Writings of Augustine. On Baptism, Against the Donatists
|
Advanced Information
The Seven Books of Augustin, Bishop of Hippo,
On Baptism, Against the Donatists
[de Baptisimo contra Donatistas.]
Circa A.D. 400.
Translated by the Rev. J. R. King, M.A.,
Vicar of St. Peter's in the East, Oxford; and late Fellow and Tutor of
Merton College, Oxford
Published in 1886 by Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
This treatise was written about 400 A.D. Concerning it Aug. in
Retract. Book II. c. xviii., says: I have written seven books on
Baptism against the Donatists, who strive to defend themselves by the
authority of the most blessed bishop and martyr Cyprian; in which I
show that nothing is so effectual for the refutation of the Donatists,
and for shutting their mouths directly from upholding their schism
against the Catholic Church, as the letters and act of Cyprian.
.
Book I.
He proves that baptism can be conferred outside the Catholic communion
by heretics or schismatics, but that it ought not to be received from
them; and that it is of no avail to any while in a state of heresy or
schism.
Chapter 1.--1. In the treatise which we wrote against the published
epistle of Parmenianus [1145] to Tichonius, [1146] we promised that at
some future time we would treat the question of baptism more
thoroughly; [1147] and indeed, even if we had not made this promise,
we are not unmindful that this is a debt fairly due from us to the
prayers of our brethren. Wherefore in this treatise we have
undertaken, with the help of God, not only to refute the objections
which the Donatists have been wont to urge against us in this matter,
but also to advance what God may enable us to say in respect of the
authority of the blessed martyr Cyprian, which they endeavor to use as
a prop, to prevent their perversity from falling before the attacks of
truth. [1148]And this we propose to do, in order that all whose
judgment is not blinded by party spirit may understand that, so far
from Cyprian's authority being in their favor, it tends directly to
their refutation and discomfiture.
|
|
2. In the treatise above mentioned, it has already been said that the
grace of baptism can be conferred outside the Catholic communion, just
as it can be also there retained. But no one of the Donatists
themselves denies that even apostates retain the grace of baptism; for
when they return within the pale of the Church, and are converted
through repentance, it is never given to them a second time, and so it
is ruled that it never could have been lost. So those, too, who in
the sacrilege of schism depart from the communion of the Church,
certainly retain the grace of baptism, which they received before
their departure, seeing that, in case of their return, it is not again
conferred on them whence it is proved, that what they had received
while within the unity of the Church, they could not have lost in
their separation. But if it can be retained outside, why may it not
also be given there? If you say, "It is not rightly given without the
pale;" we answer, "As it is not rightly retained, and yet is in some
sense retained, so it is not indeed rightly given, but yet it is
given." But as, by reconciliation to unity, that begins to be
profitably possessed which was possessed to no profit in exclusion
from unity, so, by the same reconciliation, that begins to be
profitable which without it was given to no profit. Yet it cannot be
allowed that it should be said that that was not given which was
given, nor that any one should reproach a man with not having given
this, while confessing that he had given what he had himself
received. For the sacrament of baptism is what the person possesses
who is baptized; and the sacrament of conferring baptism is what he
possesses who is ordained. And as the baptized person, if he depart
from the unity of the Church, does not thereby lose the sacrament of
baptism, so also he who is ordained, if he depart from the unity of
the Church, does not lose the sacrament of conferring baptism. For
neither sacrament may be wronged. If a sacrament necessarily becomes
void in the case of the wicked, both must become void; if it remain
valid with the wicked, this must be so with both. If, therefore, the
baptism be acknowledged which he could not lose who severed himself
from the unity of the Church, that baptism must also be acknowledged
which was administered by one who by his secession had not lost the
sacrament of conferring baptism. For as those who return to the
Church, if they had been baptized before their secession, are not
rebaptized, so those who return, having been ordained before their
secession, are certainly not ordained again; but either they again
exercise their former ministry, if the interests of the Church require
it, or if they do not exercise it, at any rate they retain the
sacrament of their ordination; and hence it is, that when hands are
laid on them, [1149] to mark their reconciliation, they are not ranked
with the laity. For Felicianus, [1150] when he separated himself from
them with Maximianus, was not held by the Donatists themselves to have
lost either the sacrament of baptism or the sacrament of conferring
baptism. For now he is a recognized member of their own body, in
company with those very men whom he baptized while he was separated
from them in the schism of Maximianus. And so others could receive
from them, whilst they still had not joined our society, what they
themselves had not lost by severance from our society. And hence it
is clear that they are guilty of impiety who endeavor to rebaptize
those who are in Catholic unity; and we act rightly who do not dare to
repudiate God's sacraments, even when administered in schism. For in
all points in which they think with us, they also are in communion
with us, and only are severed from us in those points in which they
dissent from us. For contact and disunion are not to be measured by
different laws in the case of material or spiritual affinities. For
as union of bodies arises from continuity of position, so in the
agreement of wills there is a kind of contact between souls. If,
therefore, a man who has severed himself from unity wishes to do
anything different from that which had been impressed on him while in
the state of unity, in this point he does sever himself, and is no
longer a part of the united whole; but wherever he desires to conduct
himself as is customary in the state of unity, in which he himself
learned and received the lessons which he seeks to follow, in these
points he remains a member, and is united to the corporate whole.
Footnotes
[1145] Parmenianus was successor to Donatus the Great in the See of
Carthage, circ. 350 A.D., and died circ. 392 A.D.
[1146] Tichonius, who flourished circ. 380, was the leader of a
reformatory movement in Donatism, which Parmenianus opposed, in the
writing here alluded to. The reformer was excommunicated. He had the
clearest ideas concerning the church and concerning interpretation of
any of the ancients.
[1147] Contra Epist. Parmen. ii. 14, also written circ. 400 A.D.
[1148] Cyprian, in his controversy with Pope Stephen of Rome, denied
the validity of heretical or schismatical baptism. The Donatists
denied the validity of Catholic baptism. See Schaff, Church History,
vol. ii. 262 sqq.
[1149] Comp. v. 23, and iii. 16, note.
[1150] Felicianus, bishop of Musti, headed the revolt against
Primianus, the successor of Parmenianus in the Carthaginian See.
Listening to the complaint of the deacon Maximianus, who had been
deposed by Primianus, a synod was convened in 393 at Cabarsussis,
which ordained Maximianus as bishop of Carthage. Hence the title
Maximianistæ. Primianus, in 394, at the council of Bagai, was
recognized by 310 bishops. The larger fraction, according to the
Catholics, was subsequently forced into reunion. Prætextatus, bp. of
Assuris, was also one of the leaders in this separation.
Chapter 2.
--3. And so the Donatists in some matters are with us; in
some matters have gone out from us. Accordingly, those things wherein
they agree with us we do not forbid them to do; but in those things in
which they differ from us, we earnestly encourage them to come and
receive them from us, or return and recover them, as the case may be;
and with whatever means we can, we lovingly busy ourselves, that they,
freed from faults and corrected, may choose this course. We do not
therefore say to them, "Abstain from giving baptism," but "Abstain
from giving it in schism." Nor do we say to those whom we see them on
the point of baptizing, "Do not receive the baptism," but "Do not
receive it in schism." For if any one were compelled by urgent
necessity, being unable to find a Catholic from whom to receive
baptism, and so, while preserving Catholic peace in his heart, should
receive from one without the pale of Catholic unity the sacrament
which he was intending to receive within its pale, this man, should he
forthwith depart this life, we deem to be none other than a Catholic.
But if he should be delivered from the death of the body, on his
restoring himself in bodily presence to that Catholic congregation
from which in heart he had never departed, so far from blaming his
conduct, we should praise it with the greatest truth and confidence;
because he trusted that God was present to his heart, while he was
striving to preserve unity, and was unwilling to depart this life
without the sacrament of holy baptism, which he knew to be of God, and
not of men; wherever he might find it. But if any one who has it in
his power to receive baptism within the Catholic Church prefers, from
some perversity of mind, to be baptized in schism, even if he
afterwards bethinks himself to come to the Catholic Church, because he
is assured that there that sacrament will profit him, which can indeed
be received but cannot profit elsewhere, beyond all question he is
perverse, and guilty of sin, and that the more flagrant in proportion
as it was committed wilfully. For that he entertains no doubt that
the sacrament is rightly received in the Church, is proved by his
conviction that it is there that he must look for profit even from
what he has received elsewhere.
Chapter 3.
--4. There are two propositions, moreover, which we
affirm,--that baptism exists in the Catholic Church, and that in it
alone can it be rightly received,--both of which the Donatists deny.
Likewise there are two other propositions which we affirm,--that
baptism exists among the Donatists, but that with them it is not
rightly received, of which two they strenuously confirm the former,
that baptism exists with them; but they are unwilling to allow the
latter, that in their Church it cannot be rightly received. Of these
four propositions, three are peculiar to us; in one we both agree.
For that baptism exists in the Catholic Church, that it is rightly
received there, and that it is not rightly received among the
Donatists, are assertions made only by ourselves; but that baptism
exists also among the Donatists, is asserted by them and allowed by
us. If any one, therefore, is desirous of being baptized, and is
already convinced that he ought to choose our Church as a medium for
Christian salvation, and that the baptism of Christ is only profitable
in it, even when it has been received elsewhere, but yet wishes to be
baptized in the schism of Donatus, because not they only, nor we only,
but both parties alike say that baptism exists with them, let him
pause and look to the other three points. For if he has made up his
mind to follow us in the points which they deny, though he prefers
what both of us acknowledge, to what only we assert, it is enough for
our purpose that he prefers what they do not affirm and we alone
assert, to what they alone assert. That baptism exists in the
Catholic Church, we assert and they deny. That it is rightly received
in the Catholic Church, we assert and they deny. That it is not
rightly received in the schism of Donatus, we assert and they deny.
As, therefore, he is the more ready to believe what we alone assert
should be believed, so let him be the more ready to do what we alone
declare should be done. But let him believe more firmly, if he be so
disposed, what both parties assert should be believed, than what we
alone maintain. For he is inclined to believe more firmly that the
baptism of Christ exists in the schism of Donatus, because that is
acknowledged by both of us, than that it exists in the Catholic
Church, an assertion made alone by the Catholics. But again, he is
more ready to believe that the baptism of Christ exists also with us,
as we alone assert, than that it does not exist with us, as they alone
assert. For he has already determined and is fully convinced, that
where we differ, our authority is to be preferred to theirs. So that
he is more ready to believe what we alone assert, that baptism is
rightly received with us, than that it is not rightly so received,
since that rests only on their assertion. And, by the same rule, he
is more ready to believe what we alone assert, that it is not rightly
received with them, than as they alone assert, that it is rightly so
received. He finds, therefore, that his confidence in being baptized
among the Donatists is somewhat profitless, seeing that, though we
both acknowledge that baptism exists with them, yet we do not both
declare that it ought to be received from them. But he has made up
his mind to cling rather to us in matters where we disagree. Let him
therefore feel confidence in receiving baptism in our communion, where
he is assured that it both exists and is rightly received; and let him
not receive it in a communion, where those whose opinion he has
determined to follow acknowledge indeed that it exists, but say that
it cannot rightly be received. Nay, even if he should hold it to be a
doubtful question, whether or no it is impossible for that to be
rightly received among the Donatists which he is assured can rightly
be received in the Catholic Church, he would commit a grievous sin, in
matters concerning the salvation of his soul, in the mere fact of
preferring uncertainty to certainty. At any rate, he must be quite
sure that a man can be rightly baptized in the Catholic Church, from
the mere fact that he has determined to come over to it, even if he be
baptized elsewhere. But let him at least acknowledge it to be matter
of uncertainty whether a man be not improperly baptized among the
Donatists, when he finds this asserted by those whose opinion he is
convinced should be preferred to theirs; and, preferring certainty to
uncertainty, let him be baptized here, where he has good grounds for
being assured that it is rightly done, in the fact that when he
thought of doing it elsewhere, he had still determined that he ought
afterwards to come over to this side.
Chapter 4.
--5. Further, if any one fails to understand how it can be
that we assert that the sacrament is not rightly conferred among the
Donatists, while we confess that it exists among them, let him observe
that we also deny that it exists rightly among them, just as they deny
that it exists rightly among those who quit their communion. Let him
also consider the analogy of the military mark, which, though it can
both be retained, as by deserters, and, also be received by those who
are not in the army, yet ought not to be either received or retained
outside its ranks; and, at the same time, it is not changed or renewed
when a man is enlisted or brought back to his service. However, we
must distinguish between the case of those who unwittingly join the
ranks of these heretics, under the impression that they are entering
the true Church of Christ, and those who know that there is no other
Catholic Church save that which, according to the promise, is spread
abroad throughout the whole world, and extends even to the utmost
limits of the earth; which, rising amid tares, and seeking rest in the
future from the weariness of offenses, says in the Book of Psalms,
"From the end of the earth I cried unto Thee, while my heart was in
weariness: Thou didst exalt me on a rock." [1151]But the rock was
Christ, in whom the apostle says that we are now raised up, and set
together in heavenly places, though not yet actually, but only in
hope. [1152]And so the psalm goes on to say, "Thou wast my guide,
because Thou art become my hope, a tower of strength from the face of
the enemy." [1153]By means of His promises, which are like spears
and javelins stored up in a strongly fortified place, the enemy is not
only guarded against, but overthrown, as he clothes his wolves in
sheep's clothing, [1154] that they may say, "Lo, here is Christ, or
there;" [1155] and that they may separate many from the Catholic city
which is built upon a hill, and bring them down to the isolation of
their own snares, so as utterly to destroy them. And these men,
knowing this, choose to receive the baptism of Christ without the
limits of the communion of the unity of Christ's body, though they
intend afterwards, with the sacrament which they have received
elsewhere, to pass into that very communion. For they propose to
receive Christ's baptism in antagonism to the Church of Christ, well
knowing that it is so even on the very day on which they receive it.
And if this is a sin, who is the man that will say, Grant that for a
single day I may commit sin? For if he proposes to pass over to the
Catholic Church, I would fain ask why. What other answer can he give,
but that it is ill to belong to the party of Donatus, and not to the
unity of the Catholic Church? Just so many days, then, as you commit
this ill, of so many days' sin are you going to be guilty. And it may
be said that there is greater sin in more days' commission of it, and
less in fewer; but in no wise can it be said that no sin is committed
at all. But what is the need of allowing this accursed wrong for a
single day, or a single hour? For the man who wishes this license to
be granted him, might as well ask of the Church, or of God Himself,
that for a single day he should be permitted to apostatize. For there
is no reason why he should fear to be an apostate for a day, if he
does not shrink from being for that time a schismatic or a heretic.
Footnotes
[1151] Ps. lxi. 2, 3. Cp. Hieron, and LXX.
[1152] Eph. ii. 6.
[1153] Ps. lxi. 2, 3. Cp. Hieron, and LXX.
[1154] Matt. vii. 15.
[1155] Matt. xxiv. 23.
Chapter 5.
--6. I prefer, he says, to receive Christ's baptism where
both parties agree that it exists. But those whom you intend to join
say that it cannot be received there rightly; and those who say that
it can be received there rightly are the party whom you mean to quit.
What they say, therefore, whom you yourself consider of inferior
authority, in opposition to what those say whom you yourself prefer,
is, if not false, at any rate, to use a milder term, at least
uncertain. I entreat you, therefore, to prefer what is true to what
is false, or what is certain to what is uncertain. For it is not only
those whom you are going to join, but you yourself who are going to
join them, that confess that what you want can be rightly received in
that body which you mean to join when you have received it elsewhere.
For if you had any doubts whether it could be rightly received there,
you would also have doubts whether you ought to make the change. If,
therefore, it is doubtful whether it be not sin to receive baptism
from the party of Donatus, who can doubt but that it is certain sin
not to prefer receiving it where it is certain that it is not sin?
And those who are baptized there through ignorance, thinking that it
is the true Church of Christ, are guilty of less sin in comparison
than these, though even they are wounded by the impiety of schism; nor
do they escape a grievous hurt, because others suffer even more. For
when it is said to certain men, "It shall be more tolerable for the
land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you," [1156] it is not
meant that the men of Sodom shall escape torment, but only that the
others shall be even more grievously tormented.
7. And yet this point had once, perhaps, been involved in obscurity
and doubt. But that which is a source of health to those who give
heed and receive correction, is but an aggravation of the sin of those
who, when they are no longer suffered to be ignorant, persist in their
madness to their own destruction. For the condemnation of the party
of Maximianus, and their restoration after they had been condemned,
together with those whom they had sacrilegiously, to use the language
of their own Council, [1157] baptized in schism, settles the whole
question in dispute, and removes all controversy. There is no point
at issue between ourselves and those Donatists who hold communion with
Primianus, which could give rise to any doubt that the baptism of
Christ may not only be retained, but even conferred by those who are
severed from the Church. For as they themselves are obliged to
confess that those whom Felicianus baptized in schism received true
baptism, inasmuch as they now acknowledge them as members of their own
body, with no other baptism than that which they received in schism;
so we say that that is Christ's baptism, even without the pale of
Catholic communion, which they confer who are cut off from that
communion, inasmuch as they had not lost it when they were cut off.
And what they themselves think that they conferred on those persons
whom Felicianus baptized in schism, when they admitted them to
reconcilation with themselves, viz., not that they should receive that
which they did not as yet possess, but that what they had received to
no advantage in schism, and were already in possession of, should be
of profit to them, this God really confers and bestows through the
Catholic communion on those who come from any heresy or schism in
which they received the baptism of Christ; viz., not that they should
begin to receive the sacrament of baptism as not possessing it before,
but that what they already possessed should now begin to profit them.
Footnotes
[1156] Matt. xi. 24.
[1157] The Council of 310 Donatist bishops, held at Bagai in Numidia,
A.D. April 24, 394. Cp. Contra. Crescon. iii. 52, 56.
Chapter 6.
--8. Between us, then, and what we may call the genuine
[1158] Donatists, whose bishop is Primianus at Carthage, there is now
no controversy on this point. For God willed that it should be ended
by means of the followers of Maximianus, that they should be compelled
by the precedent of his case to acknowledge what they would not allow
at the persuasion of Christian charity. But this brings us to
consider next, whether those men do not seem to have something to say
for themselves, who refuse communion with the party of Primianus,
contending that in their body there remains greater sincerity of
Donatism, just in proportion to the paucity of their numbers. And
even if these were only the party of Maximianus, we should not be
justified in despising their salvation. How much more, then, are we
bound to consider it, when we find that this same party of Donatus is
split up into many most minute fractions, all which small sections of
the body blame the one much larger portion which has Primianus for its
head, because they receive the baptism of the followers of Maximianus;
while each endeavors to maintain that it is the sole receptacle of
true baptism, which exists nowhere else, neither in the whole of the
world where the Catholic Church extends itself, nor in that larger
main body of the Donatists, nor even in the other minute sections, but
only in itself. Whereas, if all these fragments would listen not to
the voice of man, but to the most unmistakable manifestation of the
truth, and would be willing to curb the fiery temper of their own
perversity, they would return from their own barrenness, not indeed to
the main body of Donatus, a mere fragment of which they are a smaller
fragment, but to the never-failing fruitfulness of the root of the
Catholic Church. For all of them who are not against us are for us;
but when they gather not with us, they scatter abroad.
Footnotes
[1158] Quodam modo cardinales Donatistas.
Chapter 7.
--9. For, in the next place, that I may not seem to rest on
mere human arguments,--since there is so much obscurity in this
question, that in earlier ages of the Church, before the schism of
Donatus, it has caused men of great weight, and even our fathers, the
bishops, whose hearts were full of charity, so to dispute and doubt
among themselves, saving always the peace of the Church, that the
several statutes of their Councils in their different districts long
varied from each other, till at length the most wholesome opinion was
established, to the removal of all doubts, by a plenary Council of the
whole world: [1159] --I therefore bring forward from the gospel clear
proofs, by which I propose, with God's help, to prove how rightly and
truly in the sight of God it has been determined, that in the case of
every schismatic and heretic, the wound which caused his separation
should be cured by the medicine of the Church; but that what remained
sound in him should rather be recognized with approbation, than
wounded by condemnation. It is indeed true that the Lord says in the
gospel, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth
not with me scattereth abroad." [1160]Yet when the disciples had
brought word to Him that they had seen one casting out devils in His
name, and had forbidden him, because he followed not them, He said,
"Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. For there
is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak
evil of me." [1161]If, indeed, there were nothing in this man
requiring correction, then any one would be safe who, setting himself
outside the communion of the Church, severing himself from all
Christian brotherhood, should gather in Christ's name; and so there
would be no truth in this, "He that is not with me is against me; and
he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." But if he required
correction in the point where the disciples in their ignorance were
anxious to check him, why did our Lord, by saying, "Forbid him not,"
prevent this check from being given? And how can that be true which
He then says, "He that is not against you is for you?" For in this
point he was not against, but for them, when he was working miracles
of healing in Christ's name. That both, therefore, should be true, as
both are true,--both the declaration, that "he that is not with me is
against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad;" and
also the injunction, "Forbid him not; for he that is not against you
is for you,"--what must we understand, except that the man was to be
confirmed in his veneration for that mighty Name, in respect of which
he was not against the Church, but for it; and yet he was to be blamed
for separating himself from the Church, whereby his gathering became a
scattering; and if it should have so happened that he sought union
with the Church, he should not have received what he already
possessed, but be made to set right the points wherein he had gone
astray?
Footnotes
[1159] See below, on ii. 9.
[1160] Matt. xii. 30.
[1161] Mark ix. 38, 39; Luke ix. 50.
Chapter 8.
--10. Nor indeed were the prayers of the Gentile Cornelius
unheard, nor did his alms lack acceptance; nay, he was found worthy
that an angel should be sent to him, and that he should behold the
messenger, through whom he might assuredly have learned everything
that was necessary, without requiring that any man should come to
him. But since all the good that he had in his prayers and alms could
not benefit him unless he were incorporated in the Church by the bond
of Christian brotherhood and peace, he was ordered to send to Peter,
and through him learned Christ; and, being also baptized by his
orders, he was joined by the tie of communion to the fellowship of
Christians, to which before he was bound only by the likeness of good
works. [1162]And indeed it would have been most fatal to despise
what he did not yet possess, vaunting himself in what he had. So too
those who, by separating themselves from the society of their fellows,
to the overthrow of charity, thus break the bond of unity, if they
observe none of the things which they have received in that society,
are separated in everything; and so any one whom they have joined to
their society, if he afterwards wish to come over to the Church, ought
to receive everything which he has not already received. But if they
observe some of the same things, in respect of these they have not
severed themselves; and so far they are still a part of the framework
of the Church, while in all other respects they are cut off from it.
Accordingly, any one whom they have associated with themselves is
united to the Church in all those points in which they are not
separated from it. And therefore, if he wish to come over to the
Church, he is made sound in those points in which he was unsound and
went astray; but where he was sound in union with the Church, he is
not cured, but recognized,--lest in desiring to cure what is sound we
should rather inflict a wound. Therefore those whom they baptize they
heal from the wound of idolatry or unbelief; but they injure them more
seriously with the wound of schism. For idolaters among the people of
the Lord were smitten with the sword; [1163] but schismatics were
swallowed up by the earth opening her mouth. [1164]And the apostle
says, "Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and
have not charity, I am nothing." [1165]
11. If any one is brought to the surgeon, afflicted with a grievous
wound in some vital part of the body, and the surgeon says that unless
it is cured it must cause death, the friends who brought him do not, I
presume, act so foolishly as to count over to the surgeon all his
sound limbs, and, drawing his attention to them, make answer to him,
"Can it be that all these sound limbs are of no avail to save his
life, and that one wounded limb is enough to cause his death?" They
certainly do not say this, but they entrust him to the surgeon to be
cured. Nor, again, because they so entrust him, do they ask the
surgeon to cure the limbs that are sound as well; but they desire him
to apply drugs with all care to the one part from which death is
threatening the other sound parts too, with the certainty that it must
come, unless the wound be healed. What will it then profit a man that
he has sound faith, or perhaps only soundness in the sacrament of
faith, when the soundness of his charity is done away with by the
fatal wound of schism, so that by the overthrow of it the other
points, which were in themselves sound, are brought into the infection
of death? To prevent which, the mercy of God, through the unity of
His holy Church, does not cease striving that they may come and be
healed by the medicine of reconciliation, through the bond of peace.
And let them not think that they are sound because we admit that they
have something sound in them; nor let them think, on the other hand,
that what is sound must needs be healed, because we show that in some
parts there is a wound. So that in the soundness of the sacrament,
because they are not against us, they are for us; but in the wound of
schism, because they gather not with Christ, they scatter abroad. Let
them not be exalted by what they have. Why do they pass the eyes of
pride over those parts only which are sound? Let them condescend also
to look humbly on their wound, and give heed not only to what they
have, but also to what is wanting in them.
Footnotes
[1162] Acts x.
[1163] Ex. xxxii.
[1164] Num. xvi.
[1165] 1 Cor. xiii. 2.
Chapter 9.
--12. Let them see how many things, and what important
things, are of no avail, if a certain single thing be wanting, and let
them see what that one thing is. And herein let them hear not my
words, but those of the apostle: "Though I speak with the tongues of
men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding
brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy,
and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all
faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing." [1166]What does it profit them, therefore, if they have
both the voice of angels in the sacred mysteries, and the gift of
prophecy, as had Caiaphas [1167] and Saul, [1168] that so they may be
found prophesying, of whom Holy Scripture testifies that they were
worthy of condemnation? If they not only know, but even possess the
sacraments, as Simon Magus did; [1169] if they have faith, as the
devils confessed Christ (for we must not suppose that they did not
believe when they said, "What have we to do with Thee, O Son of God?
We know Thee who Thou art" [1170] ; if they distribute of themselves
their own substance to the poor, as many do, not only in the Catholic
Church, but in the different heretical bodies; if, under the pressure
of any persecution, they give their bodies with us to be burned for
the faith which they like us confess: yet because they do all these
things apart from the Church, not "forbearing one another in love,"
nor "endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of
peace," [1171] insomuch as they have not charity, they cannot attain
to eternal salvation, even with all those good things which profit
them not.
Footnotes
[1166] 1 Cor. xiii. 1, 2.
[1167] John xi. 51.
[1168] 1 Sam. xviii. 10.
[1169] Acts viii. 13.
[1170] Mark i. 24.
[1171] Eph. iv. 2, 3.
Chapter 10.
--13. But they think within themselves that they show very
great subtlety in asking whether the baptism of Christ in the party of
Donatus makes men sons or not; so that, if we allow that it does make
them sons, they may assert that theirs is the Church, the mother which
could give birth to sons in the baptism of Christ; and since the
Church must be one, they may allege that ours is no Church. But if we
say that it does not make them sons, "Why then," say they, "do you not
cause those who pass from us to you to be born again in baptism, after
they have been baptized with us, if they are not thereby born as yet?"
14. Just as though their party gained the power of generation in
virtue of what constitutes its division, and not from what causes its
union with the Church. For it is severed from the bond of peace and
charity, but it is joined in one baptism. And so there is one Church
which alone is called Catholic; and whenever it has anything of its
own in these communions of different bodies which are separate from
itself, it is most certainly in virtue of this which is its own in
each of them that it, not they, has the power of generation. For
neither is it their separation that generates, but what they have
retained of the essence of the Church; and if they were to go on to
abandon this, they would lose the power of generation. The
generation, then, in each case proceeds from the Church, whose
sacraments are retained, from which any such birth can alone in any
case proceed,--although not all who receive its birth belong to its
unity, which shall save those who persevere even to the end. Nor is
it those only that do not belong to it who are openly guilty of the
manifest sacrilege of schism, but also those who, being outwardly
joined to its unity, are yet separated by a life of sin. For the
Church had herself given birth to Simon Magus through the sacrament of
baptism; and yet it was declared to him that he had no part in the
inheritance of Christ. [1172]Did he lack anything in respect of
baptism, of the gospel, of the sacraments? But in that he wanted
charity, he was born in vain; and perhaps it had been well for him
that he had never been born at all. Was anything wanting to their
birth to whom the apostle says, "I have fed you with milk, and not
with meat, even as babes in Christ"? Yet he recalls them from the
sacrilege of schism, into which they were rushing, because they were
carnal: "I have fed you," he says, "with milk, and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye
able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying
and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith,
I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not men?" [1173]
For of these he says above: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that
there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined
together in the same mind, and in the same judgment. For it hath been
declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house
of Chlöe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that
every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of
Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for
you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" [1174]These,
therefore, if they continued in the same perverse obstinacy, were
doubtless indeed born, but yet would not belong by the bond of peace
and unity to the very Church in respect of which they were born.
Therefore she herself bears them in her own womb and in the womb of
her handmaids, by virtue of the same sacraments, as though by virtue
of the seed of her husband. For it is not without meaning that the
apostle says that all these things were done by way of figure. [1175]
But those who are too proud, and are not joined to their lawful
mother, are like Ishmael, of whom it is said, "Cast out this
bond-woman and her Son: for the son of the bond-woman shall not be
heir with my son, even with Isaac." [1176]But those who peacefully
love the lawful wife of their father, whose sons they are by lawful
descent, are like the sons of Jacob, born indeed of handmaids, but yet
receiving the same inheritance. [1177]But those who are born within
the family, of the womb of the mother herself, and then neglect the
grace they have received, are like Isaac's son Esau, who was rejected,
God Himself bearing witness to it, and saying, "I loved Jacob, and I
hated Esau;" [1178] and that though they were twin-brethren, the
offspring of the same womb.
Footnotes
[1172] Acts viii. 13, 21.
[1173] 1 Cor. iii. 1-4.
[1174] 1 Cor. i. 10-13.
[1175] 1 Cor. x. 11. In figura; tupikos; A.V., "for ensamples."
[1176] Gen. xxi. 10.
[1177] Gen. xxx. 3.
[1178] Mal. i. 2, 3; Gen xxv. 24.
Chapter 11.
--15. They ask also, "Whether sins are remitted in baptism
in the party of Donatus:" so that, if we say that they are remitted,
they may answer, then the Holy Spirit is there; for when by the
breathing of our Lord the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples, He
then went on to say, "Baptize all nations in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." [1179]Whose soever sins ye
remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain,
they are retained." [1180]And if it is so, they say, then our
communion is the Church of Christ; for the Holy Spirit does not work
the remission of sins except in the Church. And if our communion is
the Church of Christ, then your communion is not the Church of
Christ. For that is one, wherever it is, of which it is said, "My
dove is but one; she is the only one of her mother;" [1181] nor can
there be just so many churches as there are schisms. But if we should
say that sins are not there remitted, then, say they, there is no true
baptism there; and therefore ought you to baptize those whom you
receive from us. And since you do not do this, you confess that you
are not in the Church of Christ.
16. To these we reply, following the Scriptures, by asking them to
answer themselves what they ask of us. For I beg them to tell us
whether there is any remission of sins where there is not charity; for
sins are the darkness of the soul. For we find St. John saying, "He
that hateth his brother is still in darkness." [1182]But none would
create schisms, if they were not blinded by hatred of their brethren.
If, therefore, we say that sins are not remitted there, how is he
regenerate who is baptized among them? And what is regeneration in
baptism, except the being renovated from the corruption of the old
man? And how can he be so renovated whose past sins are not
remitted? But if he be not regenerate, neither does he put on Christ;
from which it seems to follow that he ought to be baptized again. For
the apostle says, "For as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ;" [1183] and if he has not so put on Christ,
neither should he be considered to have been baptized in Christ.
Further, since we say that he has been baptized in Christ, we confess
that he has put on Christ; and if we confess this, we confess that he
is regenerate. And if this be so, how does St. John say, "He that
hateth his brother remaineth still in darkness," if remission of his
sins has already taken place? Can it be that schism does not involve
hatred of one's brethren? Who will maintain this, when both the
origin of, and perseverance in schism consists in nothing else save
hatred of the brethren?
17. They think that they solve this question when they say: "There
is then no remission of sins in schism, and therefore no creation of
the new man by regeneration, and accordingly neither is there the
baptism of Christ." But since we confess that the baptism of Christ
exists in schism, we propose this question to them for solution: Was
Simon Magus endued with the true baptism of Christ? They will answer,
Yes; being compelled to do so by the authority of holy Scripture. I
ask them whether they confess that he received remission of his sins.
They will certainly acknowledge it. So I ask why Peter said to him
that he had no part in the lot of the saints. Because, they say, he
sinned afterwards, wishing to buy with money the gift of God, which he
believed the apostles were able to sell.
Footnotes
[1179] Matt. xxviii. 19.
[1180] John xx. 23.
[1181] Song of Sol. vi. 9.
[1182] 1 John ii. 11.
[1183] Gal. iii. 27.
Chapter 12.
--18. What if he approached baptism itself in deceit? were
his sins remitted, or were they not? Let them choose which they
will. Whichever they choose will answer our purpose. If they say
they were remitted, how then shall "the Holy Spirit of discipline flee
deceit," [1184] if in him who was full of deceit He worked remission
of sins? If they say they were not remitted, I ask whether, if he
should afterwards confess his sin with contrition of heart and true
sorrow, it would be judged that he ought to be baptized again. And if
it is mere madness to assert this, then let them confess that a man
can be baptized with the true baptism of Christ, and that yet his
heart, persisting in malice or sacrilege, may not allow remission of
sins to be given; and so let them understand that men may be baptized
in communions severed from the Church, in which Christ's baptism is
given and received in the said celebration of the sacrament, but that
it will only then be of avail for the remission of sins, when the
recipient, being reconciled to the unity of the Church, is purged from
the sacrilege of deceit, by which his sins were retained, and their
remission prevented. For, as in the case of him who had approached
the sacrament in deceit there is no second baptism, but he is purged
by faithful discipline and truthful confession, which he could not be
without baptism, so that what was given before becomes then powerful
to work his salvation, when the former deceit is done away by the
truthful confession; so also in the case of the man who, while an
enemy to the peace and love of Christ, received in any heresy or
schism the baptism of Christ, which the schismatics in question had
not lost from among them, though by his sacrilege his sins were not
remitted, yet, when he corrects his error, and comes over to the
communion and unity of the Church, he ought not to be again baptized:
because by his very reconciliation to the peace of the Church he
receives this benefit, that the sacrament now begins in unity to be of
avail for the remission of his sins, which could not so avail him as
received in schism.
19. But if they should say that in the man who has approached the
sacrament in deceit, his sins are indeed removed by the holy power of
so great a sacrament at the moment when he received it, but return
immediately in consequence of his deceit: so that the Holy Spirit has
both been present with him at his baptism for the removal of his sins,
and has also fled before his perseverance in deceit so that they
should return: so that both declarations prove true,--both, "As many
of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;" and
also, "The holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit;"--that is to
say, that both the holiness of baptism clothes him with Christ, and
the sinfulness of deceit strips him of Christ; like the case of a man
who passes from darkness through light into darkness again, his eyes
being always directed towards darkness, though the light cannot but
penetrate them as he passes;--if they should say this, let them
understand that this is also the case with those who are baptized
without the pale of the Church, but yet with the baptism of the
Church, which is holy in itself, wherever it may be; and which
therefore belongs not to those who separate themselves, but to the
body from which they are separated; while yet it avails even among
them so far, that they pass through its light back to their own
darkness, their sins, which in that moment had been dispelled by the
holiness of baptism, returning immediately upon them, as though it
were the darkness returning which the light had dispelled while they
were passing through it.
20. For that sins which have been remitted do return upon a man,
where there is no brotherly love, is most clearly taught by our Lord,
in the case of the servant whom He found owing Him ten thousand
talents, and to whom He yet forgave all at his entreaty. But when he
refused to have pity on his fellow-servant who owed him a hundred
pence, the Lord commanded him to pay what He had forgiven him. The
time, then, at which pardon is received through baptism is as it were
the time for rendering accounts, so that all the debts which are found
to be due may be remitted. Yet it was not afterwards that the servant
lent his fellow-servant the money, which he had so pitilessly exacted
when the other was unable to pay it; but his fellow-servant already
owed him the debt, when he himself, on rendering his accounts to his
master, was excused a debt of so vast an amount. He had not first
excused his fellow-servant, and so come to receive forgiveness from
his Lord. This is proved by the words of the fellow-servant: "Have
patience with me, and I will pay thee all." Otherwise he would have
said, "You forgave me it before; why do you again demand it?" This is
made more clear by the words of the Lord Himself. For He says, "But
the same servant went out, and found one of his fellow-servants which
was owing [1185] him a hundred pence." [1186]He does not say, "To
whom he had already forgiven a debt of a hundred pence." Since then
He says, "was owing him," it is clear that he had not forgiven him the
debt. And indeed it would have been better, and more in accordance
with the position of a man who was going to render an account of so
great a debt, and expected forbearance from his lord, that he should
first have forgiven his fellow-servant what was due to him, and so
have come to render the account when there was such need for imploring
the compassion of his lord. Yet the fact that he had not yet forgiven
his fellow-servant, did not prevent his lord from forgiving him all
his debts on the occasion of receiving his accounts. But what
advantage was it to him, since they all immediately returned with
redoubled force upon his head, in consequence of his persistent want
of charity? So the grace of baptism is not prevented from giving
remission of all sins, even if he to whom they are forgiven continues
to cherish hatred towards his brother in his heart. For the guilt of
yesterday is remitted, and all that was before it, nay, even the guilt
of the very hour and moment previous to baptism, and during baptism
itself. But then he immediately begins again to be responsible, not
only for the days, hours, moments which ensue, but also for the
past,--the guilt of all the sins which were remitted returning on him,
as happens only too frequently in the Church.
Footnotes
[1184] Wisd. i. 5.
[1185] Debebat. Hieron, debebat, LXX. opheilen.
[1186] Matt. xviii. 23-35.
Chapter 13.
--21. For it often happens that a man has an enemy whom he
hates most unjustly; although we are commanded to love even our unjust
enemies, and to pray for them. But in some sudden danger of death he
begins to be uneasy, and desires baptism, which he receives in such
haste, that the emergency scarcely admits of the necessary formal
examination of a few words, much less of a long conversation, so that
this hatred should be driven from his heart, even supposing it to be
known to the minister who baptizes him. Certainly cases of this sort
are still found to occur not only with us, but also with them. What
shall we say then? Are this man's sins forgiven or not? Let them
choose just which alternative they prefer. For if they are forgiven,
they immediately return: this is the teaching of the gospel, the
authoritative announcement of truth. Whether, therefore, they are
forgiven or not, medicine is necessary afterwards; and yet if the man
lives, and learns that his fault stands in need of correction, and
corrects it, he is not baptized anew, either with them or with us. So
in the points in which schismatics and heretics neither entertain
different opinions nor observe different practice from ourselves, we
do not correct them when they join us, but rather commend what we find
in them. For where they do not differ from us, they are not separated
from us. But because these things do them no good so long as they are
schismatics or heretics, on account of other points in which they
differ from us, not to mention the most grievous sin that is involved
in separation itself, therefore, whether their sins remain in them, or
return again immediately after remission, in either case we exhort
them to come to the soundness of peace and Christian charity, not only
that they may obtain something which they had not before, but also
that what they had may begin to be of use to them.
Chapter 14.
--22. It is to no purpose, then, that they say to us, "If
you acknowledge our baptism, what do we lack that should make you
suppose that we ought to think seriously of joining your communion?"
For we reply, We do not acknowledge any baptism of yours; for it is
not the baptism of schismatics or heretics, but of God and of the
Church, wheresoever it may be found, and whithersoever it may be
transferred. But it is in no sense yours, except because you
entertain false opinions, and do sacrilegious acts, and have impiously
separated yourselves from the Church. For if everything else in your
practice and opinions were true, and still you were to persist in this
same separation, contrary to the bond of brotherly peace, contrary to
the union of all the brethren, who have been manifest, according to
the promise, in all the world; the particulars of whose history, and
the secrets of whose hearts, you never could have known or considered
in every case, so as to have a right to condemn them; who, moreover,
cannot be liable to condemnation for submitting themselves to the
judges of the Church rather than to one of the parties to the
dispute,--in this one thing, at least, in such a case, you are
deficient, in which he is deficient who lacks charity. Why should we
go over our argument again? Look and see yourselves in the apostle,
how much there is that you lack. For what does it matter to him who
lacks charity, whether he be carried away outside the Church at once
by some blast of temptation, or remain within the Lord's harvest, so
as to be separated only at the final winnowing? And yet even such, if
they have once been born in baptism, need not be born again.
Chapter 15.
--23. For it is the Church that gives birth to all, either
within her pale, of her own womb; or beyond it, of the seed of her
bridegroom,--(either of herself, or of her handmaid. [1187] ) But
Esau, even though born of the lawful wife, was separated from the
people of God because he quarrelled with his brother. And Asher, born
indeed by the authority of a wife, but yet of a handmaid, was admitted
to the land of promise on account of his brotherly good-will. Whence
also it was not the being born of a handmaid, but his quarrelling with
his brother, that stood in the way of Ishmael, to cause his separation
from the people of God; and he received no benefit from the power of
the wife, whose son he rather was, inasmuch as it was in virtue of her
conjugal rights that he was both conceived in and born of the womb of
the handmaid. Just as with the Donatists it is by the right of the
Church, which exists in baptism, that whosoever is born receives his
birth; but if they agree with their brethren, through the unity of
peace they come to the land of promise, not to be again cast out from
the bosom of their true mother, but to be acknowledged in the seed of
their father; but if they persevere in discord, they will belong to
the line of Ishmael. For Ishmael was first, and then Isaac; and Esau
was the elder, Jacob the younger. Not that heresy gives birth before
the Church, or that the Church herself gives birth first to those who
are carnal or animal, and afterwards to those who are spiritual; but
because, in the actual lot of our mortality, in which we are born of
the seed of Adam, "that was not first which is spiritual, but that
which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual." [1188]But
from mere animal sensation, because "the natural man receiveth not the
things of the Spirit of God," [1189] arise all dissensions and
schisms. And the apostle says [1190] that all who persevere in this
animal sensation belong to the old covenant. that is, to the desire of
earthly promises, which are indeed the type of the spiritual; but "the
natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." [1191]
24. At whatever time, therefore, men have begun to be of such a
nature in this life, that, although they have partaken of such divine
sacraments as were appointed for the dispensation under which they
lived, they yet savor of carnal things, and hope for and desire carnal
things from God, whether in this life or afterwards, they are yet
carnal. But the Church, which is the people of God, is an ancient
institution even in the pilgrimage of this life, having a carnal
interest in some men, a spiritual interest in others. To the carnal
belongs the old covenant, to the spiritual the new. But in the first
days both were hidden, from Adam even to Moses. But by Moses the old
covenant was made manifest, and in it was hidden the new covenant,
because after a secret fashion it was typified. But so soon as the
Lord came in the flesh, the new covenant was revealed; yet, though the
sacraments of the old covenant passed away; the dispositions peculiar
to it did not pass away. For they still exist in those whom the
apostle declares to be already born indeed by the sacrament of the new
covenant, but yet capable, as being natural, of receiving the things
of the Spirit of God. For, as in the sacraments of the old covenant
some persons were already spiritual, belonging secretly to the new
covenant, which was then concealed, so now also in the sacrament of
the new covenant, which has been by this time revealed, many live who
are natural. And if they will not advance to receive the things of
the Spirit of God, to which the discourse of the apostle urges them,
they will still belong to the old covenant. But if they advance, even
before they receive them, yet by their very advance and approach they
belong to the new covenant; and if, before becoming spiritual, they
are snatched away from this life, yet through the protection of the
holiness of the sacrament they are reckoned in the land of the living,
where the Lord is our hope and our portion. Nor can I find any truer
interpretation of the scripture, "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet
being imperfect" [1192] considering what follows, "And in Thy book
shall all be written." [1193]
Footnotes
[1187] The words in parenthesis are wanting in the Mss., and seem to
have crept from the margin into the text.
[1188] 1 Cor. xv. 46.
[1189] 1 Cor. ii. 14.
[1190] Gal. iv.
[1191] 1 Cor. ii. 14.
[1192] Ps. cxxxix. 16.
[1193] Cf. Hieron, and LXX. A.V. "In Thy book were all my members
written."
Chapter 16.
--25. But the same mother which brought forth Abel, and
Enoch, and Noah, and Abraham, brought forth also Moses and the
prophets who succeeded him till the coming of our Lord; and the mother
which gave birth to them gave birth also to our apostles and martyrs,
and all good Christians. For all these that have appeared have been
born indeed at different times, but are included in the society of our
people; and it is as citizens of the same state that they have
experienced the labors of this pilgrimage, and some of them are
experiencing them, and others will experience them even to the end.
Again, the mother who brought forth Cain, and Ham, and Ishmael, and
Esau, brought forth also Dathan and others like him in the same
people; and she who gave birth to them gave birth also to Judas the
false apostle, and Simon Magus, and all the other false Christians who
up to this time have persisted obstinately in their carnal affections,
whether they have been mingled in the unity of the Church, or
separated from it in open schism. But when men of this kind have the
gospel preached to them, and receive the sacraments at the hand of
those who are spiritual, it is as though Rebecca gave birth to them of
her own womb, as she did to Esau; but when they are produced in the
midst of the people of God through the instrumentality of those who
preach the gospel not sincerely, [1194] Sarah is indeed the mother,
but through Hagar. So when good spiritual disciples are produced by
the preaching or baptism of those who are carnal, Leah, indeed, or
Rachel, gives birth to them in her right as wife, but from the womb of
a handmaid. But when good and faithful disciples are born of those
who are spiritual in the gospel, and either attain to the development
of spiritual age, or do not cease to strive in that direction, or are
only deterred from doing so by want of power, these are born like
Isaac from the womb of Sarah, or Jacob from the womb of Rebecca, in
the new life and the new covenant.
Footnotes
[1194] Non caste; ouch agnos. Phil. i. 16. Hieron. non sincere.
Chapter 17.
--26. Therefore, whether they seem to abide within, or are
openly outside, whatsoever is flesh is flesh, and what is chaff is
chaff, whether they persevere in remaining in their barrenness on the
threshing-floor, or, when temptation befalls them, are carried out as
it were by the blast of some wind. And even that man is always
severed from the unity of the Church which is without spot or wrinkle,
[1195] who associates with the congregation of the saints in carnal
obstinacy. Yet we ought to despair of no man, whether he be one who
shows himself to be of this nature within the pale of the Church, or
whether he more openly opposes it from without. But the spiritual, or
those who are steadily advancing with pious exertion towards this end,
do not stray without the pale; since even when, by some perversity or
necessity among men, they seem to be driven forth, they are more
approved than if they had remained within, since they are in no degree
roused to contend against the Church, but remain rooted in the
strongest foundation of Christian charity on the solid rock of unity.
For hereunto belongs what is said in the sacrifice of Abraham: "But
the birds divided he not." [1196]
Footnotes
[1195] In the Retractations, ii. 18, Augustin notes on this passage,
that wherever he uses this quotation from the Epistle to the
Ephesians, he means it to be understood of the progress of the Church
towards this condition, and not of her success in its attainment; for
at present the infirmities and ignorance of her members give ground
enough for the whole Church joining daily in the petition, "Forgive us
our debts."
[1196] Gen. xv. 10.
Chapter 18.
--27. On the question of baptism, then, I think that I
have argued at sufficient length; and since this is a most manifest
schism which is called by the name of the Donatists, it only remains
that on the subject of baptism we should believe with pious faith what
the universal Church maintains, apart from the sacrilege of schism.
And yet, if within the Church different men still held different
opinions on the point, without meanwhile violating peace, then till
some one clear and simple decree should have been passed by an
universal Council, it would have been right for the charity which
seeks for unity to throw a veil over the error of human infirmity, as
it is written "For charity shall cover the multitude of sins." [1197]
For, seeing that its absence causes the presence of all other things
to be of no avail, we may well suppose that in its presence there is
found pardon for the absence of some missing things.
28. There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the
blessed martyr Cyprian, in his letters,--to come at last to him of
whose authority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed,
whilst by his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time,
before the consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively,
by the decree of a plenary Council, [1198] what practice should be
followed in this matter, it seemed to him, in common 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 should, on
joining the Church, be baptized anew. And I take it, that the reason
why the Lord did not reveal the error in this to a man of such
eminence, was, that his pious humility and charity in guarding the
peace and health of the Church might be made manifest, and might be
noticed, so as to serve as an example of healing power, so to speak,
not only to Christians of that age, but also to those who should come
after. For when a bishop of so important a Church, himself a man of
so great merit and virtue, endowed with such excellence of heart and
power of eloquence, entertained an opinion about baptism different
from that which was to be confirmed by a more diligent searching into
the truth; though many of his colleagues held what was not yet made
manifest by authority, but was sanctioned by the past custom of the
Church, and afterwards embraced by the whole Catholic world; yet under
these circumstances he did not sever himself, by refusal of communion,
from the others who thought differently, and indeed never ceased to
urge on the others that they should "forbear one another in love,
endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."
[1199]For so, while the framework of the body remained whole, if
any infirmity occurred in certain of its members, it might rather
regain its health from their general soundness, than be deprived of
the chance of any healing care by their death in severance from the
body. And if he had severed himself, how many were there to follow!
what a name was he likely to make for himself among men! how much more
widely would the name of Cyprianist have spread than that of
Donatist! But he was not a son of perdition, one of those of whom it
is said, "Thou castedst them down while they were elevated;" [1200]
but he was the son of the peace of the Church, who in the clear
illumination of his mind failed to see one thing, only that through
him another thing might be more excellently seen. "And yet," says the
apostle, "show I unto you a more excellent way: though I speak with
the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as
sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." [1201]He had therefore
imperfect insight into the hidden mystery of the sacrament. But if he
had known the mysteries of all sacraments, without having charity, it
would have been nothing. But as he, with imperfect insight into the
mystery, was careful to preserve charity with all courage and humility
and faith, he deserved to come to the crown of martyrdom; so that, if
any cloud had crept over the clearness of his intellect from his
infirmity as man, it might be dispelled by the glorious brightness of
his blood. For it was not in vain that our Lord Jesus Christ, when He
declared Himself to be the vine, and His disciples, as it were, the
branches in the vine, gave command that those which bare no fruit
should be cut off, and removed from the vine as useless branches.
[1202]But what is really fruit, save that new offspring, of which
He further says, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one
another?" [1203]This is that very charity, without which the rest
profiteth nothing. The apostle also says: "But the fruit of the
Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness,
faith, meekness, temperance;" [1204] which all begin with charity, and
with the rest of the combination forms one unity in a kind of wondrous
cluster. [1205]Nor is it again in vain that our Lord added, "And
every branch that beareth fruit, my Father purgeth it, that it may
bring forth more fruit," [1206] but because those who are strong in
the fruit of charity may yet have something which requires purging,
which the Husbandman will not leave untended. Whilst then, that holy
man entertained on the subject of baptism an opinion at variance with
the true view, which was afterwards thoroughly examined and confirmed
after most diligent consideration, his error was compensated by his
remaining in catholic unity, and by the abundance of his charity; and
finally it was cleared away by the pruning-hook of martyrdom.
Footnotes
[1197] 1 Pet. iv. 8.
[1198] See below, ii. 9.
[1199] Eph. iv. 2, 3.
[1200] Ps. lxxiii. 18; cp. Hieron.
[1201] 1 Cor. xii. 31, xiii. 1.
[1202] John xv. 1, 2.
[1203] John xiii. 34.
[1204] Gal. v. 22, 23.
[1205] Botrum.
[1206] John xv. 2.
Chapter 19.
--29. But that I may not seem to be uttering these praises
of the blessed martyr (which, indeed, are not his, but rather those of
Him by whose grace he showed himself what he was), in order to escape
the burden of proof, let us now bring forward from his letters the
testimony by which the mouths of the Donatists may most of all be
stopped. For they advance his authority before the unlearned, to show
that in a manner they do well when they baptize afresh the faithful
who come to them. Too wretched are they--and, unless they correct
themselves, even by themselves are they utterly condemned--who choose
in the example set them by so great a man to imitate just that fault,
which only did not injure him, because he walked with constant steps
even to the end in that from which they have strayed who "have not
known the way of peace." [1207]It is true that Christ's baptism is
holy; and although it may exist among heretics or schismatics, yet it
does not belong to the heresy or schism; and therefore even those who
come from thence to the Catholic Church herself ought not to be
baptized afresh. Yet to err on this point is one thing; it is another
thing that those who are straying from the peace of the Church, and
have fallen headlong into the pit of schism, should go on to decide
that any who join them ought to be baptized again. For the former is
a speck on the brightness of a holy soul which abundance of charity
[1208] would fain have covered; the latter is a stain in their nether
foulness which the hatred of peace in their countenance ostentatiously
brings to light. But the subject for our further consideration,
relating to the authority of the blessed Cyprian, we will commence
from a fresh beginning.
Footnotes
[1207] Rom. iii. 17; from which it has been introduced into the
Alexandrine Ms. of the Septuagint at Ps. xiv. 3, cf. Hieron.; it is
also found in the English Prayer-book version of the Psalms.
[1208] Charitatis ubera.
.
Book II.
In which Augustin proves that it is to no purpose that the Donatists
bring forward the authority of Cyprian, bishop and martyr, since it is
really more opposed to them than to the Catholics. For that he held
that the view of his predecessor Agrippinus, on the subject of
baptizing heretics in the Catholic Church when they join its
communion, should only be received on condition that peace should be
maintained with those who entertained the opposite view, and that the
unity of the Church should never be broken by any kind of schism.
Chapter 1.
--1. How much the arguments make for us, that is, for
catholic peace, which the party of Donatus profess to bring forward
against us from the authority of the blessed Cyprian, and how much
they prove against those who bring them forward, it is my intention,
with the help of God, to show in the ensuing book. If, therefore, in
the course of my argument, I am obliged to repeat what I have already
said in other treatises (although I will do so as little as I can,)
yet this ought not to be objected to by those who have already read
them and agree with them; since it is not only right that those things
which are necessary for instruction should be frequently instilled
into men of dull intelligence, but even in the case of those who are
endowed with larger understanding, it contributes very much both to
make their learning easier and their powers of teaching readier, where
the same points are handled and discussed in many various ways. For I
know how much it discourages a reader, when he comes upon any knotty
question in the book which he has in hand, to find himself presently
referred for its solution to another which he happens not to have.
Wherefore, if I am compelled, by the urgency of the present questions,
to repeat what I have already said in other books, I would seek
forgiveness from those who know those books already, that those who
are ignorant may have their difficulties removed; for it is better to
give to one who has already, than to abstain from satisfying any one
who is in want.
2. What, then, do they venture to say, when their mouth is closed
[1209] by the force of truth, with which they will not agree?
"Cyprian," say they, "whose great merits and vast learning we all
know, decreed in a Council, [1210] with many of his fellow-bishops
contributing their several opinions, that all heretics and
schismatics, that is, all who are severed from the communion of the
one Church, are without baptism; and therefore, whosoever has joined
the communion of the Church after being baptized by them must be
baptized in the Church." The authority of Cyprian does not alarm me,
because I am reassured by his humility. We know, indeed, the great
merit of the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but is it in any way greater
than that of the apostle and martyr Peter, of whom the said Cyprian
speaks as follows in his epistle to Quintus? "For neither did Peter,
whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, [1211]
when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim or
assume anything insolently and arrogantly to himself, so as to say
that he held the primacy, and should rather be obeyed of those who
were late and newly come. Nor did he despise Paul because he had
before been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted the counsel of
truth, and readily assented to the legitimate grounds which Paul
maintained; giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that
we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather
account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren
and colleagues for the common health and weal." [1212]Here is a
passage in which Cyprian records what we also learn in holy Scripture,
that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines
with such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle Paul,
when he adopted a custom in the matter of circumcision at variance
with the demands of truth. If it was therefore possible for Peter in
some point to walk not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,
so as to compel the Gentiles to judaize, as Paul writes in that
epistle in which he calls God to witness that he does not lie; for he
says, "Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I
lie not;" [1213] and, after this sacred and awful calling of God to
witness, he told the whole tale, saying in the course of it, "But when
I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the
gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew,
livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why
compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" [1214] --if
Peter, I say, could compel the Gentiles to live after the manner of
the Jews, contrary to the rule of truth which the Church afterwards
held, why might not Cyprian, in opposition to the rule of faith which
the whole Church afterwards held, compel heretics and schismatics to
be baptized afresh? I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in
comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather
I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For
who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be
preferred to any episcopate whatever? But, granting the difference in
the dignity of their sees, yet they have the same glory in their
martyrdom. And whether it may be the case that the hearts of those
who confess and die for the true faith in the unity of charity take
precedence of each other in different points, the Lord Himself will
know, by the hidden and wondrous dispensation of whose grace the thief
hanging on the cross once for all confesses Him, and is sent on the
selfsame day to paradise, [1215] while Peter, the follower of our
Lord, denies Him thrice, and has his crown postponed: [1216]for us
it were rash to form a judgment from the evidence. But if any one
were now found compelling a man to be circumcised after the Jewish
fashion, as a necessary preliminary for baptism, this would meet with
much more general repudiation by mankind, than if a man should be
compelled to be baptized again. Wherefore, if Peter, on doing this,
is corrected by his later colleague Paul, and is yet preserved by the
bond of peace and unity till he is promoted to martyrdom, how much
more readily and constantly should we prefer, either to the authority
of a single bishop, or to the Council of a single province, the rule
that has been established by the statutes of the universal Church?
For this same Cyprian, in urging his view of the question, was still
anxious to remain in the unity of peace even with those who differed
from him on this point, as is shown by his own opening address at the
beginning of the very Council which is quoted by the Donatists. For
it is as follows:
Footnotes
[1209] Præfocantur.
[1210] The Council of Carthage, A.D. 256, in which eighty-seven
African bishops declared in favor of rebaptizing heretics. The
opinions of the bishops are quoted and answered by Augustin, one by
one, in Books vi and vii.
[1211] Matt. xvi. 18.
[1212] Cypr. Ep. lxxi.
[1213] Gal. i. 20.
[1214] Gal. ii. 14.
[1215] Luke xxiii. 40-43.
[1216] Matt. xxvi. 69-75.
Chapter 2.
--3. "When, on the calends of September, very many bishops
from the provinces of Africa, [1217] Numidia, and Mauritania, with
their presbyters and deacons, had met together at Carthage, a great
part of the laity also being present; and when the letter addressed by
Jubaianus [1218] to Cyprian, as also the answer of Cyprian to
Jubaianus, on the subject of baptizing heretics, had been read,
Cyprian said: `Ye have heard, most beloved colleagues, what
Jubaianus, our fellow-bishop, has written to me, consulting my
moderate ability concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of
heretics, and what answer I gave him,--giving a judgment which we have
once and again and often given, that heretics coming to the Church
ought to be baptized, and sanctified with the baptism of the Church.
Another letter of Jubaianus has likewise been read to you, in which,
agreeably to his sincere and religious devotion, in answer to our
epistle, he not only expressed his assent, but returned thanks also,
acknowledging that he had received instruction. It remains that we
severally declare our opinion on this subject, judging no one, nor
depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us. For
no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical
terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as
every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right
of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than
he can himself judge another. But we must all await the judgment of
our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in
the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein.'"
Footnotes
[1217] That is, the proconsular province of Africa, or Africa
Zeugitana, answering to the northern part of the territory of Tunis.
[1218] The letters of Jubaianas, Mauritanian bishop, are not extant.
Chapter 3.
--4. Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics
raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this
address. Ye mad Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the
peace and unity of the holy Church, that ye may receive health
therein, what have ye to say in answer to this? You are wont, indeed,
to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his
Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and
reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who
can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the
Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it
stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of
the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or
disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and
true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or
are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be
refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the
truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in
the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more
learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and
further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several
districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt,
to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole
Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier
are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual
experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed,
and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any
whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck
through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with
holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?
Chapter 4.
--5. Wherefore the holy Cyprian, whose dignity is only
increased by his humility, who so loved the pattern set by Peter as to
use the words, "Giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience,
that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should
rather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our
brethren and colleagues, for the common health and weal," [1219] --he,
I say, abundantly shows that he was most willing to correct his own
opinion, if any one should prove to him that it is as certain that the
baptism of Christ can be given by those who have strayed from the
fold, as that it could not be lost when they strayed; on which subject
we have already said much. Nor should we ourselves venture to assert
anything of the kind, were we not supported by the unanimous authority
of the whole Church, to which he himself would unquestionably have
yielded, if at that time the truth of this question had been placed
beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council.
For if he quotes Peter as an example for his allowing himself quietly
and peacefully to be corrected by one junior colleague, how much more
readily would he himself, with the Council of his province, have
yielded to the authority of the whole world, when the truth had been
thus brought to light? For, indeed, so holy and peaceful a soul would
have been most ready to assent to the arguments of any single person
who could prove to him the truth; and perhaps he even did so, [1220]
though we have no knowledge of the fact. For it was neither possible
that all the proceedings which took place between the bishops at that
time should have been committed to writing, nor are we acquainted with
all that was so committed. For how could a matter which was involved
in such mists of disputation even have been brought to the full
illumination and authoritative decision of a plenary Council, had it
not first been known to be discussed for some considerable time in the
various districts of the world, with many discussions and comparisons
of the views of the bishop on every side? But this is one effect of
the soundness of peace, that when any doubtful points are long under
investigation, and when, on account of the difficulty of arriving at
the truth, they produce difference of opinion in the course of
brotherly disputation, till men at last arrive at the unalloyed truth;
yet the bond of unity remains, lest in the part that is cut away there
should be found the incurable wound of deadly error.
Footnotes
[1219] See above, c. i. 2.
[1220] Bede asserts that this was the case. Book VIII. qu. 5.
Chapter 5.
--6. And so it is that often something is imperfectly
revealed to the more learned, that their patient and humble charity,
from which proceeds the greater fruit, may be proved, either in the
way in which they preserve unity, when they hold different opinions on
matters of comparative obscurity, or in the temper with which they
receive the truth, when they learn that it has been declared to be
contrary to what they thought. And of these two we have a
manifestation in the blessed Cyprian of the one, viz., of the way in
which he preserved unity with those from whom he differed in opinion.
For he says, "Judging no one nor depriving any one of the right of
communion if he differ from us." [1221]And the other, viz., in what
temper he could receive the truth when found to be different from what
he thought it, though his letters are silent on the point, is yet
proclaimed by his merits. If there is no letter extant to prove it,
it is witnessed by his crown of martyrdom; if the Council of bishops
declare it not, it is declared by the host of angels. For it is no
small proof of a most peaceful soul, that he won the crown of
martyrdom in that unity from which he would not separate, even though
he differed from it. For we are but men; and it is therefore a
temptation incident to men that we should hold views at variance with
the truth on any point. But to come through too great love for our
own opinion, or through jealousy of our betters, even to the sacrilege
of dividing the communion of the Church, and of founding heresy or
schism, is a presumption worthy of the devil. But never in any point
to entertain an opinion at variance with the truth is perfection found
only in the angels. Since then we are men, yet forasmuch as in hope
we are angels, whose equals we shall be in the resurrection, [1222] at
any rate, so long as we are wanting in the perfection of angels, let
us at least be without the presumption of the devil. Accordingly the
apostle says, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is
common to man." [1223]It is therefore part of man's nature to be
sometimes wrong. Wherefore he says in another place, "Let us
therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in anything
ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." [1224]
But to whom does He reveal it when it is His will (be it in this life
or in the life to come), save to those who walk in the way of peace,
and stray not aside into any schism? Not to such as those who have
not known the way of peace, [1225] or for some other cause have broken
the bond of unity. And so, when the apostle said, "And if in anything
ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you," lest
they should think that besides the way of peace their own wrong views
might be revealed to them, he immediately added, "Nevertheless,
whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule."
[1226]And Cyprian, walking by this rule, by the most persistent
tolerance, not simply by the shedding of his blood, but because it was
shed in unity (for if he gave his body to be burned, and had not
charity, it would profit him nothing [1227] ), came by the confession
of martyrdom to the light of the angels, and if not before, at least
then, acknowledged the revelation of the truth on that point on which,
while yet in error, he did not prefer the maintenance of a wrong
opinion to the bond of unity.
Footnotes
[1221] See above, c. ii. 3.
[1222] Matt. xxii. 30.
[1223] 1 Cor x. 13.
[1224] Phil. iii. 15.
[1225] Rom. iii. 17; see on i. 19, 29.
[1226] Phil. iii. 16.
[1227] 1 Cor. xiii. 3.
Chapter 6.
--7. What then, ye Donatists, what have ye to say to this?
If our opinion about baptism is true, yet all who thought differently
in the time of Cyprian were not cut off from the unity of the Church,
till God revealed to them the truth of the point on which they were in
error, why then have ye by your sacrilegious separation broken the
bond of peace? But if yours is the true opinion about baptism,
Cyprian and the others, in conjunction with whom ye set forth that he
held such a Council, remained in unity with those who thought
otherwise; why, therefore, have ye broken the bond of peace? Choose
which alternative ye will, ye are compelled to pronounce an opinion
against your schism. Answer me, wherefore have ye separated
yourselves? Wherefore have ye erected an altar in opposition to the
whole world? Wherefore do ye not communicate with the Churches to
which apostolic epistles have been sent, which you yourselves read and
acknowledge, in accordance with whose tenor you say that you order
your lives? Answer me, wherefore have ye separated yourselves? I
suppose in order that ye might not perish by communion with wicked
men. How then was it that Cyprian, and so many of his colleagues, did
not perish? For though they believed that heretics and schismatics
did not possess baptism, yet they chose rather to hold communion with
them when they had been received into the Church without baptism,
although they believed that their flagrant and sacrilegious sins were
yet upon their heads, than to be separated from the unity of the
Church, according to the words of Cyprian, "Judging no one, nor
depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us."
8. If, therefore, by such communion with the wicked the just cannot
but perish, the Church had already perished in the time of Cyprian.
Whence then sprang the origin of Donatus? where was he taught, where
was he baptized, where was he ordained, since the Church had been
already destroyed by the contagion of communion with the wicked? But
if the Church still existed, the wicked could do no harm to the good
in one communion with them. Wherefore did ye separate yourselves?
Behold, I see in unity Cyprian and others, his colleagues, who, on
holding a council, decided that those who have been baptized without
the communion of the Church have no true baptism, and that therefore
it must be given them when they join the Church. But again, behold I
see in the same unity that certain men think differently in this
matter, and that, recognizing in those who come from heretics and
schismatics the baptism of Christ, they do not venture to baptize them
afresh. All of these catholic unity embraces in her motherly breast,
bearing each other's burdens by turns, and endeavoring to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, [1228] till God should
reveal to one or other of them any error in their views. If the one
party held the truth, were they infected by the others, or no? If the
others held the truth, were they infected by the first, or no? Choose
which ye will. If there was contamination, the Church even then
ceased to exist; answer me, therefore, whence came ye forth hither?
But if the Church remained, the good are in no wise contaminated by
the bad in such communion; answer me, therefore, why did ye break the
bond?
9. Or is it perhaps that schismatics, when received without baptism,
bring no infection, but that it is brought by those who deliver up the
sacred books? [1229]For that there were traditors of your number is
proved by the clearest testimony of history. And if you had then
brought true evidence against those whom you were accusing, you would
have proved your cause before the unity of the whole world, so that
you would have been retained whilst they were shut out. And if you
endeavored to do this, and did not succeed, the world is not to blame,
which trusted the judges of the Church rather than the beaten parties
in the suit; whilst, if you would not urge your suit, the world again
is not to blame, which could not condemn men without their cause being
heard. Why, then, did you separate yourselves from the innocent? You
cannot defend the sacrilege of your schism. But this I pass over.
But so much I say, that if the traditors could have defiled you, who
were not convicted by you, and by whom, on the contrary, you were
beaten, much more could the sacrilege of schismatics and heretics,
received into the Church, as you maintain, without baptism, have
defiled Cyprian. Yet he did not separate himself. And inasmuch as
the Church continued to exist, it is clear that it could not be
defiled. Wherefore, then, did you separate yourselves, I do not say
from the innocent, as the facts proved them, but from the traditors,
as they were never proved to be? Are the sins of traditors, as I
began to say, heavier than those of schismatics? Let us not bring in
deceitful balances, to which we may hang what weights we will and how
we will, saying to suit ourselves, "This is heavy and this is light;"
but let us bring forward the sacred balance out of holy Scripture, as
out of the Lord's treasure-house, and let us weigh them by it, to see
which is the heavier; or rather, let us not weigh them for ourselves,
but read the weights as declared by the Lord. At the time when the
Lord showed, by the example of recent punishment, that there was need
to guard against the sins of olden days, and an idol was made and
worshipped, and the prophetic book was burned by the wrath of a
scoffing king, and schism was attempted, the idolatry was punished
with the sword, [1230] the burning of the book by slaughter in war and
captivity in a foreign land, [1231] schism by the earth opening, and
swallowing up alive the leaders of the schism while the rest were
consumed with fire from heaven. [1232]Who will now doubt that that
was the worse crime which received the heavier punishment? If men
coming from such sacrilegious company, without baptism, as you
maintain, could not defile Cyprian, how could those defile you who
were not convicted but supposed betrayers of the sacred books? [1233]
For if they had not only given up the books to be burned, but had
actually burned them with their own hands, they would have been guilty
of a less sin than if they had committed schism; for schism is visited
with the heavier, the other with the lighter punishment, not at man's
discretion, but by the judgment of God.
Footnotes
[1228] Eph. iv. 3.
[1229] Traditores sanctorum librorum.
[1230] Ex. xxxii.
[1231] Jer. xxxvi.
[1232] Num. xvi.
[1233] Non convicti sed conficti traditores.
Chapter 7.
--10. Wherefore, then, have ye severed yourselves? If
there is any sense left in you, you must surely see that you can find
no possible answer to these arguments. "We are not left," they say,
"so utterly without resource, but that we can still answer, It is our
will. `Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own
master he standeth or falleth.'" [1234]They do not understand that
this was said to men who were wishing to judge, not of open facts, but
of the hearts of other men. For how does the apostle himself come to
say so much about the sins of schisms and heresies? Or how comes that
verse in the Psalms, "If of a truth ye love justice, judge uprightly,
O ye sons of men?" [1235]But why does the Lord Himself say, "Judge
not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment," [1236]
if we may not judge any man? Lastly, why, in the case of those
traditors, whom they have judged unrighteously, have they themselves
ventured to pass any judgments at all on another man's servants? To
their own master they were standing or falling. Or why, in the case
of the recent followers of Maximianus, have they not hesitated to
bring forward the judgment delivered with the infallible voice, as
they aver, of a plenary Council, in such terms as to compare them with
those first schismatics whom the earth swallowed up alive? And yet
some of them, as they cannot deny, they either condemned though
innocent, or received back again in their guilt. But when a truth is
urged which they cannot gainsay, they mutter a truly wholesome
murmuring: "It is our will: `Who art thou that judgest another man's
servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.'" But when a weak
sheep is espied in the desert, and the pastor who should reclaim it to
the fold is nowhere to be seen, then there is setting of teeth, and
breaking of the weak neck: "Thou wouldst be a good man, wert thou not
a traditor. Consult the welfare of thy soul; be a Christian." What
unconscionable madness! When it is said to a Christian, "Be a
Christian," what other lesson is taught, save a denial that he is a
Christian? Was it not the same lesson which those persecutors of the
Christians wished to teach, by resisting whom the crown of martyrdom
was gained? Or must we even look on crime as lighter when committed
with threatening of the sword than with treachery of the tongue?
11. Answer me this, ye ravening wolves, who, seeking to be clad in
sheep's clothing, [1237] think that the letters of the blessed Cyprian
are in your favor. Did the sacrilege of schismatics defile Cyprian,
or did it not? If it did, the Church perished from that instant, and
there remained no source from which ye might spring. If it did not,
then by what offense on the part of others can the guiltless possibly
be defiled, if the sacrilege of schism cannot defile them? Wherefore,
then, have ye severed yourselves? Wherefore, while shunning the
lighter offenses, which are inventions of your own, have ye committed
the heaviest offense of all, the sacrilege of schism? Will ye now
perchance confess that those men were no longer schismatics or
heretics who had been baptized without the communion of the Church, or
in some heresy or schism, because by coming over to the Church, and
renouncing their former errors, they had ceased to be what formerly
they were? How then was it, that though they were not baptized, their
sins remained not on their heads? Was it that the baptism was
Christ's, but that it could not profit them without the communion of
the Church; yet when they came over, and, renouncing their past error,
were received into the communion of the Church by the laying on of
hands, then, being now rooted and founded in charity, without which
all other things are profitless, they began to receive profit for the
remission of sins and the sanctification of their lives from that
sacrament, which, while without the pale of the Church, they possessed
in vain?
12. Cease, then, to bring forward against us the authority of Cyprian
in favor of repeating baptism, but cling with us to the example of
Cyprian for the preservation of unity. For this question of baptism
had not been as yet completely worked out, but yet the Church observed
the most wholesome custom of correcting what was wrong, not repeating
what was already given, even in the case of schismatics and heretics:
she healed the wounded part, but did not meddle with what was whole.
And this custom, coming, I suppose, from apostolical tradition (like
many other things which are held to have been handed down under their
actual sanction, because they are preserved throughout the whole
Church, though they are not found either in their letters, or in the
Councils of their successors),--this most wholesome custom, I say,
according to the holy Cyprian, began to be what is called amended by
his predecessor Agrippinus. [1238]But, according to the teaching
which springs from a more careful investigation into the truth, which,
after great doubt and fluctuation, was brought at last to the decision
of a plenary Council, we ought to believe that it rather began to be
corrupted than to receive correction at the hands of Agrippinus.
Accordingly, when so great a question forced itself upon him, and it
was difficult to decide the point, whether remission of sins and man's
spiritual regeneration could take place among heretics or schismatics,
and the authority of Agrippinus was there to guide him, with that of
some few men who shared in his misapprehension of this question,
having preferred attempting something new to maintaining a custom
which they did not understand how to defend; under these circumstances
considerations of probability forced themselves into the eyes of his
soul, and barred the way to the thorough investigation of the truth.
Footnotes
[1234] Rom. xiv. 4.
[1235] Ps. lviii. 1. Aug.: Si vere justitiam diligitis, recte
judicate filii hominum. Cp. Hieron.: Si vere utique justitiam
loquimini, recta judicate filii hominum.
[1236] John vii. 24.
[1237] Matt. vii. 15.
[1238] Agrippinus was probably the second (some place him still
earlier) bishop before Cyprian. He convened the council of 70
(disputed date), who were the first to take action in favor of
rebaptism. Cp. Cypr. Ep. lxxi. 4, bonæ memoriæ vir. Cp. lxxiii. 3.
Chapter 8.
--13. Nor do I think that the blessed Cyprian had any other
motive in the free expression and earlier utterance of what he thought
in opposition to the custom of the Church, save that he should
thankfully receive any one that could be found with a fuller
revelation of the truth, and that he should show forth a pattern for
imitation, not only of diligence in teaching, but also of modesty in
learning; but that, if no one should be found to bring forward any
argument by which those considerations of probability should be
refuted, then he should abide by his opinion, with the full
consciousness that he had neither concealed what he conceived to be
the truth, nor violated the unity which he loved. For so he
understood the words of the apostle: "Let the prophets speak two or
three, and let the other judge. If anything be revealed to another
that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace." [1239]"In which
passage he has taught and shown, that many things are revealed to
individuals for the better, and that we ought not each to strive
pertinaciously for what he has once imbibed and held, but if anything
has appeared better and more useful, he should willingly embrace it."
[1240]At any rate, in these words he not only advised those to
agree with him who saw no better course, but also exhorted any who
could to bring forward arguments by which the maintenance of the
former custom might rather be established; that if they should be of
such a nature as not to admit of refutation, he might show in his own
person with what sincerity he said "that we ought not each to strive
pertinaciously for what he has once imbibed and held, but that, if
anything has appeared better and more useful, he should willingly
embrace it." [1241]But inasmuch as none appeared, except such as
simply urged the custom against him, and the arguments which they
produced in its favor were not of a kind to bring conviction to a soul
like his, this mighty reasoner was not content to give up his
opinions, which, though they were not true, as he was himself unable
to see, were at any rate not confuted, in favor of a custom which had
truth on its side, but had not yet been confirmed. And yet, had not
his predecessor Agrippinus, and some of his fellow-bishops throughout
Africa, first tempted him to desert this custom, even by the decision
of a Council, he certainly would not have dared to argue against it.
But, amid the perplexities of so obscure a question, and seeing
everywhere around him a strong universal custom, he would rather have
put restraint upon himself by prayer and stretching forth his mind
towards God, so as to have perceived or taught that for truth which
was afterwards decided by a plenary Council. But when he had found
relief amid his weariness in the authority of the former Council
[1242] which was held by Agrippinus, he preferred maintaining what was
in a manner the discovery of his predecessors, to expending further
toil in investigation. For, at the end of his letter to Quintus, he
thus shows how he has sought repose, if one may use the expression,
for his weariness, in what might be termed the resting-place of
authority. [1243]
Footnotes
[1239] 1 Cor. xiv. 29, 30.
[1240] Cypr. Ep. lxxi.
[1241] Cypr. Ep. lxxi.
[1242] The former Council of Carthage was held by Agrippinus early in
the third century, the ordinary date given being 215-7 A.D.; others
186-7.
[1243] Tanquam lectulo auctoritatis.
Chapter 9.
--14. "This, moreover," says he, "Agrippinus, a man of
excellent memory, with the rest, bishops with him, who at that time
governed the Church of the Lord in the province of Africa and Numidia,
did establish and, after the investigation of a mutual Council had
weighed it, confirm; whose sentence, being both religious and
legitimate and salutary in accordance with the Catholic faith and
Church, we also have followed." [1244]By this witness he gives
sufficient proof how much more ready he would have been to bear his
testimony, had any Council been held to discuss this matter which
either embraced the whole Church, or at least represented our brethren
beyond the sea. [1245]But such a Council had not yet been held,
because the whole world was bound together by the powerful bond of
custom; and this was deemed sufficient to oppose to those who wished
to introduce what was new, because they could not comprehend the
truth. Afterwards, however, while the question became matter for
discussion and investigation amongst many on either side, the new
practice was not only invented, but even submitted to the authority
and power of a plenary Council,--after the martyrdom of Cyprian, it is
true, but before we were born. [1246]But that this was indeed the
custom of the Church, which afterwards was confirmed by a plenary
Council, in which the truth was brought to light, and many
difficulties cleared away, is plain enough from the words of the
blessed Cyprian himself in that same letter to Jubaianus, which was
quoted as being read in the Council. [1247]For he says, "But some
one asks, What then will be done in the case of those who, coming out
of heresy to the Church, have already been admitted without baptism?"
where certainly he shows plainly enough what was usually done, though
he would have wished it otherwise; and in the very fact of his quoting
the Council of Agrippinus, he clearly proves that the custom of the
Church was different. Nor indeed was it requisite that he should seek
to establish the practice by this Council, if it was already
sanctioned by custom; and in the Council itself some of the speakers
expressly declare, in giving their opinion, that they went against the
custom of the Church in deciding what they thought was right.
Wherefore let the Donatists consider this one point, which surely none
can fail to see, that if the authority of Cyprian is to be followed,
it is to be followed rather in maintaining unity than in altering the
custom of the Church; but if respect is paid to his Council, it must
at any rate yield place to the later Council of the universal Church,
of which he rejoiced to be a member, often warning his associates that
they should all follow his example in upholding the coherence of the
whole body. For both later Councils are preferred among later
generations to those of earlier date; and the whole is always, with
good reason, looked upon as superior to the parts.
Footnotes
[1244] Cypr. Ep. lxxi. 4.
[1245] Transmarinum vel universale Concilium.
[1246] The plenary Council, on whose authority Augustin relies in many
places in this work, was either that of Arles, in 314 A.D., or of
Nicæa, in 325 A.D., both of them being before his birth, in 354 A.D.
He quotes the decision of the same council, contra Parmenianum, ii.
13, 30; de Hæresibus 69: Ep. xliii. 7, 19. Contra Parmenianum, iii.
4, 21: "They condemned," he says, "some few in Africa, by whom they
were in turn vanquished by the judgment of the whole world;" and he
adds, that "the Catholics trusted ecclesiastical judges like these in
preference to the defeated parties in the suit." Ib. 6, 30: He says
that the Donatists, "having made a schism in the unity of the Church,
were refuted, not by the authority of 310 African bishops, but by that
of the whole world." And in the sixth chapter of the first book of
the same treatise, he says that the Donatists, after the decision at
Arles, came again to Constantine, and there were defeated "by a final
decision," i.e. at Milan, as is seen from Ep. xliii. 7, 20, in the
year 316 A.D. Substance of note in Benedictine ed. reproduced in
Migne.
[1247] See above, ch. ii. 3.
Chapter 10.
--15. But what attitude do they assume, when it is shown
that the holy Cyprian, though he did not himself admit as members of
the Church those who had been baptized in heresy or schism, yet held
communion with those who did admit them, according to his express
declaration, "Judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of
communion if he differ from us?" [1248]If he was polluted by
communion with persons of this kind, why do they follow his authority
in the question of baptism? But if he was not polluted by communion
with them, why do they not follow his example in maintaining unity?
Have they anything to urge in their defense except the plea, "We
choose to have it so?" What other answer have any sinful or wicked
men to the discourse of truth or justice,--the voluptuous, for
instance, the drunkards, adulterers, and those who are impure in any
way, thieves, robbers, murderers, plunderers, evil-doers,
idolaters,--what other answer can they make when convicted by the
voice of truth, except "I choose to do it;" "It is my pleasure so"?
And if they have in them a tinge of Christianity, they say further,
"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" [1249]Yet these
have so much more remains of modesty, that when, in accordance with
divine and human law, they meet with punishment for their abandoned
life and deeds, they do not style themselves martyrs; while the
Donatists wish at once to lead a sacrilegious life and enjoy a
blameless reputation, to suffer no punishment for their wicked deeds,
and to gain a martyr's glory in their just punishment. As if they
were not experiencing the greater mercy and patience of God, in
proportion as "executing His judgments upon them by little and little,
He giveth them place of repentance," [1250] and ceases not to redouble
His scourgings in this life; that, considering what they suffer, and
why they suffer it, they may in time grow wise; and that those who
have received the baptism of the party of Maximianus in order to
preserve the unity of Donatus, may the more readily embrace the
baptism of the whole world in order to preserve the peace of Christ;
that they may be restored to the root, may be reconciled to the unity
of the Church, may see that they have nothing left for them to say,
though something yet remains for them to do; that for their former
deeds the sacrifice of loving-kindness may be offered to a
long-suffering God, whose unity they have broken by their wicked sin,
on whose sacraments they have inflicted such a lasting wrong. For
"the Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, plenteous in mercy
and truth." [1251]Let them embrace His mercy and long-suffering in
this life, and fear His truth in the next. For He willeth not the
death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his way and
live; [1252] because He bends His judgment against the wrongs that
have been inflicted on Him. This is our exhortation.
Footnotes
[1248] Ib.
[1249] Rom. xiv. 4.
[1250] Wisd. xii. 10.
[1251] Not Ps. ciii. 8, but lxxxvi. 15.
[1252] Ezek. xxiii. 11.
Chapter 11.
--16. For this reason, then, we hold them to be enemies,
because we speak the truth, because we are afraid to be silent,
because we fear to shrink from pressing our point with all the force
that lies within our power, because we obey the apostle when he says,
"Preach the word; be instant in season out of season; reprove, rebuke,
exhort." [1253]But, as the gospel says, "They love the praise of
men more than the praise of God;" [1254] and while they fear to incur
blame for a time, they do not fear to incur damnation for ever. They
see, too, themselves what wrong they are doing; they see that they
have no answer which they can make, but they overspread the
inexperienced with mists, whilst they themselves are being swallowed
up alive,--that is, are perishing knowingly and willfully. They see
that men are amazed, and look with abhorrence on the fact that they
have divided themselves into many schisms, especially in Carthage,
[1255] the capital and most noted city of all Africa; they have
endeavored to patch up the disgrace of their rags. Thinking that they
could annihilate the followers of Maximianus, they pressed heavily on
them through the agency of Optatus the Gildonian; [1256] they
inflicted on them many wrongs amid the cruellest of persecutions.
Then they received back some, thinking that all could be converted
under the influence of the same terror; but they were unwilling to do
those whom they received the wrong of baptizing afresh those who had
been baptized by them in their schism, or rather of causing them to be
baptized again within their communion by the very same men by whom
they had been baptized outside, and thus they at once made an
exception to their own impious custom. They feel how wickedly they
are acting in assailing the baptism of the whole world, when they have
received the baptism of the followers of Maximianus. But they fear
those whom they have themselves rebaptized, lest they should receive
no mercy from them, when they have shown it to others; lest these
should call them to account for their souls when they have ceased to
destroy those of other men.
Footnotes
[1253] 2 Tim. iv. 2.
[1254] John xii. 43.
[1255] He is alluding to that chief schism among the Donatists, which
occurred when Maximianus was consecrated bishop of Carthage, in
opposition to Primianus, probably immediately after the Synod of
Cabarsussum, 393.
[1256] Optatus, a Donatist bishop of Thamogade in Numidia, was called
Gildonianus from his adherence to Gildo, Count of Africa, and
generalissimo of the province under the elder Theodosius. On his
death, in 395 A.D., Gildo usurped supreme authority, and by his aid
Optatus was enabled to oppress the Catholics in the province, till, in
398 A.D., Gildo was defeated by his brother Mascezel, and destroyed
himself, and Optatus was put in prison, where he died soon
afterwards. He is not to be confounded with Optatus, Bishop of
Milevis, the strenuous opponent of the Donatists.
Chapter 12.
--17. What answer they can give about the followers of
Maximianus whom they have received, they cannot divine. If they say,
"Those we received were innocent," the answer is obvious, "Then you
had condemned the innocent." If they say, "We did it in ignorance,"
then you judged rashly (just as you passed a rash judgment on the
traditors), and your declaration was false that "you must know that
they were condemned by the truthful voice of a plenary Council."
[1257]For indeed the innocent could never be condemned by a voice
of truth. If they say, "We did not condemn them," it is only
necessary to cite the Council, to cite the names of bishops and states
alike. If they say, "The Council itself is none of ours," then we
cite the records of the proconsular province, where more than once
they quoted the same Council to justify the exclusion of the followers
of Maximianus from the basilicas, and to confound them by the din of
the judges and the force of their allies. If they say that Felicianus
of Musti, and Prætextatus of Assavæ, whom they afterwards received,
were not of the party of Maximianus, then we cite the records in which
they demanded, in the courts of law, that these persons should be
excluded from the Council which they held against the party of
Maximianus. If they say, "They were received for the sake of peace,"
our answer is, "Why then do ye not acknowledge the only true and full
peace? Who urged you, who compelled you to receive a schismatic whom
you had condemned, to preserve the peace of Donatus, and to condemn
the world unheard, in violation of the peace of Christ?" Truth hems
them in on every side. They see that there is no answer left for them
to make, and they think that there is nothing left for them to do;
they cannot find out what to say. They are not allowed to be silent.
They had rather strive with perverse utterance against truth, than be
restored to peace by a confession of their faults.
Footnotes
[1257] The Council of Bagai. See above, I. v. 7.
Chapter 13.
--18. But who can fail to understand what they may be
saying in their hearts? "What then are we to do," say they, "with
those whom we have already rebaptized?" Return with them to the
Church. Bring those whom you have wounded to be healed by the
medicine of peace: bring those whom you have slain to be brought to
life again by the life of charity. Brotherly union has great power in
propitiating God. "If two of you," says our Lord, "shall agree on
earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for
them." [1258]If for two men who agree, how much more for two
communities? Let us throw ourselves together on our knees before the
Lord. Do you share with us our unity; let us share with you your
contrition and let charity cover the multitude of sins. [1259]Seek
counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered
to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever
himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how,
though he considered that those who were baptized outside the
communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to
believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely
in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For
thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as
follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, `What then will become of
those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were
admitted without baptism?' The Lord is able of His mercy to grant
pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being
out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen
asleep." [1260]
Footnotes
[1258] Matt. xviii. 19.
[1259] 1 Pet. iv. 8.
[1260] Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 23 to Jubaianus.
Chapter 14.
--19. But which is the worse, not to be baptized at all,
or to be twice baptized, it is difficult to decide. I see, indeed,
which is more repugnant and abhorrent to men's feelings; but when I
have recourse to that divine balance, in which the weight of things is
determined, not by man's feelings, but by the authority of God, I find
a statement by our Lord on either side.For He said to Peter, "He
who is washed has no need of washing a second time;" [1261] and to
Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God." [1262]What is the purport of the
more secret determination of God, it is perhaps difficult for men like
us to learn; but as far as the mere words are concerned, any one may
see what a difference there is between "has no need of washing," and
"cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." The Church, lastly,
herself holds as her tradition, that without baptism she cannot admit
a man to her altar at all; but since it is allowed that one who has
been rebaptized may be admitted after penance, surely this plainly
proves that his baptism is considered valid. If, therefore, Cyprian
thought that those whom he considered to be unbaptized yet had some
share in pardon, in virtue of the bond of unity, the Lord has power to
be reconciled even to the rebaptized by means of the simple bond of
unity and peace, and by this same compensating power of peace to
mitigate His displeasure against those by whom they were rebaptized,
and to pardon all the errors which they had committed while in error,
on their offering the sacrifice of charity, which covereth the
multitude of sins; so that He looks not to the number of those who
have been wounded by their separation, but to the greater number who
have been delivered from bondage by their return. For in the same
bond of peace in which Cyprian conceived that, through the mercy of
God, those whom he considered to have been admitted to the Church
without baptism, were yet not severed from the gifts of the Church, we
also believe that through the same mercy of God the rebaptized can
earn their pardon at His hands.
Footnotes
[1261] John xiii. 10. "Qui lotus est, non habet necessitatem iterum
lavandi." The Latin, with the A.V., loses the distinction between ho
leloumenos, "he that has bathed," and niptein, "to wash:" and further
wrongfully introduces the idea of repetition.
[1262] John iii. 5.
Chapter 15.
--20. Since the Catholic Church, both in the time of the
blessed Cyprian and in the older time before him, contained within her
bosom either some that were rebaptized or some that were unbaptized,
either the one section or the other must have won their salvation only
by the force of simple unity. For if those who came over from the
heretics were not baptized, as Cyprian asserts, they were not rightly
admitted into the Church; and yet he himself did not despair of their
obtaining pardon from the mercy of God in virtue of the unity of the
Church. So again, if they were already baptized, it was not right to
rebaptize them. What, therefore, was there to aid the other section,
save the same charity that delighted in unity, so that what was hidden
from man's weakness, in the consideration of the sacrament, might not
be reckoned, by the mercy of God, as a fault in those who were lovers
of peace? Why, then, while ye fear those whom ye have rebaptized, do
ye grudge yourselves and them the entrance to salvation? There was at
one time a doubt upon the subject of baptism; those who held different
opinions yet remained in unity. In course of time, owing to the
certain discovery of the truth, that doubt was taken away. The
question which, unsolved, did not frighten Cyprian into separation
from the Church, invites you, now that it is solved, to return once
more within the fold. Come to the Catholic Church in its agreement,
which Cyprian did not desert while yet disturbed with doubt; or if now
you are dissatisfied with the example of Cyprian, who held communion
with those who were received with the baptism of heretics, declaring
openly that we should "neither judge any one, nor deprive any one of
the right of communion if he differ from us," [1263] whither are ye
going, ye wretched men? What are ye doing? You are bound to fly even
from yourselves, because you have advanced beyond the position where
he abode. But if neither his own sins nor those of others could stand
in his way, on account of the abundance of his charity and his love of
brotherly kindness and the bond of peace, do you return to us, where
you will find much less hindrance in the way of either us or you from
the fictions which your party have invented.
Footnotes
[1263] See above, cii. 3.
Also, see links to 600+ other Augustine Manuscripts:
/believe/txv/earlyche.htm
/believe/txv/earlychf.htm
/believe/txv/earlychg.htm
/believe/txv/earlychh.htm
/believe/txv/earlychi.htm
/believe/txv/earlychj.htm
/believe/txv/earlychk.htm
/believe/txv/earlychl.htm
/believe/txv/earlychm.htm
/believe/txv/earlychn.htm
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet
http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html