Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 18 part 16/17

you will straightway see both that I rightly set this down for the correcting of you, and that all that in this statement rightly displeases you has fallen back upon your own face. Accordingly, just as those who denied the resurrection of the dead could in no way defend themselves from such great evils, which the Apostle connected in order to refute them, saying 'neither did Christ rise again' and the other likewise impious things, unless they changed their view and confessed that there is a resurrection of the dead — so also you, if you do not wish to have imputed to you what we say in order to convict and correct you, namely that those who are baptized by hidden evil men are more holily justified than those who are baptized by manifest good men, change your view, and do not place the hope of those who are baptized in man.

For if you do place it there, see what I say, lest someone again suppress this and say that I held what I recount in order to refute and correct you. See what I say, on what depends that which I am about to say: If you place the hope of those who are to be baptized in the man by whom they are baptized; if you constitute the man-baptizer, as Petilian wrote, to be the origin and root and head of him who is baptized; if you take the good tree to be the good man baptizing, and its good fruit to be the one who has been baptized by him — then you prompt us to ask of you: by what origin does he arise, from what root does he sprout, to what head is he joined, from what tree is he born, whom a hidden evil man baptizes?

For to this inquiry belongs also that which I have very often noted Petilian did not answer: whence is he cleansed who receives baptism, when he is ignorant of the stained conscience of one not giving in holiness. For this conscience of the giver, or of the one giving in holiness, he would have to be the origin, root, head, seed, tree — whence should exist, whence be propagated, whence begin, whence sprout, whence be born the sanctification of the baptized.

When therefore we ask whence he has been cleansed whom you do not rebaptize in your communion, even when it is established that he was baptized by someone who, on account of hidden wickedness, no longer had the conscience of one giving in holiness — what will you answer except: by Christ, or by God (although Christ too is God, blessed above all things for ever), or by the Holy Spirit, since He too is God, because this Trinity is one God? Whence Peter, when he had said to the man, 'You have dared to lie to the Holy Spirit,' straightway added, following on, what the Holy Spirit is, and said: 'You have not lied to men, but to God.'

Finally, even if you should say that he is cleansed and purified by an angel, when he is ignorant of the polluted conscience of one not giving in holiness, see that holy men, when they have risen again into eternal life, then it is said of them that they will be equal to the angels of God. Whoever therefore is cleansed even by an angel is cleansed better than if he were cleansed by the conscience of a man, of whatever sort. Why then are you unwilling that it should be said to you: 'If a man cleanses then, when he is manifestly good, but when he is a hidden evil man — since he does not have the conscience of one giving in holiness — it is no longer he himself, but God or an angel, that cleanses, then those who are baptized by hidden evil men are more holily justified than those who are baptized by manifest good men'?

If this statement displeases you — as in truth it ought to displease everyone — take away that from which it is born, correct that to which it is bound; for let those things not precede, and this does not follow. Do not therefore say: 'The conscience of the one giving in holiness is what is regarded as cleansing the receiver,' lest it be said to you: 'When the polluted conscience of the giver lies hidden, who cleanses the receiver's conscience?' — and when you have answered, 'either God or an angel,' since you have nothing else to answer, there follows for you that whereby you are confounded: 'Those who are baptized by hidden evil men, so as to be cleansed either by God or by an angel, are more holily justified than those who are baptized by manifest good men, who are not comparable to God or angels.'

But say what the Truth and the catholic Church say: that not only when the minister of baptism is evil, but even when he is holy and good, one's hope is to be placed not in man, but in Him who justifies the ungodly, unto whom the faith of believers is reckoned unto righteousness. For when we say 'Christ baptizes,' we do not say it of a visible ministry, as Petilian supposes, or wishes it to be supposed, that we say, but of hidden grace, of hidden power in the Holy Spirit, as was said of Him by John the Baptist: 'This is He who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' Nor, as Petilian says, has He now ceased to baptize, but still does it, not by the ministry of the body, but by the invisible working of His majesty. For what we say:

'He Himself baptizes,' we do not say: 'He Himself holds and dips the body of believers in the water,' but: 'He Himself invisibly cleanses,' and this the whole Church universally. For the Apostle Paul too must not be disbelieved, who said of Him: 'Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, cleansing her by the laver of water in the word.' Behold, that Christ sanctifies; behold, that Christ, even by that very laver of water in the word — where the ministers are seen bodily to work — He Himself washes, He Himself cleanses. Let no one therefore arrogate to himself what is God's.

Thus the hope of men is sure when it is fixed upon him who cannot deceive, since 'cursed is everyone who sets his hope in man,' but 'blessed is he whose hope is the Lord his God.' For the faithful steward shall receive as his reward eternal life; but as for the unfaithful steward, when he distributes the Lord's provisions to his fellow servants, God forbid that by his own unfaithfulness he should make those provisions useless. For, He says, 'do what they say, but do not do what they do.' And this was commanded against wicked stewards for this reason: that through them the good things of God might be received, while their own wicked manner of life should be shunned by refusing to imitate it.

But if it is plain that Petilian did not reply to these first words of my letter, and that where he attempted to reply he only showed the more that he was unable to reply, what shall I say of those portions of my writings which he did not even attempt to answer, which he did not touch at all? Yet if anyone who possesses both my writings and his own should wish to review of what sort these are, I think he will understand with how great firmness they have been fortified.

That I may show this to you briefly, recall—or by reading review—the very testimonies brought forth from the holy Scriptures which he set down as though against us, and which I too set down in my reply against you; and see how I showed that those which he himself adduced were contrary not to us but rather to you. But those which I set down, most necessary as they were, he did not touch at all; and in that one text of the Apostle which he tried to handle as though on his own behalf, you will see what a dead end he found. For the part of the letter which he wrote to his own people, from the beginning down to the place where he says, 'This the Lord commands us: when men have persecuted you in this city, flee into another;'

'and if in that one also they persecute you, flee into another'—this first came into our hands, and to it we replied. And when our reply had likewise come into his hands, he wrote this letter which we are now refuting, and we are showing that he did not reply to ours. In that first part of his writings, then, to which we first replied, these are the testimonies of the Scriptures which he supposed to be against us: 'A good tree brings forth good fruits, and a bad tree brings forth bad fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns?' and again: 'Every good man out of the treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and every bad man out of the treasure of his heart brings forth evil things,' and again:

'He who is baptized by a dead man, his washing does not profit him'—by these testimonies he wished to show that the one who is baptized becomes such as the one by whom he is baptized. I, on the contrary, showed in what manner these testimonies were to be understood and that they in no way aided his aim. And as for the rest which he set down—words spoken against evil and wicked men—I sufficiently proved that they are not against the Lord's wheat, which, as was foretold and promised, is spread throughout the whole world, but can rather be spoken by us against you. Review, and you will find it so. But the testimonies which I set down in defense of the Catholic Church are these: with regard to baptism, that what we are regenerated, cleansed, and justified by the grace of God should not be attributed to the man who gives it—

'It is good to trust in the Lord rather than to trust in man,' and: 'Cursed is everyone who sets his hope in man,' and because 'salvation belongs to the Lord' and 'vain is the salvation of man,' and because 'neither is he that plants anything, nor he that waters, but God that gives the increase,' and because he in whom one believes 'justifies the ungodly, so that his faith is reckoned unto righteousness.' And for the sake of the unity of the Church herself, which is spread abroad among all nations, and with which you hold no communion, I set down these testimonies as having been foretold concerning Christ, that 'he shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth,' and:

'I will give you the nations for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession,' and that the covenant of God made to Abraham should be cited in favor of our—that is, the Catholic—communion, where it is written: 'In your seed shall all nations be blessed,' which seed the Apostle interprets, saying: 'And to your seed, which is Christ.' From which it appears that in Christ not only the Africans or Africa, but all the nations shall have the blessing, through whom the Catholic Church is spread abroad—a thing promised so long beforehand.

And that the chaff is together with the wheat until the final winnowing, so that no one, by the slanders of the crimes of others, may excuse the sacrilege of his own separation in that he has forsaken and abandoned the communion of all nations; and that the Christian society may not be divided on account of evil stewards, that is, overseers—for this reason I also set down that testimony: 'Do what they say, but do not do what they do; for they say and do not.'

These testimonies from the holy Scriptures, which I set down, he neither showed how they ought to be understood otherwise—so as to show that they are not for us and not against you—nor did he wish to touch them at all; rather, he did this with the uproar of his revilings, that, if it could be brought about, none at all should even call to mind these things said by me, of those who, having read my letter, might also wish to read his. But as for that which he tried to handle on his own behalf out of the writings of the Apostle Paul—what sort of thing it is, attend for a little. For you said, he says, 'The Apostle Paul rebukes those who said that they were of the Apostle Paul, and says:

Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Wherefore, if those men were going astray and would perish unless they were corrected—men who did not wish to be Paul's—what hope at last is there for those who have wished to be Donatus's? For these men are aiming at this: that the origin and root and head of the one baptized should be none other than the one by whom he is baptized.' These words and this testimony of the Apostle he recalled from my letter and set before himself to be refuted. Accordingly, see whether he answered to the point. For he says: 'This is an empty saying, inflated and childish and foolish, and one that is far removed indeed from the reasoning of our faith.'

'For then you would rightly say this, if we were to say: We were baptized in the name of Donatus, or: Donatus was crucified for us, or: We were baptized in our own name. But since these things neither have been said by us nor are being said—because we follow the form of the divine Trinity—it is certain that you, who cast such things at us, are raving mad. Or if you suppose that we were baptized in the name of Donatus or in our own name, you are ruinously deceived, and at the same time you make a sacrilegious confession about us, because you wretches defile people in the name of Caecilian.' These things Petilian answered against those words of mine, not attending—or rather clamoring lest it be attended to by anyone—that he had answered absolutely nothing pertaining to the matter under discussion.

For who does not see that this testimony of the Apostle was all the more rightly set down by us, precisely because you do not say that you were baptized in the name of Donatus, nor that Donatus was crucified for you, and yet on account of the party of Donatus you separate yourselves from the communion of the Catholic Church—just as those men also, whom Paul was reproving, certainly did not say that they had been baptized in the name of Paul or that Paul had been crucified for them, and yet they were making a schism out of Paul's name? Just as, then, to those for whom Christ, not Paul, was crucified, and who were baptized in the name of Christ, not in the name of Paul, and yet were saying, 'I am of Paul,' it is on this account more rightly said:

'Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?'—so that they might cleave to him who was crucified for them and in whose name they were baptized, and might not be divided over the name of Paul; so also to you much more, because you do not say 'We were baptized in the name of Donatus,' and yet you wish to be of the party of Donatus, it is fittingly said: Was Donatus crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Donatus? For you know that Christ was crucified for you and that you were baptized in the name of Christ, and yet on account of the name and party of Donatus you resist with such obstinacy the unity of Christ, who was crucified for us and in whose name you were baptized.

But because Petilian aimed by his writings at this: that the origin and root and head of the one baptized should be none other than the one by whom he is baptized—and that this was said by me neither emptily nor childishly nor foolishly—review the openings of his own letter, to which I then replied, and you will see. Nay rather, as I recall them, attend diligently. 'The conscience,' he says, 'of the one who gives holily is regarded, which is to cleanse the one who receives; for whoever knowingly receives faith from a faithless man receives not faith but guilt.' And as though it were said to him, 'Whence do you prove this?', 'For every thing,' he says, 'consists of its origin and root, and if it has not a head, it is nothing, nor does anything regenerate well unless it be regenerated by a good seed.'

'Since these things are so, brethren, what perversity can there be, that one who is guilty of his own crimes should make another innocent—when the Lord Jesus Christ says: A good tree brings forth good fruits, a bad tree brings forth bad fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns? and again: Every good man out of the treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and every bad man out of the treasure of his heart brings forth evil things; and again: He who is baptized by a dead man, his washing does not profit him.' You see to what all these things tend: namely, that the conscience of the one who gives holily—lest anyone receiving from a faithless man should receive not faith but guilt—should itself be the origin and root and head and seed of the one baptized.

For wishing to prove that the conscience of the one who gives holily is regarded, which cleanses the one who receives, and that whoever knowingly receives faith from a faithless man receives not faith but guilt, he at once subjoined: 'For every thing consists of its origin and root, and if it has not a head, it is nothing, nor does anything regenerate well unless it be regenerated by a good seed.' And lest anyone should be so slow as still not to understand that he is speaking of the one by whom each person is baptized, he explains this in what follows and says: 'Since these things are so, brethren, what perversity can there be, that one who is guilty of his own crimes should make another innocent—when the Lord Jesus Christ says: A good tree brings forth good fruits, a bad tree brings forth bad fruits.

Do men gather grapes of thorns?' And lest still the hearer or reader, blinded by an unbelievable dullness of heart, should not see that he is speaking of the man who baptizes, he adds something else in which he even names the man: 'And again,' he says: 'Every good man out of the treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and every bad man out of the treasure of his heart brings forth evil things; and again: He who is baptized by a dead man, his washing does not profit him.' Surely now it is manifest, surely now it needs no interpreter nor disputant nor demonstrator, that these men are aiming at this: that the origin and root and head of the one baptized should be none other than the one by whom he is baptized;

and yet, overwhelmed by the force of truth and as though having forgotten what he had said, Petilian afterward concedes to me that Christ is the origin and root of the regenerate and the head of the Church, not any man who is a steward and minister of baptism. For when he had said that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ and laid Christ as the foundation, that they might make Christians, and had proved this—as though we denied it—by the testimonies and examples of the holy Scriptures, 'Where now,' he says, 'is that voice with which, rattling on with minute and frequent little questions, you spoke so many involved things about Christ and for Christ and in Christ against human rashness and pride, invidiously and haughtily?

Behold, Christ is the origin of the Christian, Christ is the head, Christ is the root.' On hearing these things, what should I do but give thanks to Christ himself, who compelled the man to confess? False, therefore, are those things which he said in the opening of his letter, when he wished to persuade men that the conscience of the one who gives holily is regarded, which cleanses the one who receives, and that when anyone knowingly receives faith from a faithless man, he receives not faith but guilt. For, wishing as it were to show how much lies in the man who baptizes, he had subjoined, as though great proofs, saying: 'For every thing consists of its origin and root, and if it has not a head, it is nothing.' But afterward, when he says what we also say:

'Behold, Christ is the origin of the Christian, Christ is the head, Christ is the root,' he cancels what he had said before, namely, that the conscience of the one who gives holily is the origin and root and head of the one who receives. Truth therefore has conquered, so that the man who desires the baptism of Christ should place his hope not in the man who ministers, but should approach in security to Christ himself as to an origin which is not changed, a root which is not torn up, a head which is not cast down. And now who would not notice from what an inflated vein this proceeds—that when he was as it were expounding the sentence of the Apostle, he said: 'He who said: I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase—what else did he say but: I made the man a catechumen in Christ, Apollos baptized, God confirmed what we did?'

Why, then, did Petilian not add what the Apostle added and what I especially commended, so as to expound this also for us: 'Neither is he that plants anything, nor he that waters, but God that gives the increase'? But if he wished to expound it according to what he set down above, without doubt it follows that neither he that makes the catechumen nor he that baptizes is anything, but God who gives the increase. For what does it matter now to the case in what manner it was said, 'I planted, Apollos watered'—whether it is truly to be understood as though he had said, 'I made a catechumen, Apollos baptized,' or whether there is another truer and more fitting meaning?

Behold, meanwhile, according to his own exposition, neither he that makes the catechumen nor he that baptizes is anything, but God who gives the increase. Yet there is a great difference between confirming what another does, and doing it oneself; for he who gives the increase does not confirm a tree or a vine, but creates it. For by that increase it comes to pass that even a planted stem produces and fixes a root; by that increase it comes to pass that a seed cast down sends forth a sprout. But why should we discourse longer on this? It is enough that, according to him, neither he that makes the catechumen nor he that baptizes is anything, but God who gives the increase. But when would Petilian say this, so that we might understand him to be saying:

'Neither is Donatus of Carthage anything, nor Januarianus, nor Petilian'? When would that swelling pride permit this, whereby a man supposes himself to be something when he is nothing, and deceives his own self? Finally, a little later too, when he set himself and intended as it were to handle again those words of the Apostle which we had brought forward, he was unwilling to set down those which I had cited, but others, in which human inflation might in some way find breath again. 'For, that we may repeat again,' he says, 'the words of the Apostle which you had cast at us,' he said: 'What then is Apollos, or what is Paul? Ministers of him in whom you believed.' What else, for example, does he say to all our people but:

'What is Donatus of Carthage, what is Januarianus, what is Petilian, but ministers of him in whom you believed?' This testimony of the Apostle I did not set down, but I set down that which he was unwilling to recall: 'Neither is he that plants anything, nor he that waters, but God that gives the increase.' But he wished to insert those words of the Apostle where the Apostle asks what Paul is or what Apollos is, and answers: 'Ministers of him in whom you believed.' This in some manner the swelling of the heretic's neck could bear; but that other, where he did not ask and answer what each one was, but said that he was not anything—that it could by no means bear. But now I wish to inquire whether the minister of Christ is not anything. Who would say this? How, then, is it true:

'Neither is he that plants anything, nor he that waters, but God that gives the increase'—except that in respect of one thing he is something, and in respect of another he is not something? In respect of ministering and dispensing the word and sacrament he is something; but in respect of cleansing and justifying he is not something, because this is not wrought in the inner man save by him through whom the whole man was created, and who, remaining God, was made man—namely, he of whom it was said: 'Cleansing their hearts by faith,' and: 'To him that believes in him who justifies the ungodly.' This testimony Petilian wished to set down in my words, but in his own he neither handled nor touched it.

The minister, then, that is, the dispenser of the word and of the evangelical sacrament, if he is good, becomes a partner of the Gospel; but if he is bad, he is not on that account not a dispenser of the Gospel. For if he is good, he does this willingly; but if he is bad—that is, seeking his own things, not the things of Jesus Christ—he does this unwillingly, for the sake of other things which he pursues. Yet see what the same Apostle said: 'If, then, I do this willingly,' he says, 'I have a reward; but if unwillingly, a stewardship has been entrusted to me'—as though he said: 'If, being good, I announce the good, I too arrive at it; but if, being bad, I still announce the good.' For did he say: 'If I do it unwillingly, I shall not be a dispenser'? Peter and the other good men announced, Judas unwillingly, yet being sent with them he announced.

They have a reward; to him a stewardship was entrusted. But those who received the Gospel from all these who announced it were able to be cleansed and justified, not by the planter or the waterer, but by him who gives the increase. For we shall not say that Judas did not baptize, while he was still among the disciples, at the time when that took place which is written: 'He himself did not baptize, but his disciples.' Or—because he had not yet betrayed Christ, he who held the money-bags and carried off what was put into them, and who, being the keeper of the money, could not be innocent—he was nevertheless a dispenser of grace without loss to those who received; or, if he did not baptize, at least you confess that he preached the Gospel.

But if you count this a small and light matter, see what you think concerning Paul the Apostle himself, who said: 'For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.' To this is added that Apollos would begin to be superior—Apollos who by baptizing watered—to Paul who by preaching the Gospel planted; whereas Paul claims for himself the office of a father toward the Corinthians on this very account, and does not grant this name to those who had come to them after him. For he says: 'Though you have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begot you through the Gospel.' He says 'I begot you' to those to whom in another place he says: 'I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanas.' He had therefore begotten them not through himself, but through the Gospel.

And even if he were seeking his own things, not the things of Jesus Christ, and were doing this unwillingly, without a reward of his own, he would nevertheless dispense the Lord's money, which, though he himself be bad, he would not make bad nor useless to those who receive it well. And if this is rightly said of the Gospel, how much more must it be said of baptism, which so pertains to the Gospel that without it indeed no one comes to the kingdom of heaven—but only if righteousness be joined to the sacrament! For he who said: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,' the same also said: 'Unless your righteousness abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' The form of the sacrament is given through baptism, the form of righteousness through the Gospel:

the one without the other does not lead to the kingdom of heaven. Nevertheless, even the less learned can baptize perfectly, but to preach the Gospel perfectly is a work far more difficult and rare. Therefore the teacher of the nations, more excellent than very many, was sent to preach the Gospel, not to baptize, because the latter could be done by many, the former by few, among whom he was preeminent. And yet we read that in several places he said 'my Gospel,' but he never said 'my baptism,' nor did he call it the baptism of anyone through whom it was ministered. For that baptism alone which John gave was called the baptism of John.

This special gift that man received in his dispensation, that the forerunning sacrament of the laver should be called even his, through whom it was dispensed; but the baptism which the disciples of Christ ministered was called the baptism of none of them, that it might be understood to be his of whom it was said: 'Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of water in the word.' If, then, the Gospel, which is so Christ's that even the minister, on account of the office of dispensation, can call it his own, a man can receive even through a bad dispenser without peril, doing what he says, but not doing what he does—