Against Cresconius, a Donatist Grammarian 3.18–3.36

“When the error of Maximian,” you say, “strove to join as many bishops as possible to itself, a council was gathered by our people and a sentence was pronounced against all who had persisted in his schism, which you too testify that you have read. When this sentence was confirmed by the consent of all, it was nevertheless decided,” you say, “by the council's decree to grant an extension of time, within which, if anyone wished to be corrected, he would be held innocent. So it came about,” you say, “that not only those two whom you mention but also many others, cleared and innocent, restored themselves to the church; whose baptism therefore ought not to have been cancelled, because, having been restored within the appointed day, they were not held by the final sentence, nor, when they baptized, had they been separated from the church, since they had not yet been cut off by the fixed limit of the time that had passed. But those who even after the stated day persisted obstinately with Maximian, held by the sentence of condemnation, lost at once both baptism and the church.” These words, my Cresconius, you certainly recognize as taken from the text of your letter.

Accordingly I ask you: if they had not yet been separated from the church, how was a sentence pronounced against all who had persisted in Maximian's schism, which, when confirmed by the consent of all, it was nevertheless decided by the council's decree to grant an extension of time, within which, if anyone wished to be corrected, he would be held innocent? By these words you show that whoever of those who had persisted in Maximian's schism wished to be corrected within the extension of time would be held innocent. He would be corrected, then, if he wished to be corrected, from that schism in which he had persisted with Maximian. Therefore, before he was corrected, he was in the schism in which he had persisted, although, since he was corrected within the agreed time, he had not persisted in it obstinately. For in later words a little further on you distinguish thus: “But those who even after the stated day persisted obstinately with Maximian, held by the sentence of condemnation, lost at once both baptism and the church.” By saying “persisted obstinately” you certainly show that those too who were corrected had persisted, but not obstinately; against all of whom together that sentence was pronounced, which, though confirmed by the consent of all, you say it was nevertheless decided by the council's decree to grant that extension of time. How then were they in the church who, before they were corrected, were persisting in schism with Maximian? But if they were not in the church because they were in schism, how did they baptize? Then how did it come about, as you say, that not only those I mentioned but also many others, cleared and innocent, restored themselves to the church, if they had not been separated from the church? To what did they restore themselves, from which they had not withdrawn? Or if they had withdrawn, tell me, please, before they restored themselves to the church, by what right did they baptize? “Whose baptism therefore,” you say, “ought not to have been cancelled, because, having been restored within the appointed day, they were not held by the final sentence.” Restored to what? Wake up, I beg you; tell us to what they were restored. You will surely say, “To the church, to which you said they restored themselves.” Is anyone restored to the church who has not been separated from the church? Does anyone not separated from the church persist in schism even for a few days? Does anyone not separated from the church restore himself to the church after however short a time?

I think, dearest brother, that you not only did not consider your words when they were to be written, but did not even read them when they were written. Yet what could you do, when necessity was laid on you in this work to defend as best you could a sentence against Maximian and his associates which was not your own but spoken by others? For even if you did not use these words, I would read out the same decree of the council of Bagai, where it is written: “But those whom the shoots of the sacrilegious branch did not pollute, that is, who with the modest shame of faith withdrew their hands from Maximian's head, we have permitted to return to mother church.”

Accordingly, even if I did not find such words of yours, here certainly I would say, here I would cry out for the truth: how are those permitted to return to mother church who have not withdrawn from mother church? Or if they withdrew, by what right could they baptize before they returned, unless in the matter of patching up this schism you forgot your own vanity, by which you judge that, after bishops who have carried down an unbroken succession from the very sees of the apostles to these times, not one man, not one household, not one city, not one nation, but the whole world must be rebaptized? Or surely, since the horror of this deed has always shaken even the hearts of those who do it, when so many congregations were returning to your communion from the communion of Maximian, you were pleased to restore so many, but ashamed to rebaptize so many. Yet you would do this, however much anyone detested and abhorred it, for the sake of people's salvation, which, the more people it concerned, the less ought it certainly to be despised, if you ever did it out of regard for the truth and not out of prejudice for error. You see certainly that in this return of the Maximianensians to your communion it has been made plain that what we say about baptism is true. For if men have any understanding either of speaking or of hearing, one who baptizes before he returns to the church certainly baptizes outside the church; and yet the baptism is not to be cancelled, just as it was not cancelled by you in their case; for, this not having been changed, each one baptizes not in his own name or anyone else's, but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Next, besides the sacrament of baptism, which remains intact either for the punishment of the perverse or for the salvation of the upright or the corrected, I wish to say something about the expiation or cleansing of the corrected themselves. For you remember what you said against us: that we hold those who come to us from you out of the sacrilegious error of heretics as received without any expiation. Tell us now: those returning to you from the schism of Maximian, when they were received even in their own honors, by what expiation, I ask, were they cleansed? Or, having shared in so great a crime, were they not stained by so wicked a fellowship?

Notice what that truth-speaking mouth of your bishops proclaims, what it thunders, what it confesses in that famous council: “Maximian,” it says, “the rival of the faith, the adulterer of truth, the enemy of mother church, the minister of Dathan, Korah, and Abiram, the thunderbolt of our sentence has struck from the bosom of peace; and that the earth has not yet opened and swallowed him, it has reserved him by the heavenly powers for a greater punishment. For if he had been snatched away, he would have gained his punishment by the shortcut of death; now he gathers the interest of a heavier debt, being dead among the living.” Is it really so, then, that those persisting in his schism, as you yourself said, before they restored themselves to your church within the time of the extension, as you likewise said, had drawn no stain, or a small one, from his fellowship? But hear what follows; hear, I say, what the composer or speaker of that sentence joins on: “Not only him,” it says, “does the just death of his crime condemn; the chain of sacrilege also drags very many into partnership in the crime, of whom it is written, ‘The poison of asps is under their lips; their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known.’ We would not indeed wish to cut them off as from the joints of our own body; but since the pestilent rot of a festering wound finds more relief in amputation than in a mild remedy, a more salutary course has been found, lest the pestilent poison creep through all the limbs: that the wound that has arisen should be cut away with brief pain. Know, then, that the guilty of a notorious crime, Victorianus of Carcabia, Marcianus of Sullecthum, Beianus of Beia, Salvius of Ausafa, Theodorus of Usula, Donatus of Sabratha, Miggin of Elephantaria, Praetextatus of Assuras, Salvius of Membresa, Valerius of Melzi, Felicianus of Musti, and Martialis of Pertusa, who by the deadly work of perdition glued together a filthy vessel from collected dregs, and also the clergy formerly of the church of Carthage, who, being present at the crime, played the pander to an unlawful incest, have been condemned by the truthful mouth of the whole council, by the judgment of God presiding.” What heavier things could you say against them? What heavier things are you accustomed to say against us? “But from this great evil,” you say, “they were corrected within the time of the extension.” I shall see whether they were corrected, since they would truly have been corrected if they had returned to the true church. But if yours is the true one, tell us how they were expiated from so monstrous a crime. For if they were not expiated, you are all, according to your own opinion, stained by their crime; but if they were expiated, you grant that they could be expiated by the mere return itself, because of the love that covers a multitude of sins; and you accuse us with empty slanders about your people when they come to us corrected. Unless perhaps, as the words of the council indicate, they had already committed the sacrilege of schism, but before the day of the granted extension they had not yet been defiled by that same sacrilege, and so were not thought to need expiation.

If this is so, who would dare to oppose you, who have received so wonderful a power over men? They sin when they will, and are defiled when you will. We are not reading out something obscure or little known and published. It is that sentence which, on account of its great eloquence, is in everyone's hands and on the lips of all who are eager to read such things; about which you now at least see how truly I said that they ought not first to rejoice that it was eloquent, lest afterwards they should lament that it was notorious. Notice what it contains, hear what it thunders.

“Maximian,” it says, “the rival of the faith, the adulterer of truth, the enemy of mother church, the minister of Dathan, Korah, and Abiram, the thunderbolt of our sentence has struck from the bosom of peace.” If, then, anyone had knowingly shared the sacrament of the altar with him for one day, would he not, according to that most boastful severity of yours, be so polluted by so great an evil as to become his equal? What, then, were they, or what were they made by him, who not only approached the altars with him but themselves, setting up altars, brought him forward ordained bishop against your Primian? But why should I question you about these men? Let the sentence itself speak, whose words shine so that, if you wished to hide it, it would break through the darkness of any hiding places by its excessive brightness. Let us see with how great a sound of condemnation it rises against Maximian's associates.

“Not only him,” it says, “does the just death of his crime condemn; the chain of sacrilege also drags very many into partnership in the crime, of whom it is written, ‘The poison of asps is under their lips; their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known.’” Then a little later, when it had named one by one all who ordained Maximian, among whom are read also these two of whom I am treating, Felicianus and Praetextatus, it adds what they did to deserve such things being said against them: “who,” it says, “by the deadly work of perdition glued together a filthy vessel from collected dregs”; meaning it to be understood that they themselves were present, they themselves ordained Maximian by laying on hands. It adds also about the clergy of Carthage: “and also the clergy of the church of Carthage, who, being present at the crime, played the pander to an unlawful incest.”

I ask you, Cresconius, do I exaggerate this crime with any words of mine? If I had wished to, perhaps I would not have lacked words, if not such as these, yet sufficient in some way. I ask you, then: before these two, with whom I am dealing for the present, returned to the concord of your communion, placed in that chain of sacrilege, with the poison of asps under their lips, with mouths full of cursing and bitterness, with feet swift to shed blood, how did they baptize? Was there in them the conscience of men giving in holiness, to wash that of the recipients? Did at least a good reputation, even a most false one, commend them, which in those straits offered you a way out, not by which you might escape but by which you might throw yourself headlong, since so famous a council proclaims them guilty of a notorious crime? Then, returning, as you believed your bishops when they told you falsehoods, before the day of the extension, how are they received in their honors together with those whom they had baptized as schismatics, placed outside the church with Maximian in the chain of sacrilege? By what are they expiated from so great a sacrilege? By what are they loosed from that chain? By what are their lips, their mouth, cleansed from the poison of asps, from cursing and bitterness? By what are their feet washed from the shedding of spiritual blood, to which they ran swiftly? By what are their hands purified from the deadly work of perdition? By what is the disposition not of the members of the body but of the soul purged from unlawful incest?

Surely, to defend this case, whether you will or not, you are compelled to come to the patronage of the truth, which says that the baptism of Christ, given not only through hidden but also through manifest evil men, not only by the converted but also by the perverted, has the unshaken firmness of its own strength, and can indeed be present in them, but cannot profit them unless they are corrected; and that the corrected are expiated also by the prayers of the brothers through the love that covers a multitude of sins. See, before I show how shamelessly your bishops lied to you about the reception of the Maximianensians, according to their very lie and your account, how your whole case has been overturned; I think that you ought no longer to inquire but to recognize, not to prepare a contradiction but rather to think of correction. For you see now at least how truly I said what you tried in vain to answer with lies, how rightly I said: “If for the unity of the party of Donatus no one rebaptizes those baptized in a wicked schism, why is the true and complete law of that inheritance not recognized for the unity of Christ?” since you yourself admit that those who had persisted in Maximian's schism earned a sentence by which they would not be held if they restored themselves to the church within the day of the extension. Hence it is plain that, before they restored themselves, they baptized in the schism in which they had persisted those with whom they were received into your communion. You see how dead men baptized, since of those who had persisted in Maximian's schism, before they returned to you, it had been said in the sentence of the council of Bagai: “Like the example of the Egyptians perishing, the shores are full of corpses.”

As to what I said, “When it was read out among them to be decreed, they acclaimed it with wide-open mouth; but now, when it is read out by us, they fall silent,” see, they would now do much better to fall silent, since they spoke such things as entangled them worse. You see how true is what I said: “They ought now at last to perceive how much must be tolerated for the sake of peace, and for the sake of the peace of Christ to return to the church which did not condemn things unknown, if for the sake of the peace of Donatus they were pleased to recall things condemned.” This is much more true according to your account, since you said that even those were recalled, once the extension was granted, of whom, expressly named, it had already been said: “Know that they have been condemned by the truthful mouth of the whole council, by the judgment of God presiding.” For since that extension was set up after these words, how were they not pleased to recall things condemned? Or how can it not be that things are unknown to us, born so long after, or to the Christian world itself, which could not be proved about Caecilian in the judgment held later overseas, when you, though you are an African, as you say, did not know until now, after so many years, what was done about the Maximianensians both in Africa and in our own times, and, as we shall be able to teach, still do not know, because you believed your bishops when they lied?

As for your saying that I wished to throw back on your forefathers the charge of handing over the books, as if by a counter-accusation (anticategoria), what was done by our forefathers, blaming me for doing this as though it were a matter of the kinds of cases or questions in a school, and not of seeking the truth in the church: would you say this to the prophet Elijah, who, when the most wicked king charged him with troubling Israel, answered, “I do not trouble Israel, but you and your father's house trouble it”? For what does it matter to us by what name this kind of retorted charge is called by the Greeks in the art of rhetoric, when we find it in prophetic authority? When anyone says, then, “Not I did it, but you did it,” what is needed is that he speak the truth, not that he be afraid to say it. And you ought, if you are able, to consider most watchfully how you may show that your forefathers did not do what they are shown to have done by their own confessions when read out, not to frighten the unskilled with a Greek word so that they will not hear us. And you have not shown that our forefathers were traitors (for you are not to be thought to have shown it because you said there are many documents by which it could be shown); but about your forefathers there exists the council of Secundus of Tigisi, held with very few indeed at Cirta after the persecution in which the books were to be handed over, to ordain a bishop there in place of one who had died.

Hear what was done there; for I have taken care to write below what was necessary: “In the eighth consulship of Diocletian and the seventh of Maximian, on the fourth day before the Nones of March, at Cirta, when Secundus, bishop of Tigisi, holder of the first see, had taken his seat in the house of Urbanus Donatus, he said: ‘Let us first examine ourselves, and so we shall be able to ordain a bishop here.’ Secundus said to Donatus of Mascula: ‘It is said that you handed over.’ Donatus answered: ‘You know how much Florus sought me to make me offer incense, and God did not deliver me into his hands, brother; but since God has forgiven me, do you also keep me for God.’ Secundus said: ‘What then shall we do about the martyrs? Because they did not hand over, they were crowned.’ Donatus said: ‘Send me to God; there I will give account.’ Secundus said: ‘Step to one side.’ Secundus said to Marinus of Aquae Tibilitanae: ‘It is said that you too handed over.’ Marinus answered: ‘I gave papers to Pollio; for my books are safe.’ Secundus said: ‘Pass to one side.’ Secundus said to Donatus of Calama: ‘It is said that you handed over.’ Donatus answered: ‘I gave medical books.’ Secundus said: ‘Pass to one side.’” And in another place: “Secundus said to Victor of Rusicade: ‘It is said that you handed over four gospels.’ Victor answered: ‘Valentinianus was the curator; he himself forced me to throw them into the fire. I knew they were worn out. Pardon me this fault, and God too will pardon me.’ Secundus said: ‘Pass to one side.’” And in another place: “Secundus said to Purpurius of Limata: ‘It is said that you killed two sons of your sister at Milevis.’ Purpurius answered: ‘Do you think I am frightened by you as the others are? What did you do, who were held by the curator and the council to give up the Scriptures? How did you free yourself from them, unless because you gave or ordered something to be given? For they did not let you go at random. For I killed, and I kill, those who act against me; so do not provoke me to say more. You know that I do not deal gently with anyone.’ Secundus the younger said to his uncle Secundus: ‘You hear what he says against you. He is ready to withdraw and make a schism, not only he himself but also all whom you accuse; who, I know, will leave you and pass sentence against you, and you will remain alone a heretic. So what does it concern you what anyone has done? He has to give account to God.’ Secundus said to Felix of Rotaria, Nabor of Centurio, and Victor of Garba: ‘What do you think?’ They answered: ‘They have God, to whom they will give account.’ Secundus said: ‘You know, and God knows: sit down.’ And all answered: ‘Thanks be to God.’”

These traitors, who with others at Carthage pronounced sentences against Caecilian and his associates, among whom was also Silvanus of Cirta, the proceedings concerning whose handing over I shall soon insert, you will no doubt defend by a splendid reasoning. For you will say of these, so many as they are, what you thought fit to say, as something great, about Silvanus alone, thinking that you showed plainly that the crime of handing over charged against him was false because you inserted his sentence, which he pronounced in the council among the other bishops against Caecilian and others sharing his communion; as if it could not happen that a traitor should condemn traitors. You see these things more prudently than the apostle Paul. For he charged certain people with absurd things and did not consider that what he said could not happen: “You who preach that one must not steal, do you steal? You who say one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you commit sacrilege?” and this especially: “For in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge do the same things.” These traitors, then, whom Secundus, frightened, pardoned when they confessed, he had with him in the council of Carthage; and they pronounced sentences against absent men who had not confessed, being themselves present and not condemned on their own confession. This council would not have survived or lasted in the memory of posterity, had it not been copied by others while it was kept by those who were preparing to defend themselves by it, if anyone afterwards charged them with the same crimes that were remitted there.

It was also in the interest of Secundus himself that it should appear that he had left all those things to the divine judgment so that no schism should arise, as the peaceable are accustomed to guard against above others; which he ought to have done much more in the council of Carthage, where nothing had been established against the absent, had not Lucilla, then a very powerful and very wealthy woman, inflamed with furious hatred, vehemently pressed for another bishop to be ordained against Caecilian as if condemned. This was recalled afterwards in the trial before the consular Zenophilus by a certain Nundinarius, deacon of Silvanus, then your bishop of Cirta, who could not come to agreement, as he wished, with that bishop of his, whom he had endured as an enemy. He had indeed pressed this on his colleagues more by threatening to reveal everything than by begging humbly to obtain pardon.

From the proceedings of that trial I have inserted these few things: “In the consulship of Constantine Maximus Augustus and Constantine the younger, most noble Caesar, on the Ides of December, when Sextus of Thamugadi had been brought in and Victor the grammarian presented, with Nundinarius the deacon also standing by, Zenophilus the consular said: ‘What is your name?’ He answered: ‘Victor.’” And a little later in another place: “Nundinarius answered: ‘Let the proceedings be read.’ Zenophilus the consular said: ‘Let them be read.’ And Nundinius the clerk read: ‘In the eighth consulship of Diocletian and the seventh of Maximian, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of June, from the proceedings of Munatius Felix, flamen for life, curator of the colony of Cirta: When they had come to the house in which the Christians used to assemble, Felix, flamen for life and curator, said to Paul the bishop: “Bring out the Scriptures of the law and whatever else you have here, so that you may obey the order and the command.” Paul the bishop said: “The readers have the Scriptures, but we give what we have here.” Felix, flamen for life and curator, said to Paul: “Point out the readers or send to them.” Paul the bishop: “You all know them.” Felix, flamen for life and curator, said: “We do not know them.” Paul the bishop: “The public office knows them, that is, Edesius and Junius the clerks.” Felix, flamen for life and curator, said: “The matter of the readers remaining, whom the office will point out, you also give what you have here.” Paul the bishop sitting, with Montanus and Victor of Castellum Memor, presbyters, Mars standing by with Aelius and Mars the deacon, Marcuclius, Catullinus, Silvanus, and Carosus the subdeacons bringing things out, and Januarius, Marcuclius, Fructuosus, Miggin, Saturninus, Victor of Samsuricum, and the other gravediggers, Victor son of Aufidius writing a list thus: two gold chalices, likewise six silver chalices,’” and so on. And in another place: “After the library was opened, empty cupboards were found there. There Silvanus brought out a silver box and a silver lamp, which he said he had found behind a chest. Victor son of Aufidius said to Silvanus: ‘You would have been dead if you had not found them.’ Felix, flamen for life and curator of the commonwealth, said to Silvanus: ‘Search more carefully, lest anything remain here.’ Silvanus said: ‘Nothing remains here; we have thrown all this out,’” and so on. And in another place: “Copy of the petition handed to the bishops by Nundinarius the deacon: ‘Christ and his angels are witnesses that you have communicated with traitors; that is, Silvanus of Cirta is a traitor and a thief of the goods of the poor, which all of you bishops, presbyters, deacons, and elders know; and about the four hundred folles of Lucilla, the most illustrious woman, for which you conspired that Majorinus should be made bishop, and from that the schism arose. For Victor the fuller also, in your presence and the people's, gave twenty folles to be made a presbyter, which Christ and his angels know,’” and so on. And in another place: “When these had been read, Zenophilus the consular said: ‘From both the proceedings and the letters that have been read, it is established that Silvanus is a traitor.’” Likewise in another place: “Zenophilus, of senatorial rank, the consular, said: ‘What office did Silvanus hold then in the clergy?’ Victor answered: ‘When persecution arose under Paul the bishop, Silvanus was a subdeacon.’”

Have you anything to say to this, brother Cresconius? I do not think shame has so perished from human affairs that you still think the sentence should be read out in clearing of Silvanus which he pronounced against Caecilian and his colleagues as traitors; lest you rather prompt us to say something similar from the apostle's letter, as I mentioned a little before: “You who preach that one must not hand over, do you hand over?” and “In that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge do the same things.” “But afterwards,” you say, “when he refused to communicate, under the persecution of Ursatius and Zenophilus, he was driven into exile.” Rather, one who was already a traitor chose to remain a heretic too, so as to have a false honor in the very party of Donatus, since he could have none in the Catholic church, the proceedings of his handing over having been so plainly laid open in a public trial. You will doubtless say these things are false, and will bring forward, as much as you can, other things for your forefathers against ours. Perhaps you will not be able to, finding nothing to bring forward. But suppose you have found it, suppose you have brought it forward: are you so shameless as to contend that what you bring forward ought to be believed rather than what is brought forward by us? For either there were traitors on both sides, if you too read out something of the confession of our people; or, if you think something was fabricated by our people against yours, why do you not allow us to think the same was done by yours against ours? Therefore, over human deeds either manifest on both sides or uncertain on both sides, let us who believe in one God not quarrel, but let us agree in the grace of Christ on what is a certain and divine gift. For when the proceedings of our forefathers and yours, contrary to each other, are read out to us born so long after, if we are not even allowed to doubt, what is more unjust? But if it is allowed, what is more sufficient? For it is not uncertain by whom the good of peace is commanded to be restored, as it is uncertain from whom the evil of handing over arose.

And therefore whoever rejects the peace of Christ because of another's uncertain evil is most certainly evil, since Cyprian did not desert the peace of the wheat even for the certain malice of the tares mixed with it, who, writing to Maximus, said: “Even if there seem to be tares in the church, our faith or love ought not to be hindered, so that, because we see that there are tares in the church, we ourselves should withdraw from the church.” He did not say “we suspect, we suppose, we think, we conjecture, we believe,” but he said “we see.” O word, by which all doubt would be removed, so that the body of Christ should not be divided! If you desire only wheat, groan in the labor of the field, rejoice in the hope of the barn, tolerate the wicked in the communion of the sacraments of Christ, so that, by breaking the nets before the time of the shore, you may not become what you would not tolerate. I would say this if you had proved anything about the traitors you accuse; indeed, at this time I would no longer say even this; for I am not commanded to tolerate those with whom I am no longer compelled to live. But if even now a traitor is shown to me, with what conscience do I desert so many Christian nations to whom he is not shown? Then, if I myself now learn what I did not know a little before, why do you cancel in me what I did know? For I knew that I had received the baptism of Christ; you yourselves teach me another's crime, which you grant harms no one while it is unknown.

Why, then, do you rebaptize today one baptized yesterday, when you teach today another's crime which yesterday he did not know? Not knowing from what sort of man he received it, he was not guilty in the baptism he received; now that he has learned this from you, why does he become guilty by the cancelling of his baptism? For whether he agrees with your evidence or not, one who received the baptism of Christ through the ministry of a traitor, unless you prove that he knew from whom he received it, you cannot rightly baptize even by your own rules. Now turn your mind away from partisanship and consider how countless a multitude of Christians in Africa itself do not know who the traitors were; how much more in the rest of the world! What a multitude, unless you prove that they knew when they were baptized, you will either not dare to say must be baptized, or you will dare to judge the hidden things of the heart! And where is the divine statement you inserted, which pleases you: “The things that are manifest are for you, but the things that are hidden for the Lord your God”? Believe the Christian world when it says to you: “I know the baptism of Christ; I do not know who were the traitors in Africa or anywhere else. Why do you judge hidden human things in me, so as to cancel manifest divine things in me? Suppose you now prove to me another's crime: what you say, I did not know when I received baptism. If on account of those whom you now betray to me you want to baptize me, you must also baptize those who unknowingly received baptism from adulterers whom you have now exposed.” What do you say to this, except: “Nothing is holy, nothing is clean, except what I wish and when I wish”?