But if he does not correct it, that which was given will remain to the punishment of the usurper — whether of him who unlawfully gave, or of him who unlawfully received — yet it will not be held as ungiven. Nor in any way will the royal stamp be violated by a devoted soldier because it was usurped by private persons. For if some, secretly and irregularly, stamp gold or silver or bronze by striking it, not in the public mints, when it is detected, will not the recognized royal stamp — after those men have been punished or freed by indulgence — be gathered into the royal treasuries?
Or if anyone — whether a deserter or one who has never at all served in the army — marks some private person with a military mark, will not the man so marked, where he is detected, be punished as a deserter, and all the more grievously the more he can prove that he never served at all — being punished together with the most audacious marker, if he betrays him? But if perhaps that man, not a soldier, has in fear shrunk from that mark of military service upon his body, and has fled to the clemency of the emperor, and, prayer having been poured out and pardon obtained, has now begun to serve as a soldier — is that mark, when the man has been freed and corrected, repeated, and not rather, being recognized, approved?
Or perhaps the Christian sacraments cleave less firmly than this bodily mark, when we see that not even apostates are without baptism — to whom, when they return through penance, it is assuredly not restored, and therefore it is judged that it could not have been lost? Or was the likeness drawn from military service not fitting, when the Apostle draws also from athletic contests and openly cries out, 'No one serving God as a soldier entangles himself in worldly affairs, that he may please him to whom he has proved himself'? And this indeed is another question — whether baptism can be given even by those who have never been Christians; nor is anything to be rashly affirmed on this point without the authority of a council as great as so great a matter requires.
But concerning those who are separated from the unity of the Catholic Church, there is now no question that they both have it and can give it, and that they have it destructively and hand it on destructively outside the bond of peace. For this has already been discussed, considered, examined, and confirmed in the very unity of the whole world. But if we act wrongly, let them explain how the sacrament of one baptized cannot be lost, while the sacrament of one ordained can be lost — since they say, 'One withdrawing from the Church does not indeed lose baptism, yet loses the right of giving it.' For if each is a sacrament — which no one doubts — why is the one not lost and the other lost? Injury must be done to neither sacrament. If holy things flee the wicked, let both flee;
if holy things remain inviolably in the wicked, let both remain. If they say, 'Baptism is rightly given only in the one true Church,' it is answered them, 'Baptism is rightly had only in the one true Church.' Why cannot it be given where it is not rightly given, when it can be had where it is not rightly had? Or is it because to not have is one thing, to not rightly have another? So also to not give is one thing, to not rightly give another. Just as he who departs from unity does not rightly have, yet nevertheless has it — and therefore it is not restored to him when he returns — so also he who departs from unity does not rightly give, yet nevertheless gives; and therefore what one has received from him is not repeated when he comes to unity. But they contend that what is not rightly given has not been given.
What if another should contend that what is not rightly had cannot be had — do we not cry out against both, and say that he who has departed from unity does indeed have, but does not rightly have? If then they wish that man to hear that we equally cry out against him, let them themselves hear us crying out that he who departs from unity does indeed give, but does not rightly give. Wherefore, just as to him who returns is not restored what he had even outside, so to him who comes is not to be repeated what he had received even outside. Whence it is consequently understood that the perversity of men is to be corrected, but the holiness of the sacraments is to be violated in no perverse man;
for it is agreed that it remains unpolluted and inviolable in perverse and criminal men, whether in those who are within or in those who are without. And when the wicked are said to pollute these things, they are said to do so only in so far as it lies in themselves, while those things remain unpolluted. But in the good they remain unto reward, in the wicked they remain unto judgment. For even concerning the Spirit, who can in no way be extinguished, it is nevertheless said, 'Quench not the Spirit' — that is, in so far as it lies in you, do not act in such a way as though you were attempting to quench the Spirit, or as though you accounted the Spirit extinguished. And the name of God can in no way be polluted, and yet it is said, 'Son and father went in unto one maiden, that they might pollute the name of the Lord their God.'
Nor in any way can these men extricate themselves, when it is put to them why the holiness of the sacrament can both be had and given by one whom God has already condemned within as a criminal, and yet only begins to be unable to be given by him when he has been condemned by men — although not even then can he lose it. Finally, why did Felicianus — whom, along with Maximianus, three hundred and ten condemned, and who was long outside in sacrilegious schism (as they themselves declared in their own council) — lose not only baptism itself, but also the right of giving it?
For he was received back in his honour, just as he had gone out, together with all those whom, being placed outside, he had baptized, none of them being rebaptized. For if they had judged that any of those whom he had baptized outside must be rebaptized, they would be judging that he had lost the right of giving while he was outside; and consequently it would follow that they should ordain him again also, if they baptized those men again. But when they are called back to the peace of Christ, they are slanderers; when they take counsel for the peace of Donatus, they are dissemblers. What else is this than what their own Tychonius says of them: 'What we will is holy'? Why then does Parmenianus exult with empty boasting and say:
'Never will the censure of the divine law suffer that a dead man could give life to anyone, a wounded man heal, a blind man enlighten, a naked man clothe, a polluted man cleanse'? For the Lord raises the dead, the Lord heals the wounded, the Lord enlightens the blind, the Lord clothes the naked, the Lord cleanses the polluted. Why does he arrogate to himself things that are not man's? Are men so alive among them who do not sin, that they are even said to be able to give life, when they cannot give increase? 'I,' he says, 'planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Neither is he that plants anything, nor he that waters, but God who gives the increase.' How does he give life to the dead, who cannot give increase to the living?
For as the Father raises up the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. Are men so healthy among them, that they can even heal the unhealthy? What else do these men do but set themselves up to be blessed in place of the Lord? But by no means are those seduced by them who, hoping not in man but in God, sing, 'Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, who is merciful to all your iniquities, who heals all your infirmities.' If he himself heals all infirmities, he leaves none for Parmenianus to say that he heals. Are there such great lights among them, that they can even enlighten? This the evangelist John does not concede even to that John the Baptist, than whom none greater has arisen among those born of women, of whom he says:
'He was not the light, but was to bear witness of the light. That was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world.' If that light enlightens every man, it leaves none for Parmenianus to say that he enlightens; because, although holy men are in a certain sense called lights, yet the enlightened lights are one thing, and the enlightening Light another — which alone is that of which the same John the Baptist says, 'We all have received of his fullness.' And who clothes the naked but he who says, 'Bring forth for him the first robe,' and 'this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality'?
And is any man said to clothe another with a divine garment, for whom it is a great thing if he himself deserves to be clothed? Now further, let him dare to say that he cleanses the polluted, if he first dares to say that he is not himself polluted. For we have indeed been cleansed through the grace of God. But not even then shall we cleanse anyone, when our cleansing has been perfected; how much less now, when the body which is corrupted weighs down the soul! For who can boast that he has a chaste heart, or boast that he is clean from sin? Indeed, to cleanse and to heal amount to the same thing in spiritual matters. But just as we have been saved by hope, so we have been cleansed by hope, in perfect salvation and in perfect cleanness.
How then can we already heal and cleanse, we who shall not be able to do so even then, when we shall in every way be clean and saved? 'But,' he says, 'God does these things through man.' He does indeed; but he did them also through Judas, whom, along with the rest, he sent to preach the gospel; he did them also through the Pharisees, in those who did the good things which they heard through them, while those men did not do what they said. Finally, why do the wicked and criminal among them — whether when they lie hidden or when they are tolerated for the sake of Donatus's party — give life, heal, enlighten, cleanse? Or are they not themselves dead, wounded, blind, polluted? Or do the blind not among them, leading the blind, fall together into the pit, because they follow not those men, but the God whom those men preach, by hearing and obeying him? Yes, indeed.
But they then preach God, if they gather with Christ; but when they scatter what they do not gather with him, preaching Donatus and not God, the blind, following the blind, fall together into the pit. But concerning the question of baptism we shall treat something more fully, with the Lord's help, when we have replied concerning all the testimonies of the holy Scriptures which Parmenianus believed should be cast in our teeth — Parmenianus who truly himself gives his neighbours to drink from the overthrow of iniquity, who has offered them so evil an error, that he not only himself speaks not for peace but for division and rending, but even persuades the divine books to speak so.
But among many things I marvel that this man, when he was arguing that baptism cannot be had unless received, nor received without a giver, inserted a testimony from the gospel: 'A man cannot receive anything unless it be given him from heaven.' For someone ignorant of these words, when this man had begun to say, 'A man cannot receive anything unless it be given him from heaven,' might, before he had said 'from heaven,' have supposed that he was going to say 'from Donatus,' or 'from Parmenianus,' or 'from someone of the party of Donatus,' or entirely 'from the very party of Donatus.' I acknowledge the gospel, and I recall that it is there written, 'A man cannot receive anything unless it be given him from heaven.' But is Donatus heaven?
Is Parmenianus heaven? Is the party of Donatus itself heaven? That party would not be heaven, not even if it were in heaven. For he who said, 'A man cannot receive anything unless it be given him from heaven,' would never say, 'unless it be given him from the sun or from the moon or from the stars,' which nevertheless are in heaven; how much less would he say, 'unless it be given him from the party of Donatus,' which is not only not heaven nor in heaven, but does not even wish to be in the kingdom of heaven! Nor without doubt would he say, 'A man cannot receive anything unless it be given him from the Church'; for the Church herself receives from heaven. But if he were to say, 'A man cannot receive anything unless it be given him from a man
who is just,' then indeed these brazen men would rush in and proclaim themselves to be just, so that anyone who wished to receive might receive from them; nor would we make it a question whether they were just or not, but we would easily show from certain men betrayed and expelled that there are among them even hidden unjust men, and yet that these men neither disapprove nor say that what was given and received by such men was ungiven or unreceived. But even this would be said falsely, if it were said, 'A man cannot receive anything unless it be given him by a just man.' For that just man himself, from whom another receives, I ask from whom he received.
If he too from a just man, then concerning that one I ask in the same way, until from the very head of the human order I arrive at someone who did not receive from a man; and so I would teach that it is false that a man cannot receive anything unless it be given him by a man. But what do these men accomplish, unaware, by the evangelical testimony, except that men are admonished at last to wake up and take heed that it is truly not men who are to be regarded when a man desires to receive something holy, but only him who gives this to a man from heaven — since a man cannot receive anything unless it be given him from heaven? But if they say, 'He receives indeed from heaven, not from a man, yet nevertheless through a man,' I ask, through what kind of man?
If only through a just man, then those men do not have it who received among their own through hidden most iniquitous persons; if also through an unjust man, what reason then is there for them to rebaptize anyone? If through an unjust man but only a hidden one, then they do not have it whom the manifest satellite of Gildo, Optatus, baptized; if also through an unjust man who is even manifest, provided he is not yet condemned and cast out from the communion of the Church, then those men do not have it whom Felicianus of Musti — when he was outside their communion — baptized in the schism of Maximianus, whom nevertheless no one now rebaptizes, since they have returned with him.
Finally, if a man, although he receives from heaven, nevertheless can receive nothing except through a man, I ask John the Baptist himself, who said these things, through what man he had received what he had assuredly received from heaven — and none is found. And so, by the testimonies brought forward by himself, his bad cause is refuted; because, although the Son says that he received from the Father, and the Holy Spirit receives of his own — not as it were by degrees, but as he himself explained, saying, 'Because all things that the Father has are mine, therefore I said:
He shall receive of mine' — nevertheless that a man can receive something divinely without the interposition of a man, John himself testifies by his own example, and so many holy men before the Son of God became man; and after he rose again and ascended into heaven, the hundred and twenty men who were gathered together at once, whom the Holy Spirit, coming from heaven with no man on earth laying his hand upon them, filled; and when the order of the Church was already established, Cornelius the centurion, before baptism itself, before the laying on of hands, filled with the same Holy Spirit together with those who were with him — at whom Peter himself marvelled. No one, therefore, receives without a giver;
but as far as pertains to the holiness of baptism, God is present who gives and a man who receives, whether by God himself giving, or through an angel, or through a holy man [or through Peter], or through an unjust man, as through so many, whether hidden or manifest, whom the servants of the father of the household are forbidden to gather from the harvest before the time; and whom the Lord's grain, like chaff separated for the present in heart until the time of winnowing, does not forsake bodily through rashness, but bears with spiritually through devotion. 'He who has believed wrongly,' he says, 'cannot obtain the sacrament of baptism, because it is written, "That which is perverse cannot be adorned."' What?
If therefore someone baptized among them, who for example's sake had supposed that Christ began to exist from the time when he was born according to the flesh of the Virgin Mary, afterwards being moved by the word of truth — when he had learned that he is the very one of whom John says, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,' and of whom he consequently says, 'The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us' — should confess to them his former error, and anxiously indicate that he had been in it when he was baptized, would they order him to be baptized anew?
They would assuredly never do so, but would rejoice at the man's untrained simplicity — depraved before by a carnal opinion, afterwards corrected by the reasoning of truth; or if even such a perversity seemed to him to be obstinately defended, and, having long resisted and not been corrected, he were even expelled from the Church, and afterwards, the truth being known, returned, they would assuredly judge that he must be healed by penance, not wounded by a repetition of baptism — although he confessed that he had held this in his heart even at that time when he had been baptized among them.
Therefore that which is perverse cannot be adorned, because the sacrament which he had received would not avail him unto adornment if he persisted in a perverse faith, but rather unto punishment; while nevertheless the sacrament itself, in itself, would remain intact even in the perverse man — whom it did not adorn but judged — and therefore the holiness of that sacrament was in no way to be violated, even when the perversity of that man was to be corrected. Parmenianus even dares to set before us divine examples, by which he thinks to show that a holy man must be sought, from whom the sacrament ought to be received.
'The Son of God himself,' he says, 'the Lord Jesus Christ himself, from whom the beginning of spiritual baptism arose, when he was to be baptized according to the will of the Father, is he shown to have come to the perfidious and profane Pharisees, or to the most holy John?' But if we are invited by this example to receive baptism, we ought to seek someone inferior to us by whom we may be baptized, since indeed the Lord was baptized by him who had foretold that he himself ought to be baptized by the Lord, and who testified that he was unworthy to loose the latchet of his shoe.
Nay rather, to omit inquiring more diligently why our Saviour himself willed to be baptized — for since he willed it for some certain cause — perhaps for this reason: that, although he could himself have washed himself, who could even baptize his own baptizer, the Lord willed to be baptized by a servant, and he through whom all things were made willed to be baptized by him who was made among all things, so that he might both teach humility and show that it makes no difference who is baptized by whom, provided he be baptized with that baptism with which he is to be baptized. Nor would he have disdained to be baptized even by the Pharisees, if the Pharisees had that kind of baptism with which he, for the sake of a certain sacrament, willed to be baptized.
For when he was also to be circumcised, was John sought out, since this was already wont to be done by the Jews? And when the legal sacrifice was to be offered for him, was that temple shunned which is called by him a den of thieves? Into which certainly both the good and the wicked entered, and the wicked did not harm the good, since the Lord, who says:
'Be holy, for I also am holy' — thus inviolably causes his holy ones to move among the wicked, if they keep that holiness which they have received; just as the Lord Jesus himself was polluted by no contagion of malignity among the nation of the Jews, neither when he received those first sacraments according to the perfect way of humility, being made under the law, nor when afterwards, the disciples being chosen, he lived with his own betrayer even to the last kiss.
For by his example — of one who not only does no evil, but also does not consent to any wickedness — the grain among the chaff is secure, because they neither do such things nor consent to those who do them, even if in the same crop until the harvest, in the same threshing-floor until the winnowing, within the same nets until the separation which shall take place on the shore, the good bear with the wicked. But these men are truly blind leaders of the blind, who both see so many wicked in the number of their own, and do not see the way of peace, and persuade men to follow them not to bear with one another for the bond of unity, but to divide from one another for the sacrilege of schism. But indeed it was said through the prophet to King Jehoshaphat:
'O king Jehoshaphat, dost thou help a sinner, or dost thou love him whom the Lord hates? For this cause is the wrath of the Lord upon thee.' For which of us says that a sinner is to be helped in that very matter in which he wishes to sin, as was Ahab himself, whom Jehoshaphat helped by going with him into battle, when Ahab despised the truthful words of the prophet Micaiah? And yet even so the most wicked desert of king Ahab did not injure the innocence of king Jehoshaphat, for the Lord delivered the latter when he cried out to Him amid the danger of war, but permitted the former, the sacrilegious despiser, to fall into the hands of his enemies.
And if Jehoshaphat suffered any peril, which the prophet indicates to him came from the wrath of the Lord, he had earned it not by another's sin but by his own, because, as was said to him, he was helping a sinner. But before God his other good deeds prevailed. For thus it is said to him: 'Didst thou help that sinner, and art thou a friend to those who hate the Lord? And for this the wrath of the Lord is upon thee from the face of the Lord. Yet good deeds of God are found in thee, since thou hast taken away the groves out of the land and hast prepared thy heart to seek God.' But he who dwells in the Church of God, where there are also those who seek their own things, not the things of Jesus Christ, who out of envy and strife proclaim Christ not chastely, says: 'Whether by pretext or in truth, let Christ be proclaimed;'
'and in this I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.' He remains undefiled among them and whole, because he does not consent with them in seeking their own things, since he blames and refutes this; nor does he help them to sin, but helps in this—that Christ may be more widely preached, and that by those who hear and do, Christ may be believed on through those who do not do what they say, that in Christ men may hope, that Christ may be loved. For to such men the same Apostle gave command, saying: 'Be not joined together with unbelievers. For what fellowship hath righteousness with iniquity? Or what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God.' For He says:
'I will dwell in them and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be to you a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.' These words, which these men understand carnally, have caused them through so many divisions to cut themselves piecemeal into fragments within this one Africa. For they do not understand that no one is joined to unbelievers except him who commits the sins of the pagans or who favours those doing such things; nor does anyone become a partaker of iniquity except him who either does or approves what is unjust. And who has communion with darkness except through the darkness of his own consent, when, having forsaken Christ, he follows Belial?
Who sets his portion with unbelievers except him who becomes a partaker of their unbelief? For thus he ceases to be a temple of God, nor does he otherwise join himself to idols. But those who are temples of the living God and appear in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life—nothing that they endure for the sake of unity infects them, nor are they straitened, because God dwells and walks in them; and they come out from the midst of the wicked and are separated, for the present in heart, lest perhaps, when they wish to do this through the sedition of schism, they be separated from the good spiritually before they are separated from the wicked bodily. Therefore that which is written, that God said, 'Those who glorify me I will glorify, and he who despises me shall be despised,' these men are especially unwilling to look upon.
For how do they glorify God, who say that His promises could not be fulfilled throughout the whole world—the promises which He made to our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and which, foretelling them so long before through the prophets, He fulfilled through His only-begotten, who was made to Him of the seed of David according to the flesh, that in Him, that is, in the seed of Abraham, all nations should be blessed; who say that the Son of God Himself said in vain, 'Let both grow together until the harvest,' as though He were false or Himself deceived, since (they claim) only the tares have grown throughout the world, while the wheat, except in the party of Donatus, has failed in the whole globe of the earth? How, holding such views, do they glorify the Lord, when it is written:
'In the multitude of the nation is the glory of the king, but in the diminution of the people is the ruin of the prince'? Or how do they not despise the Lord, who with incredible rashness of impiety blow away His baptism in those whose case they have not heard and concerning whom they could in no way judge, and dare to arrogate to themselves what belongs to God—receiving into unimpaired honours those condemned by themselves for the peace of Donatus, and abominating as unheard against the peace of the Lord those they have not heard; who contend that baptism handed down through the apostles has perished in those parts of the earth, yet concede that the baptism handed down through Felician among the Maximianists has not perished?
But how, on the other hand, do the Catholics not glorify the Lord, who are confident that His promises could not be hindered from fulfilment by any crimes of men; who attend upon His sacraments with such due veneration that they show them—even if they be handled by unworthy men—to remain, while those men are condemned by their own perversity, in unviolated holiness? 'Again,' they say, 'it is written: Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For the things which are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of.' We have already said how these very words are to be understood, since to have no fellowship is not to consent; which, for the sake of the Church's discipline, is too little, unless the offenders be also reproved, that they may be corrected.
But these things are to be done with peace preserved, and as far as the duty of preserving unity allows, lest the wheat be rooted up together with the tares. Again, to Timothy the same Apostle says: 'Have no fellowship with other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste.' By consequence he taught how what he said before is to be understood. For he who keeps himself chaste has no fellowship with other men's sins. For if he has fellowship, he consents; if he consents, he is corrupted; if he is corrupted, he does not keep himself chaste. But indeed at length Parmenianus once woke up and attended to what Tychonius was saying, but in vain; for at once, out of love for his own opinion, he closed his eyes against the truth. For he says: