Yet that custom — had not Agrippinus first, and some of his fellow bishops throughout Africa, previously attempted to abandon it even by conciliar decisions — this man would not have dared even to reason against it, but, troubled in so obscure a question and everywhere regarding the universal and robust custom, he would rather have constrained himself, and by prayer and by the intention of his mind toward God, that he might perceive and teach as true that which afterward seemed good to the plenary council. But when the authority of the preceding council, which was held through Agrippinus, took up him grown weary, he preferred to defend the finding of his predecessors, as it were, rather than to labor further in inquiring.
For at the end of his letter to Quintus he thus shows on what, as on a couch of authority, he rested as though wearied. 'This indeed,' he says, 'both Agrippinus, a man of good memory, together with his fellow bishops who at that time governed the Lord's Church in the province of Africa and Numidia, established and confirmed by the weighed examination of common counsel. Their opinion — religious and lawful, wholesome to the faith, agreeable to the catholic Church — we also have followed.' By this attestation he sufficiently shows that he would much more have made mention, had any transmarine or universal council concerning this matter been held.
But it had not yet been held, because the world was held by the strength of custom, and this alone was opposed to those wishing to introduce novelty, because they could not grasp the truth. Afterward, however, while it was discussed and inquired into among many on both sides, it was not only found but even brought to the authority and strength of a plenary council — after Cyprian's passion indeed, but before we were born. But that this was the custom of the Church, which afterward, when many windings had been discussed and the truth perceived, was confirmed by a plenary council, is sufficiently shown even by the words of blessed Cyprian himself in that same letter to Iubaianus which is recorded as read in the council. For he says: 'But someone says:'
'What then shall become of those who in the past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?' Here certainly he sufficiently shows what was wont to be done — even though he did not wish it to be done — and by this very thing, that he mentions the council of Agrippinus, he openly indicates that another had been the custom of the Church. For there would have been no need for this council to wish to decree it, if it were already held by custom; and in that very council certain opinions altogether declare that they had decreed against the custom of the Church that which they judged ought to be decreed. Wherefore,
let these men consider that one thing which is plain to all: that if the authority of Cyprian is to be followed, it is rather to be followed in preserving unity than in changing the custom of the Church; but if his council is regarded, to this must be preferred the later council of the universal Church, whose member he rejoiced to be, and often admonished that the rest should imitate him in being retained within the framework of the whole body. For later councils too are preferred to earlier ones among later generations, and the whole is always, by the best right, preferred to the parts. But what do these men do, when it is shown that holy Cyprian, even though he did not admit those baptized in heresy or in schism, nevertheless communed with those who did admit them, which he most plainly declared, saying:
'judging no one, nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he holds a different view'? If he was defiled by communion with such men, why do they follow his authority in re-baptizing? But if he was not defiled by communion with such men, why do they not imitate his example in retaining unity? Does anything here remain but for them to say, 'So we will it'? What else do all shameful and criminal men — the lustful, the drunken, adulterers and in every way unchaste, thieves, robbers, murderers, brigands, sorcerers, idolaters — answer to the word of truth and justice? What else do they answer, when the truth accuses them, but: 'This I will, this delights me'? And if they have been dyed with the Christian name, they say also:
You, who are you that judge another's servant?' Nevertheless these men are in this more modest, that when for their lost morals and deeds they suffer some punishment from divine and human laws, they do not call themselves martyrs.
But these men wish at once to have both the life of the sacrilegious and the reputation of the innocent, and in wicked deeds no punishment, and in just punishments the glory of martyrs — as though God's mercy and patience toward them were not the greater, the more, by chastising them in part, He gives place for repentance and in this life does not cease to redouble the scourges, so that, considering what they suffer and why they suffer, they may at length come to their senses; and that those who have already received baptism of the Maximianists for the sake of Donatus's party may rather, for the peace of Christ, embrace the baptism of the whole world, be restored to the root, be reconciled to unity, and see that nothing has remained for them to say, yet that something has remained for them to do — namely, that for their past deeds a sacrifice of love may be offered to a God ready to be appeased, whose unity they have broken by a wicked crime, and to whose sacraments they have inflicted such long-lasting injuries.
For the Lord is merciful and compassionate, long-suffering and of great mercy and true. Let them embrace in the present life the merciful and long-suffering One, and let them fear in the future the true One. For He does not so much will the death of the wicked as that he should turn back and live, since He bends His sentence against the injuries inflicted. This is our exhortation. On account of this we have them as enemies, because we speak the truth, because we fear to keep silence, because we dread to cease from insistence as much as we can, because we obey the Apostle who says: 'Preach the word, be instant in season, out of season; reprove, exhort, rebuke.' But, as the Gospel says, 'they love the glory of men more than of God,' and they fear to be reproved for a time, but fear not to be condemned for eternity.
They themselves also see what evil they do, they see that there is nothing at all for them to answer, but they cast clouds over the ignorant, while they themselves are swallowed alive — that is, they perish knowing and recognizing. They have seen men shudder and gravely detest that they have even divided themselves into many schisms, and especially in the capital of Africa and the most renowned city of Carthage. They tried to patch up the disgrace of their rags;
thinking that they could carry off the Maximianists, they pressed forward vigorously with great effort through Optatus the Gildonian, inflicting upon them many evils and the most savage persecutions; they received some back from there, thinking that they could all be converted by the same terror; but to those whom they received back they were unwilling to do the injury of re-baptizing those baptized by them in schism, or rather of having them re-baptized within by those very men by whom they had been baptized without — and in this manner they set a precedent against their own wicked custom.
They perceive how wickedly they now act when, having accepted the baptism of the Maximianists, they violate the baptism of the whole world; yet they fear those of their own whom they have rebaptized, lest perchance these do not spare them if they themselves have spared the rest, lest they exact their own souls from them if they cease to butcher the souls of others. What they should answer concerning the Maximianists whom they received, they cannot find. If they say, 'We received the innocent,' the reply is given them: 'Then you had condemned the innocent.' If they say, 'We did not know,' 'then you judged rashly — so too you brought forth a rash sentence concerning the traditors — and you spoke falsely: know that men condemned by the truthful voice of a plenary council have been condemned'; for indeed the innocent could not have been condemned by a truthful voice. If they say:
'We did not condemn them,' the council is read out, the names both of the bishops and of the cities are read out. If they say, 'That council is not our own,' the proconsular acts are read out, in which more than once they cited that very same council in order to exclude those same Maximianists from the basilicas and to drive them out by the din of the courts and the onrush of the authorities. If they say that Felicianus of Musti and Praetextatus of Assuras, whom they later received back, were not with Maximianus, the acts are read out by which they demanded from the public courts that these men be excluded from the basilicas by their own council, which they made against the Maximianists. If they say, 'They were taken back for the sake of peace,' the answer is given: 'Why then do you not acknowledge the true and full peace?
Who impelled you, who compelled you, for the peace of Donatus to receive a condemned schismatic, and against the peace of Christ to condemn the world unheard?' The truth altogether presses upon them; they see that they have nothing to answer, and they think they have nothing to do. What to say they cannot find; to be silent they are not permitted: they prefer to strive against the truth with perverse cries rather than, by confessing their errors, to be restored to peace. But who does not understand what they can say in their heart? 'What then,' they say, 'shall we do concerning those whom we have already rebaptized?' The answer is given: 'Return with them to the Church; with the medicine of peace offer up for healing those whom you have wounded; with the life of charity offer up for raising those whom you have slain.
Brotherly concord avails much to render God propitious. 'If two of you,' says the Lord, 'shall agree upon earth, whatsoever you ask shall be done for you.' If for two men, how much more for two peoples! Let us together prostrate ourselves before the Lord; share unity with us. Let us share sorrow with you, and let charity cover the multitude of sins. Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself; consider how greatly he presumed upon the good of unity. Whence he did not tear himself away from those who thought differently, and although he judged that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church did not have baptism, yet he believed that those simply admitted into the Church could, on account of the bond of that very unity, attain to pardon.
For thus he resolved the question which he had himself proposed, writing to Iubaianus in this manner: 'But someone says: What then shall become of those who in time past, coming from heresy to the Church, were admitted without baptism? The Lord is able by His mercy to grant indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who, having been simply admitted into the Church, have fallen asleep in the Church.' But which is the more pernicious — not to be baptized at all, or to be rebaptized — is difficult to judge. I see indeed what men rather detest and shudder at; nevertheless, having recourse to that Lord's balance, where the weights of things are weighed not by human feeling but by divine authority, I find the Lord's judgment concerning both matters.
For to Peter He said: 'He that is washed has no need to wash again'; and to Nicodemus: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' What the more hidden discernment of God may hold, it is perhaps difficult for men such as we are to know. Yet as far as the words themselves are concerned, it is manifest to any man how great is the distance between 'he has no need to wash' and 'he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' The Church itself, in fine, holds what has been thus handed down, so that it cannot at all admit to the altar a man without baptism; whereas, since it is lawful for a rebaptized person to be admitted after penance, what else is thereby shown but that he does not lack baptism?
If therefore Cyprian presumed that those whom he judged to be without baptism nevertheless attained to pardon on account of the bond of unity, the Lord is able, through that very bond of unity and peace, to be appeased even toward those who have been rebaptized, and to grow gentle, out of that very compensation of peace, toward those by whom they were rebaptized, and to forgive all the offenses which they had committed in error — when they offer the sacrifice of that charity which covers the multitude of sins, so that He may regard not how many were wounded by their departure, but how many more were set free by their return.
For in whatever bond of peace Cyprian believed that, through the mercy of God, those whom he supposed to have been admitted into the Church without baptism could yet not be separated from the gifts of the Church, in that same bond of peace we believe that, through the same mercy of God, the rebaptized can obtain pardon. For the Catholic Church, in the times of the blessed Cyprian and in the time before him, contained within the bosom of unity either persons rebaptized or persons not having baptism: either the one or the other attained salvation only by the merit of that very unity. For if those who came from heretics did not have baptism, as Cyprian asserts, they were not rightly admitted;
and yet he himself did not despair of indulgence for those same men from the Lord's mercy on account of the unity of the Church. Thus therefore, if they did have baptism, they were not rightly rebaptized. What then aided them but that same charity of unity, so that whatever, in the handling of the sacrament, lay hidden as human weakness, the divine mercy would not impute to those who love peace? Why then, when you fear for your rebaptized, do you begrudge the entrance of salvation both to them and to yourselves? There was once doubt concerning baptism: those who thought differently remained in unity. That doubt, as time went on and the truth was perceived, was removed: the question, which while yet unfinished did not deter Cyprian from withdrawing, now being finished invites you to return.
Come to the Catholic Church that is in concord, which Cyprian did not desert even while it wavered. Or if the example of Cyprian now displeases you — he who communicated with those who were received together with the baptism of heretics, openly saying: 'Judging no one, nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he has thought differently' — where are you going, wretches, what are you doing? Flee even from yourselves, because you have gone forth from the place where he remained. But if, on account of the abundance of charity and the love of brotherhood and the bond of peace, neither his own sins nor those of others could harm him, return hither, where they will harm both us and you far less — the things which your own party have invented. BOOK THREE.
I think it is now manifest to all that the authority of the blessed Cyprian, for retaining the bond of peace and for the most salutary charity of the Church's unity, which is by no means to be violated, is to be put forward rather for us than for the Donatists.
For if they should wish to use the example of Cyprian for rebaptizing Catholics — because he judged that heretics should be baptized in the Catholic Church — we rather use his example, by which he most plainly established that from Catholic communion, that is, from Christians spread throughout the whole world, one must by no means withdraw through the separation of communion, even when evil and sacrilegious men have been admitted; since he was unwilling to remove from the right of communion even those who — as it seemed to him — were receiving into Catholic communion sacrilegious men not baptized, saying: 'Judging no one, nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he has thought differently.'
I see, however, what may still be inquired of me — namely, that I should answer those plausible arguments by which either Agrippinus before, or Cyprian himself, or those who agreed with them in Africa, or perhaps some from lands across the sea and far apart, were moved (not indeed by any council, whether plenary or even merely regional, but by epistolary conference) to think that this ought to be done which the ancient custom of the Church did not hold, and which afterward the Catholic world excluded by the most robust firmness of its consent — so that what had begun to creep, through disputations of this kind, into the minds of some, a more powerful truth and a universal medicine, coming from the salvation of unity, might heal.
Let them therefore see how confidently I approach this discourse. If I shall not be able to attain and to show how those things are to be refuted which they affirm from the council of Cyprian or from his letters — namely, that the baptism of Christ cannot be given through heretics — I shall remain secure in that Church, in whose communion Cyprian himself remained together with those who had not agreed with him. But if they say that that Church was then Catholic because there were there a few, or (if they suppose this) even many, who disapproved of the baptism given among heretics and baptized those who came from thence — what then? Before Agrippinus, from whom this as it were novel reasoning began to strive against custom, was there not a Church? What, in fine?
After Agrippinus — when, unless there had been a return to the ancient custom, it would not have been necessary for Cyprian to set in motion another council — was there not a Church, because such a custom was held throughout, that the baptism of Christ was reckoned to be none other than the baptism of Christ, even if it were proved to have been given among heretics or schismatics? But if there was even then a Church, and the inheritance of Christ, not interrupted, had not perished but remained, taking increase among all nations, it is the safest reasoning to remain in that same custom which then bore both good and evil in one embrace.
But if there was not then a Church, because sacrilegious heretics were received without baptism and this was held by universal custom, whence did Donatus appear, from what land did he sprout, from what sea did he emerge, from what sky did he fall? We therefore, as I had begun to say, are secure in the communion of that Church, through whose universality is now done what, both before Agrippinus and between Agrippinus and Cyprian, was likewise done through its universality; and whose universality neither Agrippinus deserted, nor Cyprian, nor those who had agreed with them, although they thought otherwise than the rest, but remained in the same communion of unity with those very men from whom they differed in opinion.
But let them themselves consider where they are — they who cannot even say whence they were propagated, if the Church, having then already received heretics and schismatics without baptism, had lost it by the contagion of communion; nor do they themselves agree with Cyprian. For he professed that he remained in communion with the receivers of heretics and schismatics, and thereby also with those very persons received; whereas these men, on account of the name of traditors — whom they defamed in Africa but did not convict in a trial across the sea — have separated themselves from the communion of the whole world, although, even if they were bringing true charges, the crimes of heresies and schisms are far greater.
Whence those coming without baptism, as he himself judged, and received into Catholic communion not through baptism, could not defile Cyprian. Nor even in that very point in which they say they imitate Cyprian do they find what to answer concerning the baptism of the Maximianists which they accepted — together with those whom, out of that number whom they had condemned in their plenary council and even persecuted by the judgment of earthly powers, they recalled into their own communion, into the very episcopate in which they had condemned them. Wherefore, if in the times of Cyprian the communion of evil men destroyed the Church, these men have no origin for their communion.
But if it did not destroy it, they have no defense for their schism; and moreover they neither follow the example of Cyprian, because they have broken the bond of unity, nor the council itself, because they received the baptism of the Maximianists. Now therefore let us, remaining in the example of Cyprian, also consider the council of Cyprian. What says Cyprian? 'You have heard,' he says, 'most beloved colleagues, what Iubaianus, our fellow bishop, wrote to me, consulting our mediocrity concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, and what I wrote back to him, judging assuredly what once and again and often we have judged: that heretics coming to the Church ought to be baptized and sanctified with the Church's baptism.'
'Likewise there have been read to you also other letters of Iubaianus, in which, writing back to our letter according to his sincere and religious devotion, he not only agreed, but also gave thanks that he had been instructed.' By these words of the blessed Cyprian we understand that he was consulted by Iubaianus, and both what he answered his consulter, and that the latter gave thanks that he had been instructed. Are we now to be reckoned obstinate if we should wish to consider that very letter by which this was persuaded to Iubaianus? For until it be persuaded also to us — if this can be persuaded by true reasons — Cyprian himself makes us secure concerning the right of Catholic communion. For he goes on and says:
'It remains that on this very matter each of us should declare what he thinks, judging no one, nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he has thought differently.' Not only, then, does he grant me, with the right of communion preserved, still to seek the truth, but even to think differently. 'For neither does any of us,' he says, 'set himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror compel his colleagues to the necessity of obeying.' What more gentle, what more humble? Certainly no authority deters us from seeking what is true.
'Since,' he says, 'every bishop, according to the license of his freedom and power, has his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another' — I take it, at any rate, that this holds in those questions which have not yet been discussed with the clearest perception. For he knew how great a depth of the sacrament the whole Church was then debating with varied disputation, and he left the judgment of inquiry free, so that, the truth being examined, it might be laid open. For neither was he lying and planning to catch his simpler colleagues in a word, so that, when they had betrayed that they thought differently, he might then, contrary to what he had promised, judge that they should be excommunicated. Far be such wicked treachery from so holy a soul!
They who think this of such a man as though to his praise profess nothing else than that they themselves are such. I could never in any way believe that Cyprian — a Catholic bishop, a Catholic martyr, and one who, the greater he was, so much the more humbled himself in all things, that he might find grace before God — brought forth from his mouth, especially in the holy council of his colleagues, anything other than what he bore in his heart; especially since he adds and says: 'But let us all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone and singly has the power both of setting us over the governance of His Church and of judging concerning our conduct.' Under the commemoration, then, of so great a judgment, awaiting the truth to hear from his colleagues, would he first offer them an example of lying?
May God avert this madness from any Christian whatever, how much more from Cyprian! We have therefore the free judgment of inquiry granted to us by Cyprian himself in a most gentle and most truthful discourse. Now indeed his colleagues begin to bring forth their own opinions; but they had heard the letter given to Iubaianus, for it was read out, as was mentioned at the beginning. Let it therefore be read out to us also, that we too may thence inquire, as far as the Lord aids, what ought to be thought. Perhaps someone will say: What then?
'Are you only now learning what Cyprian wrote to Iubaianus?' I have already read it, I confess, and I would assuredly have gone over into the same opinion, had not so great an authority of others recalled me to a more diligent consideration — men whom the Church, spread throughout the whole world, could bring forth (which had also brought forth Cyprian himself), either equal in the grace of doctrine or perhaps even more learned, throughout so many Latin, Greek, and barbarian peoples, and the Hebrew itself; who could in no way seem to me to have been unwilling to hold that opinion in vain — not because it could not happen that in a most obscure question one or a few should think more truly than the many, but because a judgment ought not to be lightly borne in favor of one or a few against innumerable men of the same religion and unity, endowed with great genius and rich doctrine, unless matters have been thoroughly handled and perceived according to one's powers.
And so, to one inquiring more carefully how much even the letters of Cyprian himself have suggested to me in favor of this opinion which the Catholic Church now holds — namely, that the baptism of Christ is to be acknowledged and approved not by the merit of those through whom it is given, but by that of Him of whom it was said: 'This is He who baptizes' — the matter itself will show, in the progress of our discourse. Let us therefore suppose that that letter which was given to Iubaianus by him has now been read out to us, as it was read out in the council. Let him who is about to read these things which I am about to say first read it, lest perchance he should think I have withdrawn anything necessary. For it is too long, and does not pertain to the explication of the matter undertaken, that all the words of this letter should now be recalled by us.
But if anyone asks what in the meantime I hold while I handle these matters, I answer first that Cyprian's letters have suggested to me what I hold, until I perceive of what sort is that which afterward began to be disputed. For Cyprian himself says: 'But someone says: What then shall become of those who in time past, coming from heresy to the Church, were admitted without baptism?' Whether these were really without baptism, or were admitted for this reason — that those who admitted them understood them to have baptism — we shall soon consider. Nevertheless, what the custom of the Church used to be, the same Cyprian sufficiently shows, who says that in time past those coming from heresy to the Church were admitted without baptism. Castus of Sicca also says in the very council:
'He who, despising the truth, presumes to follow custom, is either envious and malignant toward the brethren, to whom the truth is revealed, or ungrateful toward God, by whose inspiration His Church is instructed.' Whether the truth was revealed, we shall soon inquire; nevertheless, this man too has confessed that the custom of the Church was otherwise. Libosus of Vaga also says: 'In the Gospel the Lord says, I am the truth. He did not say, I am custom. And so, the truth being made manifest, let custom yield to truth.' Plainly, who would doubt that custom ought to yield to manifest truth? But concerning the manifested truth we shall see; now, however, this man too makes manifest that the custom was otherwise. Likewise Zosimus of Tharassa said: