66

3

2

66

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.”’5 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,

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." But, as the gospel says, "They love the praise of men more than the praise of God;" 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 them-"The Council itself is none of ours," then selves are being swallowed up alive, that is, we cite the records of the proconsular provare perishing knowingly and willfully. They ince, where more than once they quoted the see that men are amazed, and look with ab- same Council to justify the exclusion of the horrence on the fact that they have divided followers of Maximianus from the basilicas, themselves into many schisms, especially in and to confound them by the din of the judges Carthage, the capital and most noted city of and the force of their allies. If they say that all Africa; they have endeavored to patch up Felicianus of Musti, and Prætextatus of Asthe disgrace of their rags. Thinking that save, whom they afterwards received, were they could annihilate the followers of Maxi- not of the party of Maximianus, then we cite mianus, they pressed heavily on them through the records in which they demanded, in the the agency of Optatus the Gildonian; they courts of law, that these persons should be inflicted on them many wrongs amid the excluded from the Council which they held 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.

CHAP. 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,"

12 Tim. iv. 2.

2 John xii. 43.

3 He is alluding to that chief schism among the Donatists, thage, in opposition to Primianus, probably immediately after the Synod of Cabarsussum, 393:

which occurred when Maximianus was consecrated bishop of Car

4 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.

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.

Bring

CHAP. 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. 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." If for two men who agree, how much more for two communities? Let us throw ourselves together on our knees

5 The Council of Bagai. See above, I. v. 7.

6 Matt. xviii. 19.

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. 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."

CHAP. 14.-19.

of unity and peace, and by this same compensating power of peace to mitigate His displeas ure against those by whom they were rebap. tized, 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.

CHAP. 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 salBut which is the worse, vation only by the force of simple unity. For not to be baptized at all, or to be twice bap-if those who came over from the heretics were tized, 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;"3 and to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 4 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 2 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 23, to Jubaianus.

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 here. tics, declaring openly that we should "neither 3 John xiii. 1o. Qui lotus est, non habet necessitatem iterum judge any one, nor deprive any one of the lavandi. The Latin, with the A.V., loses the distinction between ☀ Aedovμéros, "he that has bathed," and vinter, to right of communion if he differ from us,"

11 Pet. iv. 8.

66

wash and further wrongfully introduces the idea of repetition. 4 ohn iii. 5.

5 See above, cii. 3.

BOOK III.

AUGUSTIN UNDERTAKES THE REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENTS WHICH MIGHT BE DERIVED FROM THE EPISTLE OF CYPRIAN TO JUBAIANUS, TO GIVE COLOR TO THE VIEW THAT THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST COULD NOT BE CONFERRED BY HERETICS.

CHAP. I.-I. I think that it may now be through discussions of this kind, might be considered clear to every one, that the au- cured by the more powerful truth and univerthority of the blessed Cyprian for the main- sal healing power of unity coming on the side tenance of the bond of peace, and the avoid- of safety. And so they may see with what ing of any violation of that most wholesome security I approach this discourse. If I am charity which preserves unity in the Church, unable to gain my point, and show how those may be urged on our side rather than on the arguments may be refuted which they bring side of the Donatists. For if they have forward from the Council and the epistles of chosen to act upon his example in rebaptizing Cyprian, to the effect that Christ's baptism Catholics, because he thought that heretics may not be given by the hands of heretics, I ought to be baptized on joining the Catholic shall still remain safely in the Church, in Church, shall not we rather follow his exam- whose communion Cyprian himself remained ple, whereby he laid down a manifest rule with those who differed from him. that one ought in no wise, by the establishment of a separate communion, to secede from the Catholic communion, that is, from the body of Christians dispersed throughout the world, even on the admission of evil and sacrilegious men, since he was unwilling even to remove from the right of communion those whom he considered to have received sacrilegious men without baptism into the Catholic communion, saying, "Judging no one, nor depriving any of the right of communion if he differ from us?"

CHAP. 2.-2. Nevertheless, I see what may still be required of me, viz., that I should answer those plausible arguments, by which, in even earlier times, Agrippinus, or Cyprian himseif, or those in Africa who agreed with them, or any others in far distant lands beyond the sea, were moved, not indeed by the authority of any plenary or even regionary Council, but by a mere epistolary correspondence, to think that they ought to adopt a custom which had no sanction from the ancient custom of the Church, and which was expressly forbidden by the most unanimous resolution of the Catholic world in order that an error which had begun to creep into the minds of some men,

1 See above, II. ii. 3.

3. But if they say that the Catholic Church existed then, because there were a few, or, if they prefer it, even a considerable number, who denied the validity of any baptism conferred in an heretical body, and baptized all who came from thence, what then? Did the Church not exist at all before Agrippinus, with whom that new kind of system began, at variance with all previous custom? Or how, again after the time of Agrippinus, when, unless there had been a return to the primitive custom, there would have been no need for Cyprian to set on foot another Council? Was there no Church then, because such a custom as this prevailed everywhere, that the baptism of Christ should be considered nothing but the baptism of Christ, even though it were proved to have been conferred in a body of heretics or schismatics? But if the Church existed even then, and had not perished through a breach of its continuity, but was, on the contrary, holding its ground, and receiving increase in every nation, surely it is the safest plan to abide by this same custom, which then embraced good and bad alike in unity. But if there was then no Church in existence, because sacrilegious heretics were received without baptism, and this prevailed by universal custom, whence has Donatus made his appearance? From what land did

66

In

to his sincere and religious devotion, in an-
swer to our epistle, he not only expressed his
assent, but returned thanks also, acknowledg-
ing that he had received instruction."
these words of the blessed Cyprian, we find
that he had been consulted by Jubaianus, and
what answer he had given to his questions,
and how Jubaianus acknowledged with grati-
tude that he had received instruction. Ought
we then to be thought unreasonably persistent
if we desire to consider this same epistle by
which Jubaianus was convinced? For till such
time as we are also convinced (if there are any
arguments of truth whereby this can be done),
Cyprian himself has established our security
by the right of Catholic communion.

he spring? or from what sea did he emerge? CHAP. 3.-4. Let us therefore, seeing that or from what sky did he fall? And so we, as we adhere to the example of Cyprian, go on I had begun to say, are safe in the commu- now to consider Cyprian's Council. What nion of that Church, throughout the whole ex- says Cyprian? "Ye have heard," he says, tent of which the custom now prevails, which most beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus prevailed in like manner through its whole our fellow-bishop has written to me, consulting extent before the time of Agrippinus, and in my moderate ability concerning the unlawful the interval between Agrippinus and Cyprian, and profane baptism of heretics, and what and whose unity neither Agrippinus nor Cyp- answer I gave him,-giving a judgment which rian ever deserted, nor those who agreed we have once and again and often given, that with them, although they entertained different heretics coming to the Church ought to be views from the rest of their brethren-all of baptized and sanctified with the baptism of them remaining in the same communion of the Church. Another letter of Jubaianus has unity with the very men from whom they dif- likewise been read to you, in which, agreeably fered in opinion. But let the Donatists themselves consider what their true position is, if they neither can say whence they derived their origin, if the Church had already been destroyed by the plague-spot of communion with heretics and schismatics received into her bosom without baptism; nor again agree with Cyprian himself, for he declared that he remained in communion with those who received heretics and schismatics, and so also with those who were received as well: while they have separated themselves from the communion of the whole world, on account of the charge of having delivered up the sacred books, which they brought against the men whom they maligned in Africa, but failed to convict when brought to trial beyond the sea; although, even had the crimes which they alleged been true, they were much less heinous than the sins of heresy and schism; and yet these could not defile Cyprian in the persons of those who came from them without baptism, as he conceived, and were admitted without baptism into the Catholic communion. Nor, in the very point in which they say that they imitate Cyprian, can they find any answer to make about acknowledging the baptism of the followers of Maximianus, together with those whom, though they belonged to the party that they had first condemned in their own plenary Council, and then gone on to prosecute even at the tribunal of the secular power, they yet received back into their communion, in the episcopate of the very same bishop under whom they had been condemned. Wherefore, if the communion of wicked men destroyed the Church in the time of Cyprian, they have no source from which they can derive their own communion; and if the Church was not destroyed, they have no excuse for their separation from it. Moreover, they are neither following the example of Cyprian, since they have burst the bond of unity, nor abiding by their own Council, since they have recognized the baptism of the followers of Maximianus.

"setteth himself up

5. For he goes on to say: "It remains that we severally declare our opinion on this same subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us." He allows me, therefore, without losing the right of communion, not only to continue inquiring into the truth, but even to hold opinions differing from his own. "For no one of us," he says, as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying." What could be more kind? what more humble? Surely there is here no authority restraining us from inquiry into what is truth. "Inasmuch as every bishop," he says, "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,"-that is, I suppose, in those questions which have not yet been brought to perfect clearness of solution; for he knew what a deep question about the sacrament was then occupying the whole Church with every kind of disputation, and gave free liberty of inquiry to every man, that the truth might be made known by investigation. For he was surely not uttering what was false, and trying to catch his simpler colleagues in their

1 See above, II. ii. 3.