On Baptism, against the Donatists 2.3–2.18

“When on the first of September very many bishops from the provinces of Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania had gathered at Carthage, with presbyters and deacons, and with the greater part of the people also present, and when the letter of Jubaianus written to Cyprian had been read, and likewise Cyprian’s reply to Jubaianus on baptizing heretics, and what the same Jubaianus afterwards wrote back to Cyprian, Cyprian said: ‘You have heard, dearest colleagues, what Jubaianus our fellow bishop wrote to me, consulting our modest self about the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, and what I wrote back to him, judging, as we have judged once and again and often, that heretics who come to the church must be baptized and sanctified with the church’s baptism. Likewise another letter of Jubaianus has been read to you, in which, replying to our letter with sincere and religious devotion, he not only agreed but even gave thanks that he had been instructed. It remains that each of us should bring forward what we think on this very matter, judging no one and removing no one from the right of communion if he thinks differently. For none of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops or compels his colleagues to the necessity of obeying by tyrannical terror, since every bishop, by the freedom of his liberty and power, has his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone and only has the power both of setting us over the government of his church and of judging our conduct.’”

Now let the proud and swollen necks of the heretics raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this speech. Mad Donatists, whom we long and pray to see return to the peace and unity of the holy church and be healed in it, what do you say to this? You are certainly in the habit of throwing in our faces Cyprian’s letters, Cyprian’s opinion, Cyprian’s council; why do you take up Cyprian’s authority for your schism and reject his example for the peace of the church? And who does not know that the holy canonical Scripture, both of the Old and of the New Testament, is contained within its own fixed limits, and is so preferred to all later letters of bishops that there can be no doubt or dispute at all whether whatever is established to be written in it is true or right; but that the letters of bishops, which have been written or are being written since the canon was confirmed, may be criticized, if anything in them happens to stray from the truth, by the perhaps wiser word of someone more skilled in the matter, by the weightier authority and more learned prudence of other bishops, and by councils; and that the councils themselves, which are held in particular regions or provinces, yield without any equivocation to the authority of plenary councils, which are held from the whole Christian world; and that the plenary councils themselves are often amended, the earlier by the later, when by some experience of things what was closed is opened and what lay hidden is known, without any puffing of sacrilegious pride, without any swollen neck of arrogance, without any contention of spiteful envy, with holy humility, with Catholic peace, with Christian love?

So holy Cyprian, the loftier the humbler, who so loved Peter’s example that he said, “giving us, namely, an example both of concord and of patience, that we should not obstinately love our own views, but should rather take as our own whatever is at times usefully and wholesomely suggested by our brothers and colleagues, if it is true and lawful,” shows well enough that he would most readily have corrected his opinion if anyone had shown him that Christ’s baptism can be given by those who have gone outside just as it could not be lost when they went outside, on which we have already said much. Nor would we ourselves dare to assert anything of the kind if we were not made firm by the most harmonious authority of the universal church, to which he too would without doubt have yielded, if already in his time the truth of this question had been refined, declared, and established by a plenary council. For if he praises and proclaims Peter for being corrected patiently and harmoniously by a single junior colleague, how much more quickly would he himself, with the council of his province, have yielded to the authority of the whole world once the truth was made plain! Indeed so holy and so peaceable a soul could most readily have agreed even with one person who spoke and showed the truth. And perhaps it happened, but we do not know. For not everything that was done among the bishops at that time could be committed to memory and writing, nor do we know everything that was committed. For how could this matter, wrapped in such clouds of altercation, have been brought to the clear illumination and confirmation of a plenary council, unless it had first been established by being treated at length throughout the regions of the world in many discussions and conferences of bishops on this side and that? This is what the soundness of peace does: when some rather obscure things are long inquired into and, through the difficulty of discovery, give rise to differing opinions in brotherly debate until a clear truth is reached, the bond of unity remains, so that the incurable wound of error does not remain in a part cut off.

And so it often happens that something is less revealed to the more learned, so that their patient and humble love, in which there is greater fruit, may be proved, either in how they keep unity when they think differently in rather obscure matters, or in how they accept the truth when they learn that it has been declared contrary to what they thought. Of these two, we hold one made manifest in blessed Cyprian, namely how he kept unity with those from whom he differed; for he says, “judging no one and removing no one from the right of communion if he thinks differently.” The other, namely how he could accept the truth, once found, against what he thought, his merits proclaim even if letters are silent. If no letter is found, his crown bears witness; if no council of bishops shows it, the company of angels shows it. For it is no small proof of a most peaceable soul to have been counted worthy of martyrdom in that unity from which, though thinking differently, he would not separate himself. For we are men; and so to think something otherwise than as it is, is a human temptation. But to come, through too much love of one’s own opinion or envy of better men, to the sacrilege of breaking communion and founding a schism or heresy is diabolical presumption. And to think nothing otherwise than as it is, is angelic perfection. Since then we are men, but in hope are angels of God, to whom we shall be equal in the resurrection, as long as we do not have the perfection of an angel, let us not have the presumption of the devil. That is why the apostle says, “Let no temptation take hold of you but what is human.” It is human, then, to think something otherwise. Therefore he says in another place, “As many of us, then, as are perfect, let us think this; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.” But to whom does he reveal it, when he wills, whether in this life or after it, if not to those who walk in the way of peace and do not stray into any severance? Not such as these men, who have not known the way of peace and have broken the bond of unity for no other reason. And so the apostle, having said, “And if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you,” lest they think that what they thought otherwise could be revealed to them outside the way of peace, at once added, “Nevertheless, to what we have attained, in that let us walk.” Walking in that with most persevering endurance, his blood shed not apart from unity but in unity (for if he handed over his body to be burned and did not have love it would profit him nothing), Cyprian came through the confession of martyrdom to the angelic light, so that, if not before, then there at least he recognized as revealed what he thought otherwise, when he did not put the opinion of a different view ahead of the bond of unity.

So you Donatists, what do you say to this? If our opinion about baptism is true, all who thought otherwise in Cyprian’s time were not separated from the unity of the church until God revealed to them what they thought otherwise. Why then have you broken the bond of peace by sacrilegious separation? But if your opinion about baptism is true, Cyprian and the others with whom you say he held such a council remained in unity with those who thought otherwise. Why have you broken the bond of peace? Whichever of these you choose, you are forced to pass sentence against your own severance. Answer: why did you separate yourselves? Why have you set up an altar against the whole world? Why are you not in communion with the churches to which the apostolic letters were sent, which you hold and read and say you live by? Answer: why did you separate yourselves? Certainly so as not to perish by communion with the wicked. How then did Cyprian and so many of his colleagues not perish? Though they believed that heretics and schismatics do not have baptism, yet when such men were received without baptism, and they believed that their sins, so monstrous and so sacrilegious, were upon them, they still preferred to be in communion with them rather than be separated from unity, as Cyprian says: “judging no one and removing no one from the right of communion if he thinks differently.”

If then the righteous perish by such communion with the wicked, the church had already perished in Cyprian’s time. Where then did Donatus come from? Where was he catechized, where baptized, where ordained, when the contagion of communion had already extinguished the church? But if the church existed, the wicked could do the good no harm in one communion. Why did you separate yourselves? Look, I see in unity Cyprian and his other colleagues, who, holding a council, judged that all who had been baptized outside the communion of the church did not have it, and that therefore it must be given them when they come. But look, again I see in the same unity some who thought differently on this matter and, recognizing Christ’s baptism in those who came from heretics or schismatics, did not dare to baptize them again. All these Catholic unity embraces in its motherly bosom, bearing one another’s burdens and eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, until the Lord should reveal to one side or the other whatever they thought otherwise. If the former thought the truth, were they not defiled by the latter, or were they? If the latter thought the truth, were they not defiled by the former, or were they? Choose what you like. If they were defiled, there was no church even then. Answer: where did you come out from to get here? But if the church remained, the good are in no way defiled by the wicked through such communion. Answer: why did you break the bond?

Or perhaps schismatics received without baptism do not defile, while those who handed over the sacred books do defile? Indeed, that the traitors were yours the most manifest records of proceedings bear witness. And if you had then spoken the truth against those you accused, you would have persuaded the unity of the whole world of your case, so that you would be retained and they excluded. But if you tried to do this and did not succeed, the whole world is innocent, which believed the church’s judges rather than the defeated litigants. And if you did not wish to plead your case, the whole world is innocent, which could not condemn men unheard. Why then did you separate yourselves from the innocent? You cannot defend the sacrilege of your schism. But I leave this aside; I say this: if the traitors could defile you, who were not convicted by you and by whom you were defeated, much more could the sacrileges of schismatics and heretics, received without baptism according to your opinion, defile Cyprian. Yet he did not separate himself; and since the church remained, it is plain that he could not be defiled. Why then did you separate yourselves, I do not say from the innocent, which is proved, but from the traitors themselves, which is not proved? Or, as I had begun to say, are the crimes of traitors graver than those of schismatics? Let us not bring deceitful scales, on which to weigh what we like and as we like, saying at our own pleasure, “This is heavy, this is light”; but let us bring the divine balance from the holy Scriptures, as from the Lord’s treasuries, and weigh on it which is graver; or rather let us not weigh, but recognize what has been weighed by the Lord. At the time when the Lord showed by recent examples of punishment that the earlier offences were to be avoided, when an idol was made and worshipped, and a prophetic book was burned by the anger of a contemptuous king, and schism was attempted, idolatry was punished by the sword, the burning of the book by slaughter in war and captivity in a foreign land, schism by the opening of the earth, the leaders being buried alive and the rest consumed by fire from heaven. Who now will doubt that the crime more heavily punished was the more wicked committed? If those who came from such sacrilegious men without baptism, as you say, did not defile Cyprian, how could traitors defile you, traitors not convicted but invented? Even if they had not handed over the books to be burned but had burned them with their own hands, they would certainly have been guilty of a lesser crime than if they had committed schism, since the one was punished more mildly and the other more heavily, not by human judgment but by divine.

Why then did you separate yourselves? If you have any sense, you surely see that you can find nothing to answer. “Things have not failed us so completely,” they say, “that we cannot answer: this is what we want. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls.” They do not understand that this was said to those who wished to judge not manifest deeds but the hearts of others. For how does the apostle himself say so much about the crimes of schisms and heresies? Or how is it sung in the psalms, “If you truly love justice, judge rightly, sons of men”? And why does the Lord himself say, “Do not judge by persons, but judge with right judgment,” if it is not lawful to judge anyone? Finally, why did they themselves judge at all about those traitors, about whom they judged falsely, servants of another? To their own master they stood or fell. Why, lastly, did they not hesitate to pronounce such a judgment on the recent Maximianists, “by the truthful mouth of a plenary council,” as they say, as to compare them with those first schismatics whom the earth swallowed alive? Yet some of them, which they cannot deny, they either condemned when innocent or received back when guilty. But when the truth is spoken, which they cannot answer, they gnaw out rough mutterings: “This is what we want. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls.” But when a weak sheep is caught sight of alone, where the shepherd who would protest seems absent, the teeth are bared and the feeble throat is broken: “You would be a good man, if you were not a traitor; look to your soul, be a Christian.” What shameless rage! When it is said to a Christian, “Be a Christian,” what else is he being taught but to deny that he is a Christian? Was there anything else those persecutors of Christians wished to teach, whom the martyrs resisted and so became martyrs? Or is what is committed by the threatening sword thought lighter than what is committed by the plotting tongue?

Answer this, you ravening wolves who, wishing to be clothed in sheepskins, think that blessed Cyprian’s letters are on your side: did the sacrilege of schismatics defile Cyprian or not? If it did, then the church perished even then; there was nothing for you to be propagated from. But if it did not, by what crime of another can the innocent be defiled in unity, if they cannot be defiled by the sacrilege of schism? Why then did you separate yourselves? Why, while fleeing the lighter things you invent, have you committed the very sacrilege of schism, which is graver than all? Or perhaps you are now pleased to admit that those who had been baptized outside the communion of the church, either in some schism or in heresy, were no longer schismatics or heretics, because by passing over to the church and anathematizing their former errors they had ceased to be what they were? How then did their crimes not remain upon them without baptism? Or was that Christ’s baptism, which could not profit them outside the communion of the church, but when they came and, having anathematized their past error, were received into the peace of the church by the laying on of hands, then, once they were rooted and grounded in love, without which everything else is fruitless, what they had been carrying outside without fruit began to profit them both for the forgiveness of sins and for holiness of life?

So do not throw Cyprian’s authority at us in favour of repeating baptism, but hold with us Cyprian’s example in favour of preserving unity. For that question of baptism had not yet been carefully treated, but the church nevertheless held a most wholesome custom: in schismatics and heretics too, to correct what is wrong, not to repeat what was given; to heal what is wounded, not to treat what is sound. This custom, I believe, came from apostolic tradition, as many things are not found in their writings nor in the councils of later men, and yet, because they are kept throughout the whole church, are believed to have been handed down and commended by none but the apostles. This most wholesome custom, then, holy Cyprian says began, as it were, to be corrected through his predecessor Agrippinus; but, as the truth more carefully examined has taught, which after great waves of doubt was brought to the confirmation of a plenary council, it is more truly believed to have begun to be corrupted through Agrippinus, not corrected. So when so great a question burst upon them, since it was hard to give an account of the forgiveness of sins and of man’s spiritual regeneration, whether it could take place among schismatics or heretics, and the authority of Agrippinus went before, and of some who had agreed with him, men who failed on this question and had preferred to attempt something new rather than hold a custom whose defence they did not understand, plausible reasons rushed upon the eyes of the soul and blocked the path of searching out the truth.

Nor do I think that blessed Cyprian expressed rather freely what he thought against the custom, and spoke first, for any other reason than that he might most gratefully receive another, if anyone should happen to appear to whom something had been better revealed, and might show that not only diligence in teaching is to be imitated but also modesty in learning; but that, if no one appeared who could bring something by which all those plausible reasons that moved him might be refuted, he might remain in the same opinion, with a good conscience both for not having hidden what he thought was truth and for having kept the unity he loved. For so he understood what the apostle says: “But let two or three prophets speak, and let the rest judge. If something is revealed to another who sits by, let the first be silent.” In this, he says, “he taught and showed that many things are revealed to individuals for the better, and that each one ought not to fight obstinately for what he had once imbibed and held, but should gladly embrace whatever has appeared better and more useful.” By these words he certainly not only admonished those who saw nothing better to agree with him, but also urged any who could bring something by which the former custom might rather be confirmed as to be kept, so that, if it were such that it could not be refuted, he too might show how truly he had said “that each one ought not to fight obstinately for what he had once imbibed and held, but should gladly embrace whatever has appeared better and more useful.” But since at that time only those had appeared who opposed the custom to him, but did not bring such defences of the custom itself as would move such a soul as his, this most serious man would not yield his reasons, which though not true (that was hidden from him) were yet not defeated, to a custom that was indeed true but not yet vindicated. Yet unless Agrippinus before him and some of his fellow bishops throughout Africa had tried to abandon that custom, even by the decisions of a council, he would not have dared even to reason against it; but troubled by so obscure a question, and seeing everywhere a universal and firm custom, he would rather have pressed himself in prayer and earnestness of mind toward God, so that he might perceive and teach that what afterward seemed good to a plenary council was true. But since the authority of the preceding council held through Agrippinus had received him when he was weary, he preferred to defend what his predecessors had, as it were, found, rather than labour further in searching. For at the end of his letter to Quintus he shows in this way on what, as on a little bed of authority, he rested as if tired.

“This indeed,” he says, “Agrippinus too, a man of good memory, with his other fellow bishops who at that time governed the Lord’s church in the province of Africa and Numidia, decreed, and confirmed after weighing it in common deliberation. We too have followed their devout and lawful judgment, wholesome and in keeping with the faith and the catholic church.” By this testimony he shows well enough that he would have cited it much more if any council beyond the sea, or a universal council, had been held on this matter. But none had yet been held, because the whole world was held by the strength of custom, and this alone was set against those who wished to bring in novelty, because they could not grasp the truth. Afterward, however, while it was treated and examined by many on both sides, it was not only found but also brought to the authority and strength of a plenary council, after Cyprian’s passion indeed, but before we were born. That this was the custom of the church, which afterward, when many ambiguities had been discussed and the truth perceived, was confirmed by a plenary council, is shown well enough also by the words of blessed Cyprian himself in that same letter to Jubaianus which is recorded to have been read in the council. For he says: “But someone says: ‘What then will become of those who in the past, coming from heresy to the church, were admitted without baptism?’” Here he certainly shows well enough what was usually done, though he did not wish it done; and by the very fact that he cites the council of Agrippinus he plainly indicates that the custom of the church was otherwise. For there was no need to wish to establish this by a council if it was already held by custom; and in that council itself some of the opinions declare outright that they decreed what they thought should be decreed against the custom of the church. Therefore let these men consider this one thing, which is plain to all: if Cyprian’s authority is to be followed, it is to be followed rather in keeping unity than in changing the church’s custom; but if his council is attended to, the later council of the universal church is to be preferred to it, of which he rejoiced to be a member, and which he often urged others to imitate him in keeping within the framework of the whole body. For later councils are preferred by later generations to earlier ones, and the universal is always, by the best right, preferred to the parts.

But what do these men do when they are shown that holy Cyprian, even though he did not admit those baptized in heresy or schism, yet was in communion with those who did admit them, as he declared most plainly when he said, “judging no one and removing no one from the right of communion if he thinks differently”? If he was stained by communion with such men, why do they follow his authority in repeating baptism? But if he was not stained by communion with such men, why do they not imitate his example in keeping unity? Does anything remain here but for them to say, “This is what we want”? What else do all wicked and criminal men answer to the word of truth and justice, the dissolute, drunkards, adulterers and the shameless of every kind, thieves, robbers, murderers, brigands, sorcerers, idolaters? What else do they answer when truth rebukes them but, “This is what I want, this is what pleases me”? And if they have been dipped in the Christian name, they also say, “Who are you to judge another’s servant?” Yet these are more modest than the Donatists in this, that when they suffer some penalty under divine and human laws for their abandoned conduct and deeds, they do not call themselves martyrs. But these men want to have at once the life of the sacrilegious and the reputation of the innocent, no penalty for wicked deeds and the glory of martyrs for just penalties; as if God’s mercy and patience toward them were not the greater, the more, “chastising them little by little,” he “gives them room for repentance,” and does not cease to redouble his scourges in this life, so that, considering what they suffer and why they suffer it, they may at some time come to their senses; and that those who for the unity of Donatus have already received the baptism of the Maximianists may rather embrace the baptism of the whole world for the peace of Christ, be restored to the root, be reconciled to unity, and see that nothing has remained to them to say, but that something has remained to do: that for their past deeds a sacrifice of love be offered to a God who can be appeased, whose unity they have broken by an abominable crime, on whose sacraments they have inflicted such long-continued injuries. “For the Lord is merciful and compassionate, long-suffering and abounding in mercy and true.” Let them embrace him as merciful and long-suffering in the present life, and fear him as true in the life to come. “For he does not will the death of the wicked so much as that he should turn and live,” because he turns aside his sentence against the injuries done to him. This is our exhortation.

This is why we have them as enemies: because we speak the truth, because we are afraid to be silent, because we dread to cease from pressing as hard as we can, because we obey the apostle who says, “Preach the word, be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, exhort, rebuke.” But, as the gospel says, “they love the glory of men more than the glory of God,” and they fear being rebuked for a time, but do not fear being condemned for ever. They themselves see what evil they do; they see that there is nothing at all for them to answer; but they pour mists over the unlearned, while they themselves are swallowed alive, that is, perish knowingly and with full awareness. They saw that people shuddered at and gravely detested the fact that they had divided themselves into many schisms, and above all at the capital of Africa and its most famous city, Carthage. They tried to patch up the disgrace of their rags; thinking they could do away with the Maximianists, they pressed hard with great effort through Optatus the Gildonian, inflicted many evils and most savage persecutions on them, and received some of them back, thinking that all could be converted by the same terror. But to those whom they received they would not do the injury of baptizing again those whom they had baptized in schism, or rather of having them rebaptized inside by the very men who had baptized them outside; and in this way they set a limit against their own abominable custom. They feel how wickedly they now act in violating the baptism of the whole world after accepting the baptism of the Maximianists; but they are afraid of those they have rebaptized, lest these should perhaps not spare them if they themselves spared others, lest these should demand their own souls of them if they ceased to slaughter the souls of others.

They find nothing to answer about the reception of the Maximianists. If they say, “We received them as innocent,” the answer is: “Then you had condemned the innocent.” If they say, “We did not know,” then you judged rashly (just as you also pronounced a rash sentence on the traitors), and you spoke falsely in saying, “Know that they have been condemned by the truthful mouth of a plenary council”; for the innocent could not have been condemned by a truthful mouth. If they say, “We did not condemn them,” the council is read out, and the names both of the bishops and of the cities are read out. If they say, “That council is not ours,” the proconsular records are read out, in which they cited that same council more than once, so as to exclude those same Maximianists from the basilicas and drive them out by the clamour of the courts and the onslaught of auxiliary troops. If they say that Felicianus of Musti and Praetextatus of Assuras, whom they afterward received, had not been with Maximian, the records are read out in which, on the basis of their council held against the Maximianists, they demanded from the public courts that these very men be excluded from the basilicas. If they say, “They were received for the sake of peace,” the answer is: “Why then do you not acknowledge true and full peace? Who drove you, who compelled you, for the peace of Donatus to receive a condemned schismatic, and against the peace of Christ to condemn the world unheard?” Truth certainly presses them; they see that they have nothing to answer, and think that they have nothing to do. They find nothing to say; they are not allowed to be silent; they prefer to struggle against the truth with perverse words rather than be restored to peace by confessing their errors.

But who does not understand what they may be saying in their hearts? “What then shall we do,” they say, “about those we have already rebaptized?” The answer is: return with them to the church; bring those you have wounded to be treated with the medicine of peace; bring those you have killed to be raised by the life of love. Brotherly concord has great power to make God gracious. “If two of you agree on earth,” says the Lord, “whatever you ask will be done for you.” If two men, how much more two peoples! Let us prostrate ourselves together before the Lord; share unity with us; let us share sorrow with you; and let love cover a multitude of sins. Seek counsel from blessed Cyprian himself; see how much he relied on the good of unity. That is why he did not break away from those who thought differently, and though he held that those baptized outside the communion of the church did not have baptism, he still believed that those admitted to the church in simplicity could, because of the bond of unity itself, attain to pardon. For so he solved the question he put to himself, writing thus to Jubaianus: “But someone says: ‘What then will become of those who in the past, coming from heresy to the church, were admitted without baptism?’ The Lord is able by his mercy to grant pardon, and not to separate from the gifts of his church those who, admitted to the church in simplicity, have fallen asleep in the church.”