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."- 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 j had not yet been confirmed. And yet, had ' not his predecessor Agrippinus, and some of * Cypr. /,"/. Ixxi.
ids 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, <ind 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 3 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."
Chap. 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 salu tary in accordance with the Catholic faith and Church, we also have followed. "^ 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.^ 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.^ But that this was indeed the 3 The former Council of CarthaKc was held by Agrippinus early in the third century, the ordinary date given being 215-7 a^.; others 186-7.
4 Tanquain leciulo auctoritatis. 5 Cypr. Ef<. Ixxi. 4. * '/'ransiimri'itii HI 7'i'l iiniTcrsuU Coii iliii 111.
7 The plenary Council, on whose authority Augustin relies in many places in this work, was either that of.Vrles, in ■^\^ a.d., or of Nicaa, in 325 a.d., both of them being before his birth, in 354 A.D. He quotes the decision of the same council, rontra PariiieniaKutii, ii. 13, 30; de Hipresil'us, t^g: Efi. xliii. 7, 19. Contra Partiirniamiviy iii. 4, 21: " They condemned," he says, " st>me few in.Africa, by whom they were in turn vanquished by the judgment of the whole world;" and he adds, that " the Catholics 4,^2 [Book II.
custom of the Church, which afterwards was confirmed by a plenary Council, in which the trutli was brought to light, and many difificulties 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.' 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.
Chap. io. — 15. But what attitude do they assume, when it is shown that the holy Cyprian, though he did not himself adtnit 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? " ^ 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 trusted ecclesiastical judges like these in preference to the defeated parties in the suit." lb. 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 Aries, came again to Constantine, and there were defeated " by a final decision," r'.e. at Milan, as is seen from.f/. xl'ii. 7, 20, in the year 316 A.o. Substance of note in Benedictine ed. reproduced in Aligne.
I See above, ch. ii. 3. s 73.
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? " ^ 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; whde 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,"" 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." s Let them embrace His mercy and long-suffering in this life, and fear His truth in the next, u For He willeth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his way and live;* because He bends His judgment against the wrongs that have been inflicted on Him. This is our exhortation.
Chap. 9. — 16. For this reason, then, we hold them to be enemies, because we speak the truth, because we are afraid to be silent, 3 Rom. xiv. 4.
5 Not Ps. ciii. 8, but Ixxxvi. 15.
4 Wisd. xii. 10. 6 Ezek. xxiii. 11.
Chap. XIII.J 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 themselves are being swallowed up alive, — that is, are perishing knowingly and willfully. They; see that men are amazed, and look v;ith ab-[ horrence on the fact that they have divided themselves into many schisms, especially in ' Carthage, 5 the capital and most noted city of I all Africa; they have endeavored to patch up the disgrace of their rags. Thinking that they could annihilate the followers of Maxii mianus, they pressed heavily on them through jthe agency of Optatus the Gildonian;-* they j 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.
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," j 3 He is alluding to that chief schism among the Donatists, jwhich occurred when Maximianus was consecrated bishop of Car-'^f^e, in opposition to Primianus, probably immediately after the ■>'>d of Cabarsussum, 393.
-1 Optatus, a Donatist bishop of Thamogade in Numidia, was jcalled Gildonianus from his adherence to Gildo, Count of Africa, ]and ceneralissimo of the province under the elder Theodosius. 1 1 )n!n~ death, in 395 A.D., (jildo usurped supreme authority, and My 1 •-,iid Optatus was enabled to oppress the Catholics in the Iprovinie, till, in 398 A.i)., Cildo was defeated by his brother Mas-|cezel, and destroyed himself, and Optatus was put in prison, where itr- died soon afterwards. He is not to be confounded with Op- Ls, Bishop of Milevis, the strenuous opponent of the Donatists.
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."^ For indeed the innocent could never be condemned by a voice of truth. If they saj^, " 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 Prstextatus of Assavae, 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.
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. Bring those whom you have wounded to be healed by the medicine of peace: bring those whom you have slain to be l^rought 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 [Book II.
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. 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;" ^ and to Nicodemus, " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."'* 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 1 I Pet. iv. 8. 2 Cypr. Ep. Ixxiii. 23, to Jubaianus.
3 John xiii. 10. '• Qui loins est, noti habei neccssitatem iterum lavandi." The Latin, with the A.V., loses the distinction between 0 AeAovfieVos, "he that has bathed" and riTTTeic, "to 7vash:" and further wrongfully introduces the idea of repetition.
4 'olin iii. T.
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.
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 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,"' 5 See above, cii. 3.
CiiAP. XV.]
ON BAPTISM. AGAINST THE DONATISTS.
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.
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 considered clear to every one, that the authority of the blessed Cyprian for the maintenance of the bond of peace, and the avoiding of any violation of that most wholesome charity which preserves unity in the Church, may be urged on our side rather than on the side of the Donatists. For if they have chosen to act upon his example in rebaptizing Catholics, because he thought that heretics ought to be baptized on joining the Catholic Church, shall not we rather follow his example, whereby he laid down a manifest rule 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 deprivmg 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 himself, 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, I See above, II. ii. 3.
through discussions of this kind, might be cured by the more powerful truth and universal healing power of unity coming on the side of safety. And so they may see with what security I approach this discourse. If I am unable to gain my point, and show how those arguments may be refuted which they bring forward from the Council and the epistles of Cyprian, to the effect that Christ's baptism may not be given by the hands of heretics, I shall still remain safely in the Church, in whose communion Cyprian himself remained with those who differed from him.
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 Chap. III.]
' he spring? or from what sea did he emerge? ' or from what sky did he fall? And so we, as I I had begun to say, are safe in the commuj nion of that Church, throughout the whole ex-I tent of which the custom now prevails, which prevailed in like manner through its whole [ extent before the time of Agrippinus, and in ' the interval between Agrippinus and Cyprian,! and whose unity neither Agrippinus nor Cyprian ever deserted, nor those who agreed with them, although they entertained different \iews from the rest of their brethren — all of tiiem remaining in the same communion of unity with the very men from whom they dif-I, red in opinion. But let the Donatists them--^Ives consider what their true position is, if riiey 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 lier bosom without baptism; nor again agree v.ith 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 u\ey have separated themselves from the communion of the whole world, on account of the I charge of having delivered up the sacred I l)Ooks, which they brought against the men whom they maligned in Africa, but failed to convict wtien 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 i these could not defile Cyprian in the persons of those who came from them without baptism, as lie 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.'ibout acknowledging the baptism of the followers of Waximianus, together with those hom, though they belonged to the party [;iat they had first condemned in their own l>!enary Council, and then gone on to prose-( lite even at the tribunal of the secular power, tiey yet received back into their communion, 111 the episcopate of the very same bishop under whom they had been condemned. Wherefore, if the communion of w'icked men destroyed the Church in the time of Cyprian, tiiey have no source from which they can derive their own communion; and if the I'inirch was not destroyed, they have no ex-( use for their separation from it. Moreover, t ley are neither following the example of Cyprian, since they have burst the bond of I unity, nor abiding by their own Council, since tiiey have recognized the baptism of the followers of Maximianus.
Chap. 3. — 4. Let us therefore, seeing that we adhere to the example of Cyprian, go on now to consider Cyprian's Council. What says Cyprian? "Ye have heard," he says, " 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."' In 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 gratitude that he had received instruction. Ought we then to be thought uareasonably 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.