書信與論戰集（CSEL） 第 25 章

BOOK ONE. In those books which we wrote against the epistle of Parmenianus which he addressed to Tychonius, we promised that we would treat more diligently the question of baptism; and even if we had not there promised it, we remember and acknowledge it nonetheless as a debt demanded of us by the brethren who press us.

Wherefore in this work, with the Lord's help, we have undertaken not only to refute those things which the Donatists are wont to object against us on this matter, but also, from the authority of the most blessed martyr Cyprian — whereby they attempt to prop up their own perversity, lest it fall before the onslaught of the truth — to say what the Lord shall grant, so that all who judge, being not blinded by party zeal, may understand that they are not only not aided by the authority of Cyprian, but are chiefly through it convicted and overthrown. It has indeed already been said in the aforementioned books that baptism can be given outside the Catholic communion in the same way as it can also be held outside it.

But none of them denies that even apostates have baptism; and since to these, when they return and are converted through penance, it is not repeated, it is judged that it could not have been lost. So too those who, through the sacrilege of schism, depart from the communion of the Church, certainly have the baptism which they received before they departed. For if they too return, it is not given them again; whence it is shown that that which they had received while placed in unity, they could not, once separated, lose. But if it can be held outside, why can it not also be given? If you say: 'It is not rightly given outside,' we answer: just as it is not rightly held outside and yet is held, so it is not rightly given outside, but nevertheless is given.

And just as, through the reconciliation of unity, that begins to be usefully held which outside unity was uselessly held, so through the same reconciliation that begins to be useful which outside it was uselessly given. Yet it is not lawful to say that that was not given which was given, or that anyone should slanderously charge that a man did not give this, when he confesses that the man gave that which he had received. For the sacrament of baptism is what the baptized person has, and the sacrament of giving baptism is what the ordained person has. And just as the baptized man, if he departs from unity, does not lose the sacrament of baptism, so also the ordained man, if he departs from unity, does not lose the sacrament of giving baptism. For no injury is to be done to any sacrament.

If he departs from evils, he departs from both; if he remains in evils, he remains in both. As therefore the baptism is accepted which he who had departed from unity could not lose, so is the baptism to be accepted which was given by him who, when he departed, had not lost the sacrament of giving. For just as those who return, who were baptized before they withdrew, are not rebaptized, so those who return, who were ordained before they withdrew, are certainly not ordained again; but either they administer what they used to administer, if the Church's usefulness requires it, or, if they do not administer it, they nevertheless bear the sacrament of their ordination — and therefore no hand is laid upon them as upon the laity.

For Felicianus lost neither the sacrament of baptism nor the sacrament of giving baptism when he departed from them together with Maximianus; for now they have him among their own number, together with those very ones whom, while he was outside in the schism of Maximianus, he baptized. Wherefore the others could receive from them that which those men had not lost when they had withdrawn from our fellowship — even though they had not come to our fellowship. By which things it is shown both that they act impiously who attempt to rebaptize the unity of the world, and that we act rightly who dare not disapprove the sacraments of God even in the schism itself. For in that in which they agree with us, in that also they are with us; but in that in which they dissent from us, in that they have withdrawn from us.

For this approach and this departure are to be measured by movements not corporeal but spiritual. For just as the joining of bodies takes place through continuity of places, so of minds a certain contact is the agreement of wills. If, therefore, he who has withdrawn from unity should wish to do anything other than what he received in unity, in that he withdraws and is disjoined; but that which he wishes to do just as it is done in unity, where he received and learned it, in that he remains and is joined. And so these men are with us in certain things, but in certain others they have gone out from us. Accordingly, those things in which they are with us we do not forbid them to do;

but in those things in which they are not with us, we exhort them, that by coming they may receive, or by returning may recover; and by what means we can, we strive with charity that they may choose this, amended and corrected. We do not therefore say to them: 'Do not give,' but: 'Do not give in schism'; nor do we say to those whom they seem about to baptize: 'Do not receive,' but: 'Do not receive in schism.' For if perhaps extreme necessity should compel someone — where he has not found a Catholic through whom to receive, and, with peace preserved in his heart in Catholic fashion, has received through someone placed outside Catholic unity that which he was going to receive within Catholic unity itself — if he should straightway depart also from this life, we reckon him none other than a Catholic.

But if he should be delivered from bodily death, when he has restored himself, even by bodily presence, to the Catholic congregation, from which he had never departed in heart, we not only do not disapprove what he did, but even most securely and most truly praise it, because he believed God to be present to his heart, where he was preserving unity, and, without the sacrament of holy baptism — which, wherever he found it, he recognized to be not of men but of God — he was unwilling to depart from this life.

But if anyone, when he could receive in the Catholic Church itself, through some perversity of mind chooses to be baptized in schism — even if he afterward intends to come to the Catholic Church, because he is certain that the sacrament profits there, which indeed can be received elsewhere but cannot profit — he is beyond doubt perverse and iniquitous, and the more perniciously so the more knowingly. For thus he does not doubt that it is rightly received there, just as he does not doubt that even what he received elsewhere profits there. For there are two things which we say: both that baptism is in the Catholic Church, and that only there is it rightly received; both of which the Donatists deny. Likewise we say two other things: that there is baptism among the Donatists, but that it is not rightly received there;

of these two, they strongly affirm the one — that is, that baptism is there — but they are unwilling to admit the other, that it is not rightly received there. Of these four propositions, three are ours alone, but one we both assert. For that baptism is in the Catholic Church, and is rightly received there, and among the Donatists is not rightly received — we alone say; but that there is baptism both among the Donatists — they too assert, and we concede. Whosoever therefore wishes to be baptized, and is now certain that our Church is to be chosen by him for Christian salvation, and that in it alone the baptism of Christ profits, even if it has been received elsewhere — but nevertheless wishes to be baptized in the party of Donatus, because we say that baptism is there, not they alone nor we alone, but both — let him attend to the other three.

For if he has chosen to follow us in those points on which they say nothing, while he nevertheless prefers those things which both of us affirm to those which we alone affirm, it is enough for us that he prefers those things which they do not say and which we alone affirm to those which they alone affirm. Now that there is baptism in the Catholic Church, we affirm and they do not deny; that baptism is rightly received in the Catholic Church, we affirm and they do not deny; that baptism is not rightly received in the party of Donatus, we affirm and they do not deny. As therefore he rather believes what we alone say is to be believed, so let him rather do what we alone say is to be done. But what both of us say is to be believed, let him, if he so judges, believe the more firmly than that which is affirmed by us alone.

For he will more firmly believe that there is the baptism of Christ in the party of Donatus—which is affirmed by both of us—than that there is baptism in the Catholic Church, which is affirmed by Catholics only. But again he will rather believe that the baptism of Christ exists even among us—which we alone affirm—than that it does not exist among us, which they alone affirm. For he has already decided and is certain that in the points on which we differ, we are to be preferred to them. So then he will rather believe that what we alone say is rightly received among us, than that it is not rightly received among us, since this only they affirm. By the same rule he will rather believe what we alone say, namely that it is not rightly received among them, than that which they alone say, that is, that it is rightly received among them.

In vain, therefore, does he seem to himself to be secure in receiving there what both of us indeed say exists there, but where we do not both say it is to be received. But he himself has chosen, in the matter on which we do not both agree, to cleave rather to us. Let him therefore here receive securely, where he is certain both that it exists and that it is rightly received; but let him not receive there where those, whose opinion he has decided to choose, indeed say it exists but do not say it is to be received there. And yet even if he held it doubtful that it is not rightly received there, while holding it certain that it is rightly received in the Catholic Church, he would sin gravely in matters pertaining to the soul's salvation, on this ground alone, that he preferred uncertain things to certain.

For by this very fact he is certain that a man is rightly baptized in the Catholic Church, namely that though baptized elsewhere he has resolved to pass over to it. But that a man is rightly baptized among the Donatists, let him at least hold as uncertain, since this is affirmed by those whose opinion he holds ought to be set behind that of the Donatists; and, preferring the certain to the uncertain, let him be baptized here, where he is certain that it is rightly done for this reason, that even when he thought of doing it elsewhere he had resolved that he must pass over to this place. But now if anyone does not understand how it can come about that what we confess to exist there we say is not rightly given there, let him attend to this: that we do not even say it rightly exists there, which they too affirm concerning those who depart from their communion.

Let them also consider the likeness of the military mark, which can be both had and received outside of military service by deserters, yet outside of military service it ought neither to be had nor received, and in one brought back or led to military service it ought neither to be changed nor repeated. Nevertheless the case is different of those who imprudently fall in with these heretics, supposing them to be the very Church of Christ, and different of those who know that there is no Catholic Church except that which, as it was promised, is spread abroad throughout the whole world and extended even to the ends of the earth—which, growing up among the tares and desiring, in weariness of offenses, the rest to come, says in the Psalms: from the ends of the earth have I cried out to you, when my soul was in weariness: you have exalted me upon a rock.

Now that rock was Christ, in whom the Apostle says we are already raised up and seated in heaven—not yet in reality, but in hope. And therefore the Psalm continues and says: you have led me, for you have become my hope, a tower of strength from the face of the enemy. For from his promises, set as it were like darts and javelins in a most fortified tower, the enemy is not only guarded against but also assailed—the enemy who clothes his wolves in sheep's skins so that they may say: behold, here is Christ, behold, there he is, and who from the universality of the city set upon a mountain draw many away to the corners of their ambushes and, having cut their throats, devour them.

And when they know this, they choose to receive the baptism of Christ outside the communion of the unity of Christ's body, intending afterwards to migrate to that same communion together with what they will have received elsewhere. For, knowing it, they are about to hold the baptism of Christ against the Church of Christ on the very day on which they receive it. But if this is a wicked thing, who is there who would say: 'let me be permitted to commit a wickedness for one day'? For if he is going to pass over to the Catholic Church, I ask the reason. What else will he answer, except that it is an evil to be in the party of Donatus and not in the Catholic unity? This evil, then, for as many days as you do it, so many days' evil you will be doing; and it can be said that a greater evil is done over more days, and a lesser over few, but it cannot be said that no evil is done at all.

But what need is there to commit this so execrable an evil even for one day or one hour? For he who wishes this to be granted to him can ask it of the Church or of God himself—that it be granted him to be an apostate even for one day. For there is no reason why he should fear to be an apostate for one day, and yet not fear to be a schismatic or heretic for one day. 'There,' he says, 'I chose rather to receive, where both parties agree that the baptism of Christ exists.' But there it is not rightly received, say those to whom you are about to migrate; and there it is rightly received, say those from whom you are about to migrate. That therefore which those affirm whom you yourself put behind, while those whom you yourself put before contradict them, is either false or—to put it more mildly—uncertain.

Prefer therefore true things to false or uncertain, and certain things to uncertain. For there, whither you are about to migrate, when you have received elsewhere, that what you desire can be rightly received not only those to whom you are about to pass over confess, but you yourself who are about to pass over confess it. For if you doubted whether it could be rightly received there, you would also doubt whether you ought to pass over thither. To receive, therefore, in the party of Donatus—if it be uncertain whether it is a sin—who would doubt that it is certain to be a sin not rather to receive where it is certain that there is no sin? But those who through ignorance are baptized there, thinking it to be the very Church of Christ, sin indeed less in comparison with these; yet they are wounded by the sacrilege of schism—not that they are not gravely wounded, but that others are wounded more gravely.

For when it was said to certain persons: it will be more tolerable for the Sodomites in the day of judgment than for you, it was not said because the Sodomites will not be tormented, but because the others will be tormented more grievously. And yet this had perhaps at one time been hidden and uncertain. But from that whereby those are healed who take heed and are corrected, from that same are those weighed down who, when they are no longer permitted to be ignorant, obstinately rage to their own destruction. For the condemnation of the Maximianists and the reception of those condemned, together with those whom outside their communion, in sacrilegious schism—as their own council proclaims—they baptized, resolves this whole question and takes away the whole dispute.

It leaves absolutely nothing between us and those Donatists who are in communion with Primianus, whereby it might be doubted that the baptism of Christ can not only be had but even be given by those who are separated from the Church. For as they themselves are compelled to confess that those whom Felicianus baptized in schism received true baptism—since they now have them with themselves in that very baptism which they received in schism—so we say that the baptism of Christ exists even outside the Catholic communion, which those give who have been cut off from that same communion, because when they were cut off they did not lose it. And that which they think they have conferred on those whom...

...whom Felicianus baptized in schism, when they reconciled them to themselves—that is, not that they should receive what they did not have, but that what they had uselessly received and held in schism might profit them—this God truly confers and bestows through the Catholic communion upon those who come from any heresy or schism where they received the baptism of Christ: that is, not that they should begin to have the sacrament of baptism which they did not have, but that what they had might begin to profit them. Wherefore, between us and those, so to speak, cardinal Donatists—whose bishop at Carthage is Primianus—there is now on this matter no controversy at all.

For God willed that through the Maximianists it should be brought to an end, so that what they were unwilling to confess when love persuaded, they might confess when their own example compelled. But we still argue on this account, lest those who are not even in communion with these should seem to themselves to say something—those who contend that among themselves the fewer the Donatists who have remained, the more sincere they are. If these were the Maximianists alone, we ought not even to despise their salvation;

how much more, then, since that same party of Donatus has been cut up into many most minute fragments—all which minute particles reproach this one much larger party, in which Primianus is, concerning the received baptism of the Maximianists, and each singly attempts to assert that with itself alone the true baptism has remained, and that it is not at all elsewhere, neither in the whole world over which the Catholic Church is spread, nor in that very larger party of Donatus, nor in the rest besides its one self among the most minute parties!

If all these particles would heed the voice not of a man but of the most manifest truth itself, and would tame the fierce spirit of their own perverseness, they would return—not indeed to the larger party of Donatus from which, being cut off, they were themselves cut off, but from their own aridity to the very greenness of the Catholic root. For all these, where they are not against us are for us; but where they do not gather with us they scatter.

Now then, lest I should seem to conduct this by human arguments—seeing that the obscurity of this question, in earlier times of the Church before the schism of Donatus, so drove great men and fathers, bishops endowed with great love, to dispute among themselves, with peace preserved, and to waver, that for a long time the diverse decrees of councils in their several regions were unsettled, until by a plenary council of the whole world what was most wholesomely held was established, even the remaining doubts being removed—I bring forward from the Gospel certain proofs, by which, with the Lord's help, I show how rightly and truly according to God it was resolved: that ecclesiastical medicine should heal in any schismatic or heretic that wherein he was wounded by separation, while that which remained sound should rather be acknowledged and approved than, being condemned, be wounded.

Certainly the Lord says in the Gospel: he who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Yet when the disciples reported to him that they had seen someone casting out demons in his name and had forbidden him, because he did not follow him along with them, he said: forbid him not. He who is not against you is for you. For no one can do anything in my name and speak evil of me. If there was nothing to be corrected in him, then let anyone be secure who, though set outside the communion of the Church, gathers in the name of Christ while dissociated from Christian society; and thus that saying will be false: he who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

But if that which the disciples of the Lord wished to do through ignorance is to be corrected in him, in that the Lord said: forbid him not, why did he himself forbid the forbidding? And how will that be true which he there says: he who is not against you is for you? For in this deed he was not against them but for them, where through the name of Christ he was working cures. In order, therefore, that both sentences may be true—as indeed they are true—both that where he says: he who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters, and that where he says: forbid him not.

For 'he who is not against you is for you'—what remains to be understood, except that that man was to be confirmed in the veneration of so great a name, where he was not against the Church but for the Church, and yet was to be blamed in that separation where, if he gathered, he would scatter; so that if perchance he should come to the Church, he would not receive there what he already had, but would amend that in which he had gone astray? For neither were the prayers of Cornelius the Gentile unheard, nor his alms unaccepted; nay rather, he merited both that an angel should be sent to him and, being sent, that he should behold him—through whom he might indeed, without the access of any man, have learned all things necessary.

But since whatever of good he had in his prayers and alms could not profit him unless, through the bond of Christian society and peace, he were incorporated into the Church, he is bidden to send for Peter, and through him he learns Christ; through him also, being baptized, he is joined in fellowship of communion to the Christian people, to whom he was joined only by a likeness of good works. For he would perilously have despised the good which he did not yet have, priding himself upon that which he had.

So also those who, separating themselves from the society of the rest, with love violated, break the bond of unity: if they do none of those things which they received in that society, they are separated in all respects, and therefore whomever they have joined to themselves, if he should wish to come to the Church, must receive all that he did not receive. But if they do some of those same things, they have not separated themselves in these, and by that part they are held within the fabric of the weave, while in the rest they are torn. Accordingly, if they have joined anyone to themselves, by that part he is knit to the Church in which even they are not separated; and therefore, if he should wish to come to the Church, he is healed in that wherein, being mangled, he wandered, but where he was soundly connected he is not cured but acknowledged, lest, while we wish to cure sound things, we should rather wound them.

And so those whom they baptize, they heal from the wound of idolatry or unbelief, but they strike more grievously with the wound of schism. For the sword slew the idolaters among the people of God, but the opening of the earth swallowed up the schismatics. And the Apostle says: if I should have all faith, so that I could move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If someone were brought to a physician, wounded with a grievous wound in some necessary part of the body, if the physician should say: 'he will die of it unless it be cured,' I do not think that those who brought him are so foolish that, having considered and counted his other sound members, they would answer the physician and say:

'Are then these so many sound members not enough for his life, and that one wounded member enough for his death?' They certainly do not say this, but offer it to be cured. Nor yet, because they offer it to be cured, do they ask the physician also to cure those parts which are sound, but rather that he should urgently apply the medicine to that one place from which death threatens even the rest being safe, and unless it be healed it will come. What then does it profit a man to have either a sound faith, or perhaps the sound sacrament of faith alone, where by the deadly wound of schism the health of love has been destroyed—by whose destruction alone even those whole things are dragged to death?

That this may not happen, the mercy of God does not cease, through the unity of the holy Church, that they may come and be cured through the medicine of reconciliation, through the bond of peace. And let them not therefore think themselves sound because we say they have something sound, nor again think that what is sound must be cured because we point out that something is wounded. So then, in the soundness of the sacrament, because they are not against us, they are for us; but in the wound of schism, whatever they do not gather with Christ they scatter. Let them not be exalted by the things they have. Why do they lead their proud eyes so far merely by the things that are sound? Let them deign humbly to look upon their own wound, and attend not only to what is present, but also to what is lacking.

Let them see how many and how great things profit nothing, if that one thing be lacking, and let them see what that one thing is; and in this let them not hear me, but the Apostle: if I speak, he says, with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And if I have prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I could move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

What then does it profit them, if they have both an angelic tongue in the sacred mysteries, and prophecy—as did Caiaphas and Saul, who at times prophesied, whom Holy Scripture testifies to have been damnable—if they not only know the sacraments but also have them, as Simon Magus had; if they have faith, as the demons confessed Christ—for they did not disbelieve when they said: what have we to do with you, Son of God? we know who you are—if they even distribute their own substance to the poor, as many do not only in the Catholic Church but also in diverse heresies; if, when some persecution presses, they hand over their body to the flames together with us for the faith which they equally confess?

Yet because they do these things being separated, not bearing with one another in love nor endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, having no love at all, even with all those things which profit them nothing, they cannot attain to eternal salvation. But they seem to themselves to inquire most cleverly whether the baptism of Christ in the party of Donatus begets sons or does not beget them, so that if we grant that it begets, they may assert that that is their own mother-Church which was able to beget sons from the baptism of Christ, and, because there must be one Church, may thence charge that ours is not the Church.

But if we say 'it does not beget,' 'why then,' they say, 'are those not born again through baptism who pass over from us to you, when they have been baptized among us, if they are not yet born?' As though, forsooth, she begets from that whereby she is separated, and not from that whereby she is joined. For she is separated from the bond of love and peace, but she is joined in the one baptism. And so there is one Church which alone is called Catholic; and whatever of her own she has in the communions of the various parties separated from her unity, through that which she has of her own in them she it is that begets, not they. For it is not their separation that begets, but what they have retained with themselves of hers; and if they let go even of this, they do not beget at all.

She therefore begets in all in whom her sacraments are retained, whence such a thing may anywhere be begotten, although not all whom she begets belong to her unity, which will save those persevering unto the end. For not only do those not belong to her who are manifest by the open sacrilege of separation, but also those who, being corporeally mingled in her unity, are separated by a most wicked life. For the Church herself had borne Simon Magus through baptism, to whom nevertheless it was said that he had no part in the inheritance of Christ. Did baptism fail him? did the Gospel? did the sacraments? But because love was lacking to him, he was born in vain, and it would perhaps have been expedient for him not to be born.

Were not those born to whom the Apostle says: as to little ones in Christ I gave you milk to drink, not solid food? Yet he recalls them from the sacrilege of schism, into which they were rushing for this reason, that they were carnal: as to little ones, he says, in Christ I gave you milk to drink, not food; for you were not yet able. But not even now indeed are you able; for you are still carnal. For since there are among you envy and strife, are you not carnal and do you not walk according to man? For when one says: I indeed am of Paul, but another: I am of Apollos, are you not men? For of these he says above:

I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you, but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been reported to me concerning you, my brethren, by those who are of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that each one of you says: I indeed am of Paul, but I of Apollos, but I of Cephas, but I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? These, then, if they remained in this obstinacy and perverseness, had certainly indeed been born, yet did not belong, through the bond of peace and unity, to that very Church of which they had been born.

She therefore begets both through her own womb and through the wombs of handmaids, from the same sacraments, as it were from the seed of her husband. For not in vain does the Apostle say that all those things were done in a figure. But those who are proud and are not joined to the lawful mother are like Ishmael, of whom it was said: cast out the handmaid and her son; for the son of the handmaid shall not be heir with my son Isaac. But those who peacefully love the lawful wife of their father, by whose lawful right they were begotten, are like the sons of Jacob, though born of handmaids and yet receiving the same inheritance.

But those who, born within the unity from the womb of that same mother, neglect the grace which they received, are like Esau the son of Isaac, who was rejected, God bearing witness and saying: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated—though both were conceived from one embrace and born from one womb. They also ask whether sins are forgiven through baptism in the party of Donatus, so that if we say they are forgiven they may answer: therefore the Holy Spirit is there, since, when he had been given to the disciples by the breathing of the Lord, it then followed and he said: baptize the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they shall be forgiven him; if you retain anyone's, they shall be retained. And if this is so, they say, our communion is the Church of Christ;

for the Holy Spirit does not work the forgiveness of sins apart from the Church. And if our communion is the Church of Christ, your communion is not the Church of Christ. For she is one, whatever she may be, of whom it was said: one is my dove, one is she to her mother; nor can there be as many churches as there are schisms.' But if we say that sins are not there forgiven, 'therefore,' they say, 'there is not true baptism there, and on that account those whom you receive from us you ought to baptize. And because you do not do this, you confess that you yourselves are not in the Church of Christ.' We resist them in this way, according to the Scriptures, questioning them so that what they ask of us they may answer to themselves.

For I ask them to say whether sins are forgiven where love is not. For sins are the darkness of souls. We hear indeed John saying: he who hates his brother is in darkness even until now. But none would make schisms unless they were blinded by fraternal hatred. If, then, we say that sins are not there forgiven, how is he born again who is baptized among them? For what is it to be born again through baptism, except to be renewed from the old state? But how is he renewed from the old state to whom past sins are not forgiven? And if he is not born again, neither has he put on Christ; from which it is concluded that he must seemingly be baptized anew, since the Apostle says: for as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ;

and if he has not put him on, neither is he to be held as baptized in Christ. But further, because we say he is baptized in Christ, we confess that he has put on Christ; and if we confess this, we confess that he is regenerated. But if this is so, his sins also have been forgiven. How then does John say: he who hates his brother remains in darkness even until now, if the remission of sins has already been made? Or is there not in schism fraternal hatred? Who would say this, since both the origin and the persistence of schism is nothing other than hatred of a brother? This question they think they solve for themselves when they say:

'There is therefore in schism no remission of sins, and consequently neither the regeneration of the new man, and on that account neither the baptism of Christ.' But we, because we confess that the baptism of Christ is there, propose to them this question to solve: whether Simon Magus was dipped in the true baptism of Christ. They will answer 'yes,' because they are compelled by the authority of Holy Scripture. I ask, therefore, whether they confess that his sins were forgiven him. Assuredly they will confess it. Again I ask why Peter said to him that he had no part in the lot of the saints. 'Because,' they say, 'he afterward sinned, wishing to buy with money the gift of God, of which he believed the apostles to be sellers.' What, if he came to baptism itself feignedly, were his sins forgiven him or not forgiven?

Let them choose what they will; whichever they choose, it suffices for us. If they say his sins were forgiven, how then will the Holy Spirit of discipline flee the feigned man, if in this feigned man he wrought the remission of sins? If they say they were not forgiven, I ask: if afterward, with a shaken heart and true grief, he confessed his feigning, would he be judged to be baptized anew?

But if it is most senseless to say this, let them confess that a man can be baptized with the true baptism of Christ, and yet, his heart persevering in malice or sacrilege, the abolition of sins is not permitted to take place; and thus let them understand that men can be baptized in communions separated from the Church, where the baptism of Christ is given and received by the same celebration of the sacrament, which nevertheless then profits unto the remission of sins when each one, reconciled to unity, is stripped of the sacrilege of dissension, whereby his sins were held bound and were not permitted to be forgiven.

For just as in that man who had come feignedly it comes about that he is not baptized anew, but is purged by that very pious correction and truthful confession—which he could not be without baptism, but so that what was given before then begins to avail unto salvation, when that feigning has departed through truthful confession—so also this man, who received the baptism of Christ (which those who separated themselves did not lose), being an enemy of Christ's love and peace, in some heresy or schism, whereby, through that sacrilegious wickedness, his sins were not being forgiven: when he has corrected himself and come to the society and unity of the Church, he is not to be baptized again, because by that very reconciliation and peace it is granted that the sacrament, which received in schism could not profit, now in unity begins to avail unto the remission of his sins.

But if they say that in the man who came in feignedly, through the holy power of so great a sacrament, his sins were indeed forgiven at that very point of time, yet that through his own pretence they returned at once — so that the Holy Spirit both was present to the baptized that his sins might depart, and fled the persistence of his pretence so that they might return — in such a way that both this saying holds true: 'As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ' (Gal. 3:27), and also this:

'For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit' (Wisd. 1:5) — that is, so that the holiness of baptism clothes him with Christ, and the destructiveness of his pretence strips him of Christ, just as it happens when anyone passes from darkness through light into darkness: his eyes indeed are directed continually toward the darkness, yet the light cannot but flood him as he passes through — if, then, they say this, let them understand that the same thing takes place also in those who are baptized outside the communion of the Church, yet with the Church's baptism.

For wherever it may be, this sacrament is holy in itself, and therefore it belongs not to those who separate themselves, but to Him from whom they separate; nevertheless it avails even among them thus far — that through its light they pass over to the darkness of their own dissension, while the sins at once return which the holiness of baptism had forgiven at that point of time, just as the obscurity returns which the light had dispelled in passing. For that forgiven sins return where fraternal charity is absent, the Lord teaches most plainly in the Gospel concerning that servant whom, when he found him a debtor for ten thousand talents, he forgave all upon his entreaty; but when this man had had no mercy on his fellow servant who owed him a hundred denarii, the master commanded him to repay what he had forgiven him (Matt. 18:23-34).

Therefore the time in which pardon is received through baptism is, as it were, the time for rendering account, so that all the debts which are found may be remitted. Yet that servant did not afterward lend his fellow servant a sum of money which, being unable to repay, he then had no mercy on; rather, his fellow servant already owed it to him at the time when he himself, rendering account to his master, was being released from a debt of so great a sum — and he had not forgiven his fellow servant what was owed him, yet had so come forward that his master forgave him. This the fellow servant's words indicate when he says, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you' (Matt. 18:29); otherwise he would say, 'You already forgave me this; why do you demand it again?' This too the Lord's own words make more plainly clear. For He says:

'But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.' He did not say, 'to whom he had already forgiven a debt of a hundred denarii'; for if he had forgiven it, the man would not have owed it to him. Since, then, He said 'he owed him,' it is manifest that he had not forgiven it. And it would indeed have been better, and would have more befitted so great a debtor about to render account and awaiting the mercy of his lord, that he himself should first forgive his fellow servant what was owed him, and so come to render account where the mercy of his lord was to be implored. Nevertheless, that which he had not yet forgiven his fellow servant did not hinder his lord from forgiving him, at that time of receiving the account, all that he owed.

But what did it profit him, seeing that, because of the persistence of his hatreds, all was at once heaped back upon his own head? So the grace of baptism is not hindered from forgiving all sins, even if fraternal hatred persists in the soul of him to whom they are forgiven. For yesterday is dissolved, and whatever is before it is dissolved, even the very hour and moment before baptism and in baptism. But thereafter he at once begins to be guilty not only of the following days, hours, and moments, but even of the past ones, all that was forgiven returning. And these things often happen in the Church. For it commonly comes about that a man has an enemy whom he most unjustly hates, although we are commanded to love even unjust enemies and to pray for them (Matt. 5:44).

But suddenly, in peril of death, he begins to be troubled and demands baptism, which he receives in such haste that the time of danger scarcely admits the necessary questioning of a few words — how much less a very long discourse, that this hatred might be driven from his heart, even if it were known to the one baptizing! Assuredly these things cease not to occur, not only among us but even among them. What then do we say? Are this man's sins forgiven, or are they not forgiven? Let them choose outright whichever they will. For if they are forgiven, they return at once — the Gospel speaks it, the truth cries it out. Whether, then, they be forgiven or not forgiven, a remedy is necessary afterward.

Yet if he lives and learns that this must be corrected, and corrects it, he is not baptized anew, whether among them or among us. So too those things which schismatics or heretics hold no differently, and do no differently, than the true Church — when they come to us we do not amend them, but rather approve them. For in those matters in which they do not dissent from us, in them they are not disjoined from us.

But nevertheless, because these things profit them nothing so long as they are schismatics or heretics — on account of the other matters in which they dissent from the truth, and on account of the utterly monstrous crime of separation itself, whether the sins remained in them or, having been at once forgiven, returned — we exhort them to come to the salvation of peace and charity, not only that they may have something they did not have, but that even what they had may begin to profit them. In vain, then, do they say to us: 'If you accept our baptism, what less do we have, that you should think we ought to be counselled about your communion?' For we answer:

We do not accept your baptism, because that baptism is not that of schismatics or heretics, but of God and of the Church, wherever it be found and whithersoever it be carried. But what is yours is nothing except that you hold perverse opinions, act sacrilegiously, and impiously separate yourselves. For if you were to hold or think all other things true, and yet were to persist in the same separation against the bond of fraternal peace, against the unity of all the brethren who throughout the whole world, as they were promised so have been made manifest — the causes of all of whom...

And their hearts you could in no way ever know or examine, so as justly to condemn them — men who cannot on that account be held guilty, because they trusted the ecclesiastical judges rather than the litigants — in this alone you have less: what he has less who has not charity. And now what need is there that we should retrace it? Look yourselves in the Apostle to see how great is that which you have less. And what difference does it make whether one who has not charity flies outside, carried off by some wind of temptation, or within does not depart from the Lord's harvest, to be separated at the final winnowing? And yet even such, if they have already once been born through baptism, need not be born again.

For the Church begets all through baptism, whether within herself, that is, from her own womb, or outside herself, from the seed of her husband. But even Esau, born of a wife, was on account of fraternal discord separated from the people of God; while Asher, born indeed by the authority of the wife but from a handmaid, on account of fraternal concord received the land of promise.

Whence also, that Ishmael was separated from the people of God, it was not his handmaid mother that harmed him, but fraternal discord harmed him, and the authority of the wife whose son he rather was did not profit him — because by her conjugal rights he had been both sown in the handmaid and received from the handmaid. So too among these people, by the right of the Church which is in baptism, all who are born are born; but if they be in concord with the brethren, through the unity of peace they will come to the land of promise, not to be cast out again from the maternal womb, but to be acknowledged in the paternal seed; if, however, they persist in discord, they will belong to the lot of Ishmael.

But Ishmael was first and Isaac afterward, and Esau first, Jacob later — not because heresy gave birth before the Church, nor because the Church herself brought forth first the carnal or animal and afterward the spiritual, but because in this very lot of our mortality, from the time we are born of Adam, that which is spiritual is not first, but that which is animal, and afterward the spiritual (1 Cor. 15:46). And from this very animal sense, because 'the animal man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God' (1 Cor. 2:14), all dissensions and schisms are generated. Those persisting in this sense the Apostle said belong to the Old Testament, that is, to the desire of earthly promises, in which spiritual things are indeed figured, but the animal man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God.

At whatever time, then, such men begin to exist in this life — men who, though already imbued with divine sacraments according to the dispensation of the ages, yet still savor of carnal things and hope for and desire carnal things concerning God, whether in this life or after this life — they are animal men. But the Church, which is the people of God, even in the pilgrimage of this life is an ancient thing, having in some men an animal portion, but in others a spiritual one. To the animal belongs the Old Testament, to the spiritual the New. But in the earliest times both were hidden, from Adam until Moses. From Moses onward, however, the Old was made manifest, and in it the New was hidden, because it was secretly signified.

But after the Lord came in the flesh, the New was revealed. The sacraments of the Old, however, ceased, but such concupiscences did not cease. For among those there are men whom the Apostle says, though already born through the sacrament of the New Testament, are still animal and cannot perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God. For just as under the sacraments of the Old Testament certain spiritual men lived, belonging secretly to the New Testament which was then hidden, so also now, under the sacrament of the New Testament which has already been revealed, very many live as animal men. And if these are unwilling to advance toward perceiving the things that are of the Spirit of God — to which the apostolic word exhorts them — they will belong to the Old Testament.

But if they advance, even before they attain it, by that very progress and approach they belong to the New. And if, before they become spiritual, they are snatched from this life, being kept safe through the holiness of the sacrament, they are reckoned in the land of the living, where our hope and portion is the Lord. Nor do I find what could be more truly understood in that which is written, 'Your eyes saw my imperfection,' seeing that there follows, 'and in your book shall all be written' (Ps. 138:16). But she who bore Abel and Enoch and Noah and Abraham, the same bore also Moses and the prophets of a later time before the Lord's coming; and she who bore these bore also the apostles and our martyrs and all good Christians.

For all, though born at diverse times, have appeared, yet are contained in the fellowship of one people, and as citizens of the same city have experienced the labors of this pilgrimage; and some of them experience them now, and the rest will experience them even unto the end. Likewise she who bore Cain and Ham and Ishmael and Esau, the same also bore Dathan and others like them in the same people; and she who bore these bore also Judas the false apostle and Simon Magus and the rest, down to these times, the false Christians obstinately hardened in animal affection, whether they be mingled in unity or dissent by open severance.

But when such men are evangelized by spiritual persons and imbued with the sacraments, it is as if Rebecca herself bore them, as she bore Esau; but when such men are begotten in the people of God through those who do not chastely proclaim the Gospel, it is Sarah indeed, but through Hagar. Likewise, when good spiritual men are begotten by carnal persons who evangelize or baptize, it is Leah indeed or Rachel who bears them by conjugal right, but through the womb of the handmaid; but when good believers are begotten through spiritual men in the Gospel — men who either come out into the disposition of a spiritual age, or do not cease to strive toward it, or fail to do so only because they cannot — then, as from the womb of Sarah came Isaac, or from Rebecca came Jacob, they are born into the new life and the New Testament.

And so, whether they seem to dwell within or are openly outside, what is flesh is flesh; whether it persist on the threshing-floor in its own barrenness, or by the occasion of temptation be carried off as by a wind to the outside, what is chaff is chaff; and always is he divided from the unity of that Church which is 'without spot and wrinkle' (Eph. 5:27), even he who mingles with the congregation of the saints in carnal hardness. Yet of none must we despair, neither of him who appears such within, nor of him who more manifestly opposes without.

But the spiritual, or those advancing with pious zeal toward this very thing, do not go outside; because even when they seem to be expelled by some perversity or necessity of men, they there rather prove that they remain within, since they are in no way raised up against the Church, but are rooted in the solid rock of unity with the most steadfast strength of charity. For to this pertains what is said in that sacrifice of Abraham: 'But the birds he did not divide' (Gen. 15:10). Of the question of baptism, then, I have now, I think, discoursed sufficiently. And since this is the most manifest schism which is designated by the name of the Donatists, it remains that concerning baptism we piously believe what the whole Church, removed from the sacrilege of schism, guards.

Yet in that Church, if some held one view and others another concerning this question, while peace was preserved, until by a universal council some one thing, refined and pure, should be approved, the charity of unity would cover the error of human infirmity, as it is written: 'because charity covers a multitude of sins' (1 Pet. 4:8). For where it is absent, all else is held in vain; where it is present, certain things are venially not held. There stand in the letters of the blessed martyr Cyprian great testimonies — for I now come to him, upon whose authority these men carnally flatter themselves, while by his charity they are spiritually destroyed.

For in those times, before the consensus of the whole Church, by the sentence of a plenary council, should confirm what was to be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, together with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church ought, on coming to the Church, to be baptized anew. That this was not rightly done, the Lord doubtless did not for this reason reveal to so great a man — that his piety and humility and charity in wholesomely guarding the peace of the Church might shine forth, and might be marked, so to speak, for medicinal knowledge, not only to the Christians of that time but also to those coming after.

For although a bishop of such merit, of so great a church, of such heart, of such eloquence, of such virtue, held concerning baptism a view other than that which the more diligently investigated truth was to establish — and although many of his colleagues, though it was not yet clearly manifested, nevertheless held that which both the past custom of the Church and afterward the whole Catholic world embraced — yet he did not, by a separated communion, disjoin himself from the rest who thought differently; and he did not cease to persuade even the others that they should 'bear with one another in love, being eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace' (Eph. 4:2-3).

For thus, while the joining of the body remained, if anything in certain members was weakened, it might rather recover from the health of the others, than, mortified by severance, admit the care of no cure. And if he had separated himself, how many would have followed! What a name would he have made for himself among men! How much more widely would they have been called Cyprianists than Donatists! But he was not a 'son of perdition,' of such as it is said, 'you cast them down while they were exalted' (Ps. 72:18); rather he was a son of the Church's peace, who, endowed with so great an illumination of heart, did not on that account see a certain thing, in order that through him something more surpassing might be seen. And 'still,' says the Apostle, 'I show you a more excellent way' (1 Cor. 12:31).

'If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not charity, I have become sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal' (1 Cor. 13:1). Less deeply, then, did he penetrate, so as to discern the hidden secret of the sacrament; but if he had known all the sacraments, yet had not charity, he would be nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). But since, discerning that lesser thing less, he nevertheless guarded this greater thing humbly, faithfully, bravely, he merited to attain the crown of martyrdom, so that, if any cloud from the human condition had crept into his lucid mind, it might be put to flight by the glorious serenity of his shining blood.

For not in vain did the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, when He called Himself the vine and His own as branches in the vine, say that they are cut off and taken away from the vine as useless branches which bore no fruit (John 15:1-6). And what is the fruit but that new offspring of which He likewise says, 'A new commandment I give you, that you love one another' (John 13:34)? This is that very charity, without which all else profits nothing. The Apostle also says: 'But the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control' (Gal. 5:22-23). All these begin from charity, and through the rest of the joining make, as it were, a wondrous cluster of grapes. Nor yet in vain did the same Lord add:

'But the branches which bear fruit in me, my Father prunes them, that they may bear more fruit' (John 15:2) — except because even they who prevail by the fruit of charity can nevertheless have something to be pruned, which the husbandman does not leave uncultivated? Therefore, that that holy man, holding concerning baptism otherwise than the matter stood — which was afterward thoroughly examined and established by most diligent consideration — remained in Catholic unity, was both compensated for by the abundance of charity and pruned by the sickle of his passion. XIX. 29.

But lest I seem, for the sake of avoiding proof, to say these things in praise of the most blessed martyr — praise which indeed is not his, but His by whose grace he became such — let us now bring forward testimonies from his letters, by which especially the mouths of the Donatists may be stopped. For they cast his authority in the teeth of the untaught, so as to show that they act rightly, as it were, in baptizing anew the faithful who come to them — most wretched men, and, unless they correct themselves, wholly condemned by their own selves, who choose to imitate in so great a man that which did not harm him for this reason: because he walked with steps most persevering unto the end into that peace, from which these men, who 'have not known the way of peace' (Rom. 3:17), have strayed.

It is indeed the case that the baptism of Christ is everywhere holy, and although it be among heretics or schismatics, it is nevertheless not of the heresy or schism itself, and therefore neither ought those coming from thence to the Catholic Church itself be baptized anew. But yet this is one thing, and it is another to judge that those deviating from Catholic peace and cast headlong into the wicked pit of severance ought moreover to be rebaptized. For that blemish on the whiteness of a holy soul the breasts of charity covered over, but this sootiness the unpacified countenance flaunts in the hellish foulness of these men. But the things that we are henceforth to treat, so far as pertains to the authority of blessed Cyprian, we shall take up from another beginning. SECOND BOOK.

How much those things which are brought forth by the party of Donatus against us, as if from the authority of blessed Cyprian, make in our favor — that is, in favor of Catholic peace — and how much they are against those by whom they are brought forth, I have proposed to demonstrate with the Lord's help. If, then, some necessity of answering shall compel me again to recall those things which I have already set down in other books — although I do this sparingly — to those who have already read and hold them it ought not to be burdensome, because both those things which are necessary for instruction must more often be impressed upon the slower, and, when the same matters are turned over and treated in many and various ways, they also aid those endowed with more capacious understanding, both toward ease of knowing and toward abundance in discussing.

I know also how it is wont to sadden a reader when, from the book which he holds in his hands, upon falling into some knot of a question, he is sent to another where he may seek its solution — which perhaps he does not possess. Wherefore, whatever we have already said in other books, if the necessity of the present questions should compel me to repeat it briefly, let those who know pardon it, lest those who do not know be offended. For it is better to offer to one who has than to defer one who has not. What, then, do these men say when they are choked by the strength of the truth, to which they are unwilling to consent?

'Cyprian,' they say, 'whose so great merit and so great learning we know, together with many of his fellow bishops who contributed their own opinions in council, decreed that heretics or schismatics — that is, all who are outside the communion of the one Church — do not have baptism, and therefore that whoever is baptized by them and comes to the Church must be baptized in the Church.' The authority of Cyprian does not frighten me, because the humility of Cyprian restores me. Great indeed is the merit we know of Cyprian, bishop and martyr; but is it greater than that of Peter, apostle and martyr? Of whom the same Cyprian in his letter to Quintus speaks thus:

'For not even Peter,' he says, 'whom the Lord chose first, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul afterward disputed with him about circumcision, claimed anything for himself insolently or arrogantly assumed, so as to say that he held the primacy and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those coming after; nor did he despise Paul because he had formerly been a persecutor of the Church, but admitted the counsel of truth and readily consented to the lawful reason which Paul vindicated — giving us, namely, a lesson of both concord and patience, that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but rather should count as our own those things which are at any time usefully and wholesomely suggested by our brethren and colleagues, if they are true and lawful.'