To answer those who think differently and who err from the rule of truth, brother Constantine, we are very often compelled — even concerning those matters which we have treated again and again in various discourses. Which I think is done to advantage, both on account of the duller minds of those who suppose that something else is being said when they read something said in another way, and on account of the very abundance of discussions, so that a rare thing may reach not only the diligent, but that some one of many may fall even into the hands of the more negligent.
Accordingly, a discourse concerning the one baptism, composed by those who repeat baptism — which you gave to me, when we were together in the country, having received it from some Donatist presbyter or other, and earnestly begged that I would answer it — a discourse puffed up with nothing but the noise of words and roughened with slanderous accusations: see with what ease, by the Lord's help, I refute it. The first grievance there is that a secret matter is bandied about in public. Let them therefore be silent, who think this ought not to be done; or if they say they are compelled to speak, in order to answer those who hold contrary views, this is our cause also, that we should answer not only those who hold contrary views, but even those who do contrary deeds.
For that ought to be openly refuted which harms in secret, since it is also openly defended when it is urged that it may harm in secret when it is carried out. For who baptizes anyone in the presence of the profane? And yet no profane person is ignorant that Christians are baptized, who hears in public that which, if he believes, he receives in secret. Let us therefore see what they say concerning the repetition of baptism, who are ashamed to say openly that which would that they feared to commit openly! 'Where the true baptism is,' he says, 'is the question'; then he adds: 'It is so far mine that what has been given by me as unique is not repeated even by the sacrilegious themselves.' To whom we reply: he is not sacrilegious who does not dare to repeat the one baptism — not that which is yours, but that which is Christ's.
For the consecration of a man in baptism, once for all, is Christ's; but the repetition of the one baptism is yours. I correct in you what is yours; I acknowledge what is Christ's. For this is just, that when we reprove the evils of men, we should approve whatever good of God we find in them. This, I say, is just, that even in a sacrilegious person I should not violate the true sacrament which I find, lest I so amend the sacrilegious man as to perpetrate sacrilege in him. For these men are evil in a good baptism, just as the Jews are evil in a good law. And so, as they will be judged by that very law which by their malice they did not make evil, so too these will be judged by that very baptism which, being good, evil men held.
Therefore, just as when a Jew comes to us that he may become a Christian, we do not destroy in him the good things of God, but his own evils — for as to his erring by not believing that Christ has already come and been born and suffered and risen again, this we amend; and, that infidelity being destroyed, we build up the faith by which these things are believed; likewise, as to his erring by clinging to the shadows of the old sacraments, we dissuade him, and we demonstrate that the time has now come, in which the prophets had foretold that these things were to be taken away and changed;
but as to his believing that one God is to be worshiped, who made heaven and earth, that he detests all the idols and sacrileges of the nations, that he awaits a future judgment, that he hopes for eternal life, that he does not doubt concerning the resurrection of the flesh — this we praise, we approve, we acknowledge; as he believed the things to be believed, so we confirm the things to be held as he held them — so also, when a schismatic or a heretic comes to us that he may become a catholic, by dissuading and destroying we rescind his schism and heresy; but the Christian sacraments, if we find them the same in him, and whatever other truth he holds — far be it that we should violate them, far be it that, if we know they were once for all to be given, we should repeat them, lest, while we cure human faults, we should condemn the divine remedies, or, by seeking to heal what is not wounded, we should wound a man where he is whole.
Accordingly, if I find a heretic dissenting concerning some matter pertaining to the Christian and catholic faith — if, finally, dissenting even concerning the very unity of the Trinity — and yet baptized according to the evangelical and ecclesiastical rule, I correct the man's understanding; I do not violate God's sacrament. I speak of Jews and schismatics or heretics erring in some fashion under the name of Christ. Concerning the very Gentiles and worshipers of idols, who indeed differ from us by great diversity, the apostle shows us nothing other than this: that in them too we should so correct whatever is perverse, as to approve whatever perchance is right.
For indeed the apostle was reproving idolaters, and — what is graver — not only the worshipers, but even the very inventors of images, when he says: 'Who, knowing God, glorified Him not as God, nor gave thanks, but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. Saying that they were wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of serpents.' For such indeed we know were the images of the Egyptians, where a more manifold and far more shameful idolatry is reported to have been established. Yet did he deny that the knowledge of God was in them, or did he not rather confirm it, saying:
'Knowing God, they glorified Him not as God'? If therefore he had endeavored to refute and destroy that knowledge as though it were a falsehood, because he had found it in the sacrilegious, would he not — which be far from it — become an enemy of the truth? And therefore that which they changed into their own falsehood — for here too he said: 'They changed the glory of God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man,' namely, fashioning such a god as God is not, and handing Him on to men not as they had known Him; and a little later he says of such: 'Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever';
for the truth of the creature is from God — it is not God — which they turned into a lie, as though worshiping as gods the sun and the moon and whatever things celestial and terrestrial: therefore, that which they changed into their own lie, he blames, detests, overthrows; but that which they preserved as true in a doctrine, although mixed and confused with many falsehoods, he approves, attests, affirms. For here too he began that same passage in such a way as to say:
'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of those men who hold the truth in iniquity' — not denying the truth, although held in iniquity. And in the Acts of the Apostles, when he was teaching the Athenians concerning the one and true God, that 'in Him we live and move and are,' he immediately added: 'as certain also of your own have said.' This, therefore — that in God we live and move and are — is from that truth which even those impious worshipers of images hold in iniquity, who, knowing God, glorified Him not as God.
Yet this truth, as we see, when found among the impious and sacrilegious, the apostle does not destroy, but confirms, and uses its testimony to teach those who were ignorant of these things. A follower of this apostolic rule, the bishop Cyprian, disputing concerning the one true God against the worshipers of many and false gods, brings forth many testimonies from the books of those whom they hold as illustrious authors — that is, from that truth which they hold in iniquity. But far more wonderful is what the apostle did: going about their shrines, he found a certain altar among the altars of the demons, on which was written:
'To an unknown God'; and neither by denying nor refuting did he destroy this, but rather by confirming it he found here also a most opportune opening for his discourse, saying: 'Whom you worship in ignorance, Him I proclaim to you.' Following, therefore, this apostolic rule, handed down to us through our elders, if we find anything right even in the perverse, when their perversity has been corrected, we by no means violate that which is right — so that in one man, out of the true things he holds, the false things also may be amended, not that out of the false things convicted the true things also may be destroyed. In the times of the apostles, those who said, 'I indeed am of Paul, but I of Apollos, and I of Cephas,' although not by the names of the impious but of the holy, yet were themselves making impious schisms;
this was their own detestable fault, peculiar to them. But that they knew Christ was crucified for them, and that they were baptized in His name, was not of their error, but of the divine gift among them; this truth of God they held in the iniquity of their schisms. Laying hold of this, the most blessed Paul does not, by those faults being destroyed, destroy this also, but by this, being confirmed, convicts those to be amended — 'Was Paul,' he says, 'crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?' — so that through the true thing of God which they held, they might blush at their own false thing which they were doing. As therefore it is said to a Jew: 'Hold the faith of the resurrection of the dead as you held it, but believe now that Christ has risen from the dead, which you did not believe;
for you hold the truth of God concerning the dead who are to rise again in your iniquity, by which you do not believe that Christ has risen'; as it is said to an idol-worshiper: 'Hold that the world was created by the one true God, as you held, but do not believe that woods and stones are gods, and any particles whatever of the world itself which you worshiped; for you hold in your iniquity the truth of God, by which you believe the world was created by Him, in that you will be a worshiper of false gods': so also is it said to a heretic who has changed by no falsehood of his own the Christian sacraments, as they are handed down in the catholic Church:
'Hold the Christian baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, as you held it, but acknowledge the Church of Christ growing throughout the whole world, as it was prophesied, which you cursed with sacrilegious voice; for you hold the truth of God concerning the unity of baptism in the iniquity of your division. Correct the iniquity of the heretical fabrication, lest it destroy you, and do not be proud of the truth of the Christian sacrament, which is there that it may judge you.'
But far be it from me to detest your iniquity in such a way that I should deny the truth of Christ, which I find in you unto your own condemnation; far be it from me so to correct you that I should destroy that very thing by which I correct you — unless perhaps I ought to destroy the truth which I find in the soul of heretics, when the Apostle did not destroy the truth which he found upon the altar-stone of the pagans. Greater is one God than one baptism — for baptism is not God, yet it is something great, precisely because it is a sacrament of God — and nevertheless that one God Himself was worshipped even outside the Church by those who did not know Him. So then one baptism also is given even outside the Church by those who do not know it.
Whoever says that it could not come to pass that the one and true God should be worshipped by those who did not know Him outside the Church, let him consider what answer he can give — not to me, but to the Apostle himself, who says: 'Whom therefore you worship in ignorance, Him I proclaim to you.'
Wherefore, just as it profited nothing unto salvation for those who worshipped the true God while yet not knowing Him — nay rather it worked to their ruin, in that by worshipping false gods together with Him they did sacrilegious injury to that same true God — so it profits nothing unto salvation for heretics that outside the Church they both hand on and hold true baptism in ignorance; nay rather it works to their condemnation, that amid the sacrilegious iniquity of human error they hold fast the truth even of a divine sacrament, not as a means by which they are cleansed, but as a means by which they are the more severely judged.
And just as the Apostle, when he was correcting those sacrilegious men, rather acknowledged than denied the true God who was worshipped outside the Church by them in their ignorance, so also we, when we correct the errors of heretics in their sacrilegious separation, ought assuredly to acknowledge and not to deny the true baptism which through ignorance they hand on outside the Church. But, they say, when Paul had come to Ephesus, he commanded certain men who said they had been baptized with John's baptism to be baptized in Christ. Whoever thinks from this example that schismatics and heretics are to be baptized, let him dare to say, if he can, that John was a heretic or a schismatic.
If it is unlawful to say this, then assuredly what was lacking was given to those men, not what was already present disapproved — whether they had lied in saying that they had John's baptism, as some suppose, or because John's baptism was not the baptism of Christ, yet was serving Christ, just as the old sacraments of the Law discharged a certain forerunning and prefiguring office. But, they say, if baptism was administered after John, the friend of the bridegroom, how much more must it be administered after a heretic! Another, stirred by a like and seemingly just indignation, may say: If baptism was administered after John, who drank no wine at all, how much more justly must it be administered after a drunkard! Let these men then do this, if they can;
let them baptize after their own drunkards, if the apostles baptized after the sober John. What answer do they give to this, save that they do not rebaptize after these men because through those who were baptized they received not the baptism of those men, but the baptism of Christ? Let them then believe that baptism was administered after John for this reason: that those men either had no baptism at all, or did not yet have the baptism of Christ. Indeed this very objection the man to whom we are replying set against himself, yet having set it he did not solve it. For he says: 'Perhaps someone will say: But these whom Paul baptized again had been washed with the baptism of John, not with the baptism of Jesus Christ. Hence I say that those who are known to have been baptized by traditors, yet in the name of Christ, ought not to be rebaptized.'
When he had set this before himself, mark how vainly he attempted to answer it. He says: 'To this matter the Lord Christ answered in these words: He who does not gather with me scatters; and again: Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. For many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works? And then I will declare to them: I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of iniquity. There is no doubt, therefore, that those men have lost a false work, who, though in the name of Jesus Christ, yet as sacrilegious men have dared to work.'
Willingly or unwillingly, therefore, traditors by their sacrilegious sacraments the more offend Christ, who, if they should even dare to say, 'In your name we prophesied,' He will say to them as to the rest: Depart from me, you workers of iniquity; I never knew you. Rightly will He say this to them, since indeed in unworthy men the cases are not dissimilar — to baptize, to drive out demons, and to have done the other marvelous works. See how many things he said, and how what he set against himself from the opposing side he was utterly unable to solve; and not only did he not solve it, but he even reminded us ourselves of what we ought to say against them. For these evangelical testimonies not only give him no help at all, but they even greatly support our cause.
It was John's baptism that was in question, and if the Apostle baptized certain men who had been baptized with it, he assuredly did not give John's baptism again to those who had John's baptism, but commanded those who did not have Christ's baptism to be baptized in Christ; and by this he destroyed neither, but distinguished both. This too was seen by this man against whom we are arguing; for when he had objected to himself, as from the adversary's side, that those whom they call traditors both baptize and are baptized with the baptism of Christ, not of John, and that therefore after them baptism ought neither to be rescinded nor repeated, he said that Christ answered this question when He said: He who does not gather with me scatters — as though Christ had said:
'In those who do not gather with me, let even what has been found to be true and mine be denied, blown away, destroyed.' He says also that to certain men saying, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' He would answer: I never knew you; depart from me, you who work iniquity. Did He here too say: 'On account of your iniquity I will deny even my own truth held fast within your iniquity'? For He will receive into His kingdom not all in whom He has found some truth, but those in whom He has found a love agreeing with the truth — which love, if it be lacking, there will be iniquity.
Yet the truth held fast within that iniquity is not to be denied; rather the iniquity itself is to be condemned, without the truth being destroyed. Whence also the Apostle says: And if I should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all prophecy and all faith, so that I could move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. He said that he himself would be nothing if he had not love — not that the mysteries and knowledge and prophecy and faith would be nothing. For those things are great, even though he be nothing who possesses them without love and holds their truth within his own iniquity. This too we say to these heretics:
'We do not destroy the truth of baptism which you hold fast within your iniquity; but when we correct you, we destroy and overthrow that iniquity, whereas this truth we acknowledge and hold.' And so those many evangelical testimonies help this man in nothing. But observe how they even most greatly support us. See, attend to his very own words: 'There is no doubt,' he says, 'that those men have lost a false work who, though in the name of Jesus Christ, yet as sacrilegious men have dared to work.' This is entirely true, since those who as sacrilegious men have dared to work in the name of Jesus Christ have lost their own false work: yet is the very name of Jesus Christ therefore sacrilegious, even when sacrilegious men work something through it?
Who would dare to say this, even the most demented? Who at this time now, even a pagan, would dare to affirm it? Whence also Jesus Christ Himself, though He most truly said: He who does not gather with me scatters, yet when His disciples had told Him that they had found a certain man casting out demons in His name, and had forbidden him because he did not follow the Lord together with them, answered thus: Do not forbid him; for no one does a mighty work in my name and can readily speak evil of me. In this indeed there was his own iniquity, because he did not gather with the Lord, nor did he follow the Shepherd together with the disciples in the unity of His flock; yet within this iniquity of his he held fast a truth not his own, in that he cast out demons in the name of Jesus Christ and did not speak evil of Him.
And so the Lord condemns this man's iniquity in those words where He says: He who does not gather with me scatters; yet He does not deny nor disapprove the truth that is his, when He says: Do not forbid him; for no one does a mighty work in my name and can readily speak evil of me. Following this example of the Lord, we too, according to our strength, cannot deny the truth of baptism and whatever else true the heretics hold; we dare not disapprove and destroy it; but their iniquity, whereby they gather not with Christ but scatter, we rightly detest, and while the truth that is in them remains inviolate, we condemn it, or so far as we are permitted, we amend it. Let this man then discern with what error he said what, following on, he added:
'Willingly or unwillingly, traditors by their sacrilegious sacraments the more offend Christ.' It is one kind of rashness, but somehow tolerable, that he calls men traditors whom he does not prove to be such; but who could endure this — that he calls the sacraments of Christ sacrilegious, even if they were, as he falsely charges, held by traditors, sacraments which are celebrated in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit according to the evangelical rite? Here perhaps he may say that it is no longer the sacrament of Christ, because it is given by sacrilegious men. Why then does he not say that it is no longer even the name of Christ, because it is uttered by sacrilegious men? Which he by no means dared to say. For he says:
'There is no doubt, therefore, that those men have lost a false work who, though in the name of Jesus Christ, yet as sacrilegious men have dared to work.' 'Though,' he says, 'in the name of Jesus Christ.' Did he say that it is not the name of Jesus Christ? As therefore it profits sacrilegious men nothing that they work in the name of Jesus Christ, so it profits heretics nothing that they baptize or are baptized in the baptism of Jesus Christ. But nevertheless, as that is the name of Jesus Christ, so also this is the baptism of Jesus Christ, and both are to be acknowledged and approved, not denied and destroyed, lest an injury be done to such great gifts of God, when the life of sacrilegious men who make evil use of those same goods is corrected. He says that the Lord will say to sacrilegious men:
Depart from me, you who work iniquity — meaning those who outside the Church baptize, or cast out demons, or work certain mighty works in the name of Jesus Christ. But we say — nay, the very Truth says — that the Lord will say this to all such, even to those who within the very nets of unity swim as bad fish together with the good until they reach the shore. For what else will be said to them, when the good have been gathered into vessels and those bad ones, separated, shall be cast forth, save: Depart from me, you who work iniquity? And yet we do not on that account destroy the sacraments of Christ in them, when we acknowledge such men, whether baptizing or baptized, within these same nets of unity.
Nor do I think that they themselves are so shameless as to dare to say to the many wicked and criminal men who are in their party — men ruined and defiled by manifest disgraces and crimes, that is, the greedy and the plunderers, or the savage usurers, or the bloodthirsty Circumcellions — that the Lord will not say: Depart from me, you who work iniquity; and yet they know, they see, they maintain that many such men baptize, that many are baptized by such men, nor do even those to whom the crimes of those men are displeasing violate the sacrament of Christ in them. Therefore not only did he say nothing against us when he brought forward these evangelical testimonies, but he even reminded us of what we ought to say against them. Accordingly, as to what follows, which he exultingly says:
'I have briefly solved the question' — truly he did solve it, but for us; since, by saying that in unworthy men the cases are not dissimilar — to baptize, to drive out demons, and to have done the other not dissimilar mighty works, to those who say, 'In your name we did these things,' He is going to say: I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of iniquity — he made manifest that it is as true that they baptize with the baptism of Jesus Christ, even those who are separated from the Church, as it is true that they drive out demons in the name of Jesus Christ; but that neither of these leads them to eternal life, nor delivers them from eternal punishments.
And by this means, just as, if any of those from whom that man drove out demons — the man whom the disciples saw driving out demons in the name of Jesus Christ though separated from the flock — should come to the Church, in no way would the mighty work that had been done in him be denied, but what was lacking would be added to him; so whoever outside the Church shall have been consecrated by heretics or schismatics with the baptism of Christ, when he comes to the Church, the sacrament of truth with which he is imbued is not to be denied, but the piety of unity from which he was separated is to be added — the unity without which that sacrament could indeed be present in him, but could not profit him.
This we do, this we have received as handed down from our elders, this we guard in the Catholic Church, which is spread throughout the whole world, against all the mists of falsehood. What more, then, is to be argued by us on this matter, when he himself briefly solved the question by recalling the evangelical testimonies — by which assuredly, if he were unwilling to be contentious, he would both condemn his own error and recognize the truth of baptism? What need, then, is there to unweave all his words, in which he seems to himself to speak cleverly and to turn over with much loquacity the notion that true baptism is present among them because it is acknowledged and not denied by us?
For whoever holds firmly and unshaken that which the most true and inviolable rule of truth shows — that in each thing what is false and vicious is to be disapproved or amended, but what is true and right is to be acknowledged and accepted — sees at once both what we detest in the heresy of the Donatists and what we ought by no means to violate. For since within the iniquity of their separation they hold fast the truth of baptism, their iniquity is blamed by us, but the truth of baptism is everywhere acknowledged and approved. For whoever says that the baptism of Christ is to be destroyed when heretics baptize with it, it follows that he should say that Christ Himself is also to be denied when the demons confess Him.
For this Peter was praised, when he said: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God; and the demons were cast out saying this very thing: We know who you are, the Son of God. Therefore this confession, fruitful to Peter, ruinous to the demons, was in both cases nevertheless not false but true, not to be denied but acknowledged, not to be detested but approved. So also the truth of baptism is given by upright Catholics as that confession by Peter, and is given by perverse heretics as the same confession by the demons; it helps the former, it condemns the latter, yet in both it is to be approved by being acknowledged, in neither to be violated by being denied.
Whence also the Apostle James, when he refuted certain men who were saying that true faith suffices for a man and were not joining to it the works of love, convicted them by this comparison with the demons, lest they should think themselves to belong to God for the reason that they believed what was true concerning God, even if they took no care to join good works to their faith. You believe, he says, that there is one God? You do well; the demons also believe and tremble. Those, therefore, who believe what is true concerning God and yet live wickedly, he compared to the demons; yet he did not, out of hatred of the demons, destroy by denial that very truth which the demons believe concerning God. Wherefore, since this very man against whom we are arguing has set forth the Apostle as saying:
One God, one faith, one baptism — behold, we find the same God worshipped outside the Church by those who do not know Him; behold, we find the same faith in one God confessed outside the Church not only by certain men, but even by demons — yet both are confirmed rather than denied by the apostles. Why do we not likewise confirm rather than deny the one baptism also, in those established outside the Church in whom we have found it, so that we do not, from that which is depraved in them, deprave also what is right, but rather, from that which is right which they hold, correct also that in which they are depraved? What is it, then, that he says there is true baptism where there is true faith?
It is altogether possible that some may have true baptism and not have true faith, just as it is possible that they may have the true Gospel, yet by not rightly understanding it believe something false concerning God: shall we, on account of that falsity of faith, think that even the Gospel, which is found true among them, is to be detested or amended? Nor do I think that those Corinthians whom he rebukes for having broken up into schisms had true faith in that which they were saying: I am of Paul; for this was false. Yet they had true baptism, from the truth of which — that they might correct that falsity — they hear from Paul himself: Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
There were also those there who did not believe that the dead rise again, and in that matter assuredly did not hold and have true faith. Yet from that which they held true — since they believed that Christ had risen, in whom they had been baptized — the Apostle takes pains to cure also that in which their faith was not sound, saying: If the dead do not rise, neither has Christ risen; so that, since they had believed that Christ had risen, and this in them was sound, that too might be healed, in that by a most pernicious error they did not believe that the dead rise again.
Wherefore, since in the holy canonical Scriptures neither do they find heretics coming to the Catholic Church rebaptized, nor do we find them received in the same baptism which they had received in heresy, in this matter at least our case is equal; because neither what they do — that they rebaptize heretics, or those whom they suppose to be heretics — nor what we do — that we accept even the baptism of Christ given among heretics — is confirmed by any express example of apostolic times.
But we, finding that the apostles confirmed rather than denied whatever of truth was recognized in any who erred or were sacrilegious with whatever impiety, and that they amended or condemned the error and impiety of men while preserving what true thing was found in them — we follow this same rule also in the truth of baptism: that among those in whom we find it so retained and preserved as it is retained and preserved in the Catholic Church, we neither deny nor destroy it, but, while it remains, we take care to correct, amend, and set right whatever is vicious, depraved, or false in each one; or, if we cannot, we detest and condemn it and shun it.
Accordingly, when we receive them, we do not receive their iniquity, by which they divided themselves from the Church of Christ by a sacrilegious rupture, by which they assail with slanderous and abusive accusations the Christian world, to which God bears so many testimonies through the Law, through the Prophets, through the Gospel, through the Psalms, through the apostles; nor do we receive that very error by which they are unwilling to acknowledge the baptism of Christ preserved even among heretics by the ecclesiastical rule, dare to destroy it, do not hesitate to repeat it;
nay more, not only laymen but also clergy — and not just any clergy, but even presbyters and bishops, even if they were baptized in those churches which the apostles themselves founded by their own labor — if by any means they can seduce and transfer them to themselves, they make them catechumens. These detestable evils of theirs we by no means accept, since indeed unless these are corrected they cannot cross over to us. Nor do we pass over even this without distinction: that those who, being already faithful, deserted the Catholic Church should perform a humbler penance than those who were not yet in it, and that they should not be admitted to the clergy, whether they were rebaptized by the heretics, or, having previously been received, returned to them, or were clergy or laity among them.
And those of our own who deal with these matters negligently, and perhaps make such men clergy in the Catholic Church or allow them to be so — although they are blamed by the more diligent according to the brotherly right — nevertheless even they do not think that the clerical office is to be conferred on them, except on those whom they either know to have been amended from those evils or believe to be so. And by this it is in vain that any who are separated from her unity by nefarious crime slander the Catholic Church. For, to use rather the words of the Apostle, the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and injustice of men who hold the truth in iniquity. This wrath, if they do not correct themselves, will find these men too, who hold the truth of Christian baptism in the iniquity of their sacrilegious separation.
But the Catholic Church, which, as was foretold concerning her, is spread among all nations with abundant fruitfulness, so amends no one's iniquity as to destroy in him the truth — not his own, but his Lord's. What then does this man exclaim, as though licentiously and confidently: 'I have baptized in security the one whom you, sacrilegious man, have defiled; I have baptized, I say; I have done what the Apostle Paul did'? Let him read where the Apostle Paul did this. But if he wishes it to be understood of those at Ephesus, let him then dare to say that John, a sacrilegious man, had defiled them. But if he does not dare to say this, since it is a most manifest impiety, let him at last cease from a matter so very dissimilar to stir up the mists of a false likeness.
For as to what he adds concerning Agrippinus the bishop of Carthage, concerning the illustrious martyr Cyprian, concerning the seventy predecessors of Cyprian, that they did this and commanded it to be done — O how detestable is the error of men who think they are laudably imitating certain things not rightly done by illustrious men, while they are strangers to those men's virtues! For thus also some wish to be compared to the Apostle Peter, if they have denied Christ; but if they have even compelled the Gentiles to Judaize, they affect to be called his very brothers.
These things were blameworthy in so great a man, but the apostolic grace shone forth so greatly that they were straightway blotted out; nor can any Christian of our own times, or even any bishop, who has neither denied Christ nor compelled the Gentiles to Judaize, be — I do not say preferred to him — but even be made equal to him, or nearly compared with him.
So too in the most glorious martyr Cyprian, if he was unwilling to acknowledge the baptism of Christ given among heretics or schismatics, while he detested too greatly those whom he grieved to see separated from the Catholic unity which he loved so much — his merits attained so far, even to the triumph of martyrdom, that both that overshadowing was put to flight by the light of the love in which he excelled, and, that the fruitful branch might become more fruitful, if it had anything to be purged, this was, if by no other means, then certainly by the final pruning-hook of his passion, taken away. Nor are we, because we acknowledge rather than deny the truth of baptism even in the iniquity of heretics, therefore better than Cyprian — just as neither than Peter, because we do not compel the Gentiles to Judaize.
This is what I would answer concerning Agrippinus and the other bishops who are reported to have held those councils, who thought differently in such a way that they nevertheless persisted in unity with those against whom they held their opinion on this question — where love covers a multitude of sins. For thus, to those walking in the truth of the Church into which they had come, God could, as the Apostle says, reveal that also to them, wherein they were otherwise minded. For it was then a new question, in what manner heretics were to be received — a question which by its very novelty greatly disturbed some brethren who rightly detested the heretical pest, so that they believed that even this in them was to be disapproved, which by their own evil they held as good. But that I may briefly say what I think concerning this matter:
to rebaptize heretics, which those men are said to have done, was then a matter of human error; but to rebaptize Catholics, which these men still do, is always a matter of diabolical presumption. But I want this man to solve a question for me, since, when he recounted in order the bishops of the Roman Church, among them he recounted also Stephen, whom he confessed to have held the episcopate unstained. Since therefore Stephen not only did not rebaptize heretics, but even judged that those who did this, or decreed that it should be done, ought to be excommunicated — as both the letters of the other bishops and of Cyprian himself show — nevertheless Cyprian remained with him in the peace of unity. What are they going to say to this?
Let them exert their wits as much as they can, and let them consider whether they are able to answer. Behold, there were two men at one time — to be silent about others — who thought differently; there were two bishops of the most eminent churches, namely the Roman and the Carthaginian, Stephen and Cyprian, both established in Catholic unity; of whom Stephen judged that the baptism of Christ was in no case to be repeated and was gravely incensed against those who did this, while Cyprian judged that those baptized in heresy or schism, as not having the baptism of Christ, were to be baptized in the Catholic Church. Many held with the former, some also with the latter, both parties remaining with them in unity.
If, therefore, what these men say is true — and from this they try to assert or excuse the cause of their separation — namely, that in one communion of the sacraments the wicked stain the good, and that therefore one must withdraw by bodily separation from contact with the wicked, lest all alike perish, then it must be confessed that already in the times of Stephen and Cyprian the Church perished, and that none was left to posterity, in which Donatus himself might be spiritually born.
But if they judge it wicked to say this—because it is in truth wicked—then, since the Church endured from those earlier times down to the times of Caecilian and Majorinus without Donatus, and they could not destroy it by any staining of it (for whoever, according to their own view, were admitted into it without baptism were full of all their own sins and crimes), and since no separation from their communion was made by Cyprian and by those who held the same opinion about baptism as he did—because they did not believe that they could be defiled by the sins of others while remaining in the unity and communion of the sacraments of Christ—so likewise the Church could thereafter continue to endure. Growing, as was foretold of her, over the whole circle of the lands, she could in no way be stained by the crimes of any traitors or malefactors whatsoever, just as on one threshing-floor the grain cannot be defiled by the chaff until the time of winnowing, and just as within one net the good fish, swimming together with the bad, are not destroyed by them until they reach the shore.
There was therefore no reason, but only the greatest madness, by which these men, as though guarding against communion with the wicked, separated themselves from the unity of Christ that is spread abroad over the whole world—unless perhaps they distinguish crimes from crimes by some wondrous art, bringing forth their rules of distinction not from the Scriptures but from their own hearts, and saying that in the unity of the communion of the sacraments other crimes belonging to others are tolerated without contamination, but that by the crime of surrendering (the Scriptures) all are held bound who share the sacraments with such men. But it is superfluous to argue this at greater length, especially since they scarcely ever dare to say it, being themselves ashamed and sensing that they speak vain things, and when they do say it, they strive to support it by no divine testimony.
For they are more accustomed to have on their lips, when they accuse some men of the sins of others in order to excuse the wickedness of their own separation, such texts as: 'Thou sawest a thief and didst run with him'; and 'Do not communicate in the sins of others'; and 'Depart, go out from there and touch not the unclean thing'; and 'He that toucheth what is polluted is polluted'; and 'A little leaven corrupteth the whole lump'; and others of this kind—by which the crime of surrender is not distinguished from other crimes by any special property, but rather all fellowship with sin is forbidden. Yet if Cyprian had understood these divine testimonies or precepts in the way these men do, he would surely have separated himself from Stephen and would not have persisted with him in the communion of catholic unity.
For he indeed, according to the opinion about baptism which these men think must be held, was communicating in the sins of others by admitting into the Church heretics and schismatics who—as they suppose—did not have baptism; for evidently the sins of those who had not been washed by true baptism assuredly remained in them. Cyprian therefore ought to have withdrawn from communion with such a man, lest he should run with a thief, lest he should share in the sins of others, lest he should be defiled by contagion with the unclean, lest he should be made polluted by touching what is polluted, lest he should be corrupted by the leaven of others. Since, then, he did not do this, but remained with them in unity, the whole lump of that very unity was then corrupted, and the Church did not endure—the Church which was later to bring forth these men's saints, Majorinus and Donatus.
Since they by no means dare to say this, it remains that they must confess that the good remained together with the wicked in the communion of the Christian sacraments without any blemish to themselves, and that the Church of Christ persevered down to the time of Caecilian—not without any wicked men, as though already stored away in the barn, but still with the chaff mixed in, as though set out on the threshing-floor. So then it could thereafter continue to endure, as indeed it does endure, until on the last day of judgment it is winnowed and cleansed. What, then, does the great madness of these men's separation from the unity of the body of Christ mean for itself—that body which, as we read was prophesied and now behold is being fulfilled, is spread abroad over the whole circle of the lands and among all nations?
Here indeed, as it is written, the wicked son calls himself righteous, but does not wash away his going forth—that is, he does not excuse, does not cleanse, does not defend the fact that in schismatic madness he did not fear to go out from the house of God into the heretic pestilence. For if he were truly righteous, then, as the Apostle Paul with the false brethren over whom he groans in his epistles, and as Cyprian with those whom he judged to be full of their past sins yet without baptism, and whom he knew were admitted to the Church by Stephen...
...so he too would persist in the Church of Christ together with those whom he either knew or thought to be unjust, without any staining of himself, and would not desert the good on account of the wicked, but would rather tolerate the wicked on account of the good—like a grain of wheat with the chaff, bearing the threshing by the weight of charity, not like the lightest dust that yields to the blasts even before the winnowing. For in that way, even together with the wicked, whom these nets must necessarily contain until the shore, persevering in catholic unity he would nevertheless not run with a thief, nor share in the sins of others, nor be defiled by handling anyone's uncleanness, nor be polluted by touching what is polluted, nor be corrupted by anyone's leaven.
For these things come about by consent to sins—the consent by which the serpent, through the woman, deceived the first man even in the felicity of paradise—not by communion in the sacraments, in which the unclean Judas could not contaminate his clean fellow-disciples. But from the wicked, with whom they share the sacraments of God, even now on the threshing-floor and not yet in the barn, the good already depart and are separated—by dissimilarity of morals, not by segregation of bodies; by living otherwise, not by coming to other assemblies. Thus they neither become one with the wicked nor depart from the unity of the Church. Why, then, do they exaggerate to us the crime of I-know-not-what traitors, whom they have nevertheless never been able even to convict?
But if we should defend these men against their calumnies, we would seem to be pleading the cause of certain men, not of the Church. In short, whoever and wherever there were traitors—and Stephen, according to these men, admitted into the Church not only the sin of the traitors but even of those very men who compelled others to hand over (the Scriptures), and of absolutely all malefactors, the wicked, the sacrilegious—because, if they did not have baptism, all the sins, however grave and horrible, which they had committed, were in them and held them guilty without any remission. Such men Stephen admitted; with such men Cyprian was in catholic unity; and yet the Church did not perish, but endured. Therefore the sins of others do not defile anyone in her unity.
In vain has the wicked son hastened to go out from his father's household; in vain does he call himself righteous, while he does not wash away his going forth. Or will they perhaps say that those whom Stephen thus admitted were cleansed by their very participation in unity, since charity covers a multitude of sins? Would that they might say it! For we too say this, when we either urge them to return to unity or admonish them. But on this understanding there will now remain no question of baptism between us. For if those baptized among heretics or schismatics are cleansed, when they come to the Church, by the charity of that very unity, then surely they are rebaptized without cause. You see therefore, in this discourse to which you wished me to reply, how many things that man has said on our behalf.
What need is there, then, that we should now refute the crimes cast by him upon the bishops of the Roman church, whom he has pursued with incredible calumnies? Marcellinus and his presbyters Miltiades, Marcellus, and Silvester are charged by him with the crime of surrendering the divine books and of offering incense. But are they on that account actually convicted, or are they shown to be convicted by any firmness of proof? He says they were criminals and sacrilegious men; I reply that they were innocent. Why should I labor to prove my defense, when he has not even feebly attempted to prove his accusation?
If there is any humanity in human affairs, I think we could more justly be reproached if we believed unknown men—whom their enemies accuse, yet demonstrate their crime by no testimony—to be guilty rather than innocent. For if perhaps the truth is otherwise, at least the debt due to humanity itself is paid, when a man rashly suspects nothing evil of another man and does not easily believe any accuser, seeing that one who casts a crime without a witness and without any proof stands forth as a slanderous reviler rather than a truthful accuser.
To this may be added that, while Miltiades was then presiding as bishop of the Roman church, by the command of the emperor Constantine—to whom the accusing bishops brought that whole case of the Carthaginian church's Caecilian through the proconsul Anullinus—this same Caecilian was pronounced innocent.
When the ancestors of these men, with most importunate obstinacy, complained to the said emperor about this judgment, saying that it had not been fully nor rightly examined and delivered, they said nothing about any surrender or incense-offering by Miltiades—to whose hearing indeed they certainly ought not even to have come—suggesting rather this beforehand to the emperor, or insisting that it be suggested: that they ought not to plead their case before a man defiled by the surrender of the divine books and by sacrifices to idols.
Since therefore they neither suggested this beforehand, nor—after judgment had been given against them in favor of Caecilian—did they think, at least when defeated and enraged, that it ought to be brought forward as an objection, why do they now, so belatedly, string together empty calumnies, as though the innocence of Caecilian might be darkened by discrediting Miltiades the judge, and the Roman church itself besmirched?—where they could neither condemn anyone by any judgment of their own, however faulty, nor subrogate any of their own men as it were into the place of one condemned; whereas, against the very few Africans of their own party, they secretly and from afar sent foreign intervenors—whom this man was not ashamed to mention by name—until they might ordain, for a deceived little rabble, as it were their own bishops.
Indeed, after the acquittal of Caecilian, they accused before the emperor Felix, bishop of Aptunga, alleging that he was a most manifest traitor and that therefore Caecilian could not be a bishop, because he had been ordained by that traitor. Then Constantine did not deny even this accusation of theirs a hearing, although he had found them to be calumniators in the fabricated crimes against Caecilian; and so he ordered that the case of Felix be investigated. In Africa it was investigated by the proconsul Aelianus; and Felix too was declared innocent. The proconsular acts are extant; whoever wishes may take them and read them.
But this pertains not only to the completeness of demonstrating Caecilian's innocence and to Felix's own most evident vindication, and to declaring the calumnies of those who in their own council had called him the fountain of all evils, but also to considering Miltiades' life as most pure from their accusations. Unless perhaps someone should be so foolish as to believe that these men—who did not spare Felix, by whom Caecilian had been ordained—could have spared Miltiades, by whom he had been absolved, if any rumor whatsoever, however slight, had blamed that bishop's life, even though no wound of conscience had destroyed it. Or would that which had been fabricated concerning the forum of Aptunga be accused by these men, while that which had been done in the Capitol of the Romans be passed over in silence?
But concerning Mensurius, what shall I reply, when during his time and down to the day of his death no portion of the people of unity was severed, and when the very letters of Secundus of Tigisi—by which he is asserted to have been reproved—confirm that they wrote to one another peaceably and that they remained together in the fellowship of the college? Now indeed, as to what he also wished to say about the church of Cirta, and how he assailed the catholic bishops there with whatever slanders he wished—what else has he done but, by reviling holy men even of our own times, well known to us, sufficiently show what we ought to think even about unknown men, whom he likewise reviles?
Accordingly, if Profuturus, who died a very few years ago, and Fortunatus, who is still in the body and succeeded him as bishop, were Manichees—in the same way those men were traitors whom they never cease to accuse, though they are utterly unknown, far removed from our times—then indeed the pure life of those men, free from these men's reproaches, is now most well known to us. Truly it is no small nor inglorious consolation for any of us, if we are accused by the enemies of the Church together with the Church herself; yet her defense does not consist in the defense of those men whom these people assail by name with false accusations.
In short, whatever sort of men Marcellinus, Marcellus, Silvester, Miltiades, Mensurius, Caecilian, and the others may have been—against whom, out of their own dissension, they cast whatever charges they please—they prejudice nothing against the catholic Church spread abroad over the whole circle of the lands; in no way are we crowned by their innocence, in no way are we condemned by their iniquity. If they were good, they were cleansed like grains in the threshing of the catholic floor; if they were wicked, they were crushed like stubble in the threshing of the catholic floor. Within this floor both good and wicked can be; outside it the good cannot be. Whoever is separated from this unity by the wind of pride, as though he were mere chaff, why does he calumniate the Lord's threshing-floor on account of the chaff mixed in?
We also say—and not only say, but even prove by the records of ecclesiastical and public documents—that Secundus of Tigisi, at whose convened council they say Caecilian was condemned, granted peace to confessed traitors, lest a schism should arise, although the crime of surrender had been objected against this very man by Purpurius of Limata; we say that Victor of Rusicade, Donatus of Calama, Donatus of Masculi, Marinus of Aquae Tibilitanae, and Silvanus of Cirta were traitors, and these same men were as it were the most severe condemners of traitors. This we prove both by ecclesiastical and by municipal and by judicial records.
But not for that reason are all who are in the party of Donatus traitors, because these men were in it; nor for that reason is the party of Donatus innocent, if these men should be shown to be innocent of the iniquity of surrender. For we listen more readily to holy Scripture than either calumniate anyone concerning the sins of others or dread anyone's like calumny against ourselves.
For 'the soul that sins, that same shall die,' and 'each one shall bear his own burden,' and 'he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment not to another but to himself'; and both are allowed to grow together until the harvest, lest, when the tares are gathered before the time, the wheat also be rooted up along with them; and the kids and the lambs, mingled together, are fed in the best pastures, until they be separated by the Shepherd who cannot err; and out of every kind of fish the nets of unity are filled, until they be brought to the judgment of the shore—except that these men, by their perverse and false opinion, prejudge themselves, who say that they are justly separated from the communion of the Christian world on account of the sins of others.
For by this absurd and insane opinion they themselves bring it about that the sins of certain of their own men are imputed to all. But if they judge this to be just, then all are guilty of any most manifest crime found among them in a single man. If, however, they recognize this to be unjust—as it is unjust—then all are guilty of a most iniquitous separation. Now indeed, since in this discourse the question is rather about the one baptism, that our discussion may be concluded where it was begun:
just as in that very unity of the Lord's floor the wicked are not to be praised on account of the good, nor are the good to be deserted on account of the wicked; just as in a single man his perversity is not to be accepted on account of that which is sound in him, nor ought his soundness to be denied on account of that which is perverse in him—since even in the iniquity of the Jews the truth of the resurrection of the dead is held fast, and in the iniquity of the Gentiles the truth of the one God who founded the world is held fast, and in the iniquity of those who, because they gather not with Christ, scatter, there is held fast the truth by which in His name they cast out the unclean spirit; and in the iniquity of sacrilegious temples there was found the truth by which they worshipped an unknown God, and in the iniquity of demons there was found the truth by which they confessed Christ:
so also in the iniquity of heretics the truth is not to be denied, by which the sacrament of baptism is held fast. (p. 172, 9, in Knöll's edition.) ONE BOOK: ON THE ONE BAPTISM, AGAINST PETILIAN, TO CONSTANTINE. At that time a certain friend of mine received a book On the One Baptism from I-know-not-what Donatist presbyter, who indicated that Petilian, their bishop of Constantina, had written it. This my friend brought to me and earnestly begged me to reply to it. But I wished my own book, in which I replied, to bear the same title, that is, On the One Baptism. In which book, as for that which I said:
that the emperor Constantine, when the Donatists brought accusations against Felix of Aptunga, the ordainer of Caecilian, did not deny a hearing to the accusation, although he had found them to be calumniators in the fabricated crimes against Caecilian—this, when the order of the times was afterward considered, was found to be otherwise. For the said emperor first had the case of Felix heard by the proconsul, where he is read to have been acquitted, and afterward the emperor himself found Caecilian innocent when he had been heard together with his accusers, where he found them to be calumniators in the crimes charged against him. This order of the times, made clear by the consuls, convicts the calumnies of the Donatists in that case far more forcibly and utterly overturns them, as we have shown elsewhere. This book begins thus: 'To answer those who think adversely...'