of fraternal affection, and\nsee how they hold not only what they used to have, but also what was\nours, which they did not have before; which yet, if we are living as\npoor in fellowship with poor, belongs to us and them alike; whilst, if\nwe possess of our private means enough for our wants, it is no longer\nours, inasmuch as we do not commit so infamous an act of usurpation as\nto claim for our own the property of the poor, for whom we are in some\nsense the trustees.\n\n36. Everything, therefore, that was held in the name of the churches\nof the party of Donatus, was ordered by the Christian emperors, in\ntheir pious laws, to pass to the Catholic Church, with the possession\nof the buildings themselves.[1234] Seeing, then, that there are with\nus poor members of those said churches who used to be maintained by\nthese same paltry possessions, let them rather cease themselves to\ncovet what belongs to others whilst they remain outside, and so let\nthem enter within the bond of unity, that we may all alike administer,\nnot only the property which they call their own, but also with it what\nis asserted to be ours. For it is written, \"All are yours; and ye are\nChrist's; and Christ is God's.\"[1235] Under Him as our Head, let us all\nbe one in His one body; and in all such matters as you speak of, let us\nfollow the example which is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles: \"They\nwere of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought\nof the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things\ncommon.\"[1236] Let us love what we sing: \"Behold, how good and how\npleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!\"[1237] that so\nthey may know, by their own experience, with what perfect truth their\nmother, the Catholic Church, calls out to them what the blessed apostle\nwrites to the Corinthians: \"I seek not yours, but you.\"[1238]\n\n37. But if we consider what is said in the Book of Wisdom, \"Therefore\nthe righteous spoiled the ungodly;\"[1239] and also what is said in the\nProverbs, \"The wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just;\"[1240]\nthen we shall see that the question is not, who are in possession of\nthe property of heretics? but who are in the society of the just? We\nknow, indeed, that the Donatists arrogate to themselves such a store of\njustice, that they boast not only that they possess it, but that they\nalso bestow it upon other men. For they say that any one whom they have\nbaptized is justified by them, after which there is nothing left for\nthem but to say to the person who is baptized by them, that he must\nneeds believe on him who has administered the sacrament; for why should\nhe not do so, when the apostle says, \"To him that believeth on Him that\njustifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness?\"[1241]\nLet him believe, therefore, upon the man by whom he is baptized, if\nit be none else that justifies him, that his faith may be counted\nfor righteousness. But I think that even they themselves would look\nwith horror on themselves, if they ventured for a moment to entertain\nsuch thoughts as these. For there is none that is just and able to\njustify, save God alone. But the same might be said of them that the\napostle says of the Jews, that \"being ignorant of God's righteousness,\nand going about to establish their own righteousness, they have not\nsubmitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.\"[1242]\n\n38. But far be it from us that any one of our number should call\nhimself in such wise just, that he should either go about to establish\nhis own righteousness, as though it were conferred upon him by himself,\nwhereas it is said to him, \"For what hast thou that thou didst not\nreceive?\"[1243] or venture to boast himself as being without sin in\nthis world, as the Donatists themselves declared in our conference\nthat they were members of a Church which has already neither spot nor\nwrinkle, nor any such thing,[1244]--not knowing that this is only\nfulfilled in those individuals who depart out of this body immediately\nafter baptism, or after the forgiveness of sins, for which we make\npetition in our prayers; but that for the Church, as a whole, the time\nwill not come when it shall be altogether without spot or wrinkle, or\nany such thing, till the day when we shall hear the words, \"O death,\nwhere is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death\nis sin.\"[1245]\n\n39. But in this life, when the corruptible body presseth down the\nsoul,[1246] if their Church is already of such a character as they\nmaintain, they would not utter unto God the prayer which our Lord has\ntaught us to employ: \"Forgive us our trespasses.\"[1247] For since all\nsins have been remitted in baptism, why does the Church make this\npetition, if already, even in this life, it has neither spot nor\nwrinkle, nor any such thing? They would also have a right to despise\nthe warning of the Apostle John, when he cries out in his epistle,\n\"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth\nis not in us. But if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to\nforgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.\"[1248]\nOn account of this hope, the universal Church utters the petition,\n\"Forgive us our trespasses,\" that when He sees that we are not\nvainglorious, but ready to confess our sins, He may cleanse us from\nall unrighteousness, and that so the Lord Jesus Christ may show to\nHimself in that day a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or\nany such thing, which now He cleanses with the washing of water in the\nword: because, on the one hand, there is nothing that remains behind\nin baptism to hinder the forgiveness of every bygone sin (so long,\nthat is, as baptism is not received to no effect without the Church,\nbut is either administered within the Church, or, at least, if it\nhas been already administered without, the recipient does not remain\noutside with it); and, on the other hand, whatever pollution of sin, of\nwhatsoever kind, is contracted through the weakness of human nature by\nthose who live here after baptism, is cleansed away in virtue of the\nsame laver's efficacy. For neither is it of any avail for one who has\nnot been baptized to say, \"Forgive us our trespasses.\"\n\n40. Accordingly, He so now cleanses His Church by the washing of water\nin the word, that He may hereafter show it to Himself as not having\nspot, or wrinkle, or any such thing,--altogether beautiful, that is to\nsay, and in absolute perfection, when death shall be \"swallowed up in\nvictory.\"[1249] Now, therefore, in so far as the life is flourishing\nwithin us that proceeds from our being born of God, living by faith,\nso far we are righteous; but in so far as we drag along with us the\ntraces of our mortal nature as derived from Adam, so far we cannot be\nfree from sin. For there is truth both in the statement that \"whosoever\nis born of God doth not commit sin,\"[1250] and also in the former\nstatement, that \"if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,\nand the truth is not in us.\"[1251] The Lord Jesus, therefore, is both\nrighteous and able to justify; but we are justified freely by no other\ngrace than His.[1252] For there is nothing that justifieth save His\nbody, which is the Church; and therefore, if the body of Christ bears\noff the spoils of the unrighteous, and the riches of the unrighteous\nare laid up in store as treasures for the body of Christ, the\nunrighteous ought not therefore to remain outside, but rather to enter\nwithin, that so they may be justified.\n\n41. Whence also we may be sure that what is written concerning the day\nof judgment, \"Then shall the righteous man stand in great boldness\nbefore the face of such as have afflicted him, and made no account\nof his labours,\"[1253] is not to be taken in such a sense as that the\nCanaanite shall stand before the face of Israel, though Israel made\nno account of the labours of the Canaanite; but only as that Naboth\nshall stand before the face of Ahab, since Ahab made no account of the\nlabours of Naboth, since the Canaanite was unrighteous, while Naboth\nwas a righteous man. In the same way the heathen shall not stand before\nthe face of the Christian, who made no account of his labours, when the\ntemples of the idols were plundered and destroyed; but the Christian\nshall stand before the face of the heathen, who made no account of his\nlabours, when the bodies of the martyrs were laid low in death. In the\nsame way, therefore, the heretic shall not stand in the face of the\nCatholic, who made no account of his labours, when the laws of the\nCatholic emperors were put in force; but the Catholic shall stand in\nthe face of the heretic, who made no account of his labours, when the\nmadness of the ungodly Circumcelliones was allowed to have its way. For\nthe passage of Scripture decides the question in itself, seeing that\nit does not say, Then shall men stand, but \"Then shall the righteous\nstand;\" and they shall stand \"in great boldness,\" because they stand in\nthe power of a good conscience.\n\n42. But in this world no one is righteous by his own\nrighteousness,--that is, as though it were wrought by himself and for\nhimself; but as the apostle says, \"According as God hath dealt to every\nman the measure of faith.\" But then he goes on to add the following:\n\"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not\nthe same office; so we, being many, are one body in Christ.\"[1254]\nAnd according to this doctrine, no one can be righteous so long as\nhe is separated from the unity of this body. For in the same manner\nas if a limb be cut off from the body of a living man, it cannot any\nlonger retain the spirit of life; so the man who is cut off from the\nbody of Christ, who is righteous, can in no wise retain the spirit\nof righteousness, even if he retain the form of membership which he\nreceived when in the body. Let them therefore come into the framework\nof this body, and so possess their own labours, not through the lust\nof lordship, but through the godliness of using them aright. But we,\nas has been said before, cleanse our wills from the pollution of this\nconcupiscence, even in the judgment of any enemy you please to name as\njudge, seeing that we use our utmost efforts in entreating the very\nmen of whose labours we avail ourselves to enjoy with us, within the\nsociety of the Catholic Church, the fruits both of their labours and of\nour own.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. X.--43. But this, they say, is the very thing which disquiets\nus,--If we are unrighteous, wherefore do you seek our company? To which\nquestion we answer, We seek the company of you who are unrighteous,\nthat you may not remain unrighteous; we seek for you who are lost, that\nwe may rejoice over you as soon as you are found, saying, This our\nbrother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.[1255]\nWhy, then, he says, do you not baptize me, that you might wash me from\nmy sins? I reply: Because I do not do despite to the stamp of the\nmonarch, when I correct the ill-doing of a deserter. Why, he says, do\nI not even do penance in your body? Nay truly, except you have done\npenance, you cannot be saved; for how shall you rejoice that you have\nbeen reformed, unless you first grieve that you had been astray? What,\nthen, he says, do we receive with you, when we come over to your side?\nI answer, You do not indeed receive baptism, which was able to exist\nin you outside the framework of the body of Christ, although it could\nnot profit you; but you receive the unity of the Spirit in the bond of\npeace,[1256] without which no one can see God; and you receive charity,\nwhich, as it is written, \"shall cover the multitude of sins.\"[1257] And\nin regard to this great blessing, without which we have the apostle's\ntestimony that neither the tongues of men or of angels, nor the\nunderstanding of all mysteries, nor the gift of prophecy, nor faith\nso great as to be able to remove mountains, nor the bestowal of all\none's goods to feed the poor, nor giving one's body to be burned, can\nprofit anything;[1258] if, I say, you think this mighty blessing to\nbe worthless or of trifling value, you are deservedly but miserably\nastray; and deservedly you must necessarily perish, unless you come\nover to Catholic unity.\n\n44. If, then, they say, it is necessary that we should repent of having\nbeen outside, and hostile to the Church, if we would gain salvation,\nhow comes it that after the repentance which you exact from us we still\ncontinue to be clergy, or it may be even bishops in your body? This\nwould not be the case, as indeed, in simple truth, we must confess\nit should not be the case, were it not that the evil is cured by the\ncompensating power of peace itself. But let them give themselves this\nlesson, and most especially let those feel sorrow in their hearts, who\nare lying in this deep death of severance from the Church, that they\nmay recover their life even by this sort of wound inflicted on our\nCatholic mother Church. For when the bough that has been cut off is\ngrafted in, a new wound is made in the tree, to admit of its reception,\nthat life may be given to the branch which was perishing for lack of\nthe life that is furnished by the root. But when the newly-received\nbranch has become identified with the stock in which it is received,\nthe result is both vigour and fruit; but if they do not become\nidentified, the engrafted bough withers, but the life of the tree\ncontinues unimpaired. For there is further a mode of grafting of such a\nkind, that without cutting away any branch that is within, the branch\nthat is foreign to the tree is inserted, not indeed without a wound,\nbut with the slightest possible wound inflicted on the tree. In like\nmanner, then, when they come to the root which exists in the Catholic\nChurch, without being deprived of any position which belongs to them as\nclergy or bishops after ever so deep repentance of their error, there\nis a kind of wound inflicted as it were upon the bark of the mother\ntree, breaking in upon the strictness of her discipline; but since\nneither he that planteth is anything, neither he that watereth,[1259]\nso soon as by prayers poured forth to the mercy of God peace is secured\nthrough the union of the engrafted boughs with the parent stock,\ncharity then covers the multitude of sins.\n\n45. For although it was made an ordinance in the Church, that no one\nwho had been called upon to do penance for any offence should be\nadmitted into holy orders, or return to or continue in the body of the\nclergy,[1260] this was done not to cause despair of any indulgence\nbeing granted, but merely to maintain a rigorous discipline; otherwise\nan argument will be raised against the keys that were given to the\nChurch, of which we have the testimony of Scripture: \"Whatsoever\nthou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.\"[1261] But lest\nit should so happen that, after the detection of offences, a heart\nswelling with the hope of ecclesiastical preferment might do penance\nin a spirit of pride, it was determined, with great severity, that\nafter doing penance for any mortal sin, no one should be admitted to\nthe number of the clergy, in order that, when all hope of temporal\npreferment was done away, the medicine of humility might be endowed\nwith greater strength and truth. For even the holy David did penance\nfor deadly sin, and yet was not degraded from his office. And we know\nthat the blessed Peter, after shedding the bitterest of tears, repented\nthat he had denied his Lord, and yet remained an apostle. But we must\nnot therefore be induced to think that the care of those in later times\nwas in any way superfluous, who, when there was no risk of endangering\nsalvation, added something to humiliation, in order that the salvation\nmight be more thoroughly protected,--having, I suppose, experienced\na feigned repentance on the part of some who were influenced by the\ndesire of the power attaching to office. For experience in many\ndiseases necessarily brings in the invention of many remedies. But in\ncases of this kind, when, owing to the serious ruptures of dissensions\nin the Church, it is no longer a question of danger to this or that\nparticular individual, but whole nations are lying in ruin, it is right\nto yield a little from our severity, that true charity may give her aid\nin healing the more serious evils.\n\n46. Let them therefore feel bitter grief for their detestable error of\nthe past, as Peter did for his fear that led him into falsehood, and\nlet them come to the true Church of Christ, that is, to the Catholic\nChurch our mother; let them be in it clergy, let them be bishops unto\nits profit, as they have been hitherto in enmity against it. We feel\nno jealousy towards them, nay, we embrace them; we wish, we advise, we\neven compel those to come in whom we find in the highways and hedges,\nalthough we fail as yet in persuading some of them that we are seeking\nnot their property, but themselves. The Apostle Peter, when he denied\nhis Saviour, and wept, and did not cease to be an apostle, had not as\nyet received the Holy Spirit that was promised; but much more have\nthese men not received Him, when, being severed from the framework\nof the body, which is alone enlivened by the Holy Spirit, they have\nusurped the sacraments of the Church outside the Church and in\nhostility to the Church, and have fought against us in a kind of civil\nwar, with our own arms and our own standards raised in opposition to\nus. Let them come; let peace be concluded in the virtue of Jerusalem,\nwhich virtue is Christian charity,--to which holy city it is said,\n\"Peace be in thy virtue, and plenteousness within thy palaces.\"[1262]\nLet them not exalt themselves against the solicitude of their mother,\nwhich she both has entertained and does entertain with the object of\ngathering within her bosom themselves, and all the mighty nations whom\nthey are, or recently were, deceiving; let them not be puffed up with\npride, that she receives them in such wise; let them not attribute to\nthe evil of their own exaltation the good which she on her part does in\norder to make peace.\n\n47. So it has been her wont to come to the aid of multitudes who were\nperishing through schisms and heresies. This displeased Lucifer,[1263]\nwhen it was carried out in receiving and healing those who had perished\nbeneath the poison of the Arian heresy; and, being displeased at it,\nhe fell into the darkness of schism, losing the light of Christian\ncharity. In accordance with this principle, the Church of Africa has\nrecognised the Donatists from the very beginning, obeying herein the\ndecree of the bishops who gave sentence in the Church at Rome between\nC\u00e6cilianus and the party of Donatus; and having condemned one bishop\nnamed Donatus,[1264] who was proved to have been the author of the\nschism, they determined that the others should be received, after\ncorrection, with full recognition of their orders, even if they had\nbeen ordained outside the Church,--not that they could have the Holy\nSpirit even outside the unity of the body of Christ, but, in the first\nplace, for the sake of those whom it was possible they might deceive\nwhile they remained outside, and prevent from obtaining that gift;\nand, secondly, that their own weakness also being mercifully received\nwithin, might thus be rendered capable of cure, no obstinacy any longer\nstanding in the way to close their eyes against the evidence of truth.\nFor what other intention could have given rise to their own conduct,\nwhen they received with full recognition of their orders the followers\nof Maximianus, whom they had condemned as guilty of sacrilegious\nschism, as their council[1265] shows, and to fill whose places they\nhad already ordained other men, when they saw that the people did not\ndepart from their company, that all might not be involved in ruin? And\non what other ground did they neither speak against nor question the\nvalidity of the baptism which had been administered outside by men whom\nthey had condemned? Why, then, do they wonder, why do they complain,\nand make it the subject of their calumnies, that we receive them in\nsuch wise to promote the true peace of Christ, while yet they do not\nremember what they themselves have done to promote the false peace of\nDonatus, which is opposed to Christ? For if this act of theirs be borne\nin mind, and intelligently used in argument against them, they will\nhave no answer whatsoever that they can make.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHAP. XI.--48. But as to what they say, arguing as follows: If we have\nsinned against the Holy Ghost, in that we have treated your baptism\nwith contempt, why is it that you seek us, seeing that we cannot\npossibly receive remission of this sin, as the Lord says, \"Whosoever\nspeaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither\nin this world, neither in the world to come?\"[1266]--they do not\nperceive that according to their interpretation of the passage none\ncan be delivered. For who is there that does not speak against the\nHoly Ghost and sin against Him, whether we take the case of one who is\nnot yet a Christian, or of one who shares in the heresy of Arius, or\nof Eunomius, or of Macedonius, who all say that He is a creature; or\nof Photinus, who denies that He has any substance at all, saying that\nthere is only one God, the Father; or of any of the other heretics,\nwhom it would now take too long a time to mention in detail? Are none,\ntherefore, of these to be delivered? Or if the Jews themselves, against\nwhom the Lord directed His reproach, were to believe in Him, would they\nnot be allowed to be baptized? for the Saviour does not say, Shall be\nforgiven in baptism; but \"Shall not be forgiven, neither in this world,\nneither in the world to come.\"\n\n49. Let them understand, therefore, that it is not every sin, but only\nsome sin, against the Holy Ghost which is incapable of forgiveness. For\njust as when our Lord said, \"If I had not come and spoken unto them,\nthey had not had sin,\"[1267] it is clear that He did not wish it to\nbe understood that they would have been free from all sin, since they\nwere filled with many grievous sins, but that they would have been\nfree from some special sin, the absence of which would have left them\nin a position to receive remission of all the sins which yet remained\nin them, viz. the sin of not believing in Him when He came to them;\nfor they could not have had this sin, had He not come. In like manner,\nalso, when He said, \"Whosoever sinneth against the Holy Ghost,\" or,\n\"Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost;\" it is clear that He does\nnot refer to every sin of whatsoever kind against the Holy Ghost, in\nword or deed, but would have us understand some special and peculiar\nsin. But this is the hardness of heart even to the end of this life,\nwhich leads a man to refuse to accept remission of his sins in the\nunity of the body of Christ, to which life is given by the Holy Ghost.\nFor when He had said to His disciples, \"Receive the Holy Ghost,\" He\nimmediately added, \"Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted\nunto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.\"[1268]\nWhosoever therefore has resisted or fought against this gift of the\ngrace of God, or has been estranged from it in any way whatever to the\nend of this mortal life, shall not receive the remission of that sin,\neither in this world, or in the world to come, seeing that it is so\ngreat a sin that in it is included every sin; but it cannot be proved\nto have been committed by any one, till he has passed away from life.\nBut so long as he lives here, \"the goodness of God,\" as the apostle\nsays, \"is leading him to repentance;\" but if he deliberately, with the\nutmost perseverance in iniquity, as the apostle adds in the succeeding\nverse, \"after his hardness and impenitent heart, treasures up unto\nhimself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous\njudgment of God,\"[1269] he shall not receive forgiveness, neither in\nthis world, neither in that which is to come.\n\n50. But those with whom we are arguing, or about whom we are arguing,\nare not to be despaired of, for they are yet in the body; but they\ncannot seek the Holy Spirit, except in the body of Christ, of which\nthey possess the outward sign outside the Church, but they do not\npossess the actual reality itself within the Church of which that\nis the outward sign, and therefore they eat and drink damnation to\nthemselves.[1270] For there is but one bread which is the sacrament\nof unity, seeing that, as the apostle says, \"We, being many, are one\nbread, and one body.\"[1271] Furthermore, the Catholic Church alone\nis the body of Christ, of which He is the Head and Saviour of His\nbody.[1272] Outside this body the Holy Spirit giveth life to no one,\nseeing that, as the apostle says himself, \"The love of God is shed\nabroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us;\"[1273]\nbut he is not a partaker of the divine love who is the enemy of unity.\nTherefore they have not the Holy Ghost who are outside the Church;\nfor it is written of them, \"They separate themselves, being sensual,\nhaving not the Spirit.\"[1274] But neither does he receive it who is\ninsincerely in the Church, since this is also the intent of what is\nwritten: \"For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit.\"[1275]\nIf any one, therefore, wishes to receive the Holy Spirit, let him\nbeware of continuing in alienation from the Church, let him beware\nof entering it in the spirit of dissimulation; or if he has already\nentered it in such wise, let him beware of persisting in such\ndissimulation, in order that he may truly and indeed become united with\nthe tree of life.\n\n51. I have despatched to you a somewhat lengthy epistle, which may\nprove burdensome among your many occupations. If, therefore, it may be\nread to you even in portions, the Lord will grant you understanding,\nthat you may have some answer which you can make for the correction\nand healing of those men who are commended to you as to a faithful son\nby our mother the Church, that you may correct and heal them, wherever\nyou can, and howsoever you can, either by speaking and replying to them\nin your own person, or by bringing them into communication with the\ndoctors of the Church.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1173] In Book II. c. xlviii. of his _Retractations_, Augustine says:\n\"About the same time\" (as that at which he wrote his treatise _De\nGestis Pelagii_, _i.e._ about the year 417), \"I wrote also a treatise\n_De Correctione Donatistarum_, for the sake of those who were not\nwilling that the Donatists should be subjected to the correction of the\nimperial laws. This treatise begins with the words \"Laudo, et gratulor,\net admiror.\" This letter in the old editions was No. 50,--the letter\nwhich is now No. 4 in the appendix being formerly No. 185.\"\n\n[1174] Ps. xxii. 16-18, 27, 28.\n\n[1175] Ps. ii. 7, 8.\n\n[1176] Luke xxiv. 46, 47.\n\n[1177] John i. 1, 2.\n\n[1178] This epistle was produced in the fifth conference of the fifth\nSynod, when the point was under debate whether Theodorus of Mopsuesta\ncould be condemned after his death.\n\n[1179] Ps. cxviii. 8.\n\n[1180] Gen. xxvi. 4.\n\n[1181] Mal. i. 11.\n\n[1182] Ps. lxxii. 8.\n\n[1183] Col. i. 6.\n\n[1184] Acts i. 8.\n\n[1185] In the Councils at Rome and Arles.\n\n[1186] This digest will be found in the 9th volume of Migne's edition\nof Augustine's Works, p. 613, etc.\n\n[1187] Dan. vi. 24.\n\n[1188] See Gal. vi. 9, 10.\n\n[1189] Dan. iii. 5, 29.\n\n[1190] Matt. v. 10.\n\n[1191] Gen. xvi. 6.\n\n[1192] 1 Sam. xviii., xix., etc.\n\n[1193] Luke xxiii. 33.\n\n[1194] Discerne causam meam. The Eng. Vers. has \"plead my cause against\nan ungodly nation.\"\n\n[1195] Ps. xliii. 1.\n\n[1196] Ps. cxix. 86.\n\n[1197] Gal. iv. 22-31.\n\n[1198] Ps. xviii. 37.\n\n[1199] Luke iv. 9.\n\n[1200] Mark v. 13.\n\n[1201] Matt. xvii. 14.\n\n[1202] Matt. iii. 12.\n\n[1203] Ps. ii. 1, 2, 10, 11.\n\n[1204] 2 Kings xviii. 4.\n\n[1205] 2 Kings xxiii. 4, 5.\n\n[1206] Jonah iii. 6-9.\n\n[1207] Bel and Drag. vv. 22, 42.\n\n[1208] Dan. iii. 29.\n\n[1209] John xvi. 2.\n\n[1210] Ps. lxxii. 11.\n\n[1211] Ter. _Adelph._ I. i. 32, 33.\n\n[1212] This is not found in the extant plays of Terence.\n\n[1213] 1 John iv. 18.\n\n[1214] Prov. xxix. 19.\n\n[1215] Prov. xxiii. 14.\n\n[1216] Prov. xiii. 24.\n\n[1217] Ps. xlii. 2.\n\n[1218] Phil. i. 23.\n\n[1219] John x. 15.\n\n[1220] Acts ix. 1-18.\n\n[1221] 1 Cor. xv. 10.\n\n[1222] Accipiant: sc. the baptizer and the baptized; and so the MSS.\nThe common reading is 'accipiat.'\n\n[1223] 2 Cor. x. 6.\n\n[1224] Luke xiv. 22, 23.\n\n[1225] 1 Cor. i. 22.\n\n[1226] That of Carthage, held June 26, 401.\n\n[1227] The basilica of Fundus Calvianensis. See _C. Crescon._ iii. c.\n43.\n\n[1228] Acts xxiii. 17-32.\n\n[1229] Acts xxii. 25.\n\n[1230] Acts xxv. 11.\n\n[1231] 2 Tim. ii. 26.\n\n[1232] Ezek. xxxiv. 4.\n\n[1233] 2 Sam. xviii. xxii.\n\n[1234] _Cod. Theod._ i. 52, _de H\u00e6reticis_.\n\n[1235] 1 Cor. iii. 22, 23.\n\n[1236] Acts iv. 32.\n\n[1237] Ps. cxxxiii. 1.\n\n[1238] 2 Cor. xii. 14.\n\n[1239] Wisd. x. 20.\n\n[1240] Prov. xiii. 22.\n\n[1241] Rom. iv. 5.\n\n[1242] Rom. x. 3.\n\n[1243] 1 Cor. iv. 7.\n\n[1244] Eph. v. 27.\n\n[1245] 1 Cor. xv. 55, 56.\n\n[1246] Wisd. ix. 15.\n\n[1247] Matt. vi. 12.\n\n[1248] 1 John i. 8, 9.\n\n[1249] 1 Cor. xv. 54.\n\n[1250] 1 John iii. 9.\n\n[1251] 1 John i. 8.\n\n[1252] Rom. iii. 24.\n\n[1253] Wisd. v. 1.\n\n[1254] Rom. xii. 3-5.\n\n[1255] Luke xv. 32.\n\n[1256] Eph. iv. 3.\n\n[1257] 1 Pet. iv. 8.\n\n[1258] 1 Cor. xiii. 1-3.\n\n[1259] 1 Cor. iii. 7.\n\n[1260] Pope Innocent I., in his 6th Epistle to Agapitus, Macedonius,\nand certain other bishops of Apulia, writes to the effect that \"canons\nhad been passed at Nic\u00e6a, excluding penitents from even the lowest\norders of the ministry.\"\n\n[1261] Matt. xvi. 19.\n\n[1262] Ps. cxxii. 6: Fiat pax in virtute tua. The English version is,\n\"Peace be within thy walls.\"\n\n[1263] Bishop of Calarita. Comp. _De Agone Christiano_, c. 30.\n\n[1264] The Bishop of Cas\u00e6 Nigr\u00e6.\n\n[1265] The Council of Bagai.\n\n[1266] Matt. xii. 32.\n\n[1267] John xv. 22.\n\n[1268] John. xx. 22, 23.\n\n[1269] Rom. ii. 4, 5.\n\n[1270] 1 Cor. xi. 29.\n\n[1271] 1 Cor. x. 17.\n\n[1272] Eph. v. 23.\n\n[1273] Rom. v. 5.\n\n[1274] Jude 19.\n\n[1275] Wisd. i. 5.\n\n\n\n\nINDEXES.\n\n\n I.--INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.\n\n GENESIS.\n\n PAGE\n\n i. 2, 162\n i. 4, 202\n ii. 8-14, 79\n vi. 3, 275\n xv. 10, 27\n xvi. 6, 486\n xvii. 9-14, 112\n xx., 368\n xxi. 10, 17\n xxii. 18, 249, 264, 271,\n 305, 312, 336, 465\n xxv. 24, 17\n xxv. 29-34, 132\n xxvi. 4, 482\n xxvi. 11, 368\n xxx. 3, 17\n xxix. and xli., 368\n xlii. 15, 368\n xlvii., 368\n\n EXODUS.\n\n ii. 10, 368\n iv. 24, 113\n xx. 13-15, 168\n xx. 13-17, 332\n xxxii., 12, 41\n xxxii. 28, 31, 358\n\n LEVITICUS.\n\n i. 2, 73\n xvi., 401\n\n NUMBERS.\n\n xvi., 12, 41, 72\n xvi. 31-35, 242\n xvii. 8, 128\n\n DEUTERONOMY.\n\n iv. 24, 73\n xix. 21, 363\n\n 1 SAMUEL.\n\n ii. 25, 399\n x. 6-10, 70\n xvii. 51, 239\n xviii. xix., 486\n xviii. 10, 14\n xix. 23, 143\n xxvii., 368\n\n 2 SAMUEL.\n\n xii. 12, 297\n xviii. xxii., 506\n\n 1 KINGS.\n\n iii. 26, 179\n xviii., 278\n xviii. 21, 203\n xviii. 44-46, 368\n xxi., 364, 366\n\n 2 KINGS.\n\n iv. 13, 368\n xviii. 4, 495\n xxiii. 4, 5, 495\n\n JOB.\n\n ii. 34, 323\n xi., 390\n\n PSALMS.\n\n i. 1, 325\n i. 1, 2, 10, 11, 495\n ii., 365\n ii. 7, 8, 481\n ii. 8, 242, 263, 314, 465\n ii. 9, 97\n iii. 8, 234, 464\n xi. 1, 415\n xiv. 1, 429\n xiv. 3, 30, 326\n xiv. 5, 269\n xiv. 5-7, 247\n xiv. 5-8, 272\n xiv. 6, 253, 269\n xv. 5, 91\n xvi. 5, 314\n xviii. 37, 488\n xix. 3-6, 298\n xix. 4, 316\n xix. 5, 271\n xxii. 11, 496\n xxii. 16-18, 263\n xxii. 16, 27, 28, 481\n xxii. 27, 271, 314\n xxii. 27, 28, 263\n xxiii., 320\n xxvi. 1, 415\n xxvi. 8, 133, 223\n xxvii. 14, 410\n xxxv. 12, 186\n xl. 4, 462\n xl. 5, 146\n xlii. 2, 496\n xliii. 1, 486\n xlv. 14, 146\n xlvi. 9, 340\n l. 14, 358\n l. 16-18, 206\n l. 18, 286\n li. 7, 391\n lii. 3, 406\n lvi. 11, 415\n lvii. 4, 389\n lvii. 5, 271\n lvii. 11, 414\n lviii. 1, 41\n lx. 11, 234, 464\n lxi. 2, 3, 7, 403\n lxii. 1, 2, 436\n lxiii. 11, 247\n lxviii. 6, 222, 223\n lxxii. 8, 242, 335, 465, 482\n lxxiii. 18, 28\n lxxiii. 26, 314\n lxxxiii. 16, 254\n lxxxiv. 4, 223\n lxxxiv. 10, 406\n xciii. 1, 394\n xcvi. 1, 320\n ci. 5, 348\n ciii. 8, 48\n cv. 15, 278\n cv. 44, 317\n cix. 8, 9, 261\n cxiii. 3, 358\n cxviii. 8, 234, 465, 482\n cxviii. 8, 9, 384, 391\n cxix. 28, 147\n cxix. 42, 316\n cxix. 86, 487\n cxix. 122, 316\n cxx. 6, 7, 361\n cxxii. 1, 223\n cxxii. 6, 514\n cxxxii. 9, 293\n cxxxiii., 396\n cxxxiii. 1, 509\n cxxxix. 16, 25\n cxli. 5, 337, 443\n cxliv. 9, 320\n cxliv. 11-15, 183\n\n PROVERBS.\n\n ii. 22, 312, 314\n vii. 12, 162, 164\n ix. 18, 162\n xiii. 22, 509\n xiii. 24, 497\n xiv. 9, 166\n xiv. 28, 356\n xviii. 21, 366\n xviii. 1, 74\n xxiii. 14, 497\n xxvii. 6, 395\n xxix. 19, 497\n\n SONG OF SOLOMON.\n\n i. 3, 414\n ii. 2, 146\n iv. 12, 189\n iv. 12, 13, 146, 154, 223\n vi. 8, 94, 154\n vi. 9, 17, 70, 81, 186, 223\n\n ISAIAH.\n\n xxix. 13, 218\n xlvi. 8, 310\n lviii. 11, 249\n lxvi. 3, 326\n lxvi. 24, 296\n\n JEREMIAH.\n\n ii. 21, 180\n viii. 11, 340\n xv. 15-18, 393\n xv. 18, 69, 442\n xvii. 5, 234, 257, 392, 408,\n 436, 462, 464\n xxxvi., 41\n\n EZEKIEL.\n\n xiii. 11, 48\n xiv. 14, 400\n xvi. 17-19, 77\n xvi. 31, 193\n xxxiv. 4, 505\n\n DANIEL.\n\n ii.-vi., 379\n ii. 35, 311, 340\n iii., 363\n iii.-vi., 369\n iii. 5-29, 485\n iii. 29, 495\n vi., 363\n vi. 10, 400\n vi. 24, 484\n ix. 20, 400\n\n HOSEA.\n\n ii., 219\n ii. 2-5, 73\n ii. 5-7, 104\n ii. 5-8, 76\n ix. 4, 326\n\n JONAH.\n\n iii. 6-9, 495\n\n MALACHI.\n\n i. 2, 3, 17\n i. 11, 358, 482\n iii. 1, 307\n\n\n APOCRYPHA.\n\n WISDOM.\n\n i. 5, 19, 143, 164, 291,\n 438, 440, 444, 519\n i. 11, 272\n ii. 24, 25, 90, 92\n iii. 6, 312\n v. 1, 512\n ix. 15, 151, 195, 510\n x. 20, 509\n xii. 10, 48\n xii. 23, 278\n xxxiv. 25, 464\n\n ECCLESIASTICUS.\n\n iii. 18, 58\n xv. 16, 17, 355\n xxxiv. 25, 238, 259\n\n 2 MACCABEES.\n\n vii., 363\n vii. 9, 262\n\n BEL AND THE DRAGON.\n\n Vers. 22, 42, 495\n\n\n NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n MATTHEW.\n\n ii. 16, 363\n iii. 6, 13, 111\n iii. 7, 437\n iii. 11, 126, 295, 298\n iii. 12, 291, 409, 493\n iii. 13, 124\n iii. 14, 129\n iii. 16, 127\n iii. 17, 307\n iv. 6, 7, 359\n v. 3, 387\n v. 3-9, 338\n v. 5-7, 323\n v. 9, 300\n v. 10, 284, 340, 355, 486\n v. 10-12, 444\n v. 12, 444\n v. 13, 166\n v. 14, 297\n v. 17, 74\n v. 19, 20, 333\n v. 20, 109, 475\n v. 39, 277, 362\n vi. 10, 327\n vi. 12, 510\n vi. 14, 15, 176\n vi. 15, 141, 173, 186, 202\n vi. 24, 213\n vii. 3, 368\n vii. 15, 7, 42, 247\n vii. 15, 16, 272\n vii. 15, 16, 343, 475\n vii. 16, 248\n vii. 17, 16, 237, 258,\n 455, 464\n vii. 21, 327\n vii. 22, 329\n vii. 22, 23, 171, 328\n vii. 23, 82, 180, 206\n vii. 24, 175\n vii. 24-26, 176\n vii. 24-27, 203\n vii. 26, 403\n viii. 21, 22, 259\n viii. 29, 443\n x. 16, 342\n x. 16, 28, 277\n x. 23, 276, 463\n x. 25, 415\n x. 28, 389\n x. 35-39, 284\n xi. 9, 11, 309\n xi. 11, 124\n xi. 24, 9, 106, 193\n xii. 30, 11, 95, 105, 170,\n 182, 413\n xii. 31, 32, 334\n xii. 32, 517\n xii. 35, 237, 258, 455\n xii. 45, 259\n xiii. 2, 3, 96\n xiii. 23, 93, 223\n xiii. 24-30, 312\n xiii. 24-40, 409\n xiii. 24-30, 36-43, 290\n xiii. 28, 25, 92\n xiii. 29, 91, 178\n xiii. 47, 48, 409\n xiii. 38, 39, 347\n xiv. 8, 9, 364\n xv. 14, 171\n xvi. 16, 443\n xvi. 18, 32, 223, 403\n xvi. 18, 19, 79, 218\n xvi. 19, 70, 223, 515\n xvi. 25, 388\n xvi. 26, 386\n xvii. 14, 490\n xviii. 17, 192, 223\n xviii. 19, 51\n xviii. 23-25, 21\n xix. 21, 397\n xix. 29, 388\n xxi. 25, 309\n xxi. 43, 317, 333\n xxii. 30, 37, 461\n xxii. 39, 338\n xxiii. 2, 3, 326, 334, 416\n xxiii. 3, 157, 237, 257,\n 408, 463\n xxiii. 13, 15,\n 23, 24, 27, 28, 341\n xxiii. 25, 392\n xxiii. 33-35, 269\n xxiv. 23, 7, 274\n xxv. 32, 33, 409\n xxv. 34, 41, 288\n xxv. 41, 107, 275\n xxv. 45, 140\n xxvi. 17, 308\n xxvi. 26-29, 222\n xxvi. 52, 360\n xxvi. 69-75, 33\n xxvii. 4, 5, 261\n xxvii. 24, 363\n xxvii. 24-26, 364\n xxvii. 26, 363\n xxviii. 18, 19 166\n xxviii. 19, 17, 68, 170,\n 187, 192, 289\n xxviii. 19, 20, 300\n\n MARK.\n\n i. 2, 307\n i. 7, 307\n i. 24, 15\n iii. 23, 252\n v. 13, 489\n viii. 29, 443\n ix. 38, 143\n ix. 38, 39, 11\n xvi. 15-18, 192\n\n LUKE.\n\n i. 11, 13, 193\n ii. 14, 89\n iv. 9, 489\n vi. 35, 420\n vi. 37, 176\n viii. 15, 93, 223\n viii. 28, 443\n ix. 38, 216\n ix. 49, 50, 95, 348\n x. 20, 329\n xiv. 22, 23, 499\n xv. 32, 311, 513\n xvii. 14, 193\n xxiii. 33, 486\n xxiii. 34, 420\n xxiii. 40-43, 33\n xxiii. 43, 110\n xxiv. 36, 45, 47, 338\n xxiv. 39, 46, 47, 343\n xxiv. 44-47, 272\n xxiv. 46, 47, 265, 481\n xxiv. 47, 382, 397\n\n JOHN.\n\n i. 1, 2, 481\n i. 16, 124\n i. 22, 437\n i. 27, 124\n i. 29, 126\n i. 32, 33, 129\n i. 33, 59, 96, 127, 128,\n 180, 186, 206,\n 238, 256, 462\n i. 47, 74\n ii. 15-17, 266\n iii. 5, 108, 162, 164, 473\n iii. 6, 163\n iii. 9, 51\n iii. 27, 124, 209, 295\n iv. 2, 472\n iv. 24, 163\n vi. 44, 354\n vi. 51, 222\n vii. 44, 42\n viii. 44, 268\n ix. 21, 113\n ix. 31, 138, 212\n x. 15, 498\n x. 27, 342\n x. 37, 267\n xi. 51, 293, 314\n xi. 52, 14\n xii. 6, 472\n xii. 24, 361\n xii. 43, 48\n xiii. 45, 124\n xiii. 10, 74, 289\n xiii. 10, 11, 282\n xiii. 24, 29\n xiii. 27, 123\n xiii. 34, 35, 74, 344\n xiv. 6, 60, 188\n xiv. 21, 74\n xiv. 27, 282\n xv. 1, 2, 29\n xv. 1-5, 74\n xv. 2, 29, 135\n xv. 3, 4, 282\n xv. 5, 236, 454\n xv. 15, 128\n xv. 22, 518\n xvi. 2, 364, 372, 496\n xvii. 12, 261\n xviii. 10, 11, 360\n xix. 11, 295\n xx. 19-21, 273\n xx. 21-23, 71\n xx. 22, 295, 299\n xx. 22, 23, 518\n xx. 23, 140, 151, 154,\n 167, 204\n xx. 28, 17\n\n ACTS.\n\n i. 5, 300\n i. 7, 8, 311\n i. 8, 316, 329, 335, 357,\n 384, 388, 483\n i. 15, 303\n ii. 2-4, 295\n ii. 4, 303\n iv. 32, 509\n iv. 32-35, 397\n v. 3, 4, 461\n v. 29, 356\n viii. 5-17, 73\n viii. 9-24, 93\n viii. 13, 14, 70, 164, 394\n viii. 13, 18, 19, 109\n viii. 13, 21, 16\n viii. 36, 442\n ix. 1-18, 498\n ix. 4, 140\n ix. 4, 5, 278\n ix. 4-18, 281\n x., 12\n x. 4, 5, 110\n x. 44, 109, 303\n xiii. 18, 19, 260\n xiv. 22, 401\n xv. 9, 471\n xvii. 23, 27, 28, 294\n xvii. 28, 193\n xix. 1-7, 306\n xix. 3, 475\n xix. 3-5, 114, 124, 126\n xxii. 25, 331, 503\n xxiii. 12-23, 372, 384\n xxiii. 17-32, 503\n xxiv. 1, 422\n xxv. 11, 503\n\n ROMANS.\n\n ii. 1, 143\n ii. 4, 73\n ii. 4, 5, 519\n ii. 21, 91, 142\n ii. 29, 146\n iii. 3, 4, 204\n iii. 17, 30, 38\n iii. 24, 511\n iii. 26, 272\n iv. 3, 271\n iv. 5, 235, 257, 292, 272,\n 446, 454, 462, 464,\n 471, 509\n iv. 11, 3, 112\n iv. 25, 5, 237\n v. 5, 519\n v. 17, 69\n vi. 9, 238, 260\n vi. 23, 185, 193\n viii. 6, 171, 186\n viii. 17, 264\n viii. 24, 126\n viii. 28, 146\n ix. 5, 461\n x. 3, 510\n x. 4, 125\n x. 10, 110\n xi. 13, 130\n xii. 2, 4, 279\n xii. 3-5, 512\n xii. 5, 236, 454\n xiii. 1, 295\n xiii. 4, 352\n xiii. 10, 74\n xiv. 4, 41, 47\n xiv. 6, 81\n xiv. 12, 13, 413\n xiv. 14, 288\n\n 1 CORINTHIANS.\n\n i. 10, 13, 16\n i. 12, 13, 315, 409\n i. 12-15, 129\n i. 13, 66, 145, 234, 466\n i. 14, 475\n i. 17, 472\n i. 22, 500\n i. 27, 135\n i. 30, 31, 414\n i. 31, 446\n ii. 6-8, 363\n ii. 14, 24, 66\n ii. 15, 71\n iii. 1-3, 66\n iii. 1-4, 16\n iii. 4, 5, 471\n iii. 6, 7, 236, 470\n iii. 7, 412, 464, 514\n iii. 17, 224\n iii. 21, 436, 446\n iii. 21-23, 408\n iii. 22, 23, 509\n iv. 1-6, 408\n iv. 3, 322\n iv. 7, 408, 510\n iv. 15, 257, 425\n iv. 16, 408\n v. 4, 220\n v. 5, 266\n v. 11, 219\n vi. 3, 275\n vi. 9, 10, 106\n vi. 10, 83, 91, 105,\n 142, 288\n viii. 11, 412\n ix. 15, 130\n ix. 17, 472\n x. 1, 2, 306\n x. 11, 17\n x. 13, 38\n x. 17, 519\n xi. 1, 344\n xi. 16, 90, 133\n xi. 19, 344\n xi. 29, 123, 321, 519\n xii. 11, 70\n xii. 31, 28\n xiii. 1, 28\n xiii. 1, 2, 14\n xiii. 1-3, 69, 513\n xiii. 1-8, 346\n xiii. 2, 12, 227, 328\n xiii. 3, 38, 104, 388\n xiii. 5, 94\n xiii. 6, 350\n xiv. 29, 30, 444\n xv. 9, 275\n xv. 10, 498\n xv. 12, 145\n xv. 13-15, 458\n xv. 32, 145, 171\n xv. 32, 33, 12, 96\n xv. 33, 32, 205\n xv. 46, 24\n xv. 55, 56, 510\n\n 2 CORINTHIANS.\n\n ii. 15, 190, 216\n ii. 15, 16, 65\n iv. 16, 102\n vi. 7, 8, 420\n vi. 10, 387\n vi. 14, 98, 99\n vi. 14, 15, 315\n vi. 16, 83, 143, 204\n vii. 5, 345, 393\n x. 6, 499\n xi. 2, 3, 411\n xi. 3, 205\n xi. 14, 15, 274\n xi. 20-23, 362\n xi. 26, 276, 344\n xi. 29, 393\n xii. 14, 509\n\n GALATIANS.\n\n i. 8, 348, 413\n i. 20, 33\n ii. 11, 196, 209\n ii. 11-14, 61\n ii. 14, 33, 87, 153\n iii. 16, 249, 465\n iii. 27, 18, 143, 317\n iii. 29, 264\n iv., 24\n iv. 5, 291\n iv. 22-31, 487\n v. 17, 338\n v. 19-21, 105, 130, 163,\n 165, 228, 398, 403\n v. 21, 191\n v. 22, 23, 29\n vi. 1, 146\n vi. 2, 3, 413\n vi. 3, 470\n vi. 4, 319\n vi. 4, 5, 413\n vi. 5, 288, 305, 382, 449\n vi. 9, 10, 485\n\n EPHESIANS.\n\n ii. 6, 7, 126\n ii. 14, 340\n iii. 4, 130\n iv. 1-3, 339\n iv. 2, 3, 15, 28, 158,\n 224, 347, 413\n iv. 3, 39, 174, 513\n iv. 3-6, 163\n iv. 4, 5, 158\n iv. 4-6, 145, 214\n iv. 5, 203, 298\n iv. 14, 66\n v. 5, 13, 85, 86, 91, 97\n v. 23, 519\n v. 25, 26, 462, 474\n v. 26, 27, 81\n v. 27, 72, 94, 132,\n 144, 146, 154,\n 204, 223, 510\n v. 29, 338\n vi. 12, 419\n\n COLOSSIANS.\n\n i. 6, 482\n i. 23, 394\n iii. 5, 84\n iv. 2-4, 400\n\n PHILIPPIANS.\n\n i. 15, 99\n i. 15, 17, 222\n i. 15-18, 92, 450\n i. 16, 26\n i. 17, 18, 257\n i. 18, 88, 96, 223\n i. 23, 498\n ii. 20, 21, 345\n ii. 21, 94, 257\n iii. 5, 6, 372\n iii. 15, 38, 95, 117, 147,\n 151, 158, 174, 178,\n 189, 210, 228\n iii. 16, 38\n\n 1 THESSALONIANS.\n\n v. 14, 15, 411\n\n 1 TIMOTHY.\n\n i. 5, 70, 124, 151, 219\n i. 8, 123, 329\n i. 13, 84, 85\n i. 20, 266\n iii. 10, 438\n iii. 11, 142\n iv. 12, 77\n iv. 14, 402\n v. 6, 186, 260\n v. 22, 201, 402\n\n 2 TIMOTHY.\n\n ii. 8, 139, 473\n ii. 16-21, 175\n ii. 17, 96\n ii. 17-20, 98\n ii. 19, 146, 409\n ii. 20, 97, 224 _bis_, 409\n ii. 24, 84\n ii. 24, 25, 327\n ii. 26, 505\n iv. 2, 48, 339\n\n TITUS.\n\n i. 7, 72\n i. 12, 13, 293\n i. 15, 326\n i. 16, 80\n\n HEBREWS.\n\n ix. 7, 401\n\n JAMES.\n\n i. 17, 408\n\n 1 PETER.\n\n ii. 20, 355, 387\n iii. 15, 277\n iii. 20, 21, 148\n iii. 21, 80, 416\n iv. 8, 27, 51, 513\n\n 1 JOHN.\n\n i. 8, 400, 511\n i. 8, 9, 510\n ii. 1, 2, 401\n ii. 9, 99, 137, 167\n ii. 18, 170\n ii. 19, 74, 140, 212, 224\n iii. 9, 511\n iii. 15, 137, 174, 280, 358\n iv. 1, 443\n iv. 16, 412\n iv. 18, 497\n\n 2 JOHN.\n\n Vers. 10, 11, 218\n\n JUDE.\n\n Ver. 19, 519\n\n REVELATION.\n\n ii. 6, 93\n xvii. 5, 393\n xvii. 15, 69, 442\n\n\n\n\n II.--INDEX OF PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS.\n\n\n Aaron, the ointment on the head, beard, and garments of, 396, 397.\n\n Adelphius of Thasbalte, the sentence of, respecting the rebaptism\n of heretics, 191.\n\n Adulterous woman, the, 73, 76, 77.\n\n Apostates retain the grace of baptism, 2.\n\n Ark, the, of Noah, and baptism, 147, 148.\n\n Arles, the Council of, 46.\n\n Augustine, the apology of, in regard to the reproaches cast on him\n by Petilian respecting his past life, 417;\n misstatements of Petilian respecting the life of, 433.\n\n Aurelius of Chullabi, the sentence of, respecting the rebaptizing\n of heretics, 218.\n\n Aurelius of Utica, 201.\n\n Aymnius of Ausnaga, 205.\n\n\n Babylon, the king of, and Daniel, 379.\n\n Baptized, the, not the fruit of the baptizer, 455.\n\n Baptized by the dead, the, who? 238, 239.\n\n Baptized twice, or not at all, which the worst case? 51.\n\n Baptizer, the, to be examined, 439.\n\n Baptism, heretical, valid--may be conferred outside of the Church,\n but should not be received, 1, etc.;\n the grace of, retained by apostates, 2;\n of no avail while men remain in schism, 13, etc.;\n examination and refutation of the arguments of Cyprian's epistle\n to Jubaianus in defence of the rebaptizing of heretics, 62, 63,\n etc.;\n everywhere the same, 65;\n valid even with defective faith, 67;\n how Marcion consecrated the sacrament of, 67, 68;\n the streams of the river of Paradise illustrative of, within and\n without the Church, 79;\n heretical, true, but profitless, 83;\n sacred in itself, 94, 95;\n all do not receive the grace of, 100, 101;\n the difference between a bad man who receives it without, and a\n bad man who receives it within the Church, 102, 103;\n unavailing without unity, 105;\n and holiness--both requisite, 109;\n the place of, sometimes supplied by martyrdom, 110;\n almost always indispensable, 111;\n infants capable of, 112, 113;\n the custom of the Church in relation to, 115;\n second, not to be given, and generally disliked, 120, 121;\n not always used lawfully, 122, 123;\n the, of John, 124, 125;\n John's, different from Christ's, 127, 130, 131;\n administered to Christ by John, 129;\n true even when profitless, 139;\n heretics can give, 140;\n cannot be annulled, 142, 143;\n judgments of the bishops in the Council of Carthage in relation to\n heretics, 150, etc., 195, etc.;\n not always profitable, 224, 225;\n is it valid when received from one who was not himself\n baptized? 225, 226;\n cannot be given in deceit, 226, 227;\n independent of the giver, 232, 233, 234, 235;\n rests in Christ, 257;\n no degrees in, 257, 258;\n everywhere belongs to God, 291;\n the, of Christ and John, 298, 299, 300, 307, 308, 309;\n independent of the ministrant, 303;\n depends not on the giver, 390, 391;\n heresy cannot destroy, 403;\n by hypocrites, 441;\n the source of, always one, 461, 462, 463.\n\n Beard, the, of Aaron, the import of 396, 397.\n\n Bishops, the wicked conduct of some, in the days of Cyprian, 91, etc.\n\n\n C\u00e6cilius of Bilta, his sentence on the rebaptizing of heretics, 158.\n\n C\u00e6cilianus, bishop of the Church of Carthage, opposed by the\n Donatists, 481, 482;\n persecuted by the Donatists, 483.\n\n Carneades, 427.\n\n Carthage, the Council of, 32, 60, 61;\n the various sentences of the members of the Council of, on the\n baptizing of heretics, 156, etc., 165, etc., 195, etc.\n\n Cassius of Macomades, his sentence respecting the rebaptizing of\n heretics refuted, 180.\n\n Castus of Sicca, his opinion refuted, 60, 186.\n\n Catholic, meaning of the term, 311.\n\n Catholic, the wicked, cannot be saved, 105, 106;\n ought we to prefer a, of an abandoned life, to a blameless\n heretic? 107, 108.\n\n Catholicity, the, of the Church, 297;\n of the Psalms, 320, 321.\n\n Catholics, the, charged by the Donatists with murder, 363, etc.;\n innocent of the charges alleged against them by the Donatists, 382.\n\n Chaff and the wheat, the, 318, 319.\n\n Christ, the baptism of, by John, 129;\n the head and origin of the Christian, 235;\n alone justifies, 236, 237;\n the baptism of John and, 125, 296, 299;\n the name of, everywhere holy, 351;\n the derivation of the name, 396;\n alone without sin, 401;\n the only source of grace, 453;\n the source of baptism, 462, 463.\n\n Christian, the true, 74;\n Christ the head and origin of, 235.\n\n Church, the, union with, necessary to salvation, 15;\n the Holy Spirit given only in, 69, 70;\n a mixture of good and evil in, 92, 93, 97, etc.;\n a garden enclosed, 146, etc.;\n the ark, 148, 149;\n the catholicity of, 296, 297;\n the property of, 509;\n not sinless in this world, 510, 511;\n the mercy of, 516, 517.\n\n Circumcelliones, the, 250, 270, 354, 360, 369, 374.\n\n Clarus of Mascula, his sentence on the rebaptizing of heretics, 217.\n\n Compulsion in religion justified, 495-500.\n\n Constantine and Julian, 370, 371.\n\n Cornelius, the centurion, 12, 109, 110.\n\n Correction, loving, 339.\n\n Council of Carthage, the, 32, 60, 61, 165, 195;\n of Arles, 146.\n\n Covetousness, the nature of, 332, 333.\n\n Crescens of Cirta, the sentence of, on the baptism of heretics, 168.\n\n Crispinus of Calama, the Donatist, the conduct of, towards the\n Catholics, 354.\n\n Cyprian, the position of, with respect to the rebaptizing of\n heretics, 27, 28, 29;\n the example of, more opposed to the Donatists than to the\n Catholics, 31, etc.;\n quoted, 32, 34;\n the charity and humility of, 35-38;\n not a schismatic, 38, 39;\n against schism, 43;\n examination of his epistle to Jubaianus, 54, etc.;\n the example of, condemns the Donatists, 57, etc.;\n his epistle to Jubaianus further examined, 79, etc.;\n on envy and malignity, 89, etc.;\n the eminent character of, 90, 91, 135;\n the wicked conduct of some bishops in the days of, 91;\n not infallible, 145;\n the liberality of, 157;\n his sentence at the Council of Carthage, 224.\n\n\n Daniel and the three children, 379, 380.\n\n Dativus of Badis, his sentence on the baptism of heretics, 173.\n\n Dead, baptized by the, 238, 239.\n\n Death, forcible rescue from, merciful, 507.\n\n Demetrius of the Lesser Septis, his sentence on the baptism of\n heretics, 191.\n\n Devil, the, 92;\n a murderer from the beginning, 268;\n quotes Scripture, 323.\n\n Discipline, necessary, 411;\n maintained in the Church, 447;\n admits of relaxation, 515.\n\n Donatists, the validity of the baptism of, no justification of their\n schism, 1, etc.;\n the case of Cyprian quoted by, in their defence, 27;\n the case of Cyprian really against, 31, etc.;\n the inconsistency of, 49, 240, 241;\n the example of Cyprian condemns, 57, etc.;\n traditors, 248, 249;\n the wicked conduct of, 250;\n the slanders of which they are guilty, 270, 271;\n not persecuted, 277, etc.;\n the madness of, 312, 313;\n condemned by secular testimony, 331;\n ravening wolves, 342, 343;\n false assumptions of, 344, 345;\n wanting in charity, 346, 347;\n persecution and cruelty practised by, 352, 353;\n worse than murderers, 359;\n the intrigues of, with the Emperor Julian, 367, 369, 370;\n the guilt of, 382, 383;\n the confidence of, in Julian, 384, 385;\n the sufferings of, fruitless, 387;\n not sinless, 398, 399;\n the wantonness of their schism, 466, 467;\n to be distinguished from the Arians, 479, 489;\n the question in dispute with, 480;\n the reason of the separation of, 481, 482;\n the appeal of, to the Emperor Constantine against C\u00e6cilianus, 483;\n the habit of suicide among, 488, 489;\n the gratitude of some of the reclaimed, 490;\n persecutions, cruelties, and terrorism practised\n by, 491, 492, 493, 494;\n measures taken against, 500, 501;\n attempt of, to murder Maximianus, bishop of Bagai, 502, 503;\n results of the fury of, 503-505;\n charge of, against the Church, of plundering their\n possessions, 508, 509.\n\n Donatulus of Capsa, 214.\n\n Donatus of Cas\u00e6 Nigr\u00e6, 517.\n\n Donatus of Cibaliana, 208.\n\n Dove, the one, 70, 81.\n\n Drawing, the, of the Father, and free-will, 355.\n\n Drunkenness, can it exist alone, without involving other sins? 107.\n\n\n Envy and malignity, Cyprian on, 89.\n\n Error, unwittingly fallen into, not as bad as vice, 84, 85;\n healed in unity, 116, 117.\n\n Eucratius of Then\u00e6, his sentence on the baptism of heretics, 187.\n\n Eugenius of Ammedera, his opinion as to the baptizing of heretics, 189.\n\n\n Faustinus, a Donatist, his persecution of the Catholics, 353.\n\n Faustus of Timida Regia, the sentence of, on the baptizing of\n heretics, 209.\n\n Felicianus, the Donatist, 3, 353.\n\n Felix of Ammacura, 189.\n\n Felix of Bagai, 171.\n\n Felix of Buslacene, 61, 212.\n\n Felix of Gurgites, 215.\n\n Felix of Marazana, 203.\n\n Felix of Migirpa, 160.\n\n Felix of Uthina, 184.\n\n Fortunatus of Thuccabori, 174.\n\n\n Garden enclosed, the, 146.\n\n Geminius of Furni, 210.\n\n Gildo, Count of Africa, 49 (note), 285 (note), 309.\n\n Grace, comes from God only, 141.\n\n Grafting into the Church, 514.\n\n Guilt, not contagious, 286, 287.\n\n\n Heresy, cannot destroy baptism, 403.\n\n Heretics, can bestow baptism, not to be rebaptized, 1, etc.;\n the baptism of, true, but profitless, 82, 83;\n even although virtuous, cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, 105;\n can give baptism, but not remission of sins, 140.\n\n Holy Ghost, the, given only in the Catholic Church, 69;\n the sin against, 335;\n the sin against, alone incapable of forgiveness, 517, 518;\n gives life to none outside the Church, 519.\n\n Honoratus of Tucca, his sentence on the baptism of heretics, 217.\n\n Hortensianus of Lares, 180.\n\n House, a great, the vessels in, 98, 100.\n\n\n Iambus of Germaniciana, 202.\n\n Infants capable of baptism, 112, 113.\n\n Invective, not proof, 301.\n\n Iren\u00e6us of Ululi, 208.\n\n\n Jader of Medina, 203.\n\n Januarius of Lamb\u00e6se, 165.\n\n Januarius of Muzuli, 190.\n\n Januarius of Vicus C\u00e6saris, 183.\n\n John, the baptism of, different from Christ's, 124, 127;\n Christ baptized by, 127, 288, 289, 306-309;\n the true position of, 307.\n\n Jubaianus, Cyprian's epistle to, examined, 54, etc., 61, etc.\n\n Judas, 261, 262, 263.\n\n Julian, the Emperor, the intrigues of the Donatists with, 367;\n and Constantine, 371, 384, 385.\n\n Julianus of Marcelliana, 213.\n\n Julianus of Telpe, 209.\n\n Junius of Neapolis, 220.\n\n\n Kings of the world, the, their attitude towards the Church as\n represented by Petilian and Augustine, 363;\n the duties of, 376, 377.\n\n Korah and Abiram, 72, 73.\n\n\n Libosus of Vaga, 188.\n\n Litteus of Gemelli, 219.\n\n Lucianus of Rucuma, 202.\n\n Lucifer, bishop of Calarita, 516.\n\n Lucius of Ausafa, 215.\n\n Lucius of Castrum Galb\u00e6, 166.\n\n Lucius of Membresa, 212.\n\n Lying water, 392, 393.\n\n\n Macarius, 313, 314;\n and Ursacius, 374, 375.\n\n Marcellus of Zama, 207.\n\n Marcion, how he consecrated the sacrament of baptism, 67, 68.\n\n Marcus of Mactaris, 196.\n\n Martyrdom, of no avail to those outside the Church, 104;\n sometimes supplies the place of baptism, 110;\n suicide not, 488, 489.\n\n Maximianus and his followers, who separated from the Donatists, but\n afterwards returned to communion with them, 49, 245, 248, 249.\n\n Maximianus, the Catholic bishop of Bagai, attempts of the Donatists\n to murder, 502, 503;\n seeks aid from the Emperor against the Donatists, 503.\n\n Minister, the true function of the Christian, 471.\n\n Ministrations, the, of bad men, valid, 154, 155.\n\n Miracles no proof of holiness, 329.\n\n Monnulus of Girba, his sentence on the baptizing of heretics, 170.\n\n\n Name of Christ, the, everywhere holy, 351.\n\n Natalia of Oea, 220.\n\n Nebuchadnezzar, 485.\n\n Nemesianus of Tabun\u00e6, his sentence as to the baptizing of\n heretics, 262, 263.\n\n Nicomedes of Segerm\u00e6, 169.\n\n Novatus of Thamugadis, 169.\n\n\n Oil of sinners, the, 394, 395.\n\n Ointment, the, on the head and beard of Aaron, 396, 397.\n\n Optatus, the Gildonian, 49, 251, 252, 285, 309;\n persecution of the Catholic Church under, 353;\n the universal opinion respecting, 395.\n\n\n Paradise, the comparison of the Church with, 79.\n\n Paul the apostle, the case of the baptism of, 281;\n the excellency of the mission of, 472, 473.\n\n Paul of Bobba, his sentence on the rebaptizing of heretics, 204.\n\n Pelagianus of Luperciana, 203.\n\n Penitent robber, the, 110.\n\n Persecution, the, of the Donatists denied, 277;\n punishment not, 278, 279;\n of the saints, 371, 372, etc.;\n distinctions in, 486, 487;\n an apology for, 487, 488;\n how the true Church persecutes, 488;\n justified, 495-500.\n\n Peter, the sword of, 360, 361.\n\n Peter of Hippo Diarrhytus, the opinion of, on the baptism of\n heretics, 215.\n\n Petilian the Donatist, Augustine's reply to, 231, etc., 256, etc.;\n not a fair witness, 418, 419;\n misstatements of, respecting Augustine's life, 433.\n\n Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, 103.\n\n Polycarp of Adrumetum, the sentence of, relating to the baptism of\n heretics, 161.\n\n Pomponius of Dionysiana, 204.\n\n Prayer, the power of, in unity, 70, 71.\n\n Primianus, a Donatist bishop, 10.\n\n Privatianus of Sufetula, the opinion of, respecting the baptism of\n heretics, 179.\n\n Privatus of Sufes, 179.\n\n Proof, invective not, 301.\n\n Property of the Church, the, 509.\n\n Psalms, the catholicity of, 320, 321.\n\n Pudentianus of Cuiculi, 214.\n\n Pusillus of Lamasba, 216.\n\n\n Quietus of Burug, 185.\n\n Quintus of Aggya, 213.\n\n\n Rhetoric not argument, 427.\n\n Righteousness only in the unity of the Church, 512.\n\n Rogatianus of Nova, 210.\n\n Rogatus the Moor, 352, 353.\n\n\n Sacraments, the, everywhere complete, 68, 69;\n cannot be polluted, 99;\n may be validly conferred by bad men, 154, 155.\n\n Salvation not possible without union with the Church, 15, 69.\n\n Salvianus of Gazaufala, 216.\n\n Sarah and Hagar, the case of, as illustrativeof persecution, 487.\n\n Satius of Siccilibba, 199.\n\n Saturninus of Abitini, 212.\n\n Saturninus of Tucca, 206, 207.\n\n Saturninus of Victoriana, 206.\n\n Schism, the evil of, 13, 14, 15;\n the deadliest of sins, 41;\n Cyprian against, 43;\n spiritual murder, 272, 273.\n\n Schismatics, not within the Church, 81, 82;\n never spared by Christ, 348, 349.\n\n Seat of the scornful, the, 325.\n\n Secundianus of Thambei, 218.\n\n Secundinus of Carpis, 182.\n\n Secundinus of Cedi\u00e6, 170.\n\n Sedatus of Tuburbo, 177.\n\n Servant, the unmerciful, 20, 21.\n\n Silvanus, bishop of Constantia, a traditor, 248.\n\n Silvanus of Cirta, a traditor, 474, 475, 476.\n\n Simon Magus, the baptism of, 18, 19.\n\n Sin, one, fatal, 107.\n\n Sin against the Holy Ghost, the, 335.\n\n Sinless, Christ alone, 400, 401.\n\n Sins, remitted, sometimes return upon a man, 20;\n do not implicate those who disapprove of them, 286, 287.\n\n Slander may be murder, 271.\n\n Speech, empty, never eloquent, 296.\n\n Successus of Abbir Germaniciana, 174.\n\n Sufferings no proof of holiness, 316, 317.\n\n Suicide not martyrdom, 488, 489;\n to be repressed, 491.\n\n Sword, the, of Peter, 360, 361.\n\n\n Tares, the, 92, 93.\n\n Tenax of Horrea Celiae, 213.\n\n Theogenes of Hippo Regius, 172.\n\n Therapius of Bulla, 210.\n\n Traditors, 40;\n not to be baptized afresh, 279, 282.\n\n Trust in man forbidden, 436, 437.\n\n Truth may sometimes be spoken by false and wicked men, 293;\n to be recognised amid error, 294.\n\n\n Unclean, the, do not pollute the clean, 282, 283.\n\n Unity, the, of the Church, 70, 71;\n baptism does not avail without, 105;\n error healed in, 117;\n in the primitive Church, 396, 397;\n righteousness only in, 512, 513.\n\n Unmerciful servant, the, 20, 21.\n\n Ursacius and Macarius, 374, 375, 376.\n\n\n Venantius of Tinisa, 204.\n\n Verulus of Rusicada, 214.\n\n Victor of Assura, 213.\n\n Victor of Gor, 200.\n\n Victor of Octavus, 217.\n\n Victoricus of Thabraca, 184.\n\n Vincentius of Thibaris, 192.\n\n\n Water, lying, which has no faith, 392 393.\n\n Wheat and chaff, 318, 319.\n\n Will, the doctrine of the, 355.\n\n Worship, unholy, 327.\n\n\n Zosimus of Tharassa, 60, 209.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,\n PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.\n\n NEW WORKS\n\n PUBLISHED BY\n\n T. AND T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.\n\n\nIn One Volume 8vo, price 12s.,\n\n A History of the Christian Councils, from the Original Documents,\n to the Close of the Council of Nic\u00e6a, A.D. 325. By CHARLES JOSEPH\n HEFELE, D.D., Bishop of Rottenburg, formerly Professor of Theology\n in the University of T\u00fcbingen. Translated from the German, and\n Edited by WILLIAM R. CLARK, M.A. Oxon., Prebendary of Wells and\n Vicar of Taunton.\n\n\nJust published, in One Volume 8vo, price 9s.,\n\n The Old Catholic Church; or, The History, Doctrine, Worship, and\n Polity of the Christians. Traced from the Apostolic Age to the\n Establishment of the Pope as a Temporal Sovereign, A.D. 755. By W.\n D. KILLEN, D.D.\n\n\nJust published, in One Volume 8vo, price 9s.,\n\n Sermons. From 1828 to 1860. By the late WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D.,\n Principal and Professor of Church History, New College, Edinburgh.\n _With a Photograph._ Edited, with a Preface, by Rev. J. J. BONAR,\n Greenock.\n\n\nJust published, in Two Volumes 8vo, price 21s.,\n\n History of Protestant Theology, particularly in Germany. Viewed\n according to its Fundamental Movement, and in connection with the\n Religious, Moral, and Intellectual Life. By Dr. J. A. DORNER,\n Oberconsistorialrath and Professor of Theology at Berlin.\n Translated by the Rev. GEORGE ROBSON, M.A., Inverness, and SOPHIA\n TAYLOR. With a Preface to the Translation by the Author.\n\n\nJust published, Second Edition, in demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,\n\n The Doctrine of the Atonement, as taught by Christ Himself; or,\n The Sayings of Jesus on the Atonement Exegetically Expounded and\n Classified. By Rev. GEORGE SMEATON, D.D., Professor of Exegetical\n Theology, New College, Edinburgh.\n\n\n_BY THE SAME AUTHOR._\n\nJust published, in demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,\n\n The Doctrine of the Atonement, as taught by the Apostles; or,\n The Sayings of the Apostles Exegetically Expounded.\n\n_T. and T. Clark's Publications._\nAnte-Nicene Christian Library.\n\nA COLLECTION OF ALL THE WORKS OF THE FATHERS OF THE\nCHRISTIAN CHURCH, PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF NIC\u00c6A,\n\nEDITED BY THE\n\nREV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D.,\n\nAuthor of 'Discussions on the Gospels,' etc.,\n\nAND\n\nJAMES DONALDSON, LL.D,\n\nRector of the Royal High School, Edinburgh, and Author of\n'Early Christian Literature and Doctrine.'\n\nMESSRS. CLARK are now happy to announce the near completion of\nthis Series. It has been received with marked approval by all\nsections of the Christian Church in this country and in the United\nStates, as supplying what has long been felt to be a want, and\nalso on account of the impartiality, learning, and care with which\nEditors and Translators have executed a very difficult task.\n\nThe whole Series will be completed in Twenty-four Volumes,\nof which Twenty-two are ready, and the remaining Two will be\npublished as early as possible.\n\nEach Work is supplied with a good and full Index; but, to add to\nthe value of the completed Series, an Index Volume is preparing\nfor the whole Series, which will be sold separately to those\nwho may desire it, at a moderate price; and the complete Series\n(exclusive of General Index), in Twenty-four Volumes, will cost\nSix Guineas.\n\n=The Subscription for 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, and 6th Years is now\ndue--\u00a36, 6s.=\n\n _The Subscription to the Series is at the rate of 21s. for Four\n Volumes when paid in advance (or 24s. when not so paid), and 10s.\n 6d. each Volume to Non-Subscribers._\n\nThe Publishers, however, do not bind themselves to _continue_ to\nsupply the complete Series at this rate.\n\nSingle Years cannot be had separately, with the exception of\ncurrent year, unless to complete sets, but _any Volume_ may be had\nseparately, price 10s. 6d.\n\n\n=The Homilies of Origen are not included in the Series, as the\nPublishers have received no encouragement to have them translated.=\n\nThe Works are arranged as follow:--\n\nFIRST YEAR.\n\n APOSTOLIC FATHERS, comprising Clement's Epistles to the\n Corinthians; Polycarp to the Ephesians; Martyrdom of Polycarp;\n Epistle of Barnabas; Epistles of Ignatius (longer and shorter,\n and also the Syriac version); Martyrdom of Ignatius; Epistle\n to Diognetus; Pastor of Hermas; Papias; Spurious Epistles of\n Ignatius. In One Volume.\n\n JUSTIN MARTYR; ATHENAGORAS. In One Volume.\n\n TATIAN; THEOPHILUS; THE CLEMENTINE RECOGNITIONS. In One Volume.\n\n CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume First, comprising Exhortation to\n Heathen; The Instructor; and a portion of the Miscellanies.\n\n\nSECOND YEAR.\n\n HIPPOLYTUS, Volume First; Refutation of all Heresies and Fragments\n from his Commentaries.\n\n IREN\u00c6US, Volume First.\n\n TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.\n\n CYPRIAN, Volume First; the Epistles and some of the Treatises.\n\n\nTHIRD YEAR.\n\n IREN\u00c6US (completion); HIPPOLYTUS (completion); Fragments of Third\n Century. In One Volume.\n\n ORIGEN: De Principiis; Letters; and portion of Treatise against\n Celsus.\n\n CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume Second; Completion of Miscellanies.\n\n TERTULLIAN, Volume First: To the Martyrs; Apology; To the Nations,\n etc.\n\n\nFOURTH YEAR.\n\n CYPRIAN, Volume Second (completion); Novatian; Minucius Felix;\n Fragments.\n\n METHODIUS; ALEXANDER OF LYCOPOLIS; PETER OF ALEXANDRIA; Anatolius;\n Clement on Virginity, and Fragments.\n\n TERTULLIAN, Volume Second.\n\n APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS; ACTS AND REVELATIONS, comprising all the very\n curious Apocryphal Writings of the first Three Centuries.\n\n\nFIFTH YEAR.\n\n TERTULLIAN, Volume Third (completion).\n\n CLEMENTINE HOMILIES; APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS. In One Volume.\n\n ARNOBIUS.\n\n DIONYSIUS; GREGORY THAUMATURGUS; SYRIAN FRAGMENTS. In One Volume.\n\n\nSIXTH YEAR.\n\n LACTANTIUS. Two Volumes.\n\n ORIGEN, Volume Second (completion).\n\n EARLY LITURGIES AND REMAINING FRAGMENTS.\n\nCLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.\n\nANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION:\n\nOne Guinea (payable in advance) for Four Volumes, Demy 8vo.\n\nWhen not paid in advance, the Retail Bookseller is entitled to\ncharge 24s.\n\n _N.B._--Any two Years in this Series can be had at Subscription\n Price. A single Year's Books (except in the case of the current\n Year) cannot be supplied separately. Non-subscribers, price 10s.\n 6d. each volume, with exceptions marked.\n\n1864--\n =Lange on the Acts of the Apostles.= Two Volumes.\n =Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch.= Vols. I. and II.\n\n1865--\n =Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch.= Volume III.\n =Hengstenberg on the Gospel of John.= Two Volumes.\n =Keil and Delitzsch on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth.= One Volume.\n\n1866--\n =Keil and Delitzsch on Samuel.= One Volume.\n =Keil and Delitzsch on Job.= Two Volumes.\n =Martensen's System of Christian Doctrine.= One Volume.\n\n1867--\n =Delitzsch on Isaiah.= Vol. I.\n =Delitzsch on Biblical Psychology.= 12s.\n =Delitzsch on Isaiah.= Vol. II.\n =Auberlen on Divine Revelation.=\n\n1868--\n =Keil's Commentary on the Minor Prophets.= Two Volumes.\n =Delitzsch's Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews.= Vol. I.\n =Harless' System of Christian Ethics.= One Volume.\n\n1869--\n =Hengstenberg on Ezekiel.= One Volume.\n =Stier on the Words of the Apostles.= One Volume.\n =Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament.= Vol. I.\n =Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament.= Vol. I.\n\n1870--\n =Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament.= Vol. II.\n =Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament.= Vol. II.\n =Schmid's New Testament Theology.= One Volume.\n =Delitzsch's Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews.= Vol. II.\n\n1871--\n =Delitzsch's Commentary on the Psalms.= Vols. I. and II.\n =Hengstenberg's History of the Kingdom of God under the Old\n Testament.= Vol. I.\n =Delitzsch's Commentary on the Psalms.= Vol. III.\n\n1872--\n =Keil's Commentary on the Book of Kings.= One Volume. } _First_\n =Keil's Commentary on the Book of Daniel.= One Volume. } _Issue._\n\nMESSRS. CLARK have resolved to allow a SELECTION of TWENTY VOLUMES\n(_or more at the same ratio_) from the various Series previous to\nthe Volumes issued in 1868 (_see next page_),\n\nAt the Subscription Price of Five Guineas.\n\nThey trust that this will still more largely extend the\nusefulness of the FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY, which has so\nlong been recognised as holding an important place in modern\nTheological literature.\n\nThe following are the works from which a Selection may be made\n(non-subscription prices within brackets):--\n\n =Dr. E. W. Hengstenberg.--Commentary on the Psalms.= By E. W.\n HENGSTENBERG, D.D., Professor of Theology in Berlin. In Three\n Volumes 8vo. (33s.)\n\n =Dr. J. C. L. Gieseler.--Compendium of Ecclesiastical History.= By\n J. C. L. GIESELER, D.D., Professor of Theology in G\u00f6ttingen. Five\n Volumes 8vo. (\u00a32, 12s. 6d.)\n\n =Dr. Hermann Olshausen.--Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and\n Acts, adapted especially for Preachers and Students.= By HERMANN\n OLSHAUSEN, D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of\n Erlangen. In Four Volumes demy 8vo. (\u00a32, 2s.)\n\n =Biblical Commentary on the Romans, adapted especially for\n Preachers and Students.= By HERMANN OLSHAUSEN, D.D., Professor of\n Theology in the University of Erlangen. In One Volume 8vo. (10s.\n 6d.)\n\n =Biblical Commentary on St. Paul's First and Second Epistles\n to the Corinthians.= By HERMANN OLSHAUSEN, D.D., Professor of\n Theology in the University of Erlangen. In One Volume 8vo. (9s.)\n\n =Biblical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians,\n Ephesians, Colossians, and Thessalonians.= By HERMANN OLSHAUSEN,\n D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Erlangen. In One\n Volume 8vo. (10s. 6d.)\n\n =Biblical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, to\n Titus, and the First to Timothy; in continuation of the Work of\n Olshausen.= By LIC. AUGUST WIESINGER. In One Volume 8vo. (10s. 6d.)\n\n =Biblical Commentary on the Hebrews.= By DR. EBRARD. In\n continuation of the Work of Olshausen. In One Volume 8vo. (10s.\n 6d.)\n\n =Dr. Augustus Neander.--General History of the Christian Religion\n and Church.= By AUGUSTUS NEANDER, D.D. Translated from the Second\n and Improved Edition. In Nine Volumes 8vo. (\u00a32, 11s. 6d.)\n\n_This is the only Edition in a Library size._\n\n =Prof. H. A. Ch. Havernick.--General Introduction to the Old\n Testament.= By Professor HAVERNICK. One Volume 8vo. (10s. 6d.)\n\n =Dr. Julius M\u00fcller.--The Christian Doctrine of Sin.= By Dr. JULIUS\n M\u00dcLLER. Two Volumes 8vo. (21s.) New Edition.\n\n =Dr. E. W. Hengstenberg.--Christology of the Old Testament and a\n Commentary on the Messianic Predictions.= By E. W. HENGSTENBERG,\n D.D., Professor of Theology, Berlin. Four Volumes. (\u00a32, 2s.)\n\n =Dr. M. Baumgarten.--The Acts of the Apostles; or the History of\n the Church in the Apostolic Age.= By M. BAUMGARTEN, Ph.D., and\n Professor in the University of Rostock. Three Volumes. (\u00a31, 7s.)\n\n =Dr. Rudolph Stier.--The Words of the Lord Jesus.= By RUDOLPH\n STIER, D.D., Chief Pastor and Superintendent of Schkeuditz. In\n Eight Volumes 8vo. (\u00a34, 4s.)\n\n =Dr. Carl Ullmann.--Reformers before the Reformation, principally\n in Germany and the Netherlands.= Translated by the Rev. R.\n MENZIES. Two Volumes 8vo. (\u00a31, 1s.)\n\n =Professor Kurtz.--History of the Old Covenant; or, Old Testament\n Dispensation.= By Professor KURTZ of Dorpat. In Three Volumes.\n (\u00a31, 11s. 6d.)\n\n =Dr. Rudolph Stier.--The Words of the Risen Saviour, and\n Commentary on the Epistle of St. James.= By RUDOLPH STIER, D.D.,\n Chief Pastor and Superintendent of Schkeuditz. One Volume. (10s.\n 6d.)\n\n =Professor Tholuck.--Commentary on the Gospel of St. John.= By\n Professor THOLUCK of Halle. In One Volume. (9s.)\n\n =Professor Tholuck.--Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount.= By\n Professor THOLUCK of Halle. In One Volume. (10s. 6d.)\n\n =Dr. E. W. Hengstenberg.--Commentary on the Book of\n Ecclesiastes.= To which are appended: Treatises on the Song\n of Solomon; on the Book of Job; on the Prophet Isaiah; on the\n Sacrifices of Holy Scripture; and on the Jews and the Christian\n Church. By E. W. HENGSTENBERG, D.D. In One Volume 8vo. (9s.)\n\n =Dr. John H. A. Ebrard.--Commentary on the Epistles of St. John.=\n By Dr. JOHN H. A. EBRARD, Professor of Theology in the University\n of Erlangen. In One Volume. (10s. 6d.)\n\n =Dr. J. P. Lange.--Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the\n Gospel of St. Matthew and Mark.= Specially Designed and Adapted\n for the Use of Ministers and Students. By J. P. LANGE, D.D.,\n Professor of Divinity in the University of Bonn. Three Volumes.\n (10s. 6d. each.)\n\n =Dr. J. A. Dorner.--History of the Development of the Doctrine of\n the Person of Christ.= By Dr. J. A. DORNER, Professor of Theology\n in the University of Berlin. Five Volumes. (\u00a32, 12s. 6d.)\n\n =Lange and Dr. J. J. Van Oosterzee.--Theological and Homiletical\n Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke.= Specially Designed and\n Adapted for the Use of Ministers and Students. Edited by J. P.\n LANGE, D.D. Two Volumes. (18s.)\n\n =Professor Kurtz.--The Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament.=\n One Volume. (10s. 6d.)\n\n =Professor Ebrard.--The Gospel History: A Compendium of Critical\n Investigations in support of the Historical Character of the Four\n Gospels.= One Volume. (10s. 6d.)\n\n =Lange, Lechler, and Gerok.--Theological and Homiletical\n Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles.= Edited by Dr. LANGE. Two\n Volumes. (21s.)\n\n =Dr. Hengstenberg.--Commentary on the Gospel of St. John.= Two\n Volumes. (21s.)\n\n =Professor Keil.--Biblical Commentary on the Pentateuch.= Three\n Volumes. (31s. 6d.)\n\n =Professor Keil.--Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth.= One\n Volume. (10s. 6d.)\n\n =Professor Delitzsch.--A System of Biblical Psychology.= One\n Volume. (12s.)\n\n =Professor Delitzsch.--Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah.=\n Two Volumes. (21s.)\n\n =Professor Auberlen.--The Divine Revelation: An Essay in Defence\n of the Faith.= One Volume. (10s. 6d.)\n\n =Professor Keil.--Commentary on the Books of Samuel.= One Volume.\n (10s. 6d.)\n\n =Professor Delitzsch.--Commentary on the Book of Job.= Two\n Volumes. (21s.)\n\n =Bishop Martensen.--Christian Dogmatics. A Compendium of the\n Doctrines of Christianity.= One Volume. (10s. 6d.)\n\n =Dr. J. P. Lange.--Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical Commentary\n on the Gospel of St. John.= Two Volumes. (21s.)\n\n_And, in connection with the Series_,--\n\n =Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine.= Two Volumes. (21s.)\n =Macdonald's Introduction to the Pentateuch.= Two Volumes. (21s.)\n =Hengstenberg's Egypt and the Books of Moses.= (7s. 6d.) =Ackerman\n on the Christian Element in Plato.= (7s. 6d.) =Robinson's Greek\n Lexicon of the New Testament.= 8vo. (9s.) =Gerlach's Commentary on\n the Pentateuch.= Demy 8vo. (10s. 6d.)\n\nThe above, in 108 Volumes (including 1871), price \u00a328, 7s., form\nan _Apparatus_, without which it may be truly said _no Theological\nLibrary can be complete_; and the Publishers take the liberty of\nsuggesting that no more appropriate gift could be presented to a\nClergyman than the Series, in whole or in part.\n\n [Asterism]_In reference to the above, it must be noted that_ NO\n DUPLICATES _can be included in the Selection of Twenty Volumes;\n and it will save trouble and correspondence if it be distinctly\n understood that_ NO LESS _number than Twenty can be supplied,\n unless at non-subscription price._\n\n\nSubscribers' Names received by all Retail Booksellers.\n\nCHEQUES ON COUNTRY BANKS under \u00a32, 2s. must have 6d. added for\nBank charge.\n\nLONDON: (_For Works at Non-subscription price only_) HAMILTON,\nADAMS, & CO.\n\n * * * * *\n\n Transcriber's Notes\n\n Variations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been retained\n except in obvious cases of typographical error.\n Italics are represented thus _italics_ and bold thus =bold=.\n\n Paragraph numbers in Book 7 were corrected as follows:\n Second para 53 corrected to 55.\n Para 16 corrected to 64.\n\n The repetition of\n THE THREE BOOKS OF AUGUSTINE,\n BISHOP OF HIPPO,\n IN ANSWER TO\n THE LETTERS OF PETILIAN, THE DONATIST,\n BISHOP OF CIRTA.\n was removed on p230.","title":"Writings in Connection with the Donatist Controversy","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":220083}