# Against Cresconius, a Donatist Grammarian - Author: [Augustine of Hippo](https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/authors/augustine-of-hippo/) - Latin title: *Contra Cresconium grammaticum partis Donati* - Date: ca. 405–406 (approximate) - Source: Michael Petschenig, ed., Sancti Aureli Augustini scripta contra Donatistas, pars II, CSEL 52 (Vienna: Tempsky; Leipzig: Freytag, 1909) (Latin text: Michael Petschenig, Contra Cresconium (CSEL 52, 1909), digitized by Open Greek and Latin (csel-dev, University of Leipzig), CC BY-SA 4.0) - Translation: Claude, from the original text, unless a passage says otherwise; each passage below gives the translator - Work page: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/ - Passages: 266 ## Against Cresconius 1.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-1 - Source: CSEL 52:325 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains why he answers Cresconius, a Donatist layman who wrote against his reply to Petilian of Cirta. ### Latin text Quando ad te, Cresconi, mea scripta peruenire possent ignorans peruentura tamen minime desperaui, quia et ad me tua, quamuis longe postea quam scripsisti, tamen quandoque peruenire potuerunt, quae tibi uisum est aduersus ea scribere debere, quae Petiliano Cirtensi episcopo uestro iterationem baptismi adstruere molienti et communionem nostram non documentorum pondere urgenti, sed maledictorum leuitate criminanti ut potui breuiter pro parte respondi. non enim tota eius epistula in manus meas tunc uenerat, sed parua pars prior. quod cur acciderit, quid opus est quaerere, quandoquidem, cum ad nos postea uniuersa peruenit, uniuersae respondere non piguit? his ergo litteris tuis quas ad me dedisti si non rescriberem, fortasse contumeliosum putares, quod autem rescribo, rursum uereor ne contentiosum putes. sed si tu inuentis litteris meis non ad te datis, tantum quia episcopum partis Donati uel ipsam partem Donati redarguere uidebantur, ad officium tuum pertinere arbitratus es, cum tibi esses alicuius conscius facultatis, suscipere atque exserere contradictionem, quia eius communionis es quamuis nulla functione clericatui adstrictus, quanto minus mihi licuit pro munere sarcinae meae uel contra Petilianum uel contra te ipsum tacere, cum ille oppugnaret ecclesiam pro qua milito, tu autem in simili opere etiam nominatim ad me institueres promeres conscriberesque sermonem! ### English translation (Claude) I did not know when my writings might reach you, Cresconius, but I never despaired that they would reach you, since yours too were able at last to reach me, though long after you wrote them. You thought you ought to write them against what I had briefly answered, as best I could and for my part, to Petilian, your bishop of Cirta, who was trying to establish the repetition of baptism and was accusing our communion not with the weight of evidence but with the lightness of abuse. For at that time not the whole of his letter had come into my hands, but only a small first part. Why that happened, what need is there to ask, since when the whole of it later reached us I did not mind answering the whole? If, then, I did not reply to this letter of yours which you addressed to me, you might think it an insult; and yet, in replying, I fear in turn that you may think it contentious. But if you, having come upon writings of mine that were not addressed to you, merely because they seemed to refute a bishop of the party of Donatus or the party of Donatus itself, judged it part of your duty, being conscious of some ability, to take up and set forth a rebuttal, because you belong to that communion although you are bound to no clerical office, how much less was it permitted to me, in keeping with the charge of my burden, to keep silent either against Petilian or against you yourself, when he was attacking the church for which I serve as a soldier, and you, in a similar undertaking, were going so far as to compose, bring out, and write up a discourse addressed to me by name! ### Translation notes - Augustine's earlier work is Against the Letters of Petilian (Contra litteras Petiliani), not yet on this site. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.1 (CSEL 52:325; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1). ## Against Cresconius 1.2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-2 - Source: CSEL 52:325–326 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers Cresconius's attack on eloquence: it is useful or harmful according to what it is used to say. ### Latin text In cuius primis partibus laborasti, ut suspecta hominibus eloquentia uideretur. nam uelut laudans genus dicendi meum et rursus uelut timens, ne hoc genere te uel quemquam falsa persuadendo deciperem, in accusationem ipsius eloquentiae perrexisti, adhibens etiam testimonium aduersus eam de scripturis sanctis, ubi dictum putes: ex multa eloquentia non effugies peccatum, cum dictum non sit ex multa eloquentia, sed ex multiloquio. multiloquium autem est superflua locutio, uitium scilicet loquendi amore contractum. plerumque autem loqui amant etiam qui nesciunt, quid loquantur uel quomodo loquantur siue ad sanitatem sententiarum siue ad ipsum qui per artem grammaticam discitur integrum sonum ordinemque uerborum. eloquentia uero facultas dicendi est congruenter explicans quae sentimus, qua tunc utendum est cum recta sentimus. hoc modo ea non usi sunt haeretici. nam utique si recta sensissent, non solum nihil mali, uerum et boni aliquid esset quod eloquenter explicare potuissent. frustra igitur istorum exemplorum commemoratione accusasti eloquentiam. neque enim propterea pro patria non est miles armandus, quia contra patriam nonnulli arma sumpserunt, aut ideo uti non debent boni et docti medici ferramentis medicinalibus ad salutem, quia his ad perniciem etiam indocti pessimique abutuntur. quis enim nescit, sicuti est (medicina utilis uel inutilis), ut fuerint (utilia uel inutil)ia quae quaeruntur, ita eloquentiam, hoc est peritiam facultatemque dicendi, sic esse utilem uel inutilem, ut fuerint utilia uel inutilia quae dicuntur? quod nec te arbitror ignorare. ### English translation (Claude) In the first parts of it you labored to make eloquence seem suspect to people. For, as if praising my manner of speaking and then as if fearing that by this manner I might deceive you or anyone by persuading them of falsehoods, you went on to accuse eloquence itself, bringing in even a testimony against it from the holy Scriptures, where you think it was said, “From much eloquence you will not escape sin,” whereas it does not say “from much eloquence” but “from much speaking.” Much speaking is superfluous talk, a fault contracted from the love of talking. And for the most part even people who do not know what they are saying, or how they are saying it, love to talk, whether in regard to soundness of thought or in regard to that correct sound and order of words which is learned through the art of grammar. Eloquence, on the other hand, is the ability to speak that sets out fittingly what we think, and it is to be used when what we think is right. In this way the heretics did not use it. For certainly, if they had thought rightly, there would have been not only nothing evil but even something good which they could have set out eloquently. In vain, then, did you accuse eloquence by citing those examples. For a soldier is not on that account to be left unarmed for his country because some have taken up arms against their country; nor ought good and learned physicians on that account not to use medical instruments for health because the unlearned and the worst men misuse them for destruction. Who does not know that, just as medicine is useful or useless according as the things sought are useful or useless, so eloquence, that is, skill and ability in speaking, is useful or useless according as the things said are useful or useless? I do not think you are ignorant of this either. ### Scripture references - Prov 10:19: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Prov 10:19: the Latin read “ex multiloquio” (“from much speaking”), not “from much eloquence”. The words in round brackets near the end are the editor's supplements. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.2 (CSEL 52:325–326; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-2). ## Against Cresconius 1.3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-3 - Source: CSEL 52:326–327 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says Cresconius's attack on eloquence is itself sophistry, since the Donatists praise their own eloquent bishops. ### Latin text Sed, credo, cum me uideres a nonnullis putari eloquentem, ut a me lectoris auditorisue studium deterreres, accusandam existimasti eloquentiam, ut iam quid dicerem non adtenderet, quisquis abs te perterritus tamquam eloquenter me dicentem eo ipso iam cauendum fugiendumque censeret. uide ergo, ne hoc quod fecisti sit artis illius malae, quam, sicut de Platone commemorasti, nonnulli recte iudicauerunt de ciuitate ac de humani generis societate pellendam. haec non est eloquentia — quae utinam mihi ad explicanda ea quae sentio pro desiderio prouenisset! —, sed quaedam sophistica et maligna professio, quae sibi proponit non ex animo, sed ex contentione uel commodo pro omnibus et contra omnia dicere. de hac ait sancta scriptura: qui sophistice loquitur odibilis est; ab hac mihi uidetur Paulus apostolus iuuentutem Timothei prohibere, ubi ait: noli uerbis contendere; ad nihil enim utile est nisi ad subuersionem audientium. et ne a facultate recte dicendi eum prohibuisse putaretur, continuo subiecit: satis age te ipsum probabilem operarium exhibere deo non erubescentem, uerbum ueritatis recte tractantem. nimirum itaque tibi haec animi subrepsit affectio, quod contradicendi studio, non quo ita sentires, sed quo a nobis intentionem discere uolentis auerteres, perhibuisti nos eloquentes et uituperasti eloquentiam. nam quomodo te hoc ex animo fecisse credam, cum sciam, quemadmodum praedicare soleatis eloquentiam Donati, Parmeniani aliorumque uestrorum? qua quid esset utilius, si tam largo flumine pro pace Christi, pro unitate ueritate caritate proflueret? sed quid de aliis loquar? in te ipso nonne aperuisti, quam non ex animo, sed ex contentione uituperator fueris eloquentiae, cum et cetera quae scripsisti per eloquentiam suadere et eandem ipsam eloquentiam eloquenter accusare conatus es? ### English translation (Claude) But, I suppose, when you saw that I was thought eloquent by some, you judged that eloquence must be accused in order to frighten the reader or hearer away from paying attention to me, so that whoever was frightened by you would no longer attend to what I said, but would judge that I must be guarded against and fled from for that very reason, as one who speaks eloquently. See, then, whether what you have done does not belong to that evil art which, as you mentioned concerning Plato, some have rightly judged should be driven out of the city and out of the society of the human race. This is not eloquence (would that I had attained it as I desire, for setting out what I think!), but a certain sophistical and malicious profession, which sets itself to speak for everything and against everything, not from conviction but from contentiousness or for advantage. Of this the holy Scripture says, “He who speaks sophistically is hateful.” From this, it seems to me, the apostle Paul restrains the youth of Timothy when he says, “Do not wrangle over words; it is useful for nothing but the ruin of the hearers.” And so that he should not be thought to have restrained him from the ability to speak rightly, he at once added, “Strive to present yourself to God as an approved workman who is not ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” No doubt, then, this disposition crept into your mind: out of eagerness for contradiction, not because you thought so, but to turn away from us the attention of anyone wishing to learn, you declared us eloquent and found fault with eloquence. For how could I believe you did this from conviction, when I know how you are accustomed to extol the eloquence of Donatus, of Parmenian, and of others of yours? What could be more useful than that eloquence, if it flowed forth in so abundant a stream for the peace of Christ, for unity, truth, and love? But why speak of others? In your own case, did you not reveal how far you were a critic of eloquence not from conviction but from contentiousness, when you tried by eloquence both to persuade people of the other things you wrote and eloquently to accuse eloquence itself? ### Scripture references - 2 Tim 2:14: quotation, high confidence - 2 Tim 2:15: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Sir 37:20 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence - Plato, Resp. 398a (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Plato expels the poets from his ideal city (Republic 3 and 10); Cresconius apparently applied this to rhetoric. Sir 37:20 (Vulgate 37:23). 2 Tim 2:14–15. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.3 (CSEL 52:326–327; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-3). ## Against Cresconius 1.4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-4 - Source: CSEL 52:327–328 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine asks why Cresconius writes if he praises his bishops for refusing to debate. ### Latin text Nam quod te dicis et arte dicendi inparem nobis et exemplis legis christianae penitus non instructum, quo pertinet obsecro? numquidnam te conpuli contra mea scripta rescribere et ideo recusantis et excusantis haec uox est? si ergo penitus non instructus es, cur non potius taces aut ita loqueris, ut instrui te desideres? instare me dicis et prouocare semper, ut ad dinoscendam ueri quaestionem mecum uestri disceptent, sed uestros prudentius ac patientius facere, qui in ecclesia tantum quae in lege mandata sunt populos docent nec nobis respondere curant, scientes quia, si lex diuina et tot documenta legalium scripturarum nobis quid sit melius quid uerius suadere non possunt, numquam humana queat auctoritas nos discussis erroribus ad ueritatis regulam reuocare. quid tibi ergo uisum est, ut aduersus nos illis tacentibus tu loquaris? nam si bene faciunt, cur non imitaris, si male, cur laudas? ### English translation (Claude) As for your saying that you are unequal to us in the art of speaking and wholly uninstructed in the examples of the Christian law, what is the point of that, I ask? Did I compel you to write against my writings, so that this is the voice of one who refuses and excuses himself? If then you are wholly uninstructed, why do you not rather keep silent, or speak in such a way as to show that you desire to be instructed? You say that I press on and always challenge your people to debate with me in order to discern the question of the truth, but that your people act more prudently and patiently, who in church teach the congregations only what is commanded in the law and do not trouble to answer us, knowing that if the divine law and so many proofs from the Scriptures of the law cannot persuade us what is better and what is truer, no human authority could ever, our errors having been dispelled, call us back to the rule of truth. Why then did it seem good to you to speak against us while they keep silent? For if they do well, why do you not imitate them? If badly, why do you praise them? ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.4 (CSEL 52:327–328; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-4). ## Against Cresconius 1.5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-5 - Source: CSEL 52:328 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine replies that both parties' bishops have sought to settle the dispute, so he is not alone or arrogant in seeking it. ### Latin text Dicis, quod intoleranda adrogantia credam me solum terminare posse, quod aliis uelut inexplicabile uisum atque ideo iudici deo dimissum est, cum paulo superius dixeris hoc me uelle finire post tot annos, post tot iudices atque arbitros, quod apud principes tot disceptantibus litteratis ab utriusque partis episcopis finiri non potuit. certe solus hinc satago, certe solus quaestionem istam finiri disceptando desidero? puto enim, si solos nostros id conatos culpare uoluisses, non etiam uestros in eo conatu fuisse fatereris. quia ergo illum conatum, illam uoluntatem et instantiam saltem propter uestros reprehendere iam non potes, nolo esse a tam bono opere alienus. quid arguis, quid reprehendis? an inuides? non hoc de te temere credendum est. restat ergo, ut studio contentionis hoc in me culpes, quod etiam in uestris laudare conpelleris. ### English translation (Claude) You say that with intolerable arrogance I believe that I alone can settle what to others has seemed as if inexplicable and for that reason has been left to God as judge; and yet a little earlier you said that I wish to settle, after so many years, after so many judges and arbiters, what could not be settled before the emperors when so many learned men of both parties' bishops debated it. Am I really alone in busying myself about this? Am I alone in desiring that this question be settled by debate? For I think that if you had wished to blame ours alone for having attempted it, you would not have admitted that yours too were engaged in that attempt. Since then you can no longer find fault with that attempt, that will and that persistence, at least because of your own people, I do not wish to be a stranger to so good a work. What do you charge, what do you blame? Or do you envy? That must not rashly be believed of you. It remains, then, that out of eagerness for contention you blame in me what you are compelled to praise even in your own. ### Translation notes - The debates before the emperors refer to the appeals of the Donatist case to Constantine and later rulers. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.5 (CSEL 52:328; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-5). ## Against Cresconius 1.6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-6 - Source: CSEL 52:328–329 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the Catholic party does not reopen a settled case but shows how it was settled, for the sake of those deceived. ### Latin text At enim, quod inter tot ac tales finitum non est, intolerabilis adrogantia est per se solum finiri posse praesumere. ne quaeso mihi soli hoc tribuendum putes; plurimi sumus, qui hoc ut finiatur, immo iam ut finitum esse innotescat instamus. illi enim dixerunt non esse finitum, qui eidem fini consentire noluerunt eumque uobis occultauerunt, ut etiam uos eorum auctoritate decepti finitum non esse credatis. nostri autem, ex quo finitum est, nullo prorsus tempore ut ipse finis innotesceret cessauerunt, quomodo id publice priuatimque agere potuerunt, ne quisquam in perniciosissimo errore persistens de segnitia circa se ministrorum dei in ultimo iudicio quereretur. non ergo nos olim finitam causam de integro uolumus retractare, sed quemadmodum finita sit demonstrare, propter eos maxime qui hoc nesciunt, ut, cum defensores conuincuntur erroris, aut etiam ipsi correcti liberentur aut certe ipsis confutatis et in aperta pertinacia remanentibus hi, qui cupidiores sunt ueritatis quam contentionis, uideant quid sequantur. ### English translation (Claude) But, you say, it is intolerable arrogance to presume that what was not settled among so many and such men can be settled by oneself alone. Please do not think this should be attributed to me alone; we are very many who press for this to be settled, or rather, for it to be made known that it has already been settled. For those who refused to consent to that settlement said it was not settled, and they concealed it from you, so that you too, deceived by their authority, believe it was not settled. But ours, from the time it was settled, have never at any time ceased to make that settlement known, in whatever way they could do so in public and in private, so that no one persisting in a most destructive error might complain at the last judgment of the slackness of God's ministers toward him. We do not, then, wish to reopen afresh a case long since settled, but to show how it was settled, especially for the sake of those who do not know it, so that when the defenders of the error are refuted, either they themselves may be corrected and set free, or at least, once they are confuted and remain in open obstinacy, those who are more eager for truth than for contention may see what to follow. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.6 (CSEL 52:328–329; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-6). ## Against Cresconius 1.7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-7 - Source: CSEL 52:329–330 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that preaching truth is never fruitless, since much of Africa has returned to unity and the preacher is rewarded regardless. ### Latin text Neque hoc fit sine fructu, ut existimas. nam si posses uidere, quam longe lateque Africam error iste peruaserat et quam pauca eius remanserint, quae nondum in pacem catholicam correcta transierunt, nullo modo assertorum christianae pacis et unitatis infructuosam et inanem arbitrareris instantiam, quamuis etiam, sicubi diligentia medicinae huius inpensa non prodest, sufficit ad rationem deo reddendam, quod non cessauit inpendi. sicut enim malignus suasor peccati, etiamsi non persuaserit, merito poenam deceptoris incurret, ita fidelis iustitiae praedicator, etiamsi ab hominibus respuatur, absit ut apud deum sui officii mercede fraudetur. res enim certa fit ad incertum; incertum autem dico non praemium facientis, sed animum audientis. incertum enim nobis est, utrum adsensurus sit cui ueritas praedicatur, sed certum est etiam talibus ueritatem praedicari oportere et certum est fideliter eam praedicantes dignam retributionem manere, siue suscipiantur siue spernantur siue etiam propterea quaelibet temporaliter aduersa patiantur. dominus dicit in euangelio: cum ingressi fueritis, dicite: pax domui huic. si digni fuerint qui ibi sunt, requiescet super eos pax uestra; si quo minus, ad uos reuertetur. numquid certos fecit, quod essent eorum pacem suscepturi quibus eam praedicarent? certos tamen fecit, ut eam sine cunctatione praedicarent. ### English translation (Claude) Nor is this done without fruit, as you think. For if you could see how far and wide that error had spread through Africa, and how little of it remains that has not yet been corrected and passed over into the Catholic peace, you would in no way judge the persistence of the defenders of Christian peace and unity to be fruitless and empty; although even where the care spent on this remedy does no good, it is enough for giving account to God that it did not cease to be spent. For just as an evil persuader to sin, even if he does not persuade, will deservedly incur the punishment of a deceiver, so a faithful preacher of righteousness, even if he is rejected by men, will by no means be cheated by God of the reward of his duty. For a certain thing is done toward an uncertain end; and I call uncertain not the reward of the one who does it but the mind of the one who hears. For it is uncertain to us whether the one to whom the truth is preached will assent, but it is certain that the truth must be preached even to such, and it is certain that a fitting reward awaits those who preach it faithfully, whether they are received or spurned, or even if they suffer whatever adversities in time on that account. The Lord says in the gospel, “When you have entered, say, ‘Peace to this house.’ If those who are there are worthy, your peace will rest upon them; if not, it will return to you.” Did he make them certain that those to whom they preached it would receive their peace? Yet he made them certain that they should preach it without hesitation. ### Scripture references - Luke 10:5: quotation, high confidence - Luke 10:6: quotation, high confidence - Matt 10:12: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Luke 10:5–6, with Matt 10:12–13. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.7 (CSEL 52:329–330; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-7). ## Against Cresconius 1.8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-8 - Source: CSEL 52:330–331 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine cites Paul to Timothy: correction with gentleness is a duty, and the Donatist question must be preached in season and out of season. ### Latin text Apostolus etiam Paulus: seruum, inquit, domini litigare non oportet, sed esse mitem ad omnes, docibilem, patientem, in modestia corripientem diuersa sentientes, ne forte det illis deus paenitentiam ad cognoscendam ueritatem et resipiscant de diaboli laqueis, captiuati ab ipso in ipsius uoluntatem. intende quomodo quem noluit litigare uoluit tamen in modestia corripere diuersa sentientes, ne dei seruus prohibitionem petulantiae occasionem putaret esse pigritiae. uerum quia multi et ipsam correptionem, quae modeste fit, uel peccatis suis fauentes uel quid respondeant non inuenientes nec tamen ueritati adquiescentes onerose ac moleste ferunt, eos, qui secum sedulo agunt nec ab eorum conuincendo errore dissimulant. litigiosos et contentiosos uocant. falsitas enim, quae nudari et redargui metuit, eorum uitiorum nomine, quae ueritas damnat, diligentiam ueritatis accusat. numquid ideo tamen ab hac instantia desistendum est? uide quemadmodum Timotheum idem obstringat apostolus, ne propter homines, quibus insuauis est praedicatio ueritatis, aliqua ei segnitia praedicandi subreperet: testificor, inquit, coram deo et Christo Iesu, qui iudicaturus est uiuos et mortuos, et manifestationem et regnum eius: praedica uerbum, insta oportune inoportune, argue hortare increpa in omni longanimitate et doctrina. quis haec audiens, si deo fideliter seruit, si dolosus operarius non est, ab hac diligentia et instantia conquiescat, quis sub tanta testificatione segnis esse audeat? non itaque nobis obstrepat in hac causa facundia tua; praedicamus omnino in adiutorio domini dei nostri christianae unitatis utilitatem pietatem sanctitatem, praedicamus uolentibus oportune, renitentibus inoportune, et quantis ualemus uiribus istam inter nos partemque Donati quaestionem et pro quibus (et contra quos) possumus olim finitam esse monstramus. ### English translation (Claude) The apostle Paul too says, “The servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle toward all, teachable, patient, correcting with modesty those who think otherwise, in case God may give them repentance to know the truth and they may come to their senses from the snares of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.” Notice how he did not want him to quarrel and yet wanted him to correct with modesty those who think otherwise, so that the servant of God should not take the prohibition of insolence as an occasion for laziness. But because many, either favoring their own sins or finding nothing to answer and yet not yielding to the truth, take even correction that is made with modesty as burdensome and annoying, they call those who deal with them diligently and do not neglect to refute their error quarrelsome and contentious. For falsehood, which fears being stripped bare and refuted, accuses the diligence of truth under the name of those faults which truth condemns. Must one then desist from this persistence on that account? See how the same apostle binds Timothy, so that no slackness in preaching should creep upon him because of people to whom the preaching of the truth is unpleasant: “I charge you,” he says, “before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, press on in season, out of season; reprove, exhort, rebuke with all patience and teaching.” Who, hearing this, if he serves God faithfully, if he is not a deceitful workman, would rest from this diligence and persistence? Who under so solemn a charge would dare to be slack? Let not your fluency, then, make a din against us in this case. With the help of the Lord our God we preach altogether the usefulness, the piety, and the holiness of Christian unity; we preach it in season to the willing, out of season to the resisting; and with all the strength we have we show that this question between us and the party of Donatus was long ago settled, and for whom and against whom. ### Scripture references - 2 Tim 2:24: quotation, high confidence - 2 Tim 2:25: quotation, high confidence - 2 Tim 2:26: quotation, high confidence - 2 Tim 4:1: quotation, high confidence - 2 Tim 4:2: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 2 Tim 2:24–26; 2 Tim 4:1–2. The words “and against whom” (in round brackets) are the editor's supplement. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.8 (CSEL 52:330–331; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-8). ## Against Cresconius 1.9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-9 - Source: CSEL 52:331–332 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine distinguishes those who defend falsehood from those who preach truth from envy, and says truth preached from any motive should be welcomed. ### Latin text Agnoscant in se contentiosae animositatis nomen et crimen, qui uel peruicaci astutia praebent patrocinium falsitati uel inuida iactantia ministrant praeconium ueritati. utrumque hoc contentiosorum genus apostolus Paulus expressit, illud primum in Alexandro, de quo ait: Alexander aerarius multa mala mihi ostendit; reddet illi dominus secundum opera eius. quem et tu euita, ualde enim restitit nostris sermonibus, hoc uero alterum in eis, de quibus ait: quidam quidem ex inuidia et contentione Christum adnuntiant, non caste, existimantes tribulationem suscitari uinculis meis. nam hi procul dubio id ipsum adnuntiabant quod Paulus, non tamen eo animo, non ea uoluntate, non ex caritate sed ex inuidia, sicut dixit, sed ex contentione, uolentes superbo sensu in eadem ipsa adnuntiatione praecellere et apostolo Paulo anteponi. quod ille non moleste ferens, immo etiam gaudens, quod ab eis illud uidebat praedicari quod latius innotescere cupiebat: quid enim, inquit? dum omni modo, siue occasione siue ueritate. Christus adnuntietur. neque enim cordis sui ueritate, quia non sincera intentione sed aemula contentione, ueritatem tamen, hoc est Christum, adnuntiabant. tu igitur cum iudex interiorum cordis nostri esse non possis, tantummodo utrum ueritati resistamus an eos, qui ueritati resistunt, reuincere cupiamus aduerte. nam procul dubio, si ueritatem suademus erroremque refellimus, etiamsi non ueritate propriae intentionis, sed emolumentum saeculi huius et humanam gloriam quaerentes id agamus, gaudere debent dilectores ueritatis, quia et hac occasione ueritas adnuntiatur, sicut apostolus qui dicit: et in hoc gaudebo. si autem — quod deo maxime notum est et quod tibi etiam ipsi, quantum est facultatis humanae, si nobiscum uiueres, notum esse potuisset — pia sollicitudine caritatis in huius dispensationis labore uersamur, puto nequaquam iuste reprehendi ministerium nostrum, si contra quoslibet aduersarios ueritatis feruenti spiritu pro ueritate certemus. ### English translation (Claude) Let those recognize in themselves the name and the charge of contentious animosity who either with stubborn cunning provide patronage for falsehood or with envious boasting serve as heralds of the truth. The apostle Paul described both kinds of contentious people: the first in Alexander, of whom he says, “Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his works. You too beware of him, for he strongly opposed our words”; and the other in those of whom he says, “Some indeed proclaim Christ from envy and contention, not sincerely, thinking to stir up affliction for my bonds.” For these without doubt proclaimed the very same thing as Paul, yet not with that mind, not with that will, not from love but from envy, as he said, and from contention, wishing with a proud mind to excel in that very proclamation and to be placed before the apostle Paul. He did not take this ill, but even rejoiced that he saw them preaching what he desired to be made known more widely: “What then?” he says. “So long as in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed.” For they proclaimed the truth, that is, Christ, though not with truth of heart, since not with a sincere intention but with rival contention. Since, then, you cannot be the judge of the inner parts of our heart, only consider whether we resist the truth or desire to refute those who resist the truth. For without doubt, if we urge the truth and refute error, even if we do it not with truth of our own intention but seeking the profit of this world and human glory, the lovers of truth ought to rejoice, because by this occasion too the truth is proclaimed, as the apostle does when he says, “And in this I will rejoice.” But if, as God knows best and as you yourself could have known as far as human capacity allows if you lived with us, we are engaged in the labor of this stewardship out of the devout concern of love, I think our ministry is in no way justly blamed if we contend for the truth with fervent spirit against any adversaries of the truth whatever. ### Scripture references - 2 Tim 4:14: quotation, high confidence - 2 Tim 4:15: quotation, high confidence - Phil 1:15: quotation, high confidence - Phil 1:17: quotation, high confidence - Phil 1:18: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 2 Tim 4:14–15; Phil 1:15–18. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.9 (CSEL 52:331–332; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-9). ## Against Cresconius 1.10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-10 - Source: CSEL 52:332–333 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine appeals to Christ's disputes with the Samaritan woman, the Jewish leaders, and even the devil as precedent for arguing with opponents. ### Latin text Nam si contentiosus habetur a uobis uel animosus paratorque rixarum, quisquis cuiquam sermonis altercationem uel inferre uel referre curauerit, uidete quid de ipso domino Iesu Christo eiusque seruis prophetis et apostolis sentiatis. nempe enim dominus ipse filius dei numquid cum solis discipulis uel turbis, qui in eum crediderunt, an non etiam cum inimicis temptantibus obtrectantibus interrogantibus resistentibus maledicentibus habuit de ueritate sermonem? numquid eum etiam cum una muliere de quaestione orationis contra opinionem uel haeresem Samaritanorum piguit disputare? sed illam, inquis, credituram esse praesciebat. quid? totiens aduersus Iudaeos Pharisaeos Sadducaeos non solum minime credituros, uerum etiam maxime contradicturos et persecuturos coram in os eorum quam multa locutus est! nonne ab eis ultro cum uoluit quod uoluit inquisiuit, ut eorum illos responsione conuinceret? nonne illis dolose temptando quaerentibus, (ad) quae redarguti ommutescerent, sine ulla ambiguitate respondit? quod cum faceret, nullus ex his legitur ad eum sequendum fuisse conuersus. et utique nouerat, quia praescius erat, nihil se ad eorum salutem, cum haec ad eos uel in eos uel aduersus eos diceret, profuturum. sed nos fortasse suo firmauit exemplo, qui futuram fidem perfidiamue hominum praenoscere non ualemus, ne, si quando nimium duris nimiumque peruersis sine fructu salutis eorum locuti fuerimus, deficiamus et desistamus ab instantia praedicandi, cum inaniter piguerit laborare. quid quod etiam ipsum diabolum, quem iam non solum deus sed ne homines quidem dubitare possunt. nullo modo ad iustitiam conuersurum, filius dei tamen insidiose temptantem et de scripturis sanctis quaestionum laqueos opponentem de scripturis sanctis respondendo conuicit nec iudicauit indignum cum satana Christus de diuinis eloquiis habere conloquium, quid utique praeuidens nisi, quod Iudaeis et diabolo nihil proderat, credituris gentibus profuturum? ### English translation (Claude) For if anyone who takes care either to start or to answer a verbal dispute with someone is regarded by you as contentious or hot-tempered and a provoker of quarrels, see what you think of the Lord Jesus Christ himself and of his servants the prophets and apostles. Surely the Lord himself, the Son of God, did not hold discourse about the truth only with the disciples or with the crowds who believed in him, did he, and not also with enemies who tempted, disparaged, questioned, resisted, and reviled him? Did he think it irksome to dispute even with a single woman on the question of prayer against the opinion or heresy of the Samaritans? “But,” you say, “he foreknew that she would believe.” What then? How many things he spoke so often to the faces of the Jews, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, who not only were not going to believe but were going to contradict and persecute him most of all! Did he not of his own accord, when he wished, ask them what he wished, so as to refute them by their own reply? Did he not answer without any ambiguity when they asked him deceitfully to tempt him, answers by which they were refuted and fell silent? And when he did this, none of them is read to have been converted to follow him. And certainly he knew, since he had foreknowledge, that he would do nothing for their salvation when he said these things to them, about them, or against them. But perhaps he strengthened us by his example, who are unable to know beforehand the future faith or unbelief of men, so that if at any time we speak without fruit for their salvation to the exceedingly hard and perverse, we may not lose heart and give up our persistence in preaching because it vexes us to labor in vain. What of the fact that even the devil himself, who, as neither God nor even men can doubt, will in no way be converted to righteousness, the Son of God nevertheless refuted by answering from the holy Scriptures when he tempted him treacherously and set snares of questions from the holy Scriptures? Nor did Christ judge it unworthy to hold converse with Satan about the divine words; and what did he foresee in this, if not that what did no good to the Jews and the devil would do good to the Gentiles who were to believe? ### Scripture references - John 4:20: allusion, high confidence - Matt 4:1: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - John 4:19–24; the temptation, Matt 4:1–11. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.10 (CSEL 52:332–333; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-10). ## Against Cresconius 1.11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-11 - Source: CSEL 52:333–335 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine cites Ezekiel's commission to speak to a people who would not listen as precedent against Cresconius's charge that his labor is fruitless. ### Latin text Prophetas etiam legimus missos ad homines tam inoboedientes, ut deus ipse qui prophetas mittebat de his ad quos mittebat praediceret, quod uerbis eorum obtemperaturi non essent. omitto quod prophetico spiritu quo futura cernebant etiam hoc utique nosse potuissent, quod eorum uerba contempturi fuerant, quibus ea tamen uehementi instantia non tacebant. apertissime dominus ad Hiezechielem prophetam dicit: uade et intra in domum Israhel et loquere uerba mea ad ipsos, quia non ad populum ignotae linguae tu mitteris, ad domum Israhel, nec ad populos multos diuersis aut grauibus linguis loquentes, quorum uerba non possis audire. et si ad tales misissem te, forsitan audissent te; domus autem Israhel non audient te, quia nolunt audire me. omnis enim domus Israhel inquieto et duro corde est. ego autem dedi faciem tuam fortem aduersus faciem eorum et certamen tuum confortabo aduersus certamen eorum. ecce mittitur dei seruus et eis loqui iubetur, qui eum non erant audituri, eo ipso domino qui mittebat et loqui iubebat praedicente, quod non erant audituri. qua causa, cui bono, quo fructu quoue effectu mittitur ad certamen praedicandae ueritatis aduersus certaturos et non oboedituros? num quisquam dicere audebit sanctos dei prophetas incidisse in obprobrium abs te mihi obiectum, cum diceres: si tu scis rem de qua agitur a te finiri non posse, cur incassum laborem sumis, cur inanem inpendis operam, cur superuacue ac sine fructu contendis? an non magnus error est uelle quod non ualeas explicare, cum et lex moneat dicens: altiora te ne quaesieris et fortiora te ne scrutatus fueris, et iterum: homo animosus parat lites et uir iracundus exaggerat peccatum? Hiezechieli certe ista non diceres, qui cum uerbo dei mittitur inferre certamen hominibus non oboedituris contra sensuris contra dicturis contra facturis. nam si diceres, responderet tibi fortasse, quod eisdem Iudaeis apostoli responderunt: cui oboedire oportet? deo magis an hominibus? hoc tibi etiam ipse responderim. ### English translation (Claude) We read also that prophets were sent to people so disobedient that God himself, who sent the prophets, foretold concerning those to whom he sent them that they would not obey their words. I pass over the fact that by the prophetic Spirit by which they saw things to come they could certainly have known this too, that those people would despise their words; yet they did not keep silent before them, but pressed them vehemently. Most plainly the Lord says to the prophet Ezekiel: “Go and enter the house of Israel and speak my words to them, for you are not sent to a people of unknown tongue; to the house of Israel, nor to many peoples speaking different or difficult tongues, whose words you cannot understand. And if I had sent you to such, perhaps they would have listened to you; but the house of Israel will not listen to you, because they will not listen to me. For all the house of Israel is of restless and hard heart. But I have made your face strong against their face, and I will strengthen your contest against their contest.” Behold, a servant of God is sent and commanded to speak to those who would not listen to him, the very Lord who sent him and commanded him to speak foretelling that they would not listen. For what reason, to whose benefit, with what fruit or effect is he sent to the contest of preaching the truth against people who would contend and not obey? Will anyone dare to say that God's holy prophets fell under the reproach you have cast at me, when you said: “If you know that the matter at issue cannot be settled by you, why do you undertake labor to no purpose, why do you spend empty effort, why do you contend superfluously and without fruit? Is it not a great error to want what you cannot accomplish, when the law too warns, saying, ‘Do not seek things too high for you, and do not search out things too strong for you,’ and again, ‘A hot-tempered man prepares quarrels, and an angry man heaps up sin’?” You would certainly not say this to Ezekiel, who is sent with the word of God to bring a contest to people who would not obey, who would think against it, speak against it, and act against it. For if you did say it, he would perhaps answer you what the apostles answered those same Jews: “Whom ought one to obey, God rather or men?” This I too would answer you. ### Scripture references - Ezek 3:4: quotation, high confidence - Ezek 3:5: quotation, high confidence - Ezek 3:6: quotation, high confidence - Ezek 3:7: quotation, high confidence - Ezek 3:8: quotation, high confidence - Prov 29:22: quotation, medium confidence - Acts 5:29: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Sir 3:21 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Ezek 3:4–8; Sir 3:21 (Vulgate 3:22); the second saying is close to Prov 29:22 (or Prov 15:18) in an Old Latin form; Acts 5:29 (paraphrased). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.11 (CSEL 52:333–335; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-11). ## Against Cresconius 1.12 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-12 - Source: CSEL 52:335 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows from Paul's letters that a bishop is commanded to refute those who contradict sound teaching. ### Latin text Hic si tu flagitaris, ut ostendam ubi etiam mihi deus praeceperit id agere quod tu prohibes, memento apostolicas epistulas non eis tantum scriptas, qui tempore illo quo scribebantur audiebant, sed etiam nobis — non enim ob aliud in ecclesia recitantur —; adtende etiam illud, quod apostolus ait: an uultis experimentum eius accipere qui in me loquitur Christus? et recole iam non quid Paulus, sed quid per eum Christus locutus sit quod paulo ante commemoraui: praedica uerbum, insta oportune inoportune etcetera; adtende etiam quemadmodum ad Titum, cum explicaret qualis esse episcopus debeat, etiam perseuerantem dixit esse oportere iuxta doctrinam fidelis uerbi: ut potens sit, inquit, et exhortari in doctrina sana et contradicentes redarguere. sunt enim multi non subditi, uaniloqui et mentis seductores, maxime qui ex circumcisione sunt, quos oportet refelli. non ergo solos qui ex circumcisione sunt, sed eos maxime tales esse ait; oportere tamen in doctrina sana redargui refellique ab episcopo uaniloquos et mentis seductores indubitata praeceptione firmauit. unde hoc etiam mihi iussum esse cognosco, hoc pro uiribus ago, huic operi, quantum ipse qui iussit adiuuat, perseueranter insisto. quid obstas, quid obstrepis, cur prohibes, cur reprehendis? tibine oboedire oportet an deo? ### English translation (Claude) Here, if you demand that I show where God has commanded me too to do what you forbid, remember that the apostolic letters were written not only for those who heard them at the time they were written but also for us (for they are read in church for no other reason). Notice too what the apostle says: “Or do you wish to have proof of him who speaks in me, Christ?” And recall now not what Paul but what Christ spoke through him, which I mentioned a little earlier: “Preach the word, press on in season, out of season,” and so on. Notice also how, when he set out to Titus what a bishop ought to be, he said that he must also hold fast to the faithful word according to the teaching, “so that he may be able,” he says, “both to exhort in sound teaching and to refute those who contradict. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers of the mind, especially those of the circumcision, who must be refuted.” He does not say, then, that only those of the circumcision are such, but especially they; yet he established by an undoubted command that empty talkers and deceivers of the mind must be refuted and confuted in sound teaching by a bishop. Hence I recognize that this has been commanded to me too; this I do according to my strength; at this work I persevere, as far as he who commanded it helps me. Why do you stand in the way, why do you make a din, why do you forbid, why do you find fault? Ought one to obey you, or God? ### Scripture references - 2 Cor 13:3: quotation, high confidence - 2 Tim 4:2: quotation, high confidence - Titus 1:9: quotation, high confidence - Titus 1:10: quotation, high confidence - Titus 1:11: quotation, high confidence - Acts 5:29: echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - 2 Cor 13:3; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:9–11. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.12 (CSEL 52:335; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-12). ## Against Cresconius 1.13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-13 - Source: CSEL 52:335–336 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine states Cresconius's objection that the prophets were sent only to their own people. ### Latin text Nisi forte ista, quae a me de scripturis sanctis documenta prolata sunt, sic accipienda arbitraris, ut, quod uestros factitare laudasti, in ecclesia tantum quae in lege mandata sunt populi doceantur. ibi enim forsitan putas corripiendos et conuincendos esse diuersa sentientes, ut unusquisque doctor suorum tantummodo disputando et praedicando emendet errorem, si quid autem tale cum eis qui foris sunt agere institerit, tunc animosus, tunc contentiosus uel litigiosus habendus sit, quia et ipse Hiexechiel, inquis, et alii prophetae cum uerbis dei ad suum populum mittebantur, Israhelitae scilicet ad Israhelitas. ### English translation (Claude) Unless perhaps you think the proofs I have brought from the holy Scriptures are to be taken in such a way that, as you praised your people for regularly doing, congregations are taught in church only what is commanded in the law. For there perhaps you think those who think otherwise are to be corrected and refuted, so that each teacher corrects by disputing and preaching only the error of his own people; but if he sets about doing anything of the kind with those who are outside, then he is to be regarded as hot-tempered, then as contentious or quarrelsome, because Ezekiel himself, you say, and the other prophets were sent with the words of God to their own people, Israelites, that is, to Israelites. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.13 (CSEL 52:335–336; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-13). ## Against Cresconius 1.14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-14 - Source: CSEL 52:336–337 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine cites Apollos, who publicly refuted the Jews from the Scriptures, as an example for Christ's servants. ### Latin text Ad haec quoque tibi respondeo. iam quidem supra commemoraui dominum ipsum Iesum, qui se imitandum discipulis praebuit, non solum Iudaeis, uerum etiam Pharisaeis et Sadducaeis et Samaritanis et ipsi diabolo principi omnium fallaciarum et errorum adserere ueritatem et de lege respondere non dedignatum. sed ne hoc domino licuisse, seruis autem eius existimes non licere, accipe quid in Actibus apostolorum legatur: Iudaeus autem quidam Apollo nomine, Alexandrinus genere, deuenit Ephesum, potens in scripturis. hic catechizatus erat uiam domini, et feruens spiritu loquebatur et docebat uerissime quae iuxta Iesum, sciens solum baptismum Iohannis; hic etiam coeperat fiducialiter agere in synagoga. quem cum audissent Aquila et Priscilla, assumpserunt eum et certius illi exposuerunt uiam domini. uolente autem illo ire in Achaiam exhortati fratres scripserunt discipulis ut eum reciperent. qui cum uenisset, multum contulit his qui ibi crediderunt; uehementer enim Iudaeos reuincebat publice ostendens per scripturas esse Iesum Christum. quid de isto dicis, quid sentis? nonne fortasse eum contentiosum et animosum concitatorem paratoremque rixarum criminaremini, nisi tanta libri sancti auctoritate premeremini? ### English translation (Claude) To this too I answer you. I have already mentioned above that the Lord Jesus himself, who offered himself to his disciples to be imitated, did not disdain to assert the truth and to answer about the law not only to the Jews but also to the Pharisees and Sadducees and Samaritans and to the devil himself, the prince of all deceits and errors. But so that you may not think this was permitted to the Lord but is not permitted to his servants, hear what is read in the Acts of the Apostles: “Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, came to Ephesus, mighty in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in spirit he spoke and taught most accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John. He also began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him and expounded the way of the Lord to him more accurately. And when he wished to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to receive him. When he came, he greatly helped those who had believed there; for he vehemently refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.” What do you say of him, what do you think? Would you not perhaps accuse him as a contentious and hot-tempered agitator and maker of quarrels, if you were not held down by such great authority of the holy book? ### Scripture references - Acts 18:24: quotation, high confidence - Acts 18:25: quotation, high confidence - Acts 18:26: quotation, high confidence - Acts 18:27: quotation, high confidence - Acts 18:28: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Acts 18:24–28. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.14 (CSEL 52:336–337; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-14). ## Against Cresconius 1.15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-15 - Source: CSEL 52:337–338 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine points to Paul disputing with Stoics and Epicureans in the Areopagus as proof that one should refute error even among outsiders. ### Latin text An quia Iudaeus in Christum crediderat, propterea Iudaeos christianae fidei resistentes et Iesum negantes esse Christum publice reuincere debebat, nos autem, quia partis Donati numquam fuimus, propterea partem Donati resistentem christianae unitati reuincere non debemus? numquid Paulus apostolus aliquando fuit cultor idolorum aut aliquando fuit in haeresi Epicureorum uel Stoicorum, cum quibus tamen eum nec puduit nec piguit de quaestione dei uiui et ueri habere sermonem? accipe, quid de hac re in eodem libro scriptum sit: Paulus autem cum illos Athenis expectaret, inritabatur spiritu suo intra se, uidens circa idola esse ciuitatem. disputabat igitur Iudaeis in synagoga et gentibus et colentibus et in foro per omnem diem ad eos qui aderant. quidam uero Epicureorum et Stoicorum philosophorum conferebant cum illo, et quidam dicebant: quidnam uelit seminator uerborum hic dicere? alii uero: peregrinorum daemoniorum uidetur adnuntiator esse. ecce apostolus Paulus Stoicos et Epicureos. diuersas non solum ab illo uerum etiam inter se aduersasque haereses, secum conferre non respuit, non tantum extra ecclesiam, sed etiam extra synagogam disputans cum eis, nec eorum conuiciis exterritus uelut lites contentionesque declinans a praedicanda christiana ueritate cessauit. nam uide, quid consequenter sancta scriptura testatur: adprehensumque eum, inquit, in Areopagum duxerunt dicentes: possumus scire quae sint haec quae a te dicuntur? insueta enim quaedam adfers in aures nostras; uolumus ergo scire quidnam uelint haec esse. Athenienses autem et aduenae hospites ad nihil aliud uacabant quam dicere noui aliquid aut audire. stans uero Paulus in medio Areopago dixit: uiri Athenienses, per omnia superstitiosiores uos uideo. perambulans enim et considerans simulacra uestra inueni etiam aram in qua erat scriptum: ignoto deo. quem ergo ignorantes colitis, hunc ego adnuntio uobis et cetera quae commemorare omnia longum est. quod tamen ad quaestionem quam nunc discutimus sufficit, adtende, obsecro te, Hebraeum ex Hebraeis apostolum Christi stantem ac sermocinantem non in synagoga Iudaeorum neque in ecclesia christianorum, sed in Areopago Atheniensium, hoc est contentiosorum maxime impiorumque Graecorum. ibi enim loquacissimae philosophorum haereses extiterunt. quarum nonnullae, sicut ipsi qui hic commemorati sunt Stoici, magis de uerborum quam de rerum aduersitate confligunt, quod apostolus prohibuit Timotheum, dicens ad nihil esse utile nisi ad subuersionem audientium. nam de his, ut nosti, Tullius ait: uerbi enim controuersia iam diu torquet homines Graeculos, contentionis cupidiores quam ueritatis. hos tamen Paulus noster adloquendos corrigendosque suscepit nec ipsius loci nomine exterritus, quod ex Marte inditum resonat, quem deum dicunt esse bellorum, ibi pacifica credituris intrepidus loquebatur, ibi spiritalibus adcinctus armis perniciosos expugnabat errores nec contentiosos tamquam mitissimus nec dialecticos tamquam simplicissimus formidabat. ### English translation (Claude) Or is it that, because he was a Jew who had believed in Christ, he ought for that reason publicly to refute the Jews who resisted the Christian faith and denied that Jesus is the Christ, whereas we, because we were never of the party of Donatus, ought not for that reason to refute the party of Donatus as it resists Christian unity? Was the apostle Paul ever a worshiper of idols, or ever of the sect of the Epicureans or the Stoics? Yet he was neither ashamed nor reluctant to hold discourse with them on the question of the living and true God. Hear what is written about this in the same book: “While Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was given over to idols. So he disputed with the Jews in the synagogue and with the Gentiles and the worshipers, and in the marketplace every day with those who were there. And some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers conversed with him, and some said, ‘What does this sower of words want to say?’ Others said, ‘He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign demons.’” See, the apostle Paul did not refuse to converse with the Stoics and Epicureans, sects differing not only from him but also among themselves and opposed to each other, disputing with them not only outside the church but even outside the synagogue; nor, frightened by their abuse, did he cease from preaching the Christian truth as if avoiding quarrels and contentions. For see what the holy Scripture testifies next: “And they took hold of him,” it says, “and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, ‘May we know what these things are that you are saying? For you bring some strange things to our ears; we wish therefore to know what these things mean.’ Now the Athenians and the strangers staying there had leisure for nothing else than to tell or to hear something new. And Paul, standing in the middle of the Areopagus, said, ‘Men of Athens, I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked about and looked at your images, I found also an altar on which was written: To an unknown god. What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you,’” and the rest, which would take long to recount in full. But what suffices for the question we are now discussing, notice, I beg you: the apostle of Christ, a Hebrew of Hebrews, standing and discoursing not in the synagogue of the Jews nor in the church of the Christians, but in the Areopagus of the Athenians, that is, of the most contentious and ungodly Greeks. For there the most talkative sects of the philosophers arose, some of which, like the very Stoics mentioned here, fight more over opposition of words than of things, which the apostle forbade Timothy, saying it is useful for nothing but the ruin of the hearers. For of them, as you know, Tullius says: “A controversy over a word has long tormented these little Greeks, more eager for contention than for truth.” Yet our Paul undertook to address and correct them; nor was he frightened by the very name of the place, which echoes its derivation from Mars, whom they call the god of wars. There he spoke peaceful things fearlessly to those who would believe; there, girded with spiritual arms, he overthrew destructive errors; and, being most gentle, he did not fear the contentious, nor, being most simple, the dialecticians. ### Scripture references - Acts 17:16: quotation, high confidence - Acts 17:17: quotation, high confidence - Acts 17:18: quotation, high confidence - Acts 17:19: quotation, high confidence - Acts 17:20: quotation, high confidence - Acts 17:21: quotation, high confidence - Acts 17:22: quotation, high confidence - Acts 17:23: quotation, high confidence - 2 Tim 2:14: allusion, high confidence - Phil 3:5: echo, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cicero, De or. 1.47 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Acts 17:16–23; 2 Tim 2:14. Cicero, De oratore 1.11.47. Areopagus = “hill of Ares” (Mars). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.15 (CSEL 52:337–338; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-15). ## Against Cresconius 1.16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-16 - Source: CSEL 52:338–340 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine defines dialectic as skill in disputing and turns Cresconius's charge back on him, since he too argues with eloquence and dialectic. ### Latin text Nosti enim quam maxime apud Stoicos uiguisse dialecticam, quamuis et ipsi Epicurei, quos inperitia liberalium disciplinarum non solum non pudebat, uerum etiam delectabat, quasdam disputandi regulas, quibus quisque usus minime falleretur, se potius et tenere et docere iactabant. quid est enim aliud dialectica quam peritia disputandi? quod ideo aperiendum putaui, quia etiam ipsam mihi obicere uoluisti, quasi christianae non congruat ueritati et ideo me doctores uestri uelut hominem dialecticum merito fugiendum potius et cauendum quam refellendum reuincendumque censuerint. quod cum tibi non persuaserint — nam te aduersus nos etiam scribendo disputare non piguit —, tu tamen in me dialecticam criminatus es. quo falleres inperitos illosque laudares, qui disputando mecum congredi noluerant. sed tu uidelicet non dialectica uteris, cum contra nos scribis. ut quid te ergo in tantum disputandi periculum proiecisti, cum disputare non noueris? aut si nosti, cur dialecticus dialecticam criminaris, ita uel temerarius uel ingratus, ut aut imperitiam qua uinceris non refrenes aut doctrinam qua iuuaris accuses? inspicio sermonem tuum, istum ipsum quem ad me scripsisti; uideo te quaedam copiose ornateque explicare, hoc est eloquenter, quaedam uero subtiliter arguteque disserere, hoc est dialectice. et tamen eloquentiam dialecticamque reprehendis. si noxia sunt, quare haec facis: si non sunt, cur arguis? sed ne etiam nos uerbi controuersia torqueat. cum res ipsa intellegatur, minus laborandum est quid hominibus eam uocare placuerit. proinde si eloquens ille appellandus est, qui non solum copiose et ornate, sed etiam ueraciter dicit, itemque si dialecticus ille appellandus est, qui non solum subtiliter, sed etiam ueraciter disserit, nec eloquens es nec dialecticus, non quia ieiuna et inornata est dictio tua nec quia obtunsa et crassa est disputatio tua, sed quia ipsa facundia atque sollertia ad defensionem abuteris falsitatis. si autem non in sola ueritate, sed etiam cum mala causa diserte uel neruose agitur, recte potest eloquentia uel dialectica nominari, et eloquens es et dialecticus, quia et facunde dicis uana et acute disputas falsa. sed de te uidero. ### English translation (Claude) For you know that dialectic flourished most among the Stoics; although even the Epicureans, who were not only not ashamed but even delighted by their ignorance of the liberal disciplines, boasted that they rather held and taught certain rules of disputing which would keep anyone who used them from being deceived. For what else is dialectic than skill in disputing? I thought this should be made plain because you wished to cast this too at me, as though it did not befit Christian truth, and as though your teachers had for that reason rightly judged that I, as a dialectician, should be fled from and guarded against rather than refuted and overcome. Though they did not persuade you of this (for you were not reluctant to dispute against us even in writing), you nevertheless accused me of dialectic, to deceive the unskilled and to praise those who had refused to meet me in disputation. But of course you do not use dialectic when you write against us! Why then did you throw yourself into such a danger of disputation, when you do not know how to dispute? Or if you do know, why do you, a dialectician, accuse dialectic, being so either rash or ungrateful that you either do not restrain the unskillfulness by which you are defeated or accuse the learning by which you are helped? I examine your discourse, this very one you have written to me: I see you setting out some things abundantly and with ornament, that is, eloquently, and discussing other things subtly and acutely, that is, dialectically. And yet you find fault with eloquence and dialectic. If they are harmful, why do you do these things? If they are not, why do you accuse them? But let not a controversy over a word torment us as well. When the thing itself is understood, there is less need to labor over what people have been pleased to call it. Accordingly, if he is to be called eloquent who speaks not only abundantly and with ornament but also truthfully, and likewise if he is to be called a dialectician who discusses not only subtly but also truthfully, you are neither eloquent nor a dialectician; not because your style is meager and unadorned, nor because your disputation is blunt and dull, but because you misuse that very fluency and skill in defense of falsehood. If, however, it can rightly be called eloquence or dialectic when one pleads skillfully or forcefully not only for the truth alone but also for a bad cause, then you are both eloquent and a dialectician, because you both speak empty things fluently and dispute false things acutely. But of you I shall see. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.16 (CSEL 52:338–340; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-16). ## Against Cresconius 1.17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-17 - Source: CSEL 52:340–341 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that “dialectic” is simply the Greek word for disputation, which Paul plainly practiced. ### Latin text Stoici certe maxime dialectici fuerunt. cur apostolus Paulus, ne conferrent cum illo, non eos cautissime deuitauit, et uestros episcopos laudas. quod nobiscum uelut cum dialecticis nolint habere sermonem? aut si et Paulus dialecticus erat et ideo conferre secum Stoicos non timebat, quia non solum acute disputabat sicut et illi, sed etiam ueraciter quod non illi, iam caue cuiquam dialecticam pro crimine obieceris, qua usos apostolos confiteris. neque enim, cum hoc mihi obicis, imperitia te falli puto, sed fallere astutia. nomen quippe Graecum est dialectica, quae si usus admitteret fortasse Latine disputatoria uocaretur, sicut grammaticam Latine litteraturam linguae utriusque doctissimi appellauerunt. sicut enim a litteris denominata est grammatica, quoniam Graece grammata litterae dicuntur, sic a disputatione dialectica nomen accepit, quoniam disputatio Graece dialoge uel dialexis appellatur. sicut autem grammaticus a ueteribus Latine dictus est litterator, ita qui Graece dialecticus dicitur multo usitatius et tolerabilius Latine dicitur disputator. puto iam quod apostolum disputatorem non neges, etiamsi dialecticum neges. inprobare ergo in uocabulo Graeco, quod adprobare cogeris in Latino, quid est aliud quam indoctis praetentare fallaciam, doctis facere iniuriam? aut si et disputatorem apostolum negas, qui tam adsidue, tam egregie disputabat, nec Graece nosti nec Latine, uel, quod est credibilius, et in uerbo Graeco fallis eos qui Graece nesciunt et in Latino qui nec Latine sciunt. quid enim est, non dico inperitius — neque enim tu ista non nosti —, sed omnino fallacius quam, cum audias et legas tam multos multiplicesque sermones apostoli adserentis ueritatem, conuincentis falsitatem, negare quod soleat disputare, cum hoc fieri nisi disputando non possit? ### English translation (Claude) The Stoics were certainly great dialecticians. Why then did the apostle Paul not most carefully avoid them, so that they should not converse with him, as you praise your bishops for refusing to hold discourse with us as with dialecticians? Or if Paul too was a dialectician, and for that reason did not fear to converse with the Stoics because he disputed not only acutely, as they did, but also truthfully, which they did not, then beware of casting dialectic at anyone as a crime, since you admit that the apostles used it. For when you cast this at me, I do not think you are deceived by unskillfulness, but deceive by cunning. Dialectic, after all, is a Greek name; if usage allowed, it might perhaps be called in Latin “disputatoria,” just as men most learned in both languages called grammar in Latin “litteratura.” For as grammar is named from letters, since in Greek letters are called grammata, so dialectic took its name from disputation, since disputation in Greek is called dialogē or dialexis. And as the grammarian was called by the ancients in Latin “litterator,” so one who in Greek is called a dialectician is in Latin far more usually and more tolerably called a disputant. I suppose you will not now deny that the apostle was a disputant, even if you deny he was a dialectician. To disapprove, then, in a Greek word what you are compelled to approve in a Latin one, what else is it than to hold out a deception to the unlearned and to do injury to the learned? Or if you deny that the apostle was a disputant too, who disputed so constantly and so excellently, you know neither Greek nor Latin; or, what is more credible, you deceive with the Greek word those who do not know Greek, and with the Latin those who do not know Latin either. For what is, I do not say more unskilled (for you are not ignorant of these things), but altogether more deceitful than, when you hear and read so many and so varied discourses of the apostle asserting the truth and refuting falsehood, to deny that he was accustomed to dispute, when this cannot be done except by disputing? ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.17 (CSEL 52:340–341; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-17). ## Against Cresconius 1.18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-1/#p-1-18 - Source: CSEL 52:341–342 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows that Scripture itself uses the word “dispute” of Paul, the psalmist, and God. ### Latin text Quodsi hoc ab illo factitatum fateris, quia fateri eius litteris cogeris, non tamen has disputationes, sed sermones uel epistulas appellandas esse contendis, quid ego tecum sic diutius agam. ut qui haec ignorant quem uolunt nostrum adprobent, quem uolunt inprobent? de ipsis diuinis litteris, quibus necesse est cedas, hoc doceo, ipsa prorsus uerba, ipsa rerum uocabula profero. habes in hoc eodem testimonio, quod de Actibus apostolorum commemoraui, de ipso Paulo ita positum: disputabat igitur Iudaeis in synagoga et gentibus et colentibus in foro; habes alio loco, quamuis cum populo christiano ageret congregatis in ecclesia fratribus, ita scriptum: sedens uero quidam adulescens nomine Eutychus in fenestra, deductus somno graui, disputante Paulo; habes etiam in libro Psalmorum: suauis sit ei disputatio mea; habes et apud Esaiam prophetam: uenite, disputemus, dicit dominus, et multis aliis diuinarum scripturarum locis lege ubi inueneris hoc uerbum et inspice codices Graecos in eisdem testimoniis sanctarum scripturarum, et uidebis unde sit appellata dialectica, ne, quod omnes iusti etiam cum deo faciunt, quibus dictum est: uenite, disputemus, dicit dominus, non imiteris sapienti pietate, sed insulsa temeritate crimineris. ### English translation (Claude) But if you admit that he regularly did this, because you are compelled by his letters to admit it, and yet you contend that these should be called not disputations but discourses or letters, why should I argue with you any longer in this way, so that those who do not know these things may approve whichever of us they wish and reject whichever they wish? From the divine writings themselves, to which you must yield, I teach this; I bring forward the very words, the very names of the things. You have in the same testimony I mentioned from the Acts of the Apostles this said about Paul himself: “So he disputed with the Jews in the synagogue and with the Gentiles and the worshipers in the marketplace.” You have it written in another place, though he was dealing with the Christian people and the brothers were gathered in church: “A certain young man named Eutychus, sitting in a window, was overcome by deep sleep as Paul disputed.” You have it also in the book of Psalms: “May my disputation be pleasing to him.” You have it also in the prophet Isaiah: “Come, let us dispute, says the Lord.” And read in many other places of the divine Scriptures where you find this word, and look at the Greek manuscripts at those same testimonies of the holy Scriptures, and you will see where dialectic got its name; so that you may not, with foolish rashness, make a crime of what all the righteous do even with God, to whom it was said, “Come, let us dispute, says the Lord,” instead of imitating it with wise piety. ### Scripture references - Acts 17:17: quotation, high confidence - Acts 20:9: quotation, high confidence - Ps 104:34 (103:34 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Isa 1:18: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Acts 17:17; Acts 20:9; Ps 104:34 (Ps 103:34 LXX); Isa 1:18. The Greek forms are dielegeto (Acts) and dialechthōmen (Isa 1:18 LXX). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.18 (CSEL 52:341–342; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-18). ## Against Cresconius 1.19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-19 - Source: CSEL 52:342 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes the true disputant, who first distinguishes truth from falsehood within himself and then leads others from what they know to what follows. ### Latin text Qui enim disputat, uerum quid sit disputando discernit a falso. quod qui non possunt et tamen dialectici uideri uolunt, per insidiosas interrogationes captant incautorum adsensiones, ut ex eorum responsionibus concludant, unde illos uel in aperta falsitate deceptos rideant uel occultam falsitatem deceptis persuadeant, quam plerumque etiam ipsi existimant ueritatem. qui autem uerus disputator est, id est ueritatis a falsitate discretor, primo id apud se ipsum agit, ne non recte discernens ipse fallatur, quod nisi diuinitus adiutus peragere non potest, deinde cum id quod apud se egit ad alios docendos profert, intuetur primitus quid iam certi nouerint, ut ex his eos adducat ad ea quae non nouerant uel credere nolebant, ostendens ea consequentia his, quae iam scientia uel fide retinebant, ut per ea uera, de quibus se perspiciunt consentire, cogantur alia uera quae negauerant adprobare, et sic uerum quod falsum antea putabatur discernatur a falso, cum inuenitur consentaneum illi uero, quod iam antea tenebatur. ### English translation (Claude) For one who disputes distinguishes by disputing what is true from what is false. Those who cannot do this and yet wish to seem dialecticians catch the assent of the unwary by treacherous questions, so as to draw conclusions from their answers by which they may either laugh at them as deceived into open falsehood or persuade them, once deceived, of a hidden falsehood, which they themselves often think is the truth. But the true disputant, that is, the one who distinguishes truth from falsehood, first does this within himself, so that he himself may not be deceived by not distinguishing rightly, which he cannot accomplish unless helped by God. Then, when he brings out to teach others what he has done within himself, he looks first at what they already know for certain, so as to lead them from these to the things they did not know or were unwilling to believe, showing that these follow from what they already held by knowledge or by faith; so that by those truths to which they see they agree they are compelled to approve other truths which they had denied, and so a truth which was previously thought false is distinguished from falsehood when it is found to agree with that truth which was already held before. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.19 (CSEL 52:342; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19). ## Against Cresconius 1.20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-20 - Source: CSEL 52:342–343 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows from Paul's own writing that eloquence and disputation are two styles of the same truthful speech. ### Latin text Hoc ille uerus disputator si late diffuseque faciat, eloquenter facit alioque tunc censetur augeturque uocabulo, ut dictor potius quam disputator uocetur, sicut illum locum apostolus copiose dilatat atque diffundit: in omnibus, inquit, commendantes nosmet ipsos ut dei ministros, in multa patientia, in tribulationibus, in angustiis, in plagis. in carceribus, in seditionibus, in laboribus. in uigiliis, in ieiuniis, in castitate, in scientia, in longanimitate, in benignitate, in spiritu sancto. in caritate non ficta, in uerbo ueritatis, in uirtute dei; per arma iustitiae dextra et sinistra, per gloriam et ignobilitatem, per infamiam et bonam famam; ut seductores et ueraces, ut qui ignoramur et cognoscimur, quasi morientes et ecce uiuimus. ut coerciti et non mortificati, ut tristes semper autem gaudentes, sicut egeni multos autem ditantes, tamquam nihil habentes et omnia possidentes. quid enim hoc stilo apostolico uberius et ornatius, id est eloquentius facile inueneris? si autem presse atque constricte, magis eum disputatorem quam dictorem appellare consuerunt, qualiter agit idem apostolus de circumcisione et praeputio patris Abraham uel distinctione legis et gratiae, quod quidam non intellegentes, immo uero calumniantes criminati sunt eum dicere: faciamus mala, ut ueniant bona. siue autem sit dictor siue disputator, nec dictio sine disputatione est, cum et in ipsa eloquentiae latitudine ueritas a falsitate discernitur, nec disputatio potest esse sine dictione. quando utique uerbis et lingua ipsa constrictio sermonis exprimitur, siue illo utatur perpetuo siue interrogando eum cum quo agit cogat respondere quod uerum est et ex hoc ad aliud uerum quod quaerebatur adducat, ubi maxime regnare dialectica dicitur. ### English translation (Claude) If this true disputant does this broadly and expansively, he does it eloquently, and he is then rated and honored with another name, so that he is called a speaker rather than a disputant; as the apostle abundantly enlarges and spreads out that passage: “In all things,” he says, “commending ourselves as ministers of God, in much patience, in tribulations, in hardships, in beatings, in prisons, in riots, in labors, in watchings, in fastings, in chastity, in knowledge, in long-suffering, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in unfeigned love, in the word of truth, in the power of God; through the weapons of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, through glory and dishonor, through ill repute and good repute; as deceivers and yet truthful, as unknown and yet known, as dying and behold we live, as punished and not put to death, as sorrowful yet always rejoicing, as poor yet making many rich, as having nothing and possessing all things.” What could you easily find richer and more ornate, that is, more eloquent, than this apostolic style? But if he does it concisely and compactly, they have been accustomed to call him a disputant rather than a speaker, as the same apostle deals with the circumcision and uncircumcision of father Abraham or the distinction of law and grace, about which some, not understanding, or rather slandering, accused him of saying, “Let us do evil, that good may come.” But whether one is a speaker or a disputant, there is neither speech without disputation, since even in the very breadth of eloquence truth is distinguished from falsehood, nor can there be disputation without speech, since the compactness of the discourse is certainly expressed in words and with the tongue, whether he uses continuous speech or, by questioning the one with whom he is dealing, compels him to answer what is true and from this leads him to another truth that was being sought; and there, it is said, dialectic reigns most of all. ### Scripture references - 2 Cor 6:4: quotation, high confidence - 2 Cor 6:5: quotation, high confidence - 2 Cor 6:6: quotation, high confidence - 2 Cor 6:7: quotation, high confidence - 2 Cor 6:8: quotation, high confidence - 2 Cor 6:9: quotation, high confidence - 2 Cor 6:10: quotation, high confidence - Rom 4:10: allusion, medium confidence - Rom 3:8: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 2 Cor 6:4–10; Rom 4:9–12; Rom 3:8. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.20 (CSEL 52:342–343; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-20). ## Against Cresconius 1.21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-21 - Source: CSEL 52:343–344 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine cites Christ's answer about tribute to Caesar as a model of drawing the truth from opponents by questions. ### Latin text Cum enim quisque suis responsionibus conuincitur, et si male respondit non habet quod inputet disputatori sed sibi, et si bene respondit erubescit ulterius resistere non iam disputatori sed sibi. in quo genere dominus cum aduersus Iudaeos crebro ageret eosque illorum responsionibus captos conclusosque conuinceret, non uos audierant nec a uobis conuiciari didicerant; nam libentius et inuidiosius eum fortasse dialecticum quam Samaritanum appellarent. quomodo enim putes eos contortos atque confusos, cum uolentes eum capere in uerbo priores interrogauerunt, utrum liceret tributum reddere Caesari, bicipiti uidelicet conplexione insidiantes, ut quodlibet eligens caperetur, si licere responderet, tamquam reus esset aduersus populum dei, si autem diceret non licere, tamquam Caesaris aduersarius puniretur? ubi ille nummum sibi poposcit ostendi et interrogauit, cuius haberet imaginem et inscriptionem. at illi cum respondissent: Caesaris — aperta enim ueritas hoc eos respondere cogebat —, continuo dominus eorum responsione colligatos ac captos trahens: reddite, inquit, Caesari quae Caesaris sunt et deo quae dei sunt. obsecro te, illine fuerunt dialectici, qui praetentis interrogationis insidiis decipiendo superare moliti sunt, an ille potius, qui ex hoc ipso quod interrogauerunt ueram eorum responsionem prudentia interrogationis eliciens illud uerum. quod ab eo putabant periculose dici, ipsos conpulit confiteri? ### English translation (Claude) For when someone is refuted by his own answers, if he answered badly he has nothing to blame on the disputant but himself, and if he answered well he is ashamed to resist further, no longer the disputant but himself. When the Lord frequently dealt in this way with the Jews, and refuted them caught and hemmed in by their own answers, they had not heard you, nor learned from you to revile; for perhaps they would more gladly and more invidiously have called him a dialectician than a Samaritan. For how twisted and confounded do you think they were when, wishing to catch him in his speech, they asked him first whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar, laying a trap with a two-headed dilemma, so that whichever he chose he would be caught: if he answered that it was lawful, he would be guilty as against the people of God; if he said it was not lawful, he would be punished as Caesar's adversary? Then he asked that a coin be shown him and asked whose image and inscription it bore. And when they answered, “Caesar's” (for the plain truth compelled them to answer this), at once the Lord, drawing them bound and caught by their own answer, said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” I ask you, were they the dialecticians, who tried to overcome him by deceit with the snares of a question held out, or rather he, who from the very thing they asked, drawing out their true answer by the prudence of his question, compelled them themselves to confess that truth which they thought it would be dangerous for him to say? ### Scripture references - Matt 22:15: allusion, high confidence - Matt 22:17: allusion, high confidence - Matt 22:19: allusion, high confidence - Matt 22:20: allusion, high confidence - Matt 22:21: quotation, high confidence - John 8:48: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 22:15–21; John 8:48 (“Samaritan”). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.21 (CSEL 52:343–344; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-21). ## Against Cresconius 1.22 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-22 - Source: CSEL 52:344–345 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that Christ did not refuse to answer captious questioners but compelled them to confess the truth. ### Latin text Si illos dixeris fuisse dialecticos, quia dolose. quia calumniose, quia malitiose interrogando in uerbo capere cupiebant — tales enim etiam nos uultis uideri —, cur eis tamen dominus respondit? cur eos usque ad ueritatis confessionem reddita ratione perduxit? cur eis dixit: quid me temptatis. hypocritae? et non addidit dialectici? cur sibi nummum demonstrari flagitauit, ut sententiam suam ueracem exprimeret etiam de ore fallacium, ac non potius ait: abscedite; neque enim loquendum est uobiscum, quia captiosas interrogationes proponitis, quia dialectice mecum agere uultis? nihil tale dixit nec aduersus captiosos interrogatores et uerborum nostrorum callidos captatores exemplum nobis tale proposuit, sed ut eos potius etiam ueritatis inimicos uigilanti interrogatione et inuicta ratione testimonium ueritati perhibere cogamus. hoc nobis faciant uestri. si nos malitiosi et dialectici sumus. an se timere indicant, ne hoc eis nos potius faciamus? si autem Christum dixeris dialecticum, laudabis dialecticam, quam mihi pro crimine obieceras. ### English translation (Claude) If you say that they were the dialecticians, because they wished to catch him in his speech by asking deceitfully, slanderously, maliciously (for that is what you want us too to appear to be), why then did the Lord answer them? Why did he lead them, by the reason he gave, to the point of confessing the truth? Why did he say to them, “Why do you tempt me, hypocrites?” and did not add “dialecticians”? Why did he demand that a coin be shown him, so as to draw out his true judgment even from the mouth of deceivers, and did he not rather say, “Go away; I must not speak with you, because you put forward captious questions, because you wish to deal with me dialectically”? He said nothing of the kind, nor did he set us such an example against captious questioners and crafty catchers of our words; but rather that we should compel them, even the enemies of the truth, by watchful questioning and unconquerable reason to bear witness to the truth. Let your people do this to us, if we are malicious and dialecticians. Or do they show that they fear that we will rather do this to them? But if you say that Christ was a dialectician, you will be praising the dialectic which you had cast at me as a crime. ### Scripture references - Matt 22:18: quotation, high confidence - Matt 22:19: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 22:18–19. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.22 (CSEL 52:344–345; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-22). ## Against Cresconius 1.23 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-23 - Source: CSEL 52:345–346 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine presses Cresconius to define dialectic, showing that any definition either praises Christ's method or condemns the Donatist bishops' refusal to debate. ### Latin text Quod ne facias, uideo quid fortasse dicturus sis, nec illos nec illum in ea sermocinatione aliquid egisse dialectice. si ergo nec illi, qui captiose atque insidiose sermocinantur, ut in uerbo decipiant eos cum quibus agunt, nec illi, qui tales eorum responsione conuincunt. dialectice agunt, dic nobis tandem quid sit dialectica, et quantum mali habeat, quantum noceat. quam fugienda sit doce, cuius nomen inuidiose subicis ignorantibus, crimen ostende quaerentibus. non uis fateri quod dialectice agat, qui homines auersos a uero perite recteque interrogans ex responsionibus eorum adducit ad uerum, ne dialectice cum Iudaeis etiam Christum egisse fatearis; item non uis illos agere dialectice, qui captiosis interrogationibus insidiantes respondentem decipere moliuntur, ne tibi ostendatur ita cum Christo egisse Iudaeos, quos tamen ille non declinauit tacendo, sed potius loquendo superauit, ac sic cogaris fateri non recte episcopos uestros, quos doctos atque sapientes putes. etiam cum dialecticis nolle habere sermonem, quo inuictam doceant ueritatem. uideo, magnos aestus pateris, quomodo definias dialecticum, ut nec peritus disputator sit, ne quod uituperasti laudare cogaris, nec insidiosus uerborum captator, ne tibi dicatur: sicut egit cum talibus Christus, sic agat cum isto christianus. proinde si placet ista cura liberari, eum defini esse dialecticum, cum quo legis periti de parte Donati nolunt habere conloquium. quid enim tibi aliud suggerendum est, homini obicienti nobis dialecticam et ideo praedicanti episcopos suos, quod nobiscum nolint habere sermonem? ### English translation (Claude) To avoid doing that, I see what you will perhaps say: that neither they nor he did anything dialectically in that conversation. If, then, neither those who converse captiously and treacherously in order to deceive in speech those with whom they deal, nor those who refute such people by their own answer, act dialectically, tell us at last what dialectic is, and how much evil it has, how much harm it does. Teach how it is to be shunned, whose name you invidiously throw out to the ignorant; show its crime to those who ask. You do not wish to admit that one acts dialectically who, by questioning skillfully and rightly people turned away from the truth, leads them by their own answers to the truth, lest you admit that Christ too acted dialectically with the Jews. Likewise you do not wish those to act dialectically who, laying snares with captious questions, try to deceive the one who answers, lest it be shown you that the Jews dealt thus with Christ, whom he nevertheless did not avoid by keeping silent but rather overcame by speaking; and so you would be compelled to admit that your bishops, whom you think learned and wise, do not do right in refusing to hold discourse even with dialecticians, so as to teach the unconquerable truth. I see you are in great agitation about how to define a dialectician, so that he is neither a skilled disputant, lest you be compelled to praise what you have blamed, nor a treacherous catcher of words, lest it be said to you: as Christ dealt with such men, so let a Christian deal with this one. Accordingly, if you wish to be freed from this worry, define the dialectician as the man with whom the experts in the law of the party of Donatus refuse to hold a conference. For what else can be suggested to you, a man who casts dialectic at us and therefore praises his own bishops for refusing to hold discourse with us? ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.23 (CSEL 52:345–346; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-23). ## Against Cresconius 1.24 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-24 - Source: CSEL 52:346 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that the Stoics were the foremost dialecticians, yet Paul did not refuse to confer with them. ### Latin text Sed de Iudaeis fortasse inuenis quid dicas, quamuis callide atque uersute dolos interrogationum praetenderint, non eos fuisse dialecticos. de Stoicis certe nihil dici potest, qui non solum dialectici fuerunt, sed etiam ceteras philosophorum sectas in hac uel arte uel facultate uicerunt. Stoicus quippe, ut mecum recolis, fuit ille Chrysippus, de quo Academicus Carneades hanc habebat sententiam, ut, quando cum illo sibi esset disputandum, helleboro purgandum cor esse censeret, ceteros autem uel pransus facile superaret. si ergo nos libri Stoicorum dialectice disputare docuerunt, doctrinam Pauli contra nos proferant episcopi uestri. secum tamen nos conferre patiantur, sicut ipsos tunc Stoicos ille non reppulit. ### English translation (Claude) But about the Jews you will perhaps find something to say: that although they held out the snares of their questions cleverly and craftily, they were not dialecticians. About the Stoics, certainly, nothing of the kind can be said; they were not only dialecticians but surpassed the other sects of philosophers in this art or ability. For, as you recall with me, Chrysippus was a Stoic, of whom Carneades the Academic held the opinion that, whenever he had to dispute with him, he judged his heart needed purging with hellebore, whereas he could easily overcome the others even after lunch. If, then, the books of the Stoics taught us to dispute dialectically, let your bishops bring forth the teaching of Paul against us; yet let them allow us to confer with them, as he did not repel those very Stoics at that time. ### Extrabiblical texts - Chrysippus, testimony (Chrysippus): echo, low confidence ### Translation notes - The anecdote of Carneades purging himself with hellebore before disputing with Chrysippus is told by Valerius Maximus 8.7 ext. 5 (not on the extrabiblical list). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.24 (CSEL 52:346; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-24). ## Against Cresconius 1.25 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-25 - Source: CSEL 52:346–347 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says dialectic only shows what follows from premises, so Christian teaching need not fear it. ### Latin text Hanc enim artem, quam dialecticam uocant, quae nihil aliud docet quam consequentia. demonstrare seu uera ueris seu falsa falsis, numquam doctrina christiana formidat, sicut eam in Stoicis non formidauit apostolus, quos secum uolentes conferre non respuit. et ipsa enim fatetur et uerum est neminem a disputante ad conclusionem falsam consequenter inpelli, nisi prius consenserit falsis, quibus eadem conclusio uelit nolit efficitur. ac per hoc qui cauet, ne se loquentem consequantur falsa quae non uult, uolens falsa caueat quae praecedunt. si autem praecedentibus ueris inhaeserit. quaecumque consequentia perspexerit, quae falsa existimabat uel de quibus dubitabat, admonitus amplectatur, si ueritati est pacatissimae amicior quam contentiosissimae uanitati. ### English translation (Claude) For Christian teaching never fears this art which they call dialectic, which teaches nothing else than to demonstrate consequences, whether of true things from true or false from false; just as the apostle did not fear it in the Stoics, whom he did not reject when they wished to confer with him. For dialectic itself admits, and it is true, that no one is driven by a disputant logically to a false conclusion unless he has first agreed to false premises, from which that conclusion follows whether he will or not. And therefore whoever takes care that false things he does not want should not follow from what he says, let him willingly beware of the false things that come before. But if he holds to true premises, whatever consequences he sees, which he thought false or about which he was in doubt, let him embrace them once he is shown them, if he is more a friend of truth, which is most peaceable, than of vanity, which is most contentious. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.25 (CSEL 52:346–347; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-25). ## Against Cresconius 1.26 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-26 - Source: CSEL 52:347 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine sets out Cresconius's argument that, since Catholics admit Donatist baptism is real, one should be baptized among the Donatists. ### Latin text Parum egerim, nisi hoc quod dico in hac eadem quae inter nos uertitur nostra sermocinatione monstrauero. ecce in ea ipsa quaestione de baptismo tu proposuisti, a me requirens ubi te baptizari conueniat, utrum apud nos an in parte Donati. et quia intentio tua est in parte Donati hominem potius baptizari oportere, hanc intentionem hinc probare. conatus es, quod etiam nos esse illic baptismum non negamus. uides certe id te agere uoluisse, ut ex eo quod concedimus ad id quod non concedebamus attrahamur. id est ut, quia concedimus esse illic baptismum, etiam illic esse hominem baptizandum concedere conpellamur. ### English translation (Claude) I would have done little unless I showed what I am saying in this very conversation of ours that is going on between us. See, in that very question about baptism, you put it forward, asking me where it is fitting for you to be baptized, with us or in the party of Donatus. And because your contention is that a man ought rather to be baptized in the party of Donatus, you tried to prove this contention from the fact that we too do not deny that baptism exists there. You surely see that what you wanted to do was that from what we grant we should be drawn to what we did not grant: that is, that because we grant that baptism exists there, we should be compelled to grant also that a man ought to be baptized there. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.26 (CSEL 52:347; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-26). ## Against Cresconius 1.27 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-27 - Source: CSEL 52:347–348 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers that baptism exists among the Donatists but does not profit there, just as robbers have gold without its being good to join them. ### Latin text Considera diligenter, si est hoc consequens, et tibi ipse responde. puto enim iam hoc ante oculos constituto cernis pro ingenii tui uiuacitate, quam non consequentia pro consequentibus colligas. nam re uera dicimus baptismum et illic esse, sed non dicimus et prodesse, immo uero dicimus et obesse. cum autem quaeritur, ubi quisque debeat baptizari. credo propter illud quaeri quod dominus ait: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu, non intrabit in regnum caelorum. quia ergo propter hanc utilitatem accipiendus est baptismus, cum quaeritur ubi accipiendus sit, non quaeritur ubi sit, sed ubi ad regnum caelorum adipiscendum utilis sit. sequeretur autem etiam illic accipiendum esse ubicumque eum constat esse, si omnes, qui habent aliquid boni, etiam bono suo habere doceretur. cum uero tam multi tam multa bona habeant malo suo, quis non uideat, cum quaeritur ubi aliquid accipiendum sit, non quaeri ubi sit, sed ubi prosit? quomodo enim, si mihi concederes bonum esse aurum. concederes etiam latrones quoque habere aurum, non opinor uelles, ut ex his duobus concessis concluderem eum, qui habere aurum uelit, in latronum societate esse oportere, ita, cum et ego concedo bonum esse baptismum, concedo etiam Donatistas quoque habere baptismum, non debes ex his duobus concessis quasi sequatur concludere eum, qui habere baptismum uelit, in societate Donatistarum esse debere., ### English translation (Claude) Consider carefully whether this follows, and answer yourself. For I think that, now that this is set before your eyes, you see with your lively wit how you are gathering things that do not follow as though they followed. For in truth we say that baptism exists there too, but we do not say that it profits; on the contrary, we say that it harms. Now when it is asked where anyone ought to be baptized, it is asked, I believe, because of what the Lord says: “Unless one is born again of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Since, then, baptism is to be received for this benefit, when it is asked where it is to be received, the question is not where it exists, but where it is useful for obtaining the kingdom of heaven. It would follow that it is to be received wherever it is agreed to exist, if all who have something good were shown to have it also to their good. But since so many have so many good things to their harm, who does not see that, when it is asked where something is to be received, the question is not where it exists, but where it profits? For if you granted me that gold is good, and granted also that robbers too have gold, you would not, I think, want me to conclude from these two concessions that one who wishes to have gold ought to be in the company of robbers; so, when I too grant that baptism is good and grant also that the Donatists too have baptism, you ought not to conclude from these two concessions, as though it followed, that one who wishes to have baptism ought to be in the society of the Donatists. ### Scripture references - John 3:5: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - John 3:5, in the form “kingdom of heaven”. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.27 (CSEL 52:347–348; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-27). ## Against Cresconius 1.28 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-28 - Source: CSEL 52:348 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine gives examples of good things that help some and harm others, as baptism does. ### Latin text Iam ex hoc etiam tibi ipsi occurrere multa non dubito. quae quamuis bona sint et ad utile aliquid instituta. non omnibus tamen habentibus sint utilia, sed tantummodo bene utentibus. nam cum eadem luce et sani oculi perfunduntur et saucii, istis adiumentum est, illis tormentum; idem cibus alias ualitudines alit alias laedit. idem medicamentum hos curat illos debilitat, eadem arma alios muniunt alios inpediunt, eadem uestis aliis tegimento est aliis inplicamento. sic et baptismus aliis ualet ad regnum aliis ad iudicium. ### English translation (Claude) From this I do not doubt that many things will now occur to you yourself which, though they are good and established for some useful purpose, are yet not useful to all who have them, but only to those who use them well. For when sound eyes and wounded eyes are flooded with the same light, it is a help to the one and a torment to the other; the same food nourishes some states of health and harms others; the same medicine cures some and weakens others; the same arms protect some and hinder others; the same garment is a covering to some and an entanglement to others. So too baptism avails some for the kingdom and others for judgment. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.28 (CSEL 52:348; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-28). ## Against Cresconius 1.29 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-29 - Source: CSEL 52:348–349 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues from 1 Tim 1:8 that even good things belonging to God's law harm those who misuse them. ### Latin text Hic uideo quid te possit mouere. fortasse enim dicis, quod in his omnibus nihil sacramenti commemorauerim: baptismus autem sanctum sacramentum est, et ideo non esse consequens, ut, si de auro de luce de alimentis armamentis indumentis probari potuit, quod aliis habentibus apta sint aliis inconuenientia, quamuis sint bona et ad utile aliquid instituta, continuo etiam baptismus aliis prosit aliis obsit habentibus. restat ergo adhuc requirere, utrum etiam illa bona, quae ad legem dei pertinent, non omnia omnibus prosint habentibus. hac quaestione proposita intentio nostra est, quod nec ipsa omnia omnibus habentibus prosunt. hanc intentionem, nostram uide quemadmodum probemus ex consensionibus uestris. conceditis enim in omnibus credendum esse apostolo Paulo — teneo unum —, conceditis etiam eundem apostolum dixisse: bona est lex, (si quis ea legitime utatur: ex) his duobus conficitur bonam esse legem, sed legitime utentibus. si ergo ea non legitime quisque usus fuerit, non ipsa fit mala, sed certe oberit malis. ### English translation (Claude) Here I see what may move you. For perhaps you say that in all these I have mentioned nothing of a sacrament; but baptism is a holy sacrament, and so it does not follow that, if it could be proved of gold, of light, of food, arms, and clothing that they are suitable for some who have them and unsuitable for others, though they are good and established for some useful purpose, therefore baptism too profits some who have it and harms others. It remains, then, still to ask whether those good things too that belong to the law of God do not all profit all who have them. With this question put forward, our contention is that not even these all profit all who have them. See how we prove this contention of ours from your own agreements. You grant that the apostle Paul is to be believed in everything; I hold one premise. You grant also that the same apostle said, “The law is good, if one uses it lawfully.” From these two it is concluded that the law is good, but for those who use it lawfully. If, then, anyone has not used it lawfully, it does not itself become evil, but it will certainly harm the evil. ### Scripture references - 1 Tim 1:8: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Tim 1:8. The words in round brackets are the editor's supplements. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.29 (CSEL 52:348–349; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-29). ## Against Cresconius 1.30 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-30 - Source: CSEL 52:349–351 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows from Paul that the law, knowledge, and even the Lord's body and blood harm those who use them badly. ### Latin text Fortasse dices neminem posse et in lege esse et lege male uti; hoc ipso enim, quod contra legem uiuit, non esse in lege monstratur. contra ego dico fieri posse, ut quisque et in lege sit et (ea) non legitime utatur. quod item uestris concessionibus probo. conceditis enim memoratum apostolum testimonium posuisse de psalmis aduersus eos, qui gloriabantur in lege et uiuebant contra legem: sicut scriptum est, inquit, quia non est iustus quisquam, non est intellegens, non est inquirens deum; omnes declinauerunt, simul inutiles facti sunt; non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum. sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum, linguis suis dolose agebant, uenenum aspidum sub labiis eorum quorum os maledictione et amaritudine plenum est. ueloces pedes eorum ad effundendum sanguinem. contritio et infelicitas in uiis eorum. et uiam pacis non cognouerunt. non est timor dei ante oculos eorum. et ne putarent haec in eos dicta, qui non erant in lege, continuo subiecit: scimus autem quoniam quaecumque lex dicit his qui in lege sunt loquitur, ut omne os obstruatur et reus fiat omnis mundus deo. item alio loco dicit: quid ergo dicemus? lex peccatum est? absit; sed peccatum non cognoui nisi per legem; nam concupiscentiam nesciebam, nisi lex diceret: non concupisces. occasione autem accepta peccatum per mandatum operatum est in me omnem concupiscentiam. item paulo post: peccatum, inquit, accepta occasione per mandatum fefellit me et per illud occidit. itaque lex quidem sancta, et mandatum sanctum et iustum et bonum. quod ergo bonum est mihi factum est mors? absit; sed peccatum, ut appareat peccatum, per bonum mihi operatum est mortem. attendis quemadmodum lege laudata eos qui in lege sunt arguit, quotquot ea male utendo per bonum habebant malum? item ipse apostolus scientiam quandam ex lege, quam et se habere dicebat et alios, sine caritate tamen inutilem dicit et noxiam: de sacrificiis, inquit, idolorum scimus quia omnes scientiam habemus. scientia inflat, caritas uero aedificat. proinde et ista scientia, quamuis ad legem dei pertineat, si in aliquo sine caritate fuerit, inflat et nocet. quid? de ipso corpore et sanguine domini, unico sacrificio pro salute nostra, quoniam ipse dominus dicit: nisi quis manducauerit carnem meam et biberit sanguinem meum, non habebit in se uitam, nonne idem apostolus docet etiam hoc perniciosum male utentibus fieri? ait enim: quicumque manducauerit indigne et biberit calicem domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis domini. ### English translation (Claude) Perhaps you will say that no one can both be in the law and use the law badly; for by the very fact that he lives against the law, he is shown not to be in the law. On the contrary, I say it can happen that a person is both in the law and does not use it lawfully. This too I prove by your concessions. For you grant that the apostle we have mentioned set down a testimony from the Psalms against those who boasted in the law and lived against the law: “As it is written,” he says, “there is none righteous, none who understands, none who seeks God. All have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, not even one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they acted deceitfully; 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. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” And so that they should not think this was said against those who were not in the law, he at once added, “Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are in the law, so that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world become guilty before God.” Likewise in another place he says, “What then shall we say? Is the law sin? By no means. But I did not know sin except through the law; for I would not have known covetousness if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ But sin, taking occasion through the commandment, worked in me all covetousness.” Again a little later: “Sin,” he says, “taking occasion through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Did what is good, then, become death to me? By no means; but sin, that it might appear as sin, worked death in me through what is good.” Do you notice how, while praising the law, he convicts those who are in the law, all who by using it badly had evil through good? Likewise the apostle himself says that a certain knowledge from the law, which he said both he and others had, is useless and harmful without love: “About sacrifices to idols,” he says, “we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” So this knowledge too, though it belongs to the law of God, puffs up and harms if it is in anyone without love. What then? Of the very body and blood of the Lord, the one sacrifice for our salvation (since the Lord himself says, “Unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he will not have life in him”), does not the same apostle teach that this too becomes destructive to those who use it badly? For he says, “Whoever eats unworthily and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” ### Scripture references - Rom 3:10: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:11: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:12: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:13: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:14: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:15: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:16: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:17: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:18: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:19: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:7: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:8: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:11: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:12: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:13: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 8:1: quotation, high confidence - John 6:53: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 11:27: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 3:10–19 (a chain from Pss 14:1–3; 5:9; 140:3; 10:7; Isa 59:7–8; Ps 36:1); Rom 7:7–8, 11–13; 1 Cor 8:1; John 6:53; 1 Cor 11:27. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.30 (CSEL 52:349–351; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-30). ## Against Cresconius 1.31 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-31 - Source: CSEL 52:351 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine concludes that baptism, though holy, harms heretics who have it outside the church, as the good law did not make the Jews good. ### Latin text Ecce quemadmodum obsunt diuina et sancta male utentibus; cur non hoc modo et baptismus? cur non ita in bono baptismo non sunt boni haeretici, quomodo in bona lege non sunt boni Iudaei? iam certe probaui concedentibus uobis, quandoquidem Paulo uos credere et testimonia quae de scripturis posui Paulum dixisse conceditis, iam ergo probaui concessionibus uestris quaedam etiam bona legitima obesse tamen non legitime habentibus et utentibus; cur non ita et baptismus quamuis bonus et legitimus non tamen omnibus habentibus prodest? tu quare tamquam certissimum et consequentissimum concludebas in parte Donati esse hominem baptizandum, quia nos etiam ibi esse concedimus baptismum, nec adtendebas posse nos dicere esse ibi quidem baptismum Christi iustum, sanctum et bonum, sed poenalem contrarium perniciosum inimicis corporis Christi, quod est ecclesia, quae secundum promissa diuina in omnibus gentibus dilatatur? ### English translation (Claude) See how divine and holy things harm those who use them badly; why not baptism too in this way? Why are heretics not good in a good baptism in the same way that Jews are not good in a good law? I have certainly now proved it with your agreement, since you grant that you believe Paul and that Paul said the testimonies I set down from the Scriptures; I have now proved, then, by your concessions, that certain good and lawful things nevertheless harm those who have and use them unlawfully. Why then does baptism too, though good and lawful, not profit all who have it? Why did you conclude, as most certain and most consequent, that a man must be baptized in the party of Donatus because we grant that baptism exists there too, and did not notice that we can say that the baptism of Christ there is indeed just, holy, and good, but penal, adverse, and destructive to the enemies of the body of Christ, which is the church, which according to the divine promises is spread through all nations? ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.31 (CSEL 52:351; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-31). ## Against Cresconius 1.32 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-32 - Source: CSEL 52:351–352 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine refutes the premise that all who have a good baptism are good, using the Corinthian factions as proof. ### Latin text Numquid hic quod dicas inuenies nisi non in eis bonis ad dei legem pertinentibus deputandum esse baptismum, quae possunt homines et habere et boni non esse, sed ipsam quidem legem et scientiam et sacrificium corporis et sanguinis Christi talia bona esse, quae possint homines et habere et mali esse, baptismum uero tale bonum esse, quod quisquis habuerit necessario bonus sit? quod si dicere uolueritis, falsum dicetis, et ideo quid aliud falsum consequatur adtende. quod non ideo commemorabo, ut ex illo tuo falso ad alia falsa te adducam, sed ut hoc consequens cum falsum esse cognoueris, ut ab hoc te liberes, illud quod praecedit emendes. quid ergo praecedit? ex uobis omnes, qui habent bonum baptismum, bonos esse. quod est falsum euidens, quo consequitur bonos fuisse scilicet illos, qui schismata faciebant dicentes: ego quidem sum Pauli, ego autem Cephae. ego autem Christi, quos arguens apostolus ait: diuisus est Christus? numquid Paulus pro uobis crucifixus est, aut in nomine Pauli baptizati estis? sed falsum est quod isti boni erant exceptis eis qui dicebant: ego autem Christi), et tamen baptizati erant sancto baptismo Christi. hoc itaque falsum quare secutum est? quia falsum praecessit omnes habentes bonum baptismum bonos esse. utrumque ergo respuatur, utraque sententia corrigatur, ut, quoniam manifestum est istos, qui schismata faciebant, bonos non fuisse et tamen bono baptismo baptizatos fuisse, illud etiam manifestum sit non omnes, qui bonum habent baptismum, bonos esse. ac per hoc non ideo tenemur, ut in parte Donati baptizandum esse aliquem concedamus, quia et partem Donati, quam malam dicimus, bonum baptismum habere concedimus. ### English translation (Claude) Will you find anything to say here except that baptism is not to be counted among those good things belonging to the law of God which people can both have and not be good; but that the law itself, knowledge, and the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ are such goods as people can both have and be evil, whereas baptism is such a good that whoever has it is necessarily good? If you wish to say this, you will say what is false; and so notice what other falsehood follows. I will not mention it in order to lead you from that falsehood of yours to other falsehoods, but so that, when you recognize that this consequence is false, you may free yourself from it by correcting what comes before. What, then, comes before? On your view, that all who have a good baptism are good. This is evidently false; from it follows that those were good who were making schisms, saying, “I am of Paul, I of Cephas, I of Christ,” whom the apostle rebukes, saying, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” But it is false that these were good (excepting those who said, “I am of Christ”), and yet they had been baptized with the holy baptism of Christ. Why, then, did this falsehood follow? Because a falsehood went before: that all who have a good baptism are good. Let both, then, be rejected, let both statements be corrected, so that, since it is plain that those who were making schisms were not good and yet had been baptized with a good baptism, this too may be plain: that not all who have a good baptism are good. And therefore we are not bound to grant that anyone should be baptized in the party of Donatus because we grant that the party of Donatus, which we call evil, has a good baptism. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 1:12: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 1:13: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Cor 1:12–13. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.32 (CSEL 52:351–352; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-32). ## Against Cresconius 1.33 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-33 - Source: CSEL 52:352–353 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues from Eph 4:5 that one baptism can exist outside the one church, just as the one God is worshiped and the one faith confessed outside it. ### Latin text Rursus ut ex ea consensione me ad id quod non consentio detineres, posuisti scriptum esse: unus deus, una fides, unum baptisma, una incorrupta et uera catholica ecclesia. quae omnia concedo, etsi aliquanto aliter scripta sunt. sed quid ad rem, cum omnia sicut dixi ista concedam? uerum quod ex his conaris efficere non efficitur, uidelicet ut, qui non sunt in una ecclesia, non possint habere unum baptismum, quod omnino falsissimum est. et melius quia et ipse posuisti, unde te possim commemorare quod uolo. certe enim ista proposuisti in concessionibus meis, ex quibus. me adducas ad intentionem tuam, unum deum esse, unam fidem, unum baptismum, unam incorruptam et catholicam ecclesiam. quae cum inter nos conueniant, putas ex his illud quod non conuenit posse monstrari, apud eos qui non sunt in hac una ecclesia hoc unum baptismum esse non posse. ego autem dico posse, si non mutatur, si hoc idem obseruatur, nec ideo fieri ut non sit unum baptisma, quia est et apud illos qui in una non sunt ecclesia. hoc autem probo ex his, quae in eadem sententia posuisti de uno deo et una fide. inuenimus enim eundem deum extra ecclesiam ab ignorantibus coli nec ideo fieri, ut non ipse sit deus, et fidem, qua creditur Christum esse filium dei uiui, inuenimus etiam eos, qui non pertinent ad membra ecclesiae, confiteri nec ideo fieri, ut non sit una fides. sic etiam cum inuenimus eundem baptismum ab eis qui sunt extra ecclesiam in baptizandis hominibus obseruari, non ideo non esse ipsum baptismum existimare debemus. ### English translation (Claude) Again, to hold me from that agreement to what I do not agree to, you set down that it is written: “One God, one faith, one baptism, one incorrupt and true Catholic church.” All of this I grant, though it is written somewhat differently. But what does that matter, since, as I said, I grant all of it? But what you try to derive from it does not follow, namely that those who are not in the one church cannot have the one baptism; which is altogether most false. And it is better so, because you yourself set down that by which I can remind you of what I wish. For you certainly put these forward among my concessions, from which to bring me to your contention: that there is one God, one faith, one baptism, one incorrupt and Catholic church. Since we agree on these, you think that from them can be shown what we do not agree on: that among those who are not in this one church this one baptism cannot exist. But I say that it can, if it is not changed, if it is kept the same; nor does it follow that baptism is not one because it exists also among those who are not in the one church. And this I prove from what you set down in the same sentence about one God and one faith. For we find that the same God is worshiped outside the church by the ignorant, and yet it does not follow that he is not God himself; and the faith by which it is believed that Christ is the Son of the living God, we find confessed even by those who do not belong to the members of the church, and yet it does not follow that it is not the one faith. So too, when we find the same baptism kept in baptizing people by those who are outside the church, we ought not therefore to think that it is not baptism itself. ### Scripture references - Eph 4:5: quotation, high confidence - Matt 16:16: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Eph 4:4–6, cited by Cresconius in a free form. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.33 (CSEL 52:352–353; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-33). ## Against Cresconius 1.34 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-34 - Source: CSEL 52:353–354 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues from Acts 17, James 2, and 1 Cor 13 that God, faith, and baptism can exist outside the church, but are fruitful only within it. ### Latin text Fortasse ad hoc dicas fieri non posse, ut etiam extra ecclesiam idem ipse unus deus colatur aut eadem fides, qua confitemur Christum filium dei, unde Petrus beatus est appellatus, etiam in eis qui non sunt in ecclesia repperiatur. hoc ergo restat ut probem. habes in hoc ipso beati Pauli sermone, quem supra ex Actibus apostolorum commemoraui, cum de deo loqueretur, quia inscriptum in ara inuenerat ignoto deo: quem uos, inquit, ignorantes colitis, hunc ego adnuntio uobis. numquid dixit: (quia extra ecclesiam colitis, non est deus ipse quem colitis? sed ait: quem uos ignorantes colitis, hunc ego adnuntio uobis, quid eis praestare cupiens, nisi ut eundem deum, quem praeter ecclesiam ignoranter atque inutiliter colebant, in ecclesia sapienter et salubriter colerent? ita uobis et nos dicimus: quem baptismum uos ignorantes obseruatis, eius pacem uobis nos (adnuntiamus, non ut, cum ad nos ueneritis, alterum accipiatis, sed ut eum, qui iam apud uos erat, utiliter habeatis. de fide etiam Iacobus apostolus cum loqueretur aduersus eos, qui sibi quod crediderant sufficere arbitrabantur et bene operari nolebant, tu credis, inquit, quoniam unus est deus? bene facis; et daemones credunt et contremescunt. nempe in unitate ecclesiae daemones non sunt, nec ideo tamen possumus dicere aliud esse quod credunt, cum et domino Iesu Christo dixerint: quid nobis et tibi est, fili dei? unde et Paulus apostolus: si habeam, inquit, omnem fidem ita ut montes transferam, caritatem (autem) non habeam, nihil sum. non autem existimo ita quemquam desipere, ut credat ad ecclesiae pertinere unitatem eum qui non habet caritatem. sicut ergo deus unus colitur ignoranter etiam extra ecclesiam nec ideo non est ipse, et fides una habetur sine caritate etiam extra ecclesiam nec ideo non est ipsa, ita et unus baptismus habetur ignoranter et sine caritate etiam extra ecclesiam nec ideo non est ipse. unus enim deus, una fides, unum baptisma, una incorrupta catholica ecclesia, non in qua sola unus deus colitur, sed in qua sola unus deus pie colitur, nec in qua sola una fides retinetur, sed in qua sola una fides cum caritate retinetur, nec in qua sola unus baptismus habetur, sed in qua sola unus baptismus salubriter habetur. ### English translation (Claude) Perhaps to this you will say that it cannot happen that the same one God is worshiped even outside the church, or that the same faith by which we confess Christ the Son of God, for which Peter was called blessed, is found even in those who are not in the church. This, then, remains for me to prove. You have it in that very discourse of blessed Paul which I mentioned above from the Acts of the Apostles, when he spoke of God, because he had found inscribed on an altar, “To an unknown god”: “What you worship in ignorance,” he says, “this I proclaim to you.” Did he say, “Because you worship outside the church, the one you worship is not God himself”? No, he said, “What you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you”; desiring to give them what, if not that they should worship wisely and to their salvation in the church the same God whom they were worshiping ignorantly and uselessly outside the church? So we too say to you: the baptism you keep in ignorance, its peace we proclaim to you; not that when you come to us you should receive another, but that you should have to your profit the one which was already among you. Of faith too, when the apostle James was speaking against those who thought what they had believed was enough for them and would not do good works, he says, “You believe that God is one? You do well; the demons also believe and tremble.” Demons, of course, are not in the unity of the church, and yet we cannot say that what they believe is something else, since they said to the Lord Jesus Christ, “What have we to do with you, Son of God?” Hence the apostle Paul too says, “If I have all faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” And I do not think anyone so foolish as to believe that one who does not have love belongs to the unity of the church. As, then, the one God is worshiped ignorantly even outside the church and yet it is still he, and the one faith is held without love even outside the church and yet it is still that faith, so the one baptism too is had ignorantly and without love even outside the church and yet it is still that baptism. For there is one God, one faith, one baptism, one incorrupt Catholic church: not that in it alone the one God is worshiped, but that in it alone the one God is worshiped piously; not that in it alone the one faith is held, but that in it alone the one faith is held with love; not that in it alone the one baptism is had, but that in it alone the one baptism is had to salvation. ### Scripture references - Matt 16:17: allusion, medium confidence - Acts 17:23: quotation, high confidence - Jas 2:19: quotation, high confidence - Matt 8:29: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 13:2: quotation, high confidence - Eph 4:5: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 16:16–17; Acts 17:23; Jas 2:19; Matt 8:29; 1 Cor 13:2. Words in round brackets are the editor's supplements. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.34 (CSEL 52:353–354; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-34). ## Against Cresconius 1.35 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-35 - Source: CSEL 52:354–355 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains the Catholic practice: correct what schismatics corrupted, but recognize what they kept intact, like the king's mark or the owner's brand. ### Latin text Proinde unum deum, unam fidem, unum baptismum, unam incorruptam et catholicam ecclesiam nobis consentientibus tu proposuisti, sed non solum ex his id quod uolebas non effecisti, uerum etiam ut ex his quod uolebamus te admoneremus nos multum adiuuisti. uide ergo nos quam probabilem rationem sequamur, qui ea, quae schismatici uel haeretici corruperunt, cum ad nos inde ueniunt, corrigimus, quae uero sicut acceperunt tenuerunt, agnoscimus et probamus, ne commoti humanis uitiis ultra iustitiam faciamus ullam diuinis rebus iniuriam, cum et apostolum uideamus etiam in ara gentilium, a quibus idola colebantur, dei nomen inuentum confirmasse potius quam negasse. neque enim propterea mutandus uel inprobandus est regius character in homine, si erroris sui ueniam et militandi ordinem a rege inpetrauerit, quia eundem characterem, quo sibi satellites congregaret, desertor infixit, aut propterea signa mutanda sunt ouibus, cum dominico gregi sociantur, quia eis dominicum signum fugitiuus seruus inpressit. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, you put forward, with our agreement, one God, one faith, one baptism, one incorrupt and Catholic church; but not only did you fail to derive from them what you wanted, you even helped us greatly to remind you from them of what we wanted. See, then, how reasonable is the principle we follow: when schismatics or heretics come to us from there, we correct what they have corrupted, but what they have kept as they received it we recognize and approve, so that, moved by human faults, we may not, beyond justice, do any injury to divine things; since we see that the apostle too, finding the name of God even on an altar of the Gentiles, by whom idols were worshiped, confirmed it rather than denied it. For the royal mark on a man is not to be changed or rejected if he has obtained from the king pardon for his error and a place in military service, merely because a deserter stamped that same mark on him in order to gather followers for himself; nor are the brands to be changed on sheep, when they are joined to the Lord's flock, because a runaway slave impressed the Lord's brand on them. ### Scripture references - Acts 17:23: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The royal mark (character) is the brand or tattoo given to soldiers. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.35 (CSEL 52:354–355; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-35). ## Against Cresconius 1.36 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-36 - Source: CSEL 52:355–356 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues from circumcision, the figure of baptism, which was not repeated when Samaritans or Nazarenes came over, that baptism should not be repeated either. ### Latin text Quodsi haec tamquam decipientia formidatis, quia non sunt ecclesiastica exempla, quamquam et de ouibus et de militibus datas esse in scripturis similitudines noueritis, propheticarum scripturarum quae dicuntur ueteris testamenti uolo aliquid dicere, quoniam in noui testamenti libris nec a nobis nec a uobis rei huius inuenitur exemplum. circumcisionem certe praeputii in figura futuri baptismi Christi ab antiquis obseruatam esse negare, ut arbitror, non audetis. numquid apud Samaritanos circumcisus, si fieri tunc uellet Iudaeus, posset iterum circumcidi? nonne illius hominis error corrigeretur, signaculum autem fidei agnitum probaretur? et nunc sunt quidam haeretici qui se Nazarenos uocant, a nonnullis autem Symmachiani appellantur et circumcisionem habent Iudaeorum et baptismum christianorum; ac per hoc quemadmodum, si quis eorum ad Iudaeos uenerit, non potest iterum circumcidi, sic cum ad nos uenerit non debet iterum baptizari. ad hoc dicturi estis: aliud est circumcisio Iudaeorum, aliud baptismus christianorum. sed cum illa umbra fuerit huius ueritatis. cur illa circumcisio et apud haereticos Iudaeorum esse potuit, iste autem baptismus apud haereticos christianorum non potest esse? ### English translation (Claude) But if you dread these comparisons as deceptive because they are not examples from the church (although you know that comparisons drawn from sheep and soldiers are given in the Scriptures), I wish to say something from the prophetic Scriptures which are called the Old Testament, since in the books of the New Testament no example of this matter is found either by us or by you. You do not dare, I think, to deny that the circumcision of the foreskin was observed by the ancients as a figure of the future baptism of Christ. If a man circumcised among the Samaritans had wished at that time to become a Jew, could he have been circumcised again? Would not that man's error have been corrected, but the seal of faith recognized and approved? And now there are certain heretics who call themselves Nazarenes, though some call them Symmachians, and they have both the circumcision of the Jews and the baptism of Christians; and therefore, just as, if one of them comes over to the Jews, he cannot be circumcised again, so when he comes over to us he ought not to be baptized again. To this you will say: the circumcision of the Jews is one thing, the baptism of Christians another. But since the former was the shadow of this truth, why could that circumcision exist even among the heretics of the Jews, while this baptism cannot exist among the heretics of the Christians? ### Scripture references - Rom 4:11: echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Circumcision as the “seal of faith”: Rom 4:11. On the Nazarenes or Symmachians, a Jewish-Christian group, compare Augustine, Against Faustus 19.4, 17. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.36 (CSEL 52:355–356; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-36). ## Against Cresconius 1.37 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-37 - Source: CSEL 52:356–357 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says neither side can cite Scripture for or against rebaptizing those who come from heretics, and Paul's baptizing John's disciples is a different case. ### Latin text Proferte certe aliquem de scripturis canonicis ab haereticis uenientem denuo baptizatum. nam quod iusserunt apostoli quosdam post Iohannis baptismum in Christo baptizari, longe alia causa est. neque enim Iohannes haereticus fuit, amicus ille sponsi quo nemo surrexit maior in natis mulierum. longe ergo alia causa est. alioquin si Paulus post Iohannem baptizauit, cum ambo in unitate Christi fuerint, quanto magis debent episcopi uestri, quia se in unitate Christi esse dicunt, baptizare post collegas suos, in quibus collegis mores aliquos recte reprehendunt, cum hoc fecerit Paulus, qui nihil potuit in Iohanne reprehendere! ergo illa alia causa est, alia ratio, de qua nunc disserere longum est et in aliis nostris opusculis hinc multa iam diximus. ab haereticis ergo uenientem probate in scripturis canonicis denuo baptizatum. nam et nos proferimus Petro dictum: qui lotus est semel non opus habet iterum lauari. sed etiam uos dicitis: Petrus non fuerat apud haereticos baptizatus. proinde quia nec uos potestis proferre de scripturis, quarum nobis est communis auctoritas, ab haereticis uenientem denuo baptizatum nec nos ita susceptum, quantum ad hanc rem adtinet, par nobis causa est. ### English translation (Claude) Bring forward, then, from the canonical Scriptures anyone coming from heretics who was baptized anew. For that the apostles ordered some to be baptized in Christ after the baptism of John is a far different case. For John was not a heretic, that friend of the bridegroom, than whom no one has arisen greater among those born of women. It is a far different case, then. Otherwise, if Paul baptized after John, when both were in the unity of Christ, how much more ought your bishops, since they say they are in the unity of Christ, to baptize after their own colleagues, in whom they rightly find fault with certain morals, since Paul did this who could find nothing to blame in John! That, then, is another case, another principle, which it would take long to discuss now, and on which we have already said much in other short works of ours. Prove, then, from the canonical Scriptures that someone coming from heretics was baptized anew. For we too bring forward what was said to Peter: “He who has been washed once has no need to be washed again.” But you too say: Peter had not been baptized among heretics. Accordingly, since neither can you bring forward from the Scriptures, whose authority is common to us, someone coming from heretics who was baptized anew, nor can we bring forward one received in our way, as far as this matter goes our case is equal. ### Scripture references - Acts 19:5: allusion, high confidence - John 3:29: allusion, high confidence - Matt 11:11: allusion, high confidence - John 13:10: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Acts 19:1–5; John 3:29; Matt 11:11; John 13:10 in the form “once ... again”. Augustine discusses the case of John's baptism at length in On Baptism 5. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.37 (CSEL 52:356–357; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-37). ## Against Cresconius 1.38 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-38 - Source: CSEL 52:357 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the whole church settled the baptism question after a time of differing views, and Cyprian's council does not bind, just as Peter's error was corrected by Paul. ### Latin text Verum nos multa ostendimus etiam ad legem dei pertinentia esse apud eos qui non sunt in ecclesia, quae nemo uestrum audet negare; sed cur tale aliquid nolitis et baptismum, omnino non uideo nec uos posse demonstrare confido. sequimur sane nos in hac re etiam canonicarum auctoritatem certissimam scripturarum. neque enim parui momenti habendum est, quod, cum inter episcopos anterioris aetatis, quam esse inciperet pars Donati, ista quaestio fluctuaret et uarias haberet inter se collegarum salua unitate sententias, hoc per uniuersam catholicam, quae toto orbe diffunditur, obseruari placuit quod tenemus. nam et uos profertis concilium Cypriani, quod aut non est factum aut a ceteris unitatis membris, a quibus ille non diuisus est, merito superatum. neque enim propterea sumus Cypriano episcopo meliores, si tamen censuit haereticos denuo baptizari, quia nos hoc recte non facimus, sicut nec Petro apostolo meliores sumus, quia non cogimus gentes iudaizare, quod ille fecisse Paulo apostolo adtestante et corrigente monstratur, cum similiter inter apostolos de circumcisione quaestio, sicut postea de baptismo inter episcopos, non parua difficultate nutaret. ### English translation (Claude) But we have shown that many things belonging to the law of God exist among those who are not in the church, which none of you dares to deny; but why you will not have baptism to be something of that kind, I do not see at all, and I trust you cannot show. Indeed, in this matter we also follow the most certain authority of the canonical Scriptures. For it is not to be thought of small importance that, when among the bishops of the age before the party of Donatus began to exist this question was in flux, and colleagues held different opinions among themselves while unity was preserved, it was decided that what we hold should be observed throughout the whole Catholic church, which is spread over the whole world. For you too bring forward the council of Cyprian, which either was not held or was rightly overruled by the other members of the unity from which he was not divided. Nor are we on that account better than bishop Cyprian, if he indeed judged that heretics should be baptized anew, because we rightly do not do this; just as we are not better than the apostle Peter because we do not compel the Gentiles to live as Jews, which he is shown to have done, as the apostle Paul testifies and corrects; for similarly the question of circumcision among the apostles, like that of baptism later among the bishops, wavered with no small difficulty. ### Scripture references - Gal 2:14: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Sent. whole (The Opinions of the Eighty-Seven Bishops (Council of Carthage, 256)): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The council of Carthage of 256 under Cyprian (Sentences of the Bishops). Gal 2:11–14. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.38 (CSEL 52:357; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-38). ## Against Cresconius 1.39 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-19/#p-1-39 - Source: CSEL 52:357–358 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says that where Scripture gives no example, one should consult the church that Scripture plainly commends, spread through all nations. ### Latin text Proinde quamuis huius rei certum de scripturis canonicis non proferatur exemplum, earundem tamen scripturarum etiam in hac re nobis tenetur ueritas, cum hoc facimus quod uniuersae iam placuit ecclesiae, quam ipsarum scripturarum commendat auctoritas, ut, quoniam sancta scriptura fallere non potest, quisquis falli metuit huius obscuritate quaestionis, eandem ecclesiam de illa consulat, quam sine ulla ambiguitate sancta scriptura demonstrat. si autem dubitas, quod ecclesiam, quae per omnes gentes numerositate copiosissima dilatatur, haec sancta scriptura commendat — neque enim si non dubitares, adhuc esses in parte Donati —, multis te et manifestissimis testimoniis ex eadem auctoritate prolatis onerabo, ut ex tuis concessionibus, si nimium peruicax esse nolueris, ad hoc etiam perducaris, cum prius ostendero etiam epistulae meae, cui respondere a contrario uoluisti, nihil te quod ad ueritatem pertineat respondere potuisse. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, although no certain example of this matter is brought forward from the canonical Scriptures, yet even in this matter the truth of those same Scriptures is held by us when we do what has now pleased the whole church, which the authority of those Scriptures commends; so that, since holy Scripture cannot deceive, whoever fears to be deceived by the obscurity of this question should consult about it that same church which holy Scripture points out without any ambiguity. But if you doubt that this holy Scripture commends the church which is spread through all nations in most abundant numbers (for if you did not doubt it, you would not still be in the party of Donatus), I will load you with many and most manifest testimonies brought from the same authority, so that from your own concessions, if you do not choose to be too stubborn, you may be led to this too; after I have first shown that you could answer nothing pertaining to the truth even against my letter, which you chose to answer from the opposite side. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.39 (CSEL 52:357–358; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-39). ## Against Cresconius 1.40 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-1-40 - Source: CSEL 52:358–359 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine summarizes Book 1 and says that what is given only in the church is the “sealed fountain,” not visible baptism, which the good and the wicked both receive. ### Latin text Hoc interim satis sit, quod propter nimiam obstinationem hominum multa dicenda arbitratus sum aduersus eos, qui cum habeant principalem causam malam, ab ea discutienda praescriptione uolunt auertere iudices. cum dicunt nullo modo sibi loquendum esse nobiscum. probaui enim et de scripturis sanctis et quam potui ratione perspicua nec eloquentiam quantamlibet nec dialecticam qualemlibet metuendam esse adsertoribus ueritatis, quominus adsertores falsitatis disputando cum eis et eos refellendo conuincant. ubi etiam demonstraui et illud, quo te praeter epistulam meam dixisti esse permotum, quam non sit consequens, ut, si concedimus esse baptismum in parte Donati, simul etiam concedamus in eadem societate quemquam baptizari oportere, quia, sicut bonam legem potuit habere reprobus populus Iudaeorum, sic bonum sacramentum potest habere reproba societas haereticorum. quid autem proprie detur in ecclesia, quod praeter illam omnino non datur, suo loco sine difficultate monstrabitur. neque enim recte ageremus cum haereticis, quos habere baptismum confitemur, ut omni modo ad ecclesiam catholicam ueniant, nisi ueniendo acciperent aliquid, quod nec alibi possint, accipere et quod nisi acceperint frustra et perniciose habeant. quaecumque alia quamuis bona et ad legem dei pertinentia ubilibet accipere potuerunt hoc enim quidquid est, quod secundum scripturas certissimamque rationem inueniri potuerit non nisi in sancta ecclesia uel dari uel accipi posse, hoc pertinebit ad fontem signatum, puteum aquae uiuae, paradisum cum fructu pomorum, cuius ut potuisti mentionem fecisti, sed quid illud sit non te intellexisse ostendisti, quandoquidem hoc de uisibili baptismo dictum esse arbitraris. quod licet sanctum sit neque ullo modo praetermittendum, quoniam sacratissima significatione praepollet, quam multi eum tamen accipiant non solum boni, qui secundum propositum uocati sunt conformes imaginis filii dei, sed etiam hi qui regnum dei non possidebunt, in quibus, sicut dicit apostolus, et ebriosi et auari numerantur, puto quod, si pertinacia deposita cogitaueris, uerum me dicere tibi ipse facile respondebis, ut non quaeras fontem signatum et puteum aquae uiuae nisi quo hi, qui displicent deo, diuinitus non permittuntur accedere., ### English translation (Claude) Let this suffice for the present, since because of people's excessive obstinacy I thought much should be said against those who, having a bad main case, wish to turn the judges away from examining it by a preliminary objection, when they say they must in no way speak with us. For I have proved, both from the holy Scriptures and by as clear a reasoning as I could, that neither eloquence of whatever degree nor dialectic of whatever kind is to be feared by the defenders of truth, so as to keep them from refuting the defenders of falsehood by disputing with them and confuting them. There I also showed how little it follows from the point by which you said you were moved apart from my letter that, if we grant that baptism exists in the party of Donatus, we should at the same time grant that anyone ought to be baptized in that society; because, just as the reprobate people of the Jews could have a good law, so the reprobate society of heretics can have a good sacrament. But what is properly given in the church, which is not given at all outside it, will be shown without difficulty in its place. For we would not be right in dealing with heretics, whom we admit to have baptism, so that they should by all means come to the Catholic church, unless by coming they received something which they could not receive elsewhere, and without which whatever other things, however good and belonging to the law of God, they could receive anywhere, they would have in vain and to their ruin. For whatever this is, which according to the Scriptures and the most certain reasoning can be found to be given or received only in the holy church, this will belong to the sealed fountain, the well of living water, the garden with the fruit of apples, of which you made mention as well as you could; but you showed that you did not understand what it is, since you think this was said of visible baptism. Though that is holy and in no way to be omitted, since it excels in a most sacred meaning, yet how many receive it, not only the good, who are called according to his purpose, conformed to the image of the Son of God, but also those who will not possess the kingdom of God, among whom, as the apostle says, the drunkards and the greedy are counted! I think that, if you lay aside obstinacy and reflect, you will easily answer yourself that I speak the truth, so that you will seek the sealed fountain and the well of living water only where those who displease God are by divine power not allowed to come. ### Scripture references - Song 4:12: allusion, high confidence - Song 4:13: allusion, high confidence - Song 4:15: allusion, high confidence - Rom 8:28: allusion, high confidence - Rom 8:29: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 6:10: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Song 4:12–13, 15; Rom 8:28–29; 1 Cor 6:10. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 1.40 (CSEL 52:358–359; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40). ## Against Cresconius 2.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-1 - Source: CSEL 52:359–360 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine sums up Book 1: the Donatist bishops' refusal to debate is unjustified, and baptism held by them is real but harmful to them. ### Latin text Superioris uoluminis tam prolixo sermone puto quod tandem aliquando persuasimus non esse in hoc laudandos episcopos uestros neque adprobandos. quod de causa dissensionis. quae nostram communionem dirimit, nolunt nobiscum habere conloquium. hac enim quasi praescriptione se in causa pessima putant esse tutissimos, quam, nisi fallor, et ueris certisque rationibus et maxime diuinarum scripturarum exemplis penitus amputaui, quibus dilucidissime docui a sanctis praedicatoribus atque adsertoribus ueritatis etiam contra praesentes eius aduersarios nec tantum qui ex eodem populo quo et illi fuerunt, uerum etiam contra alienigenas et extraneos et, unde praecipue uanas formidines inicitis imperitis, contra eos qui dialecticam maxime profiterentur habitum fuisse sermonem, ne contentiosissimus habeatur diligentissimus praedicator et ne litigator putetur inpiger disputator, instans secundum praeceptum apostoli oportune inoportune, ut doctrina sana contradicentes redarguantur, uaniloqui refellantur, inquieti corripiantur, pusillanimes consolentur, infirmi suscipiantur, dum aduersus omnes resistentes uerbum salutis euangelicae cum patientia defenditur. sine diffidentia praedicatur. ostendi etiam, quam non debeatis ideo putare apud uos esse hominem baptizandum, quia et nos consentimus quod et haberi a uobis baptismus possit et dari, cum et illud dicamus perniciose haberi et perniciose dari, quoniam illa sancta, quibus uti et mali possunt, quanto sanctiora sunt, tanto ab eis inutilius poenaliusque tractantur. unde cum ad ecclesiam sanctam ueniunt, ipsi corrigendi sunt, non a bonis illa uiolanda, quae nec a malis mutata sunt. ### English translation (Claude) By the long discourse of the previous book I think we have at last persuaded you that your bishops are not to be praised or approved in this: that they refuse to hold a conference with us about the cause of the dissension which divides our communion. For by this, as by a preliminary objection, they think themselves most safe in a very bad cause; and this, unless I am mistaken, I have cut away entirely, both by true and certain reasons and especially by the examples of the divine Scriptures. By these I taught most clearly that the holy preachers and defenders of the truth held discourse even against its adversaries face to face, and not only against those of the same people as themselves, but also against foreigners and strangers, and (the point from which you especially throw empty fears into the unskilled) against those who most professed dialectic; so that a most diligent preacher should not be held most contentious, nor a tireless disputant thought a quarreler, pressing on, according to the apostle's command, in season and out of season, so that those who contradict are refuted by sound teaching, empty talkers confuted, the unruly corrected, the faint-hearted comforted, the weak supported, while the word of the gospel's salvation is defended with patience against all who resist and preached without misgiving. I also showed how little you ought to think that a man must be baptized among you because we too agree that baptism can be both had and given by you; since we say that it is had to ruin and given to ruin, because those holy things which even the wicked can use are handled by them the more uselessly and penally the holier they are. Hence, when they come to the holy church, they themselves are to be corrected, and those things are not to be violated by the good which were not changed even by the wicked. ### Scripture references - 2 Tim 4:2: allusion, high confidence - Titus 1:9: allusion, high confidence - Titus 1:10: allusion, high confidence - 1 Thess 5:14: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:9–10; 1 Thess 5:14. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.1 (CSEL 52:359–360; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-1). ## Against Cresconius 2.2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-2 - Source: CSEL 52:360–362 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine dismisses Cresconius's quibble over “Donatists” versus “Donatians,” noting the two Donatuses who began and strengthened the schism. ### Latin text Audi ergo, Cresconi, dum breuiter et hoc demonstrabo nihil te dixisse per totam epistulam tuam quo refelleres meam, nisi forte quod me nomina deriuare uel declinare docuisti, ut a Donato Donatianos potius quam Donatistas dicerem, quam tamen Graecam saltem declinationem esse concedis, uidelicet quod ita Donatistae a Donato ut euangelistae ab euangelio nominentur, quo te delectari dicis, ut uestris euangelium praedicantibus a simili mutuata sit uocabuli declinatio. uide ergo, ne forte ipsi priores hoc uoluerint appellari, quia Donatum habent pro euangelio. nam sic isti a Donati quomodo sancti omnes nolunt ab euangelii societate discedere, et ideo delectantur uocari Donatistae sicut euangelistae, tuque potius eis facis iniuriam, cum scribis in Latino sermone non nisi Latinam regulam probans Donatianos a Donato, sicut ab Arrio et Nouato Arrianos et Nouatianos, melius uocari. nam ego cum scriberem, iam mihi a nescio quibus propagatum sonabat hoc nomen neque id mutare curaui, cum et hoc ad distinctionem quam uolebam satis sufficere existimarem. si enim Demosthenes, clarissimus oratorum, quibus uerborum tanta fuit cura quanta rerum auctoribus nostris, tamen, cum ei nonnullam locutionis insolentiam obiecisset Aeschines, negauit ille in eo positas esse fortunas Graeciae, illone an illo uerbo usus fuerit et huc an illuc manum porrexerit, quanto minus nos laborare debemus de regulis deriuandorum nominum, quando, siue illud siue illud dicamus, intellegitur sine ambiguitate quod dicimus, quorum non in expolitione sermonis, sed in demonstratione ueritatis est maior intentio! si autem quisquam nostrorum primus flexit hoc nomen, nullo modo mihi uidetur illud simile intuitus, quod euangelistae ab euangelio nuncupantur; sed quia per Donatum non tantum Carthaginis, qui hanc haeresem maxime roborasse perhibetur, sed etiam maiorem Donatum a Casis Nigris, qui altare contra altare in eadem ciuitate primus erexit, magnum scandalum factum est, ita fortasse a Donato Donatistas ut ab scandalo scandalistas uoluit appellare. ### English translation (Claude) Listen, then, Cresconius, while I briefly show this too: that in your whole letter you said nothing by which to refute mine, unless perhaps that you taught me to derive or decline names, so that from Donatus I should say Donatians rather than Donatists; though you grant that this is at least a Greek formation, namely that Donatists are named from Donatus as evangelists from the evangel, which you say pleases you, so that the formation of the word is borrowed by likeness from your people's preaching the gospel. See, then, whether perhaps they themselves first wished to be called this because they hold Donatus as their gospel. For these men are as unwilling to depart from the fellowship of Donatus as all the saints are from that of the gospel, and so they are pleased to be called Donatists like evangelists; and you rather do them an injury when you write that in Latin speech, approving only the Latin rule, they are better called Donatians from Donatus, as Arians and Novatians from Arius and Novatus. For when I was writing, this name was already sounding in my ears, spread by I know not whom, and I did not take care to change it, since I thought it sufficient for the distinction I wanted. For if Demosthenes, the most famous of orators, who cared as much for words as our authors care for things, nevertheless, when Aeschines charged him with some unusualness of diction, denied that the fortunes of Greece depended on whether he had used this word or that, or stretched out his hand this way or that, how much less ought we to labor over the rules for deriving names, when, whether we say this or that, what we say is understood without ambiguity, and our greater concern is not the polishing of speech but the demonstration of truth! But if one of ours first formed this name, he does not seem to me at all to have had in view that likeness by which evangelists are named from the evangel; but because through Donatus (not only Donatus of Carthage, who is said to have strengthened this heresy most of all, but also the elder Donatus of Casae Nigrae, who first set up altar against altar in the same city) a great scandal was caused, perhaps he wished to call Donatists from Donatus as one might call scandalists from scandal. ### Extrabiblical texts - Demosthenes, Cor. 232 (Demosthenes (orations)): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Demosthenes, On the Crown 232, answering Aeschines. Donatus of Casae Nigrae and Donatus of Carthage (“the Great”). The phrase “sic isti a Donati quomodo” is translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.2 (CSEL 52:360–362; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-2). ## Against Cresconius 2.3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-3 - Source: CSEL 52:362–363 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the name matters little; what matters is showing that the Donatists are heretics. ### Latin text Sed ego in ea re, in qua nihil causae nostrae minuitur, me facillimum praebeo et quando tecum ago iam Donatianos uoco, quando autem cum aliis, consuetudinem potius sequor, quae his sonis iure dominatur; tu tantum memento me, cui tantam tribuisti eloquentiam, nondum nosse nomina declinare et nuntia uestris securitatem, ne iam timeant tamquam dialecticum, cui uides adhuc necessarium esse grammaticum. quodsi disciplina disputandi, siue illam dialecticam uelis appellare siue quid aliud, satis tamen sobrie docet, cum de re constat, non esse de nomine laborandum, sicut non curo utrum ea ipsa dialectica uocetur, curo tamen, quantum ualeo, nosse ac posse disputare, hoc est ueritatem a falsitate in loquendo discernere, quia hoc nisi curauero perniciosissime errabo, ita non curo, utrum Donatistae an Donatiani peritius et litteratius declinemini, utrum postremo a Donato, uel qui primus extra ecclesiam sacrificauit uel qui hanc dissensionem maxime roborauit, an a Maiorino, qui primus contra Caecilianum uestrae partis episcopus ordinatus est, debeat uobis quando loquimur distinctionis causa indi uocabulum. quod tamen haeretici sitis et ideo, ne decipiatis, cautissime deuitandi, nisi diligenter demonstrare curauero, non paruam neglegentiae culpam pro mei officii sarcina incurram. ### English translation (Claude) But in a matter in which nothing of our case is diminished I show myself most accommodating, and when I deal with you I now call you Donatians; but when with others, I rather follow usage, which rightly rules over these sounds. Only remember that I, to whom you attributed so much eloquence, do not yet know how to decline names, and announce to your people that they may be at ease and no longer fear me as a dialectician, since you see I still need a grammarian. But if the discipline of disputing, whether you wish to call it dialectic or something else, teaches soberly enough that when there is agreement about the thing one should not labor over the name, then just as I do not care whether that very thing is called dialectic, but do care, as far as I can, to know and to be able to dispute, that is, to distinguish truth from falsehood in speaking (since unless I care for this I shall err most destructively), so I do not care whether you are more skillfully and correctly called Donatists or Donatians; nor, finally, whether the name by which we distinguish you when we speak ought to be taken from Donatus, either the one who first offered sacrifice outside the church or the one who most strengthened this dissension, or from Majorinus, who was the first bishop of your party ordained against Caecilian. But that you are heretics, and therefore to be most carefully avoided lest you deceive, unless I take care to show diligently, I shall incur no small blame of negligence, given the burden of my office. ### Translation notes - Majorinus was ordained at Carthage in opposition to Caecilian (ca. 312). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.3 (CSEL 52:362–363; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-3). ## Against Cresconius 2.4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-4 - Source: CSEL 52:363 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes Cresconius's definition: heresy follows different doctrines, schism is separation among those who follow the same. ### Latin text Quamquam id quod inter nos accidit schisma potius quam haeresim censes appellari oportere et, quod raro audere dialectici solent, etiam definitionibus ista discernis; ubi quantum nos adiuues satis demonstrare non potero, nisi ex epistula tua inseram uerba tua. quid sibi quid, inquis, quod ais: haereticorum sacrilegum errorem? nam haereses non nisi inter diuersa sequentes fieri solent nec haereticus us nisi contrariae uel aliter interpretatae religionis est cultor, ut sunt Manichei Arriani Marcionitae Nouatiani ceterique, quorum inter se contra fidem christianam diuersa sententia stat. inter nos, quibus idem Christus natus, mortuus et resurgens, una religio, eadem sacramenta, nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum, schisma factum, non haeresis dicitur; siquidem haeresis est diuersa sequentium secta, schisma uero idem sequentium separatio. quare et in hoc studio criminandi quantum incurreris uides errorem. cum quod schisma est haeresem uocas. haec nempe uerba tua sunt quae posui ex epistula tua. ### English translation (Claude) And yet you think that what has happened between us ought to be called schism rather than heresy, and (something dialecticians rarely dare) you even distinguish them by definitions; and how much you help us there I cannot sufficiently show unless I insert your own words from your letter. “What do you mean,” you say, “by saying ‘the sacrilegious error of heretics’? For heresies arise only among those who follow different things, and a heretic is only one who worships a contrary or differently interpreted religion, as are the Manichees, Arians, Marcionites, Novatians, and the rest, whose differing doctrine against the Christian faith stands among themselves. Among us, for whom the same Christ was born, died, and rose again, one religion, the same sacraments, nothing different in Christian observance, it is called a schism that has occurred, not a heresy; since heresy is the sect of those who follow different things, but schism the separation of those who follow the same things. Therefore you see how much error you have incurred in this eagerness to accuse, when you call heresy what is schism.” These, of course, are your words, which I have set down from your letter. ### Translation notes - Cresconius's text is garbled in the digital edition at “haereticus us” and is translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.4 (CSEL 52:363; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-4). ## Against Cresconius 2.5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-5 - Source: CSEL 52:363–364 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine turns Cresconius's own words (one religion, the same sacraments) against the Donatist practice of rebaptizing. ### Latin text Iam nunc adtende, si pertinax non sis, quam facili conpendio id quod inter nos agebatur ipse finieris. si enim et nobis et uobis idem Christus natus, mortuus ac resurgens, una religio, eadem sacramenta, nihil in christiana obseruatione peruersum est, nonne rebaptizare peruersum est? tria namque posuisti. quorum si unum posuisses, satis superque sufficeret. sed quasi contra Donatianos fideliter ageres, ne quisquam uel nimis acutus id quod semel breuiterque dixisses interpretari aliter conaretur, etiam obtunsis auribus et cordibus tuam curasti inmergere atque inculcare sententiam: una, inquis, religio, eadem sacramenta, nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum. et adhuc aduersus inuicem laboramus. iam tandem aliquando cohibete dissensionem, resarcite discissionem, finite litem, amate pacem. quid reprobatis, quid exsufflatis, quare rebaptizatis? una religio est, eadem sacramenta, nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum. nam si nobis et uobis non est unus baptismus, quomodo est una religio? sed tu dixisti (una religio, ergo unus et baptismus. (si nobis et uobis non est idem baptismus), quomodo sunt eadem sacramenta? sed tu dixisti eadem sacramenta, idem ergo et baptismus. item si nobis et uobis diuersus est baptismus, quomodo nihil est in christiana obseruatione diuersum? sed tu dixisti (nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum), non ergo est diuersus et baptismus. quae cum ita sint, nos recte, quod unum atque idem neque diuersum est, nec inprobamus nec exsufflamus nec iteramus, sed agnoscimus suscipimus acceptamus; uos uero impie, quod unum atque idem neque diuersum est, dissimulatis agnoscere, suscipere recusatis, acceptare non uultis, sed eligitis inprobare, audetis exsufflare, non metuitis iterare. et cum in hoc ipso, quod ea quae inter nos mutata non sunt nos suscipimus, uos repellitis, nos si a uobis data sunt data iudicamus, uos si a nobis data sunt tamquam non data repetitis, [cum] tam diuersa sequimini, appellari uos haereticos dedignamini. ### English translation (Claude) Now notice, if you are not stubborn, by how easy a short cut you yourself have settled what was at issue between us. For if for us and for you the same Christ was born, died, and rose again, there is one religion, the same sacraments, and nothing perverse in Christian observance, is not rebaptizing perverse? For you set down three things, of which, if you had set down one, it would have been more than enough. But, as if you were acting faithfully against the Donatians, so that no one, however acute, should try to interpret otherwise what you had said once and briefly, you took care to plunge and drive your statement even into blunted ears and hearts: “One religion,” you say, “the same sacraments, nothing different in Christian observance.” And still we labor against each other! Now at long last check the dissension, mend the rent, end the quarrel, love peace. What do you reject, what do you exorcise, why do you rebaptize? There is one religion, the same sacraments, nothing different in Christian observance. For if for us and for you there is not one baptism, how is there one religion? But you said “one religion”; therefore also one baptism. If for us and for you baptism is not the same, how are the sacraments the same? But you said “the same sacraments”; therefore baptism too is the same. Likewise, if for us and for you baptism is different, how is there nothing different in Christian observance? But you said “nothing different in Christian observance”; therefore baptism is not different either. Since this is so, we rightly neither reject nor exorcise nor repeat what is one and the same and not different, but recognize, receive, and accept it; whereas you impiously, what is one and the same and not different, pretend not to recognize, refuse to receive, will not accept, but choose to reject, dare to exorcise, do not fear to repeat. And since in this very thing, in which we receive and you repel what has not been changed between us, we judge as given what was given by you, while you repeat as not given what was given by us, you follow such different things and yet scorn to be called heretics. ### Translation notes - Exorcising (exsufflare, “breathing out” against the devil) was part of the rite for converts. The editor deletes “cum” before “tam diuersa”. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.5 (CSEL 52:363–364; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-5). ## Against Cresconius 2.6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-6 - Source: CSEL 52:364–365 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that by Cresconius's own definition the Donatists are heretics, since rebaptizing means following something different. ### Latin text Adtende diligenter quid dicas, quid dicam. tu certe definisti et dixisti: haeresis est diuersa sequentium secta, schisma uero eadem sequentium separatio. item tu dixisti nobis et uobis unam esse religionem, eadem sacramenta, nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum. si una religio est, eadem sacramenta. nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum, quare ergo rebaptizas christianum? si autem in eo quod tu rebaptizas christianum, ego non rebaptizo, diuersa utique sequimur, quare te dici non uis haereticum? puto quod non paruo signo agnoscamus haereticos, qui cum sibi et nobis unam religionem. eadem sacramenta, nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum esse fateantur, nolunt nos agnoscere baptizatos. an tanta obstinatione contenditis, tanta dissensione ueritati resistitis, ut a religione, a sacramentis, a christiana obseruatione baptismum separetis? quod si facitis, in eo estis haeretici, quod ad religionem, ad sacramenta, ad obseruationem christianam baptismum pertinere non uultis. si autem non facitis, in eo estis haeretici, quod eos, qui uobiscum habent unam religionem, eadem sacramenta, nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum, cum et baptismum ad religionem, ad sacramenta, ad christianam obseruationem pertinere fateamini, tamen rebaptizatis. adtende enim diligenter definitionem tuam, in qua dixisti: haeresis est diuersa sequentium secta, et uide utrum non diuersa sequimini, aut separando baptismum a religiosa obseruatione christianorum sacramentorum, quibus eum nos inter magna coniungimus, aut eos, cum quibus in una religiosa obseruatione christianorum sacramentorum etiam baptismus unus est, tamen rebaptizando, quod nos detestamur. ### English translation (Claude) Notice carefully what you say and what I say. You certainly defined and said: “Heresy is the sect of those who follow different things, but schism the separation of those who follow the same things.” Likewise you said that for us and for you there is one religion, the same sacraments, nothing different in Christian observance. If there is one religion, the same sacraments, nothing different in Christian observance, why then do you rebaptize a Christian? But if, in that you rebaptize a Christian and I do not rebaptize, we certainly follow different things, why do you not wish to be called a heretic? I think it is no small sign by which we recognize heretics, that while they admit that for them and us there is one religion, the same sacraments, nothing different in Christian observance, they will not recognize us as baptized. Or do you contend with such obstinacy, resist the truth with such dissension, as to separate baptism from religion, from the sacraments, from Christian observance? If you do this, you are heretics in that you will not have baptism belong to religion, to the sacraments, to Christian observance. But if you do not do this, you are heretics in that you rebaptize those who have with you one religion, the same sacraments, nothing different in Christian observance, although you admit that baptism too belongs to religion, to the sacraments, to Christian observance. For notice carefully your definition, in which you said, “Heresy is the sect of those who follow different things,” and see whether you do not follow different things, either by separating baptism from the religious observance of the Christian sacraments, with which we join it among the great things, or by nevertheless rebaptizing those with whom, in one religious observance of the Christian sacraments, baptism too is one, which we abhor. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.6 (CSEL 52:364–365; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-6). ## Against Cresconius 2.7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-7 - Source: CSEL 52:365–367 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine imagines confronting Donatists in the act of rebaptizing a Catholic with Cresconius's own admission of one religion and the same sacraments. ### Latin text Quam uellem, si possem, cum aliquem deceptum ex nostris fidelibus uestri nefandis interimendum insidiis excipiunt, cum apud nos iam baptizatum nec coepisse dicunt esse christianum, cum tamquam paganum exsufflant, cum catechumenum faciunt, ut praeparent deinde retinguendum uel potius extinguendum, repente alicunde existere cum hac epistula tua et hunc ipsum eius locum in mediis eorum ausibus recitando porrigere et exclamare: quid facitis? ecce audite uidete legite: una est nobis uobisque religio, eadem sacramenta, nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum. in cuius nomine iste baptizatus sit prius interrogate et tunc, si alium meliorem in uestro baptismo nominatis, date. tunc illi fortasse, si non ipsa rerum. euidentia contremescerent, continuo consilium suum, magnum uidelicet atque acutum, proferrent et dicerent: quis iste nobis est cuius epistulam geris? laicus noster est; nobis uinceret, uincitur sibi. tum ego si adessem, conuersus ad te dicerem: (tu saltem, obsecro, dic nobis, quid isti faciunt. ecce apud nos baptizatum rebaptizare disponunt. certe ergo nobis et uobis una religio, eadem sacramenta, nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum? an responderes: sed Christi baptismus non est religio, non est sacramentum, non est obseruatio christiana? auerterit deus hanc a tua mente dementiam. quid igitur mihi responderes urguenti ac dicenti: una nobis uobisque religio est; quibus autem baptismus unus non est, non est una religio; ergo nobis uobisque unus est baptismus. eadem nobis et uobis sunt sacramenta; quibus autem idem baptismus non est, non sunt eadem sacramenta; ergo idem nobis et uobis est baptismus. nihil est nobis et uobis in christiana obseruatione diuersum; quibus autem diuersus est baptismus, non utique nihil est in christiana obseruatione diuersum; non ergo nobis et uobis diuersus est baptismus. cur quod unum est inprobatur, cur quod idem est exsufflatur, cur quod non diuersum est iteratur? ### English translation (Claude) How I would wish, if I could, when your people receive one of our faithful who has been deceived, to be killed by their wicked snares; when they say that one already baptized among us has not even begun to be a Christian; when they exorcise him like a pagan; when they make him a catechumen, so as then to prepare him to be dipped again, or rather to be extinguished: how I would wish suddenly to appear from somewhere with this letter of yours, and to hold out this very passage of it, reading it aloud in the midst of their daring, and to cry out: “What are you doing? See, hear, look, read: ‘For us and for you there is one religion, the same sacraments, nothing different in Christian observance.’ First ask in whose name this man was baptized, and then, if you name another, better one in your baptism, give it.” Then perhaps, if they did not tremble at the very evidence of the facts, they would at once bring out their counsel, great and acute, of course, and say: “Who is this man to us, whose letter you carry? He is our layman; he was winning for us, he is beaten for himself.” Then I, if I were present, would turn to you and say: “You at least, I beg you, tell us what these men are doing. See, they are arranging to rebaptize one baptized among us. Surely, then, for us and for you there is one religion, the same sacraments, nothing different in Christian observance?” Or would you answer: “But the baptism of Christ is not religion, is not a sacrament, is not Christian observance”? God forbid this madness from your mind. What then would you answer me as I pressed and said: For us and for you there is one religion; but those for whom baptism is not one do not have one religion; therefore for us and for you baptism is one. For us and for you the sacraments are the same; but those for whom baptism is not the same do not have the same sacraments; therefore baptism is the same for us and for you. For us and for you nothing is different in Christian observance; but those for whom baptism is different certainly do not have nothing different in Christian observance; therefore baptism is not different for us and for you. Why is what is one rejected, why is what is the same exorcised, why is what is not different repeated? ### Translation notes - Augustine plays on retinguere (“dip again”) and extinguere (“extinguish”). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.7 (CSEL 52:365–367; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-7). ## Against Cresconius 2.8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-8 - Source: CSEL 52:367 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the only real difference between the parties is the Donatist repetition of sacraments both admit are the same. ### Latin text Me sic agente in praesentia, sic instante ad quas tergiuersationes confugeretis? uidelicet contemnerent in epistula tua illi grammaticos, tu accusares in nostra dialecticos, sed ueritas ex utraque superaret haereticos, hoc solum in eis ostendens a nobis esse diuersum quod constat esse peruersum, quia nos sacramenta nostra cognoscimus, errorem alienum emendamus, uos autem eadem sacramenta fatemini, quae tamquam nulla sint iteratis, magna diuersitate reprobantes quod diuersum non esse conceditis. ### English translation (Claude) If I acted thus in your presence and pressed you thus, to what evasions would you take refuge? No doubt they would despise the grammarians in your letter, and you would accuse the dialecticians in ours; but the truth would overcome the heretics from both, showing that the only thing in them different from us is what is plainly perverse: that we recognize our sacraments and correct another's error, while you admit the same sacraments and repeat them as if they were nothing, rejecting by a great difference what you grant is not different. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.8 (CSEL 52:367; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-8). ## Against Cresconius 2.9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-9 - Source: CSEL 52:367–368 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine prefers defining heresy as an inveterate schism, but shows that by Cresconius's own definition the Donatists are heretics. ### Latin text Proinde quamuis inter schisma et haeresim magis eam distinctionem adprobem, qua dicitur schisma esse recens congregationis ex aliqua sententiarum diuersitate dissensio — neque enim et schisma fieri potest, nisi diuersum aliquid sequantur qui faciunt —. haeresis autem schisma inueteratum, tamen quid hinc opus est ut laborem, cum me tantum adiuuent definitiones tuae, ut, si mihi et per alios uestros concederetur, schismaticos uos libentius quam haereticos dicerem. si enim schisma faciunt, quibus cum eis a quibus se diuidunt una religio est, eadem sacramenta, nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum, hinc est uestra rebaptizatio damnabilior, quia in una religione, eisdem sacramentis, nihilo in christiana obseruatione diuerso alius et diuersus esse non potest baptismus. sed quoniam nec nullum est nec aliquid paruum quod diuersum sequimini, cum ab unitatis uinculo separati etiam de repetitione baptismi dissentitis a nobis, fit, ut secundum istam ipsam definitionem tuam, qua dixisti: haeresis est autem diuersa sequentium secta, et haeretici sitis et uicti appareatis. haeretici quidem, quod non tantum diuisi, uerum et in rebaptizando diuersum sequimini, uicti autem, quia datum per nos baptisma, tamquam non ipsum uel tamquam nullum sit, iteratis, quod unum atque idem nec diuersum esse fatemini. tua quippe uerba sunt, quod nobis uobisque sit una religio, eadem sacramenta, nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, although I rather approve the distinction between schism and heresy by which schism is said to be a recent dissension of a congregation arising from some difference of opinions (for a schism cannot arise either unless those who make it follow something different), and heresy a schism grown old, yet why should I labor over this, when your definitions help me so much that, if your other people too granted it to me, I would more gladly call you schismatics than heretics? For if those make a schism who have with those from whom they divide themselves one religion, the same sacraments, nothing different in Christian observance, then your rebaptizing is the more damnable, because in one religion, with the same sacraments and nothing different in Christian observance, baptism cannot be other and different. But since what you follow that is different is neither nothing nor something small, since, being separated from the bond of unity, you also disagree with us about the repetition of baptism, it follows that according to that very definition of yours in which you said, “Heresy is the sect of those who follow different things,” you are both heretics and shown to be defeated: heretics, because you are not only divided but also follow something different in rebaptizing; defeated, because you repeat the baptism given by us as though it were not the same or were nothing, although you admit it is one and the same and not different. For these are your words: that for us and for you there is one religion, the same sacraments, nothing different in Christian observance. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.9 (CSEL 52:367–368; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-9). ## Against Cresconius 2.10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-10 - Source: CSEL 52:368–369 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine defends calling the Donatists' error heretical and sacrilegious, and denies that converts are received unchanged. ### Latin text Quapropter si litteris tuis pars Donati suscriberet ac deinde ista, quae a te atque me dicta sunt, sine insana pertinacia uel inpudentia cogitaret, nihil ulterius aduersus nos sentiret aut diceret. sed quoniam tu es cui respondeo, iam puto quod et ipse uideas, quam non studio criminandi, sed perniciosam redarguendi fallaciam dixerim: Donatistarum haereticorum sacrilegum errorem. in quibus quattuor uerbis siue nominibus, quia hoc uel tibi uel arti grammaticae placet, primum quod positum est Donatistarum corrigo et muto et Donatianorum dico, cetera uero tria, quoniam uerissime dicta esse iam ut puto sentis, uos corrigite, uos mutate. mutate, inquam, et corrigite Donatianorum uel quodlibet aliud uocandi sitis tamen haereticorum sacrilegum errorem. nam et haeretici estis, uel quod in schismate inueterato remansistis uel ex tua definitione, quod de ecclesia, quae corpus est Christi, uel de iteratione christiani baptismi diuersum sequimini, et sacrilegus error est non solum a christiana unitate separatio, uerum etiam sacramentorum, quae secundum tuam confessionem una eademque sunt, uiolatio atque rescissio. quod si corrigitis et mutatis, quomodo tales uos suscipimus quales eratis? unde inaniter tam multa locutus es et, cum sis ingenio tam acuto, consuetudine audiendae uanitatis obtunderis, ut uideatur tibi, quod, cum ad nos a uobis transeunt, tales eos quales erant suscipimus, quia in eis traditionem christianorum, quam nec alienati alienauerant nec peruersi peruerterant. adprobamus; quae sacramenta etiam tu, quamuis non talis quales nos sumus, non potuisti tamen nisi talia. nec sic talia quasi alia similia, sed omnino eadem confiteri. ### English translation (Claude) Therefore, if the party of Donatus subscribed to your letter and then reflected on what you and I have said, without insane obstinacy or shamelessness, it would no longer think or say anything against us. But since it is you whom I am answering, I think you yourself now see how far I said it not from eagerness to accuse but to refute a destructive deceit: “the sacrilegious error of the Donatist heretics.” Of these four words or names, since this pleases you or the art of grammar, the first, “Donatists,” I correct and change and say “Donatians”; but the other three, since you now feel, I think, that they were said most truly, you must correct, you must change. Change, I say, and correct the sacrilegious error of the heretics, of the Donatians or whatever else you are to be called. For you are heretics, either because you have remained in an inveterate schism, or by your own definition, because you follow something different concerning the church, which is the body of Christ, or concerning the repetition of Christian baptism; and it is a sacrilegious error not only to separate from Christian unity but also to violate and cancel sacraments which, by your own confession, are one and the same. But if you correct and change it, how do we receive you such as you were? Hence you spoke so much in vain, and though you have so acute a wit, you are blunted by the habit of hearing vanity, so that it seems to you that, when they pass from you to us, we receive them such as they were, because in them we approve the Christian tradition, which neither those who estranged themselves had estranged nor the perverse had perverted; sacraments which you too, though not such as we are, could not confess except as such, and not as such in the sense of other, similar ones, but as altogether the same. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.10 (CSEL 52:368–369; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-10). ## Against Cresconius 2.11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-11 - Source: CSEL 52:369–370 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine insists that converts from the Donatists are changed by a conversion of the will, like the tax collector and the penitent thief. ### Latin text Obsecro te, dic mihi, quomodo talis est qualis fuit, qui ueneratur ecclesiam quam blasphemabat, qui tenet unitatem quam non tenebat, qui habet caritatem quam non habebat, qui accipit pacem quam respuebat, qui adprobat sacramentum quod exsufflabat? an uero ita sunt omnia falsis aera praeposterata, ut non dicantur mutati, in quibus ea quae diuersa fuerant ueritate corriguntur, et mutati dicantur, in quibus ea quae [similia] una eademque fuerant uanitate iterantur? noli ergo ulterius in hac re non tantum carnaliter, uerum etiam pueriliter sapere, ut tales quales erant uestros a nobis suscipi existimes, qui conuersione uoluntatis ab errore ad ueritatem, a diuisione ad unitatem, a dissensione ad pacem, ab inimicitiis ad caritatem, ab humana praesumptione ad diuinarum scripturarum auctoritatem non ante incipiunt esse nostri, quam esse destiterint uestri. haec conuersio uoluntatis repente mutauit non solum in teloneo peccatorem, uerum etiam in cruce latronem; nisi putas, quod Christus in paradiso secum esse uoluisset cruentum sceleratumque hominem, si non cordis illa conuersio continuo faceret innocentem, ut eo die, ex eo loco, ex eo ligno transiret ad inmortale fidei praemium, in quo exceperat mortis pro iniquitate supplicium. siue enim ad malum siue ad bonum paruo momento animus commutatur, sed non ideo paruum est quod meretur. in ipsis corporalibus et temporalibus bonis et beneficiis diu nutritam quamlibet aetatem unus ictus interimit, et triginta octo annorum aegritudinem mox ut dominus dignatus est iubere sanauit. crede certis rebus, non uerbis inanibus. mutati ad nos uestri transeunt — absit ut ipsi sint qui fuerunt —; quod utinam et tu facias et quam uerum sit in te tibi credas! ### English translation (Claude) I beg you, tell me, how is he such as he was who now reveres the church he used to blaspheme, holds the unity he did not hold, has the love he did not have, receives the peace he rejected, approves the sacrament he used to exorcise? Or are all things so turned upside down by falsehoods that those are not said to be changed in whom things that were different are corrected by truth, and those are said to be changed in whom things that were one and the same are repeated by vanity? Do not, then, any longer think about this matter not only carnally but also childishly, so as to suppose that your people are received by us such as they were, who by a conversion of the will from error to truth, from division to unity, from dissension to peace, from enmities to love, from human presumption to the authority of the divine Scriptures, do not begin to be ours before they have ceased to be yours. This conversion of the will suddenly changed not only the sinner at the tax booth but even the robber on the cross; unless you think that Christ would have wished to have with him in paradise a bloodstained and criminal man, if that conversion of heart had not at once made him innocent, so that on that day, from that place, from that wood, he passed to the immortal reward of faith on which he had received the punishment of death for his wickedness. For whether toward evil or toward good, the mind is changed in a brief moment, but what it merits is not therefore small. In bodily and temporal goods and benefits themselves, a single blow kills a life of any age nourished for a long time, and the Lord, as soon as he deigned to command it, healed an illness of thirty-eight years. Believe certain things, not empty words. Your people pass over to us changed (far be it that they should be what they were); and would that you too would do it, and believe in your own case how true this is! ### Scripture references - Luke 5:27: allusion, high confidence - Luke 23:43: allusion, high confidence - John 5:5: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The editor deletes “similia”. The phrase “falsis aera praeposterata” appears corrupt and is translated by sense. Luke 5:27; Luke 23:42–43; John 5:5–9. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.11 (CSEL 52:369–370; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-11). ## Against Cresconius 2.12 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-12 - Source: CSEL 52:370–371 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers that Donatist bishops were received as bishops because the sacraments they hold belong to the church, not to the schism. ### Latin text Magnum aliquid tibi dicere uisus es nominando Candidum Uillaregiensem et Donatum Macomadiensem, qui ex uestris episcopis etiam apud nos episcopi fuerunt et probata uita ad honorabilius senilis aetatis meritum peruenerunt; quasi sacramenta et inuocatio nominis dei, quae fit apud uos, ipsa inimica sit nobis, cum et in eis, qui extra ecclesiam sunt, non sit omnino nisi ecclesiae. in qua quaestione si meis uerbis laborarem, tuis adiuuarer. nam si extra ecclesiam nihil ecclesiasticum posse esse sentires, non ipse dixisses nobis et uobis unam esse religionem, eadem sacramenta, nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum. quibus uerbis tuis non in totum consentio. christiana quippe ecclesia caretis, christianam caritatem non habetis. christiana sane in uobis sacramenta cognosco et in his illud quoque diuersum inprobo ac respuo, quod, cum eadem etiam in schismate habeatis, eadem in catholicis exsufflatis. prorsus agnoscit in uobis ecclesia cuncta quae sua sunt, nec ideo non sunt eius, quia et apud uos inueniuntur. apud uos quippe aliena sunt, sed cum uos correctos recipit cuius sunt, fiunt etiam salubriter uestra, quae perniciose habebatis aliena. discordia uos possidet sub titulo pacis; ergo discordia pellatur, pax introducatur. quid causae est ut titulus deponatur? episcopus est, inquis, episcopum recipis, presbyter, presbyterum. posses mihi et hoc dicere: homo est, hominem recipis; tam quippe in illo sacramenta christiana quam membra humana cognosco nec curo, per quem fuerint seminata, sed a quo creata. quibus si male uti uoluerit, eo ipso malus fit, quod creatorem de bonis eius offendit; si autem bene uti coeperit, se corriget, non illa mutabit. ### English translation (Claude) You thought you were saying something great when you named Candidus of Villa Regia and Donatus of Macomades, who, having been bishops of yours, were also bishops among us and, their life approved, came to the merit of a more honorable old age; as though the sacraments and the invocation of God's name made among you were themselves hostile to us, when even in those who are outside the church they are nothing but the church's. In this question, if I labored with my own words, I would be helped by yours. For if you thought that nothing of the church could exist outside the church, you yourself would not have said that for us and for you there is one religion, the same sacraments, nothing different in Christian observance. With these words of yours I do not agree entirely: for you lack the Christian church, you do not have Christian love. I do indeed recognize Christian sacraments in you, and among them I reject and refuse this difference, that, though you have the same sacraments even in schism, you exorcise the same in Catholics. The church recognizes in you absolutely everything that is hers, and they are not therefore not hers because they are found among you too. Among you they are another's; but when she to whom they belong receives you corrected, they become yours too, to your salvation, which you held to your ruin as another's. Discord possesses you under the title of peace; therefore let discord be driven out and peace brought in. What reason is there for the title to be laid aside? “He is a bishop,” you say, “you receive a bishop; a presbyter, a presbyter.” You could also say to me: “He is a man; you receive a man.” For I recognize in him the Christian sacraments as I recognize human limbs, and I do not care through whom they were sown, but by whom they were created. If he wishes to use them badly, he becomes evil by that very fact, because he offends the Creator with his gifts; but if he begins to use them well, he will correct himself, not change them. ### Translation notes - Candidus of Villa Regia and Donatus of Macomades: former Donatist bishops received in the Catholic church with their rank. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.12 (CSEL 52:370–371; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-12). ## Against Cresconius 2.13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-13 - Source: CSEL 52:371–372 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that clergy are received in their office as the church's peace requires, since office exists for others' sake, unlike the Christian faith itself. ### Latin text Et de episcopis quidem uel clericis recipiendis alia quaestio est. quamuis enim, cum apud uos ordinantur, non super eos inuocetur nomen Donati, sed dei, tamen ita suscipiuntur, ut uidetur paci et utilitati ecclesiae conuenire. neque enim episcopi propter nos sumus, sed propter eos, quibus uerbum et sacramentum dominicum ministramus, ac per hoc, ut eorum sine scandalo gubernandorum sese necessitas tulerit, ita uel esse uel non esse debemus quod non propter nos, sed propter alios sumus. denique nonnulli sancta humilitate praediti uiri propter quaedam in se offendicula, quibus pie religioseque mouebantur, episcopatus officium non solum sine culpa, uerum etiam cum laude posuerunt. numquid sic etiam christianum nomen et fidem laudabiliter ac non potius damnabiliter ponerent? sicut in accipiendis his rebus possunt esse iustae causae, cur excuset quisque fieri episcopus, nec tamen similiter potest ulla causa esse iusta, cur quisquis excuset fieri christianus. quid ita, nisi quia sine episcopatu uel clericatu salui esse possumus, sine Christiana uero religione non possumus? ### English translation (Claude) The receiving of bishops or clergy is indeed another question. For although, when they are ordained among you, the name not of Donatus but of God is invoked over them, yet they are received as seems to suit the peace and benefit of the church. For we are not bishops for our own sake, but for the sake of those to whom we minister the Lord's word and sacrament; and therefore we ought either to be or not to be what we are, not for our own sake but for others, as the need of governing them without scandal requires. Indeed, some men endowed with holy humility, because of certain stumbling blocks in themselves by which they were piously and religiously moved, laid down the office of bishop not only without blame but even with praise. Would they likewise lay down the Christian name and faith praiseworthily, and not rather damnably? Just as in accepting these offices there can be just reasons why someone excuses himself from being made a bishop, yet there cannot likewise be any just reason why anyone should excuse himself from being made a Christian. Why so, unless because we can be saved without the episcopate or the clergy, but cannot without the Christian religion? ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.13 (CSEL 52:371–372; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-13). ## Against Cresconius 2.14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-14 - Source: CSEL 52:372–373 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine distinguishes church offices, received as useful, from the Donatists' errors, which are corrected, while their sacraments are recognized. ### Latin text Proinde uestri episcopi seu quilibet clerici, quantum ad ipsa ecclesiastica officia pertinet, sic in catholicam suscepti sunt unitatem, quemadmodum expedire uidebatur his, quorum saluti per eorum consulebatur officium uel exercendum uel omittendum. uerumtamen etiam de ipsis, qui et apud nos eosdem administrauerunt honores, numquid, sicut dicere potuisti: episcopus est, episcopum recipis, ita poteris dicere: haereticus est, haereticum recipis aut: schismaticus est, schismaticum recipis aut: Donatianus est, Donatianum recipis? his enim nominibus non gradus honoris a plebeia dignitate, sed crimen erroris a catholica ueritate distinguitur. proinde illa tamquam ecclesiastica munera etiam in alienis inuenta, qui uos relinquendo et ad nos transeundo nostri fiunt, pro utilitate populorum, quibus hac dispensatione seruimus, uel suscipiuntur uel non suscipiuntur. illa uero uitiosa et proprie uestra sanantur corriguntur mutantur, dum tamen ea sacramenta, sine quibus homo non potest fieri christianus, etiam in haereticis sic tractentur, ut, cum ad ecclesiam ueniunt. quod defuerit addatur, quod agnitum fuerit adprobetur, ne, dum nimis offendimur eis malis, quae contra ecclesiam pepererunt, persequamur etiam bona, quae de ecclesia discedendo traxerunt. nam etiam ramus fractus si rursus, sicut ait apostolus, inserendus sit, radix ei redditur, non forma mutatur. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, your bishops or any clergy, as far as the church offices themselves are concerned, have been received into Catholic unity as seemed expedient for those whose salvation was served by their office being either exercised or set aside. But even concerning those who have held the same honors among us too, could you say, as you could say, “He is a bishop; you receive a bishop,” likewise, “He is a heretic; you receive a heretic,” or, “He is a schismatic; you receive a schismatic,” or, “He is a Donatian; you receive a Donatian”? For by these names what is distinguished is not a rank of honor from the standing of the laity, but the crime of error from Catholic truth. Accordingly, those things, as church offices found even in outsiders, who by leaving you and passing over to us become ours, are either received or not received for the benefit of the peoples whom we serve in this stewardship. But those things that are faulty and properly yours are healed, corrected, changed; while those sacraments without which a man cannot become a Christian are so handled even in heretics that, when they come to the church, what was lacking is added and what is recognized is approved, so that, while we are too much offended by the evils which they brought forth against the church, we may not also persecute the goods which they drew with them in departing from the church. For even a broken branch, if, as the apostle says, it is to be grafted in again, has its root restored to it; its form is not changed. ### Scripture references - Rom 11:23: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 11:17–24. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.14 (CSEL 52:372–373; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-14). ## Against Cresconius 2.15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/1-40/#p-2-15 - Source: CSEL 52:373–374 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine denies that heresy is inexpiable and says converts are cleansed not by a second baptism but by the word, repentance, alms, and above all love given by the Spirit. ### Latin text At enim quia nostros, inquis, haereticos et sacrilegos uocas, quod nefarium et inexpiabile crimen est, numquid talibus sine aliqua expiatione ignosci debet aut potest? cur ergo, inquis, non emaculas uenientem, cur non primo abluis et emundas et sic tibi communicat? quid, quod ex his tuis uerbis multo conuenientius alius dixerit talibus iam ignosci nec debere nec posse teque tibi ipsi contraria locutum esse monstrauerit, ut ideo diceres cum aliqua expiatione talibus ignoscendum. quia id quod obicitur inexpiabile est? quomodo ergo expiatur quod inexpiabile est? quomodo sperem te auditurum esse quod dico, qui tam in proximo non audis ipse quod dicis, cum tibi continuo contradicis censendo expiandum quod inexpiabile dixeris? nos autem ita uestrum dicimus haereticum et sacrilegum errorem, ut tamen inexpiabilem non dicamus; alioquin frustra uobiscum, ut eo relicto correcti ad ecclesiam catholicam transeatis, quibus modis possumus agendum esse censuimus. nec nostro, sicut scribis, uerbo te uti arbitreris, quasi hoc malum sine uenia et sine medico esse dicamus; quod omnino non dicimus, quia et ueniam merentur, quos huius mali paenituerit, et omnipotens est medicus, qui per prophetem dicit: si conuersus fueris et ingemueris, tunc saluus eris. quapropter si in aliquem forte incidisti uel minus in his rebus instructum uel minus quid loqueretur intuentem, quamuis esse communionis catholicae uideretur qui hoc tibi diceret, ipse potius huius inconsiderati uerbi ueniam mereatur, sicut tu, qui cum sis tam liberaliter eruditus et in arte uerborum non mediocriter doctus, minus tamen quid loquaris adtendens expiandum censes quod inexpiabile dixeris et, quod est monstruosius, ideo expiandum, quia inexpiabile. non est autem catholicum eos hortari, ut errore correcto salui fiant, quos inexpiabiliter atque insanabiliter adsereremus errare. sed ideo uobis non uidentur mundari, cum ad nos a uobis transeunt, quia non denuo baptizantur, quasi solo baptismo, quem repeti non oportet, cum idem atque unus est. homines ab errore mundentur. mundantur et uerbo ueritatis ab illo qui ait: iam uos mundi estis propter uerbum quod locutus sum uobis. mundantur et sacrificio contriti cordis ab illo de quo dictum est: sacrificium deo spiritus contribulatus; cor contritum et humiliatum deus non spernit. mundantur et elemosynis ab illo qui ait: date elemosynas, et ecce omnia munda sunt uobis. mundantur ipsa quae supereminet omnibus caritate ab illo, qui per apostolum Petrum dixit: caritas cooperit multitudinem peccatorum. quae una si adsit, illa omnia recte fiunt; si autem desit, illa omnia frustra fiunt. haec uero unde sit audi dicentem apostolum: caritas, inquit, dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum qui datus est nobis. unde merito creduntur hi, qui extra ecclesiam baptismum ecclesiae perceperunt, non habere spiritum sanctum, nisi cum ipsi ecclesiae in uinculo pacis per conexionem caritatis adhaerescunt. ### English translation (Claude) “But since,” you say, “you call our people heretics and sacrilegious, which is a wicked and inexpiable crime, should or can such men be pardoned without any expiation? Why then,” you say, “do you not cleanse the one who comes, why do you not first wash and purify him, and so let him communicate with you?” What if someone else were to say, much more consistently with these words of yours, that such men neither should nor can now be pardoned, and were to show that you spoke against yourself, saying that such men must be pardoned with some expiation because what is charged is inexpiable? How then is what is inexpiable expiated? How can I hope that you will hear what I say, when so close at hand you do not hear what you yourself say, contradicting yourself at once by judging that what you called inexpiable must be expiated? But we call your error heretical and sacrilegious in such a way that we do not call it inexpiable; otherwise we would have judged in vain that we must deal with you by whatever means we can, so that you may abandon it and pass over corrected to the Catholic church. Nor should you think you are using a word of ours, as you write, as if we said this evil is without pardon and without a physician; which we do not say at all, because those who repent of this evil merit pardon, and the physician is almighty who says through the prophet, “If you turn and groan, then you will be saved.” Therefore, if perhaps you came across someone either less instructed in these matters or paying less attention to what he said, though the one who said this to you seemed to be of the Catholic communion, let him rather obtain pardon for this inconsiderate word; as you too, though so liberally educated and no mean scholar in the art of words, yet paying little attention to what you say, judge that what you called inexpiable must be expiated, and, what is more monstrous, must be expiated because it is inexpiable. But it is not Catholic to exhort to correct their error and be saved those whom we asserted to err inexpiably and incurably. But they do not seem to you to be cleansed when they pass over to us from you because they are not baptized anew; as if people were cleansed from error only by baptism, which ought not to be repeated since it is the same and one. They are cleansed also by the word of truth, by him who says, “You are already clean because of the word that I have spoken to you.” They are cleansed also by the sacrifice of a contrite heart, by him of whom it is said, “The sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit; a contrite and humbled heart God does not despise.” They are cleansed also by almsgiving, by him who says, “Give alms, and behold, all things are clean for you.” They are cleansed by love itself, which surpasses all, by him who said through the apostle Peter, “Love covers a multitude of sins.” If this one thing is present, all those things are done rightly; but if it is lacking, all those things are done in vain. And where this comes from, hear the apostle saying, “The love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.” Hence it is rightly believed that those who received the church's baptism outside the church do not have the Holy Spirit, except when they cleave to the church itself in the bond of peace through the joining of love. ### Scripture references - Isa 30:15: quotation, high confidence - John 15:3: quotation, high confidence - Ps 51:17 (50:19 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Luke 11:41: quotation, high confidence - 1 Pet 4:8: quotation, high confidence - Rom 5:5: quotation, high confidence - Eph 4:3: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Isa 30:15 (in the Old Latin form from the LXX); John 15:3; Ps 51:17 (50:19 LXX); Luke 11:41; 1 Pet 4:8; Rom 5:5; Eph 4:3. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.15 (CSEL 52:373–374; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-15). ## Against Cresconius 2.16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-16 - Source: CSEL 52:374–376 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine identifies what is given only in the church as the Holy Spirit's gift of love, which makes baptism, received outside, profitable. ### Latin text Iam enim locus est ut ostendam, quod in primo libro distuleramus, quid in ecclesia, quae sanctum corpus est. Christi, proprie possit accipi, quod praeter illam non potest accipi. de his enim, qui schismata faciebant, idem apostolus dicit: animalis autem homo non percipit quae sunt spiritus dei; primam ad Corinthios epistulam lege et inuenies. baptismus igitur sacramentum est nouae uitae ac salutis aeternae, quem multi habent non ad uitam aeternam, sed ad poenam aeternam, non bene utentes tanto bono: caritatem uero sanctam. quae est uinculum perfectionis, nemo potest habere non bonus. nemo qui habet potest esse uel schismaticus uel haereticus. cum ergo quisque ad ecclesiae ueniens unitatem, cum eius membris ueraciter copulatur, accipiat spiritum sanctum. per quem diffunditur caritas in cordibus nostris, eademque caritas cooperiat multitudinem peccatorum, ut et baptismum. quem primum habebat ad iudicium, habere iam mereatur ad praemium, quomodo eum mundari negas. nisi quia omnino quae sit mundatio spiritalis ignoras? non igitur, sicut conuiciaris, tamquam in asylum Romuli uestros nocentes recipimus. quos ciuitas dei recipiendo efficit innocentes, cum ad eam ueraci corde transierint, de qua eius conditor dicit: non potest ciuitas abscondi super montem constituta. non enim eam condidit, qui fratrem superbe occidit iratus, sed qui fratres humiliter redemit occisus. hanc spiritu sancto mundante laetificat. de quo clamabat dicens: si quis sitit, ueniat et bibat, non aquam uisibilem commendans, quae datur in baptismatis sacramento, quam et boni et mali habere possunt. quamuis sine illa boni salui fieri non possint. quae quamuis ecclesiae sit, tamen etiam foras profluit, cum et apud illos inuenitur, qui ex nobis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis, sicut aqua in aliquo ex illis memorabilibus quattuor fluminibus negari non potest quod sit aqua paradisi, quamuis non sit in solo paradiso, quia etiam extra inde manauit. ### English translation (Claude) For now is the place to show what we had put off in the first book: what can be received properly in the church, which is the holy body of Christ, which cannot be received outside it. For of those who were making schisms the same apostle says, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God”; read the first letter to the Corinthians and you will find it. Baptism, then, is the sacrament of new life and eternal salvation, which many have not for eternal life but for eternal punishment, not using so great a good well; but holy love, which is the bond of perfection, no one can have who is not good, and no one who has it can be either a schismatic or a heretic. When, therefore, anyone coming to the unity of the church is truly joined with its members, receives the Holy Spirit, through whom love is poured out in our hearts, and that same love covers the multitude of sins, so that the baptism which he first had for judgment he now merits to have for reward, how do you deny that he is cleansed, unless because you are altogether ignorant of what spiritual cleansing is? We do not, then, as you abusively say, receive your guilty men as into the asylum of Romulus. The city of God, by receiving them, makes them innocent, when they have passed over to it with a true heart; the city of which its founder says, “A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.” For it was not founded by one who in anger proudly killed his brother, but by one who, being killed, humbly redeemed his brothers. This city he gladdens with the cleansing Holy Spirit, of whom he cried, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come and drink”; not commending the visible water which is given in the sacrament of baptism, which both good and bad can have, although without it the good cannot be saved. Although this water belongs to the church, it nevertheless flows out of doors too, since it is found also among those who went out from us but were not of us; just as the water in any of those four famous rivers cannot be denied to be water of paradise, although it is not in paradise alone, because it flowed out from there too. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 2:14: quotation, high confidence - Col 3:14: allusion, high confidence - Rom 5:5: allusion, high confidence - 1 Pet 4:8: allusion, high confidence - Matt 5:14: quotation, high confidence - John 7:37: quotation, high confidence - 1 John 2:19: allusion, high confidence - Gen 2:10: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Livy, 1.8 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Cor 2:14; Col 3:14; Rom 5:5; 1 Pet 4:8; Matt 5:14; John 7:37; 1 John 2:19; Gen 2:10–14. Romulus, founder of Rome, killed his brother Remus and opened an asylum for fugitives (Livy 1.8). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.16 (CSEL 52:374–376; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16). ## Against Cresconius 2.17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-17 - Source: CSEL 52:376–377 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that the “fountain” proper to the church is the Holy Spirit, given at Pentecost with the sign of tongues signifying unity among all nations. ### Latin text Non ergo hanc aquam, sed aquae nomine inuisibile dei donum sanctum spiritum commendabat dicens: si quis sitit, ueniat et bibat, sicut euidenter euangelista testatur adiungens: hoc autem dicebat de spiritu quem accepturi erant credentes in eum; spiritus enim nondum erat datus, quia Iesus nondum fuerat clarificatus. et utique, quantum ad sacramentum attinet lauacri uisibilis, antequam esset resurgendo clarificatus, iam baptizauerat plures quam Iohannes, sicut ipsum loquitur euangelium. unde dicit discipulis suis: Iohannes quidem baptizauit aqua, uos autem spiritu sancto baptizabimini quem et accepturi estis non post multos dies hos usque ad pentecosten. hic sanctus spiritus ueniens in eos tale signum primitus dedit, ut, qui eum acceperant, linguis omnium gentium loquerentur, quia portendebat ecclesiam per omnes gentes futuram nec quemquam accepturum spiritum sanctum, nisi qui eius unitati copularetur. huius fontis largo atque inuisibili flumine laetificat deus ciuitatem suam, de qua propheta praedixit: fluminis impetus laetificant ciuitatem dei. ad hunc enim fontem nullus extraneus, quia nullus nisi uita aeterna dignus. accedit. hic est proprius ecclesiae Christi, cui tanto ante prophetatum est: fons aquae tuae sit tibi proprius et nemo alienus communicet tibi. de hac enim ecclesia et de isto fonte dicitur et in Cantico canticorum: hortus conclusus, fons signatus, puteus aquae uiuae. ### English translation (Claude) It was not, then, this water that he was commending, but under the name of water the invisible gift of God, the Holy Spirit, when he said, “If anyone thirsts, let him come and drink,” as the evangelist plainly testifies, adding, “Now he said this about the Spirit whom those who believed in him were to receive; for the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.” And certainly, as far as the sacrament of the visible washing is concerned, before he was glorified by rising again he had already baptized more than John, as the gospel itself says. Hence he says to his disciples, “John indeed baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, whom you are also to receive not many days from now,” that is, at Pentecost. This Holy Spirit, coming upon them, first gave such a sign that those who had received him spoke in the tongues of all nations, because it foretold that the church would be among all nations and that no one would receive the Holy Spirit except one joined to its unity. With the abundant and invisible river of this fountain God gladdens his city, of which the prophet foretold, “The rush of the river gladdens the city of God.” For no stranger comes to this fountain, because no one does except one worthy of eternal life. This is the church of Christ's own, to which it was prophesied so long before, “Let the fountain of your water be your own, and let no stranger share it with you.” For of this church and of this fountain it is said also in the Song of Songs, “A garden enclosed, a fountain sealed, a well of living water.” ### Scripture references - John 7:37: quotation, high confidence - John 7:39: quotation, high confidence - John 4:1: allusion, high confidence - Acts 1:5: quotation, high confidence - Acts 2:4: allusion, high confidence - Ps 46:4 (45:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Prov 5:17: quotation, high confidence - Song 4:12: quotation, high confidence - Song 4:15: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - John 7:37–39; John 4:1; Acts 1:5; Acts 2:4; Ps 46:4 (45:5 LXX); Prov 5:17–18 (Old Latin form); Song 4:12, 15. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.17 (CSEL 52:376–377; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-17). ## Against Cresconius 2.18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-18 - Source: CSEL 52:377–378 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows that the “sealed fountain” cannot mean visible baptism, which Simon Magus and greedy bishops received, but the Spirit's gift of love found only in unity. ### Latin text Haec uestri de uisibili baptismatis sacramento accipientes tantum errant, ut res absurdissimas fateri cogantur inuiti, quod ad illum scilicet fontem, qui proprius unicae columbae, de quo dictum est: nemo alienus communicet tibi, ad hortum conclusum puteumque signatum potuerit accedere Simon magus, quem legimus a Philippo baptizatum, potuerint accedere tot ficti, de quibus gemens loquitur Cyprianus: saeculo uerbis solis et non factis renuntiantes, tot episcopi auari, de quibus idem ipse testatur: fundos insidiosis fraudibus rapientes, usuris multiplicantibus faenus augentes. isti quippe baptizati et baptizantes uisibili baptismo repperiuntur: ad illum tamen fontem proprium. cui nemo communicat alienus, ad illum fontem signatum, hoc est ad spiritus sancti donum, quo caritas dei diffunditur in cordibus nostris, nullus istorum nisi mutatus accedit, ita omnino mutandus, ut non sit alienus. sed sit caelestis particeps pacis, sanctae socius unitatis, plenus indiuiduae caritatis. ciuis angelicae ciuitatis. ad hanc itaque ciuitatem quisquis haeresis uel schismatis deposito errore correctis moribus pia mente conuertitur, si iam sacramenta gestabat, quae foras etiam ad indignos profluere potuerunt, haec honorantur in eo, quia et in alienis non uidentur aliena, sed iam illo proprio, cui nemo communicat alienus, illo signato spiritus sancti fonte inundatur, a quo apud uos etiam, quisquis ceteris moribus laudabilis fuerit, solo schismatis uel haeresis crimine separatur. ### English translation (Claude) Your people, taking these things of the visible sacrament of baptism, err so greatly that they are compelled against their will to admit most absurd things: namely, that to that fountain which is the own of the one dove, of which it is said, “Let no stranger share it with you,” to the garden enclosed and the well sealed, Simon Magus could come, whom we read was baptized by Philip; that so many pretenders could come, of whom Cyprian speaks with groaning, “renouncing the world by words alone and not by deeds”; so many greedy bishops, of whom the same man testifies, “seizing estates by treacherous frauds, increasing their gain by multiplying usury.” For these are found both baptized and baptizing with visible baptism; yet to that fountain which is her own, which no stranger shares, to that sealed fountain, that is, to the gift of the Holy Spirit by which the love of God is poured out in our hearts, none of these comes unless he is changed, and changed so completely that he is not a stranger, but a partaker of heavenly peace, a member of holy unity, full of undivided love, a citizen of the angelic city. And so, whoever, having laid aside the error of heresy or schism and corrected his morals, turns with a devout mind to this city, if he was already bearing the sacraments, which could flow out of doors even to the unworthy, these are honored in him, because even in strangers they are not seen as strange; but now he is flooded with that fountain of the Holy Spirit which is her own, which no stranger shares, that sealed fountain from which among you even anyone praiseworthy in the rest of his conduct is separated by the sole crime of schism or heresy. ### Scripture references - Song 6:9: allusion, high confidence - Prov 5:17: quotation, high confidence - Song 4:12: allusion, high confidence - Acts 8:13: allusion, high confidence - Rom 5:5: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Ep. 11.1 (Letters): quotation, medium confidence - Cyprian, Laps. 6 (On the Lapsed): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Song 6:9 (the one dove); Prov 5:17; Song 4:12; Acts 8:13; Rom 5:5. Cyprian, Letter 11.1 (“renouncing the world by words alone”) and On the Lapsed 6 (greedy bishops). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.18 (CSEL 52:377–378; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-18). ## Against Cresconius 2.19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-19 - Source: CSEL 52:378–379 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that Donatists coming to unity receive the Spirit and love, and that those who lapsed from the Catholic church are received more strictly than those coming for the first time. ### Latin text Cum ergo ueniunt ad nos uestri desistentes esse uestri, incipientes esse nostri, accipiunt quod non habebant. ut salubriter habere incipiant, quod tanto perniciosius quanto indignius habebant. accipiunt enim primitus ipsam ecclesiam et in ea pacem unitatem caritatem per fontem eius proprium atque inuisibilem spiritum sanctum. sine quibus utique nullo dubitante interissent, quidquid aliud apud uos, quod de ecclesia foras trahi potuit, habuissent, faciliore autem uenia quod nondum habuerunt accipiunt, quam si habuissent iam et deseruissent. et hoc discernitur apud nos. ut aliter recipiantur qui catholicam reliquerunt, aliter qui ad illam primitus ueniunt. illos enim amplius grauat crimen desertionis, hos autem non a se disruptum, sed cognitum et retentum uinculum releuat unitatis. unde fieri potest. ut, qui seductos rebaptizauerunt. ipsi pro eis paenitentibus dominum deprecentur. si prius isti conciliati quam illi reconciliati ecclesiae fuerint; sicut fieri potest, ut etiam cultores idolorum, si quos forte christianos ad idola seductos apostatas fecerint. si priores seductores facti fuerint christiani et magnum aliquod meritum in ecclesia consecuti, per ipsos illi quos deceperant redeant. per ipsos commendentur et reconcilientur domino, per quos dimiserant dominum. quod enim ualet ad mundanda sacrilegia gentilium recte perceptum sacramentum baptismatis, hoc ualet ad mundanda sacrilegia schismaticorum et haereticorum ueraciter adprehensa caritas unitatis. quamobrem sicut seductores fidelium christianorum uenientes ad Christum seductis redeuntibus praeponuntur. unde isti et episcopi fieri possunt. illi non possunt, ita mirari non debent decepti ab haereticis. quando ad catholicam redeunt, suos deceptores sibi anteponi, quando ad catholicam ueniunt. isti namque excusabilius petunt quae sibi defuerunt, illi humilius repetunt quod fuerunt; istos honorabilius ubi nondum steterant aduocamus, illos suspectius unde lapsi fuerant reuocamus. ### English translation (Claude) When, then, your people come to us, ceasing to be yours and beginning to be ours, they receive what they did not have, so that they begin to have to their salvation what they had the more destructively the more unworthily they had it. For they receive first the church itself, and in it peace, unity, love, through its own invisible fountain, the Holy Spirit; without which, as no one doubts, they would have perished, whatever else they had had among you that could be drawn out of the church. And they receive what they did not yet have with an easier pardon than if they had already had it and deserted it. And this is distinguished among us, so that those who have left the Catholic church are received in one way, and those who come to it for the first time in another. For the crime of desertion weighs more heavily on the former, while the bond of unity, not broken by them but recognized and kept, relieves the latter. Hence it can happen that those who rebaptized the seduced may themselves pray to the Lord for them as they do penance, if the former have been joined to the church before the latter are reconciled to it; just as it can happen that even worshipers of idols, if perhaps they had made apostates of some Christians seduced to idols, and if the seducers first became Christians and attained some great merit in the church, through them those whom they had deceived may return, through them be commended and reconciled to the Lord, through whom they had abandoned the Lord. For what the sacrament of baptism rightly received avails for cleansing the sacrileges of the Gentiles, this the love of unity truly grasped avails for cleansing the sacrileges of schismatics and heretics. Therefore, just as seducers of faithful Christians, coming to Christ, are placed before the seduced when they return (hence the former can even become bishops, the latter cannot), so those deceived by heretics ought not to be surprised, when they return to the Catholic church, that their deceivers are placed before them when they come to the Catholic church. For the latter more excusably seek what they lacked, the former more humbly seek again what they were; the latter we call with more honor to where they had not yet stood, the former we recall with more suspicion from where they had fallen. ### Translation notes - On the distinction between returning lapsed Catholics and first-time converts from the Donatists, and their eligibility for clerical office. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.19 (CSEL 52:378–379; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-19). ## Against Cresconius 2.20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-20 - Source: CSEL 52:379 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine concludes that the Donatists are heretics but can be healed by the Holy Spirit when they return to unity, keeping the sacraments they have. ### Latin text Proinde iam peruides, ut opinor, non frustra me dixisse Donatistarum — uel ut tu mauis Donatianorum — haereticorum sacrilegum errorem. si et ab ecclesia catholica dissentitis et quae una atque eadem fatemini sacramenta rescinditis, nec tamen sine uenia uel insanabiles estis misericordiae dei, quia discordioso errore deposito ad catholicam ueritatem pacemque conuersi per donum eius proprium, hoc est sanctum eius spiritum. per quem diffunditur caritas in cordibus nostris, mundari sanarique poteritis, non ut destruantur in uobis ecclesiae sacramenta, quae aliena perniciose foris habebatis, sed ut ea ipsa intus iam uestra salubriter habeatis. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, you now see clearly, I think, that I did not say in vain “the sacrilegious error of the Donatist (or, as you prefer, Donatian) heretics,” if you both dissent from the Catholic church and cancel sacraments which you admit are one and the same; and yet you are not without pardon or incurable by the mercy of God, because, having laid aside your quarrelsome error and turned to Catholic truth and peace, you can be cleansed and healed through his own gift, that is, his Holy Spirit, through whom love is poured out in our hearts; not so that the church's sacraments, which you held outside to your ruin as another's, may be destroyed in you, but so that you may have those very sacraments within, now as your own, to your salvation. ### Scripture references - Rom 5:5: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 5:5. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.20 (CSEL 52:379; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-20). ## Against Cresconius 2.21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-21 - Source: CSEL 52:379–380 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine examines Petilian's claim that the giver's holy conscience washes the recipient, and Cresconius's reply that the giver's public reputation suffices. ### Latin text Nunc uideamus, quemadmodum ostendas recte dixisse Petilianum uel quemlibet alium: conscientia sancte dantis adtenditur quae abluat accipientis. ubi ego dixi: quid si lateat dantis conscientia et fortasse maculosa sit, quomodo poterit accipientis abluere conscientiam? tu contra non quid a te homine acuto, sed quid a uestris dicatur diu locutus es, quod totum breuiter ita dici potest: conscientiam dantis adtendi non secundum eius sinceritatem. quae in illa uideri non potest, sed secundum famam, quae de illa seu uera seu falsa est, quia uidelicet eius est hominis, qui etsi sceleratus occultus sit, sufficit accipienti quod bonae sit aestimationis, nondum cognitus, nondum iudicatus, nondum ab ecclesia separatus. uide, obsecro te, in quod praecipitium conpulerit homines angustia non inueniendi qua exirent. itane dantis maculosa conscientia conscientiam potest accipientis abluere, si habeat famam bonam, et tantum ad abluendum poterit quantum bona, si bonam famam fallendo contraxerit? adtendis, quid dicatur, et uis iam praetereamus hunc locum, an hoc idem adhuc uersabo, ut diligentius cogaris adtendere? Petilianus dixit: conscientia sancte dantis adtenditur quae abluat accipientis. ego dixi: quid si lateat dantis conscientia et fortasse maculosa sit, quomodo poterit accipientis abluere conscientiam tu uel potius uestri dixerunt — nam tu uir talis quando ista dixisses? —: quamuis habeat conscientiam maculosam, mihi tamen, qui ab eo baptizor, quia latet et nescio, sufficit quod ab eo accipio, cuius innocentem, quia in ecclesia est, conscientiam puto. nam ideo, inquis, conscientiam dantis attendo, non ut, quod fieri non potest, de latentibus iudicem, sed ut. si quid de eo in publica conscientia est, non ignorem. propter hoc enim ab omnipotente deo dictum est: quae nota sunt, uobis, quae occulta, mihi. semper igitur attendo conscientiam dantis, et quia ipsam non uideo, quid de ea in publico notum est quaero, nec ad rem pertinet, si aliud sit in secreta conscientia, aliud in publica fama. sufficit enim scisse, quia necdum eius a quo accipio damnata conscientia est. ### English translation (Claude) Now let us see how you show that Petilian or anyone else said rightly, “The conscience of one who gives in holiness is looked to, to wash that of the recipient.” To which I said, “What if the conscience of the giver is hidden and perhaps stained? How will it be able to wash the conscience of the recipient?” You in reply spoke at length, not of what a man of your acuteness would say, but of what your people say; which can all be said briefly thus: that the conscience of the giver is looked to not according to its sincerity, which cannot be seen in it, but according to its reputation, true or false; since it belongs, of course, to a man who, even if he is secretly a criminal, suffices for the recipient because he is well esteemed, not yet known, not yet judged, not yet separated from the church. See, I beg you, into what a precipice the difficulty of finding a way out has driven these men. Can the stained conscience of the giver, then, wash the conscience of the recipient if it has a good reputation, and will it be as able to wash as a good conscience if it has acquired a good reputation by deceiving? Do you notice what is being said, and do you want us now to pass over this point, or shall I turn it over again, so that you may be compelled to attend more carefully? Petilian said, “The conscience of one who gives in holiness is looked to, to wash that of the recipient.” I said, “What if the conscience of the giver is hidden and perhaps stained? How will it be able to wash the conscience of the recipient?” You, or rather your people (for when would a man like you have said this?), said: “Although he has a stained conscience, yet for me, who am baptized by him, since it is hidden and I do not know it, it suffices that I receive from one whose conscience I think innocent because he is in the church. For this reason,” you say, “I look to the conscience of the giver, not that I should judge hidden things, which cannot be done, but that, if anything about him is publicly known, I may not be ignorant of it. For this reason it was said by almighty God, ‘The things that are known are for you; the things that are hidden, for me.’ I always look, then, to the conscience of the giver, and because I do not see it, I ask what is publicly known about it; nor does it matter if one thing is in the secret conscience and another in public reputation. For it suffices to know that the conscience of the one from whom I receive has not yet been condemned.” ### Scripture references - Deut 29:29: quotation, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Deut 29:29 in a free form. Petilian's saying is discussed in Augustine, Against the Letters of Petilian 1.2.3. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.21 (CSEL 52:379–380; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-21). ## Against Cresconius 2.22 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-22 - Source: CSEL 52:380–382 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows that Cresconius's appeal to the giver's reputation means that falsehood, a bad man's false good name, washes the recipient. ### Latin text Ecce ipsa uerba tua posui, quibus te dicere ostenderem quod meis uerbis breuiter aperteque conplexus sum, quod ad hoc adtendatur abluentis conscientia, ut quae de illa fama sit cognoscatur. non ergo ipsa adtenditur, homo bone, non ipsa adtenditur quae uideri non potest, sed fama adtenditur quae etiam falsa esse potest, quod ipse confiteris atque concedis; nam et tu uidisti maculosam conscientiam non ualere ad abluendum. non ergo conscientia sancte dantis attenditur quae abluat accipientis, sed fama, qua putatur sancte dare etiam qui sancte non dat et putatur abluere qui non abluit. abluit ergo accipientem mali hominis fama bona, non ipsius dantis polluta conscientia. cur ergo dictum est: conscientia sancte dantis attenditur quae abluat accipientis, nisi quia non abluit accipientis, si non est conscientia sancte dantis, si maculosa et inmunda est? quid ergo tunc attenditur? ipsa, inquis, attenditur, cum fama eius attenditur, et si bona est fama, nihil interest ad abluendum accipientem etiam cum est mala conscientia, sed abluit bona eius fama. dic, rogo te, cum mala conscientia est, uera est bona fama eius an falsa? procul dubio utique falsa. proinde cum bona non est et occulta est dantis conscientia, quomodolibet eam tibi uidearis attendere, secundum hanc sententiam non abluit accipientem nisi dantis aut fama falsa aut polluta conscientia. utrumque insanum est; si te talia delectant, tu elige quid sit insanius. porro quia ueritas non admittit, ut accipientis conscientiam uel falsa fama dantis abluat uel polluta conscientia, restat, ut abs te etiam requiramus quod et ibi quaesiuimus — quoniam, sicut dicit Petilianus uel quilibet alius consentientibus uobis, cum sancte dantis conscientia est, id est cum bona et munda conscientia est, abluit accipientis conscientiam —, unde abluatur accipiens, quando latet dantis maculosa conscientia. puto enim iam non te repetiturum atque dicturum, quod impleat in abluendo uicem conscientiae bonae falsa eius fama bona; sufficit quod hoc uestros, non te, dicere adseruisti. illorum te pudeat, non etiam tui. restat ergo, ut tunc uel deus uel quisquam sanctus angelus abluat. quod si dixeritis. illa horrenda consequetur absurditas, quam in illa epistula mea commemoratam non dico uidere noluisti, quia prorsus non attigisti, sed tanto attentius acutiusque uidisti. quanto magis attingere timuisti. si enim hoc dicitis, quod, cum sanctus homo baptizat. sancta eius conscientia diluit accipientis conscientiam, cum uero conscientia dantis latenter inmunda est, tunc deus angelusue abluit, cauete, ne, qui uobis haec dicentibus credunt, occultos malos optent inuenire a quibus baptizentur, ut multo sanctius ab ipso deo uel angelo eius abluantur. hanc absurditatem uel deridendam uel detestandam cum uerbis praecedentibus Petiliani perspiceres consequenter et a me in epistula mea commemoratam, caute tu quidem, quasi nihil horum dixerim, rem tantam silendam putasti, sed confugisti ad nescio quid absurdius, ut, cum maculosa conscientia dantis occulta est et ideo non potest accipientis abluere, tunc falsa fama eius accipiens abluatur et in eo ueritatem falsitas operetur. ### English translation (Claude) See, I have set down your very words, to show that you say what I comprised briefly and plainly in my own words: that the conscience of the one who washes is looked to for this purpose, that what reputation it has may be known. It is not, then, the conscience itself that is looked to, my good man, not the conscience, which cannot be seen, but the reputation that is looked to, which can also be false, as you yourself confess and grant; for you too saw that a stained conscience has no power to wash. It is not, then, the conscience of one giving in holiness that is looked to, to wash that of the recipient, but the reputation by which even one who does not give in holiness is thought to give in holiness, and one who does not wash is thought to wash. Then the good reputation of a bad man washes the recipient, not the polluted conscience of the giver himself. Why then was it said, “The conscience of one who gives in holiness is looked to, to wash that of the recipient,” unless because it does not wash the recipient's if it is not the conscience of one who gives in holiness, if it is stained and unclean? What then is looked to at that time? “The conscience itself,” you say, “is looked to when its reputation is looked to; and if the reputation is good, it makes no difference to washing the recipient even when the conscience is bad, but his good reputation washes.” Tell me, I ask you: when the conscience is bad, is his good reputation true or false? Without any doubt, false. Accordingly, when the giver's conscience is not good and is hidden, however you may think you look to it, according to this opinion nothing washes the recipient but either the false reputation or the polluted conscience of the giver. Both are insane; if such things delight you, choose which is more insane. Further, since the truth does not allow that the recipient's conscience is washed either by the giver's false reputation or by his polluted conscience, it remains that we ask you too what we asked there (since, as Petilian or anyone else says with your agreement, when it is the conscience of one giving in holiness, that is, when the conscience is good and clean, it washes the recipient's conscience): by what is the recipient washed when the giver's stained conscience is hidden? For I think you will not now repeat and say that his false good reputation fills the place of a good conscience in washing; it is enough that you declared that your people, not you, say this. Be ashamed of them, not of yourself as well. It remains, then, that at that time either God or some holy angel washes. If you say that, there will follow that horrible absurdity which I mentioned in that letter of mine; I do not say you refused to see it, since you did not touch it at all, but you saw it the more attentively and acutely the more you feared to touch it. For if you say that, when a holy man baptizes, his holy conscience washes the recipient's conscience, but when the giver's conscience is secretly unclean, then God or an angel washes, beware lest those who believe you when you say these things should wish to find hidden evil men by whom to be baptized, so that they may be washed much more holily by God himself or his angel. When you saw that this absurdity, to be either laughed at or abhorred, follows logically from Petilian's preceding words and was mentioned by me in my letter, you cautiously thought so great a matter should be passed over in silence, as though I had said none of these things; but you took refuge in something even more absurd: that when the giver's stained conscience is hidden and therefore cannot wash the recipient's, then the recipient is washed by his false reputation, and in him falsehood works truth. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.22 (CSEL 52:380–382; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-22). ## Against Cresconius 2.23 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-23 - Source: CSEL 52:382–383 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the Donatist position makes falsehood the mother of truth, attributing to men what belongs to God. ### Latin text I nunc et accusa calumniose dialecticos, quod fugienda uersutia sermonis efficiant, ut si falsum est uerum sit, si uerum est falsum sit. ecce tale aliquid ipse in sacramenta christianae regenerationis inmittis, immo peius magisque fugiendum. illi enim non in sua fraude nec in rerum ueritate, sed in perplexitate locutionis humanae quaedam uerba dicunt tunc uideri uera cum falsa sunt, tunc falsa cum uera sunt; quae cum in disputationem inciderint animo discerni, etiamsi dissolui sermone non possunt. tu uero non uerbum quodlibet nec rem quamlibet, sed ipsam qua in aeternam uitam renascimur mundationem conscientiae ueram fieri posse dicis in homine per famam falsam alienae conscientiae. et ne tibi hoc tribuatur, qui dialecticam didicisti. uestrorum dicis hanc esse sententiam, quibus non ut dialecticus, sed plane ut haereticus consensisti. per te igitur aut per uestros haec est magnifica inuenta uel demonstrata doctrina: cum sancte dantis bona conscientia est, tunc ad eam fit bonus qui baptizatur, tunc arbor bona bonum fructum parit: cum uero conscientia dantis mala et occulta est, tunc eius quae falsa est bona fama consulitur, ut tunc a fallente accipiat homo baptismum uerum, cum de illo crediderit falsum, atque ita, ne desit arbor, quae fructum pariat haeretici erroris, fit mater falsitas ueritatis. hoc ideo totum tam execrabile, tam mirabiliter peruersum et insanum, ne quod dei est dei esse dicatur, ut quod a deo sumitur hominibus tribuatur, ne qui dixit: conscientia sancte dantis attenditur quae abluat accipientis errasse uideatur. ### English translation (Claude) Go now and slanderously accuse the dialecticians of producing, by a craft of speech to be shunned, that if something is false it is true, and if it is true it is false. See, you yourself introduce something of this kind into the sacraments of Christian regeneration, or rather something worse and more to be shunned. For they, not by their own fraud nor in the truth of things, but in the perplexity of human speech, say that certain statements seem true when they are false and false when they are true; and when these come up in a disputation they are discerned by the mind, even if they cannot be resolved in words. But you say that not any word or any thing, but the very cleansing of conscience by which we are reborn to eternal life, can be made true in a man through the false reputation of another's conscience. And so that this may not be credited to you, who have learned dialectic, you say this is the opinion of your people, with whom you have agreed not as a dialectician but plainly as a heretic. By you, then, or by your people this magnificent doctrine has been discovered or demonstrated: when the conscience of one giving in holiness is good, then the one baptized becomes good by it, then the good tree bears good fruit; but when the giver's conscience is bad and hidden, then his good reputation, which is false, is consulted, so that a man then receives true baptism from a deceiver when he has believed something false about him; and so, lest a tree be lacking to bear the fruit of heretical error, falsehood becomes the mother of truth. All this, so execrable, so wonderfully perverse and insane, is done so that what is God's may not be said to be God's, so that what is received from God may be attributed to men, so that he who said, “The conscience of one who gives in holiness is looked to, to wash that of the recipient,” may not seem to have erred. ### Scripture references - Matt 7:17: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 7:17. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.23 (CSEL 52:382–383; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-23). ## Against Cresconius 2.24 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-24 - Source: CSEL 52:383–384 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers that Judas, who baptized as an apostle while a thief, shows that God and Christ, not the minister's conscience or reputation, give baptism its effect. ### Latin text Nostri hoc, inquis. de scripturis probant, quoniam Iudas traditor, antequam damnaretur, omnia sicut apostolus gessit. quid hoc ad Petiliani sententiam fixam atque definitam: conscientia sancte dantis attenditur quae abluat accipientis nisi quod et Iudas iste nimium contra uos est, cum uerbis alienis inconsiderate prolatis patrocinium praebere conamini? cum enim Iudas sicut apostolus baptizaret, quandoquidem malus erat, quia fur erat et ea quae mittebantur in commissos sibi loculos auferebat, non utique conscientia eius attendebatur, sed deus et Christus in quem credebatur. neque enim et ipsius mali hominis falsa bona fama credentes accipientes abluebat nec generabat in homine gratiam diuinae ueritatis falsitas humanae opinionis. ### English translation (Claude) “Our people,” you say, “prove this from the Scriptures, since Judas the traitor, before he was condemned, did everything as an apostle.” What has this to do with Petilian's fixed and defined statement, “The conscience of one who gives in holiness is looked to, to wash that of the recipient,” except that this Judas too is very much against you, when you try to give patronage to other men's words thoughtlessly put forward? For when Judas baptized as an apostle, since he was evil, because he was a thief and took what was put into the money bag entrusted to him, certainly it was not his conscience that was looked to, but God and Christ in whom they believed. Nor did the false good reputation of that evil man wash those who believed and received, nor did the falsehood of human opinion beget in a man the grace of divine truth. ### Scripture references - John 12:6: allusion, high confidence - John 4:2: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - John 12:6; John 4:2 (the disciples baptized). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.24 (CSEL 52:383–384; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-24). ## Against Cresconius 2.25 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-25 - Source: CSEL 52:384 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that the only coherent answer is the Catholic one: Christ cleanses recipients whether the minister is good or bad. ### Latin text Et illud testimonium, quod de scripturis posuisti: quae manifesta sunt, uobis, quae autem occulta sunt, domino deo uestro, ista uerba redarguit atque conuincit si enim quae occulta sunt domino deo nostro relinquenda sunt. quomodo conscientia dantis non solum mala, uerum etiam bona, cum occulta est. attenditur, ut abluat accipientis? aut si ipsa, cum occulta est. non attenditur. quid tunc accipiens iubetis attendat, unde conscientia eius abluatur? Eia expergiscimini aliquando, nunc saltem dicite: attendat deum. quid timetis ne humiliemini, si non in homine, sed in domino gloriemini? est, inquis, quod timeam. si enim, cum latet dantis conscientia, dixero. ut accipiens attendat deum, et ab illo tunc eius ablui conscientiam confessus fuero, illa me horrenda consequetur absurditas. sanctius ablui homines, cum baptizatores habent occultos malos quam cum manifestos bonos, si homo abluit. quando dantis conscientia bona est et manifesta, deus autem, quando mala et occulta). dic ergo quod dicimus?, quia hoc est uerum, hoc sanum, hoc catholicum, quod Christus mundet accipientium conscientias siue per bonos ministros baptismi sui siue per malos, quoniam de illo scriptum est: Christus dilexit ecclesiam et se ipsum tradidit pro ea, ut eam sanctificaret mundans eam lauacro aquae in uerbo. ### English translation (Claude) And that testimony which you set down from the Scriptures, “The things that are manifest are for you, but the things that are hidden are for the Lord your God,” refutes and confutes these words. For if the hidden things are to be left to the Lord our God, how is the conscience of the giver, not only bad but also good, looked to when it is hidden, so as to wash that of the recipient? Or if it is not looked to when it is hidden, what do you then order the recipient to look to, by which his conscience may be washed? Come, wake up at last; say now at least: let him look to God. Why do you fear to be humbled if you glory not in man but in the Lord? “I have something to fear,” you say. “For if, when the giver's conscience is hidden, I say that the recipient should look to God and confess that his conscience is then washed by him, that horrible absurdity will follow me: that men are washed more holily when they have hidden evil baptizers than when they have manifest good ones, if man washes when the giver's conscience is good and manifest, but God when it is bad and hidden.” Say, then, what we say, since this is true, this is sound, this is Catholic: that Christ cleanses the consciences of the recipients, whether through good ministers of his baptism or through bad; since it is written of him, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of water in the word.” ### Scripture references - Deut 29:29: quotation, medium confidence - 1 Cor 1:31: allusion, medium confidence - Eph 5:25: quotation, high confidence - Eph 5:26: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Deut 29:29; 1 Cor 1:31; Eph 5:25–26. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.25 (CSEL 52:384; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-25). ## Against Cresconius 2.26 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-26 - Source: CSEL 52:384–386 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers that those condemned by the church baptize as hidden sinners condemned by Christ do: the visible rite is theirs, the inner cleansing is Christ's. ### Latin text Tu, inquis, responde, quomodo baptizent quos damnauit ecclesia. iam ergo receditur a uerbis Petiliani, quoniam illo dicente: conscientia sancte dantis attenditur quae abluat accipientis cum quaererem quis abluat accipientis conscientiam, quando polluta dantis occulta est, non mihi potuit responderi. tam enim contra ueritatem dicitur, quod falsa eius fama possit abluere, quam si hoc ipsa posse diceretur. Si autem quaeris, quomodo baptizent quos damnauit ecclesia, respondeo sic eos baptizare, quomodo baptizant quos damnauit deus, antequam de illis quicquam iudicaret ecclesia. qui enim mente peruersa uidetur intus esse cum foris sit, ab ipso Christo iam iudicatus est. ipse quippe ait: qui non credit iam iudicatus est, Paulus autem apostolus dicit: ecclesia subdita est Christo. non igitur debet ecclesia se Christo praeponere. ut putet baptizare posse ab illo iudicatos. a se autem iudicatos baptizare non posse, cum ille semper ueraciter iudicet, ecclesiastici autem iudices sicut homines plerumque fallantur. baptizant ergo, quantum attinet ad uisibile ministerium, et boni et mali, inuisibiliter autem per eos ille baptizat, cuius est et uisibile baptisma et inuisibilis gratia. tinguere ergo possunt et boni et mali, abluere autem conscientiam non nisi ille, qui semper est bonus. ac per hoc etiam nesciente ecclesia propter malam pollutamque conscientiam damnati a Christo iam in corpore Christi non sunt, quod est ecclesia, quoniam non potest Christus habere membra damnata. proinde et ipsi extra ecclesiam baptizant. omnia quippe ista monstra absit omnino ut in membris illius columbae unicae conputentur, absit ut intrare possint limites horti conclusi, cuius ille custos est qui non potest falli. qui tamen si confitentur et corriguntur, tunc intrant, tunc mundantur, tunc in arboribus horti conclusi, tunc in membris columbae unicae numerantur nec tamen denuo baptizantur; ita et cum ab haereticis ueniunt cum ipso baptismate, quod et foris baptismo. sed non et cum ipsa mundatione, quam intus accipiunt, ut quod defuit praestetur, quod autem non mutatum est adprobetur. ### English translation (Claude) “You,” you say, “answer how those whom the church has condemned can baptize.” So now there is a retreat from Petilian's words, since, when he said, “The conscience of one who gives in holiness is looked to, to wash that of the recipient,” and I asked who washes the recipient's conscience when the giver's polluted conscience is hidden, no answer could be given me. For it is as much against the truth to say that his false reputation can wash as if it were said that the conscience itself could do this. But if you ask how those whom the church has condemned baptize, I answer that they baptize in the same way as those baptize whom God has condemned before the church judged anything about them. For one who with a perverse mind seems to be inside while he is outside has already been judged by Christ himself. For he says, “He who does not believe is already judged”; and the apostle Paul says, “The church is subject to Christ.” The church, then, ought not to put itself before Christ, so as to think that those judged by him can baptize, but those judged by itself cannot; since he always judges truly, while church judges, being men, are often deceived. As far as the visible ministry is concerned, then, both good and bad baptize; but invisibly he baptizes through them to whom both the visible baptism and the invisible grace belong. Both good and bad, then, can dip, but only he who is always good can wash the conscience. And therefore, even without the church's knowledge, those condemned by Christ because of a bad and polluted conscience are already not in the body of Christ, which is the church, since Christ cannot have condemned members. Accordingly, they too baptize outside the church. For far be it altogether that all these monsters should be counted among the members of that one dove; far be it that they should be able to enter the bounds of the enclosed garden, whose keeper is he who cannot be deceived. Yet if they confess and are corrected, then they enter, then they are cleansed, then they are numbered among the trees of the enclosed garden and the members of the one dove; and yet they are not baptized anew. So too when they come from heretics, with that same baptism which they had outside, but not also with that cleansing which they receive inside, so that what was lacking may be supplied, and what was not changed may be approved. ### Scripture references - John 3:18: quotation, high confidence - Eph 5:24: quotation, high confidence - Song 6:9: allusion, high confidence - Song 4:12: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - John 3:18; Eph 5:24; Song 6:9; Song 4:12. The phrase “quod et foris baptismo” appears corrupt and is translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.26 (CSEL 52:384–386; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-26). ## Against Cresconius 2.27 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-27 - Source: CSEL 52:386–387 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers the charges of handing over the Scriptures and persecution with the parable of the threshing floor and Scripture's just “persecution” of enemies. ### Latin text Uestra, inquis, per uestros maiores traditionis et turificationis et per uos persecutionis crimine damnata conscientia est. de traditoribus quidem et turificatoribus, qui fuerint qui hoc nefas admiserint, non scripturis sanctis, sed famae hominum credidistis. quae si potest esse falsa bona de malis, cur non possit etiam mala de bonis? de persecutione autem hoc tibi breuiter iterumque responderim, quod cum respondissem Petiliano refellere minime ualuisti. in scriptura quippe sancta, quae neminem fallit, area dicta est ecclesia dei dominumque ipsum cum uentilabro esse uenturum et mundaturum aream suam, ut frumenta recondat in horreo, paleam uero conburat igni inextinguibili. aut ergo recte passi estis persecutionem aut, si modus christianus excessus est, palea nostra fecit, propter quam non fuerat area dominica deserenda, ne, quisquis ante tempus uentilationis ab area paleam refugeret. a frumento separatus palea fieret. tu autem, cum hoc non meum, sed sanctae scripturae testimonium refellere conareris. nullam persecutionem iustam esse posse dixisti; ubi ignoscendum tibi est nescienti scripturas, unde tibi uenire posset in mentem, quam iusta uoce sit dictum: detrahentem proximo suo occulte, hunc persequebar, et ab ipso domino Iesu Christo in excellentissima prophetia: persequar inimicos meos et conprehendam illos, et non conuertar donec deficiant. et alia multa diuina testimonia, quae persequi longum est, si tamen non mihi propter hoc uerbum calumniaris, ut, quoniam dixi: persequi longum est, persecutorem me diuinorum testimoniorum esse crimineris. ### English translation (Claude) “Your conscience,” you say, “has been condemned by the crime of handing over the books and of offering incense in your forefathers, and of persecution in yourselves.” As to the traitors and incense-offerers, who they were that committed this wickedness, you have believed not the holy Scriptures but human report. If this can be falsely good of the bad, why not also falsely bad of the good? As to persecution, I would answer you briefly and again what you were quite unable to refute when I answered it to Petilian. In the holy Scripture, which deceives no one, the church of God is called a threshing floor, and it is said that the Lord himself will come with a winnowing fan and will clean his threshing floor, to store the wheat in the barn, but to burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. Either, then, you suffered persecution rightly, or, if the Christian measure was exceeded, our chaff did it; and on its account the Lord's threshing floor was not to be deserted, lest anyone who fled from the chaff from the threshing floor before the time of winnowing, separated from the wheat, should himself become chaff. But you, when you tried to refute this testimony, not mine but of holy Scripture, said that no persecution can be just. Here you must be pardoned for not knowing the Scriptures, from which it might have come into your mind with how just a voice it is said, “Him who secretly slanders his neighbor I persecuted,” and by the Lord Jesus Christ himself in a most excellent prophecy, “I will persecute my enemies and overtake them, and I will not turn back until they fail,” and many other divine testimonies which it would take long to pursue; provided you do not slander me for this word, so that, because I said “it would take long to pursue” (persequi), you accuse me of being a persecutor of the divine testimonies. ### Scripture references - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence - Ps 101:5 (100:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 18:37 (17:38 LXX): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - “Traitors” renders traditores, those who handed over the sacred books during the persecution of Diocletian. Matt 3:12; Ps 101:5 (100:5 LXX); Ps 18:37 (17:38 LXX). The Latin persequi means both “persecute” and “pursue”. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.27 (CSEL 52:386–387; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-27). ## Against Cresconius 2.28 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-28 - Source: CSEL 52:387–388 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows that the Donatist proof texts on “the oil of a sinner” and “deceitful water” tell against them, since they too have hidden sinners who baptize. ### Latin text Opponis mihi uerba scripturarum totiens demonstrata quam uos nihil adiuuent: oleum peccatoris non inpinguet caput meum — cum et apud uos esse saltem occultos peccatores negare non possis, qui tamen baptizant nec his uerbis excepti sunt; non enim ait: oleum manifesti peccatoris, sed absolute: oleum peccatoris — et: facti sunt mihi uelut aqua mendax non habens fidem. ubi miror prudentiam tuam, quomodo tibi non uideatur aqua mendax simulatoris occulti, cuius et falsam famam mundandae alienae conscientiae prodesse aliquid credidisti, nisi quia illud non dialecticum, sed plane sophisticum, quod in me frustra quasi in dialectico reprehendisti, subuenire tibi arbitratus es: (si mentiris, uerum dicis! quid enim aliud conaris asserere, cum homini tribuens baptismum, quem dei esse non uis agnoscere, ideo dicis adulterum dare posse uerum baptismum, quia se ipsum occultando castum esse mentitur? itaque tunc uerum dicit in baptismo, cum mentitur in flagitio, et non est aqua eius mendax, quam esse uultis in ecclesia secundum promissionem tot prophetiarum toto terrarum orbe diffusa, cum aquam mendacem non baptismum dixerit Hieremias, sed mendaces homines secundum intellectum qui manifestus est in Apocalypsi, ubi interrogante Iohanne, quid essent aquae illae in uisione monstratae, populos esse responsum est. ### English translation (Claude) You set against me words of Scripture which have been shown so often to be of no help to you: “Let not the oil of a sinner anoint my head” (though you cannot deny that among you too there are at least hidden sinners, who nevertheless baptize and are not excepted by these words; for it does not say “the oil of a manifest sinner,” but absolutely “the oil of a sinner”); and, “They have become to me like deceitful water, having no faithfulness.” Here I wonder at your prudence, how the water of a hidden pretender does not seem to you deceitful, whose false reputation you have even believed to be of some use for cleansing another's conscience; unless that you thought that trick to come to your help which is not dialectical but plainly sophistical, which you blamed in me in vain as in a dialectician: “If you lie, you speak the truth!” For what else are you trying to assert when, attributing baptism to man, since you will not recognize that it is God's, you say that an adulterer can give true baptism because by hiding himself he lies that he is chaste? So he speaks the truth in baptism when he lies in his shameful deed, and his water is not deceitful, which you would have to be in the church, spread through the whole world according to the promise of so many prophecies; whereas Jeremiah called not baptism deceitful water, but deceitful men, according to the meaning that is plain in the Apocalypse, where, when John asked what those waters shown in the vision were, the answer was that they were peoples. ### Scripture references - Ps 141:5 (140:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Jer 15:18: quotation, high confidence - Rev 17:15: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Ps 141:5 (140:5 LXX); Jer 15:18; Rev 17:15. “If you lie, you speak the truth” is the ancient liar paradox. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.28 (CSEL 52:387–388; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-28). ## Against Cresconius 2.29 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-29 - Source: CSEL 52:388–389 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows that the oil of the sinner in Ps 141:5 refers to flattery, not baptism, and that Cresconius's reading would require rebaptizing those baptized by hidden sinners. ### Latin text De illo uero testimonio, quod scriptum est: qui baptizatur a mortuo quid proficit lauatio eius?, quam non intellexeris, quod ego in illa epistula posui, quantumque me uerbis tuis adiuueris, paululum adtende. cum enim putasses a me mortuum hoc loco intellegi cultorem idolorum. quasi eos solos exceperim qui baptizare non possint, egisti. quantum potuisti, repetito illo de oleo testimonio, quod nullum peccatorem baptizare uoluerit qui dixit: oleum peccatoris non inpinguabit caput meum, non excipiendo aliquem peccatorem. unde uos magis urgemini, sicut paulo ante monstraui. si enim nullus peccator exceptus est, proinde baptizatos ab occultis malis, cum conuicti fuerint, denuo baptizate. hic iam conaberis occultum excipere peccatorem, quem sancta scriptura non excepit. totus igitur iste uester intellectus falsus a ueritate conuincitur, cum et uestrae intentioni similiter repugnare monstratur. neque enim hoc re uera de baptismo in psalmo positum est ac non de assentatoris adulatione, quod superiora uerba satis indicant; nam tota sententia ita conectitur: emendabit me iustus in misericordia et arguet me: oleum autem peccatoris non inpinguabit caput meum. maluit ergo contundi caput suum ab arguente ueraciter quam ungi a blandiente fallaciter, translatis uerbis oleo et unctione lenitudinem significantibus adulantis. ### English translation (Claude) As for that testimony where it is written, “He who is baptized by a dead man, what does his washing profit?”, notice for a little how you failed to understand what I set down in that letter, and how much you helped me by your words. For when you had thought that by the dead man in this passage I understood a worshiper of idols, as if I had excepted only those who cannot baptize, you did your best, repeating that testimony about oil, to show that he who said, “The oil of a sinner shall not anoint my head,” wished that no sinner should baptize, excepting no sinner. By this you are pressed the harder, as I showed a little before. For if no sinner is excepted, then baptize anew those baptized by hidden evil men when they are convicted. Here you will now try to except the hidden sinner, whom holy Scripture did not except. This whole interpretation of yours, then, is refuted as false by the truth, since it is shown likewise to fight against your own contention. For in truth this was not set down in the psalm about baptism but about the flattery of a fawner, as the preceding words sufficiently show; for the whole sentence is joined thus: “The righteous man will correct me in mercy and reprove me; but the oil of a sinner shall not anoint my head.” He preferred, then, to have his head bruised by one who truly reproves rather than anointed by one who deceitfully flatters, the words “oil” and “anointing” being used figuratively for the smoothness of the flatterer. ### Scripture references - Ps 141:5 (140:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Sir 34:25 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Sir 34:25 (34:30 Vulgate); Ps 141:5 (140:5 LXX). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.29 (CSEL 52:388–389; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-29). ## Against Cresconius 2.30 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-30 - Source: CSEL 52:389–390 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that by “the dead” in Sir 34:25 he meant the dead gods of pagan rites, whereas Christ, who baptizes through every minister, lives. ### Latin text Quid autem ego in illa epistula de hoc testimonio senserim, ubi dictum est: qui baptizatur a mortuo, ipsis ex ea repetitis uerbis satis, quantum opinor, ostendam. cum enim dissererem, quid respondere debeat ad ista catholicus christianus, cum audierit, inquam, qui baptizatur a mortuo non ei prodest lauatio eius, respondebit: uiuit Christus et iam non moritur, et mors ei ultra non dominabitur, de quo dictum est: ipse est qui baptizat in spiritu sancto. baptizantur autem a mortuis qui baptizantur in idolorum templis. non enim et ipsi a sacerdotibus suis se accipere arbitrantur sanctificationem quam putant, sed a diis suis. qui quoniam homines fuerunt et ita mortui sunt, ut neque super terras neque in requie sanctorum uiuant, uere ipsi a mortuis baptizantur. huc usque ex epistula mea uerba ipsa transcripsi, in quibus iam perspicis, ut opinor, si nunc saltem diligenter attendis, non me ipsos cultores mortuos appellasse, quamuis alio modo etiam ipsi mortui sint, sed deos falsos quos colunt, quia homines fuerunt et sicut homines de corpore exierunt nec resurrexerunt nec uitae ullum meritum, quae post hanc uitam promittitur, habuerunt. ab ipsis ergo diis qui baptizantur, sicut dixi, uere a mortuis baptizantur, id est, qui in eorum nomine baptizantur, quia et ipsi non in nomine sacerdotum suorum, sed deorum, de quibus uana opinantur, se sanctificari putant. Christus autem resurrexit et uiuit; proinde qui ab illo baptizatur, non solum per bonum, uerum etiam per malum ministrum perditis moribus mortuum, non a mortuo baptizatur. ab illo enim baptizatur, qui uiuit in aeternum et de quo dictum est in euangelio, quod etiam ibi commemoraui: ipse est qui baptizat in spiritu sancto. ### English translation (Claude) What I meant in that letter about this testimony where it is said, “He who is baptized by a dead man,” I shall show sufficiently, I think, by repeating the very words from it. For when I was discussing what a Catholic Christian ought to answer to these things, I said: When he hears, “He who is baptized by a dead man, his washing does not profit him,” he will answer: Christ lives and dies no more, and death will no longer have dominion over him; of whom it was said, “He it is who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.” But those are baptized by dead men who are baptized in the temples of idols. For they too do not think they receive what they consider sanctification from their priests, but from their gods; and since these were men and died in such a way that they live neither on earth nor in the rest of the saints, they are truly baptized by dead men. Thus far I have copied the very words from my letter, in which you now see, I think, if at least now you attend carefully, that I did not call the worshipers themselves dead (although in another way they too are dead), but the false gods they worship, because they were men and departed from the body like men, and neither rose again nor had any merit of the life promised after this life. Those, then, who are baptized by those gods, as I said, are truly baptized by the dead, that is, those who are baptized in their name; because they too think they are sanctified not in the name of their priests but of the gods about whom they hold vain opinions. But Christ has risen and lives; accordingly, whoever is baptized by him, not only through a good minister but also through a bad one who is dead in his ruined morals, is not baptized by a dead man. For he is baptized by him who lives forever, and of whom it is said in the gospel, as I mentioned there too, “He it is who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.” ### Scripture references - Rom 6:9: quotation, high confidence - John 1:33: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Sir 34:25 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 6:9; John 1:33. The quotation is from Augustine, Against the Letters of Petilian 1.9.10. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.30 (CSEL 52:389–390; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-30). ## Against Cresconius 2.31 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-16/#p-2-31 - Source: CSEL 52:390–391 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine presses that if every sinner is “dead” and cannot baptize, the Donatists must rebaptize those baptized by hidden sinners, while they rebaptize distant Christians who never heard of the African dispute. ### Latin text Hoc tu in epistula mea, quantum indicant uerba tua, non intellexisti; nolo enim dicere: parum intellegens fraudare uoluisti. miror autem. quod uerba illic mea consequentia non aduerteris aut ab eis dissimulandum putaueris. paulo post quippe subieci et dixi: nam si hoc loco mortuum intellexero peccatorem baptizatorem, eadem illa consequetur absurditas, ut, quisquis etiam a latente impio fuerit baptizatus, tamquam mortuo baptizatus inaniter lotus sit. non enim ait: qui baptizatur a mortuo manifesto, sed absolute dixit: mortuo. haec manifestatio uerborum illic meorum quem non de somno uel potius de ipsa morte excitaret? et tamen te non excitauit, et insuper, quod ego contra Petilianum dixeram, quasi contra me dicens uehementius etiam confirmasti. sicut solent homines iniectam sagittam nesciendo excludere altius etiam penitusque defigere. adseruisti enim mortuum non intellegendum nisi peccatorem baptistam et nullum peccatorem excipiendum, et ideo quod ego dicebam contra te concluditur, nec occultum excipi posse ubi nullus excipitur. rebaptizate igitur eos, quos ab occultis peccatoribus baptizatos esse constiterit, quibus potest uiuentibus et scientibus subueniri, ut eis solis nunc obsint. qui uel ignorant uel ante defuncti sunt, ut manifestatis postea malis baptizatoribus suis iam baptizari non possint. baptizate, inquam, prodito adultero atque damnato, quos ab eo cum lateret baptizatos esse constiterit; a mortuo quippe baptizati sunt, omnem peccatorem sine ulla exceptione intellegendum esse dixisti qui baptizare non possit, adiungendo testimonium de oleo peccatoris. tu dixisti, tu scripsisti: te ipsum audi, lege te ipsum. si omnis peccator tamquam mortuus non potest baptizare, nec occultus potest. non enim. quia occultus, ideo uiuus est, cum multo profundius etiam mendacio simulationis absumptus sit. minus enim mortuus diceretur, si saltem confiteretur, sed fit in illo quod alio loco scriptum est: a mortuo, uelut qui non sit, perit confessio. ab isto mortuo in tanta mortis profunditate demerso quos baptizatos esse claruerit, non rebaptizatis, et ab eis baptizatos, qui in ultimis terris nec Caeciliani nec Maiorini nec Donati nomen audierunt, rebaptizare, si possitis, minime dubitatis, obicientes eis: qui baptizatur a mortuo quid ei prodest lauatio eius?,mortuos dicentes ad quos Afrorum cadauerum, quorumlibet illa fuerint, nec aura potuit peruenire, et mortuum non putantes qui proprium potest occultare flagitium, cum scriptura clamet: a mortuo, uelut qui non sit, perit confessio. itane, quia fictus est, mortuus non est, cum magis propter ipsam fictionem carendo spiritu uitae penitus expirauerit, iterum dicente scriptura: sanctus enim spiritus disciplinae fugiet fictum? adhuc defendite istos mortuos et uiuere dicite, ut et uos peius ipsa falsa defensione moriamini.. ### English translation (Claude) This, as your words show, you did not understand in my letter; for I do not wish to say that, understanding it too little, you wished to deceive. But I wonder that you did not notice my words that follow there, or thought you should pretend not to see them. For a little later I added and said: “For if in this passage I understand by the dead man a sinner who baptizes, the same absurdity will follow, that whoever has been baptized even by a hidden ungodly man has been washed in vain, as being baptized by a dead man. For it does not say, ‘He who is baptized by a manifest dead man,’ but absolutely, ‘by a dead man.’” Whom would this plainness of my words there not rouse from sleep, or rather from death itself? And yet it did not rouse you; and, besides, what I had said against Petilian you confirmed even more strongly, as if speaking against me; as men often, not knowing how, in trying to pull out an arrow that has been shot into them drive it in deeper and further. For you asserted that by the dead man only a sinful baptizer is to be understood, and that no sinner is to be excepted; and so what I was saying is concluded against you: neither can the hidden sinner be excepted where none is excepted. Rebaptize, then, those who are established to have been baptized by hidden sinners, who can be helped while they are alive and know it, so that it may now harm only those who either do not know or died before, so that they can no longer be baptized once their evil baptizers were later exposed. Baptize, I say, when an adulterer has been exposed and condemned, those who are established to have been baptized by him while he was hidden; for they were baptized by a dead man, since you said that every sinner without any exception is to be understood as one who cannot baptize, adding the testimony about the oil of the sinner. You said it, you wrote it: hear yourself, read yourself. If every sinner, as being dead, cannot baptize, neither can the hidden one. For he is not alive because he is hidden, since he is far more deeply consumed by the lie of his pretense. He would be called less dead if at least he confessed; but in him happens what is written in another place: “From the dead, as from one who is not, confession perishes.” Those who are shown to have been baptized by this dead man, sunk in so great a depth of death, you do not rebaptize; and those baptized by men who in the farthest lands have never heard the name of Caecilian or Majorinus or Donatus, you do not hesitate to rebaptize if you can, casting at them, “He who is baptized by a dead man, what does his washing profit him?”; calling dead those to whom not even the breath of the African corpses, whoever's they were, could reach, and not thinking him dead who can hide his own shameful deed, although Scripture cries out, “From the dead, as from one who is not, confession perishes.” Is he, then, not dead because he is a pretender, when rather, because of that very pretense, lacking the spirit of life he has breathed his last completely, as Scripture says again, “For the holy spirit of discipline will flee from the pretender”? Go on defending these dead men and saying that they live, so that you too may die worse by that very false defense. ### Extrabiblical texts - Sir 34:25 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence - Sir 17:28 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence - Wis 1:5 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation from Against the Letters of Petilian 1.9.10. Sir 17:28 (17:26 Vulgate); Wis 1:5. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.31 (CSEL 52:390–391; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-31). ## Against Cresconius 2.32 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-32 - Source: CSEL 52:391–392 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that, on Cresconius's principle, those baptized by a hidden sinner must be rebaptized once he is exposed, which the Donatists do not do. ### Latin text Mortui sunt, inquis. sed quid faceret, qui baptizandus ad eos ignarus accessit? nunc ergo faciat, quando illo prodito se agnouit a mortuo baptizatum. si enim conscientia propterea laedi non potuit, quia nesciuit, nunc incipit laedi, quia sciuit; uelut si tunica de latrocinio nesciens uestiretur, ex illo fit iniquitatis uestis illa, ex quo cognouerit, et ipse iniquus, nisi abiecerit, et qui nesciens uxorem duxerit alienam, ex illo fit adulter, ex quo didicerit, nisi discesserit. abiciat ergo et iste baptismum, quem se a mortuo percepisse cognouit. habet enim quod faciat, adhuc baptizari iterum potest. postremo scierit nescierit a mortuo baptizatus, quid ei prodest lauatio eius? stricta sententia est, sicut et tu ipse clamas, neminem excepit. a mortuo, inquam, baptizatus est, nihil ei prodest lauatio eius. mundate hominem baptizando, qui uiuitis, aut uos ipsos potius ab hoc errore mundate, ne talia sentiendo pereatis. contendis enim uelut aduersus me, ut nullum exceptum dicas in eo quod scriptum est: oleum peccatoris et: qui baptizatur a mortuo, nec te sentis nodum quo ligatus es renitendo constringere. hoc enim ago, hoc insto, hinc uos ad mutandam uanam peruersamque sententiam urgenter inpingo, ut in oleo peccatoris et mortui baptismo nullus mortuus, nullus peccator exceptus sit, sicut tu pro me uelut contra me loqueris. ita enim nec occultus excipitur, quo euertitur omne quod loqueris, ac sic rebaptizare coguntur, qui te talia docuerunt, omnes quos ab occultis malis baptizatos in hac uita repperire potuerint. ### English translation (Claude) “They are dead,” you say; “but what should he do who came to them for baptism without knowing?” Let him do it now, then, when, the man having been exposed, he has recognized that he was baptized by a dead man. For if his conscience could not be harmed because he did not know, it now begins to be harmed because he knows; as, if someone unknowingly wore a tunic from a robbery, that garment becomes a garment of wickedness from the moment he learns of it, and he himself wicked unless he casts it off; and one who unknowingly married another man's wife becomes an adulterer from the moment he learns of it, unless he departs. Let this man too cast off the baptism he has learned he received from a dead man. For he has something to do: he can still be baptized again. Finally, whether he knew or did not know, he was baptized by a dead man: what does his washing profit him? The statement is strict, as you yourself proclaim; it excepts no one. He was baptized, I say, by a dead man; his washing profits him nothing. Cleanse the man by baptizing, you who are alive, or rather cleanse yourselves from this error, lest you perish by holding such views. For you contend, as if against me, so as to say that no one is excepted in what is written, “the oil of a sinner” and “he who is baptized by a dead man,” and you do not feel yourself tightening by your resistance the knot by which you are bound. For this is what I am doing, this is what I am pressing, this is how I urgently drive you to change your empty and perverse opinion: that in the oil of the sinner and the baptism of the dead man no dead man, no sinner is excepted, as you say for me while seeming to speak against me. For thus not even the hidden one is excepted, and by this everything you say is overthrown; and so those who taught you such things are compelled to rebaptize all whom they can find in this life to have been baptized by hidden evil men. ### Scripture references - Ps 141:5 (140:5 LXX): allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Sir 34:25 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The comparison with one who unknowingly married another man's wife is an illustration in the argument about knowledge and guilt. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.32 (CSEL 52:391–392; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32). ## Against Cresconius 2.33 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-33 - Source: CSEL 52:392–394 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes Cresconius's claim that no sinner may baptize and shows it excludes hidden sinners too, and indeed everyone, since all have sin. ### Latin text Quid agis, quo te conuertis? uerba tua tibi recitantur. non solum enim mea cum dicerem non refellisti, sed nesciens quid meum legeris aliis uerbis tamquam tuum hoc idem ipse dixisti et, ut diligentius audiri et considerari posset, scripsisti, ut tibi quotiens libuerit recitetur. audi ergo — uerba tua nempe ista sunt —: quodsi idoli cultorem, inquis, tantum tibi placet excipere, quid ille de quo dicitur: nolo oleum peccatoris ungat caput meum? utrumne et hic peccator ille solus, est qui idolum colit, an quisquis quod non licet admittit? quodsi et peccatorem tantum cultorem idoli putas, christianus ergo si quid contra legem gesserit peccasse non dicetur? quodsi nihil dici stultius nec absurdius potest, aperte praedictum est, ut non solus idoli cultor, sed quisquis peccator inter omnes homines fuerit, ius sibi baptismatis non usurpet. haec certe quae inserui uerba tua sunt. ego cultorem idoli non excepi, sed ipsos deos eorum mortuos esse dixi, quorum a nullo baptizari aliquid prodest; ab ipsis enim diis sibi baptizari uidentur, in quorum nomine se mundari arbitrantur. tu autem nullum peccatorem excepisti. quodsi hoc loco peccator et mortalis homo qui baptizat intellegendus est, nullum peccatorem excipiens procul dubio nec occultum excepisti: aperte, inquis, praedictum est, ut non solus idoli cultor, sed quisquis peccator inter omnes homines fuerit, ius sibi baptismatis non usurpet. audi ergo te ipsum. quisquis peccator dixisti, nec manifestum nec occultum excepisti. proinde qua fronte cogunt baptizari post manifestum qui nolunt post occultum, ubi adserunt neminem exceptum? fuge igitur, frater. ab insano intellectu ad sanum, ut in hoc testimonio de oleo peccatoris, sicut superiora eiusdem psalmi uerba praescribunt, blandam lenitudinem fallacis iam adulatoris intellegas. ita enim et nullus erit exceptus et non inpinget in angustias insuperabiles malus baptizator occultus. sic et in alio testimonio, ubi dictum est: qui baptizatur a mortuo quid ei prodest lauatio eius?, aut inspice diligenter codices antiquos et maxime Graecos, ne forte ipsa uerba aliter conscripta ex praecedenti et consequenti contextione sermonis alium sensum intiment, aut certe mortuos intellegamus, sicut dixi, in quorum nomine baptizantur idolorum cultores, ut ab illo quemque intellegas baptizatum, in cuius nomine se credit esse mundatum. ita enim et illic nullus excipitur; nullus quippe mortuus deus paganorum mundare potest credentes in se. si autem hoc loco omnem hominem peccatorem intellexeris mortuum. tanta quae non uis te secuntur, ut ipse quemadmodum uiuas inuenire non possis, dicente Iohanne: si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos decipimus et ueritas in nobis non est, ut omnino non inuenias hominem a quo baptizeris, si omnem peccatorem deuitare uolueris. ### English translation (Claude) What are you doing, where are you turning? Your own words are read back to you. For not only did you fail to refute mine when I said it, but, not knowing that what you read was mine, you yourself said the same thing in other words as if it were yours, and, so that it might be heard and considered more carefully, you wrote it, so that it may be read back to you as often as one pleases. Hear, then; for these are surely your words: “But if,” you say, “you are pleased to except only the worshiper of an idol, what of him of whom it is said, ‘I do not want the oil of a sinner to anoint my head’? Is here too that man alone a sinner who worships an idol, or whoever commits what is not lawful? But if you think that a sinner is only a worshiper of an idol, then will a Christian not be said to have sinned if he does anything against the law? But if nothing more foolish or absurd can be said, it has been plainly foretold that not only the idol worshiper, but whoever among all men is a sinner, should not usurp for himself the right of baptism.” These that I have inserted are certainly your words. I did not except the worshiper of an idol, but said that their gods themselves are dead, by none of whom does it profit to be baptized; for they seem to themselves to be baptized by those very gods in whose name they think they are cleansed. But you excepted no sinner. If, then, in this passage the sinner and mortal man who baptizes is to be understood, by excepting no sinner you certainly did not except the hidden one either: “It has been plainly foretold,” you say, “that not only the idol worshiper, but whoever among all men is a sinner, should not usurp for himself the right of baptism.” Hear yourself, then. You said “whoever is a sinner”; you excepted neither the manifest nor the hidden. With what face, then, do they compel baptism after a manifest sinner, who will not after a hidden one, when they assert that no one is excepted? Flee, then, brother, from an insane interpretation to a sound one, so that in this testimony about the oil of the sinner, as the preceding words of the same psalm prescribe, you may understand the coaxing smoothness of a deceitful flatterer. For so no one will be excepted, and the hidden evil baptizer will not drive you into insurmountable straits. So too in the other testimony, where it is said, “He who is baptized by a dead man, what does his washing profit him?”, either examine carefully the ancient manuscripts, and especially the Greek, in case the very words are written otherwise and suggest another sense from the preceding and following context of the passage; or certainly let us understand as the dead, as I said, those in whose name the worshipers of idols are baptized, so that you understand each person to have been baptized by him in whose name he believes he has been cleansed. For so there too no one is excepted; for no dead god of the pagans can cleanse those who believe in him. But if in this passage you understand every sinful man as dead, so many things you do not want follow you that you yourself cannot find how you live, since John says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us”; so that you would find no man at all by whom to be baptized if you wished to avoid every sinner. ### Scripture references - Ps 141:5 (140:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence - 1 John 1:8: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Sir 34:25 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Ps 141:5 (140:5 LXX); Sir 34:25; 1 John 1:8. In the Greek of Sir 34:25 the sense is ritual washing after touching a corpse. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.33 (CSEL 52:392–394; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-33). ## Against Cresconius 2.34 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-34 - Source: CSEL 52:394–395 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine adds that even if “the dead” meant heretics, Catholics agree that baptism received among them profits nothing until the recipient joins the church. ### Latin text Quamquam si prorsus mortuum non intellegeres nisi haereticum uel schismaticum, ut, quisquis apud eos baptizatur, a mortuo (baptizetur, de quo dictum est: qui baptizatur, a mortuo) quid ei prodest lauatio eius? — quod uides quam praecipiti praesumptione sic accipiatur, ac si dictum sit: (qui baptizatur ab haeretico uel schismatico —, nec sic contra nos esset, qui fatemur nihil prodesse homini baptismum Christi, si apud haereticos uel schismaticos baptizetur eis ipsis tribuens baptismum quo baptizatur, sed tunc ei prodesse incipere, cum transit ad corpus Christi, quod est ecclesia dei uiui. tunc enim sub eodem baptismo, quod et foris Christi erat, sed foris posito nihil proderat, mundatio proderit non ab eo, cuius manibus tinctus est, sed ab eo, cuius membris insertus est. ### English translation (Claude) And yet, even if you understood by the dead man nothing but a heretic or schismatic, so that whoever is baptized among them is baptized by a dead man, of whom it is said, “He who is baptized by a dead man, what does his washing profit him?” (you see with what headlong presumption it is taken so, as if it said, “He who is baptized by a heretic or schismatic”), even so it would not be against us, who confess that the baptism of Christ profits a man nothing if he is baptized among heretics or schismatics, attributing to them the baptism with which he is baptized; but that it begins to profit him when he passes over to the body of Christ, which is the church of the living God. For then, under the same baptism, which was Christ's even outside but, placed outside, profited nothing, the cleansing will profit, not from him by whose hands he was dipped, but from him into whose members he was grafted. ### Extrabiblical texts - Sir 34:25 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Sir 34:25. The words in round brackets are the editor's supplements. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.34 (CSEL 52:394–395; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-34). ## Against Cresconius 2.35 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-35 - Source: CSEL 52:395–396 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows from the Lord's Prayer and 1 John 1:8 that every minister is a sinner, so Cresconius's rule would leave no one able to baptize. ### Latin text Nec illam tuam nimium seueram sententiam formidabo, qua dixisti: quisquis peccator inter omnes homines fuerit, ius sibi baptismatis non usurpet, nisi quia non inuenis, quis ueraciter dicat in oratione dominica: dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, nisi peccatorem se esse fateatur. uellem singulos interrogare, qui baptizant apud uos, utrum peccatores omnino non sint. potest enim mihi quilibet eorum respondere: (non sum traditor, non sum turificator, non adulter, non homicida, non idolorum cultor, non postremo haereticus, non schismaticus; (non sum autem peccator nescio utrum quisquam uel haeretica superbia repperiri possit qui audeat dicere, audeat cogitare; nescio utrum quisquam tanto arrogantiae tumore caecetur, ut non dicam uoce profiteatur, sed uel apud se ipsum tacitus arbitretur non sibi esse necessariam deprecationem, in qua dicimus deo: dimitte nobis debita nostra. neque enim pro eis debitis dimittendis rogamus, quae semel in baptismo dimissa esse confidimus, sed pro eis utique, sine quibus humana fragilitas non est, quantumcumque in obseruandis praeceptis dominicis uigilemus. postremo suscipiat qui uoluerit huius inpudentiae frontem et dicat: (non sum peccator; ex quo mihi in baptismo cuncta dimissa sunt, nullum in me peccatum poterit inueniri. magis ego Iohanni credo et multo fidentius respondeo: te ipsum decipis et ueritas in te non est. neque hoc agit praeceps et fallax ista professio, ut in te peccata non inueniantur, sed ut quae inueniuntur non dimittantur. si ergo iam baptizatus es, uellem scire quem reppereris, qui contra Iohannem apostolum diceret: peccatum non habeo. si enim talem quemquam repperire potuisti. quomodo baptizatus es ab eo, qui se ipsum decipiebat et in quo ueritas non erat? si autem qualiscumque humilitatis non inmemor peccatorem se esse dicebat, quomodo sibi secundum tuam sententiam ius baptismatis usurpabat? tu enim dixisti, tu etiam scribere minime timuisti, ut, quisquis peccator inter omnes homines fuerit, ius sibi baptismatis non usurpet. si autem nondum baptizatus es, aut hanc uanissimam sententiam corrige aut a quibus baptizeris angelos quaere. ### English translation (Claude) Nor shall I dread that excessively severe statement of yours, in which you said, “Whoever among all men is a sinner, let him not usurp for himself the right of baptism,” except that you do not find anyone who could truly say in the Lord's Prayer, “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors,” without confessing himself a sinner. I would like to ask one by one those who baptize among you whether they are not sinners at all. For any of them can answer me: “I am not a traitor, not an incense-offerer, not an adulterer, not a murderer, not a worshiper of idols, and finally not a heretic, not a schismatic.” But whether anyone can be found, even with heretical pride, who would dare to say, dare to think, “I am not a sinner,” I do not know; I do not know whether anyone is blinded by so great a swelling of arrogance that, I will not say he professes it aloud, but even silently within himself thinks that he does not need the petition in which we say to God, “Forgive us our debts.” For we do not ask for the forgiveness of those debts which we trust were forgiven once in baptism, but certainly for those without which human frailty does not exist, however watchful we are in keeping the Lord's commands. Finally, let whoever wishes take on the brow of this shamelessness and say: “I am not a sinner; since everything was forgiven me in baptism, no sin can be found in me.” I rather believe John and answer much more confidently: You deceive yourself, and the truth is not in you. Nor does this headlong and deceitful profession achieve that sins are not found in you, but that those which are found are not forgiven. If, then, you have already been baptized, I would like to know whom you found who, contrary to the apostle John, said, “I have no sin.” For if you could find any such man, how were you baptized by one who was deceiving himself and in whom the truth was not? But if, mindful of some humility, he said he was a sinner, how, according to your statement, did he usurp for himself the right of baptism? For you said, and you were not at all afraid to write, that whoever among all men is a sinner should not usurp for himself the right of baptism. But if you have not yet been baptized, either correct this most empty statement, or look for angels to baptize you. ### Scripture references - Matt 6:12: quotation, high confidence - 1 John 1:8: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 6:12; 1 John 1:8. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.35 (CSEL 52:395–396; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-35). ## Against Cresconius 2.36 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-36 - Source: CSEL 52:396 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine grants that a notorious sinner should not baptize but holds that if he does, the baptism is given and harms only the unworthy. ### Latin text Sed arbitremur te conuictum correxisse: (quisquis eo crimine quod nostri obiciunt peccator inter omnes homines fuerit, ius sibi baptismatis non usurpet. neque hoc contra nos est, quia, si etiam talis usurpauerit et dederit, non eum sibi usurpare debuisse dico, non autem dedisse non dico. ille uero qui accepit si homo bonus ab homine malo, si fidelis a perfido, si pius ab impio, perniciosum erit danti, non accipienti. illud quippe sanctum male utentem iudicat, bene utentem sanctificat. si autem et ille qui accepit inique accepit, nec sic rescissum, sed agnitum, quod peruerso oberat, correcto proderit sacramentum. ### English translation (Claude) But let us suppose that you, refuted, have corrected it thus: “Whoever among all men is a sinner by the crime our people charge, let him not usurp for himself the right of baptism.” Nor is this against us; because if even such a man usurps it and gives it, I say that he ought not to have usurped it, but I do not say that he did not give it. And as for the one who received it, if he was a good man receiving from an evil one, a faithful man from a faithless one, a devout man from an ungodly one, it will be destructive to the giver, not to the recipient. For that holy thing judges the one who uses it badly and sanctifies the one who uses it well. But if the one who received it also received it wickedly, even so the sacrament will not be cancelled, but recognized; and what harmed the perverse will profit the corrected. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.36 (CSEL 52:396; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-36). ## Against Cresconius 2.37 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-37 - Source: CSEL 52:396–397 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues from Ps 50 and Matt 23 that a wicked preacher harms only himself while his hearers profit, and so with a wicked baptizer. ### Latin text Sic enim te putabo dixisse non iam quisquis peccator, quia nisi fallor iam cernis quam temere dictum sit, sed: peccator, qualem nostri describunt, quisquis inter omnes homines fuerit, ius sibi baptismatis non usurpet, quemadmodum scriptum est: peccatori autem dicit deus: ut quid tu enarras iustificationes meas et adsumis testamentum meum per os tuum? et ut ostenderet, quali peccatori hoc diceret, ne omnes homines a praedicando uerbo eius sese abstinerent, qui nec sentire audent nec dicere se peccatores non esse, sequitur eumque describit: tu uero odisti disciplinam et abiecisti sermones meos post te. os tuum abundauit malitia et lingua tua amplexa est dolositatem. si uidebas furem, concurrebas ei et cum adulteris portionem tuam ponebas. sedens aduersus fratrem tuum detrahebas et aduersus filium matris tuae ponebas scandalum. tali ergo peccatori dicit: ut quid tu enarras iustificationes meas et adsumis testamentum meum per os tuum?, tamquam diceret: frustra hoc facis; quantum ad te adtinet, non tibi prodest; hoc tibi ad iudicium damnationis, non ad meritum salutis ualebit. uerumtamen si etiam tali peccatore narrante iustificationes dei et adsumente testamentum eius per os suum illi, qui ex eius ore audiunt, credant faciant proficiant, nonne illo reprobato laudabuntur, illo culpato iustificabuntur, illo damnato coronabuntur, quoniam curauerunt oboedire domino dicenti: quae dicunt facite, quae autem faciunt facere nolite. dicunt enim et non faciunt? sicut ergo iste peccator, si ius sibi praedicandi testamenti diuini usurpauerit, sibi nihil prodest, audientibus autem et facientibus non ipse sed quod praedicat prodest, ita et ille, qui ius baptismatis sibi usurpare non debuit, sibi nocet qui bonum male usurpauit, non ei qui bonum bene percepit. ### English translation (Claude) For I shall take it that you have said, not now “whoever is a sinner,” since unless I am mistaken you now see how rashly that was said, but: “Whoever among all men is a sinner of the kind our people describe, let him not usurp for himself the right of baptism”; as it is written, “But to the sinner God says, ‘Why do you recite my statutes and take my covenant in your mouth?’” And to show to what kind of sinner he said this, so that all men should not abstain from preaching his word who dare neither think nor say that they are not sinners, it goes on and describes him: “But you hated discipline and cast my words behind you. Your mouth abounded with malice, and your tongue embraced deceit. If you saw a thief, you ran with him, and with adulterers you put your portion. Sitting, you spoke against your brother, and against your mother's son you put a stumbling block.” To such a sinner, then, he says, “Why do you recite my statutes and take my covenant in your mouth?”, as if to say: you do this in vain; as far as you are concerned, it does not profit you; this will avail you for the judgment of damnation, not for the merit of salvation. And yet, if even when such a sinner recites God's statutes and takes his covenant in his mouth, those who hear it from his mouth believe, do it, and make progress, will they not be praised while he is rejected, justified while he is blamed, crowned while he is condemned, because they took care to obey the Lord who says, “Do what they say, but do not do what they do; for they say and do not do”? Just as, then, this sinner, if he usurps for himself the right of preaching the divine covenant, profits himself nothing, while to those who hear and do it not he but what he preaches is profitable, so too he who ought not to have usurped for himself the right of baptism harms himself, who wrongly usurped a good thing, not him who rightly received the good thing. ### Scripture references - Ps 50:16 (49:16 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 50:17 (49:17 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 50:18 (49:18 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 50:19 (49:19 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 50:20 (49:20 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Matt 23:3: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Ps 50:16–20 (49:16–20 LXX); Matt 23:3. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.37 (CSEL 52:396–397; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-37). ## Against Cresconius 2.38 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-38 - Source: CSEL 52:397–398 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers that Catholics do not claim baptism is permitted to anyone, but that a holy thing misused is not cancelled, and hope must rest in God, not in the minister. ### Latin text Uides non solum te non potuisse refellere, quod ego contra Petilianum dixi, sed quanta luce ueritatis modis omnibus refellatur, quod contra me ipse dixisti. et adhuc pergis et dicis, quod causam nostram non probam faciamus et quodammodo peccatores nos esse fateamur, quoniam, dum nobis obicitur ius baptismatis qua nobis licentia uindicemus, non de merito actuum, non de innocentia uitae tractamus, sed cuicumque licere dicimus. attende certe ex his, quae dicta sunt, non cuicumque licere nos dicere. sed ei poenam esse, qui sanctum tractat inlicite, et eum esse corrigendum. non sanctum quod inlicite tractat inlicite rescindendum, sicut homines non legitime lege utentes corrigi uolumus, non ipsam legem inritam ducimus, sicut dei testamentum inlicite per os suum adsumentem reprehendimus. non ipsum testamentum negamus aut scindimus. nec ideo nos peccauisse confitemur, quia et in peccatore quod est ipsius inprobamus, quod autem dei est honoremus, quia in deum credentem non ex occultis humanis pendere uolumus, sed in domino gloriari de quo certus est admonemus. neque enim et apostolus malae suae conscientiae diffidebat, sed spem credentis poni nolebat in homine et in deo stabiliter conlocabat, cum diceret: neque qui plantat est aliquid neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat deus. non itaque nos dicentes quod scriptum est: non nobis, domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam accusamus nostram conscientiam, sed uos in hominum moribus eorum spem, qui baptizantur, poni uolentes non agnoscitis uestram superbiam. ### English translation (Claude) You see not only that you could not refute what I said against Petilian, but with how great a light of truth what you yourself said against me is refuted in every way. And still you go on and say that we do not make our case a good one and in a way confess that we are sinners, since, when we are challenged on what license we claim the right of baptism, we do not discuss the merit of our actions or the innocence of our life, but say that it is permitted to anyone. Notice, surely, from what has been said, that we do not say it is permitted to anyone, but that there is punishment for him who handles a holy thing unlawfully, and that he must be corrected, not the holy thing he handles unlawfully unlawfully cancelled; just as we wish men who do not use the law lawfully to be corrected, but do not regard the law itself as void; just as we rebuke one who takes God's covenant in his mouth unlawfully, but do not deny or tear up the covenant itself. Nor do we therefore confess that we have sinned, because even in a sinner we reject what is his own but honor what is God's; because we do not wish one who believes in God to depend on hidden human things, but admonish him to glory in the Lord, of whom he is certain. For the apostle too did not distrust his own conscience as bad, but he did not want the hope of the believer placed in a man and set it firmly in God, when he said, “Neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the growth.” So, when we say what is written, “Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory,” we do not accuse our conscience; but you, wishing the hope of those who are baptized to be placed in men's morals, do not recognize your own pride. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 3:7: quotation, high confidence - Ps 115:1 (113:9 LXX): quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 1:31: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Cor 3:7; Ps 115:1 (113:9 LXX); 1 Cor 1:31. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.38 (CSEL 52:397–398; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-38). ## Against Cresconius 2.39 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-39 - Source: CSEL 52:398–399 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine distinguishes Cyprian's writings from canonical Scripture and notes that Cyprian, while differing on rebaptism, never left the unity of the church. ### Latin text Quid, quod etiam beati Cypriani mentionem facere audetis, uelut ille auctor sit uestrae diuisionis, tantus defensor catholicae unitatis et pacis? primo esto in ecclesia, quam constat tenuisse ac praedicasse Cyprianum, et tunc aude uelut auctorem sententiae tuae nominare Cyprianum. primo. imitare pietatem humilitatemque Cypriani, et tunc profer concilium Cypriani. nos enim nullam Cypriano facimus iniuriam, cum eius quaslibet litteras a canonica diuinarum scripturarum auctoritate distinguimus. neque enim sine causa tam salubri uigilantia est canon ecclesiasticus constitutus, ad quem certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertineant, quos omnino iudicare non audeamus et secundum quos de ceteris litteris uel fidelium uel infidelium libere iudicemus. proinde cum dicat apostolus, cuius epistulae in auctoritate canonica uigent: quotquot ergo perfecti, hoc sapiamus; et si quid aliter sapitis, id quoque uobis deus reuelabit, quamdiu aliter sapuit Cyprianus, si scripta eius esse constat quae pro uobis proferenda arbitramini, quamdiu ergo de hac re aliter sapuit quam ueritas diligentius considerata patefecit, donec ei deus id quoque reuelaret, ineffabili laude caritatis unitatem pacemque catholicam etiam cum collegis suis, a quibus aliter sapuit, non reliquit. ### English translation (Claude) What of the fact that you even dare to mention blessed Cyprian, as if he were the author of your division, he who was so great a defender of Catholic unity and peace? First be in the church which Cyprian plainly held and preached, and then dare to name Cyprian as the author of your opinion. First imitate the piety and humility of Cyprian, and then bring forward the council of Cyprian. For we do Cyprian no injury when we distinguish any writings of his from the canonical authority of the divine Scriptures. For not without reason was the church's canon established with such salutary vigilance, to which the definite books of the prophets and apostles belong, which we do not dare to judge at all, and according to which we freely judge other writings, whether of believers or unbelievers. Accordingly, since the apostle, whose letters stand in canonical authority, says, “Let as many of us as are perfect think this; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you,” so long as Cyprian thought otherwise (if the writings you think should be brought forward on your behalf are certainly his), so long, then, as he thought otherwise on this matter than the truth, more carefully considered, has made plain, until God should reveal this too to him, with an unspeakable praise of love he did not abandon Catholic unity and peace, even with his colleagues from whom he thought otherwise. ### Scripture references - Phil 3:15: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Sent. whole (The Opinions of the Eighty-Seven Bishops (Council of Carthage, 256)): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Phil 3:15. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.39 (CSEL 52:398–399; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-39). ## Against Cresconius 2.40 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-40 - Source: CSEL 52:399–400 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine declines to be bound by Cyprian's letter to Jubaianus, since only canonical Scripture binds, and challenges the Donatists to produce Cyprian's scriptural proofs. ### Latin text Uerba eius ex epistula ad Iubaianum inseruisti litteris tuis, quibus ei placuisse monstrares baptizandos eos esse in ecclesia catholica, qui fuerint in haeresi uel schismate baptizati. ego huius epistulae auctoritate non teneor, quia litteras Cypriani non ut canonicas habeo, sed eas ex canonicis considero, et quod in eis diuinarum scripturarum auctoritati congruit cum laude eius accipio, quod autem non congruit cum pace eius respuo. ac per hoc si ea. quae commemorasti ab illo ad Iubaianum scripta, de aliquo libro apostolorum uel prophetarum canonico recitares, quod omnino contradicerem non haberem. nunc uero quoniam canonicum non est quod recitas, ea libertate, ad quam nos uocauit dominus, eius uiri, cuius laudem adsequi non ualeo, cuius multis litteris mea scripta non conparo, cuius ingenium diligo, cuius ore delector, cuius caritatem miror, cuius martyrium ueneror, hoc quod aliter sapuit non accipio. non accipio, inquam, quod de baptizandis haereticis et schismaticis beatus Cyprianus sensit, quia hoc ecclesia non accipit, pro qua beatus Cyprianus sanguinem fudit. sed quia dicitis eum pro hac sententia legalia documenta firmasse, quamquam non ille documenta legalia firmare potuit. sed eis potius quaecumque recte sensit ipse firmauit. relinque ergo scripta Cypriani et ea ipsa legalia documenta, quibus eum dicis usum esse, commemora. si non ea demonstrauero uestram causam nihil adiuuare, uicisti. quapropter ita hoc Cypriani non accipio, quamuis inferior inconparabiliter Cypriano, sicut illud apostoli Petri, quod gentes iudaizare cogebat, nec accipio nec facio, quamuis inferior inconparabiliter Petro. uos autem, qui scripta Cypriani nobis tamquam firmamenta canonicae auctoritatis opponitis, quidquid de Cypriano contra uos proferre potuerimus, necesse est cedatis et iustum est ut uicti taceatis ac uos aliquando ab errore perniciosissimae dissensionis ad unitatem catholicam conuertatis. ### English translation (Claude) You inserted into your letter his words from the letter to Jubaianus, to show that he held that those who had been baptized in heresy or schism should be baptized in the Catholic church. I am not bound by the authority of this letter, because I do not hold Cyprian's writings as canonical, but consider them by the canonical ones; and what in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures I accept with praise of him, but what does not agree I reject with his peace. And therefore, if you read what you mentioned as written by him to Jubaianus from some canonical book of the apostles or prophets, I would have nothing at all to say against it. But now, since what you read is not canonical, with that freedom to which the Lord has called us, I do not accept this point on which that man thought otherwise, whose praise I cannot attain, with whose many writings I do not compare mine, whose genius I love, whose eloquence delights me, whose love I admire, whose martyrdom I venerate. I do not accept, I say, what blessed Cyprian thought about baptizing heretics and schismatics, because the church does not accept it, for which blessed Cyprian shed his blood. But since you say that he confirmed this opinion with proofs from the law (although he could not confirm the proofs of the law; rather, he confirmed by them whatever he rightly thought), leave aside, then, the writings of Cyprian and mention those very proofs from the law which you say he used. If I do not show that they help your case not at all, you have won. Therefore I do not accept this of Cyprian, though incomparably inferior to Cyprian, just as I neither accept nor do that of the apostle Peter by which he compelled the Gentiles to live as Jews, though incomparably inferior to Peter. But you, who set the writings of Cyprian against us as supports of canonical authority, must yield to whatever we can bring forward from Cyprian against you; and it is just that, defeated, you should be silent and at last turn from the error of a most destructive dissension to Catholic unity. ### Scripture references - Gal 2:14: allusion, high confidence - Gal 5:13: echo, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Ep. 73 (Letters): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Cyprian, Letter 73 (to Jubaianus). Gal 2:14; Gal 5:13. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.40 (CSEL 52:399–400; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-40). ## Against Cresconius 2.41 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-41 - Source: CSEL 52:400–401 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine cites Cyprian's admission that those formerly received from heresy without rebaptism were not cut off from the church's gifts, which was the church's older custom. ### Latin text Unde, ne longum faciam, ex hac ipsa epistula ad Iubaianum adtende quid ingeram, quod uestrum euertat et absumat errorem. cum enim persuadere conaretur uel sanctus Cyprianus uel quicumque illam scripsit epistulam haereticos ad ecclesiam uenientes baptizari oportere, quod uidelicet baptismus nullus deputandus esset, quem foris apud haereticos accepissent, opposuit sibi quaestionem et ait: sed dicet aliquis: quid ergo fiet de his qui in praeteritum de haeresi ad ecclesiam uenientes sine baptismo admissi sunt? potest dominus misericordia sua indulgentiam dare et eos qui ad ecclesiam simpliciter admissi in ecclesia dormierunt ab ecclesiae suae muneribus non separare. ista nobis simplicitas sufficit, cui testimonium perhibet ipse Cyprianus, tantum bonum intellegens esse unitatem corporis Christi, ut in eam simpliciter admissos etiam illos, quos esse sine baptismo arbitrabatur, de diuina misericordia merere indulgentiam et ab ecclesiae muneribus non separari pia cogitatione praesumeret. haec consuetudo ecclesiae fuit ante concilium Cypriani, haec superari et auferri non potuit nec concilio Cypriani, ut ex haeresi uenientes non quidem sine baptismo, sicut dicit, quia idem baptismus etiam foris eis inerat, sed non proderat, uerumtamen simpliciter, sicut item dicit, admissi de dei misericordia indulgentiam mererentur et a muneribus non separarentur ecclesiae. haec simplicitas magis quam duplicitas ecclesiae placuit uniuersae toto terrarum orbe diffusae. ### English translation (Claude) Hence, not to be long, notice what I bring forward from this very letter to Jubaianus, which overthrows and destroys your error. For when holy Cyprian, or whoever wrote that letter, was trying to persuade that heretics coming to the church ought to be baptized, on the ground that no baptism was to be reckoned which they had received outside among heretics, he put a question to himself and said: “But someone will say: What then will become of those who in the past, coming from heresy to the church, were admitted without baptism? The Lord is able in his mercy to grant pardon, and not to separate from the gifts of his church those who, having been simply admitted to the church, have fallen asleep in the church.” This simplicity suffices us, to which Cyprian himself bears witness, understanding the unity of the body of Christ to be so great a good that he presumed with devout thought that even those admitted simply into it, whom he thought to be without baptism, merited pardon from the divine mercy and were not separated from the gifts of the church. This was the custom of the church before Cyprian's council; this could not be overcome and taken away even by Cyprian's council: that those coming from heresy, not indeed without baptism, as he says (for the same baptism was in them even outside, but did not profit), yet admitted simply, as he likewise says, merited pardon from God's mercy and were not separated from the gifts of the church. This simplicity rather than duplicity pleased the whole church spread over the whole world. ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Ep. 73.23 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Cyprian, Letter 73.23. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.41 (CSEL 52:400–401; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-41). ## Against Cresconius 2.42 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-42 - Source: CSEL 52:401–402 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes Cyprian's On the Unity of the Church on the one church spread through the world, and applies the image of the cut-off stream to the loss of the Spirit, not of baptism. ### Latin text Cui Cyprianus ipse quale testimonium perhibeat, audi ex epistula quam de unitate conscripsit: auelle, inquit, radium solis a corpore, diuisionem lucis unitas non capit: ab arbore frange ramum, fractus germinare non poterit: a fonte praecide riuum, praecisus arescit. in his Cypriani uerbis non inuenimus nec intellegimus lucem non capere diuisionem nisi in sanctis regno dei praedestinatis, qui diuidi ab ecclesia nullo modo possunt, et non germinare ramum fractum salutis aeternae germine accipimus, ariditatem uero riui a fonte praecisi in eo, quod sancto spiritu uacuantur qui ab unitate separantur, agnoscimus, non in sacramento baptismi, quod et boni habere possunt et mali, ita foris aperte quemadmodum intus occulte ab ecclesiae sanctitate separati. sed, unde nemo dubitat, quid de ipsius ecclesiae fecunditate toto terrarum orbe diffusae senserit Cyprianus, attende in his quae subiungit: sic, inquit, et ecclesia domini luce perfusa per orbem totum radios suos porrigit: unum tamen lumen est quod ubique diffunditur, nec unitas corporis separatur. ramos suos in uniuersam terram copia ubertatis extendit, profluentes largiter riuos latius expandit: unum tamen caput est et origo una et una mater fecunditatis successibus copiosa. hanc ecclesiam Cyprianus in scripturis sanctis promissam, in uniuerso mundo redditam dilexit tenuit commendauit, quam perditi schismatici uel haeretici, uelut a malis se discernere ac separare cupientes. seditionibus impiis reliquerunt. qui ne suos exitus impios uanis excusationibus abluere conarentur, sancta scriptura praedixit: filius malus ipse se iustum dicit, exitum autem suum non abluit, quia nec propter malos, qui uidentur esse intus, deserendi sunt boni, qui uere sunt intus. ### English translation (Claude) What testimony Cyprian himself bears to this church, hear from the letter he wrote on unity: “Tear a ray of the sun from its body,” he says; “the unity of light admits no division. Break a branch from a tree; broken, it will not be able to bud. Cut off a stream from its source; cut off, it dries up.” In these words of Cyprian we do not find, nor do we understand, that the light does not admit division except in the saints predestined to the kingdom of God, who can in no way be divided from the church; and we take the broken branch's failure to bud as the bud of eternal salvation, and we recognize the drying up of the stream cut off from the source in this, that those who are separated from unity are emptied of the Holy Spirit; not in the sacrament of baptism, which both good and bad can have, separated from the holiness of the church as openly outside as secretly inside. But notice what Cyprian thought of the fruitfulness of the church herself, spread over the whole world (about which no one doubts), in what he adds: “So too the church of the Lord, flooded with light, stretches out her rays through the whole world; yet it is one light that is spread everywhere, and the unity of the body is not separated. She extends her branches over the whole earth with abundance of fruitfulness; she spreads her abundantly flowing streams more widely; yet there is one head and one origin and one mother, rich in the successes of fruitfulness.” This church, promised in the holy Scriptures and fulfilled in the whole world, Cyprian loved, held, and commended; which the lost schismatics or heretics, as if wishing to distinguish and separate themselves from the wicked, abandoned by ungodly seditions. So that they should not try to wash their ungodly departures with empty excuses, the holy Scripture foretold: “The wicked son calls himself righteous, but does not wash away his going out”; because the good, who are truly inside, are not to be deserted on account of the wicked who seem to be inside. ### Scripture references - Prov 30:12: quotation, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Unit. eccl. 5 (On the Unity of the Catholic Church): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church 5. The proverb is from the Old Latin of Prov 24 (LXX), corresponding to Prov 30:12 in the Hebrew. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.42 (CSEL 52:401–402; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-42). ## Against Cresconius 2.43 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-43 - Source: CSEL 52:402–404 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes Cyprian's letter to Maximus: the church must not be deserted because of tares, since only the Lord separates them at the judgment. ### Latin text Hinc beatus Cyprianus quid senserit, accipe ex epistula, quam scripsit ad presbyterum Maximum et ceteros, quibus de schismatico et haeretico errore ad ecclesiam redeuntibus gratulatur: nam etsi uidentur, inquit, in ecclesia esse zizania, non tamen inpediri debet aut fides aut caritas nostra, ut quoniam zizania esse in ecclesia cernimus ipsi de ecclesia recedamus. nobis tantummodo laborandum est ut frumentum esse possimus, ut cum coeperit frumentum dominicis horreis condi, fructum pro opere nostro et labore capiamus. apostolus in epistula sua dicit: in domo autem magna non solum uasa sunt aurea et argentea, sed et lignea et fictilia. et quaedam quidem honorata, quaedam inhonorata. nos operam demus et quantum possumus laboremus, ut uas aureum et argenteum simus. ceterum fictilia uasa confringere domino soli concessum est cui uirga ferrea data est. esse non potest maior domino suo seruus nec quisquam sibi quod soli filio pater tribuit uindicare, ut se putet aut ad aream uentilandam et purgandam palam uel uentilabrum iam ferre posse aut a frumento uniuersa zizania humano iudicio separare. superba est ista obstinatio et sacrilega praesumptio quam sibi furor prauus adsumit. et dum sibi semper quidam plus quam mitis iustitia deposcit adsumunt, de ecclesia pereunt, et dum se insolenter extollunt, ipso suo tumore caecati ueritatis lumen amittunt. uides, frater, secundum scripturas diuinas hoc praecepisse Cyprianum etiam propter malos, qui cum sint a bonis uita moribusque spiritaliter separati, corporaliter tamen eis in ecclesia uidentur esse permixti usque in diem iudicii, quo etiam corporaliter debitas separabuntur ad poenas, non esse ecclesiam deserendam tamquam frumenta propter paleam uel zizania, tamquam domum magnam propter uasa inhonorata. uides audis sentis capis intellegis, quanto scelere propter eos, qui uobis siue recte siue cum fallimini displicent, separemini ab ecclesia quae toto orbe diffunditur, cui secundum scripturas diuinas tam magnum, tam firmum, tam clarum atque luculentum testimonium perhibet Cyprianus. ### English translation (Claude) What blessed Cyprian thought about this, hear from the letter he wrote to the presbyter Maximus and the others, whom he congratulates on returning from schismatic and heretical error to the church: “For even if there seem to be tares in the church,” he says, “our faith or our 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. We must only labor that we may be wheat, so that when the wheat begins to be stored in the Lord's barns we may receive fruit for our work and labor. The apostle says in his letter, ‘In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earthenware, and some for honor, some for dishonor.’ Let us strive and labor as much as we can to be a vessel of gold and silver. But to break the earthen vessels is granted to the Lord alone, to whom the rod of iron has been given. The servant cannot be greater than his lord, nor can anyone claim for himself what the Father has given to the Son alone, so as to think that he can already carry the fan or winnowing shovel to winnow and purge the threshing floor, or separate all the tares from the wheat by human judgment. That is proud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption, which depraved fury takes upon itself. And while some always take upon themselves more than gentle justice requires, they perish from the church; and while they insolently exalt themselves, blinded by their own swelling they lose the light of truth.” You see, brother, that Cyprian commanded according to the divine Scriptures that, even because of the wicked, who, though spiritually separated from the good in life and morals, yet seem to be bodily mixed with them in the church until the day of judgment, when they will be separated bodily too for the punishments due, the church is not to be deserted, as the wheat is not because of the chaff or the tares, as the great house is not because of the vessels for dishonor. You see, hear, perceive, grasp, understand with how great a crime you separate yourselves, because of those who displease you, whether rightly or when you are mistaken, from the church which is spread over the whole world, to which, according to the divine Scriptures, Cyprian bears so great, so firm, so clear and brilliant a testimony. ### Scripture references - Matt 13:30: allusion, high confidence - 2 Tim 2:20: quotation, high confidence - Ps 2:9: allusion, medium confidence - John 13:16: allusion, high confidence - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Ep. 54.3 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Cyprian, Letter 54.3. 2 Tim 2:20; Ps 2:9 (Rev 2:27); John 13:16; Matt 3:12; Matt 13:24–30. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.43 (CSEL 52:402–404; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-43). ## Against Cresconius 2.44 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-44 - Source: CSEL 52:404–405 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that either way, the church survived Cyprian's era, so the wicked do not defile the good, and the Donatists had no reason to leave. ### Latin text Quamobrem attende diligenter de tota ista quaestione breuem ratiocinationem meam. si recte in ecclesiam recipiuntur ex haereticis uenientes, ut in eis error proprius corrigatur, diuinum autem sacramentum non rescindatur, bene illic uiuentibus tamquam frumentis dominicis gratulamur. si autem, sicut putatis et Cyprianum uobis in hac sententia fauere iactatis, non habent baptismum, certe admissi simpliciter ad ecclesiam secundum eundem Cyprianum propter meritum ipsius unitatis indulgentiam dei merentur nec ab ecclesiae muneribus separantur. et quicumque illos secundum morem anteriorem, de quo non tacuit Cyprianus, simpliciter admittunt et recte ac pacifice uiuunt, inter eadem frumenta horreo destinata deputantur; qui autem uel scientes contra ueritatem in eis recipiendis contentiose dimicant uel prauis atque peruersis moribus uiuunt, in zizaniis et palea flammis debita tolerantur. propter eos tamen ecclesiam, quae per totum orbem terrarum copiosis successibus dilatatur — hoc est frumenta dominica, quae usque ad messem pariter crescunt uel usque ad uentilationem pariter triturantur —, non esse deserendam imperat deus, testis est Cyprianus. ac per hoc si in communione sacramentorum mali maculant bonos, quando temporibus Cypriani uel ante Cyprianum sine baptismo, sicut putatis, haeretici suscipiebantur, ecclesiam perisse dicite et uos unde nati fueritis ostendite. si autem, quod ueritas etiam per Cyprianum docet, cum pro ecclesiae pace etiam cognita zizania tolerantur, frumenta non maculant, filius malus ipse se iustum dicit, exitum autem suum non abluit, quia de ecclesia propter malos exire non debuit. ### English translation (Claude) Therefore notice carefully my brief reasoning on this whole question. If those coming from heretics are rightly received into the church, so that their own error is corrected but the divine sacrament is not cancelled, we rejoice over those who live well there as over the Lord's wheat. But if, as you think, and boast that Cyprian favors you in this opinion, they do not have baptism, certainly, admitted simply to the church, according to the same Cyprian, they merit God's pardon on account of the merit of unity itself and are not separated from the gifts of the church. And whoever admits them simply according to the former custom, of which Cyprian did not keep silent, and lives rightly and peaceably, is counted among the same wheat destined for the barn; while those who either knowingly fight contentiously against the truth in receiving them, or live with depraved and perverse morals, are tolerated among the tares and chaff destined for the flames. Yet on their account God commands, and Cyprian is witness, that the church which spreads with abundant increase through the whole world (that is, the Lord's wheat, which grows together until the harvest or is threshed together until the winnowing) is not to be deserted. And therefore, if in the communion of the sacraments the wicked defile the good, when in the times of Cyprian or before Cyprian heretics were received without baptism, as you think, say that the church perished, and show from where you were born. But if, as the truth teaches even through Cyprian, the wheat is not defiled when even known tares are tolerated for the peace of the church, “the wicked son calls himself righteous, but does not wash away his going out,” because he ought not to have gone out from the church on account of the wicked. ### Scripture references - Matt 13:30: allusion, high confidence - Prov 30:12: quotation, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 13:30; Prov 30:12 (Old Latin of Prov 24 LXX). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.44 (CSEL 52:404–405; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-44). ## Against Cresconius 2.45 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-45 - Source: CSEL 52:405–406 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine's dilemma: whether Caecilian was innocent or guilty, the Donatists had no ground for leaving the worldwide church that Scripture and Cyprian commend. ### Latin text Iterum dico, ecce ab hac inuictissima ratione dissimulare non sino: si non communicantes peccatis malorum propter ipsam tantum communionem sacramentorum mali perdunt bonos, quando in praeteritum ex haeresi ad ecclesiam uenientes sine baptismo admissi sunt, contagione sua bonos utique perdiderunt. iam tunc ergo non erat ecclesia, quam Cyprianus teneret praedicaret nec unde postea Donatus exiret. si autem bonos contagio illa non perdidit, nec eorum quos accusatis contagio christianum orbem perdere potuit. nolite calumniari separati et ad ecclesiam redite correcti. Caecilianum et socios eius, contra quos tunc Secundus Tigisitanus contraxit condiditque concilium, necesse tibi est accusare, mihi non est necesse defendere. accusa eos quantis uiribus potes. si innocentes fuerunt, nihil eis tamquam frumentis oberit uentositas tua; si nocentes fuerunt, non debuerunt propter illa zizania frumenta deseri, quibus nihil offuerunt. accusa quantum potes. uinco si non probas, uinco si probas; uinco, inquam, si non probas iudice te ipso, uinco si probas teste Cypriano. quid eos uis fuisse? si innocentes, cur frumentis dominicis, cum sitis zizania, calumniamini? si nocentes, cur a frumentis dominicis propter zizania separamini? exstat ecclesia cunctis clara atque conspicua, quippe ciuitas quae abscondi non potest super montem constituta, per quam dominatur Christus a mari usque ad mare et a flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrae, tamquam semen Abrahae, multiplicatum sicut stellae caeli et sicut arena maris, in quo benedicuntur omnes gentes. hanc etiam beatus Cyprianus ita commendat, ut eam dicat domini luce perfusam radios suos per orbem terrarum porrigere, ramos suos per uniuersam terram copia ubertatis extendere. haec aut in frumentis suis non accusaretur aut propter zizania non desereretur. unum horum uobis etiam uos ipsi respondete, alterum Cypriani monitis discite. ipsius enim uerba sunt adtestantis et dicentis: nam etsi uidentur in ecclesia esse zizania, non tamen inpediri debet aut fides aut caritas nostra, ut quoniam zizania esse in ecclesia cernimus ipsi de ecclesia recedamus. ### English translation (Claude) Again I say, see, I do not allow you to pretend not to see this most invincible reasoning: if the wicked destroy the good who do not share in their sins, merely because of the communion of the sacraments, then, when in the past those coming from heresy to the church were admitted without baptism, they certainly destroyed the good by their contagion. Already then, therefore, there was no church for Cyprian to hold and preach, nor any from which Donatus could later go out. But if that contagion did not destroy the good, neither could the contagion of those you accuse destroy the Christian world. Do not slander while separated, but return to the church corrected. Caecilian and his associates, against whom Secundus of Tigisi then gathered and held a council, you must accuse; I need not defend them. Accuse them with all the strength you can. If they were innocent, your windiness will not harm them at all, as wheat; if they were guilty, the wheat ought not to have been deserted because of those tares, to which they did no harm. Accuse as much as you can. I win if you do not prove it; I win if you prove it; I win, I say, if you do not prove it, with you yourself as judge; I win if you prove it, with Cyprian as witness. What do you want them to have been? If innocent, why do you, who are tares, slander the Lord's wheat? If guilty, why do you separate from the Lord's wheat because of tares? The church stands out, clear and conspicuous to all, being the city that cannot be hidden, set on a mountain, through which Christ rules from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth, as the seed of Abraham, multiplied like the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea, in which all nations are blessed. This too blessed Cyprian commends so as to say that, flooded with the Lord's light, she stretches out her rays through the whole world and extends her branches over the whole earth with abundance of fruitfulness. Either she should not be accused in her wheat, or she should not be deserted because of the tares. Answer the one of these to yourselves, learn the other from Cyprian's admonitions. For these are his words, as he testifies and says: “For even if there seem to be tares in the church, our faith or our 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.” ### Scripture references - Matt 5:14: allusion, high confidence - Ps 72:8 (71:8 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Gen 22:17: allusion, high confidence - Gen 22:18: allusion, high confidence - Matt 13:30: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Unit. eccl. 5 (On the Unity of the Catholic Church): allusion, high confidence - Cyprian, Ep. 54.3 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Secundus of Tigisi, primate of Numidia, presided over the council at Carthage (312) that condemned Caecilian. Matt 5:14; Ps 72:8; Gen 22:17–18; Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church 5; Letter 54.3. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.45 (CSEL 52:405–406; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-45). ## Against Cresconius 2.46 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-46 - Source: CSEL 52:406–407 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the Donatist position condemns all the apostolic churches named in the New Testament as perished through African sins. ### Latin text Uos contagione malorum Afrorum ecclesiam perisse dicitis de orbe terrarum et in parte Donati eius reliquias remansisse tamquam in frumentis a zizaniis et palea separatis, contra Cyprianum apertissime sentientes, qui dicit nec malorum permixtione bonos perire in ecclesia nec eosdem malos posse ante tempus iudicii diuini a bonorum permixtione separari. uos itaque secundum uestrum errorem uel potius furorem accusare cogimini non solum Caecilianum et ordinatores eius, uerum etiam illas ecclesias, quas in scripturis apostolicis et canonicis pariter legimus, non solum Romanorum, quo ex Africa ordinare paucis uestris soletis episcopum, uerum etiam Corinthiorum, Galatarum, Ephesiorum, Thessalonicensium, Colossensium, Philippensium, ad quas apertissime scribit apostolus Paulus, Hierosolymitanam, quam primus apostolus Iacobus episcopatu suo rexit, Antiochensem, ubi primo appellati sunt discipuli christiani, Smyrnensem, Thyatirensem, Sardensem, Pergamensem, Philadelfensem, Laodicensem, ad quas est Apocalypsis apostoli Iohannis, tot alias ecclesias Ponti, Cappadociae, Asiae, Bithyniae, ad quas scribit apostolus Petrus, et quidquid aliud se Paulus ab Hierusalem usque ad Illyricum euangelio repleuisse testatur, ut taceam de aliis tam latis atque inmensis terrarum partibus, in quas ex his apostolicis laboribus et plantationibus porrecta creuit et crescit. ecclesia. istas certe ecclesiae, quas ex litteris diuinis atque canonicis nominaui, tam longe ab Africa constitutas, tamquam perierint ex peccatis Afrorum accusare cogimini, ne corrigatis errorem, qui uos ad tantum scelus nefaria dissensione conpellit. ### English translation (Claude) You say that by the contagion of wicked Africans the church has perished from the world, and that its remnant has remained in the party of Donatus, as in wheat separated from tares and chaff; thinking most plainly against Cyprian, who says that the good do not perish in the church by being mixed with the wicked, and that those same wicked cannot be separated from mixture with the good before the time of the divine judgment. And so, according to your error, or rather your madness, you are compelled to accuse not only Caecilian and those who ordained him, but also those churches which we read alike in the apostolic and canonical Scriptures: not only that of the Romans, to which you are accustomed to ordain a bishop from Africa for a few of your people, but also those of the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Thessalonians, the Colossians, the Philippians, to which the apostle Paul most plainly writes; the church of Jerusalem, which the apostle James first ruled by his episcopate; that of Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians; those of Smyrna, Thyatira, Sardis, Pergamum, Philadelphia, Laodicea, to which the Apocalypse of the apostle John is addressed; so many other churches of Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, to which the apostle Peter writes; and whatever else Paul testifies that he filled with the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum; to say nothing of other parts of the earth, so wide and immense, into which the church, extended from these apostolic labors and plantings, has grown and is growing. These churches certainly, which I have named from the divine and canonical writings, situated so far from Africa, you are compelled to accuse as having perished from the sins of Africans, so as not to correct the error that drives you to so great a crime by an impious dissension. ### Scripture references - Acts 11:26: allusion, high confidence - Rev 1:11: allusion, high confidence - 1 Pet 1:1: allusion, high confidence - Rom 15:19: allusion, high confidence - Gal 1:19: allusion, low confidence ### Translation notes - The Donatists maintained a small community at Rome with a bishop sent from Africa. Acts 11:26; Rev 1:11; 1 Pet 1:1; Rom 15:19; Gal 1:19. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.46 (CSEL 52:406–407; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-46). ## Against Cresconius 2.47 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-32/#p-2-47 - Source: CSEL 52:407–408 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says that even those who believed Caecilian guilty should, by Cyprian's teaching, have stayed in communion with the worldwide church. ### Latin text Nos autem ut istum errorem uestrum facilius conuincamus, nec ipsos Afros, quorum falsa crimina in ceteras etiam gentes perfundere audetis, nec ipsos, inquam, defendere cogimur. habent enim cum illis transmarinis ecclesiis societatem regni, si innocentes fuerunt, si autem nocentes, tamquam zizania frumentis nec in Africa obesse potuerunt eis, qui se propter illos etiam cognitos ab unitate ecclesiae separare noluerunt. ut enim omittam, quam multi eos crediderint innocentes, quibus facinus eorum, etiamsi aliquod fuit, tamen demonstrari non potuit — et utique istos nec uos potestis dicere peccatis alienis incognitis potuisse maculari —, sed ut hos, inquam, omittam, ipsi, qui eos nocentes uel nouerant uel putabant, quamuis in Africanis ecclesiis constituti, cum uiderent eos apud ecclesias transmarinas non potuisse conuinci nec crimina eorum longe lateque diffusis membris ecclesiae demonstrari. si se uellent propter illos, quos malos nouerant, a communione tot gentium, quibus eos ostendere non ualebant, uelut pestiferae contagionis timore separare, teneret eos non ego, non tu, non Donatus, non Caecilianus, sed ipse quem nominare ausus es. Cyprianus et diceret ea uerba, quae scripsit ad Maximum: ### English translation (Claude) But we, in order to refute this error of yours more easily, are not compelled to defend even those Africans, whose false crimes you dare to pour out even on other nations; we are not compelled, I say, to defend even them. For they share the kingdom with those churches overseas if they were innocent; but if guilty, as tares among the wheat, they could not harm even in Africa those who would not separate themselves from the unity of the church because of them, even when they were known. For, to pass over how many believed them innocent, to whom their crime, even if there was some, could not be demonstrated (and certainly you cannot say that these could be defiled by others' unknown sins); but to pass over these, I say, those very people who either knew or thought them guilty, though placed in the African churches, when they saw that they could not be convicted before the churches overseas, nor their crimes demonstrated to the members of the church spread far and wide, if they had wished to separate themselves, because of those whom they knew to be evil, from the communion of so many nations to whom they could not show them, as from fear of a pestilent contagion, they would have been held back not by me, not by you, not by Donatus, not by Caecilian, but by him whom you dared to name, Cyprian, and he would say those words which he wrote to Maximus: ### Scripture references - Matt 13:30: allusion, high confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.47 (CSEL 52:407–408; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-47). ## Against Cresconius 2.48 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-2-48 - Source: CSEL 52:408–409 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine repeats Cyprian's words to Maximus and applies them: they keep the God-fearing in the church and condemn the Donatists' separation. ### Latin text Si uidentur in ecclesia esse zizania, non tamen inpediri debet aut fides aut caritas nostra, ut quoniam zizania esse in ecclesia cernimus ipsi de ecclesia recedamus. nobis tantummodo laborandum est ut frumentum esse possimus, ut cum coeperit frumentum dominicis horreis condi. fructum pro opere nostro et labore capiamus. apostolus in epistula sua dicit: (in domo autem magna non solum uasa sunt aurea et argentea, sed et lignea et fictilia. et quaedam quidem honorata, quaedam inhonorata. nos operam demus et quantum possumus laboremus, ut uas aureum et argenteum simus. ceterum fictilia uasa confringere domino soli concessum est cui et uirga ferrea data est. esse non potest maior domino suo seruus nec quisquam sibi quod soli filio pater tribuit uindicare, ut se putet aut ad aream uentilandam et purgandam palam uel uentilabrum iam ferre posse aut a frumento uniuersa zizania humano iudicio separare. superba est ista obstinatio et sacrilega praesumptio quam sibi furor prauus adsumit. et dum sibi semper quidam plus quam mitis iustitia deposcit adsumunt, de ecclesia pereunt, et dum se insolenter extollunt, ipso suo tumore caecati ueritatis lumen amittunt. his Cypriani uerbis deum timentes in ecclesia tenerentur, qui uellent ab ea separari propter cognitos malos, quibus uerbis uos damnamini, qui separati accusatis et bonos. his uerbis Cyprianus et nos tenet in domo dei cuius decorem dilexit, etiamsi, quod numquam facere potuistis, a uobis accusatos et demonstratos traditores et quoslibet alios malos nosse possimus, ne illam propter uasa facta in contumeliam deseramus. his uerbis etiam uos in catholicam pacem correctos pacificus introducat, ne quibuslibet peccatis alienis seu ueris seu falsis offensi contra ecclesiam Christi in toto mundo scripturis fructificantem atque crescentem mala tanta iactetis, ne propter zizania triticum accusetis, ne propter paleam frumenta deseratis, ne propter uasa inhonorata extra domum magnam remaneatis. ### English translation (Claude) “Even if there seem to be tares in the church, our faith or our 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. We must only labor that we may be wheat, so that when the wheat begins to be stored in the Lord's barns we may receive fruit for our work and labor. The apostle says in his letter, ‘In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earthenware, and some for honor, some for dishonor.’ Let us strive and labor as much as we can to be a vessel of gold and silver. But to break the earthen vessels is granted to the Lord alone, to whom also the rod of iron has been given. The servant cannot be greater than his lord, nor can anyone claim for himself what the Father has given to the Son alone, so as to think that he can already carry the fan or winnowing shovel to winnow and purge the threshing floor, or separate all the tares from the wheat by human judgment. That is proud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption, which depraved fury takes upon itself. And while some always take upon themselves more than gentle justice requires, they perish from the church; and while they insolently exalt themselves, blinded by their own swelling they lose the light of truth.” By these words of Cyprian those who fear God would be held in the church, if they wished to be separated from it because of known evil men; by these words you are condemned, who, separated, accuse even the good. By these words Cyprian holds us too in the house of God, whose beauty he loved, even if we could know as traitors and other evil men those accused and proved by you (which you have never been able to do), so that we may not desert it because of the vessels made for dishonor. By these words may he, peaceable as he is, bring you too, corrected, into Catholic peace, so that, offended by others' sins, whether true or false, you may not hurl such great evils against the church of Christ, bearing fruit and growing in the whole world according to the Scriptures; so that you may not accuse the wheat because of the tares, nor desert the wheat because of the chaff, nor remain outside the great house because of the vessels for dishonor. ### Scripture references - 2 Tim 2:20: quotation, high confidence - Ps 26:8 (25:8 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Matt 13:30: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Ep. 54.3 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Cyprian, Letter 54.3. 2 Tim 2:20; Ps 26:8 (25:8 LXX); Rom 9:21. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.48 (CSEL 52:408–409; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48). ## Against Cresconius 2.49 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-2-49 - Source: CSEL 52:409–410 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine closes Book 2: Cyprian's error, if any, was pruned by martyrdom, and Book 3 will answer the rest of Cresconius's letter. ### Latin text Ecce quantum nos abs te commemoratus beatus Cyprianus adiuuit, cui de baptismo repetendo si quid aliter sapuit, pro tantis meritis flagrantissimae caritatis corrigendum procul dubio dominus reuelauit, quia in ea uite permansit tamquam sarmentum tanto fructu pacis et dilectionis opulentum, ut etiam, si quid in eo purgandum repperiretur, si nulla re alia, certe falce martyrii purgaretur. quamquam itaque ad errorem uestrum conuincendum et si uolueritis corrigendum satis superque potuerint ista sufficere, tamen, ne quisquam arbitretur aliquid te in epistula posuisse, quod refellere non ualerem aut in quo te nostris contra Petilianum litteris nihil idoneum respondisse demonstrare non possem, sequenti uolumine cetera uideamus. ### English translation (Claude) See how much blessed Cyprian, whom you mentioned, has helped us. If he thought otherwise about repeating baptism, the Lord without doubt revealed it to him for correction on account of such great merits of most ardent love; for he remained in that vine as a branch so rich in the fruit of peace and love that, even if anything was found in him to be pruned, it was pruned, if by nothing else, certainly by the pruning knife of martyrdom. Although, then, these things might be more than enough to refute your error and, if you are willing, to correct it, yet, so that no one may think you set down anything in your letter that I could not refute, or anything in which I could not show that you made no adequate answer to our writings against Petilian, let us see the rest in the following book. ### Scripture references - John 15:2: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - John 15:1–2. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 2.49 (CSEL 52:409–410; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-49). ## Against Cresconius 3.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-1 - Source: CSEL 52:410 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine begins Book 3, answering the rest of Cresconius's letter point by point for the sake of slower readers. ### Latin text Si tardorum ingenia mihi curanda non essent, qui intellegere nequeunt me duobus uoluminibus superioribus ad totam causam, quae tua, frater Cresconi, epistula continetur, multis modis ita respondisse, ut etiam illa, quae ibi restant, iam soluta atque frustrata sint, iam debuit a me huic operi finis inponi. sed quia multi sunt, quibus seruire nos conuenit, qui omnia depulsa esse non putant, nisi locis suis etiam singula pertractentur, residua sermonis tui breuiter ex ordine refellenda percurram. ### English translation (Claude) If I did not have to take care of the minds of the slow, who cannot understand that in the two previous books I have answered in many ways the whole case contained in your letter, brother Cresconius, so that even the points that remain there are already resolved and frustrated, I ought already to have put an end to this work. But since there are many whom we ought to serve, who do not think everything has been repelled unless each point is also dealt with in its own place, I shall run through the remainder of your discourse in order, refuting it briefly. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.1 (CSEL 52:410; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-1). ## Against Cresconius 3.2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-2 - Source: CSEL 52:410–412 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that Cyprian kept communion with bishops who disagreed on rebaptism, so the Donatists' separation contradicts Cyprian himself. ### Latin text Quidquid de Cypriani uenerabilis martyris et de quorundam orientalium litteris inserendum putasti, quod eis placuerit apud haereticos et schismaticos datum inprobare baptismi sacramentum, nihil impedit causam nostram, si eam ecclesiam retinemus quam non deseruit Cyprianus, etiam cum multi eius collegae in hanc sententiam consentire noluissent. nam et in ipso concilio dixit: neminem iudicantes nec a iure communionis aliquem si diuersum senserit amouentes et eandem epistulam ad Iubaianum ita conclusit: Haec tibi, carissime, pro nostra mediocritate respondimus nemini praescribentes aut praeiudicantes quominus unusquisque episcoporum quod putat faciat, habens arbitrii sui liberam potestatem et cetera. in his ergo nos interim deputa, quibus illud non potuit persuadere Cyprianus, a quibus tamen etiam in hac re diuersa sentientibus communionem suam minime separauit. maiores autem uestri, quibus tale testimonium perhibuisti, quod ab orientalium propterea communione discreti sunt, quia illi suum iudicium resciderunt, quo eis placuerat de ista baptismi quaestione Cypriano atque illi Africano concilio consentiri oportere, contra Cyprianum fecerunt. debuerunt enim cum collegis suis etiam in hac quaestione diuersa sentientibus tenere communionis unitatem, quod in suis litteris fecisse legimus Cyprianum. respondent ideo eum sic loqui uoluisse, ne fortasse excommunicationis timore deterriti non auderent libere dicere quod sentirent, non quia cum eis esset in communione mansurus, si diuersa sensissent; ubi aperte dicunt Cyprianum esse mentitum. si enim dicebat: neminem iudicantes nec a iure communionis aliquem si diuersa senserit amouentes, quod eum dixisse conscripta indicant gesta concilii, et tamen, si quisquam eorum, quibus ea dicebat, diuersum sentire se ostenderet, non cum eo fuerat sacramenta Christi communicaturus, procul dubio mentiebatur, qui talia dolose, non ueraciter promittebat, quodque est in eo mendacio deterius, simplicitatem fratrum duplici corde fallebat, cum praesertim et scriberentur quae dicebantur. nam quicumque ab illo concilio diuersum sensisset, quo posset ab eis ore damnari uel excommunicari, cum eiusdem concilii pro se principium recitaret? quis ergo de Cypriano tolerabilius sentit, utrum nos. qui eum dicimus in obscura de baptismo quaestione hominem falli potuisse, an uos, qui eum dicitis in promittenda christiana communione episcopum fallere uoluisse non unum aliquem fratrum, sed uniuersam episcopalem societatem? quod si et uobis de illo credere nefas est, uestri maiores contra eius sententiam fecerunt, qui se ab orientalium communione, quod de hac re diuersa senserint, diuiserunt. ### English translation (Claude) Whatever you thought fit to insert from the writings of Cyprian, the venerable martyr, and of certain Easterners, to the effect that they decided to reject the sacrament of baptism given among heretics and schismatics, does not hinder our case at all, if we keep that church which Cyprian did not desert, even when many of his colleagues refused to agree to this opinion. For in the council itself he said, “judging no one, nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he thinks differently”; and he concluded the same letter to Jubaianus thus: “These things, dearest brother, we have answered you according to our poor ability, prescribing to no one and prejudging no one, so that each bishop may not do what he thinks right, having the free power of his own judgment,” and so on. Reckon us, then, for the time being among those whom Cyprian could not persuade of that point, from whom, however, even though they thought differently on this matter, he did not at all separate his communion. But your forefathers, to whom you bore such testimony, that they were separated from the communion of the Easterners because those Easterners cancelled their own judgment, by which they had decided that Cyprian and that African council should be followed on this question of baptism, acted against Cyprian. For they ought to have kept the unity of communion with their colleagues even when they thought differently on this question, as we read in his letters that Cyprian did. They answer that he wished to speak thus so that they should not perhaps be frightened by fear of excommunication from daring to say freely what they thought, not because he would remain in communion with them if they had thought differently; in which they plainly say that Cyprian lied. For if he said, “judging no one, nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he thinks differently” (which the written proceedings of the council show he said), and yet, if any of those to whom he said this showed that he thought differently, he would not have shared the sacraments of Christ with him, without doubt he lied, promising such things deceitfully, not truly; and, what is worse in that lie, he deceived the simplicity of the brothers with a double heart, especially since what was said was also being written down. For whoever had thought differently from that council, how could he be condemned or excommunicated by them with their own mouth, when he could read out on his own behalf the opening of that same council? Who, then, thinks more tolerably of Cyprian: we, who say that as a man he could be mistaken on an obscure question about baptism, or you, who say that as a bishop he wished to deceive, in promising Christian communion, not one particular brother but the whole society of bishops? But if you too think it wicked to believe this of him, your forefathers acted against his opinion when they divided themselves from the communion of the Easterners because these thought differently on this matter. ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Sent. preface (The Opinions of the Eighty-Seven Bishops (Council of Carthage, 256)): quotation, high confidence - Cyprian, Ep. 73.26 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Cyprian, Sentences of the Bishops, preface; Letter 73.26. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.2 (CSEL 52:410–412; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-2). ## Against Cresconius 3.3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-3 - Source: CSEL 52:412 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the few Eastern bishops corrected their view, and either way the Donatists are guilty of leaving the church's peace. ### Latin text Proinde si omnino iam credendum sit quinquaginta episcopis orientalium id esse uisum, quod septuaginta Afris uel aliquanto etiam pluribus contra tot milia episcoporum, quibus hic error in toto orbe displicuit, cur non potius etiam ipsos paucos orientales suum iudicium correxisse dicamus, non, ut tu loqueris, rescidisse? sicut enim laudabile est a uera sententia non moueri, ita culpabile est persistere in falsa, quam numquam tenere prima laus est, secunda mutare, ut aut ex initio uera permaneat aut mutata falsa uera succedat. neque nunc ad nostram pertinet quaestionem, quale sit quod pars christiani orbis maxima cum orientalibus sensit. si enim hoc uerum, si hoc tenendum atque seruandum est, quod de baptismo tenemus atque seruamus, duo mala uestra nobis obicimus, unum quod erratis in baptismi quaestione, alterum quod uos ab eis, qui de hac re uerum sentiunt, separatis. si autem, ut secundum uos loquar, hoc est in ea quaestione uerum quod ipsi sentitis, illo certe crimine maculamini, quod ab ecclesia recessistis, propter cuius pacem, sicut Cyprianus et fecit et monuit, etiam diuersa sentientes ferre debuistis. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, if it must be believed at all that fifty Eastern bishops held the same view as seventy Africans, or somewhat more, against so many thousands of bishops throughout the world to whom this error was displeasing, why should we not rather say that those few Easterners also corrected their judgment, not, as you put it, cancelled it? For just as it is praiseworthy not to be moved from a true opinion, so it is blameworthy to persist in a false one; never to hold a false one is the first praise, to change it the second, so that either the true opinion remains from the beginning, or, the false one having been changed, the true succeeds it. Nor does it now concern our question what kind of thing it is that the greatest part of the Christian world held with the Easterners. For if what we hold and keep about baptism is true and is to be held and kept, we charge you with two evils: one, that you err on the question of baptism; the other, that you separate yourselves from those who think the truth on this matter. But if, to speak on your terms, what you think on that question is true, you are certainly stained with that crime of having withdrawn from the church, for the sake of whose peace, as Cyprian both did and admonished, you ought to have borne even those who thought differently. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.3 (CSEL 52:412; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-3). ## Against Cresconius 3.4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-4 - Source: CSEL 52:412–413 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine denies erasing the difference between faithful and faithless ministers: they differ in life, though both can administer the same sacrament. ### Latin text Tunc exclamas, quod ego dixerim: nihil inter fideles perfidosque discernas, idem tibi pius atque impius uideatur. quod ego non dixi, sed plane illud dixi, unde tu, quasi hoc dicerem, exclamare uoluisti et dicere quod non dixi: siue, inquam, a fideli siue a perfido dispensatore sacramentum quisque percipiat. in qua sententia non nihil inter fidelem perfidumque discreui nec iussi, ut idem cuique pius atque impius uideatur, sed idem sacramentum pium et impium posse habere, quod nec tu negas, qui saltem post impios occultos baptizandum non esse concedis. proinde sine causa coniungis et dicis: nihil prodest bonis moribus uiuere, quia, quidquid iusto licet, potest et iniustus implere, quia et falsum est et a me dictum non est. boni quippe mores uitam bonorum malorumque discernunt et ad diuersa perducunt nec, quidquid iusto licet, potest et iniustus implere, quia iustus implet legem Christi per dilectionem, unde iniustus alienus est, potest tamen aliquid quod et iustus implere, ut et ipse baptizet, si nihil aliud, certe cum latet, sicut etiam illi possunt dei mandata praedicare sicut iusti, sed non secundum ea uiuere sicut iusti, de qualibus dictum est: quae dicunt facite, quae autem faciunt facere nolite. ### English translation (Claude) Then you exclaim that I said, “You make no distinction between the faithful and the faithless; the godly and the ungodly seem the same to you.” I did not say this; but I did say that from which you chose to exclaim, as if I had said it, and to say what I did not say: “whether,” I said, “one receives the sacrament from a faithful or a faithless steward.” In this statement I did make a distinction between the faithful and the faithless, and did not command that the godly and the ungodly should seem the same to anyone, but that the godly and the ungodly can have the same sacrament; which you too do not deny, since you grant at least that one should not baptize after hidden ungodly men. Accordingly, you join on without reason and say: “It profits nothing to live with good morals, because whatever is permitted to the righteous the unrighteous too can fulfill”; since this is both false and not said by me. For good morals distinguish the life of the good and the wicked and lead them to different ends; nor can the unrighteous fulfill whatever is permitted to the righteous, since the righteous fulfills the law of Christ through love, from which the unrighteous is a stranger; yet he can fulfill something that the righteous also fulfills, so that he too baptizes, if nothing else, certainly when he is hidden; just as such men can also preach God's commandments like the righteous, but not live according to them like the righteous, of whom it is said, “Do what they say, but do not do what they do.” ### Scripture references - Gal 6:2: allusion, medium confidence - Rom 13:10: allusion, medium confidence - Matt 23:3: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Gal 6:2; Rom 13:10; Matt 23:3. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.4 (CSEL 52:412–413; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-4). ## Against Cresconius 3.5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-5 - Source: CSEL 52:413–414 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers the charge that the unclean cannot cleanse: Christ, who is pure, cleanses through every minister, while the Donatist appeal to reputation makes falsehood sanctify. ### Latin text Sed fac iniustum non latentem et nonnullis cognitum bonis per aliquam seditionem factionemue de ecclesia non posse separari. audi Cyprianum, tolera zizania, esto frumentum. quam tibi bene sonare uisa sunt, quae in una re uarie repetisti: quid hoc praecepto, inquis, dici inifju-ius potest: purificet alium maculosus, abluat sordidus, emundet inmundus, det infidelis fidem, criminosus faciat innocentem? breuiter respondeo: nec maculosus nec sordidus nec inmundus nec infidelis nec criminosus est Christus, qui dilexit ecclesiam et se ipsum tradidit pro ea, mundans eam lauacro aquae in uerbo, faciens nos certos de bonis suis, ne malis uitiaremur alienis. nam ecce cum minister iniquus occultus est, a quo tamen datum baptismum non rescindis, nonne omnia tibi uerba tua ista replicari possunt, quia et purificat maculosus et abluit sordidus et emundat inmundus et dat infidelis fidem et criminosus efficit innocentem? non, inquis, ipse, sed fama eius bona quamuis inanis et falsa. hinc non uis ut ego exclamem: o scelus, o portentum, non, sicut ait quidam, in ultimas terras exportandum, sed potius extra omne caelum et omnes terras, si fieri posset, abigendum. non te ipsum dico, quem correctum uolo, sed hunc errorem, a quo te corrigi cupio. itane ad mundandum hominem, quando boni ministri defuerit uera uita, tunc mali ministri falsa sufficit fama, quae hoc efficiat, quod efficeret bona uita, ut (ad) hominem sanctificandum, quando ministri latet iniquitas, ministra deo militet falsitas? hoc totum ideo, ne dicatis quod dicimus: siue a fideli siue a perfido dispensatore sacramentum quisque percipiat, non sanctificat nisi deus. ### English translation (Claude) But suppose an unrighteous man, not hidden but known to some good men, cannot be separated from the church because of some sedition or faction. Hear Cyprian: tolerate the tares, be wheat. How well those words sounded to you which you repeated in various ways on one point: “What,” you say, “can be said more unjustly than this precept: let the stained purify another, the dirty wash, the unclean cleanse, the faithless give faith, the criminal make innocent?” I answer briefly: Christ is neither stained nor dirty nor unclean nor faithless nor criminal, who loved the church and gave himself up for her, cleansing her by the washing of water in the word, making us certain of his own goods, so that we should not be corrupted by others' evils. For see, when the unrighteous minister is hidden, the baptism given by whom you nevertheless do not cancel, can not all these words of yours be turned back on you, since then the stained purifies, the dirty washes, the unclean cleanses, the faithless gives faith, and the criminal makes innocent? “Not he himself,” you say, “but his good reputation, however empty and false.” At this you do not want me to exclaim: O crime, O monstrosity, not, as someone says, to be exported to the farthest lands, but rather, if it were possible, to be driven beyond all heaven and all lands! I do not mean you yourself, whom I want corrected, but this error, from which I desire you to be corrected. Is it really so that, for cleansing a man, when the true life of a good minister is lacking, the false reputation of a bad minister suffices, to effect what a good life would effect, so that for sanctifying a man, when the minister's wickedness is hidden, falsehood serves God as a soldier? All this so that you may not say what we say: whether one receives the sacrament from a faithful or a faithless steward, only God sanctifies. ### Scripture references - Eph 5:25: quotation, high confidence - Eph 5:26: quotation, high confidence - Matt 13:30: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The word printed “inifju-ius” is garbled and translated by sense (“more unjustly”). Eph 5:25–26. The exclamation “O monstrosity, to be exported to the farthest lands” echoes a Latin author (unidentified). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.5 (CSEL 52:413–414; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-5). ## Against Cresconius 3.6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-6 - Source: CSEL 52:414–415 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says a good minister is better as an example, but the baptism he gives is not better, as Paul's baptism was not better than Apollos's. ### Latin text Deinde commemoras uerba mea, quod dixerim: semper Christus det fidem, Christus sit origo christiani, in Christo radicem christianus infigat, Christus christiani sit caput. dixi plane et dico nec tu omnino respondere potuisti. uideris enim quasi subcubuisse tanto ponderi ueritatis, cum subiecisti: hoc et nos suademus, hoc uolumus. Deinde rursus subponis hominem, in quo spem constituat accepturus: sed quaerimus, inquis, per quem hoc melius fiat. et quia sine ministro nec nos dicimus posse hominem baptizari, quaeris a me, utrumne melius iniustus sit minister an iustus. ubi respondeo ad hoc esse melius, ut iustus minister sit, quo infirmitas hominis, cui sine exemplo laboriosum est et difficile quod imperat deus, imitatione boni ministri ad uitam bonam facilius erigatur; unde dicit apostolus Paulus: imitatores mei estote, sicut et ego Christi. ad hominem uero baptizandum et sanctificandum si tanto est melius quod accipitur, quanto est melior per quem traditur, tanta est in accipientibus baptismorum uarietas, quanta in ministris diuersitas meritorum. si enim, quod sine controuersia creditur, melior erat Paulus quam Apollo, meliorem baptismum dedit secundum istam uestram uanam peruersamque sententiam, et si meliorem baptismum dedit, profecto eis, quos a se non baptizatos gratulatur, inuidit. porro si inter bonos ministros, cum sit alius alio melior, non est melior baptismus qui per meliorem datur, nullo modo est malus qui etiam per malum datur, quando idem baptismus datur. et ideo per ministros dispares dei munus aequale est, quia non illorum, sed eius est. Non ergo, sicut inaniter inueheris, nihil inter fidelem perfidumque discernimus, sed discernimus humana merita, non sacramenta diuina, quae tu quoque ui ueritatis adductus et haereticae contentionis oblitus nobis et uobis non alia, sed una eademque esse dixisti. ### English translation (Claude) Next you mention my words, in which I said: “Let Christ always give faith, let Christ be the origin of the Christian, let the Christian fix his root in Christ, let Christ be the head of the Christian.” I certainly said it and I say it, and you could not answer it at all. For you seem to have yielded, as it were, to the great weight of the truth when you added, “This we too urge, this we want.” Then again you put underneath a man in whom the one about to receive should place his hope: “But we ask,” you say, “through whom this is better done.” And since we too do not say that a man can be baptized without a minister, you ask me whether it is better for the minister to be unrighteous or righteous. Here I answer that it is better for the minister to be righteous for this purpose: that the weakness of man, for whom what God commands is laborious and difficult without an example, may be raised more easily to a good life by imitating a good minister; hence the apostle Paul says, “Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.” But for baptizing and sanctifying a man, if what is received is better in proportion as he through whom it is handed on is better, there is as great a variety of baptisms in the recipients as there is diversity of merits in the ministers. For if, as is believed without controversy, Paul was better than Apollos, he gave a better baptism according to this empty and perverse opinion of yours; and if he gave a better baptism, he surely begrudged it to those whom he rejoices he did not baptize. Further, if among good ministers, since one is better than another, the baptism given through the better is not better, in no way is it bad when given even through a bad one, since the same baptism is given. And therefore, through unequal ministers God's gift is equal, because it is not theirs but his. We do not, then, as you vainly inveigh, make no distinction between the faithful and the faithless; but we distinguish human merits, not divine sacraments, which you too, led by the force of truth and forgetting heretical contention, said were for us and for you not other but one and the same. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 11:1: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 3:6: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 1:14: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Cor 11:1; 1 Cor 3:6; 1 Cor 1:14. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.6 (CSEL 52:414–415; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-6). ## Against Cresconius 3.7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-7 - Source: CSEL 52:415–416 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows that Petilian made the minister the origin and head of the baptized, which contradicts Cresconius's own claim that Christ is the origin. ### Latin text Quomodo dicis: hoc et uos suademus et uolumus, ut semper Christus det fidem, Christus sit origo christiani, in Christo radicem christianus infigat, Christus christiani sit caput, cum defendas litteras Petiliani, ubi apertissime, cum baptizantis meritum commendaret quantumque ad dandum baptismum ualeret humana iustitia, pro suscepta causa conaretur ostendere, conscientia, inquit, sancte dantis attenditur quae abluat accipientis. nam qui fidem sciens a perfido sumpserit non fidem percipit sed reatum? et tamquam ei diceretur: unde hoc probas?, secutus adiunxit: omnis enim res origine et radice consistit et, si caput non habeat aliquid, nihil est. quid, obsecro, quia incidisti in defensionem temerariae falsitatis, nebulas manifestis rebus moliris offundere? aperte dicit homo originem, radicem caputque hominis regenerandi per baptismum non esse posse nisi cuius ministerio baptizatur. et tu dicis: hoc et nos uolumus, ut Christus sit origo et radix caputque christiani, sed quaerimus per quem hoc melius fiat. hoc aliud est quod dicis, aliud quod dixit Petilianus; hoc quod dicis, etiamsi uerum sit, non hoc est quod ille dixit. ### English translation (Claude) How do you say, “This we too urge and want: that Christ always give faith, that Christ be the origin of the Christian, that the Christian fix his root in Christ, that Christ be the head of the Christian,” when you defend the letter of Petilian, where most plainly, commending the merit of the baptizer and trying to show, for the cause he had undertaken, how much human righteousness avails for giving baptism, he says: “The conscience of one who gives in holiness is looked to, to wash that of the recipient. For he who knowingly receives faith from the faithless receives not faith but guilt”? And as if he were asked, “How do you prove this?”, he went on to add: “For everything consists in its origin and root, and if something does not have a head, it is nothing.” Why, I ask, since you have fallen into the defense of rash falsehood, do you labor to pour clouds over plain things? The man says plainly that the origin, root, and head of a man to be regenerated through baptism can be no other than the one by whose ministry he is baptized. And you say, “This we too want: that Christ be the origin, root, and head of the Christian; but we ask through whom this is better done.” What you say is one thing, what Petilian said another; what you say, even if it is true, is not what he said. ### Translation notes - Petilian's words are quoted from Against the Letters of Petilian 1.2.3–1.5.6. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.7 (CSEL 52:415–416; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-7). ## Against Cresconius 3.8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-8 - Source: CSEL 52:416–417 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers that growth comes from God whatever the farmer's motives, and Ezekiel shows that God himself feeds his flock even through bad shepherds. ### Latin text Proinde si hoc et tu uis, ut Christus sit origo et radix et caput christiani, Petiliano resiste, non mihi, quoniam neque qui plantat est aliquid neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat deus. quod ego ex apostolo cum in meis litteris posuissem, ita tu respondere uoluisti, ut diceres: dei quidem dare est incrementum, sed sicut qui plantat et rigat non nisi colonus fidelis et diligens quaeritur, sic etiam in sacramento baptismatis non nisi fidelis et iustissimus operarius adhibetur. quasi uero, quod infidelis colonus plantauerit, propter eius infidelitatem non germinet. uis seminis et fecunditas terrae caelique temperies hanc efficaciam diuinitus acceperunt, ut ad propagandos fructus plantatorem uel rigatorem operarium tantummodo expectent, qua mente operetur, qua laboret intentione non curent, utrum dominum agri fideliter diligat an sua, non illius lucra conquirat. adiungis etiam testimonium propheticum dicens: dabo uobis pastores secundum cor meum, et pascent uos pascentes cum disciplina. scio, completum est: tales apostoli fuerunt, tales etiam nunc, etsi pro ecclesiae latitudine perpauci, non tamen desunt. sed quid etiam per Ezechielem prophetam dicatur aduersus pastores malos, debuisti quaerere legere cogitare. ibi enim dicit: ego pascam, non pastores. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, if you too want this, that Christ be the origin, root, and head of the Christian, resist Petilian, not me; since “neither he who plants is anything nor he who waters, but God who gives the growth.” When I had set this down from the apostle in my letter, you chose to answer it by saying: “To give the growth is indeed God's; but just as for planting and watering only a faithful and diligent farmer is sought, so too in the sacrament of baptism only a faithful and most righteous workman is employed.” As if what a faithless farmer has planted does not sprout because of his faithlessness! The power of the seed, the fertility of the earth, and the mildness of the sky have received this efficacy from God, that for producing fruit they wait only for a workman to plant or water; with what mind he works, with what intention he labors, they do not care, whether he faithfully loves the master of the field or seeks his own gain, not his. You add also a prophetic testimony, saying, “I will give you shepherds after my own heart, and they will feed you, feeding with discipline.” I know; it has been fulfilled. Such were the apostles; such there are even now, though very few for the breadth of the church, yet they are not lacking. But you ought to have sought, read, and considered what is said through the prophet Ezekiel against bad shepherds. For there he says, “I will feed,” not “the shepherds.” ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 3:7: quotation, high confidence - Jer 3:15: quotation, high confidence - Ezek 34:15: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Cor 3:7; Jer 3:15; Ezek 34:15. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.8 (CSEL 52:416–417; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-8). ## Against Cresconius 3.9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-9 - Source: CSEL 52:417–418 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that Christ, the one shepherd, feeds through all ministers, and that relying on a minister's reputation is worse than trusting in man. ### Latin text Proinde et per pastores bonos et per pastores malos cum uerbum suum sacramentumque dispensat, ipse pascit, quia de se ipso ait: ut sit unus grex et unus pastor. bonum est enim confidere in dominum quam confidere in hominem, et: maledictus omnis qui spem suam ponit in homine. quod a me in illa epistula commemoratum sic te intellegere ostendis, ut ideo magis te dicas iustum et fidelem, per quem hoc sacramentum celebretur, inquirere, quia spem et fiduciam dei, non hominis habes, dei esse autem fidem atque iustitiam, quam semper in ministris eius attendis. hoc uerum dicis, quia bonorum omnium nihil habemus quod non accepimus, et ideo fides et iustitia nobis a deo est. sed cum dicis hanc tibi deum dare non posse, nisi habeat eam homo, per quem baptizaris, spem profecto in homine ponis, qui utrum sit iustitiae particeps nescis, et si non est, tunc famam eius attendis et, cum falsam bonam de malo latente reppereris, ad sanctificationem tibi sufficere credis. obsecro te, si fiduciam dei, non hominis habes et ideo magis ut iustus et bonus et fidelis sit, per quem hoc sacramentum celebretur, inquiris, quia dei est fides atque iustitia, numquid dei est etiam falsitas famae, quam si habeat bonam minister malus, hanc tibi dicis in tuam sanctificationem sufficere? iam mallem in hominem confideres, unde te uehementissime prohibebam, quam in famae ipsius falsitatem. homo enim, qualiscumque sit, quantum ad id quod homo est attinet, dei creatura est, nulla uero falsitas dei creatura est. porro si maledictus est qui spem suam ponit in homine, quanto magis qui spem suam ponit in falsitate opinionis humanae, ut in illud aliud incidat quod scriptum est: qui fidit in falsis hic pascit uentos, id est fit esca spiritibus malis! ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, when he dispenses his word and sacrament both through good shepherds and through bad, he himself feeds, since he says of himself, “that there may be one flock and one shepherd.” For “it is better to trust in the Lord than to trust in man,” and, “Cursed is everyone who puts his hope in man.” You show that you understand what I mentioned in that letter in such a way as to say that you seek a righteous and faithful man to celebrate this sacrament all the more because you have hope and trust in God, not in man, and that faith and righteousness, which you always look for in his ministers, belong to God. This you say truly, since of all good things we have nothing that we have not received, and therefore faith and righteousness are ours from God. But when you say that God cannot give it to you unless the man by whom you are baptized has it, you certainly place your hope in a man, of whom you do not know whether he is a partaker of righteousness; and if he is not, you then look to his reputation, and when you find a false good reputation of a hidden bad man, you believe it suffices for your sanctification. I ask you: if you have trust in God, not in man, and therefore seek all the more that he through whom this sacrament is celebrated be righteous, good, and faithful, because faith and righteousness are God's, is the falsehood of reputation God's too, which, if a bad minister has a good one, you say suffices for your sanctification? I would rather you trusted in man, from which I was most vehemently forbidding you, than in the falsehood of reputation itself. For a man, whatever he is, as far as being a man is concerned, is God's creature; but no falsehood is God's creature. Further, if he is cursed who puts his hope in man, how much more he who puts his hope in the falsehood of human opinion, so as to fall into that other thing that is written: “He who trusts in falsehoods feeds the winds,” that is, becomes food for evil spirits! ### Scripture references - John 10:16: quotation, high confidence - Ps 118:8 (117:8 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Jer 17:5: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 4:7: allusion, high confidence - Prov 10:4: quotation, medium confidence ### Translation notes - John 10:16; Ps 118:8 (117:8 LXX); Jer 17:5; 1 Cor 4:7; Prov 10:4 (an addition in the LXX and Vulgate, not in the Hebrew). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.9 (CSEL 52:417–418; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-9). ## Against Cresconius 3.10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-10 - Source: CSEL 52:418–419 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine dismisses Cresconius's appeals to John's baptism and to Moses' “baptism” in the Red Sea as irrelevant. ### Latin text Si datum, inquis, a quocumque et quomodocumque baptisma rescindi non debet, cur post Iohannem apostoli baptizauerunt? quanto uehementius ita proponitur: si post Iohannem apostoli baptizauerunt, cur non etiam post quemlibet sanctum baptizat uel melior uel aequalis?, ut uel hinc intellegere cogaris ad istam quaestionem non pertinere baptismum Iohannis! et Iudaeis, inquis, a Moyse baptizatis Petrus dixit: paenitemini, et baptizetur unusquisque uestrum in nomine Iesu Christi. si propterea iam baptizati erant Iudaei, quia Moyses per Mare Rubrum ante tam longum tempus parentes eorum baptizauerat, qui de christianis baptizatis nascuntur sine causa hodie baptizantur; et tamen dicis ista et scribis ista, audiris et legeris et putaris respondere litteris nostris, quasi hoc sit respondere potuisse, quod est tacere noluisse. ### English translation (Claude) “If baptism given by anyone and in any way,” you say, “ought not to be cancelled, why did the apostles baptize after John?” How much more forcefully it is put thus: if the apostles baptized after John, why does not one who is better or equal baptize also after any holy man? So that from this at least you may be compelled to understand that the baptism of John does not belong to this question! “And to the Jews,” you say, “baptized by Moses, Peter said, ‘Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.’” If the Jews were already baptized because Moses had baptized their ancestors through the Red Sea so long before, then those born of baptized Christians are baptized today without reason. And yet you say these things and write these things, are heard and read, and are thought to answer our writings, as if being unwilling to keep silent were the same as being able to answer. ### Scripture references - Acts 19:5: allusion, high confidence - Acts 2:38: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 10:2: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Acts 19:5; Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 10:2. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.10 (CSEL 52:418–419; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-10). ## Against Cresconius 3.11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-11 - Source: CSEL 52:419 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine repeats that the Donatist division arose from placing hope in a minister's righteousness, which Paul rebuked at Corinth. ### Latin text Nec illud, quod praetereundum putasti, refellisti principio huius epistulae, sicut tibi uideris, quod a me dictum est: si errabant illi, qui uolebant esse Pauli, quae tandem spes eorum est, qui uoluerunt esse Donati? quis enim non uideat hinc esse istam diuisionem factam, hinc hodieque in hac peste persistere, dum in hominis iustitia spes ponitur, ut tunc sit acceptabilis baptismus Christi, si ab homine iusto quisque tinguatur? contra quem errorem aduersus eos, qui iam schismata propter diuersa merita hominum facere coeperant, clamat ipse Paulus: gratias ago deo quod neminem uestrum baptizaui, ne quis dicat quia in nomine meo baptizaui, quid aliud insinuans nisi baptisma Christi non esse nisi eius, in cuius nomine datur, et ideo non fieri melius, cum per meliorem datur, nec deterius per deteriorem. ### English translation (Claude) Nor did you refute, as you think you did, at the beginning of this letter, what you thought should be passed over, which I said: “If those erred who wished to be of Paul, what hope, pray, is there for those who chose to be of Donatus?” For who does not see that this division arose from this source, and from this source persists even today in this plague, so long as hope is placed in a man's righteousness, so that the baptism of Christ is acceptable only if one is dipped by a righteous man? Against this error, against those who had already begun to make schisms because of the differing merits of men, Paul himself cries out: “I thank God that I baptized none of you, lest anyone should say that I baptized in my own name”; suggesting what else than that the baptism of Christ belongs only to him in whose name it is given, and therefore does not become better when given through a better man, nor worse through a worse? ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 1:12: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 1:14: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 1:15: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Cor 1:12–15. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.11 (CSEL 52:419; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-11). ## Against Cresconius 3.12 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-12 - Source: CSEL 52:419–420 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says faith and justification come from God, not from the minister, who cannot say “believe in me.” ### Latin text Frustra itaque deinceps exultas et dicis: sequitur, ut omnia illa, quae a sancto Petiliano seu cuiuslibet sermo est scripta sunt, recte dicta concludam. ipsa enim uerba, quae uelut recte dicta concludis, non se recte dicta conuincunt, quia nec conscientia sancte dantis attenditur quae abluat accipientis, cum maculosa dantis occulta est. ibi uictus cum ueritati adquiescere debuisses, ad falsam eius famam tamquam ad deceptum mendacio infelicem iudicem prouocasti, quia neque adtenditur conscientia, quando fama eius attenditur, et tam non potest falsa cuiusquam fama quam nec mala uita quisque mundari, et nemo fidem christianam sumit ab homine nec perfido nec fideli, sed ab illo, de quo scriptum est: fide mundans corda eorum. qui si per fidelem audit quid credendum sit, eum quidem imitatur, non tamen ab eo iustificatur. nam si minister iustificat impium, consequens est, ut etiam in ministrum recte credatur; apostolica quippe clara et certa sententia est: credenti in eum qui iustificat impium deputatur fides eius ad iustitiam. proinde si minister non audet dicere: crede in me non audeat dicere: iustificaris a me). ### English translation (Claude) In vain, then, do you next exult and say: “It follows that I conclude that all those things which were written by holy Petilian, or whosesoever the discourse is, were rightly said.” For the very words which you conclude were rightly said are shown not to have been rightly said; since the conscience of one giving in holiness is not looked to, to wash that of the recipient, when the giver's stained conscience is hidden. Defeated there, when you ought to have yielded to the truth, you appealed to his false reputation as to an unhappy judge deceived by a lie; since the conscience is not looked to when its reputation is looked to, and no one can be cleansed by anyone's false reputation any more than by a bad life; and no one receives the Christian faith from a man, whether faithless or faithful, but from him of whom it is written, “cleansing their hearts by faith.” If through a faithful man he hears what is to be believed, he imitates him indeed, yet is not justified by him. For if the minister justifies the ungodly, it follows that one may rightly believe in the minister too; for the apostolic statement is clear and certain: “To one who believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” Accordingly, if the minister does not dare to say, “Believe in me,” let him not dare to say, “You are justified by me.” ### Scripture references - Acts 15:9: quotation, high confidence - Rom 4:5: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Acts 15:9; Rom 4:5. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.12 (CSEL 52:419–420; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-12). ## Against Cresconius 3.13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-13 - Source: CSEL 52:420 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that if the minister were the origin and head of the baptized, being baptized by a hidden sinner, through whom Christ alone acts, would be better. ### Latin text Iam uero quod sequitur: omnis res origine et radice consistit et, si caput non habeat aliquid, nihil est, si origo et radix et caput baptizati baptizans minister est, Christus non est; si Christus est. ille non est denique cum minister occultus est malus, quae origo, quae radix, quod caput est baptizati? an falsa eius fama? hoc quidem Cresconius dicit, sed ueritas contradicit. ergo si tunc origo et radix et caput Christus est, ipse est etiam quando minister est bonus, ne, quod absurdissimum est, melior sit condicio baptizati per occultum malum, quando Christus est caput, quam baptizati per manifestum bonum, si tunc minister est caput. hoc et de bono semine dixerim; sequitur enim: nec quicquam bene regenerat, nisi bono semine regeneretur. ### English translation (Claude) Now as for what follows, “Everything consists in its origin and root, and if something does not have a head, it is nothing”: if the baptizing minister is the origin, root, and head of the baptized, Christ is not; if Christ is, he is not. Finally, when the minister is secretly evil, what is the origin, what the root, what the head of the baptized? His false reputation? That is indeed what Cresconius says, but the truth contradicts it. If then Christ is the origin, root, and head at that time, he is so also when the minister is good; otherwise, what is most absurd, the condition of one baptized through a hidden evil man, when Christ is the head, would be better than that of one baptized through a manifest good man, if then the minister is the head. This I would say also of the good seed; for there follows: “Nor does anything regenerate well unless it is regenerated by good seed.” ### Translation notes - Quotations from Petilian's letter (Against the Letters of Petilian 1.5.6). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.13 (CSEL 52:420; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-13). ## Against Cresconius 3.14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-14 - Source: CSEL 52:420–422 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows that Petilian's appeal to the good tree makes the minister the source of the baptized, which fails whenever the minister is secretly evil. ### Latin text Quae uero sequuntur ex epistula Petiliani abs te posita, ubi ait: quae cum ita sint, fratres, quae potest esse peruersitas, ut qui suis criminibus reus est alium faciat innocentem, cum scriptum sit: arbor bona bonos fructus facit. et arbor mala malos fructus facit. numquid colligunt de spinis uuas? et iterum: omnis homo bonus de thesauro cordis sui producit bona, et malus homo de thesauro cordis sui profert mala, satis aperteque conuincunt Petilianum haec omnia non retulisse nisi ad hominem, per quem baptismus ministratur, ut ipse intellegatur, si innocens est, facere innocentem quem baptizat, ipse sit bona arbor, cuius fructus sit qui baptizatur, ipse bonus homo, de cuius cordis thesauro procedit sanctificatio baptizati. ac per hoc cum iste occultus est malus, dic mihi, a quo fit ille innocens, dic mihi, cuius erit arboris fructus, dic mihi, de cuius cordis thesauro sanctificabitur baptizatus? aut si tunc effectorem innocentiae suae, tunc arborem, de qua fructus bonus nascatur, non hominem ministrum baptismi meretur habere, sed Christum, felicius incidit in ministrum latentem malum quam si incidisset in manifestum bonum. quod si absurdissime atque insanissime dicitur, Christi fructus est, qui eius baptismo sanctificatur, cuiuslibet ministri opere baptizetur. nisi forte ad consilium tuum recursurus est, quando incurrit in ministri conscientiam maculosam et occultam, ut ei de qua nascatur arborem ostendas falso bonam mali hominis famam, cuius radicem si quaesieris, inuenies fallentis astutiam, de qua si potest nasci fructus bonus, quod absit, mentitus est Christus, qui dixit: non potest arbor mala bonos fructus facere. sed quia uerum dixit Christus, habeat homo bonus tamquam bona arbor bonum fructum opus bonum, sicut homo malus tamquam mala arbor malum fructum opus malum; qui autem baptizatur, non de cuiusquam hominis, sed de spiritu Christi nascatur, si uult esse fructus, qui uento non corrumpatur et arbor, quae non eradicetur. quae cum ita sint, cum tu dixeris: ergo sequitur, ut omnia illa, quae a sancto Petiliano seu cuiuslibet sermo est scripta sunt, recte dicta concludam, puto quia ego potius illa omnia non recte dicta concludo. ### English translation (Claude) And what follows from Petilian's letter as set down by you, where he says: “Since this is so, brothers, what perversity can it be that one who is guilty of his own crimes should make another innocent, when it is written, ‘A good tree bears good fruit, and a bad tree bears bad fruit. Do they gather grapes from thorns?’ and again, ‘Every good man brings forth good things from the treasure of his heart, and an evil man brings forth evil things from the treasure of his heart’?”: these show clearly and plainly enough that Petilian referred all this to nothing but the man through whom baptism is ministered; so that he is understood, if innocent, to make innocent the one he baptizes; he is the good tree whose fruit is the one baptized; he is the good man from the treasure of whose heart the sanctification of the baptized comes. And therefore, when he is secretly evil, tell me, by whom is that man made innocent? Tell me, whose tree's fruit will he be? Tell me, from the treasure of whose heart will the baptized be sanctified? Or if then he merits to have as the maker of his innocence, as the tree from which good fruit is born, not the man who ministers baptism but Christ, he has fallen more happily upon a hidden bad minister than if he had fallen upon a manifest good one. But if this is said most absurdly and most insanely, the one sanctified by Christ's baptism is Christ's fruit, by whatever minister's work he is baptized. Unless perhaps one is to have recourse to your counsel, when one comes upon a stained and hidden conscience in a minister, so as to show him as the tree from which he is born the falsely good reputation of a bad man; whose root, if you look for it, you will find to be the cunning of a deceiver; and if good fruit can be born of that (God forbid!), Christ lied, who said, “A bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” But since Christ spoke the truth, let a good man, as a good tree, have good fruit, a good work, as a bad man, as a bad tree, has bad fruit, a bad work; but let the one who is baptized be born not of any man but of the Spirit of Christ, if he wishes to be fruit which is not spoiled by the wind and a tree which is not uprooted. Since this is so, when you said, “So it follows that I conclude that all those things which were written by holy Petilian, or whosesoever the discourse is, were rightly said,” I think that I rather conclude that all those things were not rightly said. ### Scripture references - Matt 7:17: quotation, high confidence - Matt 7:16: quotation, high confidence - Luke 6:45: quotation, high confidence - Matt 7:18: quotation, high confidence - John 3:5: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 7:17, 16; Luke 6:45; Matt 7:18. Quoted from Petilian (Against the Letters of Petilian 1.6.7). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.14 (CSEL 52:420–422; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-14). ## Against Cresconius 3.15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-15 - Source: CSEL 52:422 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine turns to Optatus of Thamugadi and the Maximianists, noting that those baptized by Optatus were cleansed neither by his conscience nor his reputation. ### Latin text Iam nunc uideamus quod deinde in epistula tua contexuisti, quomodo te Optati causam et Maximianistarum, quin immo, ut abs te doctior fiam, Maximianensium uestri docuerunt. et de Optato quidem, de quo nihil conscriptum ualeo recitare, quodlibet sentias facile cedo. unum illud scio: si uera sunt, quae de illo ut non dicam ostendebantur, certe tamen dicebantur, nec ipse erat bonus nec famam habebat bonam. unde quicumque per eum baptizati sunt, nec conscientia eius secundum Petilianum nec fama eius secundum te ablui potuerunt. si autem falsa mala eius, sicut saepe adsolet, inuida fama iactauit, uide quam recte non facile credamus, quod numquam nobis de traditoribus quos accusatis probare potuistis, quia solet etiam de bonis mala fama mentiri. si ergo non illorum innocentia, non denique, quod uerum atque firmum est, dei gratia et nostra conscientia ratum nobis baptismum facit, faciat saltem sententia tua. ### English translation (Claude) Now let us see what you next wove into your letter: how your people taught you the case of Optatus and of the Maximianists, or rather, that I may become more learned from you, the Maximianensians. And about Optatus, of whom I can read out nothing written, I readily grant you whatever you think. One thing I know: if the things are true which were, I will not say shown, but certainly said about him, he was neither good nor had a good reputation. Hence whoever were baptized by him could be washed neither by his conscience, according to Petilian, nor by his reputation, according to you. But if envious report spread false evils about him, as often happens, see how rightly we do not readily believe what you have never been able to prove to us about the traitors you accuse, since bad report is accustomed to lie even about the good. If, then, it is not their innocence, nor finally (which is true and firm) the grace of God and our conscience, that makes baptism valid for us, let at least your opinion do so. ### Translation notes - Optatus, Donatist bishop of Thamugadi and ally of the rebel Gildo (d. 398). The Maximianists were a Donatist splinter group under Maximian of Carthage (393). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.15 (CSEL 52:422; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-15). ## Against Cresconius 3.16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-16 - Source: CSEL 52:422–424 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine applies Cresconius's neutrality about Optatus to Caecilian, and points to the Donatists' own reception of the condemned Maximianists Felicianus and Praetextatus. ### Latin text Tu enim, cum de Optato loquereris, dixisti: ego quidem Optatum nec absoluo nec damno. si hoc ego, immo non tantum ego, sed omnis Africana catholica ecclesia, quanto magis etiam transmarina tam longe lateque diffusa de Caeciliano et eius ordinatoribus dicat: (ego illos nec absoluo nec damno), parumne putas esse illis, quos hi baptizauerant, quorum nemo umquam Caecilianum uidit, quod de Optato sufficere credis eis, quos ille etiam suis manibus baptizauit? an quia de Caeciliano parentum uestrorum concilium recitatis, de Optato autem nullum recitatur a nobis, ideo putas nulli nostrum licere dicere: (ego Caecilianum nec absoluo nec damno quod tibi licuit de Optato? sed factum est pro Caeciliano posterius iudicium transmarinum, uestris apud Constantinum imperatorem ut fieret instantibus. aut si ecclesiastica iudicia, quae prius facta fuerint, iam conuelli non possunt, quid de Primiano facturi estis uestro episcopo Carthaginiensi, contra quem primo centum, plures utique quam de Caeciliano, iudicauerunt eique abrogato episcopatu Maximianum pro illo constituerunt? nonne Primianus posteriore iudicio nititur, quod pro illo factum est in oppido Bagaiensi, secundum quod iudicium non uult de se dubitari, sed ab omnibus uobis se extorquet absolui? unde et nos secundum posterius de Caeciliano iudicium prorsus eum incunctanter absoluimus. sufficit tamen ad causam, si hoc de illo dicamus, quod tu de Optato dixisti: (nos Caecilianum nec absoluimus nec damnamus. uiderint illi seu uestri seu nostri, quemadmodum de illo iudicauerint, ipsi suarum sententiarum rationem reddant, ipsi portent seu mali seu boni sui operis sarcinam: nobis de alienis factis saltem dubitare permittite, ne cogamur in nobis ea sacramenta damnare, de quibus non licet dubitare. sed iam dixi, senti de Optato quod uis; neque enim est, unde conuincamus eum, qui non apud acta commisit, quae tamen ita commisit, ut inter Gildonis satellites praecipuus haberetur teneretur moreretur. numquid etiam de Feliciano et Praetextato sociis Maximiani, quos trecenti et decem episcopi uestri cum ceteris similiter nominatim expressis una eademque sententia Bagaitani concilii damnauerunt eosdemque non post paruum tempus cum omnibus quos damnati baptizauerunt, sicut fuerunt, episcopos susceperunt, quodlibet nobis garrire permittitur? ### English translation (Claude) For you, when speaking of Optatus, said: “I neither acquit nor condemn Optatus.” If I, or rather not only I but the whole Catholic church of Africa, and how much more the church overseas spread so far and wide, say of Caecilian and his ordainers, “I neither acquit nor condemn them,” do you think it too little for those whom these men had baptized, none of whom ever saw Caecilian, when you believe it suffices, concerning Optatus, for those whom he baptized even with his own hands? Or because you read out a council of your forefathers concerning Caecilian, while we read out none concerning Optatus, do you think none of us may say, “I neither acquit nor condemn Caecilian,” which you were allowed to say of Optatus? But a later judgment overseas was made in Caecilian's favor, at the urging of your people before the emperor Constantine that it should be made. Or if church judgments made earlier can no longer be overturned, what will you do about Primian, your bishop of Carthage, against whom first a hundred bishops (certainly more than judged Caecilian) gave judgment, and, having deposed him from the episcopate, set up Maximian in his place? Does not Primian rely on a later judgment, which was made in his favor in the town of Bagai, according to which judgment he will not have any doubt about himself, but extorts acquittal from all of you? Hence we too, according to the later judgment about Caecilian, acquit him entirely and without hesitation. Yet it suffices for the case if we say of him what you said of Optatus: “We neither acquit nor condemn Caecilian. Let those, whether yours or ours, see how they judged him; let them give account of their own judgments; let them bear the burden of their own work, whether bad or good. Allow us at least to be in doubt about others' deeds, so that we may not be compelled to condemn in ourselves those sacraments about which it is not lawful to doubt.” But, as I have already said, think what you will of Optatus; for we have nothing by which to convict one who committed his deeds not in recorded proceedings, though he committed them in such a way that he was held, kept, and died as a chief among the satellites of Gildo. Are we also allowed to prattle whatever we please about Felicianus and Praetextatus, associates of Maximian, whom three hundred and ten of your bishops, with others likewise expressly named, condemned by one and the same sentence of the council of Bagai, and whom, not long after, they received as bishops, as they had been, with all whom they had baptized while condemned? ### Scripture references - Gal 6:5: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The Donatist council of Cabarsussa (393) deposed Primian and set up Maximian; the council of Bagai (394), with 310 bishops, condemned Maximian and his ordainers, including Felicianus of Musti and Praetextatus of Assuras, who were later received back with those they had baptized. Gildo, count of Africa, rebelled in 397–398. Gal 6:5. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.16 (CSEL 52:422–424; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-16). ## Against Cresconius 3.17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/2-48/#p-3-17 - Source: CSEL 52:424 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine turns to Felicianus and Praetextatus, Maximianist bishops condemned by the Donatists and later received back, using Cresconius's own account. ### Latin text Quocirca quaecumque in nos siue in nostros quasi parcendo et praetereundo dixisti sine nominibus, sine testibus, sine ullis omnino documentis, partim culpando quae culpanda non sunt, partim quae culpanda sunt non probando. superuacaneum est uelle purgare. istos, istos iterum attende, Felicianum Mustitanum et Praetextatum Assuritanum aliquanto diligentius intuere, quorum totam causam suo loco ita, si dominus permiserit, explicabo, ut etiam si nimius hostis ueritatis esse uolueris, uestrorum mendacium defendere uel negare non possis. sed nunc interim secundum hoc mihi placet agere quod tibi dixerunt; nondum discutio quam (non) uerum dixerint. nondum ostendo quam mira inpudentiae caecitate mentiti sint. certe cum de his, quos Maximianistas appellaui, et damnatis uestrorum concilio et receptis in epistula mea perlegeres, sicut scribis, ualde permotus es, quippe cum adhuc — uerbis enim tuis utar — quid haberet ueritas ignorares. denique statim. sicut narras, ex uestris episcopis diligentius inquisisti atque ipsis docentibus et decretum concilii et sententiam in eos qui damnati sunt dictam et rei totius ordinem cognouisti, et quia et me quid gestum sit ignorare credebas, quid ueritas haberet hortatus ut discerem, ita deinceps cuncta narrasti. uide quia in hac causa uerba ipsa tua pono ex epistula tua; sunt enim mihi pernecessaria. ### English translation (Claude) Therefore it is superfluous to wish to clear away whatever you said against us or our people, as if sparing us and passing over it, without names, without witnesses, without any evidence at all, partly blaming things that are not to be blamed, partly not proving things that are to be blamed. These men, these men look at again: consider somewhat more carefully Felicianus of Musti and Praetextatus of Assuras, whose whole case I shall set out in its place, if the Lord permits, in such a way that, even if you choose to be an excessive enemy of the truth, you cannot defend or deny the lie of your people. But for the present I am content to proceed on the basis of what they told you; I do not yet examine how untruly they spoke; I do not yet show with what wonderful blindness of shamelessness they lied. Certainly, when you read in my letter, as you write, about those whom I called Maximianists, both condemned by your council and received back, you were greatly moved, since (I shall use your words) you still did not know what the truth was. Then at once, as you relate, you inquired more carefully of your bishops, and, with them teaching you, you learned both the decree of the council and the sentence pronounced against those who were condemned, and the order of the whole affair; and since you believed that I too did not know what had been done, exhorting me to learn what the truth was, you then related everything in order. See that in this case I set down your very words from your letter; for they are most necessary to me. ### Translation notes - The word in round brackets is the editor's supplement. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.17 (CSEL 52:424; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-17). ## Against Cresconius 3.18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-18 - Source: CSEL 52:424–425 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes Cresconius's account: the council of Bagai gave Maximian's followers a period of grace, and those who returned within it kept their baptism. ### Latin text cum quam plurimos, inquis, episcopos error sibi Maximiani sociare contenderet, contracto a nostris concilio in eos omnes, qui in eius schismate perstitissent, prolata sententia est, quam tu quoque te legisse testaris. quae cum sententia consensu omnium firmaretur. placuit tamen, inquis, decreto concilii dilationem temporis dari, intra quod si qui corrigi uoluisset innocens haberetur. sic factum tu. inquis, ut non solum duo) illi quos memoras, sed etiam multi alii purgati atque innocentes se ecclesiae reddidissent, quorum ideo baptisma rescindi non debuit, quia intra diem praestitutum restituti peremptoria sententia non tenerentur nec, cum baptizarent, fuerant ab ecclesia separati, quippe necdum transacti temporis definita meta disiuncti. Hi autem, qui etiam post praedictum diem cum Maximiano pertinaciter perstiterunt, sententia damnationis retenti simul et baptisma et ecclesiam perdiderunt. haec uerba tua certe, mi Cresconi, cognoscis ex epistulae tuae contextione expressa. ### English translation (Claude) “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. ### Translation notes - The council is that of Bagai (394). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.18 (CSEL 52:424–425; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18). ## Against Cresconius 3.19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-19 - Source: CSEL 52:425–426 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows from Cresconius's own words that the Maximianists were outside the church until they returned, yet their baptisms given meanwhile were accepted. ### Latin text Proinde quaero abs te, si nondum fuerant ab ecclesia separati, quomodo in eos omnes, qui in Maximiani schismate perstitissent, prolata sententia est, quae cum consensu omnium firmaretur, placuit tamen decreto concilii dilationem temporis dari, intra quod si qui corrigi uoluisset innocens haberetur? quibus uerbis ostendis eorum, qui in Maximiani schismate perstitissent, si quis intra dilationem temporis corrigi uoluisset, innocens haberetur. corrigeretur ergo, si quia corrigi uoluisset, ab illo schismate, in quo cum Maximiano perstiterat. proinde antequam corrigeretur, in schismate erat in quo perstiterat, quamuis in eo, quia intra placitum tempus correctus est, non pertinaciter perstitisset. nam et posterioribus uerbis paulo post ita distinguis: hi autem, qui etiam post praedictum diem cum Maximiano pertinaciter perstiterunt, sententia damnationis retenti simul et baptisma et ecclesiam perdiderunt. dicens utique pertinaciter perstiterunt) ostendis etiam illos qui correcti sunt perstitisse, sed non pertinaciter; in quos simul omnes prolata est illa sententia, qua consensu omnium confirmata placuisse tamen dicis decreto concilii dilationem illam temporis dari. quomodo igitur in ecclesia erant, qui, antequam corrigerentur, in schismate cum Maximiano perstabant? quodsi in ecclesia non erant, quia in schismate erant, quomodo baptizabant? deinde quomodo factum est, sicut dicis, ut non solum illi quos memoraui, sed etiam multi alii purgati atque innocentes se ecclesiae reddidissent, si ab ecclesia non erant separati? cui se reddiderunt unde non recesserunt? aut si recesserant, dic, quaeso, antequam se ecclesiae reddidissent, quo iure baptizauerunt? quorum ideo, inquis, baptisma rescindi non debuit, quia intra diem praestitutum restituti peremptoria sententia non tenerentur. restituti quo? euigila, obsecro: dic nobis, quo restituti. profecto dicturus es: (in ecclesiam, cui se illos reddidisse dixisti. quisquamne restituitur in ecclesiam qui non fuerit ab ecclesia separatus? quisquamne ab ecclesia non separatus quamlibet paucos dies persistit in schismate? quisquamne ab ecclesia non separatus se post tempus quamlibet paruum reddit ecclesiae? ### English translation (Claude) 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? ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.19 (CSEL 52:425–426; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-19). ## Against Cresconius 3.20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-20 - Source: CSEL 52:426–427 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes the decree of Bagai permitting those not involved in Maximian's ordination to return to “mother church.” ### Latin text Arbitror te, carissime, non solum uerba tua non considerasse conscribenda, sed nec legisse conscripta. uerumtamen quid faceres, cui necessitas in hoc opere ingerebatur in Maximianum ac socios eius non propriam dicere, sed ab aliis dictam, quomodo posses, defensare sententiam? nam etsi tu non utereris his uerbis, idem ipsum decretum concilii Bagaiensis recitarem, ubi scriptum est: eos autem, quos sacrilegi surculi non polluere plantaria, hoc est qui a Maximiani capite proprias manus uerecundo fidei pudore retraxerunt, ad matrem ecclesiam redire permisimus. ### English translation (Claude) 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.” ### Translation notes - Sentence of the council of Bagai (394). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.20 (CSEL 52:426–427; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-20). ## Against Cresconius 3.21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-21 - Source: CSEL 52:427–428 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that the Donatists' acceptance of baptisms given by the Maximianists outside their communion proves the Catholic teaching, and asks how the returning Maximianists were expiated. ### Latin text Proinde etsi talia tua uerba non repperirem, hic certe dicerem, hic pro ueritate clamarem: quomodo ad matrem ecclesiam redire permittuntur, qui ab ecclesia matre non recesserunt? aut si recesserunt, quo iure, antequam redirent, baptizare potuerunt, nisi quia in causa reserciendi huius schismatis obliti estis propriae uanitatis, qua post episcopos ab ipsis apostolorum sedibus inconcussam seriem usque in haec tempora perducentes non unum hominem, non unam domum, non unam ciuitatem, non unam gentem, sed orbem terrarum rebaptizandum esse censetis? aut certe quia huius facti horror semper etiam facientium corda concussit, tot populis ad uestram communionem a Maximiani communione redeuntibus tam multos quidem libuit reparare, sed puduit tam multos rebaptizare. quod tamen quibuslibet detestantibus et exhorrentibus propter salutem hominum faceretis, quae quanto plurium fuerat tanto minus utique contemnenda erat, si hoc umquam contuitu ueritatis et non praeiudicio faceretis erroris. uides certe in hoc Maximianensium ad uestram communionem reditu patefactum uera esse, quae de baptismo dicuntur a nobis. nam si ullus est in hominibus intellectus uel dicendi aliquid uel audiendi, qui, antequam redeat ad ecclesiam, baptizat, profecto extra ecclesiam baptizat, et tamen rescindendus baptismus non est, sicut nec in illis rescissus a uobis est. quo non mutato nec in suo nec in cuiusquam alterius, sed in patris et filii et spiritus sancti nomine quisque baptizat. deinde praeter baptismi sacramentum, quod uel ad poenam peruersi uel ad salutem recti siue correcti integrum perseuerat, de ipsa correctorum expiatione uel mundatione uolo aliquid dicere. meministi enim quae aduersus nos dixeris, quod uenientes ad nos a uobis ex haereticorum sacrilego errore sine ulla expiatione susceptos habeamus. tu nobis dic modo, de schismate Maximiani redeuntes ad uos, cum in suis etiam susciperentur honoribus, qua tandem, quaeso, expiatione mundati sint. an illo tanto scelere participato non erant tam nefaria societate maculati? ### English translation (Claude) 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? ### Scripture references - Matt 28:19: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 28:19. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.21 (CSEL 52:427–428; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-21). ## Against Cresconius 3.22 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-22 - Source: CSEL 52:428–430 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes the council of Bagai's fierce condemnation of Maximian and his twelve consecrators, including Felicianus and Praetextatus, and asks how they were expiated on their return. ### Latin text Attende quid insonet, quid increpet, quid in illo praeclaro concilio fateatur ueridicum os illud episcoporum tuorum: Maximianum, inquit, fidei aemulum, ueritatis adulterum, ecclesiae matris inimicum, Dathae, Corae et Abiron ministrum de pacis gremio sententiae fulmen excussit, et quod adhuc eum dehiscens terra non sorbuit, ad maius supplicium Superis reseruauit. raptus enim poenam suam conpendio lucrauerat funeris; usuras nunc grauioris colligit faenoris, cum mortuus interest uiuis. itane tandem in huius schismate, sicut ipse dixisti, persistentes, antequam intra tempus dilationis, sicut tu item dixisti, se uestrae ecclesiae reddidissent, nullam uel paruam de huius societate maculam traxerant? sed audi deinde quid sequatur, audi, inquam, dictator uel dictor illius sententiae quid conectat: nec solum hunc, inquit, sceleris sui mors iusta condemnat; trahit etiam ad consortium criminis plurimos catena sacrilegii, de quibus scriptum est: uenenum aspidum sub labiis eorum quorum os maledictione et amaritudine plenum est. ueloces pedes eorum ad effundendum sanguinem. contritio et infelicitas in uiis eorum, et uiam pacis non cognouerunt. nollemus quidem tamquam e proprii corporis iunctura praecidi. sed quoniam tabescentis uulneris putredo pestifera plus habet in abscisione solaminis quam in remissione medicaminis, inuenta est causa salubrior, ne per cuncta membra pestilens inrepat uirus, ut conpendioso dolore natum decidat uulnus. famosi ergo criminis reos Uictorianum Carcabianensem, Marcianum Sullectinum, Beianum Beianensem, Saluium Ausafensem, Theodorum Usulensem, Donatum Sabratensem, Miggenem Elefantariensem, Praetextatum Assuritanum, Saluium Membresitanum, Ualerium Melzitanum, Felicianum Mustitanum et Martialem Pertusensem, qui funesto opere perditionis uas sordidum collecta faeculentia glutinarunt, sed et clericos aliquando ecclesiae Carthaginis, qui, dum facinori intersunt, inlicito incestui lenocinium praebuerunt, dei praesidentis arbitrio uniuersalis concilii ore ueridico damnatos esse cognoscite. quae grauiora in illos dicere potuistis, quae grauiora in nos ipsos dicere soletis? sed ab hoc, inquis, tam magno malo intra dilationis tempus correcti sunt. uidero utrum correcti sint, quia re uera correcti essent, si ad ueram ecclesiam remeassent. sed si uestra uera est, quomodo expiati sint a tam inmani scelere, dicite. si enim non sunt expiati, omnes uos estis secundum uestram sententiam eorum scelere maculati; si autem expiati sunt, solo ipso reditu propter caritatem, quae cooperit multitudinem peccatorum, expiari potuisse conceditis et nos de uestris, cum correcti ad nos ueniunt, inanibus calumniis accusatis. nisi forte iam quidem, sicut concilii uerba indicant, et schismatis sacrilegium perpetrauerant, sed ante diem concessae dilationis eodem sacrilegio nondum fuerant inquinati, et ideo non putati sunt expiandi. - ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - Num 16:32: allusion, high confidence - Rom 3:13: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:14: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:15: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:16: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:17: quotation, high confidence - 1 Pet 4:8: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Sentence of the council of Bagai (394). Num 16 (Dathan, Korah, Abiram); Rom 3:13–17; 1 Pet 4:8. The “incest” is the council's term for Maximian's rival ordination at Carthage. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.22 (CSEL 52:428–430; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-22). ## Against Cresconius 3.23 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-23 - Source: CSEL 52:430–431 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine mocks the idea that the Maximianists sinned but were defiled only when the Donatists chose, and turns again to the widely read sentence of Bagai. ### Latin text Hoc si ita est, quis uobis (obsistere) audeat, qui tam mirabilem potestatem in homines accepistis? peccant quando uolunt et inquinantur quando uultis. non obscurum aliquid recitamus minusue notum atque uulgatum. illa sententia est, quae tantae facundiae merito in manibus omnium. in omnium ore uersatur, qui legendorum talium studiosi sunt, de qua nunc saltem cernis quam uere dixerim, quod non eam deberent (primo) gaudere disertam, ne postea plangerent diffamatam. attende quid habeat, audi quid perstrepat. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Translation notes - Words in round brackets are the editor's supplements. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.23 (CSEL 52:430–431; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-23). ## Against Cresconius 3.24 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-24 - Source: CSEL 52:431 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that by Donatist principles those who ordained Maximian and shared his altar were defiled even more than he. ### Latin text Maximianum, inquit, fidei aemulum, ueritatis adulterum, ecclesiae matris inimicum, Dathae, Corae et Abiron ministrum de pacis gremio sententiae fulmen excussit. cum hoc igitur si quis sacramentum altaris uno die sciens communicasset, secundum iactantissimam illam seueritatem uestram nonne tanto malo sic pollueretur, ut par eius fieret? quid ergo fuerunt uel quid ex illo facti sunt, qui non solum ad altaria cum eo accesserunt. uerum etiam ipsi eum ordinatum episcopum contra Primianum uestrum erectis altaribus admouerunt? sed quid ego te de istis interrogem? ipsa sententia loquatur, cuius uerba sic fulgent, ut, si eam uolueritis abscondere, quarumlibet latebrarum tenebras suo nimio splendore perrumpat. uideamus in socios Maximiani quanto sonitu damnationis insurgat. ### English translation (Claude) “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. ### Scripture references - Num 16:1: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Num 16. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.24 (CSEL 52:431; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-24). ## Against Cresconius 3.25 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-25 - Source: CSEL 52:431–432 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes the sentence's charge that Felicianus and Praetextatus personally laid hands on Maximian. ### Latin text Nec solum hunc, inquit, sceleris sui mors iusta condemnat; trahit etiam ad consortium criminis plurimos catena sacrilegii, de quibus scriptum est: uenenum aspidum sub labiis eorum quorum os maledictione et amaritudine plenum est. ueloces pedes eorum ad effundendum sanguinem. contritio et infelicitas in uiis eorum, et uiam pacis non cognouerunt. deinde paulo post cum omnes ordinatores Maximiani nominatim enumerasset, inter quos etiam isti, de quibus ago, Felicianus et Praetextatus leguntur, quid fecerint, ut tanta in eos digne dicenda essent, ita subiungit: qui funesto, inquit, opere perditionis uas sordidum collecta faeculentia glutinarunt, sic intellegi uolens, quod ipsi adfuerint, ipsi Maximianum inpositis manibus ordinauerint. addens etiam de Carthaginis clericis: sed et clericos, inquit, ecclesiae Carthaginis, qui, dum facinori intersunt, inlicito incestui lenocinium praebuerunt. ### English translation (Claude) “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.” ### Scripture references - Rom 3:13: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:14: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:15: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:16: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:17: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 3:13–17. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.25 (CSEL 52:431–432; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-25). ## Against Cresconius 3.26 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-26 - Source: CSEL 52:432–433 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine asks how the condemned Maximianist bishops could baptize validly and be received in their honors with those they baptized, on Donatist principles. ### Latin text Rogo te, Cresconi, numquid ullis meis uerbis hoc crimen exaggero? quod si uoluissem, fortasse mihi etsi non talia, tamen qualitercumque sufficientia non defuissent. quaero igitur abs te, antequam isti duo, de quibus interim ago, ad uestrae communionis concordiam remeassent, in illa catena sacrilegii constituti, sub quorum labiis erat uenenum aspidum, cum ore pleno maledictione et amaritudine, cum pedibus uelocibus ad effundendum sanguinem quomodo baptizarunt? numquid in his erat conscientia sancte dantium quae ablueret accipientium? numquid eos saltem fama bona uel falsissima commendabat, quae tibi in illis angustiis non qua euaderes, sed qua te praecipitares exitum praebuit, cum eos tam insigne concilium clamet famosi criminis reos? redeuntes deinde, sicut falsa narrantibus uestris episcopis credidisti, ante dilationis diem quomodo suscipiuntur in honoribus suis cum eis, quos extra ecclesiam cum Maximiano constituti in catena sacrilegii schismatici baptizauerant? unde a sacrilegio tanto expiantur, a catena illa unde soluuntur, labia eorum, os eorum a ueneno aspidum, a maledictione et amaritudine unde mundatur, unde pedes ab effusione spiritalis sanguinis abluuntur, quo uelociter cucurrerunt, unde manus a funesto opere perditionis emaculantur, unde ab inlicito incestu non membra corporis, sed animae purgatur affectus? ### English translation (Claude) 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? ### Scripture references - Rom 3:13: allusion, high confidence - Rom 3:15: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 3:13–15. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.26 (CSEL 52:432–433; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-26). ## Against Cresconius 3.27 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-27 - Source: CSEL 52:433–434 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine concludes that the Donatists' own reception of the Maximianists, with their baptisms, concedes the Catholic teaching that baptism given outside is valid. ### Latin text Nempe istam causam ut defendatis, uelitis nolitis, ad patrocinium ueritatis uenire cogimini, quae dicit baptismum Christi non solum per occultos, uerum etiam per manifestos malos, nec solum a conuersis, uerum etiam a peruersis datum habere inconcussam sui roboris firmitatem et eis posse quidem inesse, sed nisi correctis non posse prodesse, correctos autem etiam fraternis orationibus expiari per caritatem cooperientem multitudinem peccatorum. ecce antequam ostendam, quam inpudenter tibi uestri episcopi de Maximianensium susceptione mentiti sint, secundum ipsum mendacium eorum et narrationem tuam quam tota causa uestra subuersa sit, puto quod non iam quaerere debeas, sed agnoscere, nec parare contradictionem, sed correctionem potius cogitare. uides enim nunc saltem, quam ueraciter a me illa dicta sint, quibus frustra mendaciter respondere conatus es, quam recte dixerim: si pro unitate partis Donati in nefario schismate baptizatos nemo rebaptizat, cur non pro unitate Christi uera et plenaria lex illius hereditatis agnoscitur?, cum ipse fatearis eos, qui in Maximiani schismate perstitissent, meruisse sententiam qua non tenerentur, si intra diem dilationis se ecclesiae reddidissent. unde constat, antequam se reddidissent, eos in schismate in quo perstiterant baptizasse cum quibus in uestram communionem recepti sunt. uides quemadmodum mortui baptizauerint, quia de illis, qui in Maximiani schismate perstitissent, antequam ad uos redirent, dictum erat sententia concilii Bagaiensis: Aegyptiorum admodum exemplo pereuntium funeribus plena sunt litora. ### English translation (Claude) 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.” ### Scripture references - 1 Pet 4:8: allusion, high confidence - Exod 14:30: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation from Against the Letters of Petilian; sentence of the council of Bagai. 1 Pet 4:8; Exod 14:30. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.27 (CSEL 52:433–434; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-27). ## Against Cresconius 3.28 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-28 - Source: CSEL 52:434 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that the Donatists recalled bishops they had named and condemned, and that Cresconius, an African, did not even know these recent facts. ### Latin text Quod uero dixi: quando apud eos decernenda recitata est, ore latissimo adclamauerunt, nunc autem, cum a nobis recitata fuerit, obmutescunt, ecce iam multo melius obmutescerent, cum talia loquerentur quibus peius implicarentur. uides quam uerum sit quod a me dictum est: iam tandem sentire deberent, quanta sint pro pace toleranda, et pro pace Christi redire ad ecclesiam quae non damnauit incognita, si pro pace Donati placuit reuocare damnata. multo magis hoc enim secundum tuam narrationem uerum est, qui dixisti etiam illos dilatione concessa reuocatos, de quibus nominatim expressis iam dictum fuerat: dei praesidentis arbitrio uniuersalis concilii ore ueridico damnatos esse cognoscite. cum enim post haec uerba illa est dilatio constituta, quomodo non placuit reuocare damnata? aut quomodo nobis tanto post natis uel ipsi etiam christiano orbi terrarum incognita esse non possint, quae probari non potuerunt de Caeciliano in eo quod postea factum est iudicio transmarino, quando ea, quae de Maximianensibus gesta sunt et in Africa et temporibus nostris, tu, cum sis Afer, sicut dicis, post tot annos adhuc usque non noueras, sicut autem nos docere poterimus, adhuc usque non nosti, quia episcopis uestris mentientibus credidisti? ### English translation (Claude) 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? ### Translation notes - Quotations from Against the Letters of Petilian and from the sentence of Bagai. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.28 (CSEL 52:434; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-28). ## Against Cresconius 3.29 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-29 - Source: CSEL 52:434–435 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine defends turning the charge of handing over the Scriptures back on the Donatists, citing Elijah's reply to Ahab and the council of Cirta. ### Latin text Quod autem me de traditione in uestros maiores dicis quasi per anticategoriam quod a nostris maioribus factum est retorquere uoluisse, culpans quod hoc fecerim, quasi in schola de causae generibus uel quaestionibus ageretur, non in ecclesia ueritas quaereretur, numquid hoc Heliae prophetae diceres, qui, cum sibi a rege iniquissimo esset obiectum, quod ipse euerteret Israhel, respondit: ego non euerto, sed euertis tu et domus patris tui? quid enim ad nos pertinet, hoc retortae obiectionis genus quo nomine a Graecis appellatur in arte rhetorica, cum hoc inueniamus in auctoritate prophetica? cum ergo quisque dicit: (non ego feci, sed tu fecisti, uerum dicere opus est, non dicere metuendum est. et tu quomodo ostendas non fecisse maiores uestros, quod suis confessionibus lectis fecisse monstrantur, debes, si quid uales, uigilantissime cogitare, non uerbo Graeco imperitos, ne nos audiant, deterrere. et maiores quidem nostros fuisse traditores non docuisti — neque enim quia dixisti esse multas litteras, quibus hoc possit ostendi, ideo iam ostendisse putandus es —, de uestris autem maioribus extat Secundi Tigisitani concilium cum paucissimis quidem factum apud Cirtam post persecutionem codicum tradendorum, ut illic in locum defuncti ordinaretur episcopus. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - 1 Kgs 18:17: allusion, high confidence - 1 Kgs 18:18: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Kgs 18:17–18. Anticategoria is the rhetorical term for a counter-charge. The council of Cirta (ca. 305) met to ordain Silvanus bishop. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.29 (CSEL 52:434–435; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-29). ## Against Cresconius 3.30 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-30 - Source: CSEL 52:435–437 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes the acts of the council of Cirta (305), where several future Donatist bishops admitted handing over sacred books and Secundus left them to God's judgment. ### Latin text Ibi quae gesta sint accipe; nam quae necessaria fuerunt infra scribere curaui: Diocletiano VIII et Maximiano VII CSS IIII Non Mart Cirtae cum Secundus episcopus Tigisitanus primae cathedrae consedisset in domo Urbani Donati, idem dixit: probemus nos primo et sic poterimus hic ordinare episcopum. Secundus Donato Masculitano dixit: dicitur te tradidisse, Donatus respondit: scis quantum me quaesiuit Florus ut turificarem, et non me tradidit deus in manibus eius, frater; sed quia deus mihi dimisit, ergo et tu serua me deo. Secundus dixit: quid ergo facturi sumus de martyribus? quia non tradiderunt. ideo et coronati sunt. Donatus dixit: mitte me ad deum, ibi reddam rationem. Secundus dixit: accede una parte. Secundus Marino ab Aquis Tibilitanis dixit: dicitur et te tradidisse. Marinus respondit: dedi Polio cartulas, nam codices mei salui sunt. Secundus dixit: transi una parte. Secundus Donato Calamensi dixit: dicitur te tradidisse. Donatus respondit: dedi codices medicinales. Secundus dixit: transi una parte. et alio loco: Secundus Uictori a Russiccade dixit: dicitur te tradidisse quattuor euangelia. Uictor respondit: Ualentianus curator fuit; ipse me coegit ut mitterem illa in ignem. sciebam illa deleticia fuisse. hoc delictum mihi indulge. et indulget mihi et deus. Secundus dixit: transi una parte. et alio loco: Secundus Purpurio a Liniata dixit: dicitur te necasse filios sororis tuae duos Milei. Purpurius respondit: putas me terreri a te sicut et alteri? tu quid egisti. qui tentus es a curatore et ordine. ut scripturas dares? quomodo te liberasti ab ipsis, nisi quia dedisti aut iussisti dari quodcumque? nam non te dimittebant passim. nam ego occidi et occido eos qui contra me faciunt; ideo noli me prouocare ut plus dicam. scis me de nemine tractare. Secundus minor patruo suo Secundo dixit: audis quae dicat in te. paratus est recedere et schisma facere, non tantum ipse, sed et omnes quos arguis. quos scio quia dimittere te habent et dare in te sententiam et remanebis solus haereticus. ideo quid ad te pertinet quis quod egit? deo habet reddere rationem. Secundus Felici a Rotaria, (Nabor a) Centurionis, Uictori a Garbe dixit: quid uobis uidetur? responderunt: habent deum cui reddant rationem. Secundus dixit: uos scitis et deus: sedete. et omnes responderunt: deo gratias. ### English translation (Claude) 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.’” ### Translation notes - Date: 4 March 303 by the consuls named (the year is disputed; the council is usually placed in 305). The words in round brackets are the editor's supplement. “Worn out” renders deleticia (uncertain reading). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.30 (CSEL 52:435–437; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-30). ## Against Cresconius 3.31 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-31 - Source: CSEL 52:437–438 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that the same confessed traitors of Cirta sat in the council of Carthage that condemned Caecilian, which Paul's words in Romans 2 expose. ### Latin text Hos tu traditores, qui cum aliis apud Carthaginem in Caecilianum et socios eius dixerunt sententias, inter quos et Siluanus Cirtensis fuit, de cuius traditione gesta mox inseram, praeclara uidelicet ratione defendes. hoc enim de his tam pluribus utique dicturus es, quod de uno Siluano tamquam magnum aliquid dictandum putasti, hinc te arbitratus manifeste falsum crimen quod ei traditionis obicitur demonstrare, quia interposuisti sententiam eius, quam in concilio inter ceteros episcopos contra Caecilianum et alios communionis eius participes dixit, tamquam fieri non posset, ut traditores traditor condemnaret. prudentius enim tu uides ista quam Paulus apostolus. nam ille quibusdam res obiciebat absurdas nec considerabat non posse fieri quod dicebat: qui praedicas non furandum furaris, qui dicis non adulterandum adulteras, qui abominaris idola sacrilegium facis, et illud praecipue: in quo enim alterum iudicas, te ipsum condemnas; eadem enim agis qui iudicas. hos ergo traditores, quibus confessis territus Secundus ignouit, secum habuit in Carthaginiensi concilio, et in absentes non confessos dixerunt sententias, qui praesentes de sua non sunt confessione damnati. hoc concilium non maneret nec in posteritatis memoriam perduraret, nisi describeretur ab aliis, cum seruaretur ab eis. qui eo se defendere praeparabant, si quis eis eadem postea crimina, quae illic relaxata sunt, obiecisset. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - Rom 2:21: quotation, high confidence - Rom 2:22: quotation, high confidence - Rom 2:1: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 2:21–22; Rom 2:1. On Silvanus of Cirta see the Proceedings before Zenophilus. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.31 (CSEL 52:437–438; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-31). ## Against Cresconius 3.32 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-32 - Source: CSEL 52:438 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that the council of Carthage condemned Caecilian under pressure from the wealthy Lucilla, as was revealed in the trial before Zenophilus. ### Latin text Intererat etiam Secundi ipsius, ut appareret eum, ne schisma fieret, quod solent prae ceteris pacifici praecauere, illa omnia diuino iudicio dimisisse; quod multo magis facere deberet in concilio Carthaginiensi, ubi contra absentes nulla constiterant. nisi Lucilla tunc praepotens et pecuniosissima femina odiis accensa furialibus uehementer instaret, ut contra Caecilianum ueluti damnatum alter ordinaretur episcopus. quod in Zenophili consularis iudicio postea commemoratum est per quendam Nundinarium Siluani Cirtensis tunc uestri episcopi diaconum, qui cum memorato episcopo suo, quem perpessus fuerat inimicum, sicut uolebat, concordare non potuit. egerat sane hoc apud collegas eius magis terribiliter, ne omnia proderet, quam suppliciter, ut ueniam mereretur. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Extrabiblical texts - Act. whole (Proceedings before Zenophilus (Gesta apud Zenophilum)): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Lucilla, a wealthy Carthaginian woman at odds with Caecilian. The trial before Zenophilus, consular of Numidia, took place in 320. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.32 (CSEL 52:438; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-32). ## Against Cresconius 3.33 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-33 - Source: CSEL 52:438–441 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes the Proceedings before Zenophilus (320), which established that Silvanus of Cirta had handed over church property in 303 and that Lucilla's money bought Majorinus's election. ### Latin text Ex illius iudicii gestis haec pauca interposui: Constantino maximo Augusto et Constantino iuniore nobilissimo Caesare consulibus Idus Decembres Sexto Tamogadiensi inducto et adplicito Uictore grammatico, adstante etiam Nundinario diacono, Zenophilus consularis dixit: quis uocaris? respondit: Uictor. et paulo post alio loco: Nundinarius respondit: legantur acta. Zenophilus consularis dixit: legantur. et legit Nundinius exceptor: Diocletiano VIII et Maximiano VII conss. XIIII K1 IUN ex actis Munatii Felicis flaminis perpetui curatoris coloniae Cirtensis: cum uentum esset ad domum, in qua christiani conueniebant, Felix flamen perpetuus curator Paulo episcopo dixit: proferte scripturas legis et quidquid aliud hic habetis, ut et praecepto et iussioni parere possitis. Paulus episcopus dixit: scripturas lectores habent, sed nos quod hic habemus damus. Felix flamen perpetuus curator Paulo dixit: ostende lectores aut mitte ad illos. Paulus episcopus: omnes cognoscitis. Felix flamen perpetuus curator dixit: non eos nouimus. Paulus episcopus: nouit officium publicum, id est Edesius et Iunius exceptores. Felix flamen perpetuus curator dixit: manente ratione de lectoribus, quos monstrabit officium. et uos quod hic habetis date. sedente Paulo episcopo et Montano et Uictore de Castello Memor presbyteris, adstante Marte cum Aelio et Marte diacono, proferente Marcuclio Catulino et Siluano et Caroso subdiaconis et Ianuario Marcuclio Fructuoso Miggene Saturnino Uictore Samsurico et ceteris fossoribus. contrascribente Uictore Aufidii in breue sic: calices duo aurei, item calices sex argentei et cetera. et alio loco: posteaquam apertum est in bibliothecam, inuenta sunt ibi armaria inania. ibi protulit Siluanus capitulatam argenteam et lucernam argenteam, quod diceret se post arcam inuenisse. Uictor Aufidi Siluano dixit: mortuus fueras, si non illas inuenisses. Felix flamen perpetuus curator (rei) p. Siluano dixit: inquire diligentius, ne quid hic remanserit. Siluanus dixit: nihil hic remansit, totum hoc eiecimus et cetera. et alio loco: exemplum libelli traditi episcopis a Nundinario diacono: testis est Christus et angeli eius, quoniam traditoribus communicastis, id est Siluanus a Cirta traditor est et fur rerum pauperum, quod omnes uos episcopi et presbyteri et diacones et seniores scitis, et de quadringentis follibus Lucillae clarissimae feminae, pro quod uobis coniurastis, ut fieret Maiorinus episcopus, et inde factum est schisma. nam et Uictor fullo uestri praesentia et populi dedit folles uiginti, ut factus esset presbyter, quod scit Christus et angeli eius et cetera. et alio loco: quibus lectis Zenophilus consularis dixit: et actis et litteris quae recitatae sunt traditorem constat esse Siluanum. item alio loco: Zenophilus u. c. consularis dixit: quid amministrabat tunc Siluanus in clericatu? Uictor respondit: sub Paulo episcopo orta persecutione Siluanus subdiaconus fuit. ### English translation (Claude) 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.’” ### Extrabiblical texts - Act. whole (Proceedings before Zenophilus (Gesta apud Zenophilum)): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Proceedings before Zenophilus, 13 December 320, quoting the record of the search at Cirta, 19 May 303. A follis was a coin or a bag of coins. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.33 (CSEL 52:438–441; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-33). ## Against Cresconius 3.34 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-34 - Source: CSEL 52:441–442 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says Silvanus's sentence against Caecilian proves nothing, and that, as both sides' records conflict, Christians should at least agree on the certain gift of peace. ### Latin text Habesne, frater Cresconi, ad ista quod dicas? puto non usque adeo frontem perisse de rebus humanis, ut ad purgationem Siluani adhuc putes sententiam recitandam, quam dixit in Caecilianum et collegas eius quasi traditores, ne magis nos admoneas dicere ex epistula apostoli simile aliquid, ut paulo ante commemoraui, qui praedicas non tradendum tradis et: in quo alium iudicas. temet ipsum condemnas; eadem enim agis qui iudicas. sed postea, inquis, Ursatio et Zenophilo persequentibus cum communicare noluisset, actus est in exilium. immo qui iam traditor fuit permanere etiam haereticus uoluit, ut falsum honorem in ipsa parte Donati haberet, qui habere in catholica nullum posset, tam manifestis traditionis suae gestis publico iudicio reseratis. haec tu profecto falsa esse dicturus es et pro uestris maioribus, ut plurimum possis, contra nostros alia prolaturus. quod quidem forsitan non ualebis, non inueniendo quid proferas. sed fac te inuenisse, fac protulisse: tantane furis inpudentia, ut abs te prolatis magis contendas credi oportere quam eis, quae proferuntur a nobis? aut enim et hic et illic fuerunt traditores, si et tu aliqua recitas de confessione nostrorum, aut si aliquid putas contra uestros a nostris esse confictum, cur non et a uestris contra nostros hoc idem nobis putare conceditis? ergo pro humanis factis aut et hinc et inde manifestatis aut ex utroque latere incertis ne, qui in unum deum credimus, litigemus, quod certum et diuinum munus est, in Christi gratia concordemus. cum enim gesta maiorum nostrorum atque uestrorum hinc atque inde contraria recitantur nobis tanto post natis, si nec saltem dubitare permittitur, quid iniquius, si autem permittitur, quid sufficientius? neque enim sicut incertum est a quibus extiterit traditionis malum, sic incertum est a quo iubeatur reddi pacis bonum. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - Rom 2:21: allusion, high confidence - Rom 2:1: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 2:21 adapted (“hand over” for “steal”); Rom 2:1. Ursatius was a military commander in Africa under Constantine. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.34 (CSEL 52:441–442; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-34). ## Against Cresconius 3.35 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-35 - Source: CSEL 52:442–443 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine cites Cyprian's “we see” tares as proof that even known evil does not justify schism, much less unproven charges. ### Latin text Ac per hoc qui pro incerto alieno malo pacem Christi respuit, certissime malus est, quandoquidem Cyprianus nec pro certa permixtorum malitia zizaniorum pacem deseruit frumentorum, qui scribens ad Maximum dixit: etsi uidentur in ecclesia esse zizania, non tamen impediri debet fides aut caritas nostra, ut quoniam zizania esse in ecclesia cernimus ipsi de ecclesia recedamus. non dixit suspicamur opinamur arbitramur conicimus credimus, sed (cernimus) dixit. o uerbum, quo cuncta dubitatio tolleretur, ut corpus Christi non diuideretur! si sola frumenta desideras, geme in labore agri, gaude in spe horrei, tolera malos in communione sacramentorum Christi, ne ante litoris tempus retia disrumpendo fias, quod tolerare noluisti. ista dicerem. si de traditoribus quos accusatis aliquid probassetis; immo hoc uero tempore nec ista iam dicerem; non enim iubeor tolerare, cum quibus iam non cogor uiuere. quodsi mihi etiam nunc traditor demonstretur, qua conscientia desero tot Christianas gentes quibus non demonstratur? deinde ego ipse si nunc disco, quod paulo ante nesciebam, cur in me rescinditis quod sciebam? baptismum quippe Christi me accepisse sciebam; uos etiam ipsi alienum scelus docetis, quod ignoratum nemini obesse conceditis. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - Matt 13:30: allusion, high confidence - Matt 13:48: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Ep. 54.3 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Cyprian, Letter 54.3. Matt 13:30, 47–48. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.35 (CSEL 52:442–443; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-35). ## Against Cresconius 3.36 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-18/#p-3-36 - Source: CSEL 52:443–444 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that Christians who never knew of any traitors cannot be guilty by contact, so rebaptizing them judges hidden things and contradicts Deut 29:29. ### Latin text Cur ergo heri baptizatum hodie rebaptizatis, cum alienum scelus quod heri nesciebat hodie doceatis? nesciens a quali acceperit baptismi accepti non erat reus: modo abs te hoc didicit, baptismi rescissi quare fit reus? nam siue consenserit documentis tuis siue non consenserit, qui Christi baptismum ministerio traditoris accepit, nisi probaueris eum scisse a quo acceperit, nec secundum uos recte poteris baptizare. iam nunc auerte ab studio partium mentem tuam et considera, quam innumerabilis multitudo christianorum in Africa ipsa nesciat qui fuerint traditores; quanto magis in cetero orbe terrarum quantam multitudinem nisi, cum baptizaretur, scisse conuiceris, aut baptizandam dicere non audebis aut iudicare de occultis cordis audebis! et ubi est — quod tibi placet — quae abs te interposita est diuina sententia: quae manifesta sunt, uobis, quae autem occulta sunt, domino deo uestro? crede orbi christiano dicenti tibi: baptismum Christi scio, qui fuerint traditores in Africa uel ubilibet ignoro. quid in me occulta humana iudicas, ut manifesta in me diuina rescindas fac te scelus alienum modo mihi probare; quod dicis, hoc cum baptismum acceperam nesciebam. si propter eos, quos nunc mihi prodis, (baptizare me uis, debes etiam) baptizare eos, qui nescientes ab adulteris acceperunt quos modo prodideris. quid ad haec dicis nisi: non est sanctum, non est mundum nisi quod uoluero et quando uoluero? ### English translation (Claude) 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”? ### Scripture references - Deut 29:29: quotation, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Deut 29:29. The words in round brackets are the editor's supplements. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.36 (CSEL 52:443–444; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-36). ## Against Cresconius 3.37 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-37 - Source: CSEL 52:444–445 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers that both sides claim witnesses and records, so the doubtful past should not outweigh the certain peace of Christ. ### Latin text In hac re testis est, inquis, totius orbis paene conscientia. respondetur tibi: in hac re totius orbis nulla est omnino conscientia. hoc, inquis, maiores nostri a suis parentibus acceperunt. respondetur: sed errantes ab errantibus aut calumniantibus; nam et maiores Iudaeorum corpus Christi de sepulcro furatum a suis maioribus acceperunt. non olim defuncti sunt, inquis, qui traditionis huius facinus per quos et quibus locis admissum sit cognouerunt. respondetur: hoc et nostri pro suis partibus dicunt. extant, inquis, etiam libri, quibus ordo rerum gestarum fideliter ac diligenter adscriptus est; sunt acta, sunt litterae, multorum quoque tenetur manifesta confessio. respondetur tibi haec et nostris pro suis partibus non deesse. aut ergo illis credamus, qui potuerunt causam suam illis ecclesiis persuadere, quas scriptas in libris diuinis et canonicis legimus, aut, quod tu dixisti de Optato, nec absoluamus dubia nec damnemus et pacem Christi. cuius bonum dubium non est, fraterna dilectione teneamus. ### English translation (Claude) “In this matter,” you say, “the knowledge of almost the whole world is witness.” The answer to you is: in this matter the whole world has no knowledge at all. “Our forefathers,” you say, “received this from their parents.” The answer is: but erring men from erring men or from slanderers; for the forefathers of the Jews too received from their forefathers that the body of Christ was stolen from the tomb. “Those are not long dead,” you say, “who knew by whom and in what places this crime of handing over was committed.” The answer is: our people say this too for their side. “There exist also books,” you say, “in which the order of events is faithfully and carefully recorded; there are proceedings, there are letters; the plain confession of many is also held.” The answer to you is that these are not lacking to our people either for their side. Either, then, let us believe those who were able to persuade of their case those churches which we read of as written in the divine and canonical books; or, as you said of Optatus, let us neither acquit nor condemn doubtful things, and let us hold with brotherly love the peace of Christ, whose good is not doubtful. ### Scripture references - Matt 28:13: allusion, high confidence - Matt 28:15: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 28:13–15. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.37 (CSEL 52:444–445; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37). ## Against Cresconius 3.38 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-38 - Source: CSEL 52:445–446 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that the “council of Serdica” letter addressed to Donatus came from the Arian party opposed to Athanasius, and so proves nothing for the Donatists. ### Latin text Sed orientales, quos modo nostros esse concedis. non latuisse hoc facinus dicis atque, ut hoc probes. inseris principium epistulae concilii Serdicensis, ubi Donati Carthaginis episcopi uestri nomen inuenitur adscriptum. quod ideo factum putas et adfirmas, quod uidelicet orientalibus, qui de concilio suo haec scripta miserunt, facinus displicuerit traditorum et ab eorum se communione retraxerant et propterea Donato uestro communicabant. disce ergo quod nescis: Serdicense concilium Arrianorum fuit, quod notum iam diu est et habemus in manibus, contractum maxime contra Athanasium episcopum Alexandrinum catholicum, qui eorum errorem ex ipsa ciuitate ortum prae ceteris acriter arguebat et refellebat. non igitur mirum. si illi haeretici Donatum sibi ut suum assciscere temptauerunt. quos per totum orbem catholica damnabat ecclesia; quamquam nos sine ciuitatum nominibus episcopos ad quos hae litterae datae sunt habeamus. aut ergo aliquis Donatus fuit non in Africa episcopus, cui nomini Carthago a uestris est addita, aut, ut dixi, Africanam haeresim orientalis haeresis sibi temptauit adiungere. quod hinc maxime credibile est, quod ad Carthaginis episcopum Romano praetermisso numquam orientalis catholica scriberet. ubi saltem uester scribi debuit, quem soletis Romam paucis uestris mittere ex Africa. sed deo gratias, quod nec ualuit, si tamen coepta est, illa conspiratio haereticorum orientalium cum Afris haereticis praeualere. tu Arrianos iam inter haereticos et nobis et uobis detestandos in tua epistula posuisti. unde mihi tecum necessitas nulla est etiam de hac quaestione confligere. nam quod tibi proposuisti quaestionem tamquam a nobis obiectam: si haec ita sunt, a communione uestrorum quemadmodum orientales postea disgregati sunt?, et respondisti, quod in recipiendis iterum nostris damnatae causae non potuerint seruare constantiam, numquid mirandum est de tam longinquis terris episcopos tuos inpune tibi narrare quod uolunt? quodsi omnino ita esset, tot populi quid fecerunt, qui cum ista nescirent tamen a nobis rebaptizandi censentur? an non est credibile, quod et haec populi ignorare potuerint, cum tu harum rerum aliquantum studiosior, quid cum Maximianensibus egerint uestri Afri in Africa, nisi litteris meis uelles respondere. non quaereres? ### English translation (Claude) But the Easterners, whom you now grant are ours, you say did not fail to know of this crime; and to prove it you insert the opening of a letter of the council of Serdica, where the name of Donatus, your bishop of Carthage, is found written. You think and affirm that this was done because the Easterners who sent this writing from their council were displeased by the crime of the traitors, had withdrawn from their communion, and therefore communicated with your Donatus. Learn, then, what you do not know: the council of Serdica was a council of Arians, as has long been known and as we have in our hands, gathered chiefly against Athanasius, the Catholic bishop of Alexandria, who above others sharply refuted and confuted their error, which arose in that very city. It is no wonder, then, if those heretics, whom the Catholic church was condemning throughout the world, tried to take Donatus to themselves as one of their own; although we have the bishops to whom this letter was addressed without the names of their cities. Either, then, there was some Donatus who was a bishop not in Africa, to whose name “Carthage” was added by your people, or, as I said, the Eastern heresy tried to join the African heresy to itself. This is most credible from the fact that the Eastern Catholic church would never write to the bishop of Carthage while passing over the bishop of Rome; where at least your bishop ought to have been written to, whom you are accustomed to send to Rome from Africa for a few of your people. But thanks be to God that this conspiracy of the Eastern heretics with the African heretics, if indeed it was begun, could not prevail. You yourself have placed the Arians in your letter among heretics to be detested by both us and you; hence I have no need to contend with you on this question as well. For as to the question you put to yourself as though raised by us, “If this is so, how were the Easterners afterwards separated from the communion of your people?”, and you answered that in receiving our people again they could not keep firm in a condemned case: is it surprising that your bishops tell you with impunity what they like about such distant lands? But if it were altogether so, what have so many peoples done, who, though they did not know these things, are nevertheless judged by you to need rebaptism? Or is it not credible that peoples could be ignorant of these things too, when you, somewhat more interested in such matters, would not have inquired what your Africans did in Africa with the Maximianensians, had you not wished to answer my letter? ### Translation notes - The Eastern (Arian) bishops who withdrew from Serdica (343) met at Philippopolis and wrote an encyclical that included Donatus of Carthage among its addressees. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.38 (CSEL 52:445–446; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-38). ## Against Cresconius 3.39 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-39 - Source: CSEL 52:446–447 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says that even proven traitors among past Catholics would not stain him, since he holds the apostolic church of wheat and chaff, fleeing the chaff but not the threshing floor. ### Latin text Illud uero, quod dixi: neque si aliquorum in nostra communione defunctorum traditio probaretur, quae a nobis inprobatur et displicet, nos aliqua ex parte macularet, quam ridicule putasti ridiculum et minus conueniens prudentiae meae! proinde iam cupio nosse. quomodo id refellerit prudentia tua; an quia dicis te non uidere. quomodo a nobis inprobetur uel quatenus displiceat, quod numquam cognito errore damnauimus in eorum schismate positi? uide potius, quam breuiter ad ista respondeam. ego in ecclesia sum, cuius membra sunt illae omnes ecclesiae, quas ex laboribus apostolorum natas atque firmatas simul in litteris canonicis nouimus. earum communionem, quantum me adiuuat dominus, siue in Africa siue ubicumque non deseram. in hac communione si fuerunt quos nescio traditores, cum eos demonstraueris, et carne et corde mortuos detestabor, nequaquam tamen a uiuis in eiusdem ecclesiae sancta unitate manentibus propter mortuos alienabor. neque enim ipsi hanc ecclesiam condiderunt, sed in ea si boni frumentum, si autem mali palea fuerunt. uos autem quos tam manifestae ecclesiae zizania uel palea maculare non posset, quae causa fuit uestrae diuisionis nisi adpetitus sacrilegi schismatis? si tibi, inquis, displicet, inproba, fuge et relinque ecclesiam traditorum, noli errantium maiorum tuorum sequi uestigia. ad hoc respondeo: si nec illi fuerunt traditores, maiores mei sunt; si fuerunt quod ego non sum, non sunt maiores mei. ecclesiam teneo plenam tritico et palea. non dico si alios, qui suam sarcinam portant, sed si me ipsum in ea mihi ostenderes traditorem, ubi mihi licet in melius commutari, non mihi opus est inde separari. si quos tales in sacramentorum eius communione cognouero, uerbo et disciplina domini emendo quos possum, tolero quos emendare non possum. fugio paleam, ne hoc sim, non aream, ne nihil sim. ### English translation (Claude) As for what I said, “Nor, if the handing over by some who died in our communion were proved, which we reject and disapprove, would it stain us in any part,” how ridiculously you thought this ridiculous and ill befitting my prudence! I therefore now wish to know how your prudence refuted it. Is it because you say you do not see how we reject it or how far we disapprove of what we have never condemned, the error having been recognized, while placed in their schism? See rather how briefly I answer this. I am in the church whose members are all those churches which we know from the canonical writings to have been born and established by the labors of the apostles. Their communion, as far as the Lord helps me, I will not desert, whether in Africa or anywhere. If there were in this communion traitors whom I do not know, when you show them to me I shall abhor them as dead in flesh and heart, yet I shall by no means be estranged, on account of the dead, from the living who remain in the holy unity of the same church. For they did not found this church; but in it they were wheat if good, chaff if bad. But you, whom the tares or chaff of so manifest a church could not stain, what cause was there for your division except the desire for sacrilegious schism? “If it displeases you,” you say, “reject it, flee and leave the church of the traitors; do not follow in the footsteps of your erring forefathers.” To this I answer: if they were not traitors, they are my forefathers; if they were what I am not, they are not my forefathers. I hold the church full of wheat and chaff. If you showed me, I do not say others, who carry their own burden, but myself as a traitor in it, where I may be changed for the better, I have no need to be separated from it. If I come to know such people in the communion of its sacraments, I correct whom I can by the word and discipline of the Lord, and tolerate whom I cannot correct. I flee the chaff, lest I be chaff; not the threshing floor, lest I be nothing. ### Scripture references - Gal 6:5: allusion, high confidence - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Gal 6:5; Matt 3:12. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.39 (CSEL 52:446–447; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-39). ## Against Cresconius 3.40 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-40 - Source: CSEL 52:447–448 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains 1 Tim 5:22: one keeps oneself pure without leaving the sacraments shared with sinners, as Cyprian did with greedy colleagues. ### Latin text Proinde noli frustra in hac sententia uentilari. magis enim me ammonet, quomodo id agam, praeceptum apostolicum quod ipse posuisti: ne communices peccatis alienis; te ipsum castum serua. nam ut ostenderet, quemadmodum quisque non communicaret peccatis alienis, ad hoc addidit: te ipsum castum serua. non enim, qui se castum seruat, communicat peccatis alienis, quamuis non eorum peccata, sed illa quae ad iudicium sibi sumunt dei sacramenta communicet cum eis, a quibus se castum seruando fecit alienum. alioquin etiam Cyprianus, quod absit, peccatis raptorum et faeneratorum collegarum communicabat, cum quibus tamen in communione diuinorum sacramentorum manebat, de quibus dicit: episcopi plurimi, quos et hortamento esse oportebat ceteris et exemplo, diuina procuratione neglecta procuratores rerum saecularium fieri, derelicta cathedra, plebe deserta per alienas prouincias oberrantes negotiationis quaestuosae nundinas aucupari. esurientibus in ecclesia fratribus habere argentum largiter uelle, fundos insidiosis fraudibus rapere, usuris multiplicantibus faenus augere. numquid talium communicabat ille peccatis, numquid eorum sectam sequebatur? et tamen cum eis in eorundem sacramentorum communione sistebat, quia illa sacramenta non ipsi instituerant (qui ea non ad salutem habebant) moribus sanctis, sed ad poenam sibi ualere faciebant moribus malis. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, do not toss about in vain over this statement. For the apostolic precept which you yourself set down instructs me rather how to do this: “Do not share in others' sins; keep yourself pure.” For to show how anyone should not share in others' sins, he added this: “Keep yourself pure.” For one who keeps himself pure does not share in others' sins, even though he shares, not their sins, but those sacraments of God which they take to their judgment, with those from whom, by keeping himself pure, he has made himself a stranger. Otherwise even Cyprian (God forbid!) shared in the sins of his rapacious and usurious colleagues, with whom he nevertheless remained in the communion of the divine sacraments; of whom he says: “Very many bishops, who ought to be an encouragement and example to others, neglecting their divine stewardship, became stewards of worldly affairs, leaving their see, deserting their people, wandering through other provinces to hunt the markets of profitable trade; while brothers were hungry in the church, they wished to have money in abundance, to seize estates by treacherous frauds, to increase their gain by multiplying usury.” Did he share in the sins of such men? Did he follow their sect? And yet he stood with them in the communion of the same sacraments, because they had not instituted those sacraments; not having them for salvation by holy morals, they made them avail for their own punishment by evil morals. ### Scripture references - 1 Tim 5:22: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Laps. 6 (On the Lapsed): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Tim 5:22; Cyprian, On the Lapsed 6. The editor's round brackets mark his supplement. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.40 (CSEL 52:447–448; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-40). ## Against Cresconius 3.41 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-41 - Source: CSEL 52:448–449 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine rejects the claim that a traitor “created” Catholics: Christ, not any minister, is the origin and head of the baptized. ### Latin text Quid est autem quod dicis, quod ex persona mea tibi proposuisses, quod numquam ego diuinum tradiderim testamentum? adiungis enim: sed ille qui tradidit te creauit, deinde contexis quae tibi bene sonare uidebantur: (a) fonte deducitur riuus et caput membra sequuntur. sano capite. omne sanum est corpus, et si quid in hoc morbi uel uitii est, omnia membra debilitat. originem suam respicit quidquid in stirpe procrescit et post haec quasi in extremo concludis: non potest innocens esse qui sectam non sequitur innocentis, in his omnibus uerbis tuis creatorem meum, caput meum non fecisti nisi traditorem, quem quidem accusare tantum, non conuincere potuisti. ego autem nec eius innocentiam mihi creatricem uel fontem caputue constituo. sed tu ad illud redis in quo Petilianus errauit, ne, cum quisque nascitur in sanctificatione baptismatis, Christus sit origo caputque nascentis, et non me uenire in maledictum de quo scriptum est: maledictus omnis qui spem suam ponit in homine, cum te aliunde non inuoluas nec, cum resilueris, in aliud recidas. ### English translation (Claude) What do you mean when you say that you put to yourself, as from my person, that I never handed over the divine Testament? For you add: “But he who handed it over created you.” Then you weave together what seemed to you to sound well: “The stream is drawn from the source, and the members follow the head. When the head is sound, the whole body is sound; and if there is any disease or fault in it, it weakens all the members. Whatever grows in a stock looks back to its origin.” And after this, as in a final conclusion: “One cannot be innocent who does not follow the sect of an innocent man.” In all these words of yours you have made my creator, my head, nothing but a traitor, whom you could only accuse, not convict. But I do not make even his innocence my creator or source or head. But you return to that point where Petilian erred, so that, when anyone is born in the sanctification of baptism, Christ is not the origin and head of the one born; and so that I may not fall under the curse of which it is written, “Cursed is everyone who puts his hope in man,” since you do not entangle yourself from any other quarter, nor, when you have sprung back, do you fall into anything else. ### Scripture references - Jer 17:5: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jer 17:5. The words in round brackets are the editor's supplement. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.41 (CSEL 52:448–449; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-41). ## Against Cresconius 3.42 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-42 - Source: CSEL 52:449–450 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers that Ezek 20:18 forbade imitating the fathers' sins, not separating from God's people, as the prophets themselves never did. ### Latin text Sed et testimonio me admones de scripturis, quid tibi adhuc ad ista respondeam. dicis enim propter hoc scriptum esse: in legalibus patrum uestrorum ne ambulaueritis nec aduertis dictum esse Iudaeis, ut mala facta patrum suorum non imitarentur, non ut ab illo dei populo scinderentur. si ergo licuit regi Dauid Samuheli Esaiae Hieremiae Zachariae ceterisque sanctis et prophetis dei inter contemptores legis dei mandata seruare atque in illos ipsos mandati transgressores multa digna et uera uerba iaculari, patrum quoque illa peccata, quibus sub Moyse ita offenderunt deum, ut nemo eorum dignus esset terram promissionis intrare, non imitari, non sectari, sed detestari ac fugere et illis, qui ea committerent, similitudinem talium patrum increpare nec tamen sibi alterum populum quasi purgatum et liquatum separatione sacrilega constituere, quomodo nobis non liceat nec facta nescio quorum, quae magis obicitis quam probatis, imitari nec tamen ab ea, quae in uniuerso mundo, sicut apostolus dicit, fructificat et crescit, sancta ecclesia separari? numquid aliqua sacramenta instituerunt traditores in quibus baptizarer, numquid aliquos libros de facienda uel imitanda traditione posteris condiderunt et eorum tenemus sequimurque doctrinam? quod si fecissent nec sibi communicare paterentur nisi eos, qui illa legerent adprobarent, ipsi ab ecclesiae se unitate diuiderent; in quorum diuisione me si uideres, tunc me dicere deberes esse in ecclesia traditorum. quodsi sua pessima de facienda traditione praecepta conscriberent nec tamen extra ecclesiam sua propria congregatione atque communione colligerentur, zizania propterea conputarentur, quorum causa frumenta non recte desererentur. ### English translation (Claude) But you also admonish me with a testimony from the Scriptures, what further I should answer you on this. For you say that it was written for this reason: “Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers”; and you do not notice that it was said to the Jews that they should not imitate the evil deeds of their fathers, not that they should cut themselves off from that people of God. If, then, King David, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and the other saints and prophets of God were permitted, among despisers of the law, to keep God's commandments and to hurl many fitting and true words against those very transgressors of the commandment; not to imitate nor follow, but to detest and flee those sins of the fathers by which, under Moses, they so offended God that none of them was worthy to enter the land of promise, and to rebuke those who committed them for their likeness to such fathers; and yet not to set up for themselves another people as if purged and refined by a sacrilegious separation: how is it not permitted to us neither to imitate the deeds of I know not whom, which you rather charge than prove, nor yet to be separated from that holy church which, as the apostle says, bears fruit and grows in the whole world? Did the traitors institute any sacraments in which I was baptized? Did they compose any books for posterity about committing or imitating the handing over, and do we hold and follow their teaching? If they had done this, and allowed none to communicate with them except those who approved what they read, they themselves would divide themselves from the unity of the church; and if you saw me in their division, then you ought to say that I was in the church of the traitors. But if they wrote their most wicked precepts about committing handing over, and yet were not gathered outside the church in their own congregation and communion, they would be counted tares on that account, because of which the wheat would not rightly be deserted. ### Scripture references - Ezek 20:18: quotation, high confidence - Num 14:23: allusion, high confidence - Col 1:6: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Ezek 20:18; Num 14:22–23; Col 1:6. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.42 (CSEL 52:449–450; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-42). ## Against Cresconius 3.43 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-43 - Source: CSEL 52:450–451 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine replies that sins corrected in life are blotted out, so the Donatists cannot impute long-dead men's sins to those who never knew of them. ### Latin text Ecce dico iterum, quae me ulterius uetas dicere: arguis apud me eos, quos iam olim defunctos mea cognitio non iudicauit. dicis tu contra: licet tibi et hodie iudicare, et iudicium non tantum de uiuis, sed etiam de mortuis haberi potest. licet enim sit mortuus qui peccauit numquam illud moritur quod admisit. quid, si cum uiueret se correxit deumque placauit, nonne mortuum et deletum est quod admisit, sicut Felicianus et Praetextatus Maximiani ordinatores data, sicut dicis, dilatione se (a) tanto scelere correxerunt? mirum est autem, si propria peccata non obsunt hominibus, qui ea facta correxerint, et aliis obsunt, qui ea omnino non fecerint; quodsi de nobis agitur, adde (qui nec facta cognouerint. sed dicis licere mihi etiam hodie iudicare, quia iudicium non tantum de uiuis, sed etiam de mortuis fieri potest. ecce uolo iudicare, sed uos causam ipsam non uultis agere, immo uero tunc actam, tunc etiam sine dubio terminatam nobis demonstrantibus non uultis agnoscere. sed faciamus uos potius habere quos docere possitis. quos nondum docuistis quare iam rebaptizandos esse contenditis, quandoquidem traditoribus quos ignorauerant baptizatos nec cum docueritis baptizare debeatis, sicut eos, qui nescientes ab adulteris baptizati sunt, et illis proditis atque conuictis non baptizatis? ### English translation (Claude) See, I say again what you forbid me to say further: you accuse before me men long since dead, whom my cognizance did not judge. You say in reply: “You may judge even today, and judgment can be held not only about the living but also about the dead. For though he who sinned is dead, what he committed never dies.” What if, while he lived, he corrected himself and appeased God: is not what he committed dead and blotted out, just as Felicianus and Praetextatus, Maximian's ordainers, corrected themselves from so great a crime when, as you say, an extension was granted? But it is strange if one's own sins do not harm men who have corrected the deeds, and harm others who did not commit them at all; and, if we are concerned, add: who did not even know of the deeds. But you say I may judge even today, because judgment can be held not only about the living but also about the dead. See, I am willing to judge, but you will not plead the case itself; rather, you will not recognize it as pleaded then and also then without doubt concluded, though we show it to you. But let us rather suppose you have people you can teach. Why do you already contend that those whom you have not yet taught must be rebaptized, since you ought not to baptize those who were baptized by traitors of whom they were ignorant, even when you have taught them; just as you do not baptize those who were unknowingly baptized by adulterers, even when these have been exposed and convicted? ### Translation notes - The words in round brackets are the editor's supplements. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.43 (CSEL 52:450–451; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-43). ## Against Cresconius 3.44 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-44 - Source: CSEL 52:451–452 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine compares Caecilian, acquitted at Rome after condemnation in absence, with the Donatists' own Primian, and says Catholics may at least doubt the charges. ### Latin text Hic forte dicas: sed de Caeciliano iam, iudicatum est. respondetur tibi: iam iudicatum erat et de Primiano a centum episcopis uestris, quibus eum iniquissimum Maximianus persuaserat, antequam Bagaiense concilium faceretis. sed in primo iudicio damnatus est absens, in secundo absolutus est praesens. si post primum quos baptizauit rebaptizari non possunt, quanto potius post secundum! ita et Caecilianus primo apud Carthaginem iudicio Secundi Tigisitani damnatus est absens, secundo iudicio Miltiadis Romani absolutus est praesens. adhuc nos de illo certos esse non uultis: saltem dubitare permittite. uincit enim uos non solum qui Caecilianum. scit innocentem, uerum etiam qui nescit nocentem. uos. autem utrosque rebaptizandos esse censetis, et qui dicunt (nouimus) et qui dicunt (non nouimus qualis fuerit Caecilianus). non sunt baptizandi quos baptizauit Primianus post primum iudicium quo damnatus est absens, et baptizandi sunt quos baptizauit Caecilianus post secundum iudicium quo absolutus est praesens. illum damnatum damnare non licuit, de isto absoluto saltem liceat dubitare. cuius crimina etiamsi certa nobis essent, in ecclesia constitutos, quam spiritus sanctus uelut aream cum palea praenuntiauit, nequaquam nos aliena peccata non imitata macularent. et tamen etiamsi nobis incerta esse dicuntur, non solum rei constituimur, uerum etiam rebaptizandi iudicamur. itane agitis, sicine cuncta peruertitis, tantumne re uera nobis licere arbitramini, ut quod uultis sit sanctum, quod uultis inmundum? cohibete uos, non proficiatis in malis, ne pereatis a bonis. ### English translation (Claude) Here perhaps you may say: “But the matter of Caecilian has already been judged.” The answer to you is: the matter of Primian too had already been judged by a hundred of your bishops, whom Maximian had persuaded that he was most wicked, before you held the council of Bagai. But in the first judgment he was condemned in his absence, in the second acquitted in his presence. If those whom he baptized after the first cannot be rebaptized, how much more after the second! So too Caecilian was first condemned in his absence at Carthage by the judgment of Secundus of Tigisi, and in a second judgment, that of Miltiades of Rome, acquitted in his presence. You still will not have us certain about him; at least allow us to doubt. For not only he who knows Caecilian was innocent defeats you, but also he who does not know he was guilty. But you judge that both must be rebaptized, both those who say, “We know,” and those who say, “We do not know what kind of man Caecilian was.” Those whom Primian baptized after the first judgment, in which he was condemned in his absence, are not to be baptized; and those whom Caecilian baptized after the second judgment, in which he was acquitted in his presence, are to be baptized! It was not lawful to condemn him when condemned; let it at least be lawful to doubt about this one when acquitted. Even if his crimes were certain to us, placed as we are in the church which the Holy Spirit foretold as a threshing floor with chaff, others' sins, not imitated, would in no way stain us. And yet, even when they are said to be uncertain to us, we are not only made guilty but even judged to need rebaptism. Is this how you act? Do you so pervert everything? Do you really think so much is permitted to you, that what you will is holy and what you will is unclean? Restrain yourselves; do not advance in evil, lest you perish from the good. ### Scripture references - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The Roman council under Miltiades (313) acquitted Caecilian. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.44 (CSEL 52:451–452; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-44). ## Against Cresconius 3.45 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-45 - Source: CSEL 52:452 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine clarifies that he meant not that persecution should be done for unity, but that the good tolerate wrongdoers in their communion for unity's sake, as Cyprian taught. ### Latin text Iam illud, quod dixi: quodsi de persecutionibus agis, cito respondeo, si aliquid inique passi estis, non pertinere ad eos qui talia quamuis inprobe facientes pro pace tamen unitatis laudabiliter tolerant, quam fallaciter refellere uoluisti, prorsus non cogitans litteras tuas sani capitis habituras esse lectorem! ita enim respondes, quasi ego dixerim persecutionem uobis pro pace unitatis fieri debere. quod illo quidem loco non dixi, sed dixi: si aliquid inique passi estis, non pertinere ad eos, a quibus laudabiliter pro unitatis pace tolerantur, qui talia in uos quamuis inprobe faciunt. quod cum apertissime dictum sit, saltem expositum attendant quos fallere uoluisti; neque enim te quod tam apertum est non intellexisse arbitror, sed breuitate sententiae meae facile putasti posse in caliginem mitti, ubi, quodlibet aliud diceres, ei respondisse uidereris. cur autem dixerim malos communionis nostrae, hoc est areae dominicae paleam, cum in uos inique agunt, a bonis nostris laudabiliter pro pace tolerari, quid opus est ut ipse ostendam, ipse defendam, cum pro me beatus Cyprianus apertissime et candidissime dicat, etiam cum cernuntur in ecclesia mali, non propter eos ecclesiam deserendam, hoc est quod dixi eos pro unitatis pace tolerandos? neque enim uos amplius quam nos persequuntur, qui uos inique persequentes dant uobis ad decipiendos imperitos licet falsam similitudinem gloriae, uobis autem uulnus grande tristitiae. ### English translation (Claude) Next, as to what I said, “But if you speak of persecutions, I answer quickly: if you have suffered anything unjustly, it does not concern those who, though they disapprove of men doing such things, yet praiseworthily tolerate them for the peace of unity,” how deceitfully you wished to refute it, not reflecting at all that your letter would have a reader of sound mind! For you answer as if I had said that persecution ought to be carried out against you for the peace of unity. I did not say this in that place, but I said: “if you have suffered anything unjustly, it does not concern those by whom the men who do such things to you, however wrongly, are praiseworthily tolerated for the peace of unity.” Since this was said most plainly, let those whom you wished to deceive at least attend to it when set out. For I do not think you failed to understand what is so plain, but you thought that by the brevity of my statement it could easily be cast into darkness, where, whatever else you said, you would seem to have answered it. And why I said that the wicked of our communion, that is, the chaff of the Lord's threshing floor, when they act unjustly against you, are praiseworthily tolerated by our good people for the sake of peace, what need is there for me to show or defend, when blessed Cyprian says for me most plainly and candidly that, even when the wicked are seen in the church, the church is not to be deserted on their account, which is what I said: that they are to be tolerated for the peace of unity? For those who persecute you unjustly do not persecute you more than us; they give you, for deceiving the unskilled, a likeness of glory, though false, but to us a great wound of sorrow. ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Ep. 54.3 (Letters): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation from Against the Letters of Petilian. Cyprian, Letter 54.3. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.45 (CSEL 52:452; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-45). ## Against Cresconius 3.46 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-46 - Source: CSEL 52:452–453 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine contrasts Donatist claims of martyrdom with the violence of their clergy and Circumcellions against Catholic clergy, including blinding with lime and vinegar. ### Latin text Deinde commemorans etiam nescio quos mortuos, quos a nostris dicis occisos, tamquam in campo facundiae tuae positus latissime exaggeras locum, in quo uobis uidemini similes martyrum, cum cotidie uestrorum incredibilia patiamur facta clericorum et circumcellionum multo peiora quam quorumlibet latronum atque praedonum. namque horrendis armati cuiusque generis telis terribiliter uagando non dico ecclesiasticam, sed ipsam humanam quietem pacemque perturbant, nocturnis adgressionibus clericorum catholicorum inuasas domos nudas atque inanes relinquunt, ipsos etiam raptos et fustibus tunsos ferroque concisos semiuiuos abiciunt. insuper nouo et antehac inaudito sceleris genere oculis eorum calcem aceto permixto infundentes et infercientes, quos euellere conpendio poterant, excruciare amplius eligunt quam citius excaecare. nam primo tantum calce ad hoc facinus utebantur, sed posteaquam illos, quibus hoc fecerant, cito salutem reparasse didicerunt, acetum addiderunt. ### English translation (Claude) Then, mentioning I know not what dead men whom you say were killed by our people, you expand the theme at great length, as if placed in the field of your eloquence, in which you seem to yourselves like martyrs; while we daily suffer the incredible deeds of your clergy and Circumcellions, far worse than those of any robbers and bandits. For, armed with dreadful weapons of every kind, roaming about terrifyingly, they disturb not only the quiet and peace of the church but of human life itself. By night attacks they leave the houses of Catholic clergy they have invaded bare and empty; the clergy themselves they seize, beat with clubs, cut with swords, and throw away half alive. Moreover, by a new and hitherto unheard-of kind of crime, pouring and stuffing into their eyes lime mixed with vinegar, they choose to torture at length the eyes they could have torn out at once, rather than to blind them quickly. For at first they used only lime for this crime, but after they learned that those to whom they had done it quickly recovered, they added vinegar. ### Translation notes - The Circumcellions were bands of rural militants associated with the Donatists. The editor's text “uidemisi” is read as uidemini (“you seem”). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.46 (CSEL 52:452–453; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-46). ## Against Cresconius 3.47 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-47 - Source: CSEL 52:453–455 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine recounts Donatist attacks on the Catholic bishops Servus of Thubursicu and Maximianus of Bagai, which led to the imperial laws against the Donatists. ### Latin text Omitto ante quanta commiserint, quibus easdem leges. aduersus errorem uestrum constitui coegerunt, magis christiana mansuetudine temperatas quam in tam magna scelera ui congrui uigoris exertas. episcopus catholicus a Thubursicubure Seruus nomine cum inuasum a uestris locum repeteret et utriusque partis procuratores proconsulare praestolarentur examen, repente sibi in oppido memorato uestris armatis inruentibus uix uiuus aufugit. a quibus pater eius presbyter aetate ac moribus grauis ea caede, qua uehementer adflictus est, post dies paucos excessit e uita. Maximianus episcopus catholicus Bagaiensis dicta inter partes iudiciaria sententia basilicam fundi Caluianensis euicerat, quam uestri inlicite aliquando usurpauerant. hanc cum iure perspicuo retineret, in ea ipsa sub altari quo confugerat, eodem supra se fracto eiusque lignis aliisque fustibus, ferro etiam crudeliter caesus totum illum locum: sanguine obpleuit. acceperat autem et grande uulnus in inguine, unde cruore largius effluente continuo moreretur. nisi maior eorum crudelitas per occultam dei misericordiam profuisset. nam cum membris ex ea parte nudatis semiuiuus insuper pronusque traheretur. exundantes uenas latenter puluis obstrusit. inde nostrorum manibus cum ferretur; rursus illis inruentibus uiolenter extortus est grauiusque mulcatus et de excelsa turri noctu praecipitatus subter cinere stercoris molliter iacebat exceptus, sensu amisso uix extremum spiritum tenens. ibi eum transiens quidam pauper inuenit. cum uentris exonerandi causa ad eum deuertisset locum. agnouit autem, cum pauidus suam coniugem adcerseret. quam procul uerecundia dimouerat, lucernam ferentem. tunc eum ambo peruexerunt domum uel miserando uel aliquid etiam lucelli sperando, cum siue uiuus seu mortuus, collectus tamen nostris ostenderetur. quid plura? mirabili curatione sanatus est, uiuit, plures in eius corpore cicatrices quam membra numerantur. hunc ad transmarinas terras occisum a uestris fama nuntiauerat et eius facinoris inmanitas grauisque indignatus, quaquauersum audiri potuit, dolore horrendo cuncta commouerat. quo posteaquam ipse secutus est, recentissimae cicatrices eius famae illud mendacium defenderunt; nam quem tunc inspicientes uix crederent uiuum, non temere illa iactasse uidebatur occisum. hic cum illic inuenisset collegam Thubursicensem, quem paulo ante commemoraui, et alios nonnullos similia uel non multo inferiora perpessos, nec eis ad propria reuertendi ulla facultas patere uideretur, et quia circumcellionum uestrorum nobilis furor horrendum praebens uestris clericis satellitium usque quaque odiosissime innotuit, ingens in uos conflagrauit inuidia atque inde factum est, ut et praeteritae omnes contra uos leges excitarentur et istae conderentur nouae. quarum tamen uniuersarum seueritas si uestrorum inordinatae ac sine ulla lege grassanti saeuitiae comparetur, mira lenitas appellanda est. his enim magis tanta potestate accepta mansuetudo catholica commendatur quam haeretica inmanitas plectitur, immo uero in nos caedes rapinas incendia caecitates excogitando minando exercendo audacius et insanius debacchatur. ### English translation (Claude) I pass over how much they committed earlier, by which they compelled those same laws to be enacted against your error, laws tempered rather by Christian gentleness than put forth with the force of a vigor fitting such great crimes. A Catholic bishop of Thubursicubure, named Servus, when he was reclaiming a place invaded by your people and the agents of both parties were awaiting the proconsul's hearing, barely escaped alive when your armed men suddenly rushed upon him in that town. By them his father, a presbyter venerable in age and character, died a few days later from the beating with which he was severely afflicted. Maximianus, the Catholic bishop of Bagai, when judicial sentence had been pronounced between the parties, had won the basilica of the Calvianensian estate, which your people had once unlawfully seized. While he held it by plain right, in that very basilica, under the altar where he had taken refuge, the altar being broken over him, he was cruelly beaten with its timbers and other clubs and even with steel, and filled that whole place with blood. He had also received a great wound in the groin, from which, as the blood flowed abundantly, he would have died at once, had not their greater cruelty, through the hidden mercy of God, done him good. For as he was dragged half alive and face down, with his limbs bared on that side, dust secretly stopped the overflowing veins. Then, when he was being carried away by our people's hands, they rushed in again, violently snatched him away, beat him more severely, and threw him by night from a high tower; he lay below, softly received on a heap of ash and dung, his senses lost, barely holding his last breath. There a poor man passing by found him, having turned aside to that place to relieve himself. He recognized him when, frightened, he called his wife, whom modesty had kept at a distance, and she brought a lamp. Then the two of them carried him home, either from pity or also hoping for some small reward, since, whether alive or dead, he would at least be shown to our people as recovered. What more? He was healed by a wonderful cure; he lives; more scars are counted on his body than limbs. Report had announced him overseas as killed by your people, and the monstrousness of that crime and grave indignation, wherever it could be heard, had stirred everything with dreadful grief. After he himself followed there, his very fresh scars defended that lie of report; for one whom those who then looked at him could scarcely believe alive did not seem to have been rashly proclaimed dead. When he found there the colleague from Thubursicu whom I mentioned a little before, and several others who had suffered similar things or not much less, and no means of returning to their own places seemed open to them; and since the notorious fury of your Circumcellions, providing a dreadful bodyguard for your clergy, had become known everywhere most odiously, a great ill will blazed up against you; and from this it came about that all the former laws against you were revived and these new ones enacted. Yet the severity of them all, if compared with the disorderly savagery of your people, raging without any law, must be called a wonderful mildness. For by them, having received such power, Catholic gentleness is commended rather than heretical monstrousness punished; indeed, it rages against us more boldly and madly, devising, threatening, and carrying out murders, robberies, burnings, blindings. ### Translation notes - The attack on Maximianus of Bagai (ca. 403–404) led to the Edict of Unity (405). The phrase “grauisque indignatus” appears corrupt and is translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.47 (CSEL 52:453–455; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-47). ## Against Cresconius 3.48 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-48 - Source: CSEL 52:455 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the imperial laws are against the Donatists' error and for their good, and that their earlier violence would take too long to recount. ### Latin text Haec enim ego commemorare uolui, per quae factum est, ut his nostris temporibus aduersus uos ista imperialia statuta ferrentur, immo aduersus errorem uestrum. nam quid tam, si sapiatis, potest esse pro uobis? ceterum omnia quae uel anteriorum litteris didici uel ipse cognoui saeua facta uestrorum, quibus ab initio diuisionis uestrae usque ad hoc tempus ecclesiam catholicam persecuti sunt, si uelim retexere, quae lingua, qui stilus, quantum tempus otiumque sufficiat? ### English translation (Claude) These things I wished to mention, by which it came about that in these our times these imperial statutes were passed against you, or rather against your error. For what, if you were wise, could be more for your good? As for all the other savage deeds of your people, which I have either learned from the writings of earlier men or come to know myself, by which from the beginning of your division until this time they have persecuted the Catholic church, if I wished to recount them, what tongue, what pen, how much time and leisure would suffice? ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.48 (CSEL 52:455; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-48). ## Against Cresconius 3.49 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-49 - Source: CSEL 52:455–456 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine recounts the Catholic council of Carthage's decision (403) to invite each Donatist bishop to a conference, which they refused. ### Latin text De Optato cum agerem tuque hoc magis excusare uoluisses quam purgare ualuisses. dixisti reos hinc uestros esse non posse, quod ad eos uindicandum nemo pertulerit. tot protestationes nostrorum de furiosissimis uestrorum uiolentiis archiua publica citius impleuerunt quam ullam apud uos uindictam illa facta meruerunt. sed forte et hic dicatur protestationes quidem depositas, sed ad ipsos uindicanda nulla perlata. audi ergo quaedam, quae ipse sum expertus. cum receptorum a uestris Maximianensium quos damnauerant causam cognouissemus et eam quaquauersum poteramus feruenti diffamaremus instantia, illi rebus tam recentibus et tanta manifestatione clarentibus quid respondere possent non inuenientes solito crebrius et audacius circumcellionum uiolentiis turbisque furentibus nos a praedicanda catholica ueritate suaque fallacia conuincenda deterrere coeperunt. et quia multi erroris eorum laqueis implicati, cum quibus ut inde liberarentur agebamus, respondebant nobis hoc nos cum episcopis suis agere debere conlationemque nostram se uehementer optare, ubi possent uidere quibus adserentibus superaret ueritas falsitatem, in Carthaginiensi totius Africae concilio nobis placuit, ut adhibita etiam publicorum testificatione gestorum, quo possemus eis, qui hoc flagitabant, probare desiderio eorum nos minime defuisse, uestri pacifice conuenirentur episcopi, quisque ab eo nostrum, qui eodem loco in quo ille consisteret, ut per conlationem nostram errore sublato christiana et fraterna societate unitate caritate pace frueremur, id intuentes, quia, si hoc fieri uellent, adiuuante misericordia dei facillime poterat quidquid in causa nostra esset agnosci, si autem recusarent, saltem diffidentia eorum non frustra illis, qui hoc a nobis poposcerant, appareret. factum est, conuenti sunt, recusarunt; quibus uerbis, quo dolo maledictione amaritudine plenis, nunc longum est demonstrare. ### English translation (Claude) When I was dealing with Optatus, and you wished rather to excuse this than you were able to clear it, you said that your people cannot be guilty on this account, because no one brought the matter to them for punishment. So many protests of our people about the most furious violence of your people have filled the public archives sooner than those deeds have earned any punishment among you. But perhaps here too it will be said that protests were indeed lodged, but none was brought to them themselves for punishment. Hear, then, some things which I myself experienced. When we had learned the case of the Maximianensians, whom your people had condemned and then received back, and were spreading it abroad wherever we could with fervent persistence, they, finding nothing to answer to things so recent and shining with such plainness, began more often and more boldly than usual, by the violence and raging bands of the Circumcellions, to frighten us away from preaching the Catholic truth and refuting their deceit. And since many entangled in the snares of their error, with whom we were dealing to free them from it, answered us that we ought to do this with their bishops, and that they greatly desired a conference between us, where they might see by whose assertions truth overcame falsehood, it was decided by us in the council of all Africa at Carthage that, with the testimony of public records also brought in, so that we could prove to those who demanded it that we had by no means failed their desire, your bishops should be approached peaceably, each by that one of ours who was in the same place where he resided, so that, error being removed through our conference, we might enjoy Christian and brotherly fellowship, unity, love, and peace. We had this in view: that if they were willing to do this, by the help of God's mercy whatever there was in our case could very easily be recognized; but if they refused, at least their lack of confidence would not appear in vain to those who had asked this of us. It was done; they were approached; they refused; with what words, how full of deceit, cursing, and bitterness, it would take long to show now. ### Translation notes - The Catholic council of Carthage of 25 August 403 decided to approach the Donatist bishops through the municipal magistrates. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.49 (CSEL 52:455–456; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-49). ## Against Cresconius 3.50 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-50 - Source: CSEL 52:456–458 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine recounts how Crispinus, Donatist bishop of Calama, refused a conference with quotations of Scripture, and how his presbyter Crispinus then attacked Bishop Possidius. ### Latin text Interea Crispinus Calamensis uester episcopus a Possidio collega meo in eadem ciuitate apud acta conuentus ad concilium uestrum primo distulerat, pollicens cum collegis suis ibi se uisurum, quid respondere deberet. deinde post non paruum tempus repetita conuentione rursus apud acta respondit: uerba uiri peccatoris ne timueris, et iterum: in aures inprudentis caue quicquam dixeris, ne cum audierit inrideat sensatos sermones tuos. postremo hanc responsionem meam patriarchali sermone definio: recedant a me impii, uias eorum nosse nolo. hanc eius responsionem cum docti indoctique riderent — quippe hominis dicentis uerba uiri peccatoris se non timere, cui respondere minime auderet, et in aures inprudentis nolle se aliquid dicere, quasi aliquod secretum fuerat inprudentis auribus temere commissurus, cum ea quae diceret multi possent prudentes audire, qualium causa et dominus Christus tanta Pharisaeis quamuis inprudentibus loquebatur, et nolle se nosse uias impiorum, quasi uias suas eum docere uellent, quos impios putabat, ac non potius ipse, si teneret uias dei, etiam impios docere deberet, sicut scriptum est: doceam iniquos uias tuas et impii ad te conuertentur —: cum ergo ista responsio a multis intellegeretur, multis etiam demonstraretur quam inanis esset, quantum attinebat ad causam, quam uero amara et maledica, quod non pertinebat ad causam, atque ita eius, sicut apud uos habetur, doctissima annositas hesterno contra stante tirone nihil aduersum ueritatem posse probaretur rideretur, subito post paucos dies iter agenti Possidio alius Crispinus eius presbyter et ut perhibetur propinquus tetendit insidias armatorum, in quas paene iam noster inciderat, nisi eis prospectis atque nuntiatis ad quondam fundum fugiens deuertisset, ubi ille nihil auderet uel non praeualeret uel. si quid etiam fecisset, negare non posset. quo conperto continuo consecutus est tanta caecus: insania. at iam latere turpe arbitraretur. tam domum. in qua cum suis se Possidius incluserat, saepire armatis. lapidibus circumtundere. ambire flammis. aditum ex omni parte moliri. quae uero aderat incolentium multitudo memor periculi sui. si in eo loco adgressum tantum facinus impleretur. partim illum deprecabatur ut parceret. quem resistendo non audebat offendere. partim uero ignes subpositos extinguebat. cum ille nihilo segnius coeptis feruidus atque inexoratus instaret. cessit aliquando ictibus ianua, ingressi sunt sauciatisque caede iumentis. quae in inferiore domus parte conspexerant, de superioribus episcopum deposuerunt adficientes plagis et contumeliis. ubi ne grauius saeuirent, intercessit ipse Crispinus uelut aliis rogantibus flexus. quorum non tam uidebatur in ira sua curare deprecationem quam in facinore testimonium formidare. ### English translation (Claude) Meanwhile Crispinus, your bishop of Calama, approached in the same city by my colleague Possidius before the public records, had at first put it off to your council, promising to see there with his colleagues what he ought to answer. Then, after no short time, the approach being repeated, he again answered before the records: “Do not fear the words of a sinful man,” and again: “Do not say anything into the ears of a fool, lest when he hears he mock your sensible words.” And finally: “I conclude this answer of mine with a patriarch's saying: Let the ungodly depart from me; I do not wish to know their ways.” Learned and unlearned laughed at this answer; for here was a man saying that he did not fear the words of a sinful man, whom he did not dare to answer at all; and that he would not say anything into the ears of a fool, as though he were going to entrust rashly some secret to a fool's ears, when many prudent men could hear what he said, for whose sake the Lord Christ also spoke so much to the Pharisees, though they were fools; and that he did not wish to know the ways of the ungodly, as though those he thought ungodly wished to teach him their ways, and not rather that he himself, if he held the ways of God, ought to teach even the ungodly, as it is written, “I will teach the wicked your ways, and the ungodly will be turned to you.” When, therefore, this answer was understood by many, and it was also shown to many how empty it was as far as the case was concerned, but how bitter and abusive, which did not pertain to the case, and so his most learned age, as it is held among you, was proved and laughed at as able to do nothing against the truth, with a yesterday's recruit standing against him, suddenly, a few days later, as Possidius was traveling, another Crispinus, his presbyter and, as is said, his relative, set an ambush of armed men; into which our man had almost fallen, had he not, when they were seen and reported, fled and turned aside to a certain estate, where the other would dare nothing, or not prevail, or, if he did anything, could not deny it. Learning this, he at once followed him, blinded by such great madness that he now thought it shameful to lie hidden: he surrounded with armed men the house in which Possidius had shut himself with his companions, battered it round with stones, encircled it with flames, and attacked the entrance from every side. The multitude of tenants who were present, mindful of their own danger if so great a crime were attempted and completed in that place, partly begged him to spare, since they did not dare offend him by resisting, and partly put out the fires that were set, while he pressed on, no less ardent and unrelenting in what he had begun. At last the door gave way to the blows; they entered, and, having slaughtered the beasts of burden they saw in the lower part of the house, they brought the bishop down from the upper part, assailing him with blows and insults. There, so that they should not rage more severely, Crispinus himself intervened, as if moved by others' entreaties; he seemed to care not so much for their pleas in his anger as to fear witnesses to his crime. ### Scripture references - Prov 23:9: quotation, high confidence - Job 21:14: quotation, high confidence - Ps 51:13 (50:15 LXX): quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - 1 Macc 2:62 (1 Maccabees): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Macc 2:62; Prov 23:9; Job 21:14 (“a patriarch's saying”, i.e. Job's); Ps 51:13 (50:15 LXX). Possidius, bishop of Calama, later wrote Augustine's Life. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.50 (CSEL 52:456–458; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-50). ## Against Cresconius 3.51 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-51 - Source: CSEL 52:458–460 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine relates how Crispinus was convicted under Theodosius's law against heretics but excused the fine at Possidius's request, and still went unpunished after his appeal. ### Latin text Haec posteaquam nota facta sunt in oppido Calamensi, expectabatur Crispinus uester episcopus quemadmodum in suum presbyterum uindicaret. accessit etiam protestatio municipalibus gestis expressa, cuius uel timore uel pudore cogeretur ecclesiasticam exercere uindictam. quod cum omnino contemneret tantusque fieret uestrorum tumultus, ut ueritati praedicandae. cui respondere non poterant, itinera clausuri putarentur, immo uero iam etiam cernerentur, leges quae non deerant, sed quasi deessent in nostris manibus quiescebant: aduersus Crispinum episcopum uestrum commotae sunt. magis ut nostra mansuetudo demonstraretur quam ut illorum puniretur audacia. neque enim aliter innotesceret, quid adiutorio Christi ecclesia catholica in suos inimicos posset et nollet, non secundum haereticam praesumptionem priuato furore circumcellionibus saeuientibus, sed secundum propheticam ueritatem iugo domini dei subditis regibus. exhibitus igitur Crispinus et, quod se esse proconsuli quaerenti negauerat. facillime conuictus haereticus decem tamen libras auri, quam multam in omnes haereticos imperator maior Theodosius constituerat. intercedente Possidio non est conpulsus exsoluere. qua mitissima sententia non contentus nescio quo consilio, quod displicuisse uestris omnibus dicebatur, ad eiusdem Theodosii filios prouocandum putauit. acceptatum est. rescriptum est, quid aliud, nisi quod pars Donati iam sciret se ad illam poenam aurariam cum ceteris haereticis pertinere, cum quibus propter communionem talis persecutionis aut communem se deputet habere iustitiam aut, si non deputat. non se ideo iactet iustam, quia ea poena coercetur, qua coerceri et eas haereses uidet quas concedit iniustas, et tandem intellegat, quod Christi martyrem non facit poena sed causa, nos autem usque adeo saeuos persecutores esse arguat, ut nec post imperiale rescriptum aurum illud fisco Crispinus expenderit, indulgentiam illi catholicis episcopis impetrantibus, et nunc inter ipsas etiam recentissimas leges proscriptionem uestris episcopis comminantes in re propria securus sedeat et catholici clerici inter manus circumcellionum clericorumque uestrorum domos, uictum, salutem ac lumen corporis pendant. ### English translation (Claude) After these things became known in the town of Calama, it was awaited how Crispinus, your bishop, would punish his presbyter. A protest was also lodged, expressed in the municipal records, so that by fear or shame of it he would be compelled to exercise church discipline. When he wholly disregarded this, and the tumult of your people became so great that they were thought about to close, or rather were already seen closing, the roads to the preaching of the truth, which they could not answer, the laws, which were not lacking but lay idle in our hands as though lacking, were set in motion against Crispinus, your bishop; more to show our gentleness than to punish their audacity. For in no other way would it become known what the Catholic church, with the help of Christ, could do against her enemies and would not do; not according to heretical presumption, with the Circumcellions raging in private fury, but according to prophetic truth, with kings subject to the yoke of the Lord God. Crispinus, then, was brought forward, and, though he had denied to the proconsul's inquiry that he was a heretic, he was very easily convicted; yet, at the intercession of Possidius, he was not compelled to pay the ten pounds of gold which the elder emperor Theodosius had fixed as a fine on all heretics. Not content with this most lenient sentence, by I know not what counsel, which was said to have displeased all your people, he thought fit to appeal to the sons of that same Theodosius. The appeal was accepted. A rescript was issued, saying what else than that the party of Donatus should now know that it was liable, with the other heretics, to that penalty of gold; with whom, because of sharing such persecution, it must either reckon that it has a common righteousness, or, if it does not reckon so, let it not boast itself righteous because it is restrained by a penalty by which it sees those heresies also restrained which it grants are unrighteous; and let it understand at last that it is not the penalty but the cause that makes a martyr of Christ. And let it judge us to be such savage persecutors that not even after the imperial rescript did Crispinus pay that gold to the treasury, the Catholic bishops obtaining pardon for him; and now, amid the very newest laws threatening your bishops with confiscation, he sits secure in his own property, while Catholic clergy hang on the hands of your Circumcellions and clergy for their houses, their livelihood, their safety, and the light of their eyes. ### Scripture references - Ps 72:11 (71:11 LXX): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Theodosius I's law of 392 imposed a fine of ten pounds of gold on heretical clergy (Theodosian Code 16.5.21). “It is not the penalty but the cause that makes a martyr” is a recurring saying of Augustine. Ps 72:11. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.51 (CSEL 52:458–460; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-51). ## Against Cresconius 3.52 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-52 - Source: CSEL 52:460 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine contrasts the Donatists' blinding of clergy with the devil's sparing of Job's eyes, and faults Crispinus for not simply degrading his violent presbyter. ### Latin text Haec qui faciunt quid aequos dicam latronibus, piratis, truculento alicui generi barbarorum, quando nec ipsi omnium crudelitatum magistro diabolo conparandi sunt? ille sanctum uirum Iob omnibus eius rebus ablatis grauissimo uulnere a capite usque ad pedes percussit; et tamen fuit illic integris integer luminibus locus, nec oculos eius extinxit cuius totum in potestatem corpus accepit. uerum haec uidelicet non perferuntur ad uestros, cum Crispinus maluerit Carthaginem pergere, propria pertinacia superari, mansuetudinis episcopalis intercessione mitissimam in se prolatam recusare sententiam, appellare ad eius filios, cuius lege se inretitum uidebat, excitare uniuersae parti Donati, quod solus perpeti nec uolebat nec cogebatur, quam unius sui presbyteri audacissimum et inuidiosissimum facinus sola degradatione punire. ### English translation (Claude) To whom shall I liken those who do these things: to robbers, pirates, some ferocious kind of barbarians, when not even the devil himself, the master of all cruelties, can be compared to them? He took away all of the holy man Job's possessions and struck him with a most grievous sore from head to feet; and yet there remained a place there intact, with his eyes intact; he did not put out the eyes of one whose whole body he had received into his power. But of course these things are not reported to your people, when Crispinus preferred to go to Carthage, to be overcome by his own obstinacy, to refuse the most lenient sentence passed on him through the intercession of episcopal gentleness, to appeal to the sons of the one by whose law he saw himself ensnared, and to stir up against the whole party of Donatus what he alone neither wished nor was compelled to suffer, rather than to punish the most audacious and most odious crime of one presbyter of his with mere degradation. ### Scripture references - Job 2:7: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Job 2:7. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.52 (CSEL 52:460; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-52). ## Against Cresconius 3.53 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-53 - Source: CSEL 52:460–461 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine tells how the convert presbyter Restitutus was abducted and abused by Donatists near Hippo, and how Bishop Proculeianus evaded responsibility. ### Latin text Restitutus quidam in regione Hipponiensi uester presbyter fuit. qui cum ad catholicam pacem, antequam istis imperialibus legibus iuberetur, ueritatis ratione permotus manifesta uoluntate transisset, de domo sua raptus est a clericis et circumcellionibus uestris, luce palam in castellum proximum ductus et multitudine spectante nihilque resistere audente ad furentum arbitrium fustibus caesus, in lacuna lutulenta uolutatus, amictu iunceo dehonestatus posteaquam satis excruciauit oculos dolentium ridentiumque satiauit, inde ductus ad alium locum, quo nemo nostrorum audebat accedere, duodecimo uix die dimissus est. hoc episcopo uestro Hipponiensi Proculiano ipse sum questus gestis sane municipalibus, ne. si quid agere esset necesse. hoc ad se negaret fuisse perlatum. quid responderit, quemadmodum ab inquirenda causa dissimulauerit nostramque intentionem dolosius eludendam post etiam non respondendo putauerit, satis eadem gesta testantur. nunc uero qui ad nos a uobis clerici transierunt quanta patiantur a uestris, quando narrare sufficimus? denique non quicumque ad nos inde ueniunt ueritatem persecutione derelinquunt, sed multi ad nos inde non ueniunt, quia persecutionem a uestris pro ueritate perpeti metuunt. ### English translation (Claude) There was a certain Restitutus, a presbyter of yours in the region of Hippo. When, moved by the reason of truth, he had passed over by his own manifest will to the Catholic peace, before it was ordered by these imperial laws, he was seized from his house by your clergy and Circumcellions, led in broad daylight to the nearest fort, and there, with a crowd looking on and no one daring to resist, beaten with clubs at the will of the raging men, rolled in a muddy pool, dishonored with a garment of rushes; and after he had sufficiently tormented the eyes of those who grieved and satisfied those who laughed, he was led from there to another place, where none of our people dared to approach, and was released barely on the twelfth day. I myself complained of this to your bishop of Hippo, Proculeianus, indeed in the municipal records, so that, if anything had to be done, he could not deny that it had been reported to him. What he answered, how he pretended not to see the need to inquire into the case, and how he thought afterwards to elude our purpose even more deceitfully by not answering, those same records sufficiently testify. But now, how can we suffice to relate how much the clergy who have passed over to us from you suffer from your people? In short, not all who come to us from there abandon the truth through persecution; but many do not come to us from there because they fear to suffer persecution from your people for the truth. ### Translation notes - Proculeianus was the Donatist bishop of Hippo. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.53 (CSEL 52:460–461; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-53). ## Against Cresconius 3.54 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-37/#p-3-54 - Source: CSEL 52:461–462 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the Catholics are not responsible for actions of the authorities, and that the Donatist martyr Marculus probably threw himself from a cliff, as many Donatists did. ### Latin text Aufer itaque de medio superuacuas inuidias molestiarum, quas regalibus iussis pro uestro errore patimini perparuas et prope nullas pro magno furore uestrorum, inputantes etiam nobis, quae ab ipsis terrenis potestatibus, ut uestrorum impetus a sua salute depellant, necessitate fiunt, non uoluntate. neque enim si quadraginta illi, qui Paulum apostolum interficere coniurauerant, in armatos a quibus deducebatur inruissent poenasque sumpsissent, Paulo ista fuerant inputanda. omitto quod etiam uoluntarias mortes, quas ipsi. sibi ingerunt. in nos mentiendo transfertis. nam de Marculo quod se ipse praecipitauerit audiui. quod profecto est credibilius quam hoc aliquam potestatem Romanam iubere potuisse Romanis legibus nimis insolitum, cum hoc malum inter tot haereses sub christiano uocabulo errantes proprium sit haeresis uestrae. unde quid prodest, quod conciliis suis hoc uestri episcopi prohibuisse et damnasse se iactant, sicut ipse commemorasti, cum tot rupes et abrupta saxorum ex Marculiano illo magisterio cotidie funestentur? dixi ergo, quid de Marculo audierim et unde hoc credibilius possit uideri, quid autem uerum sit deus nouerit. de aliis autem tribus, quorum mortes pariter obiecisti, quid uel quomodo factum sit, ab eis quos nosse existimo, fateor, non quaesiui. ### English translation (Claude) Take away, then, the superfluous odium of the troubles which you suffer by royal command for your error, very small and almost nothing in proportion to the great fury of your people; imputing to us even what is done by the earthly powers themselves out of necessity, not by our will, to drive off the attacks of your people from their own safety. For if those forty who had sworn to kill the apostle Paul had rushed upon the armed men by whom he was being escorted and been punished, these things would not have been imputed to Paul. I pass over the fact that you also transfer to us, by lying, the voluntary deaths which they inflict on themselves. For about Marculus I have heard that he threw himself down; which is certainly more credible than that any Roman authority could have ordered this, something very unusual for Roman laws, since this evil, among so many heresies wandering under the Christian name, is peculiar to your heresy. Hence what good is it that your bishops boast that they have forbidden and condemned this in their councils, as you yourself mentioned, when so many cliffs and precipices of rock are daily defiled with death from that Marculian school? I have said, then, what I have heard about Marculus and why it may seem more credible; but what is true God knows. As for the other three whose deaths you likewise charged against us, what was done or how, I confess I have not asked those whom I think know. ### Scripture references - Acts 23:12: allusion, high confidence - Acts 23:13: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Acts 23:12–24. Marculus, a Donatist bishop, died in 347, during the mission of Paul and Macarius, by a fall from a cliff that the Donatists ascribed to the authorities. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.54 (CSEL 52:461–462; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-54). ## Against Cresconius 3.55 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-55 - Source: CSEL 52:462 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says good Catholics disapprove of any violence, revenge, or seizure of private property against Donatists, though they tolerate such wrongdoers within the church. ### Latin text Nullis tamen bonis in catholica hoc placet, si usque ad mortem in quemquam licet haereticum saeuiatur. neque uero, si longe a morte cuiuslibet molestiis libido ulciscendi malum pro malo retribuat, adprobamus, multo amplius detestantes, si ex occasione uelut pro unitate conandi concupita quisque auferat aliena, non illa quae sub nomine ecclesiae non debent ab haereticis possideri, sed quorumque priuata. haec omnia displicent bonis et ea prohibent et cohibent quantum possunt, quantum autem non possunt ferunt et sicut dixi pro pace laudabiliter tolerant. non ea laudabilia, sed damnabilia iudicantes, et nec propter zizania segetem Christi nec propter paleas aream Christi nec propter uasa inhonorata domum magnam Christi nec propter pisces malos retia Christi derelinquunt. ### English translation (Claude) Yet no good people in the Catholic church are pleased if anyone, even a heretic, is treated savagely to the point of death. Nor do we approve if, far short of death, the lust for revenge repays evil for evil by harassing anyone; detesting much more if anyone, taking the occasion as if of an effort for unity, covets and takes what belongs to others, not those things which under the name of the church ought not to be possessed by heretics, but the private property of anyone. All these things displease the good, and they forbid and restrain them as far as they can; but as far as they cannot, they bear them and, as I said, praiseworthily tolerate them for the sake of peace, judging them not praiseworthy but damnable; and they do not abandon Christ's crop because of the tares, nor Christ's threshing floor because of the chaff, nor Christ's great house because of the vessels for dishonor, nor Christ's nets because of the bad fish. ### Scripture references - Rom 12:17: allusion, high confidence - Matt 13:30: allusion, high confidence - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence - 2 Tim 2:20: allusion, high confidence - Matt 13:48: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 12:17; Matt 13:30, 47–48; 2 Tim 2:20; Matt 3:12. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.55 (CSEL 52:462; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55). ## Against Cresconius 3.56 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-56 - Source: CSEL 52:462–463 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues from Nebuchadnezzar's two decrees that kings serve God by legislating for truth, including in religion. ### Latin text Reges cum in errore sunt, pro ipso errore leges contra ueritatem ferunt; cum in ueritate sunt, similiter contra errorem pro ipsa ueritate decernunt: ita et legibus malis probantur boni et legibus bonis emendantur mali. rex Nabuchodonosor peruersus legem saeuam dedit, ut simulacrum adoraretur. idem correctus seueram, ne deus uerus blasphemaretur. in hoc enim reges, sicut eis diuinitus praecipitur, deo seruiunt in quantum reges sunt, si in suo regno bona iubeant, mala prohibeant, non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem, uerum etiam quae ad diuinam religionem. ### English translation (Claude) When kings are in error, they make laws for that error against the truth; when they are in the truth, they likewise decree against error for that truth. So the good are tested by bad laws, and the wicked corrected by good laws. King Nebuchadnezzar, when perverse, gave a cruel law that an image should be worshiped; the same man, when corrected, gave a severe one, that the true God should not be blasphemed. For in this kings serve God, as is commanded them by God, insofar as they are kings, if in their kingdom they command good things and forbid evil things, not only those which pertain to human society but also those which pertain to divine religion. ### Scripture references - Dan 3:5: allusion, high confidence - Dan 3:29: allusion, high confidence - Ps 2:10: allusion, medium confidence - Ps 2:11: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Dan 3:1–6, 29; Ps 2:10–11. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.56 (CSEL 52:462–463; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-56). ## Against Cresconius 3.57 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-57 - Source: CSEL 52:463 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers the appeal to free choice: free will does not exempt evil from just restraint, which must be exercised with measure and love. ### Latin text Frustra dicis: relinquar libero arbitrio. cur enim non in homicidiis et in stupris et in quibusque aliis facinoribus et flagitiis libero te arbitrio dimittendum esse proclamas? quae tamen omnia iustis legibus conprimi utilissimum ac saluberrimum est. dedit quidem deus homini liberam uoluntatem, sed nec bonam infructuosam nec malam esse uoluit inpunitam. quisquis christianum, inquis, persequitur, (christianum est inimicus. uerum dicis, sed si non hoc in illo persequitur quod Christo est inimicum. neque enim dominus in seruo, pater in filio, maritus in coniuge, cum sunt utrique christiani, non debent persequi uitia christianae contraria ueritati. an uero, si non persequantur, non rei neglegentiae merito tenebuntur? sed in omnibus tenendus est modus aptus humanitati, congruus caritati, ut nec totum quod potestatis est exeratur et in eo quod exeritur dilectio non amittatur, in eo autem quod non exeritur mansuetudo monstretur. ubi uero nulla ex diuinis humanisue legibus potestas conceditur, nihil inprobe atque inprudenter audeatur. ### English translation (Claude) In vain you say: “Let me be left to free choice.” For why do you not proclaim that you should be left to free choice in murders, sexual crimes, and any other crimes and shameful deeds? Yet it is most useful and most salutary that all these be restrained by just laws. God did indeed give man free will, but he willed neither that a good will should be fruitless nor that a bad one should go unpunished. “Whoever persecutes a Christian,” you say, “is an enemy of Christ.” You say what is true, but only if he does not persecute in him what is hostile to Christ. For a master in his slave, a father in his son, a husband in his wife, when both are Christians, ought they not to prosecute vices contrary to Christian truth? Or, if they do not prosecute them, will they not deservedly be held guilty of negligence? But in all things a measure must be kept, suited to humanity and fitting to love, so that not all that is in one's power is put forth, and in what is put forth love is not lost, and in what is not put forth gentleness is shown. But where no power is granted by divine or human laws, nothing should be attempted shamelessly and imprudently. ### Translation notes - Augustine plays on persequi, meaning both “persecute” and “prosecute” or “pursue”. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.57 (CSEL 52:463; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-57). ## Against Cresconius 3.58 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-58 - Source: CSEL 52:463–464 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine prepares to show from the council of Bagai's sentence that Felicianus and Praetextatus were condemned outright, not granted the period of grace. ### Latin text Audi iam de Maximianensibus quod paulo ante distuleram, ut et tuos episcopos noueris tibi esse mentitos et non solum quod pertinet ad baptismi quaestionem uel ad alienorum peccatorum in ecclesia sine propria contaminatione tolerantiam, uerum etiam quod ad persecutionis inuidiam, in qua quidem uestri in nos omnia Romana iura et praesidia superarunt, in hac una Maximianensium causa noueris terminari. nam si concilii Bagaiensis episcoporum uestrorum trecentorum et decem memorabilem illam, de qua superius quod satis esse uidebatur inserui, non te piguit legere sententiam, cum illa uerba damnatos cum Maximiano duodecim, quorum praesentium manibus ordinatus est, apertissime ostendant, dilationem autem redeundi ad communionem uestram illis esse concessam, qui, cum essent in communione Maximiani Primianumque damnassent, tamen, quando Maximianus ordinatus est. non interfuerunt — neque enim omnes interesse potuerunt aut ex more debuerunt —, plurimum miror, quomodo te falli nescio quo mentiente permiseris, cui uerba ipsa, quae obscure non sunt nec acutum ingenium quo discutiantur, sed tantum animum quo aduertantur exposcunt, ne ab eo fallereris, recitare potuisti. sed quia fieri potest, ut non eam legeris et simplici affectu tamquam episcopo uel episcopis aliud tibi insinuantibus facile credideris, accipe eam et lege et quam tibi a me uerum dicatur adtende. neque enim possunt eam tegendi mendacii sui causa ut libitum fuerit emendare, immo falsare, quam iudicio publico apud proconsulem allegauerunt, quam totiens gestis municipalibus inserendam pro suae causae necessitate curarunt, quando agebant aduersus eos, ut de basilicis pellerentur. ### English translation (Claude) Hear now about the Maximianensians what I put off a little earlier, so that you may know that your bishops lied to you, and may know that in this one case of the Maximianensians the matter is settled, not only as concerns the question of baptism or the toleration of others' sins in the church without one's own contamination, but also as concerns the odium of persecution, in which your people surpassed all Roman laws and powers against us. For if you were not reluctant to read that memorable sentence of the council of Bagai of your three hundred and ten bishops, from which I inserted above what seemed sufficient, since those words most plainly show that the twelve by whose hands, present, Maximian was ordained were condemned with him, while an extension for returning to your communion was granted to those who, though in Maximian's communion and having condemned Primian, were not present when Maximian was ordained (for not all could be present, or ought to have been by custom), I greatly wonder how you allowed yourself to be deceived by some liar, when you could have read the very words, which are not obscure and require not an acute mind to discuss them but only attention to notice them, so as not to be deceived by him. But since it may be that you did not read it, and with simple feeling readily believed a bishop or bishops suggesting something else to you, take it and read it, and notice how truly I speak to you. For they cannot correct, or rather falsify, as they please to cover their lie, the sentence which they alleged in a public trial before the proconsul, and which they so often took care to have inserted in the municipal records, as the need of their case required, when they were proceeding against those men to drive them from the basilicas. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.58 (CSEL 52:463–464; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-58). ## Against Cresconius 3.59 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-59 - Source: CSEL 52:464–465 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes the opening and condemnation clauses of the sentence of Bagai, naming Felicianus and Praetextatus among Maximian's twelve condemned ordainers. ### Latin text Sic certe incipit ea sententia: cum omnipotentis dei et Christi eius uoluntate in ecclesia Bagaiensi concilium gereremus Gamalius Primianus Pontius Secundianus Ianuarianus Saturninus Felix Pegasius Rufinus Fortunius Crispinus Florentius Optatus Donatus Donatianus et ceteri numero trecenti decem, placuit spiritui sancto qui in nobis est pacem firmare perpetuam, schismata resecare sacrilega. deinde cum multa in eos horrenda uomuisset, paulo post ait: Maximianum fidei aemulum, ueritatis adulterum, ecclesiae matris inimicum, Dathae, Corae et Abiron ministrum de pacis gremio sententiae fulmen excussit. uides, ut arbitror, Maximianum sine ulla dubitatione damnatum. deinde post pauca sed plane grauissima, quae in eum libuit declamare, adiungens ordinatores eius et cum eo sine dilatione damnans: nec solum hunc, inquit, sceleris sui mors iusta condemnat; trahit etiam ad consortium criminis plurimos catena sacrilegii. deinde cum etiam in ipsorum exaggerandum scelus quae putauit declamanda fudisset, nominauit eos ita conclusitque damnatos: famosi ergo, inquit, criminis reos Uictorianum Carcabianensem, Marcianum Sullectinum, Beianum Beianensem, Saluium Ausafensem, Theodorum Usulensem, Donatum Sabratensem, Miggenem Elefantariensem, Praetextatum Adsuritanum, Saluium Membresitanum, Ualerium Melzitanum, Felicianum Mustitanum et Martialem Pertusensem, qui funesto opere perditionis uas sordidum collecta faeculentia glutinarunt, sed et clericos aliquando ecclesiae Carthaginis, qui, dum facinori intersunt, inlicito incestui lenocinium praebuerunt, dei praesidentis arbitrio uniuersalis concilii ore ueridico damnatos esse cognoscite. quid planius, quid manifestius, quid expressius dici potest? ### English translation (Claude) This certainly is how that sentence begins: “When by the will of almighty God and of his Christ we were holding a council in the church of Bagai, Gamalius, Primian, Pontius, Secundianus, Januarianus, Saturninus, Felix, Pegasius, Rufinus, Fortunius, Crispinus, Florentius, Optatus, Donatus, Donatianus, and the rest, three hundred and ten in number, it pleased the Holy Spirit who is in us to establish perpetual peace and to cut off sacrilegious schisms.” Then, after it had vomited many horrible things against them, a little later it says: “Maximian, 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.” You see, I think, that Maximian was condemned without any doubt. Then, after a few but very grave things which it pleased them to declaim against him, adding his ordainers and condemning them with him without extension: “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.” Then, when it had poured out what it thought should be declaimed to exaggerate their crime too, it named them and concluded them condemned thus: “Know, then,” it says, “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 could be said more plainly, more manifestly, more expressly? ### Scripture references - Num 16:1: allusion, high confidence - Acts 15:28: echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Sentence of the council of Bagai (394). Num 16; Acts 15:28 (“it pleased the Holy Spirit”). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.59 (CSEL 52:464–465; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-59). ## Against Cresconius 3.60 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-60 - Source: CSEL 52:465–466 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes the sentence's grant of time, which applied only to those who had not laid hands on Maximian, until 25 December. ### Latin text Audi iam quibus dilatio temporis impertita sit, ut uideas eos esse qui non interfuerunt, quando Maximiano, cum ordinaretur, manus inpositae sunt: eos autem, inquit, quos sacrilegi surculi non polluere plantaria, id est qui a Maximiani capite proprias manus uerecundo pudore fidei retraxerunt, ad matrem ecclesiam redire permisimus. hos cernis quemadmodum non dicant esse damnatos, sed tunc eadem damnationis sententia retinendos, si transacto die constituto redire noluerint, quem diem ita constituunt: ac ne angustum, inquit, redeuntibus tempus spem salutis artatae diei pressura subducat. agnoscentibus quibus licet, manentibus praecedentibus statutis, uniuersis usque in diem octauum Kl Ianuariarum proxime futurarum agnitionis pandimus ianuam, ut integri honoris ac fidei regressi habeant fundamenta. quam si quisquam ingredi nequiuerit pigra segnitia, sciat sibi ad omnes ueniales aditus sua uoluntate uiam esse subductam. manebit enim circa eos dicta sententia et post praestitutum diem redeuntibus fixa paenitentia. ### English translation (Claude) Hear now to whom an extension of time was granted, so that you may see that they are those who were not present when hands were laid on Maximian at his ordination: “But those,” it says, “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.” You see how they do not say these are condemned, but that they are to be held by the same sentence of condemnation then, if they refuse to return after the appointed day has passed; which day they appoint thus: “And lest,” it says, “the narrow time for those returning should take away the hope of salvation by the pressure of a restricted day, for those who acknowledge it, to whom it is permitted, the previous statutes remaining, we open to all the door of acknowledgment until the eighth day before the Kalends of January next, so that those who return may have the foundations of honor and faith intact. If anyone through sluggish slackness cannot enter it, let him know that by his own will the way to all pardonable approaches has been taken away from him. For the sentence pronounced will remain upon them, and a fixed penance for those returning after the appointed day.” ### Translation notes - Sentence of the council of Bagai (394). The deadline is 25 December 394. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.60 (CSEL 52:465–466; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-60). ## Against Cresconius 3.61 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-61 - Source: CSEL 52:466–467 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine concludes that Felicianus and Praetextatus were among the condemned twelve, not those given time, so Cresconius's bishops lied. ### Latin text Certe iam perspicis, uir disertissime, in illos te potius, a quibus audisti mendacium, omnia retorquere debere, quae in nos, tamquam mentiti de hac re fuerimus. dicenda arbitratus es. certe perspicis illos duos, de quibus agimus, ex eorum esse numero, qui cum Maximiano duodecim sine dilatione damnati sunt, non ex eorum, quibus redeundi tempus indultum est. certe liquet claret eminet, concerni obscurari obtegi nullo modo potest, quod tanta eloquentia is a quo sententia illa dicta est discreuit inlustrauit expressit. cur uerba adhuc dantur? cur contra lucidissimam ueritatem pro manifesto errore contenditur? cur homines se ipsos decipiunt? si laqueos diaboli, quos resoluere atque abrumpere deberent, constrictius implicant et obuoluunt, adhuc accipe, unde uehementius et utinam cum aliquo fructu correctionis erubescant. ### English translation (Claude) Surely you now see, most eloquent man, that you ought rather to turn back against those from whom you heard the lie all the things you thought should be said against us, as if we had lied about this matter. Surely you see that those two with whom we are dealing are of the number of those who were condemned with Maximian, twelve, without extension, not of those to whom time for returning was granted. Surely it is clear, bright, and prominent, and can in no way be confused, obscured, or covered over, what he who pronounced that sentence distinguished, illuminated, and expressed with such eloquence. Why are words still given? Why is a manifest error still contended for against the clearest truth? Why do men deceive themselves? If they tie and wrap more tightly the snares of the devil which they ought to undo and break, hear still more, so that they may blush the more, and would that it were with some fruit of correction. ### Scripture references - 2 Tim 2:26: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - 2 Tim 2:26. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.61 (CSEL 52:466–467; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-61). ## Against Cresconius 3.62 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-62 - Source: CSEL 52:467–469 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine cites dated records showing that the Donatists prosecuted Felicianus and Praetextatus in court months after the deadline, so these men were outside their communion and baptizing there. ### Latin text In memorato concilio Bagaiensi dies et consul adscriptus est non solum qua decretum concilii conditum est, uerum etiam ipsius dilationis. ergo a die VIII Kalendarum Maiarum post consulatum Theodosii Augusti ter et Abundantii, qui dies est concilii Bagaiensis, usque ad VIII Kalendas Ian, qui dies est dilationis, octo menses ferme numerantur. inuenitur autem postulatio apud Herodem proconsulem uide quanto post dicta aduersus Felicianum et Praetextatum de Mustitanis et Adsuritanis locis excludendos, cuius pauca subiunxi: post consulatum dominorum nostrorum Arcadii ter et Honorii iterum Augustorum VI Nonas Mart Carthagine in secretario praetorii Titianus dixit: Peregrinus presbyter et seniores ecclesiae Mustitanae et Adsuritanae regionis tale desiderium prosequuntur: cum ecclesiae catholicae sanctitatem uir memoriae uenerabilis ab errore perfidiae Donatus adsereret, in eius nomen et cultum mundi paene totius obseruantia nutrita coaluit. sed cum eius religionis laudandum mirandumque propositum Maximiani cuiusdam uenena polluerent, multorum coetus antistitum in unum deo conspirante collectus hominem uel potius pestem, quae supernae displicuit maiestati, etiam purae mentis propria coercitione damnauit. eos quoque, quos alienae praesumptionis error (ad)traxerat, portu primo proposito paenitendi, si reuerti cuperent intra tempus ad religionis tramitem destitutum, pari uigoris admonitione conpescuit. sed suis institutis iniquitas delectatur et semet ipsam non deserit, cum semel praecipitata corruerit. idem namque Maximianus coeptam nutrit audaciam et alios sibimet consociat ad furorem. inter quos etiam Felicianus quidam, qui primo recta sectatus deprauationis huius adtaminatione fuscatur, in Mustitana positus ciuitate deo omnipotenti parietes consecratos, [et] ecclesiam uenerandam quasi quadam obsessione credidit retinendam. hunc etiam Praetextatus in Assuritanis partibus imitatur. sed cum aequitatis tuae innotesceret potestati consortium sacerdotum, iussisti, ut gesta testantur, exploso omni contradictionis effectu sacratissimis sacerdotibus a profanis mentibus ecclesias uindicatas oportere restitui. uides nempe usque ad huius postulationis diem ab illo praestitutae dilationis quod trium fere mensum tempus effluxerit. producitur autem iste conflictus, quantum ex gestis proconsularibus et municipalibus indagare potuimus. usque. ad Theodorum proconsulem, hoc est usque anni alterius diem XI Kl Ian, quo die clerici et seniores agentes sub Rogato episcopo, qui in locum damnati Praetextati Adsuritani fuerat subrogatus, allegauerunt memorati proconsulis iussionem, cum a foris erant a communione uestra et eiusdem communionis uestrae inimici in iudiciis publicis arguebantur et expellendi de locis deo summo consecratis tamquam sacrilegi petebantur. ### English translation (Claude) In the council of Bagai mentioned, the day and consul are written not only of the day on which the council's decree was made, but also of the extension itself. From the eighth day before the Kalends of May, in the year after the third consulship of Theodosius Augustus and of Abundantius, which is the day of the council of Bagai, to the eighth day before the Kalends of January, which is the day of the extension, nearly eight months are counted. But a petition is found before the proconsul Herodes (see how long after) against Felicianus and Praetextatus, to have them excluded from the places of Musti and Assuras, of which I have added a few lines: “In the year after the consulship of our lords Arcadius, for the third time, and Honorius, for the second time, Augusti, on the sixth day before the Nones of March, at Carthage, in the council chamber of the praetorium, Titianus said: Peregrinus the presbyter and the elders of the church of Musti and of the region of Assuras pursue the following petition: When Donatus, a man of venerable memory, was asserting the holiness of the Catholic church against the error of faithlessness, the observance of almost the whole world, nourished in his name and worship, grew together. But when the poisons of a certain Maximian polluted the praiseworthy and admirable purpose of that religion, an assembly of many bishops, gathered into one by God's inspiration, condemned the man, or rather the plague, which displeased the supreme majesty, by the proper restraint of a pure mind. Those also whom the error of another's presumption had drawn away, having first offered a harbor of repentance, if they wished to return within the time to the path of religion they had abandoned, it restrained with an equally vigorous admonition. But wickedness delights in its own institutions and does not desert itself once it has fallen headlong. For the same Maximian nourishes the audacity he began and associates others with himself in his madness; among whom also a certain Felicianus, who at first followed the right way, is darkened by the contamination of this depravity, and, placed in the city of Musti, thought that walls consecrated to almighty God, the venerable church, should be held as if by a kind of siege. Praetextatus too imitates him in the parts of Assuras. But when the fellowship of the priests became known to the power of your equity, you ordered, as the records testify, that, every effect of opposition being rejected, the churches claimed from profane minds should be restored to the most sacred priests.” You see, surely, that up to the day of this petition about three months had passed since that granted extension. And this conflict was drawn out, as far as we have been able to trace from the proconsular and municipal records, until the proconsul Theodorus, that is, until the eleventh day before the Kalends of January of the next year; on which day the clergy and elders acting under the bishop Rogatus, who had been put in the place of the condemned Praetextatus of Assuras, cited the order of that proconsul, while those men were outside your communion and were being accused in public courts as enemies of that communion of yours, and were sought to be expelled from places consecrated to the most high God as sacrilegious. ### Translation notes - Dates: council of Bagai 24 April 394; deadline 25 December 394; petition before the proconsul Herodes 2 March 395; the case before the proconsul Theodorus continued to 22 December 396 (Augustine says “the next year”). The editor deletes “et” before “ecclesiam”; the word in round brackets is his supplement. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.62 (CSEL 52:467–469; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-62). ## Against Cresconius 3.63 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-63 - Source: CSEL 52:469 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the Donatists rightly accepted the Maximianists' baptisms given outside their communion, which is exactly the Catholic position. ### Latin text Ex quolibet ergo numero fuerint — quamquam satis appareat ex quo fuerint —, qui intra constitutum dilationis diem communioni uestrae non se reddiderunt, quomodo toto illo tempore a uobis alienati baptizare potuerunt? quomodo cum his. quos extra communionem uestram baptizauerunt, non expiatis alio baptismate redierunt? in quo facto non uos reprehendimus, quod baptismum Christi nequaquam sacrilegum etiam in schismate sacrilego cognouistis, quod hominum peruersitate correcta illud, quod etiam in peruersis rectum fuerat, adprobastis, quod humana uitia cum diuinis signaculis non confudistis, quod dona ecclesiae, quae praeter ecclesiam quoque haberi et dari ad habentium et accipientium supplicium potuerunt, nec in damnatis damnanda nec in receptis mutanda censuistis. ### English translation (Claude) Whatever number, then, they belonged to (though it is plain enough which they belonged to), those who did not return to your communion within the appointed day of the extension, how could they baptize during all that time while estranged from you? How did they return with those whom they baptized outside your communion, not expiated by another baptism? In this deed we do not blame you: that you recognized the baptism of Christ as in no way sacrilegious even in a sacrilegious schism; that, the perversity of men being corrected, you approved what had been right even in the perverse; that you did not confuse human faults with divine seals; that you judged that the gifts of the church, which could be had and given outside the church too, to the punishment of those who have and receive them, were neither to be condemned in the condemned nor changed in those received. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.63 (CSEL 52:469; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-63). ## Against Cresconius 3.64 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-64 - Source: CSEL 52:469–471 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows that the Donatists themselves received condemned schismatics with their baptisms and used the courts against them, undermining every charge they make against the Catholics. ### Latin text Nec illud reprehendimus, quod eosdem ipsos famosi criminis reos et post sententiam damnationis ipsorum et post dilationis diem aliis constitutum tamen propter populos infirmos, qui eis adhaeserunt, recordantes credo patris familias sollicitudinem, ne simul cum zizaniis eradicaretur et triticum, sine aliqua degradatione colligendos et ipsa abundantia caritatis expiandos esse credidistis. nec illud reprehendimus, quod eos, cum adhuc famoso schismatis sacrilegio tenerentur, etiam per terrenas potestates persecuti estis. fiebat enim hoc, quantum res ipsa consecuta indicauit, corrigendi studio, non nocendi, ut illis molestiis agitati suum scelus cogitare cogerentur et repressis animositatis furiis emendare. sed quia ista non reprehendimus, ideo uestri schismatis crimen iure culpamus, merito detestamur, omni ratione conuincimus, quo uos a nobis. immo ab orbis terrarum catholica communione separatis, talia nobis obiciendo, qualia uos in causa Maximianensium fecisse negare, ut arbitror, non potestis. si enim baptismus Christi est et ideo nullo modo destruendus, qui datus est per Felicianum et Praetextatum, cum separati a uobis Maximiano coniungerentur, cum illo a nobis pro nefarii schismatis crimine condemnati, quomodo non est baptismus Christi uel quomodo destruendus est, qui datur in ecclesia, quae ramos suos, ut uerbis Cypriani utar, per uniuersam terram copia ubertatis extendit, qui datur postremo in illis ecclesiis, quas numquam in litteris apostolicis recitare cessastis, numquam ullo concilio sicut Felicianum Praetextatumque damnastis? si damnatos in integrum restituere placuit pro resarcienda parte Donati, quid uos offendit toto orbe diffusa unitas Christi, quae uel damnare non potuit inauditos uel omnino nec damnauit nec absoluit incognitos uel innocentes credidit quos didicit absolutos? si discissos a uobis Maximianenses per iussa iudicum persequendo sedibus expulistis, quid uos per imperatores, qui eosdem iudices mittunt, indigna pati querimini, qui uos ab eius ecclesia, de quo scriptum est, quod adorabunt eum omnes reges terrae. omnes gentes seruient illi, et quod dominabitur a mari usque ad mare et a flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrae, nefario schismate discidistis? ### English translation (Claude) Nor do we blame you for this: that those very men, guilty of a notorious crime, even after the sentence of their condemnation and after the day of extension set for others, you nevertheless believed should be gathered in without any degradation and expiated by the very abundance of love, for the sake of the weak peoples who adhered to them, remembering, I suppose, the householder's care lest the wheat be rooted up together with the tares. Nor do we blame you for this: that, while they were still held in the notorious sacrilege of schism, you prosecuted them even through the earthly powers. For this was done, as far as the outcome itself showed, with the aim of correcting, not harming, so that, harassed by those troubles, they would be compelled to reflect on their crime and, the furies of animosity being checked, to amend it. But because we do not blame these things, we therefore rightly find fault with the crime of your schism, deservedly detest it, and by every reason refute it, by which you separate yourselves from us, or rather from the Catholic communion of the whole world, charging us with such things as you cannot deny, I think, that you yourselves did in the case of the Maximianensians. For if the baptism given through Felicianus and Praetextatus, when, separated from you, they were joined to Maximian, condemned with him by you for the crime of wicked schism, is Christ's baptism and therefore in no way to be destroyed, how is the baptism given in the church which, to use Cyprian's words, extends its branches over the whole earth with abundance of fruitfulness, not Christ's baptism, or how is it to be destroyed; the baptism given, finally, in those churches which you have never ceased to read in the apostolic writings and have never condemned in any council, as you did Felicianus and Praetextatus? If it pleased you to restore the condemned in full for the sake of patching up the party of Donatus, why are you offended by the unity of Christ spread over the whole world, which either could not condemn men unheard, or altogether neither condemned nor acquitted men unknown, or believed innocent those whom it learned were acquitted? If you drove from their seats the Maximianensians who split from you, by prosecuting them through the orders of judges, why do you complain that you suffer undeserved things through the emperors who send those same judges, you who by a wicked schism have split from the church of him of whom it is written that all the kings of the earth will worship him, all nations will serve him, and that he will rule from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth? ### Scripture references - Matt 13:29: allusion, high confidence - Ps 72:11 (71:11 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 72:8 (71:8 LXX): quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Unit. eccl. 5 (On the Unity of the Catholic Church): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 13:29; Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church 5; Ps 72:11, 8 (71:11, 8 LXX). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.64 (CSEL 52:469–471; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-64). ## Against Cresconius 3.65 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-65 - Source: CSEL 52:471–472 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows that the Donatists themselves persecuted the Maximianists through the courts, so suffering persecution does not prove righteousness. ### Latin text Ecce iam non dico: si persecutionem facere non licet, fecit Optatus, ne adhuc dicas non pertinere ad uestros quidquid Optatus eis ignorantibus fecit, cum ipsi dicere non permittant terras ab Africa remotissimas (non pertinere ad se quidquid Caecilianus eis ignorantibus fecit). qui traditores in Africa fuerint, quid mali Afri episcopi fecerint ignoramus; sed plane dico, si persecutionem facere non licet, uestri Maximianensibus ita ut non possitis negare fecerunt. si persecutionem qui patiuntur innocentes sunt, passi sunt Maximianenses. numquid et nunc dicturus es: basilicam uel speluncam Maximiani populus nullo nostrorum auctore destruxit? quamquam si cuius communionis turba illa fuerit inquiratur — non a uestris credantur inmissi —, ipsi repperientur forsitan uestri aut certe uestris adiuuando permixti. sed quid ad nos? respondes enim: non fecimus, non inmisimus, quinam illi fuerunt ignoramus. persecutionem tamen a quibuscumque passum eum, quem fateris iniustum, quoniam clara res est, ea quae patimini uos iustos demonstrare non possunt. sed a quibus etiam Maximianenses persecutionem passi sunt, proconsularia gesta testantur. instructi sunt aduocati, adita iudicia et tamquam in haereticos excitata, illi sibi tuitionem possidentibus postulabant, allegabant uestri Bagaiense concilium et damnatos flagitabant sacris sedibus pelli, instabatur, dicta causa est, cum eos praesente Saluio Membresitano haereticos ostendistis uicistis expulistis. persecutionem igitur illos passos esse, uos fecisse uideo; iustos quaero, uos esse perhibebis; ego concludo: non ergo qui eam patitur consequenter iustus nec qui facit consequenter iniustus est. ### English translation (Claude) See, I no longer say, “If it is not lawful to persecute, Optatus persecuted,” lest you still say that whatever Optatus did without your people's knowledge does not concern them, although they will not allow lands most remote from Africa to say, “Whatever Caecilian did without our knowledge does not concern us.” Who were traitors in Africa, what evil the African bishops did, we do not know; but I plainly say: if it is not lawful to persecute, your people persecuted the Maximianensians, in a way you cannot deny. If those who suffer persecution are innocent, the Maximianensians suffered it. Will you now also say, “The people destroyed the basilica, or the cave, of Maximian without any of our people being its author”? Although, if it were asked of what communion that crowd was (supposing they are not believed to have been sent in by your people), they would perhaps be found to be your people, or at least mixed with yours as helpers. But what is that to us? For you answer: “We did not do it, we did not send them; who they were we do not know.” Yet, since the fact is plain, that he whom you admit to be unrighteous suffered persecution from whomever it was, the things you suffer cannot prove you righteous. But by whom the Maximianensians also suffered persecution, the proconsular records testify. Advocates were briefed, courts approached and stirred up as against heretics; those men asked protection for themselves as possessors; your people alleged the council of Bagai and demanded that the condemned be driven from the sacred seats; it was pressed, the case was pleaded, when, in the presence of Salvius of Membresa, you showed them to be heretics, won, and expelled them. I see, then, that they suffered persecution and that you carried it out. I ask who are the righteous; you will claim that you are; I conclude: so the one who suffers it is not, as a consequence, righteous, nor the one who carries it out, as a consequence, unrighteous. ### Translation notes - Salvius of Membresa, one of the Maximianist bishops, was driven from his see by Donatist action. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.65 (CSEL 52:471–472; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-65). ## Against Cresconius 3.66 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-66 - Source: CSEL 52:472–473 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that Donatist pressure, including Optatus's threats, brought Felicianus and Praetextatus back, and that they were received with their rank and their baptized without rebaptism. ### Latin text Tu rursus artes dialecticas accusabis: me tamen uerum dicere saltem tacitus adprobabis et eliges tuam sententiam potius corrigere, qua nullam iustam persecutionem esse dixisti, quam Maximianensium persecutores dicere iniustos, quos uestros esse tandem gestis proconsularibus agnouisti. non sane sine fructu schismaticorum uestrorum persecuti estis errorem; nam Felicianum et Praetextatum eodem conflictu et molestiis correxistis. et Optatum quidem Gildonianum grauiora exitia comminantem Mustitani et Adsuritani, sicut ab eis quoque praesens audiui, timuisse dicuntur et suos episcopos coegisse, ut ad Primiani communionem reuerterentur. sed cum hoc Optatus nullis gestis publicis exegerit, ut quid agam talibus aduersus uos, paratos negare quidquid negare potueritis? acta extant proconsularia et municipalia, quibus recitatis ostendimus, quanta ui memorati a uestris ut locis cederent urgebantur. non culpamus, non inuidemus: non frustra laborastis, non in cassum terruistis, non inaniter agitastis. displicuit eis adflictis animositas sua, fracti sunt, emendati sunt, correcti ac recepti sunt post suam damnationem, post aliorum dilationem, post uestram persecutionem. recepti sunt autem sicut fuerant honorati, nulla paenitentiae grauioris humiliatione uel expiati uel degradati nec ipsi nec illi, cum quibus recepti sunt, quos secum separauerant contra uos, baptizauerant extra uos, quos rebaptizauerant fortasse post uos. ### English translation (Claude) You will again accuse the arts of dialectic; yet you will at least silently approve that I speak the truth, and will choose to correct your opinion, in which you said that no persecution is just, rather than call unrighteous the persecutors of the Maximianensians, whom you have at last recognized from the proconsular records to be your own people. Indeed, it was not without fruit that you persecuted the error of your schismatics; for by that same conflict and those troubles you corrected Felicianus and Praetextatus. And it is said that the people of Musti and Assuras, as I too heard from them in person, feared Optatus the Gildonian when he threatened heavier destruction, and compelled their bishops to return to Primian's communion. But since Optatus exacted this by no public records, why should I use such things against you, who are ready to deny whatever you can deny? There exist proconsular and municipal records, by reading which we have shown with how much force the men mentioned were pressed by your people to give up their places. We do not blame, we do not grudge it: you did not labor in vain, you did not frighten to no purpose, you did not harass uselessly. Their animosity displeased them when afflicted; they were broken, amended, corrected, and received back, after their condemnation, after the extension for others, after your persecution. And they were received as they had been honored, neither expiated nor degraded by any humiliation of a heavier penance, neither they themselves nor those with whom they were received, whom they had separated with them against you, baptized outside you, and perhaps rebaptized after you. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.66 (CSEL 52:472–473; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-66). ## Against Cresconius 3.67 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-67 - Source: CSEL 52:473–474 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that the Donatists first brought the case to Constantine and lost, and that Christians abroad rightly believed the judges rather than the defeated accusers. ### Latin text Nihil habetis iam unde caliginosa mendacia hominibus ignaris de rebus longe praeteritis ingeratis. quod uestri apud Constantinum tunc imperatorem accusauerunt Caecilianum, publica monumenta proclamant. dictam esse causam et ad debitum finem esse perductam usque ad purgationem Felicis Aptugnensis ordinatoris Caeciliani, quem in concilio Carthaginiensi malorum omnium fontem dixerunt et apud eundem Constantinum, sicut scriptis suis ipse indicat, adsiduis interpellationibus accusarunt, proconsularia testantur archiua. resistitis reclamatis repugnatis apertissimae ueritati, dicitis etiam transmarinos iudices a Caeciliano esse corruptos, ipsum imperatorem nescio qua gratia deprauatum; eo quippe est inpudentior uictus accusator quo fit etiam iudicis calumniator. uerumtamen inter omnia illa uestra mendacia, quibus transmarinis iudicibus calumniamini, saltem hoc optinemus, quod primi maiores uestri ad imperatorem causam istam detulerunt, primi apud imperatorem Caecilianum et eius ordinatorem accusauerunt, primi apud imperatorem Caecilianum et eius socios persecuti sunt. unde nobis, sicut uobis uidetur, grauissimam concitatis inuidiam, quia uicti patimini quod uictores utique faceretis, uelut si Danihelem criminari uellent, qui illo innocente liberato ipsi ab eis leonibus consumpti sunt, a quibus eum per calumniam consumi uoluerunt. optinemus etiam, quodlibet de iudicibus, (a quibus) praesens iudicio transmarino absolutus est Caecilianus, quodlibet de ipso, apud quem maiores uestri Caecilianum accusauerunt, cuius postremo iudicium episcopali praelatum iudicio delegerunt, Constantino imperatore tamquam corrupto gratia siue sentiatis siue fingatis, omnes tamen, qui tunc erant uel in propinquis uel in remotis terris tam longe lateque diffusi catholici christiani, ad quos fama de Caeciliano et collegis eius potuit peruenire, non debuisse accusatoribus uictis, sed ecclesiasticis iudicibus credere. ubi enim iudices omnes esse non possumus, melius his qui esse potuerint credimus quam credendo litigatoribus uictis, quorum esse iudices non potuimus, de ipsis iudicare iudicibus audeamus. ### English translation (Claude) You no longer have anything by which to heap dark lies on people ignorant of things long past. That your people accused Caecilian before the emperor Constantine at that time, public records proclaim. That the case was pleaded and brought to its due end, including the clearing of Felix of Abthugni, Caecilian's ordainer, whom in the council of Carthage they called the source of all evils and accused before the same Constantine with constant petitions, as he himself indicates in his writings, the proconsular archives testify. You resist, you protest, you fight against the plainest truth; you say that the judges overseas were also corrupted by Caecilian, and the emperor himself perverted by some favor; a defeated accuser is all the more shameless for becoming also a slanderer of the judge. Yet among all those lies of yours by which you slander the judges overseas, we at least establish this: that your forefathers were the first to bring this case before the emperor, the first to accuse Caecilian and his ordainer before the emperor, the first to persecute Caecilian and his associates before the emperor. Hence you stir up, as it seems to you, very great odium against us, because, defeated, you suffer what you would certainly have done as victors; as if they wished to blame Daniel, who, when he, the innocent, was freed, were themselves devoured by the lions by which they had wished him to be devoured through slander. We establish also that, whatever you think or pretend about the judges by whom Caecilian, present, was acquitted in the judgment overseas, and about the emperor Constantine himself, before whom your forefathers accused Caecilian and whose judgment, finally, they chose in preference to the bishops' judgment, as though he were corrupted by favor, all the Catholic Christians then living, in near or distant lands spread so far and wide, whom the report about Caecilian and his colleagues could reach, ought to have believed not the defeated accusers but the church judges. For where we cannot all be judges, we do better to believe those who could be, than, by believing defeated litigants whose judges we could not be, to dare to judge the judges themselves. ### Scripture references - Dan 6:24: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The Donatists appealed to Constantine in 313; councils at Rome (313) and Arles (314) and the emperor's own hearing (316) found for Caecilian; Felix of Abthugni was cleared in 315. Dan 6:24. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.67 (CSEL 52:473–474; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-67). ## Against Cresconius 3.68 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-68 - Source: CSEL 52:474–475 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the Maximianist affair was God's way of making the Donatists, who condemned the world for believing Caecilian's judges, acquit men they had themselves condemned. ### Latin text Proinde quoniam illi, quibus accusantibus praesens, absolutus est Caecilianus, non solum eos a quibus absolutus est, uerum etiam omnes christianos catholicos in quibuslibet gentibus constitutos, qui uel illam dissensionem Afrorum penitus nescierunt uel in ea iudicibus, sicut eis uisum est. suo periculo pronuntiantibus quam uictis accusatoribus credere maluerunt, Caeciliani criminibus uel fictis uel certe non probatis perfundere audacissima inprobitate conati sunt et omnes negare esse christianos, missa est uobis tandem aliquando Maximianensium causa, in qua ipsi damnarent, ipsi damnatos persequerentur, ipsi persecutos in eodem honore reciperent, ipsi baptismum damnatorum acceptarent, ut, qui innocentes ausi sunt accusare, nocentes cogerentur absoluere, non quos innocentes esse crediderant, sed quos. ut dicunt, dei praesidentis arbitrio ueridico plenarii concilii sui ore damnauerant. quis cuiquam dixit aliquando: quoniam indici absoluenti potius quam mihi accusanti credidisti, reus es cum ipsis quos accusaui? et hoc tamen orbi christiano dicitur, quod si uni homini diceretur, non dico iniquissimum, sed insanissimum uideretur. o rem mirabiliter indignam! accusarunt Afri Afros crimine traditionis, accusatos transmarini iudices absoluerunt, et traditores facti sunt populi gentium, quia iudicibus absoluentibus potius quam accusatoribus criminantibus crediderunt. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, since those at whose accusation Caecilian, present, was acquitted tried with most audacious wickedness to drench with Caecilian's crimes, whether invented or at least not proved, not only those by whom he was acquitted but also all Catholic Christians placed among any nations, who either knew nothing at all of that African dissension or chose rather to believe the judges pronouncing, as it seemed to them, at their own peril than the defeated accusers, and to deny that they all are Christians, at last the case of the Maximianensians was sent to you, in which you yourselves should condemn, yourselves persecute the condemned, yourselves receive the persecuted in the same honor, yourselves accept the baptism of the condemned; so that those who dared to accuse the innocent should be compelled to acquit the guilty, not men whom they had believed innocent, but men whom, as they say, they had condemned by the judgment of God presiding through the truthful mouth of their plenary council. Who ever said to anyone: “Because you believed the judge who acquitted rather than me who accused, you are guilty along with those whom I accused”? And yet this is said to the Christian world, which, if it were said to one man, would seem, I do not say most unjust, but most insane. O wonderfully unworthy thing! Africans accused Africans of the crime of handing over; judges overseas acquitted the accused; and the peoples of the nations became traitors because they believed the judges who acquitted rather than the accusers who charged. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.68 (CSEL 52:474–475; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-68). ## Against Cresconius 3.69 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-69 - Source: CSEL 52:475–476 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine urges the Donatists, who received back their own condemned and corrected them by pressure, to accept the same remedy and return to the Catholic church. ### Latin text Merito tibi est, pars Donati. Maximianensium causa propinata: bibe calicem de manu domini corripientis et admonentis. si intellegis et adquiescis, misericordia est ista emendantis, ne incidas in iudicium punientis. tibi dicitur: superba et dura ceruice, reconciliare christianis usque quaque populis a te inique accusatis, saltem iam tuis reconciliata damnatis. quid rescindis baptisma Christi in illis uel ex illis ecclesiis quas apostoli fundauerunt? iam baptisma recepisti, quod tui damnati, antequam tibi reconciliarentur, dederunt. quid de persecutione quam pateris gloriaris? si iustitiae signum est, iustior est pars Maximiani; nam et a te passa est et patitur tecum. audite psalmum diuinum: nolite esse sicut equus et mulus non habentes intellectum. persecutores enim uestros nos dicitis, cum uos saluos fieri cupientes uestra quae sanari uolumus uulnera medicinaliter persequamur, unde a clericis et circumcellionibus tamquam dentibus et calcibus uestris grauiter, dum uos curamus, adfligimur. nolite esse ingrati tali medicinae quam estis imitati; et uos Felicianum et Praetextatum persecutionibus correxistis. atque utinam totum corrigeretis et sicut illi ad uos, ita illi et uos ad matrem catholicam rediretis! ### English translation (Claude) Rightly, party of Donatus, has the case of the Maximianensians been given you to drink: drink the cup from the hand of the Lord who rebukes and admonishes. If you understand and yield, this is the mercy of one who corrects, lest you fall into the judgment of one who punishes. It is said to you: proud and stiff-necked, be reconciled to the Christian peoples everywhere whom you have unjustly accused, now that you have been reconciled at least to your own condemned. Why do you cancel the baptism of Christ in those, or from those, churches which the apostles founded? You have already received the baptism which your condemned gave before they were reconciled to you. Why do you boast of the persecution you suffer? If it is a sign of righteousness, the party of Maximian is more righteous; for it suffered from you and suffers with you. Hear the divine psalm: “Do not be like the horse and the mule, which have no understanding.” For you call us your persecutors, when, desiring you to be saved, we pursue medicinally your wounds which we wish to heal; for which we are grievously afflicted, while we treat you, by your clergy and Circumcellions as by your teeth and heels. Do not be ungrateful for such medicine, which you have imitated; you too corrected Felicianus and Praetextatus by persecutions. And would that you corrected the whole, and that, as they returned to you, so you too would return to the Catholic mother! ### Scripture references - Ps 75:8 (74:9 LXX): allusion, medium confidence - Acts 7:51: allusion, medium confidence - Ps 32:9 (31:9 LXX): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Ps 75:8; Acts 7:51; Ps 32:9 (31:9 LXX). Augustine again plays on persequi, “persecute” and “pursue”. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.69 (CSEL 52:475–476; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-69). ## Against Cresconius 3.70 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-70 - Source: CSEL 52:476 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine sets the promise to Abraham's seed, fulfilled in the worldwide church, against Cresconius's argument that the Catholic church is not everywhere. ### Latin text Contra quam. frater Cresconi, tanta es elatus audacia, ut a me commemorata etiam illa diuina testimonia refellere conareris et obstrepere dei uocibus. hoc enim posui in illa epistula contra quam loqueris, quod in sancto libro est de semine Abrahae, ad illum patrem nostrum deo dicente: in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes. quod testamentum appellat apostolus dicens: fratres, secundum hominem dico. tamen hominis confirmatum testamentum nemo irritum facit aut superordinat. Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius. non dicit (et seminibus tamquam in multis, sed tamquam in uno (et semini tuo quod est Christus. huius seminis fecunditas tam copiosa promissa est, ut diceretur ei: sic erit semen tuum sicut stellae caeli et sicut arena maris quae non potest dinumerari. huic tu multiplicationi atque ubertati ecclesiae, quae toto orbe dilatatur, quae prophetata sic creditur, sic omnium etiam infidelium oculis exhibetur, ut claudat etiam ora paganorum, qui aduersus eam paucissimi remanserunt, partem Donati audes praeponere, dicens quod et praeter Africam nescio quos habeatis, quibus tamen non apparentibus ex Africa uos solere mittere episcopos non negatis unum aut duos aut ut multum tres, et argumentaris inaniter contra euidentissimam ueritatem, quod ideo nobis non totus orbis communicet, quia uel adhuc multa sunt gentium barbararum, quae in Christum nondum crediderunt, uel sub nomine Christi haereses multae a communione nostrae societatis alienae. ### English translation (Claude) Against her, brother Cresconius, you are carried away by such audacity that you try to refute even those divine testimonies I mentioned and to shout down the voices of God. For I set down in that letter you speak against what is in the holy book about the seed of Abraham, God saying to that father of ours: “In your seed all nations will be blessed.” This the apostle calls a testament, saying: “Brothers, I speak in human terms: even a man's testament, once ratified, no one annuls or adds to. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say ‘and to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘and to your seed,’ which is Christ.” So abundant a fruitfulness of this seed was promised that it was said to him: “So shall your seed be, as the stars of heaven and as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered.” To this multiplication and fruitfulness of the church, which spreads through the whole world, which is believed to have been so prophesied and is so displayed to the eyes of all, even unbelievers, that it shuts even the mouths of the pagans, very few of whom remain against it, you dare to prefer the party of Donatus, saying that you have some people or other outside Africa too, though, since they do not appear, you do not deny that you are accustomed to send them bishops from Africa, one or two or at most three; and you argue in vain against the most evident truth that the whole world is not in communion with us because either many barbarian nations still remain who have not yet believed in Christ, or many heresies under the name of Christ are strangers to the communion of our fellowship. ### Scripture references - Gen 22:18: quotation, high confidence - Gal 3:15: quotation, high confidence - Gal 3:16: quotation, high confidence - Gen 22:17: quotation, high confidence - Gen 15:5: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Gen 22:18; Gal 3:15–16; Gen 22:17 with Gen 15:5. The Donatists maintained a bishop at Rome for their few adherents there. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.70 (CSEL 52:476; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-70). ## Against Cresconius 3.71 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-71 - Source: CSEL 52:476–477 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers that the gospel is still spreading among the nations, as Christ foretold, and that the Donatists deny the visible church while believing in the unseen Christ. ### Latin text Nec attendis nec saltem ab scientibus quaeris, quam multa ipsarum barbararum gentium quas commemorasti Christi iam nomini mancipata sint et quemadmodum in ceteras euangelium crescendo fructificare non cesset, donec in omnibus cum fuerit praedicatum ueniat finis. sic enim ipse dominus ait: et praedicabitur hoc euangelium in uniuerso orbe in testimonium omnibus gentibus, et tunc ueniet finis. nisi forte etiam in tantum (abruptum) uos praecipitat insana superbia, ut hoc quod praedictum est de parte Donati putetis incipiendum. non ex illis ecclesiis quas apostoli plantauerunt, quibus non communicat pars Donati. an et ipsas, ut mundum impleat, rebaptizare conabitur, cum catholica per cuncta crescente illa et in ipsa Africa cotidie minuatur? o uesana peruersitas hominum! laudari te credis de Christo credendo quod non uides, et damnari te non credis de ecclesia negando quod uides, cum illud caput in caelo sit, hoc corpus in terra. ### English translation (Claude) Nor do you notice, nor even ask those who know, how many of those very barbarian nations you mentioned have already been made over to the name of Christ, and how the gospel does not cease to bear fruit by growing into the rest, until, when it has been preached in all, the end comes. For so the Lord himself says: “And this gospel will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” Unless perhaps insane pride drives you into so great a precipice that you think what was foretold must begin from the party of Donatus, not from those churches which the apostles planted, with which the party of Donatus has no communion. Or will it try to rebaptize those too, in order to fill the world, while the Catholic church grows through all lands and it diminishes daily even in Africa itself? O mad perversity of men! You believe you are praised for believing in Christ, whom you do not see, and you do not believe you are condemned for denying the church, which you see; though the head is in heaven, and the body on earth. ### Scripture references - Matt 24:14: quotation, high confidence - John 20:29: allusion, medium confidence - Col 1:18: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 24:14; John 20:29; Col 1:18. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.71 (CSEL 52:476–477; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-71). ## Against Cresconius 3.72 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-72 - Source: CSEL 52:477–479 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine sets side by side prophecies that the Donatists accept of Christ and the verses next to them that foretell the church spread through the whole earth. ### Latin text Agnoscis Christum in eo quod scriptum est: exaltare super caelos, deus, et non agnoscis ecclesiam in eo quod sequitur: et super omnem terram gloria tua. agnoscis Christum in eo quod scriptum est: foderunt manus meas et pedes, dinumerauerunt omnia ossa mea. ipsi uero considerauerunt et conspexerunt me, diuiserunt sibi uestimenta mea et super uestem meam miserunt sortem, et non agnoscis ecclesiam in eo quod paulo post sequitur: commemorabuntur et conuertentur ad dominum uniuersi fines terrae et adorabunt in conspectu eius uniuersae patriae gentium, quoniam domini est regnum et ipse dominabitur gentium. agnoscis Christum in eo quod scriptum est: deus, iudicium tuum regi da et iustitiam tuam filio regis, et non agnoscis ecclesiam in eo quod psalmus ipse testatur: dominabitur a mari usque ad mare et a flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrae. coram illo decident Aethiopes et inimici eius terram lingent. reges Tharsis et insulae munera offerent, reges Arabum et Saba dona adducent. et adorabunt eum omnes reges terrae, omnes gentes seruient illi. agnoscis Christum ubi dicitur ad Iudaeos: non est mihi uoluntas in uobis, dicit dominus omnipotens, nec accipiam sacrificia de manibus uestris — quia utique Christi aduentus abstulit illa omnia sacrificia Iudaeorum —, et non agnoscis ecclesiam in eo quod sequitur: quoniam ab ortu solis usque ad occasum glorificatum est nomen meum in gentibus, et in omni loco incensum admouebitur nomini meo et hostia pura. magnum enim nomen meum in gentibus, dicit dominus omnipotens. agnoscis Christum in eo quod dicit propheta: sicut ouis ad immolandum ductus est et cetera quae ibi de illo tamquam in euangelio leguntur, et non agnoscis ecclesiam in eo quod paulo post dicit: laetare, sterilis, quae non paris, erumpe et clama quae non parturis, quoniam multi filii desertae magis quam eius quae habet uirum. dixit enim dominus: dilata locum tabernaculi tui et aulas tuas confige — non est quod parcas —, porrige longius funiculos, palos ualidos confirma, etiam atque etiam in dextram atque sinistram extende. semen enim tuum hereditabit gentes et ciuitates quae desertae erant inhabitabis. non est quod metuas — praeualebis enim — nec erubescas quod detestabilis fueris. confusionem enim in perpetuum obliuisceris, ignominiae uiduitatis tuae non eris memor. quoniam ego sum dominus qui facio te, dominus nomen ei, et qui eruit te ipse deus Israhel uniuersae terrae uocabitur. ### English translation (Claude) You recognize Christ in what is written, “Be exalted above the heavens, O God,” and you do not recognize the church in what follows, “and your glory above all the earth.” You recognize Christ in what is written, “They pierced my hands and feet; they counted all my bones. They looked and stared at me; they divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots,” and you do not recognize the church in what follows a little later: “All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will worship before him; for the kingdom is the Lord's, and he will rule over the nations.” You recognize Christ in what is written, “O God, give your judgment to the king and your righteousness to the king's son,” and you do not recognize the church in what the same psalm testifies: “He will rule from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth. Before him the Ethiopians will fall down, and his enemies will lick the dust. The kings of Tarshish and the islands will offer gifts; the kings of the Arabs and of Sheba will bring presents. And all the kings of the earth will worship him; all nations will serve him.” You recognize Christ where it is said to the Jews, “I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord almighty, nor will I accept sacrifices from your hands” (since the coming of Christ certainly took away all those sacrifices of the Jews), and you do not recognize the church in what follows: “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord almighty.” You recognize Christ in what the prophet says, “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter,” and the rest that is read there of him as in a gospel, and you do not recognize the church in what he says a little later: “Rejoice, barren one, who do not bear; break forth and cry, you who are not in labor; for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her who has a husband. For the Lord has said: Enlarge the place of your tent and set up your courts; do not hold back; lengthen your cords, strengthen your stakes; spread out again and again to the right and to the left. For your seed will inherit the nations, and you will inhabit the cities that were desolate. Do not fear, for you will prevail; and do not be ashamed that you were detestable. For you will forget your shame forever, and you will not remember the disgrace of your widowhood. For I am the Lord who makes you; the Lord is his name; and he who rescued you, the God of Israel himself, will be called God of the whole earth.” ### Scripture references - Ps 57:5 (56:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 22:16 (21:17 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 22:17 (21:18 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 22:18 (21:19 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 22:27 (21:28 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 22:28 (21:29 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 72:1 (71:1 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 72:8 (71:8 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 72:9 (71:9 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 72:10 (71:10 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 72:11 (71:11 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Mal 1:10: quotation, high confidence - Mal 1:11: quotation, high confidence - Isa 53:7: quotation, high confidence - Isa 54:1: quotation, high confidence - Isa 54:2: quotation, high confidence - Isa 54:3: quotation, high confidence - Isa 54:4: quotation, high confidence - Isa 54:5: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Ps 57:5 (56:6 LXX); Ps 22:16–18, 27–28 (21:17–19, 28–29 LXX); Ps 72:1, 8–11 (71 LXX); Mal 1:10–11; Isa 53:7; Isa 54:1–5. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.72 (CSEL 52:477–479; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-72). ## Against Cresconius 3.73 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-73 - Source: CSEL 52:479 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says Cyprian learned the worldwide church from these prophecies and would not have deserted it on account of visible sinners. ### Latin text In his certe litteris Sanctis ecclesiam didicit Cyprianus. ut diceret: sic ecclesia domini luce perfusa per orbem totum radios suos porrexit, ramos suos per uniuersam terram copia ubertatis extendit. huic tu, Cresconi, tantae manifestationi diuinorum eloquiorum calumniaris intuendo residua gentium, quae nondum occupauit ecclesia; quanta occupauerit, unde ad residua tenenda cotidie diffunditur, non attendis. quomodo enim prophetiarum istarum futuram perfectionem non neges, qui tantum prouectum, cui debetur ipsa perfectio, negare non dubitas non dico aduersus uoces diuinas, sed iam et aduersus tuas? nam et de te ui magna ipsius ueritatis expressum est, ut diceres nesciens uel non attendens quid dixeris, quod in christianum nomen totus cotidie uertitur mundus. cur ergo huic ecclesiae, quae toto mundo crescendo dilatatur, non communicat pars Donati? uidelicet ne a peccatoribus polluatur. et ubi est, quod non istam uestram, quae in Africa remanens orbi terrarum calumniatur aut ex Africa in paucis latentibus peregrinatur, sed illam. quae ramos suos per uniuersam terram copia ubertatis extendit. noluit deseri Cyprianus, etiamsi in eius communione non tantum sint uerum appareant peccatores, dicens: nam etsi uidentur in ecclesia esse zizania, non tamen inpediri debet uel fides uel caritas nostra, ut quoniam zizania esse in ecclesia cernimus ipsi de ecclesia recedamus? ### English translation (Claude) In these holy writings, certainly, Cyprian learned the church, so as to say: “So the church of the Lord, flooded with light, has stretched out her rays through the whole world; she extends her branches over the whole earth with abundance of fruitfulness.” Against so great a manifestation of the divine words, Cresconius, you raise false charges by looking at the remainder of the nations which the church has not yet occupied; how much she has occupied, from which she spreads daily to take the remainder, you do not notice. For how would you not deny the future completion of these prophecies, you who do not hesitate to deny so great a progress, to which that very completion is due, not only against the divine voices but now even against your own? For by the great force of the truth itself it was drawn from you too, so that you said, not knowing or not noticing what you were saying, that the whole world is turning daily to the Christian name. Why then does the party of Donatus not communicate with this church, which spreads by growing through the whole world? To avoid, no doubt, being polluted by sinners. And where is the fact that Cyprian would not have deserted, not this church of yours, which, remaining in Africa, slanders the world, or travels from Africa among a few in hiding, but that church which extends her branches over the whole earth with abundance of fruitfulness, even if in her communion there are, and not only are but are seen to be, sinners, saying: “For 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”? ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Unit. eccl. 5 (On the Unity of the Catholic Church): quotation, high confidence - Cyprian, Ep. 54.3 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church 5; Letter 54.3. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.73 (CSEL 52:479; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-73). ## Against Cresconius 3.74 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-55/#p-3-74 - Source: CSEL 52:479–480 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers that the world is full both of heretics and of God's faithful, as the sea holds bitter water and sweet fish. ### Latin text Hic et tu responde, si tibi placet ueri aliquid respondere. et quomodo implebitur quod scriptum est: filius malus ipse se iustum dicit, exitum autem suum non abluit? coarguat filium malum, Maximianenses damnet et persequatur, damnatis et persecutis reconcilietur: uel sic conuincatur, uel sic confundatur, uel sic corrigatur. quomodo, inquis, totus orbis communione uestra plenus est, ubi tam multae sunt haereses, quarum uobis nulla communicat? immo non tantum haereticis, uerum etiam ceteris hominibus malis plenus est orbis et sanctis ac fidelibus dei seruis plenus est orbis, quia et mare plenum est amaris fluctibus, plenum est et dulcibus piscibus. ### English translation (Claude) Here you too answer, if you are pleased to answer anything true. And how will what is written be fulfilled: “The wicked son calls himself righteous, but does not wash away his going out”? Let it convict the wicked son; let it condemn and persecute the Maximianensians, and be reconciled to the condemned and persecuted: let it in this way be refuted, or in this way confounded, or in this way corrected. “How,” you say, “is the whole world full of your communion, where there are so many heresies, none of which communicates with you?” Indeed, the world is full not only of heretics but also of other wicked men, and the world is full of holy and faithful servants of God; just as the sea is full of bitter waves and is full also of sweet fish. ### Scripture references - Prov 30:12: quotation, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Prov 30:12 (Old Latin of Prov 24 LXX). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.74 (CSEL 52:479–480; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-74). ## Against Cresconius 3.75 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-75 - Source: CSEL 52:480–481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine reconciles the “few” and “many” saved: true Christians are many in themselves but few compared with the wicked, and both are spread through the whole world. ### Latin text In paucis, inquis, frequenter est ueritas, errare multorum est, et ne uerbis tuis tantae illius sterilis fecunditati. contradicere uidereris, cui dictum est: multi filii desertae magis quam eius quae habet uirum, adhibuisti ex euangelio testimonium: quoniam pauci sunt qui saluantur. solue ergo quaestionem, quomodo ipse dominus dicat: quam arta et angusta est uia quae ducit ad uitam, et pauci sunt qui inueniunt eam, et idem ipse alibi dicat: multi ab oriente et occidente uenient et recumbent cum Abraham et Isaac et Iacob in regno caelorum, quomodo etiam in Apocalypsi demonstratur eorum multitudo, quam numerare nemo potest, ex omni gente et tribu et lingua. habentium stolas albas palmasque ferentium, qui pressuras propter fidem Christi sustinuerant, quomodo idem sint pauci qui multi. neque enim alterum horum est uerum, alterum falsum, cum sit utrumque diuina ueritate prolatum, nisi quia idem ipsi boni uerique christiani, qui per se ipsos multi sunt, in conparatione malorum falsorumque itidem pauci sunt. sic multa grana, quibus horrea magna conplentur, pauca dicimus in comparatione palearum, sic etiam — ut de ipso dei testamento dicam, quod factum est ad Abraham de semine eius, quod est Christus — multas stellas, quas numerare non possumus, e quibus tam grande caelum undique circumfulget, paucas dicimus in comparatione harenae maris. forte stellae significauerint spiritales christianos, maris autem harena carnales, per quos et ex quibus etiam haereses et schismata fiunt, utroque tamen genere plenus est mundus, quia idem dominus dicit: ager est hic mundus et tu ipse tibi ueritate extorquente dixisti: in nomen Christi totus cotidie uertitur mundus. per totum igitur agrum, hoc est per totum mundum frumenta, per totum zizania, quia de utroque dixit qui falli non potest: sinite utraque crescere usque ad messem. ### English translation (Claude) “Truth,” you say, “is often among few; to err is the mark of many.” And so as not to seem to contradict in your words the great fruitfulness of that barren one to whom it was said, “Many are the children of the desolate, more than of her who has a husband,” you brought a testimony from the gospel: “For few are those who are saved.” Solve, then, the question how the Lord himself says, “How narrow and confined is the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it,” and the same Lord says elsewhere, “Many will come from east and west and recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven”; how also in the Apocalypse is shown their multitude, which no one can number, from every nation and tribe and tongue, having white robes and bearing palms, who had endured tribulations for the faith of Christ; how the same are few who are many. For neither of these is true and the other false, since both are spoken by divine truth; unless that the same good and true Christians, who in themselves are many, are likewise few in comparison with the bad and false. So the many grains with which great barns are filled we call few in comparison with the chaff. So also (to speak of the very testament of God made to Abraham concerning his seed, which is Christ) the many stars, which we cannot count and with which so great a heaven shines all around, we call few in comparison with the sand of the sea. Perhaps the stars signified spiritual Christians, and the sand of the sea carnal ones, through whom and from whom heresies and schisms also arise; yet the world is full of both kinds, since the same Lord says, “The field is this world”; and you yourself, the truth forcing it from you, said, “The whole world is turning daily to the name of Christ.” Through the whole field, then, that is, through the whole world, there is wheat, through the whole there are tares, since he who cannot be deceived said of both, “Let both grow until the harvest.” ### Scripture references - Isa 54:1: quotation, high confidence - Luke 13:23: quotation, high confidence - Matt 7:14: quotation, high confidence - Matt 8:11: quotation, high confidence - Rev 7:9: allusion, high confidence - Rev 7:14: allusion, high confidence - Gen 22:17: allusion, high confidence - Matt 13:38: quotation, high confidence - Matt 13:30: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Isa 54:1; Luke 13:23; Matt 7:14; Matt 8:11; Rev 7:9–14; Gen 22:17; Matt 13:38, 30. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.75 (CSEL 52:480–481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75). ## Against Cresconius 3.76 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-76 - Source: CSEL 52:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that if fewness proved righteousness, the tiny Maximianist party, persecuted by the Donatists, would be most righteous. ### Latin text Cohibeant itaque se frumentorum per totum mundum tanta ubertate crescentium impii desertores et non audeant de quorundam zizaniorum separatorum paucitate gloriari. quodsi gloriantur, etiam in hoc ipso procedunt aduersus eos idem illi Maximianenses in iudicio diuino ad eos in omnibus confundendos et si sapiant corrigendos appositi, quos multo pauciores praefidentia multitudinis suae persecuti sunt et persequendo ad suam communionem aliquos eorum denuo conuerterunt ac sic ceteros iustissimos quo paucissimos reliquerunt. ### English translation (Claude) Let, then, the ungodly deserters of the wheat, which grows with such fruitfulness through the whole world, restrain themselves, and not dare to boast of the fewness of certain separated tares. But if they boast, in this very point too those same Maximianensians come forward against them, set in the divine judgment to confound them in everything and, if they are wise, to correct them; for, being far fewer, they were persecuted by those who trusted in their own numbers, who by persecuting converted some of them back to their communion, and so left the rest, most righteous, I suppose, to be very few. ### Translation notes - The ending is ironic; “quo paucissimos” is translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.76 (CSEL 52:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-76). ## Against Cresconius 3.77 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-77 - Source: CSEL 52:481–483 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the Catholic church is one everywhere, while heresies are local, and that the Donatists should have proved their evidence to that worldwide church. ### Latin text Non, inquis, communicat oriens Africae nec Africa orienti. non sane, sed in paleis haereticis ab area dominica separatis; in frumentis autem catholicis et interioribus paleis omnino communicat oriens Africae et Africa orienti. alii quippe hic, alii uero alibi atque alibi haeretici cum diffusa ubique catholica unitate confligunt. ubique est enim illa, de qua exierunt qui esse ubique minime potuerunt, dicentes secundum id quod de illis praedictum est: ecce hic est Christus, ecce illic, alii hoc loco, alio alii suarum praesumptionum uel potius amputationum proprias particulas ostendentes atque impia superbia radicem unde fracti sunt abnegantes. huic ergo ecclesiae, quae copiosis successibus, cum dilatatur toto orbe terrarum, ex omni gente, tribu et lingua parit multitudinem candidatorum et palmatorum, sicut in Apocalypsi scriptum est, quam numerare nemo potest, huic, inquam, ecclesiae, cui partem Donati non communicare manifestum est, maiores uestri probare debuerunt quaecumque uera documenta de traditoribus habuerunt. quod si fecissent, ipsi in illa essent, extra illam uero illi quos accusassent. nunc autem cum accusatos in illa permansisse uideamus, quid boni de accusatoribus sentire debemus, quos extra illam uidemus? ac per hoc in illa mea quadripertita distributione, ubi dixi, cum de traditoribus proferuntur ex utraque parte documenta, aut utraque uera esse aut utraque falsa aut nostra uera et uestra falsa aut nostra falsa et uestra uera, cum uideres in superioribus tribus uos facillime superari, frustra tibi hoc extremum quasi qua euaderes elegisti. quamuis enim quam inpudenter dicatur aduertas, tamen ea ipsa uera uestra si qua essent humana documenta, illi ecclesiae probari debuerunt, quam probant documenta diuina. ### English translation (Claude) “The East,” you say, “does not communicate with Africa, nor Africa with the East.” Not indeed in the heretical chaff separated from the Lord's threshing floor; but in the Catholic wheat and the chaff within, the East communicates entirely with Africa and Africa with the East. For some heretics here, others there and elsewhere, contend with the Catholic unity spread everywhere. For she is everywhere, from whom those went out who could by no means be everywhere, saying, as was foretold of them, “Behold, here is Christ, behold, there”; some in this place, others in another, showing their own little parts of their presumptions, or rather their amputations, and with ungodly pride denying the root from which they were broken off. To this church, then, which with abundant success, as it spreads through the whole world, bears from every nation, tribe, and tongue a multitude clothed in white and bearing palms, which no one can number, as is written in the Apocalypse; to this church, I say, with which it is plain that the party of Donatus does not communicate, your forefathers ought to have proved whatever true evidence they had about the traitors. If they had done this, they themselves would be in it, and those whom they accused outside it. But now, since we see that the accused remained in it, what good should we think of the accusers, whom we see outside it? And therefore, in that fourfold division of mine, where I said that when evidence about the traitors is brought from both sides, either both are true, or both false, or ours true and yours false, or ours false and yours true, when you saw that in the first three you were very easily defeated, you chose this last in vain as a way to escape. For though you notice how shamelessly it is said, yet even those true documents of yours, if there were any human documents, ought to have been proved to that church which the divine documents prove. ### Scripture references - Matt 24:23: quotation, high confidence - Rev 7:9: allusion, high confidence - Rom 11:17: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 24:23; Rev 7:9; Rom 11:17–20. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.77 (CSEL 52:481–483; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-77). ## Against Cresconius 3.78 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-78 - Source: CSEL 52:483–484 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine presses a dilemma: whether or not the Donatist evidence was put before the churches overseas, those churches cannot justly be condemned, and the Donatists should have stayed in unity. ### Latin text Dic mihi, obsecro te — sed noli offundere nebulas imperitis, ut, quoniam traditores accusatos non uales conuincere, identidem uelis artes dialecticas accusare —, dic ergo, rogo te, causa ista uestra cum ueris documentis uestris perducta est ad iudicium transmarinarum ecclesiarum labore apostolico fundatarum an non est perducta? si perducta est, uicistis in eo iudicio an uicti estis? si uicisse uos dicitis, cur eis ecclesiis, in quarum iudicio uicistis, non communicastis? si autem, quod satis ipsa indicat ab eis alienata uestra communio, uicti estis, quid nobiscum uel mala uel bona causa perdita litigatis, id habentes maximum crimen, quod crimine traditorum, quos in iudicio transmarinarum ecclesiarum etiam uera documenta proferentes conuincere minime potuistis, orbem christianum perfunditis, quia in ea causa, in qua interesse non potuit, elegit iudicibus credere, non accusatoribus uictis? non itaque ideo rei estis, quia bonam causam, ut secundum uos loquar, in transmarino iudicio perdidistis, sed quia crimen reorum atque - ut nimium nobis cedatur—et iudicum tot innocentibus populis christianis per tot gentes longe lateque diffusis obicere minime dubitatis; quorum communioni tamquam frumentis dominicis cohaerendo et illos uiros, sicut dicitis, traditores et illos malos, sicut arbitramini, iudices secundum euangelicas litteras etiam monente Cypriano usque ad tempus uentilationis tamquam paleam tolerare debuistis, ne aream deserendo periretis. si autem causa illa uestra cum ueris, quod tibi elegisti, documentis suis ad iudicium transmarinarum ecclesiarum non est perducta, quomodo ab eis potuerunt tot episcopi in suis plebibus constituti causa incognita et ad se omnino non delata iure damnari? aut quomodo debuerunt Afri christiani, non dico illi, qui eos putauerant innocentes, uerum etiam illi, si qui eos nouerant traditores, propter zizania, quae in ecclesia esse cernebant, a frumentorum tam longe lateque crescentium et hos ignorantium tam manifesta innocentia (se) separare, ut propter crimen alienum, quo pro unitate tolerato non macularentur, uiolatae ipsius unitatis crimine damnarentur? ### English translation (Claude) Tell me, I beg you (but do not pour clouds over the unskilled, so that, since you cannot convict the accused traitors, you want again and again to accuse the arts of dialectic), tell me, then, I ask you: was this case of yours, with your true documents, brought to the judgment of the churches overseas founded by apostolic labor, or was it not? If it was brought, did you win in that judgment or were you defeated? If you say you won, why did you not communicate with those churches in whose judgment you won? But if, as your very communion, estranged from them, sufficiently shows, you were defeated, why do you quarrel with us over a case lost, whether bad or good, having this as your greatest crime: that you drench the Christian world with the crime of traitors whom you could by no means convict in the judgment of the churches overseas, even bringing forward true documents, because in that case, in which it could not be present, it chose to believe the judges, not the defeated accusers? You are not, then, guilty because you lost a good case, to speak on your terms, in the judgment overseas, but because you do not hesitate to charge the crime of the accused and (to grant us too much) of the judges to so many innocent Christian peoples spread far and wide through so many nations; by cleaving to whose communion as to the Lord's wheat you ought to have tolerated, as chaff, until the time of winnowing, according to the gospel writings and with Cyprian also admonishing, both those men, traitors as you say, and those judges, bad as you think, so as not to perish by deserting the threshing floor. But if that case of yours, with its true documents, which you chose for yourself, was not brought to the judgment of the churches overseas, how could so many bishops established among their peoples be rightly condemned by them in a case unknown and not brought to them at all? Or how ought African Christians (I do not say those who had thought them innocent, but even those, if any, who knew them to be traitors), because of the tares which they saw to be in the church, to separate themselves from the so manifest innocence of the wheat growing so far and wide and ignorant of these men, so as to be condemned for the crime of violating unity itself, on account of another's crime, by which, tolerated for unity, they would not have been stained? ### Scripture references - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Ep. 54.3 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 3:12; Cyprian, Letter 54.3. The word in round brackets is the editor's supplement. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.78 (CSEL 52:483–484; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-78). ## Against Cresconius 3.79 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-79 - Source: CSEL 52:484 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine concludes that even if the Donatist documents were true, the worldwide harvest of Abraham's seed could not perish because of hidden African tares. ### Latin text Quid tibi ergo ad causam prodest hoc ex illis quattuor propositis elegisse, ut uestra documenta sint uera, contra uestros autem quae proferimus falsa esse deputentur? ecce et hic uinceris, quoniam ueris quae putas documentis tuis non potuerunt ubi debuerunt conuinci traditores, siue a uestris eadem documenta occultata sint siue ipsi traditores qualibet astutia se iudicibus occultauerint siue ab ipsis prauis iudicibus occultati sint. semen Abrahae respice, quod in testamento dei per omnes gentes crescit sicut stellae caeli et sicut arena maris, et utrum propter occultata quibuslibet causis nescio qua Africana zizania tam copiosa messis per agrum mundum perire potuerit aude dicere, aude credere, aude, si ullus in te dei timor est, cogitare. ### English translation (Claude) What good does it do your case, then, to have chosen from those four propositions that your documents are true and those we bring against your people are reckoned false? See, here too you are defeated, since by what you think are your true documents the traitors could not be convicted where they ought to have been; whether those same documents were hidden by your people, or the traitors themselves hid from the judges by some cunning, or were hidden by the corrupt judges themselves. Look at the seed of Abraham, which in God's testament grows through all nations as the stars of heaven and as the sand of the sea; and dare to say, dare to believe, dare, if there is any fear of God in you, to think whether so abundant a harvest through the field of the world could perish because of some African tares, hidden for whatever reasons. ### Scripture references - Gen 22:17: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Gen 22:17. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.79 (CSEL 52:484; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-79). ## Against Cresconius 3.80 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-80 - Source: CSEL 52:484–485 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes the proconsul Aelianus's sentence (315) clearing Felix of Abthugni, Caecilian's ordainer, of handing over the Scriptures, and exposing Ingentius's forgery. ### Latin text Exaggeras persecutiones quas uos pati dicitis, quibus in tam sacrilega et manifesta obstinatione aduersus pacem sanctae ecclesiae rebellantibus mirabili mansuetudine parcitur, et dicis in primis partibus epistulae tuae, quod imperatori Constantino Caeciliani crimen cum fieret manifestum, ipse quoque eum ut Brixae in exilio degeret sua sententia condemnauit. in quo te quis dubitet uel falli uel fallere, quando et Felicem Aptugnensem commemorasti in iudicio proconsulis ab Ingentio nescio quo de traditione conuictum? Ecce ego insero sententiam Aeliani proconsulis, qua purgatus atque absolutus est Felix. si tota gesta uis legere, ex archiuo proconsulis accipe. Aelianus pro consule dixit: ex professione Caeciliani, qui acta falsa esse dicit atque epistulae plurima addita, manifestum est qua uoluntate haec gesserit Ingentius, et ideo recipietur in carcerem; est enim artiori interrogationi necessarius. Felicem autem religiosum episcopum liberum esse ab exustione instrumentorum deificorum manifestum est, cum nemo in eum aliquid probare potuerit, quod religiosas scripturas tradiderit uel exusserit. omnium enim interrogatio supra scriptorum manifesta est nullas scripturas deificas uel inuentas uel corruptas uel incensas fuisse. hoc actis continetur, quod Felix episcopus religiosus illis temporibus nec praesens fuerit neque conscientiam commodauerit neque tale aliquid fieri iusserit. ### English translation (Claude) You exaggerate the persecutions which you say you suffer, though you, rebelling in so sacrilegious and manifest an obstinacy against the peace of the holy church, are spared with wonderful gentleness; and you say in the first parts of your letter that, when Caecilian's crime became manifest to the emperor Constantine, he too condemned him by his sentence to live in exile at Brescia. Who would doubt that you are either deceived or deceiving in this, since you also mentioned that Felix of Abthugni was convicted of handing over in the proconsul's court by some Ingentius or other? See, I insert the sentence of the proconsul Aelianus, by which Felix was cleared and acquitted. If you wish to read the whole proceedings, get them from the proconsul's archive. “Aelianus, proconsul, said: From the declaration of Caecilianus, who says that the records are false and that very much was added to the letter, it is plain with what intention Ingentius did these things; and therefore he will be taken into prison, for he is needed for stricter questioning. But it is plain that Felix, the devout bishop, is free of the burning of the divine documents, since no one could prove anything against him, that he handed over or burned the religious Scriptures. For the questioning of all those written above has made plain that no divine Scriptures were found, or spoiled, or burned. This is contained in the records: that Felix, the devout bishop, was not present at those times, neither gave his consent, nor ordered anything of the kind to be done.” ### Extrabiblical texts - Optatus, App. Optat. 2 (Appendix of Ten Documents on the Donatist Controversy): quotation, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The Acts of the Purgation of Felix (315), preserved in the appendix to Optatus. The Caecilianus named in the sentence is the magistrate of Abthugni, not the bishop. Brescia (Brixia) in northern Italy. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.80 (CSEL 52:484–485; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-80). ## Against Cresconius 3.81 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-81 - Source: CSEL 52:485–487 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes Constantine's rescript to the proconsul Probianus confirming Felix's acquittal and summoning the forger Ingentius. ### Latin text Insero etiam rescriptum imperatoris Constantini ad Probianum id ipsum attestantis et quam molesti apud eum maiores uestri accusatores innocentium fuerint ostendentis. Imperatores Caesares Flauii Constantinus et Maximinus et Ualerius Licinianus Licinius ad Probianum proconsulem Africae. Aelianus prodecessor tuus merito, cum de perfectissimis Uerus uicarius praefectorum tunc per Africam nostram incommoda ualetudine teneretur, eiusdem partibus functus inter cetera etiam id negotium uel inuidiam, quae Caeciliano episcopo et ecclesiae catholicae uidetur esse commota, ad examen suum atque iussionem credidit esse reuocandam. etenim cum iam Superium centurionem et Caecilianum magistratum Aptugnitanorum et Saturninum ex curatore et Calibium iuniorem eiusdem ciuitatis curatorem atque Solum seruum publicum supra scriptae ciuitatis praesentes esse fecisset, audientiam praebuit conpetentem, adeo ut, cum Caeciliano fuisset obiectum, quod a Felice eidem episcopatus uideretur esse delatus, cui diuinarum scripturarum proditio atque exustio uideretur obiecta, innocentem de eo Felicem fuisse constiterit. denique cum Maximus Ingentium decurionem Ziquensium ciuitatis epistulam Caeciliani ex duumuiris falsasse contenderet, et eundem ipsum Ingentium suspensum actis quae suberant peruidimus et ideo minime tortum, quod se decurionem Ziquensium ciuitatis esse adseuerauerit. unde uolumus eundem ipsum Ingentium sub idonea prosecutione ad comitatum meum Constantini Augusti mittas, ut illis, qui in praesentiarum agunt atque diurnis diebus interpellare non desinunt, audientibus et coram adsistentibus apparere et intimari possit frustra eos Caeciliano episcopo inuidiam conparare atque aduersus eum uiolenter insurgere uoluisse. ita enim fiet, ut omissis, sicuti oportet, eiusmodi contentionibus populus sine dissensione aliqua religioni propriae cum debita ueneratione deseruiat. ### English translation (Claude) I insert also the rescript of the emperor Constantine to Probianus, testifying to the same thing and showing how troublesome your forefathers were before him as accusers of the innocent: “The Emperors Caesars Flavius Constantine and Maximinus and Valerius Licinianus Licinius to Probianus, proconsul of Africa. Aelianus, your predecessor, rightly, when Verus, of most perfect rank, the vicar of the prefects, was then held by ill health throughout our Africa, performing his functions, believed that among other things this business or odium which seems to have been stirred up against Caecilianus the bishop and the Catholic church should also be called to his own examination and order. For when he had caused Superius the centurion, Caecilianus the magistrate of Abthugni, Saturninus the former curator, Calibius the younger, curator of the same city, and Solon, public slave of the above city, to be present, he gave a proper hearing; so that, since it had been objected against Caecilianus that he seemed to have been raised to the episcopate by Felix, against whom the betrayal and burning of the divine Scriptures seemed to be charged, it was established that Felix was innocent of it. Finally, when Maximus contended that Ingentius, a decurion of the city of Zigga, had forged a letter of Caecilianus the former duumvir, we saw from the records attached that the same Ingentius had been put on the rack, and was not tortured only because he asserted that he was a decurion of the city of Zigga. Hence we wish you to send the same Ingentius under fitting escort to my court, that of Constantine Augustus, so that, in the hearing and presence of those who are now pleading and do not cease to petition day after day, it may appear and be made known that they have wished in vain to stir up odium against Caecilianus the bishop and to rise violently against him. For so it will come about that, such contentions being set aside, as is right, the people may serve their own religion without any dissension and with due veneration.” ### Extrabiblical texts - Optatus, App. Optat. 2 (Appendix of Ten Documents on the Donatist Controversy): quotation, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The rescript (315) survives in the appendix to Optatus and here. The Caecilianus of Abthugni is a magistrate, distinct from the bishop. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.81 (CSEL 52:485–487; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-81). ## Against Cresconius 3.82 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-82 - Source: CSEL 52:487 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes Constantine's letter to the vicar Eumalius declaring Caecilian innocent after a personal hearing. ### Latin text Insero adhuc et uerba Constantini ex litteris eius ad Eumalium uicarium, ubi se inter partes cognouisse et innocentem Caecilianum conperisse testatur. cum enim narrasset in his, quae supra locutus est, quemadmodum ad iudicium eius post episcopalia iudicia partes perductae fuerint: in quo peruidi, inquit, Caecilianum uirum omni innocentia praeditum ac debita religionis suae officia seruantem eique ita ut oportuit seruientem, nec ullum in eo crimen repperiri potuisse euidenter apparuit, sicut absenti fuerat aduersariorum suorum simulatione conpositum. ### English translation (Claude) I insert also the words of Constantine from his letter to Eumalius the vicar, where he testifies that he heard the parties and found Caecilianus innocent. For when he had related in what he said above how the parties were brought to his judgment after the bishops' judgments, he says: “In which I saw clearly that Caecilianus was a man endowed with all innocence, keeping the due duties of his religion and serving it as was fitting; and it plainly appeared that no crime could be found in him, such as had been put together against him in his absence by the pretense of his adversaries.” ### Translation notes - Constantine heard the case at Milan in 316. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.82 (CSEL 52:487; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-82). ## Against Cresconius 3.83 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-83 - Source: CSEL 52:487–488 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine challenges Cresconius to produce Constantine's supposed sentence against Caecilian, and turns his “who persecutes?” question back on the Donatist accusers. ### Latin text Tu quare non inseruisti sententiam Constantini, qua eum dicis esse damnatum et Brixae in exilio constitutum, uir disertissime? quanto congruentius hanc inseruisses quam nescio quid de Serdicensi concilio, quod nec ad uos nec ad causam, quae inter nos est et uos. omnino pertinere monstretur! cur enim fuerit Brixae Caecilianus. quod uos calumniosissime appellatis? exilium. cum suam praesentiam maluit ecclesiae deesse quam pacem. quid a me opus est dici? tu interim damnantis imperatoris sententiam nullam recitas et damnatum ab imperatore Caecilianum tamen temere non dico audiendum uel dicendum, sed etiam scribendum putas. uerumtamen secundum uerba tua ecce uideo in exilio Caecilianum imperatore damnante: saltem responde quo accusante et modo me interroga, quod in epistula tua post multa (inania) similiter inane posuisti: quis prolato testamento minus consentit. qui persecutionem patitur an qui facit? haec certe uerba tua sunt. aspice ergo Caecilianum persecutionem passum et. sicut ipse dixisti. in exilio constitutum, aspice etiam uestros. sicut suis uerbis imperator ipse testatur. aduersum Caecilianum diurnis diebus interpellare non desistentes, et isdem ipsis uerbis tuis interroganti mihi responde: quis minus testamento prolato consentit, qui persecutionem patitur an qui facit? diligenter autem perlectis omnibus inuenies Caecilianum a uestris etiam apud imperatorem persecutionem passum. sed non inuenies ab imperatore damnatum, immo etiam inuenies absolutum. ### English translation (Claude) Why did you not insert the sentence of Constantine by which you say he was condemned and placed in exile at Brescia, most eloquent man? How much more fitting it would have been to insert this than something or other about the council of Serdica, which is shown to have nothing at all to do with you or with the case between us and you! For why Caecilian was at Brescia, which you most slanderously call exile, when he preferred his presence to be lacking to the church rather than peace, what need is there for me to say? Meanwhile you read out no sentence of an emperor condemning him, and yet you think that Caecilian condemned by the emperor should rashly, I do not say be heard or said, but even written. Yet according to your words, see, I see Caecilian in exile, the emperor condemning him: answer at least at whose accusation, and now ask me what you likewise set down, empty as it is, after many empty things in your letter: “Who agrees less with the Testament set forth: he who suffers persecution or he who carries it out?” These are certainly your words. Look, then, at Caecilian, who suffered persecution and, as you yourself said, was placed in exile; look also at your people, who, as the emperor himself testifies in his own words, did not cease to petition against Caecilian day after day; and answer me when I ask you in those same words of yours: who agrees less with the Testament set forth, he who suffers persecution or he who carries it out? But if you read everything carefully, you will find that Caecilian suffered persecution from your people even before the emperor; but you will not find him condemned by the emperor; indeed you will find him acquitted. ### Translation notes - Caecilian was detained at Brescia during the hearings of 316 to keep the peace in Africa. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.83 (CSEL 52:487–488; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-83). ## Against Cresconius 3.84 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-84 - Source: CSEL 52:488–489 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that even true evidence against some Africans could not condemn the worldwide church, and that the charge of handing over fits the Donatists better. ### Latin text Porro si — quod tibi pro magno elegisti, ut de criminibus traditionum quae uos profertis documenta uera sint, quae autem nos proferimus falsa sint: etiam in eo uos dei ueritas superat, quae sicut praedixit ita reddit ecclesiam in uniuerso mundo fructificantem atque crescentem, quia nihil ei praeiudicant alienorum criminum licet uera documenta, quae propinquioribus episcopis transmarinis, per quos in longinquiores partes siue transit talium rerum fama siue non transit. aut non sunt demonstrata sicut debuerunt aut non sunt credita quibus demonstrari potuerunt aut credita et occultata nequaquam ad alios peruenerunt, nec quisquam uel unus homo, quanto minus tantus christianorum numerus in tot gentibus constitutus reus potest esse participati sceleris alieni, si uel nulla eius uera documenta cognouerit uel eum simulata innocentia falsis documentis quisque fefellerit —: si ergo, ut dicere coeperam, in hoc, quod tibi pro magno elegisti, ut quae uos de traditoribus testimonia profertis uera sint, quae autem proferuntur contra uos falsa sint, nihil ualetis aduersus ecclesiam catholicam toto terrarum orbe diffusam et aduersus prouidentiam dei, qua in christianum nomen, ut tuis uerbis utar, totus cotidie uertitur mundus, quanto magis deficitis in accusationibus uestris. cum hanc ipsam traditionem, cuius nomen uelut horrentes, qui hoc schisma fecerunt, a Christi corpore separatos se ipsos diabolo tradiderunt. multo probabilius, sicut in illis litteris dixi et nunc dico, nos uobis obicimus, qui uos nomina et crimina traditorum dicere tantummodo audimus, nos autem et gesta ecclesiastica, quibus de se ipsi confessi sunt, et gesta municipalia, quibus hoc fecisse leguntur, ostendimus! ### English translation (Claude) Further, if (as you chose for yourself as a great point, that the documents you bring about the crimes of handing over are true, and those we bring false) even in this the truth of God overcomes you, which, as it foretold, so presents the church bearing fruit and growing in the whole world; since documents of others' crimes, though true, do not prejudice her in any way. For to the nearer bishops overseas, through whom the report of such things either passes into more distant parts or does not pass, either they were not demonstrated as they ought to have been, or they were not believed by those to whom they could be demonstrated, or, if believed and kept hidden, they in no way reached others; nor can anyone, even one man, much less so great a number of Christians placed in so many nations, be guilty of sharing another's crime, if he either learned no true documents of it, or someone with feigned innocence deceived him with false documents. If, then, as I had begun to say, in this which you chose as a great point, that the testimonies you bring about the traitors are true and those brought against you false, you can do nothing against the Catholic church spread over the whole world and against the providence of God, by which, to use your words, the whole world is daily turning to the Christian name, how much more do you fail in your accusations, when this very handing over, whose name they affect to shudder at, we charge against you much more probably (as I said in that letter and say now), since those who made this schism, separated from the body of Christ, handed themselves over to the devil; and since we hear you only naming the names and crimes of traitors, while we show both the church proceedings in which they confessed about themselves, and the municipal proceedings in which they are read to have done it! ### Scripture references - Col 1:6: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Col 1:6. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.84 (CSEL 52:488–489; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-84). ## Against Cresconius 3.85 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-85 - Source: CSEL 52:489–490 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine takes up Cresconius's grammatical point that his phrase “more probably” concedes that the Donatist charge is probable. ### Latin text Tu uero callidus examinator appensorque uerborum doces nos, quid ualeat conparatiuus gradus, et tamquam uictor exultas, quod non possem dicere: traditionem probabilius nos uobis obicimus, nisi uos nobis eam probabiliter obicere confiterer. si enim uos, inquis, probabilius, nos ergo probabiliter, et hoc docens: quia sic est probabiliter et probabilius, ut si dicas uere) et uerius et quia gradus iste quod ante positum est auget, non quod ante dictum est inprobat. adiungis alia uerba, quibus hoc euidentius intellegamus, ac dicis: sic est bene) et , male* et *peius\\ horribiliter et horribilius, sic esse ostendens probabiliter) et probabiliter). unde colligi putas, quia, si ego probabilius quod falsum est obicio, superest ut uos probabiliter quod uerum est obiecisse confirmes. hic ego numquid dico, quod in quaestione uel in disputatione ecclesiastica nos artificialia grammatica docere conaris, quid ualeat conparatiuus gradus, quia id quod ante positum est auget, non quod ante dictum est inprobat? uideo enim, quam hoc inepte tibi obiciam quod tu uidere noluisti, quando mihi anticategorian uelut ex arte rhetorica obiciendam putasti, quod genus quaestionis, ubi dicitur: non ego feci, sed tu fecisti), etiam in auctoritate prophetica demonstraui. ### English translation (Claude) But you, a clever examiner and weigher of words, teach us what the comparative degree means, and exult as a victor because I could not say, “We charge you with handing over more probably,” unless I admitted that you charge us with it probably. “For if you,” you say, “more probably, then we probably”; and you teach this: that “probably” and “more probably” are like “truly” and “more truly,” and that this degree increases what is placed before, it does not disprove what was said before. You add other words, by which we may understand this more clearly, and say: “So it is with ‘well’ and ‘better,’ ‘badly’ and ‘worse,’ ‘horribly’ and ‘more horribly,’” showing that so it is with “probably” and “more probably.” From this you think it is gathered that, if I charge what is false more probably, it remains that I confirm that you charged what is true probably. Do I say here that, in a church question or disputation, you try to teach us the technicalities of grammar, what the comparative degree means, that it increases what is placed before, it does not disprove what was said before? For I see how ineptly I would charge you with what you would not see, when you thought anticategoria should be charged against me as from the art of rhetoric, a kind of question, where it is said, “Not I did it, but you did it,” which I showed to be found even in prophetic authority. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.85 (CSEL 52:489–490; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-85). ## Against Cresconius 3.86 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-86 - Source: CSEL 52:490–491 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows from Heb 6:8–9 that a comparative can be set against its opposite rather than imply the positive. ### Latin text Considera tamen diligentius, ne forte inuenias in Latinae locutionis auctoribus, quibus grammaticorum artificialia seruiunt, non semper istum gradum quod ante positum est augere, sed aliquando contrario superferri. cuius locutionis exemplum interim mihi ex apostoli epistula occurrit quam scripsit ad Hebraeos. cum enim loqueretur de benedictione terrae, quae accepta pluuia fructum reddit, deinde subiecit: proferens autem spinas et tribulos reproba et maledictioni proxima est, cuius finis in ustionem. quod ne illis quibus loquebatur optasse uideretur, confisi sumus autem, inquit, de uobis, fratres carissimi, meliora et haerentia saluti. attendis certe quomodo hic dixerit meliora, non quia bona erant, quae supra dixerat proferre spinas et tribulos et ustionem mereri, sed magis quia mala erant, ut illis deuitatis meliora eligerent et optarent, hoc est bona tantis malis contraria. sed forte apostolum sic audiendum esse arbitraris quemadmodum de se ipse dicit, tamquam hominem etsi imperitum sermone, sed non scientia, et ideo non uerborum in eo, sed rerum atque sententiarum auctoritatem putas esse sectandam, bona poni debuisse contendens ubi posuit ipse meliora? quid, si et ego iam his litteris adsuefactus et illas quas puer didici oblitus sic dixi: obicitis traditionem. hanc ipsam multo probabilius nos uobis obicimus, tamquam dicerem probabiliter, conparatiuum pro positiuo ponens, non quia uos probabiliter, sed magis quia inprobabiliter, sicut ille meliora, non quia illa erant bona, sed magis quia mala? tu quare tam temere concludis ex hoc me confirmasse uos probabiliter, quia dixi nos probabilius? ### English translation (Claude) Yet consider more carefully, lest perhaps you find in the authors of Latin speech, whom the technicalities of the grammarians serve, that this degree does not always increase what is placed before, but sometimes is set over against its contrary. An example of this usage occurs to me for the moment from the letter of the apostle which he wrote to the Hebrews. For when he was speaking of the blessing of the land, which, having received the rain, yields fruit, he then added: “But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to a curse, whose end is burning.” And so as not to seem to wish this for those to whom he was speaking, he says: “But we are confident of better things concerning you, dearest brothers, things that belong to salvation.” You surely notice how he said “better” here, not because what he had said above, bearing thorns and thistles and deserving burning, was good, but rather because it was bad, so that, avoiding it, they would choose and wish for better things, that is, good things opposed to such great evils. But perhaps you think the apostle should be heard as he says of himself, as a man unskilled in speech though not in knowledge, and that therefore one should follow in him the authority not of words but of things and thoughts, contending that “good” ought to have been put where he put “better.” What if I too, now accustomed to these writings and forgetting those I learned as a boy, spoke thus: “You charge handing over; this very charge we bring against you much more probably,” as if saying “probably,” putting the comparative for the positive, not because you charge it probably but rather improbably, as he said “better,” not because those things were good, but rather because they were bad? Why do you so rashly conclude from this that I confirmed you charge it probably because I said we charge it more probably? ### Scripture references - Heb 6:8: quotation, high confidence - Heb 6:9: quotation, high confidence - 2 Cor 11:6: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Heb 6:8–9 (Augustine regards Hebrews as Paul's); 2 Cor 11:6. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.86 (CSEL 52:490–491; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-86). ## Against Cresconius 3.87 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-87 - Source: CSEL 52:491–492 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine cites Virgil's “better things to the pious” to show the comparative does not imply the positive, and distinguishes the probable from the true. ### Latin text Quamquam nec secundum grammaticos in uerbo me errasse reprehenderes, si saltem uerborum ipsorum auctores uel attente legere uel memoriter recolere uoluisses. pueriles enim habent litterae, sed non a puero imperito dictum: di meliora piis erroremque hostibus illum. discissos nudis laniabant dentibus artus. quomodo ergo meliora piis, quasi bona essent istis ac non potius magna mala, qui discissos nudis laniabant dentibus artus? iam uides certe, quia, sicut iste piis potuit optare meliora, quamuis illa, in quorum conparatione optabat, non essent bona, sic et ego potui dicere: traditionem probabilius nos uobis obicimus. quamuis eam uos nobis non probabiliter obiceretis. at omittam. quia et probabile quando dicitur non consequenter est uerum. cum ea dicuntur. quae fieri possunt ac solent et ideo probantur. hoc est adprobantur et creduntur. etiamsi facta non sint: quod autem uerum est cum ostenditur. necessario probabile est et illo utique probabilius. recole libro, ubi uerba didicisti: quam te non fallam profecto repperies. Unde etiamsi uestros probabiliter nostris traditionem obiecisse concederem. non ideo uerum obiecisse contenderem et recte nos dicerem probabilius hanc obicere, quandoquidem a nobis nominari tantum traditores solemus audire, nullis autem gestis uel ecclesiasticis uel publicis recitari demonstrarique confessos, a nobis autem proferri et gesta publica, ubi uestri tradiderunt. et ecclesiastica. ubi confessi deo iudici derelicti sunt ### English translation (Claude) And yet you would not blame me for an error in the word even according to the grammarians, if you had been willing at least either to read the authors of those words attentively or to recall them from memory. For the boys' books have it, though it was not said by an unskilled boy: “May the gods grant better things to the pious, and that madness to their foes; they tore their mangled limbs with naked teeth.” How, then, “better things to the pious,” as though those things were good for these men, and not rather great evils, who tore their mangled limbs with naked teeth? You surely now see that, as this poet could wish better things for the pious, although the things in comparison with which he was wishing them were not good, so I too could say, “We charge you with handing over more probably,” although you were not charging it against us probably. But I pass over the fact that even “probable,” when said, is not consequently true, since those things are called so which can happen and usually do, and are therefore “proved,” that is, approved and believed, even if they did not happen; while what is true, when it is shown, is necessarily probable, and certainly more probable than that. Recall the book where you learned these words: you will surely find that I do not deceive you. Hence, even if I granted that your people charged ours with handing over probably, I would not therefore contend that they charged what was true; and I would rightly say that we charge it more probably, since we are accustomed to hear from you only the naming of traitors, but none shown by any proceedings, church or public, to have confessed; while from us are brought forward both the public proceedings where your people handed over, and the church proceedings where, having confessed, they were left to God as judge. ### Extrabiblical texts - Virgil, Georg. 3.513–514 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Virgil, Georgics 3.513–514. The editor's supplement (a word in brackets) is translated. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.87 (CSEL 52:491–492; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-87). ## Against Cresconius 3.88 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-88 - Source: CSEL 52:492–493 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine turns Cresconius's grammatical rule against him: if baptism by a good minister is “better,” baptism by a bad one is still done “well” and should not be repeated. ### Latin text Sed non omitto tam manifestum adiutorium tuum, quo nobis etiam nesciens plurimum faues docendo regulas conparatiui gradus, quia id quod ante positum est auget. non quod ante dictum est inprobat. secundum hanc enim regulam tuam, secundum quaedam uerba tua in epistula tua sine ulla difficultate obtinuimus causam nostram. tu enim dixisti in primis partibus litterarum tuarum, uelut nostram pertinaciam criminando, tot documenta legalia quod melius et uerius est nobis persuadere non posse. ubi ego concludo secundum artificialia tua iam nos uerum et bonum tenere, si, quod uerius et melius est, nobis persuaderi non potest cum ergo nos non rescindamus, ut secundum te loquar, uerius et melius baptisma uestrum, quare uos rescinditis uerum et bonum nostrum? item cum dixisses: hoc et nos uolumus ut Christus sit origo et radix caputque christiani, continuo subiecisti: sed quaerimus per quem hoc melius fiat. quod dicendo utique concessisti et per malum ministrum bene fieri, sed melius per bonum. cum itaque nos non rescindimus baptismum, quem per uestrum tamquam per bonum ministrum dari dicitis, quare uos rescinditis baptismum, quem per nostrum tamquam per malum ministrum datum esse contenditis? tu enim dixisti: quaerimus per quem melius fiat, et tua regula est, quia gradus iste quod ante positum est auget. unde si per uestrum sicut putas melius fit, ergo et per nostrum bene fit, ac per hoc, quando per nos baptizatum rebaptizatis, id quod ex ista tua regula bene factum esse conceditis sacrilega praesumptione rescinditis. ### English translation (Claude) But I do not pass over your so manifest help, by which, even unknowingly, you favor us greatly in teaching the rules of the comparative degree, that it increases what is placed before and does not disprove what was said before. For according to this rule of yours, according to certain words of yours in your letter, we have won our case without any difficulty. For you said in the first parts of your letter, as though accusing our obstinacy, that so many proofs from the law could not persuade us of what is better and truer. Here I conclude, according to your technicalities, that we already hold what is true and good, if we cannot be persuaded of what is truer and better. Since, then, we do not cancel your baptism, which, to speak on your terms, is truer and better, why do you cancel our true and good baptism? Likewise, when you had said, “This we too want, that Christ be the origin, root, and head of the Christian,” you at once added, “But we ask through whom this is better done.” In saying this you certainly granted that it is done well even through a bad minister, but better through a good one. Since, then, we do not cancel the baptism which you say is given through your minister as through a good one, why do you cancel the baptism which you contend is given through our minister as through a bad one? For you said, “We ask through whom it is better done,” and your rule is that this degree increases what is placed before. Hence, if it is done better through yours, as you think, then it is done well through ours too; and therefore, when you rebaptize one baptized by us, you cancel by sacrilegious presumption what by this rule of yours you grant was done well. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.88 (CSEL 52:492–493; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-88). ## Against Cresconius 3.89 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-89 - Source: CSEL 52:493 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine brushes aside Cresconius's mockery of his metaphors, noting that the trident is a fisherman's tool and that Scripture gives God wings and arrows. ### Latin text Uereor ne nimis urgeam uerecundiam tuam, si ostendam, quam leuiter et scurriliter quaedam etiam uerba mea quae translata posui, frontem pro pudore, os pro sermone, tridens telum pro tripertita oratione, tricipitem bestiam pro errore tribus calumniis aduersus tot populorum innocentiam saeuiente, quasi urbanus et dicax exagitanda putaueris. serua potius puerilia pueris. neque enim me mouet, quod Neptunium telum propter tridentem dicis episcopum non decere, cum sit et piscatorium ac per hoc apostolicum, quod suos apostolos dominus piscatores hominum fecit. nam et deum nostrum scriptura dicit et alas habere et sagittas, nec tamen Cupidinem colimus. ### English translation (Claude) I fear I would press your modesty too hard if I showed how lightly and scurrilously you thought you should mock, as a witty and clever man, certain words of mine which I used figuratively: “brow” for shame, “mouth” for speech, “trident” as a weapon for a threefold speech, “three-headed beast” for an error raging with three slanders against the innocence of so many peoples. Keep childish things rather for children. For it does not move me that you say the weapon of Neptune does not befit a bishop because of the trident, since it is also a fisherman's tool and therefore apostolic, for the Lord made his apostles fishers of men. For Scripture says that our God has both wings and arrows, and yet we do not worship Cupid. ### Scripture references - Matt 4:19: allusion, high confidence - Ps 91:4 (90:4 LXX): allusion, medium confidence - Ps 7:13 (7:14 LXX): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 4:19; Ps 91:4 (90:4 LXX); Ps 7:13. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.89 (CSEL 52:493; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-89). ## Against Cresconius 3.90 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-90 - Source: CSEL 52:493–494 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine defends comparing the Donatist error to Satan, citing Paul's description of those to be gently corrected as captives of the devil. ### Latin text Quin etiam me promissam in exordio lenitatem non seruasse reprehendis, eo quod Manicheorum facta mentione permotus dixerim: sicut non potest, quod dominus ait, satanas satanan excludere, ita non potest errorem Manicheorum Donatistarum error euertere, quasi Petilianum satanae conparauerim ac non errorem, cuius eum cupio laqueis expediri. bene quod apostolus nos aduersus tales calumnias communiuit eo ipso loco, ubi nos mites, patientes et modestos esse admonet, quando aliquem dissentientem corripimus. cum enim dixisset: seruum autem domini litigare non oportet, sed esse mitem ad omnes, docibilem, patientem, in modestia corripientem diuersa sentientes, continuo subiunxit: ne forte det illis deus paenitentiam ad cognoscendam ueritatem et resipiscant de diaboli laqueis, captiuati ab ipso secundum ipsius uoluntatem. ecce apostolica mansuetudo! cum quibus placide, patienter modesteque agi praecepit, eos ipsos dicit a diabolo captiuatos, nec tamen lenitatem quam commendabat amisit, quia eam quam docebat tacere noluit ueritatem. ### English translation (Claude) You even blame me for not keeping the gentleness promised at the beginning, because, moved by the mention of the Manichees, I said: “Just as, as the Lord said, Satan cannot cast out Satan, so the error of the Donatists cannot overthrow the error of the Manichees”; as if I had compared Petilian to Satan and not the error from whose snares I desire him to be freed. It is well that the apostle fortified us against such slanders in that very passage where he admonishes us to be gentle, patient, and modest when we correct someone who disagrees. For when he had said, “The servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle toward all, teachable, patient, correcting with modesty those who think otherwise,” he at once added, “in case God may give them repentance to know the truth and they may come to their senses from the snares of the devil, having been taken captive by him according to his will.” See the apostolic gentleness! Those with whom he commanded that one deal calmly, patiently, and modestly, he says are taken captive by the devil; and yet he did not lose the gentleness he commended, because he would not keep silent the truth he taught. ### Scripture references - Matt 12:26: allusion, high confidence - 2 Tim 2:24: quotation, high confidence - 2 Tim 2:25: quotation, high confidence - 2 Tim 2:26: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 12:26; 2 Tim 2:24–26. The quotation is from Against the Letters of Petilian 1.1.1–1.2.2 region. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.90 (CSEL 52:493–494; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-90). ## Against Cresconius 3.91 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-91 - Source: CSEL 52:494–495 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers insinuations of Manichaeism by pointing to his many writings against the Manichees, who had deceived him in his youth. ### Latin text Sed ipse uideris cuius partes agas, qui mea uerba uelut conuiciosa et saeua criminando eos, quos ad disputandum conuenire non uis, ad litigandum niteris excitare; nolo enim dicere, quia et te litigare delectat. parcius quippe ac uerecundius, sed quasi ex obliquo mihi obicis quae ad me omnino non pertinent. quid enim iudicem de Manicheorum pestilentiosissima et christianis omnibus anathemanda uanitate, si tantum dicere solerem ac non etiam conscriptis libris multis multiplicibusque testarer, ne sic quidem esset aduersus me ullus calumniae uestrae locus. neque enim me catholica falso a nobis argui miraretur, a quibus totus christianus orbis cum tot ecclesiis, etiam illis primis apostolico labore propagatis, falsis criminibus accusatur. cum uero contra Manicheos, qui me adulescentulum aliquando deceperant, mea tanta scripta qui uoluerit legere possit, non usque adeo desipit, ut de me credat potius uerbis uestris quam oculis ac sensibus suis. ### English translation (Claude) But see for yourself whose part you play, who, by accusing my words as abusive and savage, try to stir up to quarreling those whom you will not have come together to dispute; for I do not wish to say that you too delight in quarreling. More sparingly, indeed, and more modestly, but as if from the side, you charge me with things that do not concern me at all. For what I judge of the most pestilent vanity of the Manichees, to be anathematized by all Christians: if I were only accustomed to say it, and did not also testify to it in many and varied written books, not even so would there be any room for your slander against me. For the Catholic church would not wonder that I am falsely accused by you, by whom the whole Christian world, with so many churches, even those first ones propagated by apostolic labor, is accused with false charges. But since anyone who wishes can read my many writings against the Manichees, who once deceived me as a young man, no one is so foolish as to believe your words about me rather than his own eyes and senses. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.91 (CSEL 52:494–495; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-91). ## Against Cresconius 3.92 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-92 - Source: CSEL 52:495–496 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine dismisses the letter of Megalius, primate of Numidia, against his ordination, saying the case concerns the church, not himself, and that he relies on God's mercy. ### Latin text Sed epistulam, inquis, principis uestri, qua nescio quid de te scripsit, cum te ordinari nollet, tenent non pauci nostrorum. illam uero minime curarem, nec si eius a quo scripta dicitur non perspicua pro nobis sententia legeretur illam calumniam falsitatemque condemnans; quanto minus eam curat catholica ecclesia, cuius causam contra uos agimus, cui tot diuinis testimoniis praefidenti nulla humana de quoquam homine testimonia seu uera seu falsa qua gaudet auferunt ueritatem! desine talibus: unus homo sum. ecclesiae inter nos agitur causa, non mea, ecclesiae, inquam, quae in nullo homine spem ponere a suo didicit redemptore. quamquam nec de me ipso nobis, etiamsi meam conuersationem nossetis, recte crederetur inimicis mihi. ad existimationem hominum magna testium qui me nouerunt suppetit copia, ad dei uero conspectum sola conscientia, quam contra uestras criminationes cum intrepidam geram, non me tamen sub oculis omnipotentis iustificare audeo magisque ab illo afluentem misericordiae largitatem quam iudicii summum examen expecto, cogitans quod scriptum est: cum rex iustus sederit in throno, quis gloriabitur castum se habere cor aut quis gloriabitur mundum se esse a peccato? ### English translation (Claude) “But,” you say, “not a few of our people hold the letter of your primate, in which he wrote something or other about you when he did not wish you to be ordained.” I would not care at all about that letter, even if there were not read for us a plain statement of the one by whom it is said to have been written, condemning that slander and falsehood; how much less does the Catholic church care about it, whose case we plead against you, which, trusting in so many divine testimonies, has no human testimonies about any man, true or false, that take away from her the truth in which she rejoices! Stop such things: I am one man. The case of the church is being pleaded between us, not mine; of the church, I say, which has learned from her Redeemer to put her hope in no man. And yet even about myself, even if you knew my way of life, you would not rightly be believed as my enemies. For the judgment of men there is a great supply of witnesses who know me; for the sight of God only conscience; and though I bear it fearless against your accusations, yet I do not dare to justify myself under the eyes of the Almighty, and I await from him the overflowing abundance of mercy rather than the strict examination of judgment, thinking of what is written: “When the righteous king sits on the throne, who will boast that he has a pure heart, or who will boast that he is clean from sin?” ### Scripture references - Jer 17:5: allusion, medium confidence - Prov 20:8: quotation, high confidence - Prov 20:9: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Megalius of Calama, primate of Numidia, had objected to Augustine's ordination as bishop (395) but later retracted. Jer 17:5; Prov 20:8–9 (LXX form). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.92 (CSEL 52:495–496; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-92). ## Against Cresconius 3.93 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-93 - Source: CSEL 52:496 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says his personal character is irrelevant, and criticizes Parmenian's use of Jer 23:28 to claim the Donatists are wheat already purged of chaff. ### Latin text Sed quid ad rem, cuius inter nos uertitur quaestio, qualis ipse sim, cum in area dominica sim stipula si malus, granum si bonus? uos tamen si grana essetis, paleam conmixtam, sicut admonet etiam ipse Cyprianus, ante tempus uentilationis non refugeretis. proinde nos, si quem repperimus in nobis notum hominem malum, recte uobis obicimus; ibi enim tota defensio uestra consistit, quia propterea uos separastis, ne alienorum peccatorum contagione periretis. unde nouum genus areae uos fecisse gloriamini, aut quae solum triticum habeat aut in qua solum triticum appareat, cui non sit necessarius uentilator, sed perscrutator. nam et Parmenianus uester praeclaram uestram munditiam uelut inmunditiae nostrae. a contrario conparans ausus est interponere sententiam prophetae Hieremiae, ubi ait: quid paleae cum tritico? quod ille dixit, ut ipsa indicat lectio, aduersus eos, qui diuinis oraculis sua somnia coaequabant. adrogantia tamen uestra et horrenda superbia Parmeniani litteris declaratur, ubi uos contra scripturas diuinas et contra monita Cypriani ante ultimam uentilationem, quam mundus expectat, tamquam purgatum a palea triticum praedicauit. ### English translation (Claude) But what does it matter to the question in dispute between us what kind of man I am, since on the Lord's threshing floor I am straw if bad, grain if good? Yet you, if you were grain, would not, as Cyprian himself also admonishes, flee the chaff mixed with you before the time of winnowing. Accordingly, if we find among us a known bad man, you rightly charge us with him; for there your whole defense rests, that you separated yourselves so as not to perish by the contagion of others' sins. Hence you boast that you have made a new kind of threshing floor, either one that has only wheat, or one in which only wheat appears, which needs not a winnower but a searcher. For your Parmenian too, comparing your splendid purity with our impurity as its contrary, dared to insert the saying of the prophet Jeremiah where he says, “What has chaff to do with wheat?”; which he said, as the reading itself shows, against those who made their dreams equal to the divine oracles. Yet your arrogance and dreadful pride is declared in Parmenian's letter, where, against the divine Scriptures and against the admonitions of Cyprian, he proclaimed you, before the last winnowing which the world awaits, as wheat purged of chaff. ### Scripture references - Jer 23:28: quotation, high confidence - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Ep. 54.3 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Parmenian, Donatist bishop of Carthage (d. ca. 391/2); Augustine answered his letter in Against the Letter of Parmenian. Jer 23:28; Matt 3:12; Cyprian, Letter 54.3. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.93 (CSEL 52:496; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-93). ## Against Cresconius 3.94 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-3-94 - Source: CSEL 52:496–497 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine closes Book 3: the Maximianist case refutes every Donatist charge, and Cresconius should answer it or be silent. ### Latin text Quid igitur dignius aduersus hanc fallacissimam elationem quam causa Maximianensium uobis potuit procurari? quaecumque in nos dicere tamquam in traditores soletis, in Maximianenses, quos recepistis damnatos, quando damnati sunt grauiora dixistis, de imperatoribus nobis tamquam persecutoribus facitis inuidiam: uos apud iudices, quos ipsi imperatores miserunt, Maximianensibus persecutionem fecistis. baptismum ecclesiae dari extra ecclesiam non posse contenditis: uos baptismum, quem in crimine schismatis Maximianenses dederunt, in receptis eis quibus dederunt non rescidistis. si haec pro pace unitatis fieri debuerunt, unde nos accusetis non inuenitis; si autem non debuerunt, nos non accusetis, nisi uos ipsos damnaueritis. nolo te per multa distendas; nam et ego possem breuiter ea quae contra te dicta sunt in memoriam reuocare. sed hinc solum cogita, Maximianensium causam tibi ante oculos pone. si de hac nobis respondere potueris, adgredere cetera; si autem non potueris, melius quiescas quam calces aduersus stimulum iactes. ### English translation (Claude) What more fitting, then, against this most deceitful pride could have been provided for you than the case of the Maximianensians? Whatever you are accustomed to say against us as traitors, you said heavier things against the Maximianensians, whom you received back condemned, when they were condemned. You stir up odium against us about the emperors as persecutors: you carried out persecution against the Maximianensians before judges whom the emperors themselves sent. You contend that the church's baptism cannot be given outside the church: you did not cancel the baptism which the Maximianensians gave in the crime of schism, in those to whom they gave it when you received them. If these things ought to have been done for the peace of unity, you find nothing for which to accuse us; but if they ought not, do not accuse us unless you condemn yourselves. I do not want you to stretch yourself over many things; for I too could briefly recall what has been said against you. But think from this alone: set the case of the Maximianensians before your eyes. If you can answer us about this, attack the rest; but if you cannot, you had better be quiet than kick against the goad. ### Scripture references - Acts 26:14: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Acts 26:14. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.94 (CSEL 52:496–497; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-94). ## Against Cresconius 4.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/3-75/#p-4-1 - Source: CSEL 52:497–498 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine opens Book 4, which will answer all of Cresconius's points from the single case of the Maximianists, God's provision for refuting the Donatists. ### Latin text Quamuis iam tribus nec paruis uoluminibus epistulae tuae, Cresconi, diligenter satisque responderim, qua Petiliani litteras contra mea rescripta, quibus refellebantur, defendendas putasti, tamen etiam hoc breuiore opere institui de sola causa Maximianensium tecum agere et ex hac una ostendere omnia, quae in illa epistula posuisti, quam frustra, quam inaniter dixeris. neque enim contemnendum est beneficium dei, quod et ad nostrae dispensationis conpendium et ad uestrae correctionis, si sapiatis, adiutorium praestare dignatus est. qui nescientibus uobis neque id agentibus nobis ita uestrorum episcoporum mentibus dominatus est, ut, qui orbem christianum per communionem sacramentorum maculatum peccatis criminabantur alienis quamuis etiam ipsis falsis et non probatis, in Maximiani causa cogerentur fateri eorum quos damnauerunt peccatis non fuisse maculatos in una sacramentorum communione constitutos eos, quibus tamquam innocentibus ad reuertendum dilationem dederunt etsi non ordinatoribus Maximiani, tamen in eius parte constitutis damnatoribus Primiani; et qui baptismum Christi nolebant agnoscere nec in eis ecclesiis datum, quas apostolorum labor propagauit atque fundauit, contendentes extra unam ecclesiam baptismum dari non posse nosque culpantes, quod per eos datum baptismum non rescinderemus, quos esse in uera ecclesia negaremus, susciperent in Maximiani sacrilego schismate baptizatos et in eis baptismum rescindere non auderent; et qui de legibus christianorum imperatorum, quibus eorum peruersitas corrigenda praecipitur, nos tamquam crimine persecutionis accusant, adirent iudices ab ipsis imperatoribus missos et Maximianum ac socios eius apud eos grauiter accusarent, concilium quo eos damnauerunt gestis proconsularibus allegarent, iussiones quibus illi sedibus pellerentur efficacissimas impetrarent. his omnibus a se gestis adhuc nebulas inperitis conantur offundere, non solum scripturis sanctis et priorum rerum gestarum, quando se ab unitate separauerunt, multis certisque documentis, uerum etiam recentissimis suis factis et exemplis euidentissime superati. ### English translation (Claude) Although I have already answered your letter, Cresconius, carefully and sufficiently in three books, and not small ones, in which you thought you should defend Petilian's writings against my replies, by which they were refuted, yet I have undertaken in this shorter work too to deal with you on the single case of the Maximianensians, and from this one case to show how vainly and emptily you said everything you set down in that letter. For the benefit of God is not to be despised, which he deigned to grant both as a shortcut for our stewardship and, if you are wise, as a help to your correction. Without your knowledge and without our doing it, he so ruled the minds of your bishops that, while they accused the Christian world of being stained by others' sins through the communion of sacraments (sins that were even false and unproven), in the case of Maximian they were compelled to confess that those to whom, as innocent, they gave an extension of time to return (though not Maximian's ordainers, yet condemners of Primian placed in his party) were not stained by the sins of those whom they condemned, although placed in one communion of sacraments with them; and that those who would not recognize the baptism of Christ even when given in those churches which the labor of the apostles spread and founded, contending that baptism cannot be given outside the one church, and blaming us because we did not cancel baptism given by those whom we denied to be in the true church, received those baptized in Maximian's sacrilegious schism and did not dare to cancel baptism in them; and that those who accuse us, as of a crime of persecution, concerning the laws of the Christian emperors by which their perversity is ordered to be corrected, approached judges sent by those very emperors, accused Maximian and his associates gravely before them, alleged the council in which they condemned them in the proconsular records, and obtained most effective orders by which those men were driven from their seats. Having done all these things themselves, they still try to pour clouds over the unskilled, though most evidently overcome not only by the holy Scriptures and by many certain documents of earlier events, when they separated themselves from unity, but also by their own most recent deeds and examples. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.1 (CSEL 52:497–498; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-1). ## Against Cresconius 4.2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-2 - Source: CSEL 52:498–500 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine points to the ornate eloquence of the Donatists' own sentence of Bagai, adopted by 310 bishops, against Cresconius's attack on eloquence. ### Latin text Hinc ergo tantum agam, hinc ad omnes epistulae tuae partes, quantum me dominus adiuuat, sine ulla difficultate, immo cum magna facilitate respondeam. ac primo illud, quod tibi ipse contrarius eloquenter eloquentiam uituperare uoluisti, tamquam esset ueritatis inimica et patrona potius falsitatis, ut eo modo me quasi eloquentem cauendum atque fugiendum ostenderes imperitis: si re uera tanta esset eloquentia mea, quantam mihi quamuis accusatorie tribuis, nonne recitato decreto concilii Bagaiensis, quo, sicut ibi scriptum est, Maximianum fidei aemulum, ueritatis adulterum, ecclesiae matris inimicum, Dathae, Corae et Abiron ministrum de pacis gremio sententiae fulmen excussit, laudare eloquentiam cogereris? porro si mihi materies illa proponeretur, quando possem dicere: licet uiperei seminis noxios partus uenenati uteri alueus diu texerit et concepti sceleris uda coagula in aspidum membra tardo se calore uaporauerint, tamen conceptum uirus euanescenti umbraculo occultari non potuit. nam etsi sero publicum facinus et parricidium suum feta scelerum uota pepererunt? quando me in haec uerba exquirenda coartarem, quando in exprimenda prouoluerem? quando tanto impetu. tanto sonitu in odium noxiorum lectoris uel auditoris animum concitarem? num ideo haec in quos dicta sunt minus ueraciter dicta sunt? num hac eloquentia tanti concilii fides minuitur uel labefactatur auctoritas? nempe illud quo uisum est eloquentius eo potissimum electum est, quod omnes esse suum uellent, quo uno trecentorum et decem ora tacentia personarent. ecce eloquentia quam uituperasti, quam uelut seditiosam et Graeco etiam nomine malitiose artificiosam detestandam uitandam que monuisti, tantum permulsit tot episcopos tuos, ut in plenario concilio suo nollet suam quisque proferre sententiam, sed unam, quae ab uno dici disertius ornatiusque potuit, eam cuncti facerent suam. liceat igitur nobis sine inuidia non usque quaque inpolite contra errores hominum disputare, si licuit tot ac tantis episcopis uestris ipsos homines tam diserte ornateque damnare. ### English translation (Claude) From this source alone, then, shall I proceed; from this I shall answer, as far as the Lord helps me, every part of your letter, without any difficulty, indeed with great ease. And first, as to that point in which, contradicting yourself, you chose eloquently to find fault with eloquence, as if it were the enemy of truth and rather the patron of falsehood, so as in that way to show the unskilled that I, as eloquent, am to be guarded against and fled: if my eloquence were really as great as you attribute to me, though accusingly, would you not be compelled, when the decree of the council of Bagai is read out, by which, as is written there, “the thunderbolt of our sentence has struck from the bosom of peace Maximian, the rival of the faith, the adulterer of truth, the enemy of mother church, the minister of Dathan, Korah, and Abiram,” to praise eloquence? Further, if that subject were set before me, when could I say: “Although the channel of a poisoned womb long covered the harmful offspring of viperous seed, and the moist curds of the crime conceived warmed themselves with slow heat into the limbs of asps, yet the poison conceived could not be hidden by a vanishing shelter. For even if late, the pregnant vows of crimes brought forth their public crime and their parricide”? When would I constrain myself to seek out these words, when roll them forth in expressing them? When would I stir the mind of reader or hearer to hatred of the guilty with such force, with such sound? Were these things said less truly against those against whom they were said? Is the credibility of so great a council diminished or its authority shaken by this eloquence? Surely, that which seemed more eloquent was chosen above all because all wished it to be theirs, so that through this one the silent mouths of three hundred and ten might resound. See, the eloquence you found fault with, which you warned should be detested and avoided as seditious and, under a Greek name too, maliciously artful, so charmed so many of your bishops that in their plenary council no one wished to put forward his own sentence, but all made their own the one which could be spoken more eloquently and ornately by one man. Let us, then, be allowed without odium to dispute against men's errors not altogether without polish, if so many and such great bishops of yours were allowed to condemn men themselves so eloquently and ornately. ### Scripture references - Num 16:1: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Sentence of the council of Bagai (394). Num 16. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.2 (CSEL 52:498–500; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2). ## Against Cresconius 4.3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-3 - Source: CSEL 52:500–501 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that the Donatists who refuse to debate with Catholics took the Maximianists to court before several proconsuls. ### Latin text Illud etiam, quod studium pro ueritate certandi, quia saepe uoluimus conferre cum uestris, ut errore sublato fraterna caritas pacis uinculo laetaretur, contentionis et animositatis uitioso nomine reprehendis: nonne melius, obsecro causa ueritatis et unitatis pacificis uerbis et pacatioribus locis inter episcopos ageretur, quam in foro ab episcopis per aduocatos litigaretur? quod a partibus Primiani Carthaginiensis episcopi uestri aduersus Maximianum et aduersus eos, qui cum illo Bagaiensi concilio damnati sunt, apud legatum Carthaginis et apud quattuor uel amplius proconsules factum est. certe in conlatione disputationis hoc cauendum est, ne prorumpatur in litem, et caueri a modestis et mitibus et potest et solet; cum uero aduocatis utrimque luctantibus in foro controuersia uertitur, iam procul dubio litigatur. neque hoc in uestris reprehendo, si ad hoc non amore litigandi, sed consulendi necessitate conpulsi sunt; uerumtamen admoneo te bono ingenio praeditum uirum, ut aduertas, ut sentias, ut intellegas eos, qui forensem strepitum et iudiciaria iurgia, quibus accusatos conuincerent et expellerent quos in concilio iam damnauerant, non declinauerunt, sed susceperunt exercuerunt, multo nobiscum facilius pacifice conferre potuisse, nisi mallent causam malam cooperire excusatione quam disputatione finire. ### English translation (Claude) As for your blaming, under the faulty name of contentiousness and animosity, our eagerness to contend for the truth, because we have often wished to confer with your people so that, error being removed, brotherly love might rejoice in the bond of peace: would it not, I ask, be better that the cause of truth and unity should be dealt with among bishops in peaceable words and in more peaceful places than that it should be litigated in the forum by bishops through advocates? This was done by the party of Primian, your bishop of Carthage, against Maximian and against those who were condemned with him in the council of Bagai, before the legate of Carthage and before four or more proconsuls. Certainly in a conference for disputation care must be taken that it does not break out into a lawsuit, and it can be, and usually is, guarded against by the modest and gentle; but when the controversy is fought out in the forum with advocates struggling on both sides, then without doubt it is a lawsuit. Nor do I blame this in your people, if they were driven to it not by love of litigation but by the necessity of taking measures; but I admonish you, a man endowed with good intelligence, to notice, perceive, and understand that those who did not decline but undertook and carried on the din of the forum and the quarrels of the courts, in order to convict the accused and expel those whom they had already condemned in council, could much more easily have conferred peaceably with us, if they had not preferred to cover a bad case with an excuse rather than end it by disputation. ### Scripture references - Eph 4:3: allusion, medium confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.3 (CSEL 52:500–501; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-3). ## Against Cresconius 4.4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-4 - Source: CSEL 52:501 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the question where to be baptized is settled for the Donatists by their reception of Felicianus and Praetextatus without rebaptizing those they baptized in schism. ### Latin text Iam uero quod, antequam uenias ad sermonem meum quo reprehendi Petilianum, a me interim quaeris a quo te baptizari conueniat, utrum ab eo potius, quem et ego baptismum habere confirmo, an ab eo, quem tuus hoc non habere contendit, haec etiam quaestio per Maximiani causam de uana inperitorum loquacitate sublata est, quantum quidem ad uos adtinet - nam apud ipsos Maximianenses adhuc manet —; uestri enim damnato propter sacrilegium schismatis Maximiano, quem diaconum suum Primianus damnauerat et per quem conspirantibus aduersum se plurimis collegis damnatus fuerat, continuo cum eo duodecim ordinatores eiusdem Maximiani eadem sententia damnauerunt. ex quibus duos, Praetextatum Adsuritanum et Felicianum (Mustitanum), cum eos in iudicio proconsulari accusassent, cum Bagaiensi concilio damnatos allegata per aduocatos eadem sententia demonstrassent, cum iubente proconsule locis quos tenebant pellere conati minime ualuissent, sic postea susceperunt, ut cum eis in honoribus eorum integris communicarent et simul in pacem redactis populis eorum ex his, quos in schismate baptizauerant, nullum rebaptizarent. ### English translation (Claude) As for your asking me in the meantime, before you come to my discourse in which I refuted Petilian, by whom it is fitting for you to be baptized, whether rather by one whom I too affirm to have baptism, or by one whom yours contends does not have it: this question too has been removed from the empty chatter of the unskilled by the case of Maximian, as far as you are concerned (for among the Maximianensians themselves it still remains). For your people, having condemned Maximian for the sacrilege of schism (Maximian, whom Primian had condemned when he was his deacon, and through whom Primian had been condemned by very many colleagues conspiring against him), at once condemned with him by the same sentence the twelve ordainers of that same Maximian. Of these, two, Praetextatus of Assuras and Felicianus of Musti, after they had accused them in the proconsular court, had shown by the same sentence, alleged through advocates, that they were condemned with the council of Bagai, and, though the proconsul ordered it, had been quite unable to expel them from the places they held, they afterwards received in such a way that they communicated with them in their honors intact, and, the peoples being brought into peace together, rebaptized none of those whom they had baptized in the schism. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.4 (CSEL 52:501; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-4). ## Against Cresconius 4.5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-5 - Source: CSEL 52:501–505 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine cites the court records in which Donatist advocates read the sentence of Bagai against Salvius, Felicianus, and Praetextatus, with its full text and the grant of time to others. ### Latin text Extat decretum Bagaiensis concilii allegatum apud proconsulem, aduocato prosequente Nummasio, cum ageret, ut Primiani communioni Membresitana ecclesia traderetur expulso Saluio, qui eam tenebat antiquitus, ubi episcopatum meruerat in parte Donati. sed pellendus propterea petebatur, quia eum damnatum Bagaiensi concilio recitabat inter duodecim Maximiani ordinatores, quos idem Nummasius in numero errans undecim dicit. hanc Nummasii postulationem recitauit postea Titianus, expresse ac nominatim agens apud eundem proconsulem aduersus Praetextatum et Felicianum. cuius aduocati uerba ista sunt: sed suis, inquit, institutis iniquitas delectatur et semet ipsam non deserit, cum semel praecipitata corruerit. idem namque Maximianus coeptam nutrit audaciam et alios sibimet consociat ad furorem. inter quos etiam Felicianus quidam, qui primo recta sectatus deprauationis huius attaminatione fuscatur, in Mustitana positus ciuitate deo omnipotenti parietes consecratos, ecclesiam uenerandam quasi quadam obsessione credidit retinendam. hunc Praetextatus etiam in Adsuritanis partibus imitatur. sed cum aequitatis tuae innotesceret potestati consortium sacerdotum, iussisti, ut gesta testantur, exploso omni contradictionis effectu sacratissimis sacerdotibus a profanis mentibus ecclesias uindicatas oportere restitui. deinde paulo post, ut idem aduocatus ostendat quid iussum sit, recitat Nummasii postulationem quam supra commemoraui, in qua pro consule Nummasio cum dixisset: lege episcopale iudicium, illud Bagaiense recitatum est, in quo Maximianus damnatur his uerbis: Maximianum fidei aemulum, ueritatis adulterum, ecclesiae matris inimicum, Dathae, Corae et Abiron ministrum de pacis gremio sententiae fulmen excussit. et quod adhuc eum dehiscens terra non sorbuit, ad maius supplicium superis reseruauit. raptus enim poenam suam conpendio lucrauerat funeris: usuras nunc grauioris colligit faenoris, cum mortuus interest uiuis. deinde in illos duodecim ordinatores eius ita profertur Bagaitana sententia: nec solum hunc, inquiunt, sceleris sui mors iusta condemnat; trahit etiam ad consortium criminis plurimos catena sacrilegii, de quibus scriptum est: uenenum aspidum sub labiis eorum quorum os maledictione et amaritudine plenum est. ueloces pedes eorum ad effundendum sanguinem. contribulatio et calamitas in uiis eorum, et uiam pacis non cognouerunt. non est timor dei ante oculos eorum. nollemus quidem tamquam e proprii corporis iunctura praecidi. sed quoniam tabescentis uulneris putredo pestifera plus habet in abscisione solaminis quam in remissione medicaminis, inuenta est causa salubrior, ne per cuncta membra pestilens inrepat uirus, ut conpendioso dolore natum decidat uulnus. famosi ergo criminis reos Uictorianum Carcabianensem, Marcianum Sullectinum, Beianum Beianensem, Saluium Ausafensem, Theodorum Usulensem. Donatum Sabratensem, Miggenem Elefantariensem, Praetextatum Adsuritanum, Saluium Membresitanum, Ualerium Melzitanum, Felicianum Mustitanum et Martialem Pertusensem, qui funesto opere perditionis uas sordidum collecta faeculentia glutinarunt, sed et clericos aliquando ecclesiae Carthaginis, qui, dum facinori intersunt, inlicito incestui lenocinium praebuerunt. dei praesidentis arbitrio uniuersalis concilii ore ueridico damnatos esse cognoscite. post istorum damnationem, in quibus leguntur Praetextatus Adsuritanus et Felicianus Mustitanus, cum quibus, ut ante dixi, post proconsulares aduersus eos impetratas iussiones concordauerunt, ceteris in eodem Maximiani schismate constitutis, Primiani etiam damnatoribus. tantum quia non interfuerant Maximiani ordinationi, dilationem dederunt in eodem Bagaiensi concilio certo diei termino definitam, quae continetur his uerbis: eos autem, inquiunt, quos sacrilegi surculi non polluere plantaria, hoc est qui a Maximiani capite proprias manus uerecundo fidei pudore retraxerunt, ad matrem ecclesiam redire permisimus. quantum enim de reorum morte purgamur, tanto de innocentium reditu gratulamur. ac ne angustum redeuntibus tempus spem salutis artatae diei pressura subducat, agnoscentibus quibus licet, manentibus praecedentibus statutis, uniuersis usque ad diem octauum KJ Ian proxime futurarum agnitionis pandimus ianuam, ut integri honoris ac fidei regressi habeant fundamenta. quam si quisquam ingredi nequiuerit pigra segnitia, sciat sibi ad omnes ueniales aditus sua uoluntate uiam esse subductam. manebit enim circa eos dicta sententia et post praestitutum diem redeuntibus fixa paenitentia. ### English translation (Claude) The decree of the council of Bagai exists, alleged before the proconsul, with the advocate Nummasius pleading, when he was acting to have the church of Membresa handed over to Primian's communion, Salvius, who had long held it, where he had obtained the episcopate in the party of Donatus, being expelled. He was sought to be expelled for this reason: that Nummasius read that he had been condemned in the council of Bagai among the twelve ordainers of Maximian, whom the same Nummasius, mistaking the number, calls eleven. This petition of Nummasius was afterwards read by Titianus, acting expressly and by name before the same proconsul against Praetextatus and Felicianus. The words of this advocate are these: “But wickedness,” he says, “delights in its own institutions and does not desert itself once it has fallen headlong. For the same Maximian nourishes the audacity he began and associates others with himself in his madness; among whom also a certain Felicianus, who at first followed the right way, is darkened by the contamination of this depravity, and, placed in the city of Musti, thought that walls consecrated to almighty God, the venerable church, should be held as if by a kind of siege. Praetextatus too imitates him in the parts of Assuras. But when the fellowship of the priests became known to the power of your equity, you ordered, as the records testify, that, every effect of opposition being rejected, the churches claimed from profane minds should be restored to the most sacred priests.” Then a little later, so that the same advocate may show what was ordered, he reads the petition of Nummasius which I mentioned above, in which, when the proconsul had said to Nummasius, “Read the bishops' judgment,” that judgment of Bagai was read, in which Maximian is condemned in these words: “Maximian, 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.” Then the sentence of Bagai is pronounced against those twelve ordainers of his thus: “Not only him,” they say, “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; affliction and calamity are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.’ 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.” After the condemnation of these men, among whom are read Praetextatus of Assuras and Felicianus of Musti, with whom, as I said before, they came to agreement after obtaining proconsular orders against them, to the others placed in the same schism of Maximian, even the condemners of Primian, merely because they had not been present at Maximian's ordination, they gave in the same council of Bagai an extension fixed to a definite day, which is contained in these words: “But those,” they say, “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. For as much as we are cleared of the death of the guilty, so much do we rejoice in the return of the innocent. And lest the narrow time for those returning should take away the hope of salvation by the pressure of a restricted day, for those who acknowledge it, to whom it is permitted, the previous statutes remaining, we open to all the door of acknowledgment until the eighth day before the Kalends of January next, so that those who return may have the foundations of honor and faith intact. If anyone through sluggish slackness cannot enter it, let him know that by his own will the way to all pardonable approaches has been taken away from him. For the sentence pronounced will remain upon them, and a fixed penance for those returning after the appointed day.” ### Scripture references - Num 16:1: allusion, high confidence - Rom 3:13: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:14: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:15: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:16: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:17: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:18: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Sentence of the council of Bagai (394), read in the proconsular hearings of 395–396. Num 16; Rom 3:13–18. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.5 (CSEL 52:501–505; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-5). ## Against Cresconius 4.6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-6 - Source: CSEL 52:505–506 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that the Donatists' reception of Maximianist baptisms concedes that baptism exists outside the church but profits only when unity and the Spirit's love are received. ### Latin text Ex his igitur omnibus quoniam redisse aliquos ad communionem uestram nec uos negatis et in tam recenti memoria, adhuc etiam uiuentibus hominibus, de quibus agitur, celeberrima et clara notitia est, cum et illi, quibus dilatio data est — quandoquidem, sicut uerba eiusdem concilii satis indicant, eos ad matrem ecclesiam redire inuitant et eorum tamquam de innocentium reditu gratulantur — et illi, quos cum Maximiano nulla interposita dilatione damnarunt, extra uestram ecclesiam toto illo tempore baptizauerint, siue usque ad diem dilationis, quando cum Maximiano communicabant et in eius erant schismate constituti, siue etiam transacto dilationis die, quando Titianus aduocatus nominatim Praetextatum et Felicianum pelli de basilicis postulabat, cum quibus in honore integro Primianus postea concordauit: quomodo audetis iam dicere unum baptisma nisi in una ecclesia dari non posse, cum ab istis datum in sacrilego schismate baptismum sine ulla controuersia cognoueritis susceperitis rescindere non ausi fueritis? nec tamen potestis dicere nihil uos praestitisse illis, quos in eodem baptismo suscepistis. si ergo quaeram quid praestiteritis, procul dubio respondebitis: ne ipso schismatis sacrilegio perirent, ne baptismum Christi non ad praemium sed ad iudicium, non ad salutem sed ad perniciem, sicut est militiae character in desertoribus, haberent, praestitimus pacem, praestitimus unitatem, praestitimus ecclesiae societatem, ut eum per quem caritas diffunditur in cordibus nostris spiritum sanctum accipere mererentur, sine quo nemo peruenit ad regnum caelorum, etiamsi sacramentis omnibus legitimis inbuatur. haec responderetis ueraciter, si ueram ecclesiam teneretis. uerumtamen ad admonitionem uestram sufficit, ut hoc uos accepturos intellegatis in uera ecclesia, quod eos, quos in Maximiani sacrilego schismate baptizarunt, qui cum eis ad uos inde redierunt, in uestra communione accepisse credidistis, atque ita uos etiam accepto baptismo Christi esse puniendos, si unitatem catholicae ecclesiae non tenueritis, sicut in Maximiani schismate baptizatos procul dubio puniendos non dubitaretis, si uestrae communioni non copularentur, in quibus ad uos inde uenientibus non rescindendum baptismum iudicastis. uides itaque etiam hoc, quod te mouebat de baptismi sacramento, in causa Maximianensium iam solutum. ### English translation (Claude) Since, then, you yourselves do not deny that some of all these returned to your communion, and since, in so recent a memory, with the men concerned still living, there is a most widespread and clear knowledge of it; since both those to whom an extension was given (for, as the words of the same council sufficiently show, they invite them to return to mother church and rejoice over their return as of innocent men) and those whom they condemned with Maximian without any extension baptized outside your church during all that time, whether up to the day of the extension, when they were in communion with Maximian and placed in his schism, or even after the day of the extension had passed, when the advocate Titianus was demanding by name that Praetextatus and Felicianus be expelled from the basilicas, with whom Primian afterwards came to agreement with their honor intact: how do you now dare to say that the one baptism cannot be given except in the one church, when you recognized and received the baptism given by these men in a sacrilegious schism, without any controversy, and did not dare to cancel it? Nor can you say that you conferred nothing on those whom you received in the same baptism. If, then, I ask what you conferred, you will surely answer: “So that they should not perish by the very sacrilege of schism, so that they should not have the baptism of Christ for judgment and not for reward, for ruin and not for salvation, like the military mark in deserters, we conferred peace, we conferred unity, we conferred the fellowship of the church, so that they might merit to receive the Holy Spirit, through whom love is poured out in our hearts, without whom no one reaches the kingdom of heaven, even if he is imbued with all the lawful sacraments.” You would answer this truly, if you held the true church. Yet for your admonition it suffices that you understand that you will receive in the true church what you believed was received in your communion by those whom they baptized in Maximian's sacrilegious schism and who returned to you from there with them; and so that you too, though you have received the baptism of Christ, must be punished if you do not hold the unity of the Catholic church, just as you would doubtless not doubt that those baptized in Maximian's schism must be punished if they were not joined to your communion, though you judged that their baptism should not be cancelled when they came to you from there. You see, then, that this too, which moved you about the sacrament of baptism, has now been resolved in the case of the Maximianensians. ### Scripture references - Rom 5:5: allusion, high confidence - John 3:5: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 5:5; John 3:5. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.6 (CSEL 52:505–506; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-6). ## Against Cresconius 4.7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-7 - Source: CSEL 52:506–507 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that Maximian too claimed to be the true party of Donatus, citing two councils against Primian, and the Donatists can only appeal to the larger council of Bagai. ### Latin text Iam nunc illa uideamus, quibus epistulam meam te refellere credidisti. ac primum quod interrogas, quare uestros Donatistas adpellem, adiungens quod Donatus non auctor et institutor ecclesiae quae ante non fuerat, sed a Christo deductae et antiquae unus ex episcopis fuerit, non attendis hoc de se ipso et Maximianum dicere, ex cuius tamen nomine uniuersam eius communionem appellatis. neque schisma quod fecit ullo uocabulo a uobis uel ab aliis sectis discernitis, nisi aut Maximianistas aut Maximianenses aut quodlibet aliud, quod a Maximiani nomine deriuetur, aut certe simplicius et sine timore grammaticarum ferularum partem Maximiani nominetis. num quid (ad) hoc dicturus es nisi Maximianum a uestra communione schisma fecisse, hoc autem a communione catholica non fecisse Donatum? sed Maximianus non hoc dicit, qui Primianum potius et uos omnes adfirmat a parte Donati, in qua ipse permansit, schisma fecisse et recitat decreta conciliorum, primum quod apud Carthaginem a quadraginta et tribus factum est, quo praedamnatus est Primianus, alterum quod Cebarsussi centum uel amplius uestri tunc episcopi condiderunt, quo perfecte pleniusque damnatus est. cui talia documenta proferenti quid respondebis, nisi maioris auctoritatis esse Bagaiense concilium. in quo trecenti et decem eundem Maximianum et eius socios damnauerunt, quando Primianus non apud eos tamquam purgandus dicebat causam, sed cum eis tamquam iudex innocentissimus considerabat, proferebat sententiam contra Maximianum et duodecim socios eius, quibus ille praesentibus ordinatus est. et data dilatione tamquam innocentes ad pacem propriam reuocabat tot ceteros, a quibus ipse damnatus est? ### English translation (Claude) Now let us see those things by which you believed you refuted my letter. And first, as to your asking why I call your people Donatists, adding that Donatus was not the author and founder of a church that had not existed before, but one of the bishops of the ancient church derived from Christ: you do not notice that Maximian says this of himself too, from whose name nevertheless you name his whole communion. Nor do you distinguish the schism he made from yourselves or other sects by any name, except that you call them either Maximianists or Maximianensians or anything else derived from Maximian's name, or certainly, more simply and without fear of the grammarians' rods, the party of Maximian. Will you say to this anything except that Maximian made a schism from your communion, but Donatus did not make this from the Catholic communion? But Maximian does not say this; he affirms rather that Primian and all of you made a schism from the party of Donatus, in which he himself remained, and reads the decrees of councils: first, the one held at Carthage by forty-three, in which Primian was condemned in advance; the other, which a hundred or more of your then bishops drew up at Cabarsussa, in which he was condemned completely and fully. What will you answer him when he brings forward such documents, except that the council of Bagai has greater authority, in which three hundred and ten condemned the same Maximian and his associates, when Primian was not pleading his case before them as one to be cleared, but sitting with them as a most innocent judge, pronouncing sentence against Maximian and the twelve associates in whose presence he was ordained, and, an extension being granted, calling back as innocent to his own peace so many others by whom he himself had been condemned? ### Translation notes - The councils of Carthage (393, 43 bishops) and Cabarsussa (24 June 393, about 100 bishops) condemned Primian. The word in round brackets is the editor's supplement. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.7 (CSEL 52:506–507; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-7). ## Against Cresconius 4.8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-8 - Source: CSEL 52:507–508 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine compares the procedures: Primian's accusers summoned him repeatedly, whereas Bagai condemned Maximian unheard for raising altar against altar. ### Latin text In hac uestra conflictione quid uultis ut nos medii iudicemus, quandoquidem nec Maximiani nec uestra communione detinemur? quid, inquam, hinc uultis iudicemus, nisi contra duo concilia, quibus damnatus est Primianus, unum Bagaiense posterius pro illo ualere debere, quo damnatus est Maximianus, eo uidelicet firmius id esse arbitrantes. quo posterius potuit de prioribus iudicare? ecce in hoc fauemus uobis; alia nobis est cum Maximianensibus causa, si ausi fuerimus censere. fauemus, inquam. tertium iudicium Bagaiense factum est pro Primiano contra Maximianum eiusque collegas, quo posteriore potuerunt merito priora deleri, quamquam a duobus prioribus iudiciis ad tertium nullam Primiani uocem prouocationis uel legimus uel audimus, nisi quod absens primo praedamnatus secundoque damnatus est. sed etiam in Maximianum et socios eius absentes prolata est disertissima illa Bagaitana sententia. et hoc illi quadraginta et tres apud Carthaginem modestius, cautius diligentiusque se gessisse testati sunt, quod ad eundem Primianum non semel, sed iterum ac tertio legatos miserunt, ut, si ad eos ipse uenire nollet, ipsos ad se uenire permitteret. quo utrumque recusante, sicut scribunt, et eos qui missi sunt iniuriosa repulsione tractante necessitatem sibi incubuisse senserunt, ut iam ecclesiae prouiderent, et sic nondum audentes ultimum praecipitare iudicium, sed quodam praeiudicio consulentes, ut ei, si causae suae fideret, sequenti celebriore concilio respondendi seque purgandi relinqueretur locus; quo cum uenire noluisset, iam necessario putauerunt esse damnandum sine ulla suspensione sententiae. at uero in decreto concilii Bagaiensis non solum legatos ullos a Maximiano male tractatos non legimus, sed nec missos legimus ut ueniret; uidemus tamen leuatum altare contra altare et ordinatum episcopum contra eum episcopum, qui in cathedra ubi fuerat ordinatus ita sedebat, ut conuentu sui populi non desereretur nec a ceteris pluribus episcopis communio eius dirimeretur, tantam commouisse indignationem sacrilego schismate perpetrato, ut nec ipsius Maximiani nec ordinatorum eius iam esset ulterius differenda damnatio. ### English translation (Claude) In this conflict of yours, what do you want us, as neutral, to judge, since we are held neither by Maximian's communion nor by yours? What, I say, do you want us to judge, except that against the two councils by which Primian was condemned, the one later council of Bagai, by which Maximian was condemned, ought to prevail for him, thinking it firmer precisely because, being later, it could judge the earlier ones? See, in this we favor you; we have another case with the Maximianensians, if we should dare to give an opinion. We favor you, I say. A third judgment was held at Bagai for Primian against Maximian and his colleagues, by which, as the later one, the earlier could rightly be annulled; although we neither read nor hear of any word of appeal by Primian from the two earlier judgments to the third, except that he was first condemned in advance in his absence, and then condemned in the second. But that most eloquent sentence of Bagai was also pronounced against Maximian and his associates in their absence. And those forty-three at Carthage testified that they conducted themselves more modestly, cautiously, and carefully in this: that they sent envoys to the same Primian not once but a second and third time, so that, if he would not come to them himself, he would allow them to come to him. When he refused both, as they write, and treated those who were sent with insulting repulse, they felt that the necessity had fallen on them to provide now for the church; and so, not yet daring to rush to a final judgment, but taking counsel by a kind of preliminary judgment, so that room would be left him, if he trusted his case, to answer and clear himself at a following, larger council; and when he would not come to it, they thought he must now necessarily be condemned without any suspension of sentence. But in the decree of the council of Bagai we not only do not read that any envoys were ill treated by Maximian, but we do not even read that any were sent to him to come; we see, however, that the raising of altar against altar, and the ordaining of a bishop against that bishop who sat in the see where he had been ordained in such a way that he was not deserted by the gathering of his people nor was his communion broken off by the many other bishops, aroused such great indignation, once the sacrilegious schism had been committed, that the condemnation neither of Maximian himself nor of his ordainers could be put off any longer. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.8 (CSEL 52:507–508; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-8). ## Against Cresconius 4.9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-9 - Source: CSEL 52:508–510 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows that by the Donatists' own reasoning for Primian, Caecilian, acquitted in four later hearings, should be held innocent, and the world's many bishops should outweigh them. ### Latin text Haec cum ita sint, non uos tamen pro Caeciliano talia permouent. contra quem manentem et populo praesidentem erecto altari contra altare ordinatus est Maiorinus. contra quem non a uobis duo, sicut contra Primianum a Maximianensibus, sed unum profertur iudicium horrendae temeritatis festinatione adceleratum. qui non sicut Primianus noluit ad se uenire collegas, sed inuitauit potius ut uenirent, quod nec ipsi in sui concilii decreto, quod contra eum condiderunt, tacere potuerunt. pro quo non unum. sicut pro Primiano, sed quattuor posteriora iudicia recitantur. eius non absentes, sicut Primiani, sed praesentes sunt aduersarii confutati apud eos iudices, in quos iudicaturos consenserunt, apud ipsum etiam imperatorem Constantinum, apud quem primum Caecilianum accusauerunt, apud quem postea de iudicibus episcopis, a quibus ille ipsam causam uoluit audiri, tamquam non recte iudicantibus questi sunt, ad quem rursus ab altero episcopali iudicio prouocarunt, ut ipso etiam post unum et alterum episcopale iudicium inter partes cognoscente superarentur, quorum non defuit etiam quarta conuictio. nam cum in Caeciliani propriis criminibus calumniatores inuenti fuissent et ei de Felicis Aptugnensis ordinatoris eius traditione quaestionem intulissent, Felix etiam ipse purgatus est proconsulari iudicio, eodem ipso Constantino ut causa eius discuteretur iubente, quem illi adsiduis interpellationibus fatigabant. haec Maximianenses aduersus Primianum non exercuerunt mala nec totiens uicti sunt nec praesentes uicti sunt nec apud eos quos ipsi elegerunt iudices uicti sunt; et tamen, quod manifestum est, ipsi a uestra communione schisma fecerunt, et hoc uestros a catholica communione fecisse non uultis aduertere; qua inpudentia uanissimae animositatis, prorsus ignoro. si enim omnia, quae dicitis de Caeciliano et Felice ordinatore eius, ideo uera esse uultis, quia septuaginta ferme episcopi de hac re iudicauerunt, cur non uultis uera esse quae dicuntur de Primiano, cum et inde primo quadraginta tres, postea centum episcopi iudicauerunt et prius praeiudicium posteriore iudicio confirmauerint? si autem propterea illa crimina Primiani falsa esse censetis, quia pro illo posterius contra inimicos eius Bagaiense concilium recitatur, cur non uultis crimina, quae obiecta sunt Caeciliano, falsissima confiteri, pro quo posteriora tot iudicia recitantur? si Caecilianus, contra quem semel fuerat ab illis septuaginta iudicatum, non debuit iam locum purgationis apud alios iudices inuenire, nec Primianus debuit, quem iam tanto plures quam septuaginta primam confirmantes secunda cognitione damnauerant. si autem bis damnato tertium, quia pro illo factum est, iudicium sufficientissime suffragatur, cur semel damnato non sufficere ad absolutionem secundum, tertium, quartum quintumque iudicium nescio qua ferrea fronte contenditis? quodsi uos forte numerus mouet, ut ideo contra centum, a quibus damnatus est Primianus, ualere arbitremini Bagaiense concilium, quia in eo trecenti et decem fuerunt, cur in tanto maiore numero episcoporum orbi terrarum consentire non uultis? ### English translation (Claude) Since this is so, such things do not move you for Caecilian, against whom, while he remained and presided over his people, Majorinus was ordained, altar being raised against altar; against whom not two judgments are brought forward by you, as against Primian by the Maximianensians, but one, hastened with the haste of dreadful rashness; who did not, like Primian, refuse that his colleagues should come to him, but rather invited them to come, which they themselves could not keep silent in the decree of their council which they drew up against him; for whom not one later judgment, as for Primian, but four are read out; whose adversaries were refuted not in their absence, like Primian's, but present, before the judges whom they agreed to as judges, and even before the emperor Constantine himself, before whom they first accused Caecilian, before whom they afterwards complained of the episcopal judges, by whom he wished the case to be heard, as not judging rightly, to whom again they appealed from the second episcopal judgment, so that they were overcome when he himself heard the parties after one and another episcopal judgment; and a fourth refutation of them was not lacking either. For when they had been found to be slanderers in Caecilian's own crimes, and had brought against him the question of the handing over by Felix of Abthugni, his ordainer, Felix too was cleared by proconsular judgment, the same Constantine ordering his case to be examined, whom they wearied with constant petitions. These evils the Maximianensians did not commit against Primian; nor were they defeated so many times, nor defeated in person, nor defeated before judges whom they themselves chose; and yet, as is plain, they made a schism from your communion; and you will not notice that your people did this from the Catholic communion; by what shamelessness of most empty animosity, I do not know at all. For if you want everything you say about Caecilian and Felix his ordainer to be true because about seventy bishops judged this matter, why do you not want what is said about Primian to be true, when first forty-three and afterwards a hundred bishops judged there, and confirmed the earlier preliminary judgment by the later judgment? But if you judge those crimes of Primian false because the council of Bagai is read out later for him against his enemies, why will you not admit that the crimes charged against Caecilian are most false, for whom so many later judgments are read? If Caecilian, against whom those seventy had once judged, ought not to have found room to clear himself before other judges, neither ought Primian, whom so many more than seventy had condemned in a second hearing confirming the first. But if a third judgment, because it was made for him, supports most sufficiently one twice condemned, why do you contend, with I know not what iron brow, that a second, third, fourth, and fifth judgment does not suffice for the acquittal of one once condemned? But if perhaps number moves you, so that you think the council of Bagai prevails against the hundred by whom Primian was condemned because there were three hundred and ten in it, why will you not agree with the world in so much greater a number of bishops? ### Translation notes - The judgments for Caecilian: the council of Rome (313), the council of Arles (314), Constantine's hearing at Milan (316), and the clearing of Felix (315). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.9 (CSEL 52:508–510; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-9). ## Against Cresconius 4.10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-10 - Source: CSEL 52:510–512 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that the sin against the Holy Spirit is persistent impenitence, not schism or handing over as such, as the Donatists' own reception of Felicianus shows. ### Latin text Quod autem obicis Caeciliano peccatum illud inexpiabile in spiritum sanctum, de quo dominus ait: non remittetur neque hic neque in futuro saeculo, et nos possemus edocere Feliciano Mustitano, quem hodie cum Primiano habetis episcopum, unum ex ordinatoribus Maximiani damnatoribusque ipsius Primiani, quo etiam in sacrilego schismate baptizatos non rebaptizastis, peccatum nos obiecisse quod sit in spiritum sanctum, cui sacrilegium schismatis (obiecistis), sicut in Bagaiensis concilii sententia declamatum est. sicut enim uos ideo putatis illo inremissibili reatu peccasse in spiritum sanctum quos accusatis diuinas scripturas exurendas persecutoribus tradidisse, quod easdem scripturas sancto spiritu acti locuti sunt homines dei, ita etiam nos non solum uestris potius traditoribus, quos gesta conuincunt, hoc idem possemus obicere, sed et Feliciano, ut dixi, hoc nos obiecisse in crimine sacrilegi schismatis doceremus, quia in spiritu sancto seruatur unitas dilectionis et pacis, dicente apostolo: sustinentes inuicem in dilectione, studentes seruare unitatem spiritus in uinculo pacis, quam profecto uiolat qui schisma committit. sed hunc reatum insolubilis aeternique peccati, quod in spiritum sanctum committitur, nec uobis obicimus, quos correctos cum uiuitis sanari posse non desperamus, nec uestris, qui sanctos codices cremandos ignibus tradiderunt, nisi quod usque in finem uitae huius ab unitate disiuncti cor inpaenitens habuerunt. nec Feliciano et Praetextato hoc uos obiecisse ostenditis, cum quibus postea communicastis, qui in catena sacrilegii cum Maximiano ad consortium criminis tracti plenarii concilii uestri ore ueridico leguntur esse damnati et post diem dilationis non quidem illis iam damnatis, sed aliis tamquam innocentibus prorogatum probantur esse suscepti. ### English translation (Claude) As for your charging Caecilian with that inexpiable sin against the Holy Spirit, of which the Lord says, “It will not be forgiven either here or in the age to come,” we too could teach Felicianus of Musti, whom you have today as a bishop with Primian, one of the ordainers of Maximian and condemners of Primian himself, by whom even those baptized in sacrilegious schism you did not rebaptize, that we charged a sin which is against the Holy Spirit, to whom you charged the sacrilege of schism, as was declaimed in the sentence of the council of Bagai. For just as you think that those whom you accuse of handing over the divine Scriptures to persecutors to be burned sinned against the Holy Spirit with that unforgivable guilt, because men of God, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke those same Scriptures, so we too could charge this same thing not only, and rather, on your traitors, whom the records convict, but also we could show that we charged it on Felicianus, as I said, in the crime of sacrilegious schism; because the unity of love and peace is kept in the Holy Spirit, as the apostle says, “bearing with one another in love, eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” which he certainly violates who commits schism. But we do not charge this guilt of an unforgivable and eternal sin, which is committed against the Holy Spirit, either on you, whom we do not despair can be healed if corrected while you live, or on your people who handed over the holy books to be burned with fire, except so far as they had an impenitent heart to the end of this life, separated from unity. Nor do you show that you charged this on Felicianus and Praetextatus, with whom you afterwards communicated, who are read to have been condemned by the truthful mouth of your plenary council as dragged by the chain of sacrilege into partnership in the crime with Maximian, and are proved to have been received after the day of the extension, granted not to them, already condemned, but to others as innocent. ### Scripture references - Matt 12:32: quotation, high confidence - 2 Pet 1:21: allusion, medium confidence - Eph 4:2: quotation, high confidence - Eph 4:3: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 12:32; 2 Pet 1:21; Eph 4:2–3. The word in round brackets is the editor's supplement. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.10 (CSEL 52:510–512; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-10). ## Against Cresconius 4.11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-11 - Source: CSEL 52:512 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that the Maximianists too used the form “Claudianists” for a group Primian received, so the “-ist” form is not his alone. ### Latin text Quod autem non tibi placet deriuatio nominis, ut a Donato Donatistae appellentur, et censes Latinae regula locutionis potius declinandam, non aspernor admonitionem tuam; uerumtamen quaere grammaticos iudices, apud quos cum Maximianensibus de hac arte confligas eosque conuincas. iam enim nec ipsos uolo Maximianistas uocare, ne offendam tam eruditas aures tuas, qui certe, quantum existimo, non ut ego tibi facile cessuri sunt, ut Claudianenses uel quid aliud appellent quos Claudianistas appellauerunt, cum eos Primiano in communionem receptos inter alia quibus eum et praedamnauerunt et damnarunt crimina posuerunt. et simul recognosce hanc declinationis regulam non mihi soli, sicut reprehendis, placuisse, sed fortasse me solum tibi in ea re, quae ad causam non pertinet, tanta facilitate cessisse. ### English translation (Claude) As for your not liking the derivation of the name, so that they are called Donatists from Donatus, and your judging that it should rather be formed by the rule of Latin speech, I do not spurn your admonition; but look for grammarians as judges, before whom you may contend with the Maximianensians about this art and defeat them. For I no longer wish to call even them Maximianists, lest I offend your so learned ears; they certainly, as far as I judge, will not yield to you as easily as I do, so as to call Claudianensians, or anything else, those whom they called Claudianists, when they set down among the other crimes for which they both condemned in advance and condemned Primian that he received them into communion. And at the same time recognize that this rule of formation did not please me alone, as you charge, but that perhaps I alone yielded to you with such readiness in a matter which does not concern the case. ### Translation notes - The Claudianists were a Donatist faction whose reception by Primian was one of the charges against him. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.11 (CSEL 52:512; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-11). ## Against Cresconius 4.12 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-12 - Source: CSEL 52:512–513 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows from the council of Bagai that the Donatists called the Maximianist schism sacrilege, yet received its leaders without expiation or rebaptism. ### Latin text Quod uero me putasti uehementius arguendum, quod, cum dixerim: Donatistarum haereticorum sacrilegum errorem, haeresim appellans quod tu schisma potius uis putari, eos tamen a sacrilegio non expiatos in communionem recipiamus, tu qui nos in hac causa tam grauiter arguis responde, quomodo expiauerint uestri sacrilegium Feliciani et Praetextati, cum quibus postea communicauerunt, episcopos eos sibi sicut antea fuerant copulantes atque reddentes nec quemquam eorum, quos illi in sacrilegio schismatis baptizauerant, denuo baptizantes. an forte non erant sacrilegio maculati, sicut quidam uestrum desipiunt, dicentes non eos in deum, sed hominem peccauisse? sacrilegium uero tanto est grauius peccatum, quantum committi non potest nisi in deum; unde me disputatione tua non ob aliud urgendum arbitratus es, quod sic suscipiamus eos, qui a uobis ad nos transeunt, nisi quia uestrum dixi sacrilegum errorem. lege ergo Bagaiense concilium. nempe ista illic prima uerba sunt: cum omnipotentis dei et Christi eius saluatoris nostri uoluntate ex uniuersis prouinciis Africae uenientes in ecclesia sancta Bagaiensi concilium gereremus Gamalius Primianus Pontius Secundianus Ianuarianus Saturninus Felix Pegasius Rufinus Fortunius Crispinus Florentius Optatus Donatus Donatianus et ceteri numero trecenti decem, placuit spiritui sancto qui in nobis est pacem firmare perpetuam, schismata resecare sacrilega. audis aduertis attendis? schismata, inquiunt, resecare sacrilega. ergo non in hominem, sed in deum scelerata peruersitate in eo schismate solus Maximianus sacrilegii crimine tenebatur, cum ista sententia diceretur? lege paulo post quid dicant de sociis eius, inter quos istorum nomina, de quibus agitur, scripta sunt: nec solum hunc, inquiunt, sceleris sui mors iusta condemnat; trahit etiam ad consortium criminis plurimos catena sacrilegii. ### English translation (Claude) As for your thinking I should be more vehemently refuted because, having said “the sacrilegious error of the Donatist heretics,” calling heresy what you would rather have thought schism, we nevertheless receive them into communion without their being expiated from sacrilege: you who accuse us so gravely in this case, answer how your people expiated the sacrilege of Felicianus and Praetextatus, with whom they afterwards communicated, joining and restoring them to themselves as bishops as they had been before, and rebaptizing none of those whom they had baptized in the sacrilege of schism. Or perhaps they were not stained with sacrilege, as some of you foolishly say, saying that they sinned not against God but against a man? But sacrilege is a sin all the graver because it cannot be committed except against God; hence you thought I should be pressed in your disputation for no other reason, about our receiving thus those who pass over from you to us, than because I called your error sacrilegious. Read, then, the council of Bagai. Surely these are the first words there: “When by the will of almighty God and of his Christ our Savior, coming from all the provinces of Africa, we were holding a council in the holy church of Bagai, Gamalius, Primian, Pontius, Secundianus, Januarianus, Saturninus, Felix, Pegasius, Rufinus, Fortunius, Crispinus, Florentius, Optatus, Donatus, Donatianus, and the rest, three hundred and ten in number, it pleased the Holy Spirit who is in us to establish perpetual peace and to cut off sacrilegious schisms.” Do you hear, notice, attend? “To cut off sacrilegious schisms,” they say. Was it, then, not against a man but against God, by wicked perversity, that Maximian alone in that schism was held by the crime of sacrilege when this sentence was pronounced? Read a little later what they say about his associates, among whom the names of these men, with whom we are dealing, are written: “Not only him,” they say, “does the just death of his crime condemn; the chain of sacrilege also drags very many into partnership in the crime.” ### Scripture references - Acts 15:28: echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Sentence of the council of Bagai (394); Acts 15:28. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.12 (CSEL 52:512–513; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-12). ## Against Cresconius 4.13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-13 - Source: CSEL 52:513–515 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine concludes that by receiving the Maximianist bishops and their baptized through love alone, the Donatists have themselves settled the dispute in the Catholic favor. ### Latin text Quid est, uir disertissime? quid habes quod dicas mihi? lege sequentia, uide inter plurimos, quos trahit ad consortium criminis catena illius sacrilegii, Praetextatum et Felicianum ligatos. sacrilegos uideo episcopos: quid agis, si non probaueris expiatos? nempe urgueris cedere ueritati, qua dicimus expiari uestros, cum ad nos ueniunt, ipso uinculo fraternae pacis et caritatem cooperire peccata eorum, sicut scriptum est: caritas cooperit multitudinem peccatorum. quid de illis, quos a uestra communione separati et Maximiano in sacrilegae illius catenae societate deuincti baptizauerunt, quos cum eis in eodem baptismo in pacem atque concordiam suscepistis? respondebisne aliquid nisi eadem sacramenta recte uos adprobasse in eis, quae nos quoque adprobamus in uobis? magis enim tibi constabis, si ista responderis et uerbis epistulae tuae non reluctaueris. in qua cum conareris ostendere non haeresem inter nos et uos, sed schisma potius esse commissum, dixisti nobis et uestris unam esse religionem, eadem sacramenta, nihil in christiana obseruatione diuersum. neque enim grauius quam his uerbis repetitionem baptismatis accusare potuisti, quando seducti a nobis rebaptizantur a uestris, in quibus eadem sacramenta esse et sentis et dicis et scribis. qua igitur sceleris inpudentia non seruatur in eis, quos in sancta unitate baptizat orbis christianus, quod seruatum est in eis, quos in sacrilego schismate baptizarunt Praetextatus et Felicianus? causam itaque nostram, quam uobiscum habemus, uestro iam iudicio terminastis, cum eos, qui a uobis damnatione percussi sunt, qui populos ne ad uos accederent instantissime monuerunt, qui post uos etiam baptizandum esse censuerunt, cum eis, quos extra uestram communionem in sacrilegio schismatis constituti baptizauerunt, sine ulla degradatione, sine baptismatis iteratione in altaris concordiam suscepistis et nulla re alia ab illo scelere sacrilegii nisi sancto igne caritatis expiatos esse credidistis. quod uere fieret, si uos eandem caritatem in uera unitate teneretis. ### English translation (Claude) What is it, most eloquent man? What have you to say to me? Read what follows; see among the very many whom the chain of that sacrilege drags into partnership in the crime Praetextatus and Felicianus bound. I see sacrilegious bishops: what will you do if you do not prove them expiated? Surely you are pressed to yield to the truth, by which we say that your people are expiated when they come to us by the very bond of brotherly peace, and that love covers their sins, as it is written: “Love covers a multitude of sins.” What about those whom they baptized when separated from your communion and bound to Maximian in the fellowship of that sacrilegious chain, whom you received with them in the same baptism into peace and concord? Will you answer anything except that you rightly approved in them the same sacraments which we too approve in you? For you will be more consistent if you answer this and do not struggle against the words of your letter, in which, trying to show that not heresy but rather schism was committed between us and you, you said that for us and yours there is one religion, the same sacraments, nothing different in Christian observance. Nor could you have accused the repetition of baptism more gravely than by these words, when those seduced from us are rebaptized by your people, in whom you both feel and say and write that the same sacraments are. By what impudence of crime, then, is what was kept in those whom Praetextatus and Felicianus baptized in sacrilegious schism not kept in those whom the Christian world baptizes in holy unity? So you have already settled by your own judgment the case we have with you, when you received into the concord of the altar, without any degradation, without repetition of baptism, those who were struck with condemnation by you, who most urgently warned the peoples not to come over to you, who judged that people must be baptized even after you, together with those whom they baptized while placed outside your communion in the sacrilege of schism; and you believed them expiated from that crime of sacrilege by nothing else than the holy fire of love. Which would truly happen, if you held that same love in true unity. ### Scripture references - 1 Pet 4:8: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Pet 4:8. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.13 (CSEL 52:513–515; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-13). ## Against Cresconius 4.14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-14 - Source: CSEL 52:515 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine repeats that Cresconius's appeal to reputation makes a lying report cleanse and a true one defile. ### Latin text Sed tamen uideamus etiam de uerbis epistulae Petiliani, quam contra me defendere uoluisti, quomodo te exuas in hac causa Maximianensium, de qua sola nunc statui agere aduersum litteras tuas. posuit certe ille ista uerba sua: conscientia sancte dantis adtenditur quae abluat accipientis. cui ego: quid si, inquam, lateat dantis conscientia et fortasse maculosa sit, quomodo poterit accipientis abluere conscientiam? hanc tu ineuitabilem quaestionem, quia in uerbis Petiliani omnino non soluitur, tuis soluere aggressus es et dixisti non contra me, sed contra illum quem defendere uoluisti. ille quippe ait: conscientia dantis adtenditur quae abluat accipientis, tu uero, fassus latentem conscientiam uideri non posse, sic eam dixisti adtendi, ut non uideatur ipsa, sed quid de illa notum sit in publica fama. unde colligitur uerum iam non esse, quod conscientia dantis abluat accipientis conscientiam; sed fama eius abluit secundum te, quae utique fallit intuentem, cum de pessimo loquitur bona, de adultero casta, de sacrilego religiosa. tunc enim abluit, quando mentitur. nam si de occulto scelerato fama uerum loquatur, tunc non abluit, sed maculat eum, qui ab illo acceperit baptismum. ac per hoc fama ista, quam patronam tam malae causae adhibere uoluisti, uide qualis sit, quae mendax abluit et uerax polluit, ut scilicet mirifica tua disputatione tunc apud eam non sit aqua mendax, quando ipsa sit mendax. ### English translation (Claude) But let us see also, about the words of Petilian's letter, which you wished to defend against me, how you extricate yourself in this case of the Maximianensians, the only one I have now decided to treat against your writing. He certainly set down these words of his: “The conscience of one who gives in holiness is looked to, to wash that of the recipient.” To which I said: “What if the conscience of the giver is hidden and perhaps stained? How will it be able to wash the conscience of the recipient?” This unavoidable question, since it is not solved at all in Petilian's words, you undertook to solve in your own, and you spoke not against me but against him whom you wished to defend. For he says, “The conscience of the giver is looked to, to wash that of the recipient”; but you, admitting that a hidden conscience cannot be seen, said it is looked to in such a way that not it itself is seen, but what is known of it in public report. From this it is gathered that it is no longer true that the giver's conscience washes the recipient's conscience; but according to you his reputation washes, which certainly deceives the observer when it speaks good of the worst man, chaste of an adulterer, religious of a sacrilegious man. For it washes then, when it lies. For if report speaks the truth about a hidden criminal, then it does not wash, but stains the one who received baptism from him. And therefore see what kind of thing this report is which you wished to employ as patron of so bad a case: lying, it washes; truthful, it pollutes; so that, by your wonderful disputation, its water is not deceitful precisely when it itself is deceitful. ### Scripture references - Jer 15:18: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Jer 15:18. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.14 (CSEL 52:515; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-14). ## Against Cresconius 4.15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-15 - Source: CSEL 52:515–516 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows that Felicianus, baptizing with neither a good conscience nor a good reputation, had his baptisms accepted by the Donatists because they were given in the Trinity's name. ### Latin text Sed quid hinc opus est diutius loqui, cum Felicianus hodie sedeat inter episcopos uestros, qui cum ab eis disiunctus esset et Maximiano in catena sacrilegii cohaereret, quoscumque baptizauit, nemo post eum rebaptizauit? quaero a Petiliano, cuiusmodi habuerit tunc ille conscientiam, et lego decretum Bagaiensis concilii, ubi scriptum est: nec solum hunc sceleris sui mors iusta condemnat; trahit etiam ad consortium criminis plurimos catena sacrilegii, de quibus scriptum est: uenenum aspidum sub labiis eorum quorum os maledictione et amaritudine plenum est. inter hos enim plurimos etiam Felicianus adnumeratur, cui talibus labiis et tali ore aquam non respuistis, non rescidistis, non destruxistis et, quia uerbis euangelicis in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti per qualemlibet linguam atque conscientiam consecrata est, non mendacem, sed ueracem agnouistis atque recepistis. a te autem quaero, de isto Feliciano, cuius tam mala, cum in catena sacrilegii baptizaret, fuerat conscientia, quid erat tunc in publica fama, atque ipsum concilium identidem recito, ubi scriptum est: famosi ergo criminis reos Uictorianum Carcabianensem et inter ceteros, quos repetere piget: Praetextatum Assuritanum et Felicianum Mustitanum, qui funesto opere perditionis uas sordidum collecta faeculentia glutinarunt, paulo post: plenarii concilii ore ueridico damnatos esse cognoscite. ### English translation (Claude) But why is there need to speak longer about this, when Felicianus sits today among your bishops, and whoever he baptized when he was separated from them and cleaving to Maximian in the chain of sacrilege, no one rebaptized after him? I ask Petilian what kind of conscience he then had, and I read the decree of the council of Bagai, where it is written: “Not only him 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.’” For among these very many Felicianus too is counted, whose water, with such lips and such a mouth, you did not reject, did not cancel, did not destroy; and because it was consecrated with the words of the gospel, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, through whatever tongue and conscience, you recognized and received it not as deceitful but as truthful. And I ask you, about this Felicianus, whose conscience was so bad when he baptized in the chain of sacrilege, what was then in public report; and I read the council again, where it is written: “Know, then, that the guilty of a notorious crime, Victorianus of Carcabia,” and among the others, whom I am tired of repeating, “Praetextatus of Assuras and Felicianus of Musti, who by the deadly work of perdition glued together a filthy vessel from collected dregs,” and a little later: “have been condemned by the truthful mouth of the plenary council.” ### Scripture references - Rom 3:13: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:14: quotation, high confidence - Matt 28:19: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 3:13–14; Matt 28:19. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.15 (CSEL 52:515–516; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-15). ## Against Cresconius 4.16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-2/#p-4-16 - Source: CSEL 52:516–517 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine sums up: Felicianus's accepted baptisms refute every Donatist criterion, and show that grace is God's and only the recipient's life needs correction. ### Latin text Quid ad ista respondes? si non baptizat a uestra communione separatus, lego baptizasse cum Maximiano ad consortium criminis tractos. si non baptizat qui peccat in deum, lego baptizasse catena sacrilegii colligatos. si conscientia sancte dantis adtenditur quae abluat accipientis, lego baptizasse morsibus aspidum uenenosos. si, conscientia dantis ut possit abluere, publica fama eius adtenditur, lego baptizasse famosi criminis reos. manet adhuc in corpore Felicianus, cum illo sunt omnes ab illo in sacrilegio schismatis baptizati, in communionem autem uestram recepti nec ab ullo rebaptizati. contra Petilianum baptizauit sacrilega conscientia maculosus, contra te baptizauit famosi criminis reus. qua ratione uos, quaeso, defenditis, nisi ut, quod et nos dicimus, uestris factis conuicti aliquando dicatis, quod nec conscientia nec fama dantis abluat accipientis conscientiam, sed fides ipsius accipientis, dantis autem dei gratia, non hominis; quodsi et conscientiae bonae interrogatio in accipiente non fuerit fidesque ipsa uel tota uel ex parte aliqua uaccillauerit, mores hominum esse corrigendos, non sacramenta destruenda, quae non alia uel similia, sed tu omnino eadem confiteris; sicut eorum, quos Felicianus et Praetextatus in sacrilego schismate baptizarunt, uitam et uoluntatem corrigendam existimastis, ne in illo schismatis sacrilegio permanerent, non uiolandum baptismum licet indignissimis per indignissimos ministratum. ### English translation (Claude) What do you answer to these things? If one separated from your communion does not baptize, I read that men dragged with Maximian into partnership in the crime baptized. If one who sins against God does not baptize, I read that men bound by the chain of sacrilege baptized. If the conscience of one giving in holiness is looked to, to wash that of the recipient, I read that men poisonous with the bites of asps baptized. If, for the giver's conscience to be able to wash, his public reputation is looked to, I read that men guilty of a notorious crime baptized. Felicianus still remains in the body, and with him are all who were baptized by him in the sacrilege of schism, received into your communion and rebaptized by no one. Against Petilian, one stained with a sacrilegious conscience baptized; against you, one guilty of a notorious crime baptized. By what reasoning, I ask, do you defend yourselves, unless, convicted by your own deeds, you at last say what we too say: that neither the conscience nor the reputation of the giver washes the conscience of the recipient, but the faith of the recipient himself, and the grace not of the giver, a man, but of God; and that, if the inquiry of a good conscience is lacking in the recipient, and faith itself has wavered either wholly or in some part, men's morals are to be corrected, not the sacraments destroyed, which you confess are not other or similar but altogether the same; just as you judged that the life and will of those whom Felicianus and Praetextatus baptized in sacrilegious schism should be corrected, so that they should not remain in that sacrilege of schism, not that the baptism should be violated, though ministered to the most unworthy through the most unworthy. ### Scripture references - 1 Pet 3:21: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Pet 3:21 (“the inquiry of a good conscience”). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.16 (CSEL 52:516–517; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-16). ## Against Cresconius 4.17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-17 - Source: CSEL 52:517–518 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that the Maximianists' condemned consciences could give baptism, and the Donatists, who persecuted them, still baptize. ### Latin text Frustra igitur ore maledico conscientiam nostram tamquam publicatam atque damnatam crimine turificationis traditionis persecutionis accusare uoluisti, ut ex hoc uelut probares nos baptismum dare non posse, cum et falsa iactetis et, quomodo se illud habeat, certe Maximianensium sacrilegii crimine damnata conscientia dare potuit baptismum, quem rescindere timuistis et quem dari etiam a persecutoribus posse per uos quoque ipsos docetur, qui eosdem Maximianenses acerrime persecuti non solum baptizatis, sed uos solos baptizare debere contenditis. ### English translation (Claude) In vain, then, with abusive mouth, did you wish to accuse our conscience as publicly exposed and condemned for the crime of offering incense, of handing over, of persecution, so as to prove from this that we cannot give baptism; since you both spread falsehoods and, however that may be, certainly the conscience of the Maximianensians, condemned for the crime of sacrilege, could give baptism, which you were afraid to cancel; and that it can be given even by persecutors is taught through you yourselves, who, having most fiercely persecuted those same Maximianensians, not only baptize but contend that you alone ought to baptize. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.17 (CSEL 52:517–518; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17). ## Against Cresconius 4.18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-18 - Source: CSEL 52:518–519 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine turns the Donatist proof texts about the sinner's oil and the dead baptizer against them, since their council called the Maximianists sinners and unburied corpses. ### Latin text Dicis in lege scriptum esse: oleum peccatoris nolo ungat caput meum. quod neque ita scriptum est nec sicut putas intellegendum. sed numquid non est oleum peccatoris oleum sacrilegorum Praetextati et Feliciani? dicis item scriptum esse: qui baptizatur a mortuo quid ei prodest lauatio eius? quod nec diligenter adtendis nec ex ipsa circumstantia lectionis quid sit intellegis. uerumtamen intende, quid personet disertissima illa Bagaitana sententia: optata quidem, inquit, pacis et concordiae est iuncta germanitas, sicut scriptum est: iustitia et pax osculatae sunt inuicem. sed ueridica unda in asperos scopulos nonnullorum naufraga proiecta sunt membra, Aegyptiorum admodum exemplo pereuntium funeribus plena sunt litora, quibus in ipsa morte maior est poena. quod post extortam aquis ultricibus animam nec ipsam inueniunt sepulturam. isti ergo non solum mortui, uerum etiam, quod est grauius, insepulti quomodo baptizare potuerunt? quomodo profuit lauatio eis qui ab his mortuis baptizati sunt, quos in eodem lauacro susceptos denuo non lauistis, si, ut putas, illud intellegendum est? nam quod in epistula mea, cui respondere tibi uideris, putas quod idoli cultorem tamquam grauissimi peccati reum tantummodo exceperim et instas uehementer, ut probes nullum excipi peccatorem in eo quod scriptum esse dicis: oleum peccatoris nolo ungat caput meum, Felicianum et Praetextatum respice, utrum peccatores non fuerint, quando catena sacrilegii cum Maximiano pertrahi tam magno concilio dicebantur. aude adserere, aude contendere, aude saltem dicere peccatores quidem fuisse sed occultos, quos ibi lego famosi criminis reos. quamquam etsi leuiter peccauissent, etsi latuissent, tu hoc testimonio, quod ponis de oleo peccatoris, in ista suggestione extorquere conaris nullum excipi peccatorem. ubi eritis, si ita est, quo fugietis, in quibus uos latebris cum uestris sacrilegis, cum uestris famosi criminis reis, cum uestris cadaueribus insepultis abscondere poteritis? ### English translation (Claude) You say it is written in the law, “I do not want the oil of a sinner to anoint my head.” This is neither so written nor to be understood as you think. But is not the oil of a sinner the oil of the sacrilegious Praetextatus and Felicianus? You say likewise that it is written, “He who is baptized by a dead man, what does his washing profit him?” You neither attend to this carefully nor understand what it is from the very context of the reading. Yet notice what that most eloquent sentence of Bagai proclaims: “The union of peace and concord,” it says, “is indeed desired, as it is written, ‘Righteousness and peace have kissed each other.’ But by the truth-telling wave the shipwrecked limbs of some have been thrown on rough rocks; like the example of the Egyptians perishing, the shores are full of corpses, whose punishment is greater in death itself, because, after their life has been wrung out by the avenging waters, they do not even find burial.” How, then, could these men, not only dead but, what is graver, unburied, baptize? How did washing profit those who were baptized by these dead men, whom you received in the same washing and did not wash again, if it is to be understood as you think? For as to your thinking that in my letter, which you seem to yourself to answer, I excepted only the worshiper of an idol as guilty of the gravest sin, and your pressing vehemently to prove that no sinner is excepted in what you say is written, “I do not want the oil of a sinner to anoint my head”: look at Felicianus and Praetextatus, whether they were not sinners when they were said by so great a council to be dragged with Maximian by the chain of sacrilege. Dare to assert, dare to contend, dare at least to say that they were sinners indeed, but hidden, whom I read there as guilty of a notorious crime. And yet, even if they had sinned lightly, even if they had been hidden, you try in this suggestion to extort from the testimony you set down about the oil of the sinner that no sinner is excepted. Where will you be, if it is so? Where will you flee? In what hiding places will you be able to conceal yourselves with your sacrilegious men, with your men guilty of a notorious crime, with your unburied corpses? ### Scripture references - Ps 141:5 (140:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 85:10 (84:11 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Exod 14:30: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Sir 34:25 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Ps 141:5 (140:5 LXX); Sir 34:25; Ps 85:10 (84:11 LXX); Exod 14:30. The phrase “ueridica unda” is translated as printed. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.18 (CSEL 52:518–519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-18). ## Against Cresconius 4.19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-19 - Source: CSEL 52:519–520 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says baptism does not vary with the minister's merit, as the Donatists conceded by accepting the Maximianists' baptisms. ### Latin text Dicis, cum obicitur qua nobis licentia ius baptismatis uindicemus, quod non de merito actuum, non de uitae innocentia tractemus, sed cuicumque licere dicamus et quasi praeiudicatis criminibus rei, dum et peccatoribus inesse baptizandi facultatem uolumus ostendere, nos aperte peccasse fateamur. quasi propter merita nostra contra deum nobis loquendum sit, ut quam iusti sumus tam iustum baptismum esse faciamus, cum et nulli hominum de sua iustitia praesumendum sit et hinc maxime baptismum Christi probemus esse, non hominum, quia non fit uarius humanorum uarietate meritorum. unde uberius disputarem, nisi a uobis dato conpendio magis uterer. suscepto enim baptismo neque destructo, quem Maximianenses dederunt, aspides uiperae parricidae cadauera Aegyptia et quidquid aliud in eos Bagaiensi concilio, ut nostra causa facillima fieret, ore grandiloquo declamatum est, satis et ipsi iudicastis non eorum meritis a quibus ministratur nec eorum quibus ministratur constare baptismum, sed propria sanctitate atque ueritate propter eum, a quo institutus est male utentibus ad perniciem, bene utentibus ad salutem. ### English translation (Claude) You say that, when we are challenged on what license we claim the right of baptism, we do not discuss the merit of our actions or the innocence of our life, but say it is permitted to anyone; and that, as though guilty of crimes already judged, while we wish to show that the power of baptizing is present even in sinners, we openly confess that we have sinned. As though we ought to speak against God on account of our merits, so as to make baptism as righteous as we are righteous; when no man ought to presume on his own righteousness, and we prove from this most of all that baptism is Christ's, not men's, because it does not vary with the variety of human merits. On this I would argue more fully, were I not rather using the shortcut given by you. For by receiving and not destroying the baptism which the Maximianensians gave, asps, vipers, parricides, Egyptian corpses, and whatever else was declaimed against them with grandiloquent mouth in the council of Bagai, so that our case might become very easy, you yourselves have judged sufficiently that baptism does not depend on the merits of those by whom it is ministered, nor of those to whom it is ministered, but on its own holiness and truth, because of him by whom it was instituted; to ruin for those who use it badly, to salvation for those who use it well. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.19 (CSEL 52:519–520; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-19). ## Against Cresconius 4.20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-20 - Source: CSEL 52:520–521 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the Donatists, by accepting Maximianist baptisms, abandoned Cyprian's view on rebaptism, just as they blamed the Easterners for doing. ### Latin text Miror autem, quomodo etiam tibi persuadere potuerunt, ut in tua disputatione mentionem faceres Cypriani, cuius litteris etiam ipsis, quas eius esse dicitis, de baptismo destruendo, qui apud haereticos uel schismaticos datur, tota causa uestra subuertitur. sed hoc aduersus Maximianenses uel alios, qui baptismum siue apud uos siue apud nos datum non suscipiunt, agere debemus; uos autem iam causam istam mira facilitate finistis, iam baptismum in sacrilego schismate Maximiani datum cum Praetextato et Feliciano in eorum populis suscepistis, iam contra Cypriani quas dicitis litteras et quibuscumque aliis hoc uisum est sine ulla dubitatione fecistis. nam quod dicis orientales ideo (a) uestrorum communione discretos, quia postea nobiscum sentiendo iudicium suum quod habuerunt de baptismo rescindere maluerunt, si hoc a quibus paucis orientalibus factum est, quod quidem interest utrum possit ostendi, profecto suum iudicium correxerunt. et uos suscepto baptismo, qui datus est in schismate Maximiani, antiquam uestram sententiam rescidistis; tamen uobiscum estis et cum orientalibus esse non uultis. ### English translation (Claude) I wonder, though, how they could persuade even you to mention Cyprian in your disputation, by whose writings, even the ones you say are his, on destroying baptism given among heretics or schismatics, your whole case is overturned. But this we ought to argue against the Maximianensians or others who do not receive baptism given either among you or among us; you, however, have already ended this case with wonderful ease; you have already received, with Praetextatus and Felicianus, in their congregations, the baptism given in Maximian's sacrilegious schism; you have already acted, without any hesitation, against the writings you say are Cyprian's and against all others who held this view. For as to your saying that the Easterners were separated from your people's communion because afterwards, agreeing with us, they chose to cancel the judgment they had held about baptism: if this was done by some few Easterners (and it matters whether this can be shown), they certainly corrected their judgment. And you too, by receiving the baptism given in Maximian's schism, cancelled your ancient opinion; yet you are with yourselves, and you will not be with the Easterners. ### Translation notes - The word in round brackets is the editor's supplement. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.20 (CSEL 52:520–521; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-20). ## Against Cresconius 4.21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-21 - Source: CSEL 52:521–522 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers Cresconius's rhetorical outburst: faithful and faithless ministers differ in merit, not in the sacrament, as the Donatists' reception of Felicianus shows. ### Latin text Sed uidelicet inuenisse tibi uideris ubi tuam eloquentiam dilatares, cum ad id, quod ego in epistula mea posui: siue a fideli siue a perfido dispensatore sacramentum baptismi quisque percipiat, spes ei omnis in Christo sit, exclamas et dicis: o praeclarum sacerdotis imperium, o laudabilia boni patris praecepta iustitiae! nihil, inquit, inter fidelem perfidumque discernas, idem tibi pius atque impius uideatur, nihil prodest bonis moribus uiuere, quia quidquid iusto licet potest et iniustus implere. quid hoc praecepto dici iniquius potest: purificet alium maculosus, abluat sordidus, emundet inmundus, det infidelis fidem, criminosus faciat innocentem? haec certe uerba tua sunt, quibus sententiam meam reprehendis, cum hoc ego omnino non consenserim neque scripserim, quia et inter fidelem perfidumque plurimum distat non ad sacramentum, si hoc uterque habet, sed ad meritum, quia hoc alter ad salutem habet, alter ad poenam, nec quidquid iusto licet potest et iniustus implere, quia etsi potest iniustus baptizare, non tamen potest in regnum caelorum iniustus intrare, nec purificat uel abluit uel emundat nec innocentem facit quemquam qui ei ministrat baptismum, sed dantis dei gratia et percipientis bona conscientia. sed tu aspice, utrum nihil inter Primianum Felicianumque distaret, cum Primianus inter trecentos decem sederet. a quibus ille dicebatur quod uenenum aspidum esset sub labiis eius et ueloces haberet pedes ad effundendum sanguinem et contribulatio et infelicitas in uiis eius et uiam pacis ignoraret nec esset timor dei ante oculos eius, utrum tunc non esset maculosus inmundus sordidus qui uas sordidum collecta faeculentia glutinauit, non infidelis uenenum aspidum sub labiis habens, non criminosus famosi criminis reus. et tamen et ipse nunc cum Primiano uester episcopus sedet et quos tunc baptizauit nusquam postea lotos uobiscum nunc habet. ### English translation (Claude) But no doubt you think you have found where to spread out your eloquence when, at what I set down in my letter, “Whether one receives the sacrament of baptism from a faithful or a faithless steward, let all his hope be in Christ,” you exclaim and say: “O splendid command of a priest! O praiseworthy precepts of righteousness from a good father! ‘Make no distinction,’ he says, ‘between the faithful and the faithless; let the godly and the ungodly seem the same to you.’ It profits nothing to live with good morals, because whatever is permitted to the righteous, the unrighteous too can fulfill. What can be said more unjustly than this precept: let the stained purify another, the dirty wash, the unclean cleanse, the faithless give faith, the criminal make innocent?” These are certainly your words, by which you blame my opinion, though I neither agreed to this at all nor wrote it; for there is a very great difference between the faithful and the faithless, not as to the sacrament, if both have it, but as to merit, because one has it for salvation, the other for punishment; nor can the unrighteous fulfill whatever is permitted to the righteous, because, though the unrighteous can baptize, the unrighteous cannot enter the kingdom of heaven; nor does the one who ministers baptism purify or wash or cleanse or make anyone innocent, but the grace of God who gives and the good conscience of the one who receives. But you, look whether there was no difference between Primian and Felicianus, when Primian sat among the three hundred and ten, by whom it was said of the other that the poison of asps was under his lips, that he had feet swift to shed blood, that affliction and misery were in his ways, that he did not know the way of peace, and that there was no fear of God before his eyes; whether he was not then stained, unclean, and dirty, who glued together a filthy vessel from collected dregs; not faithless, having the poison of asps under his lips; not criminal, guilty of a notorious crime. And yet he too now sits as your bishop with Primian, and has with you now those he baptized then, never washed again afterwards. ### Scripture references - Rom 3:13: allusion, high confidence - Rom 3:15: allusion, high confidence - Rom 3:16: allusion, high confidence - Rom 3:17: allusion, high confidence - Rom 3:18: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 3:13–18, applied in the sentence of Bagai. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.21 (CSEL 52:521–522; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-21). ## Against Cresconius 4.22 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-22 - Source: CSEL 52:522–523 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows that Petilian made the minister's conscience the source of cleansing, which differs from Cresconius's softened claim that Christ acts through the minister. ### Latin text Et adhuc pugnatis aduersus ueritatem nec conceditis, ut Christus semper det fidem, Christus sit origo christiani, in Christo radicem christianus infigat, Christus christiani sit caput. quibus uerbis meis in illa epistula contra Petilianum positis tua uerba subiungis et dicis: hoc et nos suademus, hoc uolumus, sed quaerimus per quem hoc melius fiat, nec adtendis hoc non suadere Petilianum, cui tunc respondi et cuius epistulam aduersus responsionem meam defendere atque affirmare conaris. ille quippe aperte dixit: conscientia sancte dantis adtenditur quae abluat accipientis. nam qui fidem a perfido sumpserit non fidem percipit sed reatum. dic mihi, quem locum Christo reliquerit ad abluendam conscientiam baptizati aut a quo fidem percipiat baptizatus, quando conscientiam dantis dicit attendi quae abluat accipientis, et non fidem percipere sed reatum, qui fidem sumit a perfido. tu quidem cedere uideris tanto ponderi ueritatis et dicis hoc te suadere et hoc uelle, ut Christus det fidem atque ad ineundam uitam nouam Christus abluat christianum, quaeris autem per quem melius fiat, quod sine ministro fieri non oportet. Petilianus tamen non dixit: conscientia ministrantis adtenditur, per quam Christus abluat accipientis aut per quam Christus det fidem, sed ipsa conscientia dantis uoluit accipientis ablui conscientiam, nec dixit: (quisquis fidem per perfidum sumpserit non fidem percipit sed reatum, ut a Christo quamuis per alium sumere uideretur, sed omnino dixit: a perfido sumpserit atque ad hoc, quasi probaret, adiunxit: omnis enim res origine et radice consistit et, si caput non habeat aliquid, nihil est, ipsum scilicet ministrum, cuius conscientiam dixit attendi non per quam Christus abluat, sed quae abluat accipientis, ipsum prorsus ministrum originem, radicem caputque faciens baptizati. ### English translation (Claude) And still you fight against the truth and do not grant that Christ always gives faith, that Christ is the origin of the Christian, that the Christian fixes his root in Christ, that Christ is the head of the Christian. To these words of mine, set down in that letter against Petilian, you add your words and say: “This we too urge, this we want; but we ask through whom this is better done”; and you do not notice that Petilian, to whom I then replied and whose letter you try to defend and affirm against my reply, does not urge this. For he said plainly: “The conscience of one who gives in holiness is looked to, to wash that of the recipient. For he who receives faith from the faithless receives not faith but guilt.” Tell me, what place has he left for Christ in washing the conscience of the baptized, or from whom does the baptized receive faith, when he says that the conscience of the giver is looked to, to wash that of the recipient, and that one who receives faith from the faithless receives not faith but guilt? You indeed seem to yield to so great a weight of truth, and say that you urge and want this: that Christ give faith and that Christ wash the Christian for entering upon new life; but you ask through whom that is better done which ought not to be done without a minister. Petilian, however, did not say, “The conscience of the minister is looked to, through which Christ washes that of the recipient, or through which Christ gives faith”; but he wanted the recipient's conscience to be washed by the very conscience of the giver. Nor did he say, “Whoever receives faith through the faithless receives not faith but guilt,” so that he might seem to receive it from Christ, though through another; but he said absolutely “from the faithless.” And to this, as if proving it, he added: “For everything consists in its origin and root, and if something does not have a head, it is nothing”; making the minister himself, whose conscience he said was looked to, not as that through which Christ washes, but as that which washes the recipient's, the very origin, root, and head of the baptized. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.22 (CSEL 52:522–523; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-22). ## Against Cresconius 4.23 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-23 - Source: CSEL 52:523–524 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine draws out that Cresconius's “better through a good minister” concedes that Christ acts even through a bad one. ### Latin text Proinde hoc loco non Petiliano, cuius uerba non defendisti, sed tibi respondeo, qui pro tua sententia nescio quid aliud, non quod ille, dixisti. tu enim, sicut scribis, hoc uis, hoc suades, ut non, sicut ille dixit, conscientia sancte dantis abluat accipientem uel accipienti det fidem neque ut ipsa sit origo et radix caputque credentis, sed per ipsam Christus abluat, per ipsam Christus det fidem, per ipsam Christus sit origo christiani, per ipsam in Christo radicem christianus infigat, per ipsam Christus christiani sit caput. ideo enim quaeris, per quem melius fiat quod a Christo fieri concedis, ubi et tu, quantum uideo, non negas hoc fieri posse etiam per ministrum malum, sed dicis melius posse per bonum. quid est enim aliud quod dicis: hoc et nos suademus, hoc uolumus, sed quaerimus per quem melius fiat? ac per hoc abluit Christus et per maculosam non sancte dantis, sed melius per mundam sancte dantis conscientiam, dat fidem Christus et per ministrum malum, sed melius per bonum, fit Christus origo christiani et per dispensatorem infidelem, sed melius per fidelem, christianus radicem figit in Christo etiam per colonum reprobum, sed melius per probum, potest Christus caput esse christiani et per Felicianum, sed melius existimas per Primianum. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, in this place I answer not Petilian, whose words you did not defend, but you, who said for your own opinion something else, not what he said. For you, as you write, want and urge this: not, as he said, that the conscience of one giving in holiness washes the recipient or gives the recipient faith, nor that it is itself the origin, root, and head of the believer; but that through it Christ washes, through it Christ gives faith, through it Christ is the origin of the Christian, through it the Christian fixes his root in Christ, through it Christ is the head of the Christian. For this is why you ask through whom that which you grant is done by Christ is better done; where you too, as far as I see, do not deny that this can be done even through a bad minister, but say it can be done better through a good one. For what else is it that you say, “This we too urge, this we want; but we ask through whom it is better done”? And so Christ washes even through the stained conscience of one who does not give in holiness, but better through the clean conscience of one who gives in holiness; Christ gives faith even through a bad minister, but better through a good one; Christ becomes the origin of the Christian even through a faithless steward, but better through a faithful one; the Christian fixes his root in Christ even through a reprobate farmer, but better through an upright one; Christ can be the head of the Christian even through Felicianus, but better, you think, through Primian. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.23 (CSEL 52:523–524; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-23). ## Against Cresconius 4.24 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-24 - Source: CSEL 52:524 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine agrees a good minister is better, for his own sake and as an example, but the sacrament is holy because it is God's, whoever ministers it. ### Latin text Parua itaque inter nos in hac re aut fortasse nulla dissensio est. nam et ego dico melius per bonum ministrum quam per malum dispensari sacramenta diuina, uerum hoc propter ipsum ministrum melius est, ut eis rebus, quas ministrat, uita et moribus congruat, non propter illum, qui, etiamsi incurrerit in ministrum malum dispensantem ueritatem, securitatem accipit a domino suo monente ac dicente: quae dicunt facite, quae autem faciunt facere nolite. dicunt enim et non faciunt. addo etiam ad hoc esse melius, ut ille cui ministratur ministri boni probitatem ac sanctitatem diligendo facilius imitetur, sed non ideo ueriora et sanctiora sunt quae ministrantur, quia per meliorem ministrantur. illa namque per se ipsa uera et sancta sunt propter deum uerum et sanctum cuius sunt, et ideo fieri potest, ut accedens ad societatem populi dei alium inueniat a quo facile baptizetur, alium eligat quem salubriter imitetur. certus est enim sanctum esse sacramentum Christi, etiamsi per minus sanctum uel non sanctum hominem ministratum est, se autem eiusdem ipsius sacramenti sanctitate puniri, si indigne acceperit, si male usus fuerit, si non ei conuenienter et congrue uixerit. ### English translation (Claude) So there is little or perhaps no disagreement between us on this matter. For I too say that the divine sacraments are better dispensed through a good minister than through a bad one; but this is better for the sake of the minister himself, that his life and morals may agree with the things he ministers; not for the sake of the one who, even if he comes upon a bad minister dispensing the truth, receives security from his Lord, who warns and says: “Do what they say, but do not do what they do; for they say and do not do.” I add also that it is better for this: that the one to whom it is ministered may more easily imitate the uprightness and holiness of a good minister by loving it. But the things ministered are not truer and holier because they are ministered through a better man. For they are true and holy in themselves because of the true and holy God whose they are; and so it may happen that one coming to the fellowship of God's people finds one by whom he is readily baptized and chooses another whom he may profitably imitate. For he is certain that the sacrament of Christ is holy even if ministered through a less holy or an unholy man, but that he himself will be punished by the holiness of that same sacrament if he received it unworthily, if he used it badly, if he did not live in a way fitting and suited to it. ### Scripture references - Matt 23:3: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 23:3. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.24 (CSEL 52:524; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-24). ## Against Cresconius 4.25 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-25 - Source: CSEL 52:524–525 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that a convert from schism becomes better but his baptism does not, and that what Christ does is always done well. ### Latin text Nam quaero abs te: si forte, quem Primianus in uestra communione baptizauit, pessime uiuat, quem uero Felicianus in Maximiani schismate baptizauit, optime uiuat, cuinam eorum patere existimas regnum dei, utrum ei, quem baptizauit secundum te bonus malum, an ei, quem baptizauit secundum Bagaiense concilium sacrilegus religiosum? sed forte dicis et uerum dicis: non potest esse religiosus in schismate constitutus. assentio. uerumtamen potest esse in uestra communione sacrilegus uel occultus a Primiano, quem religiosum creditis, baptizatus. porro si ille, quem Felicianus in catena sacrilegii baptizauit, relicto schismatis sacrilegio ecclesiastica communione corrigeretur, numquid audes dicere, quod melior in illo baptismus fieret, quamuis negare non audeas ipsum hominem fieri potuisse meliorem? hoc enim et ipso facto iudicastis, quandoquidem illos omnes, quos Felicianus et Praetextatus in damnato et detestato a uobis sacrilegio schismatis baptizarunt, cum illis ad uos redeuntibus sine ulla destructione uel repetitione baptismi suscepistis. si autem, quod dixisti: sed quaerimus per quem melius fiat, conparatiuum gradum pro positiuo posuisti, sic dicens: quaerimus per quem melius fiat, ac si diceres: quaerimus per quem bene fiat, uolens intellegi per malum ministrum male fieri, non te uerbo urgeo, sed admoneo potius te dicere debuisse: quaerimus per quem fiat quam: quaerimus per quem bene fiat, quasi posset fieri, ut non bene Christus det fidem, non bene sit Christus origo caputque christiani, non bene radix figatur in Christo. aut enim non fit aut, si fit, procul dubio bene fit. ### English translation (Claude) For I ask you: if perhaps one whom Primian baptized in your communion lives very badly, while one whom Felicianus baptized in Maximian's schism lives very well, to which of them do you think the kingdom of God is open: to the one whom, according to you, a good man baptized as a bad one, or to the one whom, according to the council of Bagai, a sacrilegious man baptized as a devout one? But perhaps you say, and say truly: “One placed in schism cannot be devout.” I agree. Yet one baptized by Primian, whom you believe devout, can be sacrilegious, or hidden, in your communion. Further, if the one whom Felicianus baptized in the chain of sacrilege were corrected, leaving the sacrilege of schism, by the church's communion, do you dare to say that the baptism in him would become better, although you do not dare to deny that the man himself could have become better? For you judged this by the very deed, since you received all those whom Felicianus and Praetextatus baptized in the sacrilege of schism, condemned and detested by you, when they returned to you with them, without any destruction or repetition of baptism. But if, in saying, “But we ask through whom it is better done,” you put the comparative degree for the positive, saying, “We ask through whom it is better done,” as if you said, “We ask through whom it is done well,” wishing it to be understood that through a bad minister it is done badly, I do not press you on the word, but rather remind you that you ought to have said, “We ask through whom it is done,” rather than, “We ask through whom it is done well,” as if it could happen that Christ gives faith not well, that Christ is not well the origin and head of the Christian, that the root is not well fixed in Christ. For either it is not done, or, if it is done, it is without doubt done well. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.25 (CSEL 52:524–525; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-25). ## Against Cresconius 4.26 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-26 - Source: CSEL 52:525–526 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says schism is a great evil, yet baptism given or received in schism is real, though it serves for punishment while the schism lasts. ### Latin text Uerumtamen ista tractamus, ne propter malos dispensatores non tamen suorum, sed dominicorum sacramentorum, quos necesse est usque ad tempus uentilationis areae dominicae commisceri, deseratur ipsa unitas frumentorum. schisma autem facere ab unitate Christi aut esse in schismate profecto malum est et magnum malum, nec omnino fieri potest, ut Christus det schismatico non fidem, sed sacrilegum errorem. aut in Christo radicem schismaticus fixerit aut schismatico Christus sit origo uel caput, et tamen baptismum Christi si dederit datum erit, si acceperit acceptum erit, non ad uitam aeternam, sed ad poenam aeternam, si in eo sacrilegio perseuerauerit non in malum conuertendo bonum quod habet, sed malo suo bonum habendo quamdiu malus habet. ### English translation (Claude) Yet we treat these things so that the unity of the wheat itself may not be deserted on account of bad dispensers of sacraments that are not theirs but the Lord's, who must be mixed with it until the time of the winnowing of the Lord's threshing floor. But to make a schism from the unity of Christ, or to be in schism, is certainly evil, and a great evil; nor can it happen at all that Christ gives the schismatic, not faith, but sacrilegious error; or that the schismatic has fixed his root in Christ, or that Christ is the origin or head of the schismatic. And yet, if he gives the baptism of Christ, it will have been given; if he receives it, it will have been received; not for eternal life but for eternal punishment, if he persists in that sacrilege; not by turning into evil the good he has, but by having the good to his own evil as long as he is evil. ### Scripture references - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 3:12. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.26 (CSEL 52:525–526; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-26). ## Against Cresconius 4.27 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-27 - Source: CSEL 52:526 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine points to the Maximianist baptisms accepted by the Donatists as proof that God, not the minister's righteousness, gives baptism its growth. ### Latin text Quaeris forte ut hoc probem. quid aliud tibi dicam nisi quod hoc opere institui? Bagaiense decretum lege, Felicianum et Praetextatum intuere. schismatici dederunt, (schismatici acceperunt); utrique a uobis recepti et collecti sunt, nec illi degradati nec illi rebaptizati. iam certe non quaeris, utrum fiat melius per iustum ministrum an per iniustum, quoniam non ideo est baptismus melior quem dedit Primianus secundum uos iustus, quam ille quem dedit Felicianus iniustus. certe iam intellegere cogeris, quomodo apostolus dixerit: neque qui plantat est aliquid neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat deus, teque frustra dixisse recolis: sicut qui plantat et rigat non nisi colonus diligens et fidelis inquiritur, sic etiam in sacramento baptismatis non nisi iustissimus operarius adprobatur. ecce nec diligens nec fidelis nec iustissimus, sed potius salutis suae neglegens et infidelis et iniustissimus Felicianus fuit, quando Maximiano sociatus et, sicut trecenti et decem uestri unius ore disertissimo personant, in catena sacrilegii constitutus baptismum, quem non ausi estis rescindere, ministrauit. ### English translation (Claude) Perhaps you ask me to prove this. What else shall I tell you than what I have undertaken in this work? Read the decree of Bagai; look at Felicianus and Praetextatus. Schismatics gave it, schismatics received it; both were received and gathered by you, neither were the former degraded nor the latter rebaptized. Surely you no longer ask whether it is better done through a just minister or an unjust one, since the baptism which Primian, just according to you, gave is not better than that which the unjust Felicianus gave. Surely you are now compelled to understand how the apostle said, “Neither he who plants is anything nor he who waters, but God who gives the growth”; and you recall that you said in vain: “Just as for planting and watering only a diligent and faithful farmer is sought, so too in the sacrament of baptism only a most righteous workman is approved.” See, Felicianus was neither diligent nor faithful nor most righteous, but rather neglectful of his salvation, faithless, and most unrighteous, when, associated with Maximian and, as your three hundred and ten proclaim through one most eloquent mouth, placed in the chain of sacrilege, he ministered the baptism which you did not dare to cancel. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 3:7: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Cor 3:7. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.27 (CSEL 52:526; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-27). ## Against Cresconius 4.28 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-28 - Source: CSEL 52:526–527 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that Felicianus lacked faith and righteousness, yet the Donatists admitted his baptism was real, adding only righteousness on reception. ### Latin text Certe ad hanc causam cernis non pertinere testimonium, quod ex propheta posuisti: dabo uobis pastores secundum cor meum, et pascent uos pascentes cum disciplina. Felicianus enim nec secundum cor dei sacrilegus erat nec oues eius in sacrilego schismate pascebat cum disciplina, et tamen baptizabat eos, in quibus receptis cognouistis non ipsius, sed dei fuisse quod dabat. certe perspicis, quomodo a me de scriptura sancta commemoratum est bonum esse confidere in domino quam confidere in homine, teque inaniter, quantum ad hanc causam pertinet, respondisse, quod ideo magis ut iustus et fidelis sit per quem hoc sacramentum celebretur inquiras, quia spem et fiduciam dei, non hominis habes, dei esse autem fidem atque iustitiam, quam semper in eius ministris adtendis. ecce in Feliciano, quando fuit famosi criminis reus, nec iustitia nec fides erat, et tamen baptismus erat et quibus ab eo datus est, cum a uobis collecti sunt, eis accessisse iustitiam dicitis, baptismum defuisse non dicitis. ### English translation (Claude) Surely you see that the testimony you set down from the prophet does not apply to this case: “I will give you shepherds after my own heart, and they will feed you, feeding with discipline.” For Felicianus, being sacrilegious, was not after God's heart, nor was he feeding his sheep with discipline in sacrilegious schism; and yet he baptized them, and in receiving them you recognized that what he gave was not his but God's. Surely you perceive how I mentioned from holy Scripture that it is better to trust in the Lord than to trust in man, and that you answered emptily, as far as this case is concerned, that you seek all the more that the one through whom this sacrament is celebrated be just and faithful because you have hope and trust in God, not in man, and because faith and righteousness, which you always look for in his ministers, are God's. See, in Felicianus, when he was guilty of a notorious crime, there was neither righteousness nor faith; and yet there was baptism; and for those to whom it was given by him, when they were gathered by you, you say righteousness was added; you do not say baptism was lacking. ### Scripture references - Jer 3:15: quotation, high confidence - Ps 118:8 (117:8 LXX): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jer 3:15; Ps 118:8 (117:8 LXX). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.28 (CSEL 52:526–527; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-28). ## Against Cresconius 4.29 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-29 - Source: CSEL 52:527–528 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the questions about John's baptism and Moses' crossing are irrelevant; the Donatists must explain why they did not rebaptize after Felicianus. ### Latin text Proinde quod deinceps a me quaeris: si a quocumque et quomodocumque datum baptisma rescindi non debet, cur post Iohannem apostoli baptizauerint, tu iam solue quaestionem, si, ut dicis, post Iohannem apostoli baptizauerint. cur post Felicianum quos in sacrilego schismate baptizauerat uestri non baptizauerint, et hinc saltem disce, quidquid illud est quod de Iohannis baptismo uel legitur uel disseritur, ab hac causa esse penitus alienum. quid autem tibi uisum sit nescio, ut Iudaeos, quibus ait Petrus: baptizetur unusquisque uestrum in nomine domini Iesu Christi, iam fuisse a Moyse diceres baptizatos, qui post tot generationes nati fuerunt quam ille dei famulus maiores eorum per Rubrum Mare transiecit. aut si propterea a Moyse baptismum habebant, quia ex illis propagati sunt quos in Moyse baptizatos dicit apostolus, aude dicere omnes, qui nascuntur ex fidelibus christianis, christianum habere iam baptismum. quod uides, ut arbitror, quanta uanitate dicatur. sed quomodo se habeat illud, etiamsi post Moysen dei famulum apostoli baptizassent, te urgerem reddere rationem, cur post Felicianum Maximianensem sacrilegum uestri non baptizassent. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, as to what you next ask me, “If baptism given by anyone and in any way ought not to be cancelled, why did the apostles baptize after John?”, you yourself now solve the question: if, as you say, the apostles baptized after John, why did your people not baptize after Felicianus those whom he had baptized in sacrilegious schism? And from this at least learn that whatever is read or discussed about John's baptism is entirely foreign to this case. And I do not know what came into your head, to say that the Jews to whom Peter said, “Let each of you be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” had already been baptized by Moses, they who were born so many generations after that servant of God brought their ancestors across the Red Sea. Or if they had baptism from Moses because they were descended from those whom the apostle says were baptized into Moses, dare to say that all who are born of faithful Christians already have Christian baptism. You see, I think, with how much emptiness that is said. But however that may be, even if the apostles had baptized after Moses, the servant of God, I would press you to give a reason why your people did not baptize after Felicianus, the sacrilegious Maximianensian. ### Scripture references - Acts 2:38: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 10:2: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 10:2. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.29 (CSEL 52:527–528; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-29). ## Against Cresconius 4.30 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-30 - Source: CSEL 52:528–529 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says each of Petilian's claims (holy conscience, origin and root, good tree, good treasure) fails in the case of Felicianus, whose baptism the Donatists accepted as Christ's. ### Latin text Iam illud, quod posui: si errabant illi qui uolebant esse Pauli, quae tandem spes eorum est qui uolunt esse Donati?, prioribus partibus epistulae tuae non te refellisse puto, quod etiam ipse consideras in his, quae superius satis diximus. non ergo, sicut tibi uideris et quasi certus exultas, illa omnia, quae a Petiliano uel quolibet alio dicta sunt, recte dicta concludis. ipso quippe ordine, quo a te breuiter uelut recolendo reminiscendo decursa sunt, ego potius in hac causa Maximianensium non ea recte dicta concludo. quia nec conscientia sancte dantis erat in Feliciano, quando Maximiano cohaerens catena sacrilegii trahebatur, et a famosi criminis reo ac per hoc a manifesto perfido baptizabantur qui ab illo baptizabantur, nec origo et radix et caput ad salutem illis erat homo sacrilegus nec arbor bona erat in sacrilegi schismatis societate damnatus et adhuc in eodem sacrilegio constitutus, nec bonus erat qui de bono thesauro cordis sui proferret bona, quando de illo et de aliis eius sociis dicebatur: quorum os maledictione et amaritudine plenum est. et tamen, quando cum illo uestri concordauerunt, baptismum quem talis dederat non ipsius esse, sed Christi aliquando ui ueritatis territi cognouerunt. ### English translation (Claude) Now as to what I set down, “If those erred who wished to be of Paul, what hope, pray, is there for those who wish to be of Donatus?”, I think you did not refute it in the earlier parts of your letter, as you yourself also consider from what we have said sufficiently above. So you do not, as you think and exult as if certain, rightly conclude that all those things said by Petilian or anyone else were rightly said. For in the very order in which you ran through them briefly, as if recalling and remembering them, I rather conclude, in this case of the Maximianensians, that they were not rightly said. For neither was there the conscience of one giving in holiness in Felicianus, when, cleaving to Maximian, he was dragged by the chain of sacrilege; and those he baptized were baptized by one guilty of a notorious crime and therefore by a manifestly faithless man; nor was a sacrilegious man their origin, root, and head for salvation; nor was one condemned in the fellowship of sacrilegious schism and still placed in that same sacrilege a good tree; nor was he a good man bringing forth good things from the good treasure of his heart, when it was said of him and his other associates: “whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.” And yet, when your people came to agreement with him, they at last recognized, frightened by the force of truth, that the baptism which such a man had given was not his but Christ's. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 1:12: allusion, high confidence - Matt 7:17: allusion, high confidence - Luke 6:45: allusion, high confidence - Rom 3:14: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Cor 1:12; Matt 7:17; Luke 6:45; Rom 3:14. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.30 (CSEL 52:528–529; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-30). ## Against Cresconius 4.31 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-31 - Source: CSEL 52:529–530 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that Cresconius ignored his earlier statement that Optatus the Gildonian had brought Felicianus and Praetextatus back by force. ### Latin text Age iam uideamus suo loco, in epistula tua de Maximianensium causa quomodo te exuas. omnes enim, qui has litteras legunt, expectant procul dubio uel quid hinc a te dictum sit ubi dictum est uel a me quid responsum sit. itaque de Optato Gildoniano quod obiectis meis respondisti, nolo discutere, nolo in hominis causa, de cuius a uestris damnatione nihil ago, diutius immorari. facio certe iacturam huius obiecti, et hoc fortasse apud posteros, cum illius fuerit oblitterata memoria. nunc uero, quamdiu sunt homines, qui uitam illius moresque nouerunt, parum me de illo dixisse quam falsum potius conquerentur. neque enim sic legunt litteras nostras ut tu, qui ex me quaeris, ille quem tamquam rabidum fluctum appellauerim quid absorbuerit, cum illic habeas Praetextatum et Felicianum. nam uerba mea illic sic se habent: ita quidem, inquam. isti insultant schismaticis suis, ut eos et mortuos et insepultos uocent. sed certe optare debuerunt ut sepelirentur, ne de multitudine iacentium in litore cadauerum insepultorum Gildonianus Optatus incedens cum agmine militari tamquam rabidus fluctus ultra prosiliens Felicianum et Praetextatum introrsus postea resorberet. haec uerba mea cum ibi legeris, cur non omnia posuisti, cum eis respondere temptares? cur me ueluti arguis non dixisse quid rabidus fluctus ille sorbuerit, cum ibi scriptum uideas: Felicianum et Praetextatum introrsus postea resorberet? ### English translation (Claude) Come now, let us see in its place how you extricate yourself in your letter from the case of the Maximianensians. For all who read these writings are without doubt waiting to see either what you said on this point where you said it, or what I answered. And so I do not wish to discuss what you answered to my charges about Optatus the Gildonian; I do not wish to linger longer on the case of a man about whose condemnation by your people I am not dealing. I certainly give up this charge, and perhaps this will be so among posterity, when his memory has been blotted out. But now, as long as there are men who knew his life and morals, they will rather complain that I said too little of him than that I said anything false. For they do not read my writings as you do, who ask me what that man, whom I called, as it were, a raging wave, swallowed up, when you have Praetextatus and Felicianus there. For my words there are these: “These men indeed so insult their schismatics as to call them both dead and unburied. But surely they ought to have wished that they be buried, lest, from the multitude of unburied corpses lying on the shore, Optatus the Gildonian, advancing with a military column like a raging wave leaping beyond, should afterwards suck back inward Felicianus and Praetextatus.” Since you read these words of mine there, why did you not set them all down when you tried to answer them? Why do you blame me, as it were, for not saying what that raging wave swallowed up, when you see written there, “should afterwards suck back inward Felicianus and Praetextatus”? ### Translation notes - The quotation is from Against the Letters of Petilian 1.10.11. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.31 (CSEL 52:529–530; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-31). ## Against Cresconius 4.32 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-32 - Source: CSEL 52:530–531 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine sets the Donatists' indulgence toward Optatus beside their condemnation of distant churches, and asks how they could be ignorant of crimes their own council proclaimed. ### Latin text Quid enim aliud uelut ad magnam defensionem suam respondere uestri solent, cum eis obicitur Praetextati et Feliciani talis receptio damnatorum, nisi: Optatus hoc uoluit. Optatus hoc fecit? quod et ipsae ciuitates Mustitana et Adsuritana testantur, quae se dicunt ex Optati comminatione Gildonianum militem formidantes coegisse episcopos suos ad communionem redire Primiani. uerum tu, quia hoc ab illo factum (non) inpudenter negari posse uidisti, hoc a me scriptum negasti, magis fortassis existimans litteras meas quam illam rem posse nesciri. sed licuerit episcopis uestris nescio quo Donatiano uel Numidico priuilegio de suo ignorare collega quidquid tota Africa conclamabat, cum Afris ab Afris obiecta crimina numquam probata, totiens absoluta orientalibus et occidentalibus terrae finibus ignota esse non sinant; ualeat apud uos baptismus ab Optato datus, quem sic damnare noluisti. ut tamen non fueris ausus absoluere, et non ualeat datus baptismus in ecclesiis apostolico labore fundatis Corinthiorum Galatarum Ephesiorum Colossensium Philippensium Thessalonicensium ceterarumque in sanctis litteris quas et uos legitis conscriptarum, ubi Caeciliani non dico falsum illud crimen, sed forte nec uerum nomen auditum est; habuerit conscientiam sancte dantis Optatus in illa uita, quam tu, sicut scripta tua indicant, etiamsi propter nos damnare erubuisti, tamen propter deum absoluere timuisti. in illa etiam publica fama, ubi latentem tibi uisum est attendi posse conscientiam, et accusetur conscientia tot tantarumque gentium christianarum, quia remotissimas lites ignorauit Afrorum: numquid etiam crimina istorum, Feliciani scilicet et Praetextati, quos trecenti et decem plenario concilio damnauerunt, similiter ignorare potuerunt? ### English translation (Claude) For what else do your people usually answer, as if in great defense of themselves, when such a reception of the condemned Praetextatus and Felicianus is charged against them, except: “Optatus wanted this, Optatus did this”? This the cities of Musti and Assuras themselves testify, which say that, fearing the Gildonian soldiery because of Optatus's threats, they compelled their bishops to return to Primian's communion. But you, since you saw that it could not be shamelessly denied that this was done by him, denied that it was written by me, thinking perhaps that my writings rather than that fact could be unknown. But suppose your bishops were permitted, by some Donatian or Numidian privilege, not to know about their colleague what all Africa was proclaiming, while they will not allow crimes charged by Africans against Africans, never proved, so often acquitted, to be unknown to the eastern and western ends of the earth; suppose the baptism given by Optatus is valid among you, whom you would not condemn in such a way that yet you did not dare to acquit; and suppose baptism given in the churches founded by apostolic labor is not valid, those of the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Thessalonians, and the others written of in the holy writings which you too read, where, I do not say that false charge, but perhaps not even the true name of Caecilian has been heard; suppose Optatus had the conscience of one giving in holiness in that life which you, as your writings show, even if you were ashamed to condemn it because of us, were afraid to acquit because of God; and in that public reputation in which it seemed to you a hidden conscience could be looked to; and suppose the conscience of so many and such great Christian nations is accused because it did not know the very remote lawsuits of the Africans: could they likewise be ignorant even of the crimes of these men, Felicianus and Praetextatus, whom three hundred and ten condemned in a plenary council? ### Translation notes - The word in round brackets is the editor's supplement. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.32 (CSEL 52:530–531; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-32). ## Against Cresconius 4.33 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-33 - Source: CSEL 52:531–532 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains, from Judas among the apostles, Paul's rivals, and Cyprian's greedy colleagues, that the good share sacraments, not sins, with the wicked until the final separation. ### Latin text Et adhuc obicis unitati catholicae nescio qua facta nostrorum, quae aut falsa sunt aut peccata non sunt aut, etiamsi uera atque peccata sunt, bonorum societatem maculare non possunt. neque enim boni communicant peccatis alienis, quibus utique faciendis non consentiunt, quamuis cum ipsis, qui ea faciunt, donec de area dominica sicut palea uentilabro ultimo separentur, non eorum peccata, sed dei sacramenta communicent et intra eandem sagenam uelut pisces boni cum malis usque ad separationem, quae in litore, hoc est in fine saeculi tamquam in fine maris futura est, non ab eis corporum segregatione, sed uitae ac morum diuersitate disiuncti sint; sicut nec undecim apostoli furtis Iudae communicabant et tamen cum illo eidem domino uisibiliter cohaerebant, eundem magistrum audiebant, idem credendum euangelium percipiebant, eadem sacramenta sumebant, corporali cum illo congregatione permixti, spiritali dissimilitudine separati; sicut apostolus Paulus non communicabat contumaciae et inuidiae, hoc est diabolicis uitiis eorum, qui non caste Christum adnuntiabant, et tamen cum eis eundem Christum praedicabat, eiusdem Christi sacramenta participabat et de his dicebat: siue occasione siue ueritate Christus adnuntietur - nam hos martyr Cyprianus amantissimus unitatis non aliquo schismate uel haerese separatos, sed fratribus corporali congregatione fuisse commixtos et intellexit et scripsit —; sicut idem ipse Cyprianus auaritiae rapinis faenori collegarum non communicabat, quos dicebat esurientibus in ecclesia fratribus habere argentum largiter uelle, fundos insidiosis fraudibus rapere, usuris multiplicantibus faenus augere, quod malum etiam idololatriae conparauit, quorum tamen corporalem congregationem non refugiebat, ad eadem altaria consistebat, eundem sacratissimum cibum potumque sumebat. illi enim non aliis, sed sibi iudicium manducabant et bibebant, ille autem cum talibus non eorum peccata, sed mysteria Christi communicabat, coniunctissimus coetibus, disiunctissimus moribus. ad hoc enim et illae similitudines in scripturis et illa exempla praemissa sunt, ut disceremus frumentum esse nec aream dominicam propter paleae commixtionem deserere, pisces boni esse nec propter commixtionem malorum disruptis retibus foras ire, uasa esse misericordiae in honore facta atque mundata nec propter uasa perditionis et contumeliae de domo magna fugere. nulla enim causa in utrorumque temporali congregatione atque permixtione laudabiliter tolerantur mali, nisi ne damnabiliter deserantur boni. quod cum et uos in uestris tam multis et tam manifestis malis eadem necessitate faciatis, potes facile, si uelis, aduertere, quod non nisi animositate sacrilega uos a christianis tot ac tantis gentibus separatis. ### English translation (Claude) And still you charge the Catholic unity with I know not what deeds of our people, which either are false or are not sins, or, even if true and sins, cannot stain the fellowship of the good. For the good do not share in others' sins, to the doing of which they certainly do not consent, even though with those who do them, until they are separated from the Lord's threshing floor like chaff by the last winnowing fan, they share not their sins but God's sacraments; and within the same net, like good fish with bad until the separation which will be on the shore, that is, at the end of the age as at the end of the sea, they are parted from them not by bodily segregation but by difference of life and morals. So the eleven apostles did not share in the thefts of Judas, and yet they visibly cleaved with him to the same Lord, heard the same teacher, received the same gospel to be believed, took the same sacraments, mixed with him in bodily assembly, separated by spiritual unlikeness. So the apostle Paul did not share in the contumacy and envy, that is, the devilish faults, of those who did not proclaim Christ sincerely, and yet he preached the same Christ with them, partook of the sacraments of the same Christ, and said of them, “Whether in pretense or in truth, let Christ be proclaimed” (for the martyr Cyprian, most loving of unity, both understood and wrote that these were not separated by any schism or heresy, but mixed with the brothers in bodily assembly). So the same Cyprian did not share in the avarice, plunder, and usury of his colleagues, of whom he said that, while brothers were hungry in the church, they wished to have money in abundance, to seize estates by treacherous frauds, to increase their gain by multiplying usury, an evil he even compared to idolatry; yet he did not flee their bodily assembly, but stood at the same altars and took the same most holy food and drink. For they ate and drank judgment not to others but to themselves; while he shared with such men not their sins but the mysteries of Christ, most closely joined in assemblies, most widely separated in morals. For this purpose those comparisons and examples were set forth in the Scriptures: that we might learn to be wheat and not desert the Lord's threshing floor because of the mixture of chaff; to be good fish and not go out by breaking the nets because of the mixture of bad ones; to be vessels of mercy made for honor and cleansed, and not flee from the great house because of the vessels of perdition and dishonor. For in the temporal gathering and mixture of both, the wicked are praiseworthily tolerated for no other reason than that the good may not be damnably deserted. Since you too do this, by the same necessity, among your so many and so manifest evil men, you can easily notice, if you wish, that it is only by sacrilegious animosity that you separate yourselves from Christians of so many and such great nations. ### Scripture references - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence - Matt 13:48: allusion, high confidence - Matt 13:49: allusion, high confidence - John 12:6: allusion, high confidence - Phil 1:18: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 11:29: allusion, high confidence - Rom 9:23: allusion, high confidence - 2 Tim 2:20: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Laps. 6 (On the Lapsed): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 3:12; Matt 13:47–49; John 12:6; Phil 1:15–18; Cyprian, On the Lapsed 6; 1 Cor 11:29; Rom 9:21–23; 2 Tim 2:20–21. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.33 (CSEL 52:531–532; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-33). ## Against Cresconius 4.34 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-34 - Source: CSEL 52:532–533 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that the Donatists themselves tolerate known sinners among them and so condemn their own reasons for breaking with the world, as the Maximianist case mirrors. ### Latin text Itaque non solum Optatus in illa Gildoniana societate notissimus, sed quilibet obscurus apud uos te sciente. mali aliquid fecerit, cum eum non potueris a uestra communione separare, quia uel non tibi creditur accusanti uel accusare non audes, ne non ualeas conprobare, aut deserenda tibi est pars Donati aut talis eris, qualis ille cuius peccatum non ignoras, quamuis dissimiliter uiuas. hoc non secundum ueram, sed secundum uestram sententiam uobis rectissime dicitur. quis enim nescit te alienum esse ab illius malo, si consensione peccato eius non communicas? sed hinc agnoscere cogeris. quanta impietate obiciatis orbi christiano uel falsa uel certe ignota crimina Afrorum, cum tibi obici nolis quod de altero scis, quia hoc eis non potes persuadere, a quorum non uis societate discedere. ita, ne deseras quos putas bonos, ferre cogeris quos nosti malos, ac per hoc omnes conuincit ueritas malos, qui propter aliena crimina seu uera seu falsa, ceteris tamen incognita, sibi autem non offutura. disrupta unitate tot gentium deseruerunt bonos. hoc tam magnum nefas partis Donati ne aliquo modo excusare possetis, causa uobis Maximianensium procurata est, in quo uelut speculo uestram prauitatem conspectam, si uolueritis, corrigatis, si autem nolueritis — nolo quicquam grauius dicere, quando scio te cor habere. quid enim contra ista dicturus es? ### English translation (Claude) And so, not only Optatus, so notorious in that Gildonian fellowship, but if any obscure person among you has done some evil with your knowledge, since you could not separate him from your communion, because either you are not believed when you accuse him or you do not dare to accuse him lest you be unable to prove it, either you must desert the party of Donatus, or you will be such as he whose sin you know, though you live differently. This is said to you most rightly, not according to the true opinion, but according to yours. For who does not know that you are a stranger to his evil if you do not share in his sin by consent? But from this you are compelled to recognize with what great impiety you charge the Christian world with crimes of Africans, either false or certainly unknown, when you do not wish to be charged with what you know of another, because you cannot persuade of it those from whose fellowship you do not wish to depart. Thus, so as not to desert those you think good, you are compelled to bear those you know to be bad; and therefore the truth convicts as wicked all who, because of others' crimes, whether true or false, yet unknown to the rest and not about to harm themselves, broke the unity of so many nations and deserted the good. So that you could not in any way excuse this so great a wickedness of the party of Donatus, the case of the Maximianensians was provided for you, in which, as in a mirror, you may see your depravity and, if you are willing, correct it; but if you are not willing (I do not wish to say anything more severe, since I know you have a heart). For what will you say against these things? ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.34 (CSEL 52:532–533; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-34). ## Against Cresconius 4.35 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-17/#p-4-35 - Source: CSEL 52:533–535 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows that Cresconius's own account says the Maximianists were sentenced as schismatics yet claims they never left the church. ### Latin text Bene quia ipse scribis, cum de Maximianensibus damnatis et receptis legisses totum quod inserui litteris meis, ualde te fuisse permotum. credo: prorsus uideo causam quae ualde debuerit permouere. uideamus ergo, tua ista permotio quanam reddita ratione sedata est. statim te dicis a uestris episcopis diligentius inquisisse atque ipsis docentibus et decretum concilii et sententiam in eos qui damnati sunt dictam et rei totius ordinem cognouisse. deinde etiam me credens adhuc ignorare quid gestum sit atque admonens, ut quid habeat ueritas discerem, narrasti plane non quid ueritas habeat, sed quid incautis et neglegentibus uestri pro ueritate subponant. dicis enim, cum quam plurimos episcopos error sibi Maximiani sociare contenderet, contracto a uestris concilio in eos omnes, qui in eius schismate perstitissent, prolatam esse sententiam, quam me quoque legisse commemoras. quae cum sententia consensu omnium firmaretur, placuisse tamen decreto concilii dilationem temporis dari, intra quod si qui corrigi uoluisset innocens haberetur. sic esse factum, ut non solum duo illi quos memoro, sed etiam multi alii purgati atque innocentes ecclesiae redderentur, quorum ideo putas baptisma non debuisse rescindi, quia intra diem praestitutum restituti peremptoria sententia non tenerentur nec, cum baptizarent, fuissent ab ecclesia separati, necdum scilicet transacti temporis meta definita disiuncti. hic ego in ea ipsa falsitate narrationis tuae, quandoquidem non solum sententias, uerum et ipsa uerba tua posui, miror ingenium tuum, miror animum ingenio reluctantem. numquam uspiam sic apparuit, quantum ualeat praeiudicium praesumptionis humanae uel ad non intuendam manifestissimam ueritatem uel ad adfirmandam inpudentissimam falsitatem. itane te tam aperte repugnantia posuisse non sentis, ut uix credibile sit, quod unus homo dicere utraque potuerit? tu nempe dicis in eos omnes, qui in Maximiani schismate perstitissent, prolatam esse sententiam et placuisse dilationem temporis dari, intra quod si qui corrigi uoluisset innocens haberetur. quomodo ergo tu ipse item dicis non eos extra ecclesiam baptizasse, antequam se ab illo schismate correxissent? sic, quando cum Maximiano erant, non erant extra ecclesiam? aduertisne quid dicas, inuenis qua exeas, quo confugias. ubi te abscondas? ### English translation (Claude) It is well that you yourself write that, when you had read all I inserted in my letter about the Maximianensians condemned and received back, you were greatly moved. I believe it: I see plainly a case that ought greatly to move. Let us see, then, by what reason given this disturbance of yours was calmed. You say that at once you inquired more carefully of your bishops, and that, with them teaching you, you learned both the decree of the council and the sentence pronounced against those who were condemned, and the order of the whole affair. Then, believing that I still did not know what had been done, and admonishing me to learn what the truth was, you related plainly, not what the truth is, but what your people substitute for the truth for the incautious and careless. For you say that, when the error of Maximian strove to join as many bishops as possible to itself, a council was gathered by your people and a sentence pronounced against all who had persisted in his schism, which you mention that I too have read; that, when this sentence was 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; that so it came about that not only those two whom I mention but also many others were restored to the church cleared and innocent; whose baptism you think ought not to have been cancelled for this reason, that, restored within the appointed day, they were not held by the final sentence, nor, when they baptized, had they been separated from the church, not yet cut off, that is, by the fixed limit of the time that had passed. Here, in that very falsehood of your account (since I have set down not only your thoughts but your very words), I wonder at your intelligence, I wonder at your mind fighting against your intelligence. Never anywhere has it appeared so clearly how much the prejudice of human presumption can do, either to keep one from seeing the most manifest truth or to make one affirm the most shameless falsehood. Do you really not perceive that you have set down things so plainly contradictory that it is scarcely credible one man could say both? You say, of course, that a sentence was pronounced against all who had persisted in Maximian's schism, and that it was decided to grant an extension of time, within which, if anyone wished to be corrected, he would be held innocent. How then do you yourself likewise say that they did not baptize outside the church before they had corrected themselves from that schism? So, when they were with Maximian, they were not outside the church? Do you notice what you are saying? Do you find a way out, where to flee, where to hide yourself? ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.35 (CSEL 52:533–535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-35). ## Against Cresconius 4.36 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-36 - Source: CSEL 52:535–536 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine repeats Cresconius's own words to show that the Maximianists were in schism, and baptized there, before their return. ### Latin text Uides certe, dum manifestos errores defendere conaris alienos, nihil te agere nisi subiungere manifestiores tuos. ecce lege uerba tua — sic a me prorsus commemorantur ut a te scripta sunt —: cum quam plurimos, inquis, episcopos error sibi Maximiani sociare contenderet, contracto a nostris concilio in eos omnes, qui in eius schismate perstitissent, prolata sententia est, quam tu quoque te legisse testaris. quae cum sententia consensu omnium firmaretur, placuit tamen decreto concilii dilationem temporis dari, intra quod si qui corrigi uoluisset innocens haberetur. haec dicens sicine contra te ipsum sensus claudis, ut non aduertas, quod hi omnes, qui propterea contra se ferri sententiam concilii meruerunt, quia Maximiano sociabantur. antequam se intra dilationis tempus corrigerent. in eodem schismate consistebant? ibi ergo etiam baptizabant. obsecro te: quid inanem caliginem perspicuis rebus aspergis, quam rursus tuorum uerborum non minore perspicuitate dispergis? dico enim Praetextatum et Felicianum Maximiani ordinatores in eo quod commiserunt sacrilego schismate baptizasse et ab eis baptizatos cum eis esse susceptos non rescisso baptismate, quod in schismate dederant, quod sacrilegi ministrauerant, quod ore maledictione pleno, quod labiis cum ueneno aspidum consecrauerant. talia quippe in eos dicuntur ea sententia, quam in eos omnes prolatam esse non negas. ### English translation (Claude) You surely see that, while you try to defend others' manifest errors, you do nothing but add your own more manifest ones. See, read your words (they are quoted by me exactly as you wrote them): “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 by the council's decree to grant an extension of time, within which, if anyone wished to be corrected, he would be held innocent.” Saying this, do you so close your senses against yourself as not to notice that all these, who earned the council's sentence against them because they were associated with Maximian, were standing in that same schism before they corrected themselves within the time of extension? There, then, they also baptized. I beg you, why do you sprinkle an empty fog over plain things, which you again disperse with no less plainness of your own words? For I say that Praetextatus and Felicianus, ordainers of Maximian, baptized in the sacrilegious schism they committed, and that those baptized by them were received with them, the baptism not being cancelled which they had given in schism, which they had ministered as sacrilegious men, which they had consecrated with a mouth full of cursing and with lips bearing the poison of asps. For such things are said against them in that sentence which you do not deny was pronounced against them all. ### Scripture references - Rom 3:13: allusion, high confidence - Rom 3:14: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 3:13–14. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.36 (CSEL 52:535–536; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36). ## Against Cresconius 4.37 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-37 - Source: CSEL 52:536–537 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine presses that “restored to the church” means they had been outside it and baptized there, as Cresconius's own words admit. ### Latin text Hic tu respondes, quod non solum duo isti quos memoro, sed etiam multi alii purgati atque innocentes intra diem dilationis se ecclesiae reddiderunt. quo uerbo me adiuuas, quo uerbo mecum asseris ueritatem caliginemque illam, quam conabaris offundere, discutis. cum enim dicis eos se ecclesiae reddidisse, procul dubio fateris eos extra ecclesiam fuisse. ubi ergo antequam se ecclesiae redderent fuerunt, ibi baptizauerunt; ergo extra ecclesiam baptisma fuit quod dederunt. ab hoc inexplicabili inplicamento dum te conaris euoluere, rursus inuolueris. dicis enim ideo eorum baptisma non debuisse rescindi, quia intra diem praestitutum restituti peremptoria sententia non tenerentur. quomodo ergo dicis ante diem restitutionis non fuisse ab ecclesia separatos, quos ante diem dilationis confiteris ecclesiae restitutos? si homines sumus. si qualemcumque rationem, si sensum habemus humanum, si non pecora pecoribus, si non ligna et lapides lignis et lapidibus loquimur. non meis tantum, sed ipsis etiam tuis uerbis eminet apparet elucet in Maximiani sacrilego schismate baptismum datum uestros ausos non fuisse rescindere, qui homines baptizatos in ecclesiis, quas in gratia domini proprio labore apostoli propagarunt, non dubitant christianos negare exsufflare rebaptizare. tu dicis, tu scribis — ecce te ipsum audi, lege te ipsum —, tu, inquam, dicis, tu scribis in eos omnes, qui in Maximiani schismate perstitissent, contracto a uestris concilio prolatam esse sententiam; tu dicis, tu scribis hac sententia consensu omnium confirmata placuisse tamen dilationem temporis dari, intra quod si qui corrigi uoluisset innocens haberetur; tu dicis, tu scribis non solum duos inde quos memoro, sed multos alios purgatos atque innocentes se uestrae ecclesiae reddidisse; tu dicis, tu scribis ideo eorum baptisma non debuisse rescindi, quia intra diem praestitutum restituti peremptoria sententia non tenerentur. ### English translation (Claude) Here you answer that not only these two whom I mention but also many others, cleared and innocent, restored themselves to the church within the day of the extension. By this word you help me; by this word you assert the truth with me and disperse the fog you were trying to pour over it. For when you say they restored themselves to the church, you certainly confess that they had been outside the church. Where, then, they were before they restored themselves to the church, there they baptized; so the baptism they gave was outside the church. While you try to roll yourself out of this inextricable entanglement, you are wrapped up again. For you say their baptism ought not to have been cancelled because, restored within the appointed day, they were not held by the final sentence. How then do you say that before the day of restoration they had not been separated from the church, whom you admit were restored to the church before the day of the extension? If we are men, if we have any reason at all, if we have human sense, if we are not cattle speaking to cattle, nor wood and stones to wood and stones, it stands out, appears, and shines forth, not only from my words but even from yours, that your people did not dare to cancel baptism given in Maximian's sacrilegious schism; they who do not hesitate to deny that men baptized in the churches which the apostles, by the grace of the Lord, spread by their own labor are Christians, and to exorcise and rebaptize them. You say, you write (see, hear yourself, read yourself), you, I say, say and write that a sentence was pronounced against all who had persisted in Maximian's schism, a council having been gathered by your people; you say, you write, that, this sentence having been confirmed by the consent of all, it was nevertheless decided to grant an extension of time, within which, if anyone wished to be corrected, he would be held innocent; you say, you write, that not only the two from there whom I mention, but many others, cleared and innocent, restored themselves to your church; you say, you write, that their baptism therefore ought not to have been cancelled, because, restored within the appointed day, they were not held by the final sentence. ### Translation notes - The last words of the section are garbled in the digital text and are completed from Cresconius's words quoted in 3.18. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.37 (CSEL 52:536–537; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-37). ## Against Cresconius 4.38 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-38 - Source: CSEL 52:537–538 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine piles up the phrases of the sentence of Bagai to show that the Maximianists baptized in schism and were received without rebaptism of those they baptized. ### Latin text Quid, quid tantum praeualet in ingenio tam bono causa tam mala, homo cordate, homo litterate? isti, in quos propterea est illa prolata sententia, quia, sicut ipse dicis, in Maximiani schismate persistebant, antequam, sicut dicis, restituerentur, ubi erant ibi sacramenta celebrabant, ibi baptizabant et, ut uerbis illius plenarii concilii magis utar, ibi uiperei seminis noxios partus tardo calore uaporabant, ibi publici facinoris et parricidii sui feta scelerum uota gignebant, ibi parturiebant iniustitiam, concipiebant laborem et pariebant iniquitatem, ibi iam non confusa criminum silua nomina eorum designabantur ad poenam, ibi eis (in) indulgentiae fine, dum clementiae dimitteretur linea, iam causa quos puniret inuenerat, illuc eorum tamquam in asperos scopulos ueridica unda naufraga membra proiecerat, eorum pereuntium ibi erant litora Aegyptiorum exemplo funeribus plena, nec ipsam inuenientium sepulturam, ibi non solum Maximianum fidei aemulum, ueritatis adulterum, ecclesiae matris inimicum, Dathae, Corae et Abiron ministrum de pacis gremio sententiae fulmen excusserat nec solum mors iusta sui sceleris condemnabat, sed etiam trahebat ad consortium criminis plurimos catena sacrilegii, ibi erat uenenum aspidum sub labiis eorum, ibi eorum os maledictione et amaritudine plenum, ibi ueloces eorum pedes ad effundendum sanguinem, ibi contritio et infelicitas in uiis eorum, ibi uiam pacis non cognoscebant nec erat timor dei ante oculos eorum, ibi iacebant abscisa membra, quae pestifera putredo ita corruperat, ut plus haberet in abscisione solaminis quam in remissione medicaminis, ibi erant famosi criminis rei Uictorianus Carcabianensis et ceteri cum isto duodecim, inter quos Praetextatus Adsuritanus et Felicianus Mustitanus, de quibus receptis agimus, qui eundem Maximianum praesentes ordinauerant, hoc est funesto opere perditionis uas sordidum collecta faeculentia glutinauerant, ubi tanto facinori tamquam inlicito incestui clerici Carthaginis lenocinium praebuerunt. tales ministri sacramentorum nondum correcti, nondum uobis redditi ac restituti in schismate Maximiani baptizauerunt, post tales ministros sacramentorum correctos redditos restitutos uestri non rebaptizauerunt. ### English translation (Claude) What, what makes so bad a case prevail so much in so good a mind, you man of sense, you man of letters? These men, against whom that sentence was pronounced because, as you yourself say, they were persisting in Maximian's schism, before they were restored, as you say, where they were, there they celebrated the sacraments, there they baptized; and (to use rather the words of that plenary council) there they warmed with slow heat the harmful offspring of viperous seed; there the pregnant vows of crimes brought forth their public crime and their parricide; there they were in labor with injustice, conceived toil, and brought forth iniquity; there their names were now marked out for punishment, no longer from a confused forest of crimes; there, at the end of indulgence, while the line of clemency was being let go, the case had now found whom to punish; there the truth-telling wave had thrown their shipwrecked limbs as on rough rocks; there were the shores, after the example of the Egyptians, full of the corpses of those perishing, who did not even find burial; there the thunderbolt of the sentence had struck from the bosom of peace not only Maximian, the rival of the faith, the adulterer of truth, the enemy of mother church, the minister of Dathan, Korah, and Abiram, nor did the just death of his crime condemn him alone, but the chain of sacrilege also dragged very many into partnership in the crime; there was the poison of asps under their lips, there their mouth full of cursing and bitterness, there their feet swift to shed blood, there ruin and misery in their ways, there they did not know the way of peace, nor was there the fear of God before their eyes; there lay the cut-off limbs which pestilent rot had so corrupted that it found more relief in amputation than in a mild remedy; there were the guilty of a notorious crime, Victorianus of Carcabia and the others, twelve with him, among whom were Praetextatus of Assuras and Felicianus of Musti, whose reception we are discussing, who had in person ordained that same Maximian, that is, by the deadly work of perdition had glued together a filthy vessel from collected dregs, where the clergy of Carthage played the pander to so great a crime as to an unlawful incest. Such ministers of the sacraments, not yet corrected, not yet given back and restored to you, baptized in Maximian's schism; after such ministers of the sacraments, corrected, given back, and restored, your people did not rebaptize. ### Scripture references - Ps 7:14 (7:15 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Rom 3:13: allusion, high confidence - Rom 3:15: allusion, high confidence - Rom 3:18: allusion, high confidence - Num 16:1: allusion, high confidence - Exod 14:30: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Phrases from the sentence of Bagai (394). Ps 7:14; Rom 3:13–18; Num 16; Exod 14:30. The word in round brackets is the editor's supplement. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.38 (CSEL 52:537–538; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-38). ## Against Cresconius 4.39 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-39 - Source: CSEL 52:538–539 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows from the sentence of Bagai that the grant of time was only for those not present at Maximian's ordination, not for Felicianus and Praetextatus. ### Latin text Quid sola in uobis praeualet animositas? aliquando adtendatur, aliquando audiatur et ueritas. quid iniciuntur inanissimae nebulae dilationis datae? non ipsis data est, de quibus dictum est: damnatos esse cognoscite, de quibus etiam praedictum est quales fuerint, quid fecerint, cur eos oportuerit iam sine dilatione damnari, quod scilicet Maximianum inpositis manibus praesentes ordinauerunt; hoc est enim quod significarunt dicendo, quod funesto opere perditionis uas sordidum collecta faeculentia glutinauerint. illis autem data est dilatio, qui ordinationi Maximiani non interfuerunt quamuis in eius societate atque schismate constituti. tantum quia manus ei, quod absentes fuerant, non inposuerunt. sic enim a damnatis ordinatoribus eius eadem concilii sententia distinguntur. nam cum dixissent illos) — quorum et nomina conscripserunt — damnatos esse cognoscite, eos autem, inquiunt, quos sacrilegi surculi non polluere plantaria, hoc est qui a Maximiani capite proprias manus uerecundo fidei pudore retraxerunt, ad matrem ecclesiam redire permisimus. quid planius, quid distinctius, quid apertius? illos dicunt famosi criminis reos, qui funesto opere perditionis uas sordidum collecta faeculentia glutinarunt, damnatos esse cognoscite, hos autem dicunt, quos sacrilegi surculi non polluere plantaria, hoc est qui a Maximiani capite proprias manus uerecundo fidei pudore retraxerunt, ad matrem ecclesiam redire permisimus. et quia ex illis damnatis duo postea saluo honore suscepti sunt, non inuenitur hoc quemadmodum defendatur, nisi ut omnibus dicatur dilatio fuisse concessa. ### English translation (Claude) Why does animosity alone prevail in you? Let truth at last be attended to, at last be heard. Why are the most empty fogs of a granted extension thrown over it? It was not granted to those very men of whom it was said, “Know that they have been condemned,” of whom it was also said beforehand what kind of men they were, what they did, and why they had to be condemned now without extension: namely, that they ordained Maximian in person by laying on hands; for this is what they meant by saying that by the deadly work of perdition they had glued together a filthy vessel from collected dregs. But the extension was given to those who were not present at Maximian's ordination, though placed in his fellowship and schism, merely because, being absent, they did not lay hands on him. For thus they are distinguished by the same sentence of the council from his condemned ordainers. For when they had said of those (whose names they also wrote down), “Know that they have been condemned,” they say, “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.” What could be plainer, more distinct, more open? Of the former, the guilty of a notorious crime, who by the deadly work of perdition glued together a filthy vessel from collected dregs, they say, “Know that they have been condemned”; of the latter, “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,” they say, “We have permitted to return to mother church.” And because two of those condemned were afterwards received with their rank preserved, no way is found to defend this except by saying that the extension was granted to all. ### Translation notes - Sentence of the council of Bagai (394). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.39 (CSEL 52:538–539; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-39). ## Against Cresconius 4.40 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-40 - Source: CSEL 52:539–540 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that even if all were given time, they baptized in schism before returning, and the Donatists accepted those baptisms. ### Latin text Sed concessa sit omnibus. nempe quotquot ad uos ab illo schismate redierunt, antequam redirent, illic fuerunt, illic baptizauerunt, inde ad uos sine destructione sui honoris et baptismi redeuntes, si frons adsit, ora uestra clauserunt. cum enim quaerimus. antequam se, sicut ipse dixisti. ecclesiae reddidissent et ante diem praestitutum restituti fuissent, ubi erant, quid aliud uos res ipsa respondere conpellit nisi (in schismate Maximiani propter quod in omnes illa est prolata sententia? ibi ergo baptizarunt eos, in quibus ad uos simul inde uenientibus baptismum Christi non ausi estis rescindere, quia coacti estis agnoscere. unde ipso facto uestro, opere uestro, iudicio uestro aduersus uos merito recteque concluditur agnoscendum esse baptismum Christi, etiamsi extra ecclesiam datus fuerit, et ideo nos hoc pie cognoscere in uestris, uos impie rescindere in nostris. ### English translation (Claude) But suppose it was granted to all. Surely all who returned to you from that schism were there before they returned, baptized there, and, returning to you from there without destruction of their honor or their baptism, closed your mouths, if you have any shame. For when we ask where they were before they had restored themselves to the church, as you yourself said, and before they had been restored before the appointed day, what else does the fact itself compel you to answer than “In the schism of Maximian,” on account of which that sentence was pronounced against all? There, then, they baptized those in whom, when they came to you together from there, you did not dare to cancel the baptism of Christ, because you were compelled to recognize it. Hence by your own deed, your own work, your own judgment, it is rightly and properly concluded against you that the baptism of Christ must be recognized even if it was given outside the church; and therefore that we devoutly recognize it in your people, and you impiously cancel it in ours. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.40 (CSEL 52:539–540; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-40). ## Against Cresconius 4.41 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-41 - Source: CSEL 52:540–541 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that the council of Bagai itself spoke of the Maximianists “returning” to mother church, so they baptized outside it and kept both rank and baptism on return. ### Latin text Sed forte paenitet talia te uerba posuisse, quae hanc ueritatem nimis urgerent, quoniam dixisti: factum est ut se ecclesiae reddidissent et ante diem praestitutum restituti peremptoria sententia non tenerentur, ut responderetur tibi: quomodo se ecclesiae reddiderunt, quomodo eidem restituti sunt, si ab ea non erant separati? aut si separati erant, quomodo baptizabant? sed quid aliud diceres, nisi quod ab eis audieras quos consuluisti, cum ex hac causa litteris meis ualde permouereris? et tamen fortassis te arguant reprehendant, quod talia uerba incaute posueris. est quod te aduersus eos maxime muniat ac tuam tristitiam consoletur. nam et ipsi in eiusdem concilii decreto talia posuerunt; unde si nobis lecto isto opusculo nostro ita respondere uoluerint, quod eis non praeiudicent uerba laici sui, uerba ipsorum continuo recitabimus: eos autem, inquiunt, quos sacrilegi surculi non polluere plantaria, hoc est qui a Maximiani capite proprias manus uerecundo fidei pudore retraxerunt, ad matrem ecclesiam redire permisimus. cum enim eis dicitur: isti, quos ad matrem ecclesiam redire permisistis, antequam redirent, ubi erant?, similiter urgentur ac tu paulo ante uerbis a te positis urgebaris. ubi enim eos fuisse respondebunt nisi in schismate Maximiani? sed ubi uolunt eos fuisse contendant: certe qui ad ecclesiam redire permissi sunt in ecclesia non fuerunt. ergo extra ecclesiam baptizauerunt et simul baptizatores et baptizati ad ecclesiam redeuntes nec illi honores quos extra gesserant nec illi baptisma quod extra acceperant amiserunt. ### English translation (Claude) But perhaps you regret having set down such words as press this truth too hard, since you said, “It came about that they restored themselves to the church, and, restored before the appointed day, they were not held by the final sentence,” so that the answer to you would be: “How did they restore themselves to the church, how were they restored to it, if they had not been separated from it? Or if they had been separated, how did they baptize?” But what else could you say than what you had heard from those you consulted, when you were greatly moved by my letter about this case? And yet perhaps they may blame and reprove you for setting down such words incautiously. There is something that greatly protects you against them and consoles your sadness. For they themselves set down such things in the decree of the same council; hence, if, having read this little work of ours, they wish to answer us that the words of their layman do not prejudice them, we shall at once read out their own words: “But those,” they say, “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.” For when it is said to them, “These whom you permitted to return to mother church, where were they before they returned?”, they are pressed just as you were pressed a little before by the words you set down. For where will they answer they were, except in Maximian's schism? But let them contend they were wherever they like: certainly those who were permitted to return to the church were not in the church. Therefore they baptized outside the church; and, returning to the church, baptizers and baptized together, neither did the former lose the honors they had held outside, nor the latter the baptism they had received outside. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.41 (CSEL 52:540–541; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-41). ## Against Cresconius 4.42 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-42 - Source: CSEL 52:541–542 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine contrasts Cresconius's claim that the extension was for correction with the council's claim that those given it were unpolluted and innocent. ### Latin text Et tu quidem, quantum potuisti in causa mala, caute locutus es, ut diceres: placuit tamen decreto concilii dilationem temporis dari, intra quod si qui corrigi uoluisset innocens haberetur. illi autem nec corrigendos eos fuisse dixerunt quibus data est illa dilatio, sed tamquam omnino inpolluti atque innocentes in Maximiani societate fuerint, sic de illis loquuntur, cum ipsam prorogant dilationem. quid est enim aliud quod dicunt: eos autem, quos sacrilegi surculi non polluere plantaria, ad matrem ecclesiam redire permisimus, nisi: quos non polluit consortium Maximiani, ad matrem ecclesiam redire permisimus? ac ne parum sit, uide quid adiungant: quanto enim de reorum, inquiunt. morte purgamur, tanto de innocentium reditu gratulamur. cur itaque tu dicis placuisse dilationem temporis dari. intra quod si qui corrigi uellet innocens haberetur, cum eam uideas inpollutis atque innocentibus datam? sed uidelicet tu timuisti, ne tibi diceretur: quare dabatur dilatio eis, quos non polluerat Maximianus? ideo dilatione illa corrigendos esse censuisti. illi timuerunt, ne sibi diceretur: quare in suis honoribus pollutos suscipere uoluistis? ideo se inpollutis dilationem dedisse dixerunt. ### English translation (Claude) And you indeed, as far as you could in a bad case, spoke cautiously, saying, “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.” But they did not say that those to whom the extension was given needed correction; but they speak of them as though they had been altogether unpolluted and innocent in Maximian's fellowship, when they extend that extension. For what else is it that they say, “But those whom the shoots of the sacrilegious branch did not pollute we have permitted to return to mother church,” except, “Those whom fellowship with Maximian did not pollute we have permitted to return to mother church”? And lest that be too little, see what they add: “For as much as we are cleared,” they say, “of the death of the guilty, so much do we rejoice in the return of the innocent.” Why then do you say it was decided to grant an extension of time, within which, if anyone wished to be corrected, he would be held innocent, when you see that it was given to the unpolluted and innocent? No doubt you feared it would be said to you: “Why was an extension given to those whom Maximian had not polluted?” So you judged that they were to be corrected by that extension. They feared it would be said to them: “Why did you wish to receive the polluted in their honors?” So they said they gave the extension to the unpolluted. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.42 (CSEL 52:541–542; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-42). ## Against Cresconius 4.43 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-43 - Source: CSEL 52:542 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes the contradiction between Cresconius and the council, and the double standard by which Maximian polluted no one but Caecilian polluted the world. ### Latin text Proinde singula timuistis, sed alterutrum oppugnatur ex altero. nam tibi dicitur: quomodo existimas corrigendos quos tui praedicant impollutos? illis autem dicitur: quomodo asseritis impollutos etsi non manum inponendo capiti Maximiani, tamen schismatis eius communione maculatos? cuius autem animus, cuius uires, cuius lingua sufficiat proloqui tam intolerandum dolorem? ut pars Donati discissa resarciatur, nec socios Afros in Africa polluit Maximianus: ne ad ipsam radicem unitatis rami fracti regredi permittantur, tot remotissimas gentes polluit ex Africa Caecilianus.. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, each of you feared something different, but each is attacked by the other. For it is said to you: “How do you think those must be corrected whom your people proclaim unpolluted?” And it is said to them: “How do you assert they were unpolluted, who, even if not by laying hands on Maximian's head, were yet stained by communion with his schism?” But whose mind, whose strength, whose tongue would suffice to speak out so intolerable a grief? So that the torn party of Donatus might be mended, Maximian did not pollute even his African associates in Africa; so that the broken branches might not be permitted to return to the very root of unity, Caecilian from Africa polluted so many most remote nations! ### Scripture references - Rom 11:23: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 11:17–24. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.43 (CSEL 52:542; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-43). ## Against Cresconius 4.44 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-44 - Source: CSEL 52:542–544 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine ridicules the idea that the Maximianists were unpolluted for eight months and became polluted only when the deadline, Christmas Day, passed. ### Latin text Ex die concilii Bagaiensis, hoc est octauum Kalendas Maias. usque ad diem datae illius dilationis, hoc est VIII Kl Ian, VIII menses numerantur. in hoc tam longo temporis interuallo illi. quibus dilatio data est, maculabantur societate damnati Maximiani an non maculabantur? si maculabantur, quomodo dicitur: eos autem, quos sacrilegi surculi non polluere plantaria, ad matrem ecclesiam redire permisimus? si non maculabantur, quomodo nos atque omnes quae ubique sunt Christianas gentes potuit ignotorum, non dicam falsorum, maculare alienorum contagio peccatorum? sed ideo, inquis, dilatio data est, quae si transisset illis non redeuntibus, tunc macularentur et in poenam damnationis incurrerent. non ergo eos peccatum illius societatis, sed diei constitutio maculabat. si ergo nullus dies constitueretur, inmaculati utique permanerent. quid de uobis male meruit orbis terrarum? cur eum maculatum perhibetis peccatis alienis, cui nullum diem dilationis constituistis. cum tanta sit uestra potentia, ut homines quando uolunt peccatoribus socientur et quando uolueritis inquinentur? innocentes et impolluti erant, quibus in parte Maximiani dabatur dilatio, intra cuius diem si remearent ad uos, haberent integri honoris ac fidei fundamenta; si autem ille dies eis non redeuntibus praeteriret, tunc polluti, tunc scelerati, tunc perditi supplicium damnationis incurrerent, tunc humiliarentur per paenitentiam degradati. o (ratio) mira praedicentium hominum non iam, ut uetus prouerbium fertur, quod uolumus sanctum est, sed etiam quando uolumus et quamdiu uolumus! contingat alicui uestrum in naue orare nobiscum. iam pollutus, iam traditor appellatur: communicant altaria damnatores Primiani cum Maximiano ueritatis adultero, ecclesiae matris inimico, Dathae, Corae et Abiron ministro et per VIII menses innocentes inpollutique persistunt. proinde si qui ex his nonum Kl Ian se uestrae communioni reddiderunt, de innocentium estis reditu gratulati. eorum scilicet quos sacrilegi surculi non polluere plantaria. quid uos promeruerunt tot dies VIII mensum a die VIII Kl Maiarum usque ad diem VIII Kl Ian, quos ita sanctificastis, ut per eos quicumque communioni sacrilegi atque damnati Maximiani cohaererent, non polluerentur nec efficerentur nocentes: et quid uos offendit tam sanctus dies natalis ipsius domini nostri, ut solus aduentu et transitu suo pollueret innocentes, atque in eis qui in illo schismate baptizarunt per illos omnes dies sanctus maneret baptismus Christi et inmundus fieret per natalem Christi? ### English translation (Claude) From the day of the council of Bagai, that is, the eighth day before the Kalends of May, to the day of that granted extension, that is, the eighth day before the Kalends of January, eight months are counted. In so long an interval of time, were those to whom the extension was given stained by fellowship with the condemned Maximian or not? If they were stained, how is it said, “But those whom the shoots of the sacrilegious branch did not pollute we have permitted to return to mother church”? If they were not stained, how could the contagion of others' sins, unknown (I will not say false), stain us and all the Christian nations everywhere? “But,” you say, “the extension was given for this purpose: that if it passed and they did not return, then they would be stained and incur the penalty of condemnation.” It was not, then, the sin of that fellowship that stained them, but the setting of a day. If, then, no day had been set, they would certainly have remained unstained. What evil has the world deserved of you? Why do you declare it stained by others' sins, for which you set no day of extension, since your power is so great that men are associated with sinners when they will and are defiled when you will? They were innocent and unpolluted, those in Maximian's party to whom the extension was given, within whose day, if they came back to you, they would have the foundations of honor and faith intact; but if that day passed without their returning, then they would be polluted, then criminal, then lost, incurring the punishment of condemnation, then humbled by penance and degraded. O wonderful reasoning of men who proclaim not merely, as the old proverb goes, “What we will is holy,” but also “when we will and as long as we will”! Let it happen to one of you to pray with us on a ship: at once he is called polluted, at once a traitor. Yet the condemners of Primian share altars with Maximian, the adulterer of truth, the enemy of mother church, the minister of Dathan, Korah, and Abiram, and for eight months they remain innocent and unpolluted! Accordingly, if any of them restored themselves to your communion on the ninth day before the Kalends of January, you rejoiced over the return of the innocent, namely those whom the shoots of the sacrilegious branch did not pollute. What did so many days of eight months, from the eighth day before the Kalends of May to the eighth day before the Kalends of January, deserve of you, that you so sanctified them that through them whoever cleaved to the communion of the sacrilegious and condemned Maximian was not polluted nor made guilty? And what has so holy a day as the birthday of our Lord himself done to offend you, that by its coming and passing alone it should pollute the innocent; and that in those who baptized in that schism the baptism of Christ should remain holy through all those days and become unclean through the birthday of Christ? ### Scripture references - Num 16:1: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Dates: 24 April to 25 December 394. Num 16. “What we will is holy” is a proverb Augustine also applies elsewhere to the Donatists. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.44 (CSEL 52:542–544; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-44). ## Against Cresconius 4.45 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-45 - Source: CSEL 52:544–545 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine insists that the council's own language of “return” proves the Maximianists were outside Donatist communion and baptized there. ### Latin text Quid non audeat humana temeritas, cum in sententiam nefandi praecipitatur erroris, quam relinquere propter uanitatem pudet et defendere contra ueritatem non pudet? sed quid hinc plura, ubi quilibet obstinatissimus, qui contra omnes uoces rationis obduruit, necesse est fateatur de quibus dicitur: se ecclesiae reddidissent et ante diem praestitutum restituti essent — quae uerba ipse posuisti —, eos denique de quibus dicitur: (ad matrem ecclesiam redire permisimus: de innocentium reditu gratulamur: (ac ne angustum redeuntibus tempus spem salutis artatae diei pressura subducat, usque in illum diem agnitionis pandimus ianuam, ut integri honoris ac fidei regressi habeant fundamenta. quam quisquam si ingredi nequiuerit pigra segnitia, sciat sibi ad omnes ueniales aditus uiam esse subductam: (et post praestitutum diem redeuntibus fixa paenitentia — quae uerba trecenti et decem in sententia sua totiens inculcarunt —, necesse est, inquam, quilibet aduersarius fateatur eos, de quibus ista dicuntur, antequam se uobis redderent, antequam uobis restituerentur, antequam ad uos redirent, antequam regressi ianuam dilationis ingrederentur, non fuisse uobiscum, extra uestram communionem in eo schismate, quo se a uobis separauerant, baptizasse? inde uobis redditi ac restituti ubi a uobis alienati erant, inde ad uos redeuntes et regredientes quo a uobis foris erant, et tenuerunt non deminutos honores suos et secum introduxerunt non rebaptizandos baptizatos suos. ### English translation (Claude) What would human rashness not dare, when it is hurled headlong into the opinion of an abominable error, which it is ashamed to abandon out of vanity and not ashamed to defend against the truth? But why more on this, where anyone, however obstinate, who has hardened himself against all the voices of reason, must admit about those of whom it is said that they “restored themselves to the church and were restored before the appointed day” (words you yourself set down), and finally about those of whom it is said, “We have permitted to return to mother church,” “We rejoice in the return of the innocent,” “And lest the narrow time for those returning should take away the hope of salvation by the pressure of a restricted day, we open the door of acknowledgment until that day, so that those who return may have the foundations of honor and faith intact. If anyone through sluggish slackness cannot enter it, let him know that the way to all pardonable approaches has been taken away from him,” and “a fixed penance for those returning after the appointed day” (words which the three hundred and ten drove home so often in their sentence): any adversary, I say, must admit that those of whom these things are said, before they restored themselves to you, before they were restored to you, before they returned to you, before, returning, they entered the door of the extension, were not with you, but baptized outside your communion in that schism by which they had separated themselves from you; and that, restored and given back to you from where they had been estranged from you, returning and coming back to you from where they were outside you, they both kept their honors undiminished and brought in with them those they had baptized, not to be rebaptized. ### Translation notes - Phrases from the sentence of Bagai (394). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.45 (CSEL 52:544–545; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-45). ## Against Cresconius 4.46 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-46 - Source: CSEL 52:545–546 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that, either way, the Donatists recalled the condemned, and that the dated court petition against Felicianus and Praetextatus came months after the deadline. ### Latin text Quid adhuc pessimae causae patrocinium pertinacissimum praebes? adquiesce tandem non mihi, sed ipsi qua conuincimini ueritati. uide quam uerum dixerim, quod frustra labefactare conatus es, (quanta sint pro pace toleranda, atque — ut eisdem identidem uerbis utar, quibus in illis litteris usus sum — pro pace Christi redite ad ecclesiam quae non damnauit incognita, si pro pace Donati placuit reuocare damnata. si enim ex his duodecim, quos cum Maximiano sine dilatione damnauerant, Felicianum et Praetextatum postea receperunt, quomodo falsum est eos reuocasse damnata? si autem et ipsis dilatio data est, quos dixerunt damnatos esse cognoscite, etiamsi nullus eorum postea remearet, placuit tamen reuocare damnata, quando post sententiam. qua dictum est: damnatos esse cognoscite, data est dilatio, qua eis liceret euacuata damnatione remeare. haec dicta sufficerent, etiamsi uerum esset quod te dicis, cum hac causa Maximianensium ualde permotus esses, a tuis episcopis cognouisse; quid autem agis, quia et falsum est? quaere aut, si habes, inspice diem gestorum proconsularium, quo postulatio dicta est a Titiano aduersus Felicianum et Praetextatum, ut pellerentur locis, et uide, quanto post diem illius dilationis hoc factum est. nam dies est concilii Bagaiensis consulatu Augustorum Arcadii ter et Honorii iterum VIII Kl Mai, dies autem dilationis hinc usque ad VIII Kl Ian, postulatio uero ista Titiani dicta est post istum consulatum die VI Non Mar. ### English translation (Claude) Why do you still offer most obstinate patronage to a most wicked case? Yield at last, not to me, but to the truth by which you are convicted. See how truly I said what you tried in vain to shake: “how much must be tolerated for the sake of peace,” and (to use again and again the same words I used in that letter) “for the sake of the peace of Christ return to the church which did not condemn things unknown, if for the sake of the peace of Donatus you were pleased to recall things condemned.” For if, of those twelve whom they condemned with Maximian without extension, they afterwards received Felicianus and Praetextatus, how is it false that they recalled things condemned? But if the extension was given even to those of whom they said, “Know that they have been condemned,” even if none of them had later come back, yet they were pleased to recall things condemned, since after the sentence in which it was said, “Know that they have been condemned,” an extension was given, by which they might come back with their condemnation voided. These words would suffice even if what you say were true: that, being greatly moved by this case of the Maximianensians, you learned it from your bishops. But what will you do, since it is also false? Look for, or, if you have it, examine the date of the proconsular records on which the petition was made by Titianus against Felicianus and Praetextatus, that they should be expelled from their places, and see how long after the day of that extension this was done. For the day of the council of Bagai is, in the consulship of the Augusti Arcadius for the third time and Honorius for the second, the eighth day before the Kalends of May; the day of the extension from then until the eighth day before the Kalends of January; but this petition of Titianus was made after that consulship, on the sixth day before the Nones of March. ### Translation notes - Dates: council 24 April 394 (here dated by the consulship of 394); deadline 25 December 394; petition 2 March 395. Quotations from Against the Letters of Petilian. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.46 (CSEL 52:545–546; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-46). ## Against Cresconius 4.47 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-47 - Source: CSEL 52:546–547 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes the advocate Titianus's petition, which shows that Felicianus and Praetextatus were still with Maximian after the deadline. ### Latin text Proinde apparet tertium ferme agi mensem, cum a proconsule petitur, ut Felicianus et Praetextatus sedibus propulsentur tamquam collegae Maximiani, quos sibi consociauerat ad furorem. nam cum memoratus aduocatus de Maximiano quod sufficere uidebatur in eadem postulatione dixisset: eos quoque, inquit, quos alienae praesumptionis error adtraxerat, portu primo proposito paenitendi, si reuerti cuperent intra tempus ad religionis tramitem destitutum, pari uigoris ammonitione conpescuit. sed suis institutis iniquitas delectatur et semet ipsam non deserit, cum semel praecipitata corruerit. idem namque Maximianus coeptam nutrit audaciam et alios sibimet consociat ad furorem. inter quos etiam Felicianus quidam, qui primo recta sectatus deprauationis huius attaminatione fuscatur, in Mustitana positus ciuitate deo omnipotenti parietes consecratos, ecclesiam uenerandam quasi quadam obsessione credidit retinendam. hunc etiam Praetextatus in Adsuritanis partibus imitatur. audisne aduocati uerba praeclarissima et manifestissima, quibus dicit istos, de quibus agimus, quia portum propositum paenitendi. dum suis institutis iniquitas delectatur, cum semel praecipitata corruerit, contempserunt, locis ecclesiasticis expellendos? ubi si dies posset latere gestorum, cuiuis obtunsissimo satis eluceret, quod contra eos non ita proconsularis potestas adiretur, nisi aut illo concilio fuissent, sicut illi magis apparet, sine ulla impertita dilatione damnati aut intra diem dilationis, si omnibus data est, uobis restitui noluissent. cum uero etiam dies gestorum cuiuslibet obstinati oculos auresque sic feriat, usque adeo illos etiam post transactum dilationis diem in uestra communione non fuisse et Maximiano cohaesisse, ut ob hoc aduersus eos tam terribilis iudiciariae iussionis impetraretur auctoritas. quid ad haec dicitur? quid adhuc contra tam perspicuam ueritatem mira inpudentiae caecitate contenditur? quid adhuc ab eis, qui pro unitate partis Donati etiam concordiam sacrilegorum damnatorum tenere noluerunt, contra unitatem Christi tanta insania rebellatur? quid adhuc baptismus Christi, etiam in sacrilego schismate ueneratione debita cognitus, in tot catholicis gentibus impia praesumptione respuitur, sacrilega repetitione uiolatur? ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, it appears that almost the third month was passing when the proconsul was asked to drive Felicianus and Praetextatus from their seats as colleagues of Maximian, whom he had associated with himself in his madness. For when the advocate mentioned had said in the same petition what seemed sufficient about Maximian, he says: “Those also whom the error of another's presumption had drawn away, having first offered a harbor of repentance, if they wished to return within the time to the path of religion they had abandoned, it restrained with an equally vigorous admonition. But wickedness delights in its own institutions and does not desert itself once it has fallen headlong. For the same Maximian nourishes the audacity he began and associates others with himself in his madness; among whom also a certain Felicianus, who at first followed the right way, is darkened by the contamination of this depravity, and, placed in the city of Musti, thought that walls consecrated to almighty God, the venerable church, should be held as if by a kind of siege. Praetextatus too imitates him in the parts of Assuras.” Do you hear the most illustrious and most manifest words of the advocate, by which he says that these men with whom we are dealing, because they despised the harbor of repentance offered, while wickedness delights in its own institutions once it has fallen headlong, must be expelled from church places? Here, even if the date of the records could be hidden, it would be clear enough to anyone, however dull, that the proconsular power would not have been approached thus against them unless either they had been condemned in that council without any extension granted, as appears more likely, or, if it was given to all, they had refused to be restored to you within the day of the extension. But since the date of the records too strikes the eyes and ears of anyone, however obstinate, so plainly that those men were not in your communion even after the day of extension had passed and cleaved to Maximian, so that for this reason the authority of so terrible a judicial order was obtained against them, what is said to this? Why is there still contention against so plain a truth with wonderful blindness of shamelessness? Why do those who, for the unity of the party of Donatus, would keep concord even with condemned sacrilegious men, still rebel with such madness against the unity of Christ? Why is the baptism of Christ, recognized with due veneration even in a sacrilegious schism, still rejected with impious presumption and violated by sacrilegious repetition in so many Catholic nations? ### Translation notes - Petition of Titianus before the proconsul Herodes, 2 March 395. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.47 (CSEL 52:546–547; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-47). ## Against Cresconius 4.48 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-48 - Source: CSEL 52:547–548 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the petition proves the two bishops were outside Donatist communion after the deadline, and only madness can still deny it. ### Latin text Nolo quaerere, quanto post huius postulationis diem, qua Felicianus et Praetextatus Titiani aduocati uerbis tam grauiter accusantur, in uestram communionem recepti sunt. sufficit, quod eadem postulatio tanto post finem praestitutae illius dilationis eos a uestra communione separatos in Maximiani schismate fuisse conuincit, quos postea recepistis, quorum honores nulla ex parte minuistis, a quibus datum quamuis in sacrilego schismate baptismum, sicut re uera timendum fuit, rescindere timuistis. numquidnam in hac causa se contra nos lingua cuiuslibet pertinacissimi commoueret, si se moueri in hominis ore et sub hominis fronte sentiret? erraui plane, fateor, in eo quod in illis litteris posui de illa Bagaiensis concilii sententia, quoniam dixi: cum apud eos decernenda recitata est, ore latissimo adclamauerunt, nunc autem, cum a nobis recitata fuerit, ommutescunt. uerum est quod tu dixisti: ecce non ommutescunt; uerecundia quippe in rebus tam manifestis uel etiam ipsa inpudentia ommutescere potest, insania non potest. neque hoc dictum de te accipias, qui tuis episcopis mentientibus credidisti, nec de illis omnibus — neque enim omnes de hac re permotus consulere potuisti —, sed de his, qui cum scirent quanta et quando contra Praetextatum et Felicianum apud iudices gesta sunt, hoc quod tuis inseruisti litteris tibi ausi sunt dicere, quod ante diem praestitutae dilationis Felicianus et Praetextatus uestrae communioni restituti peremptoria sententia non tenerentur obstricti. aut si et ipsi forte ista nescierunt, nunc saltem, cum haec legitis, taceat uerecundia, taceat et ipsa qualiscumque hominis est inpudentia; sola certe quae contra tam euidentem ueritatem clamet relinquatur insania. et illa erit fortasse sanabilis, si conpescatur a sanis. ### English translation (Claude) I do not wish to ask how long after the day of this petition, in which Felicianus and Praetextatus are so gravely accused in the words of the advocate Titianus, they were received into your communion. It is enough that the same petition, so long after the end of the appointed extension, proves that those whom you afterwards received were in Maximian's schism, separated from your communion; whose honors you diminished in no respect; the baptism given by whom, though in sacrilegious schism, you were afraid to cancel, as indeed was to be feared. Would anyone's tongue, however obstinate, be moved against us in this case if it felt that it was moving in a man's mouth and under a man's brow? I clearly erred, I confess, in what I set down in that letter about that sentence of the council of Bagai, since 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.” What you said is true: see, they do not fall silent. For shame, in things so manifest, or even shamelessness itself, can fall silent; madness cannot. Nor should you take this as said of you, who believed your bishops when they lied, nor of all of them (for you could not consult all of them when moved about this), but of those who, knowing how much was done, and when, against Praetextatus and Felicianus before the judges, dared to tell you what you inserted in your letter: that Felicianus and Praetextatus, restored to your communion before the day of the appointed extension, were not held bound by the final sentence. Or if they too perhaps did not know these things, now at least, when you read them, let shame be silent, let even whatever shamelessness there is in a man be silent; let only madness be left, which cries out against so evident a truth. And that perhaps will be curable, if it is restrained by the sane. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.48 (CSEL 52:547–548; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-48). ## Against Cresconius 4.49 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-49 - Source: CSEL 52:548–549 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine declines to call Cresconius a false witness in return, since he may have believed his bishops in good faith. ### Latin text Nunc uide, quemadmodum de me dixeris: testis mendax non erit inpunitus, cum putares me in hac Maximianensium causa fuisse mentitum. ego tibi hoc non repono; forte quippe locutus es quod incauta amicitia credidisti, non quod fallaci corde finxisti. homines sumus; qua tandem. uigilantia efficere possumus, ut uel putando uel loquendo in aliquo non labamur? sed contra medicinam correctionis obsurdescere non debemus. ### English translation (Claude) Now see how you said of me, “A false witness will not go unpunished,” when you thought I had lied in this case of the Maximianensians. I do not repay you with this; for perhaps you said what you believed with incautious friendship, not what you invented with a deceitful heart. We are men; by what watchfulness can we bring it about that we do not slip in anything, either in thinking or in speaking? But we ought not to grow deaf to the medicine of correction. ### Scripture references - Prov 19:5: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Prov 19:5. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.49 (CSEL 52:548–549; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-49). ## Against Cresconius 4.50 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-50 - Source: CSEL 52:549 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that if Maximian's crime did not pollute his own associates or the Donatists who received them, no African crime could pollute the worldwide church. ### Latin text Nunc adtende, quantam mihi etiam in ceteris partibus epistulae tuae causa ista Maximianensium praebeat respondendi facilitatem. quidquid de traditoribus uelut nostris dicendum putasti, quamquam uestri potius hoc fecisse doceantur, quod et in illo trium uoluminum opere satis superque monstraui. uide tamen et responde, si potes. utrum hoc crimen, quorumlibet fuerit, polluere potuerit in unitate tot gentium christianos uel longe remotissimos uel longe posteros, si crimen sacrilegi surculi Maximiani maculare non potuit uel socios Afros, quibus dantes dilationem trecenti et decem episcopi uestri dixerunt: quos sacrilegi surculi non polluere plantaria, uel uos ipsos, qui non solum istos quos innocentes dixistis, uerum etiam in illo sacrilegio iam damnatos tanta concordia suscepistis. ### English translation (Claude) Now notice how much ease of answering this case of the Maximianensians gives me in the other parts of your letter too. Whatever you thought should be said about traitors as if they were ours (although it is shown that your people rather did this, as I showed more than enough in that work of three books), yet see and answer, if you can, whether this crime, whoever's it was, could pollute Christians in the unity of so many nations, whether far distant or long after, if the crime of the sacrilegious branch of Maximian could not stain either his African associates, of whom your three hundred and ten bishops said, when giving them the extension, “whom the shoots of the sacrilegious branch did not pollute,” or you yourselves, who received with such concord not only these, whom you called innocent, but also those already condemned in that sacrilege. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.50 (CSEL 52:549; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-50). ## Against Cresconius 4.51 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-51 - Source: CSEL 52:549–550 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that Cresconius did not know the recent Maximianist affair in Africa, yet expects distant churches to know Caecilian's case. ### Latin text Dicis orientalibus nota fuisse crimina traditorum, quando tibi Afro Maximianensium schisma in Africae capite commissum, antequam meas litteras legens ualde permotus consuleres episcopos uestros, incognitum fuit et. cum consuluisses, uerum ab eis audire minime potuisti. quos certe si defendis, ne dicas mentitos, concedis ignaros, et tamen nec nos nec orientis et occidentis tot tantosque populos saltem nescire permittis causam Caeciliani, cum isti nesciant Praetextati et Feliciani, quos trecenti et decem, hoc est aut omnes aut prope omnes episcopi partis Donati, Afri Afros in Africa damnauerunt, Afri Afros in Africa susceperunt.. ### English translation (Claude) You say that the crimes of the traitors were known to the Easterners, when to you, an African, the Maximianensian schism committed in the capital of Africa was unknown before, reading my letter and greatly moved, you consulted your bishops, and when you had consulted them you could not hear the truth from them at all. If you defend them so as not to say they lied, you grant they were ignorant; and yet you do not allow us, nor so many and such great peoples of East and West, at least not to know the case of Caecilian, while these men do not know that of Praetextatus and Felicianus, whom three hundred and ten, that is, all or nearly all the bishops of the party of Donatus, Africans condemned as Africans in Africa, and Africans received as Africans in Africa. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.51 (CSEL 52:549–550; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-51). ## Against Cresconius 4.52 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-52 - Source: CSEL 52:550–551 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine repeats that the Serdica letter came from Arians and turns Cresconius's charge of inconstancy against the Donatists' treatment of the Maximianists. ### Latin text Inseris principium Serdicensis concilii, unde probare conaris, quod orientales episcopi cognito crimine traditorum parti Donati communicauerint, hoc uno magno scilicet documento, quod inter episcopos quibus scribunt Donati nomen inuentum est. nec tamen ibi aliquid legitur eos de Afris traditoribus cognouisse. quod quidem concilium, ne te lateat, Arrianorum est, quos iam tu inter alios haereticos nominasti, nec additis ciuitatum nominibus legi solet, quia nec ipse mos est ecclesiasticus, quando episcopi episcopis epistulam scribunt. unde nescio quis iste Donatus miror si non in uestris litteris Carthaginiensis factus est, quamquam potuerint illi tam longinquis terris ab Africa separati eo ipso tempore quo scribere uolebant requirere, quisnam episcopus esset Carthaginis, (et inuenire) esse Donatum. omitto enim dicere, quod fortasse orientales haeretici (Afris) haereticis aliquo modo se sociare temptauerant. sed tu, homo prudens, cum uelles soluere quaestionem, cum tibi dici posset: (si haec ita sunt, ut orientales scriberent ad Donatum uestrum, quemadmodum a communione uestrorum orientales postea digregati sunt?, respondisti et dixisti: quia in recipiendis iterum uestris damnatae causae non potuerunt seruare constantiam. et scriptum est: qui iungitur fornicariae unum corpus est. ubi uestros nunc atrociter accusasti, si in hac causa Maximianensium non potuerunt seruare constantiam execrabiliter damnando sacrilegos, honorabiliter suscipiendo damnatos. illud enim de orientalibus omnino non probas, hoc de uestris audis et legis et cernis et iudicas. ### English translation (Claude) You insert the opening of the council of Serdica, from which you try to prove that the Eastern bishops, having learned of the crime of the traitors, communicated with the party of Donatus, by this one great proof, no doubt: that the name of Donatus is found among the bishops to whom they write. Yet nothing is read there about their having learned of African traitors. And that council, so that it may not escape you, is of the Arians, whom you yourself have now named among other heretics; nor is it usually read with the names of cities added, since this is not church custom either when bishops write a letter to bishops. Hence I do not know who this Donatus is; I wonder whether he was not made “of Carthage” in your copies; although they, separated by such distant lands from Africa, could have asked, at the very time they wished to write, who was bishop of Carthage, and found it was Donatus. For I pass over saying that perhaps the Eastern heretics had tried in some way to ally themselves with the African heretics. But you, a prudent man, wishing to solve the question, when it could be said to you, “If these things are so, that the Easterners wrote to your Donatus, how were the Easterners afterwards separated from the communion of your people?”, answered and said, “Because in receiving your people again they could not keep firm in a condemned case; and it is written, ‘He who is joined to a prostitute is one body.’” Here you have now fiercely accused your own people, if in this case of the Maximianensians they could not keep firm, condemning the sacrilegious execrably and receiving the condemned honorably. For that you do not prove at all about the Easterners; this you hear and read and see and judge about your own people. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 6:16: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The Eastern (Arian) bishops' letter from Philippopolis (343). 1 Cor 6:16. Words in round brackets are the editor's supplements. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.52 (CSEL 52:550–551; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-52). ## Against Cresconius 4.53 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-53 - Source: CSEL 52:551 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine contrasts the Donatists' objection to commemorating unproven “traitors” with their living communion with men they themselves condemned. ### Latin text Iubes me relinquere ecclesiam traditorum, quos nec uos apud nos nec maiores uestri apud maiores nostros conuincere ac demonstrare potuerunt; quos nunc si demonstrasses, eorum facinus crimenque damnarem, non propter eos tot gentium quibus ignoti sunt catholicam societatem desererem. sed uide, qua consideratione nolis in communione nostra eorum mortuorum memoriam fieri, quorum facta non nouimus, quorum etiam bonam inter suos famam posteritatis successione didicimus, cum in uestra communione sine ulla degradatione uiuant quorum mala sensistis, quorum sacrilegia condemnastis. ### English translation (Claude) You order me to leave the church of the traitors, whom neither you before us nor your forefathers before our forefathers could convict and prove; and if you had now proved them, I would condemn their deed and crime, but would not on their account desert the Catholic fellowship of so many nations to whom they are unknown. But see with what consistency you do not want the memory of those dead men to be made in our communion whose deeds we do not know, whose good reputation among their own we have even learned through the succession of posterity, while in your communion men live, without any degradation, whose evils you perceived, whose sacrileges you condemned. ### Translation notes - The commemoration of the departed bishops at the eucharist. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.53 (CSEL 52:551; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-53). ## Against Cresconius 4.54 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-54 - Source: CSEL 52:551–552 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine rejects the claim that a traitor “created” Catholics: Christ is the head, and even the faithful in Elijah's day did not separate from Israel's common sacraments. ### Latin text Audes mihi dicere, homo prudens: ille qui tradidit te creauit, sic nesciens illum esse creatorem nostrum in eo, quod christiani sumus, qui est creator noster in eo, quod homines sumus, quamuis nec illum, quem putas creatorem meum, de traditione conuiceris. ego autem non tibi rependo hanc iniuriam; nec tuum nec filiorum uel nepotum aut pronepotum tuorum. si in parte Donati fuerint, Felicianum dico creatorem. tantum, quia permittis, admoneo, ne creator tuus post nomen hominis impia uanitate currentem te inueniat desertorem. deinde plausibiliter tibi uideris adiungere: a fonte deducitur riuus et caput membra sequuntur. sano capite omne sanum est corpus, et si quid in hoc morbi uel uitii est, omnia membra debilitat. originem suam respicit quidquid in stirpe procrescit. non potest innocens esse qui sectam non sequitur innocentis, cum praesertim scriptum sit: in legalibus patrum uestrorum ne ambulaueritis. in his omnibus uerbis tuis omitto, quia non est simile quod de humano corpore conparasti; fieri enim potest, ut et pes doleat capite sano et pede sano caput omitto etiam, quod tibi exciderit quid paulo ante dixeris; hoc et nos uolumus hoc suademus, ut Christus christiani sit caput, qui nunc nescio quem traditorem caput uis esse ignotarum gentium christianarum, ubi datum et acceptum Christi baptismum non uultis agnoscere, tamquam baptizati non nisi ab illo traditore creati sint. omitto et illud, quantum me adiuuet quod de scriptura testimonium ipse posuisti, dictum esse Iudaeis: in legalibus patrum uestrorum ne ambulaueritis, cum hoc utique praeceptum quicumque tunc obseruare uoluerunt, sicut prophetae sancti et septem milia uirorum, qui non curuauerunt genua ante Bahal, a populo tamen suo et a communibus sacramentis non se diuiserunt. hoc dico, hoc uelis nolis repetendo, quamlibet tibi uidear molestus, inculco: noli Caecilianum totiens absolutum caput facere posteris nobis, cum ego et Primianum a Feliciano et Felicianum a Primiano damnatum non tamen faciam caput posteris uestris. ### English translation (Claude) You dare to say to me, prudent man: “He who handed over created you”; not knowing that our creator, insofar as we are Christians, is he who is our creator insofar as we are men; though you have not convicted of handing over even him whom you think my creator. But I do not repay you this injury: I do not call Felicianus your creator, nor that of your sons, grandsons, or great-grandsons, if they are in the party of Donatus. Only, since you permit, I admonish you: let not your Creator find you a deserter, running after the name of a man with impious vanity. Then you seem to yourself to add plausibly: “The stream is drawn from the source, and the members follow the head. When the head is sound, the whole body is sound; and if there is any disease or fault in it, it weakens all the members. Whatever grows in a stock looks back to its origin. One cannot be innocent who does not follow the sect of an innocent man, especially since it is written, ‘Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers.’” In all these words of yours I pass over the fact that what you compared from the human body is not alike; for it can happen that the foot aches while the head is sound, and the head while the foot is sound. I pass over also that what you said a little before slipped from your mind: “This we too want, this we urge, that Christ be the head of the Christian,” you who now want some traitor or other to be the head of unknown Christian nations, where you will not recognize the baptism of Christ given and received, as though the baptized were created only by that traitor. I pass over also how much the testimony from Scripture which you yourself set down helps me, that it was said to the Jews, “Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers”; since whoever then wished to keep this command, like the holy prophets and the seven thousand men who did not bow the knee before Baal, did not divide themselves from their people and from the common sacraments. This I say, this, whether you will or not, I drive home by repeating, however troublesome I may seem to you: do not make Caecilian, so often acquitted, the head of us who came after, since I, for my part, will not make either Primian, condemned by Felicianus, or Felicianus, condemned by Primian, the head of your posterity. ### Scripture references - Ezek 20:18: quotation, high confidence - 1 Kgs 19:18: allusion, high confidence - Rom 11:4: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Ezek 20:18; 1 Kgs 19:18; Rom 11:4. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.54 (CSEL 52:551–552; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-54). ## Against Cresconius 4.55 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-36/#p-4-55 - Source: CSEL 52:552–553 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the Maximianists' sufferings, like the Donatists', prove nothing: the cause, not the penalty, makes a martyr. ### Latin text Iam uero de persecutionis inuidia, quam a terrenis potestatibus uos pro parte Donati perpeti gloriamini. quamuis in illo trium librorum opere satis tibi abundeque responderim, neque nunc tibi tacebo, quod ex hac causa Maximianensium breuiter responderi potest, neque si propterea uos imperitis atque inprudentibus populis commendatis. sic enim se Maximianus ipse, sic eius socii, qui nec persecutionibus uestrorum, ut ad eorum communionem redirent, cedere potuerunt, uanis imperitisque commendant. sed qui sobrie cogitant eorum, qui aliquam molestiam patiuntur, non poenas considerari oportere sed causas, intellegunt eos pro crimine sacrilegi schismatis, in quo a uobis merito iusteque damnati sunt, commotiones etiam saecularium iudiciorum merito iusteque perpessos. neque enim illud commemoro quod in tua epistula posuisti, quod Maximiani non basilicam sed speluncam non Optatus sed populus euertit. quamquam etiam illic, etsi incertum est uestros fecisse, certum est tamen illum passum fuisse persecutionem nec tamen iustum esse sed impium. unde iam cogeris confiteri non debere quid quisque patiatur, sed quare patiatur adtendi. ### English translation (Claude) Now as to the odium of persecution which you boast that you suffer from the earthly powers for the party of Donatus: although I have answered you sufficiently and abundantly in that work of three books, I shall not now keep silent either what can be briefly answered from this case of the Maximianensians, if you commend yourselves on that account to unskilled and imprudent peoples. For so Maximian himself, so his associates, who could not be made to yield even by the persecutions of your people so as to return to their communion, commend themselves to the vain and unskilled. But those who reflect soberly understand that, in those who suffer some trouble, not the penalties but the causes must be considered; they understand that those men, for the crime of sacrilegious schism, in which they were rightly and justly condemned by you, rightly and justly suffered even the disturbances of secular courts. For I do not mention what you set down in your letter: that not Optatus but the people overturned, not Maximian's basilica but his cave. And yet even there, though it is uncertain that your people did it, it is certain that he suffered persecution and yet was not righteous but ungodly. Hence you are now compelled to confess that one must look not at what anyone suffers but at why he suffers. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.55 (CSEL 52:552–553; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-55). ## Against Cresconius 4.56 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-56 - Source: CSEL 52:553–554 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that the righteous may also pursue the wicked for their correction, as the Donatist bishops themselves did to their schismatics. ### Latin text Sed mihi parum est hoc Maximiani exemplo interim demonstrare non continuo iustum esse. qui obtento atque adumbrato Christi nomine patitur persecutionem, quando et Maximianus sacrilegus passus est, nisi te cogam fateri, quod et religiosi sacrilegos et iusti impios persequuntur, non sane nocendi studio, sed necessitate potius consulendi. nec de uetere testamento profero exempla, quamuis te etiam propheticis exemplis doceri uelle dixisti. illa, inquam, nimis antiqua non profero; fuerunt enim alterius dispensationis et temporis. iam post reuelatam et oportuno tempore commendatam mansuetudinem episcopi uestri, quod quidem nos dicimus iustum. sed quamdiu ibi ea et talem causam defendis tu dicere cogeris, episcopi, inquam, uestri uestros schismaticos persecuti sunt. ### English translation (Claude) But it is too little for me to show for the present by this example of Maximian that one who suffers persecution under the cover and shadow of Christ's name is not therefore righteous, since Maximian too, a sacrilegious man, suffered it; unless I compel you to admit that the devout too persecute the sacrilegious and the righteous the ungodly, not indeed with the aim of harming but rather from the necessity of taking measures. Nor do I bring examples from the Old Testament, although you said you wished to be taught even by prophetic examples. Those, I say, too ancient, I do not bring forward; for they belonged to another dispensation and time. But now, after gentleness was revealed and commended at the fitting time, your bishops (which indeed we call just, but which, as long as you defend such a case, you are compelled to say), your bishops, I say, persecuted your schismatics. ### Translation notes - The sentence is damaged in the digital text and is translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.56 (CSEL 52:553–554; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56). ## Against Cresconius 4.57 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-57 - Source: CSEL 52:554–555 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine cites records showing that Primian seized Maximian's house through the courts and that Donatist bishops prosecuted Maximianist bishops in their old sees. ### Latin text Iam itaque non dico: persecutionem passus est Maximianus, fecit Optatus), quoniam hoc nos ignorare respondes et ita fecit, ut hinc nulla possim gesta recitare; quamquam in tam recenti memoria ciuitates ipsae si interrogentur. negare non possunt hoc ergo non dico, sed dico: persecutionem passus est Maximianus, fecit Primianus et recito gesta, quibus ostendam domum, quam Maximianus propriam defendebat, Primianum procuratione mandata exorcisterii ecclesiastici nomine, fauente sibi Sacerdote legato, quod ipsa gesta indicant, abstulisse. sed iustitiae, non gratiae fuerit iudex — non abnuo, non refello —: cur ergo Primianus apud acta magistratus Carthaginiensis inter alia, quae de nobis contumeliose prosequenda mandauit: illi, inquit, auferunt aliena, nos intermittimus ablata, cum ipse abstulisset aliena, si Maximiani erat domus, si autem Maximianus eam potius usurpauerat, non intermisisset ablata? sed si neque hoc ad persecutionem uis pertinere, dico episcopos uestros et clericos uestros Maximianensibus in eis sedibus manentibus, in quibus antiquitus fuerant ordinati, fecisse persecutiones, apud proconsules accusasse, impetrasse iussiones eisdemque iussionibus exsequendis officiorum instantiam et ciuitatum auxilia meruisse. ut illi, qui iam fuerant Bagaiensis sententiae seueritate damnati et a uestrae communionis corpore, ne per cuncta membra pestilens uirus inreperet, conpendioso dolore praecisi, et nullum iam uobis facientes suae communionis morbida contagione periculum cum praecisis pariter plebibus suis propria conuenticula frequentabant, loca et basilicas quas non inuaserant cum populis sibi cohaerentibus perpetua possessione retinebant, terrerentur proturbarentur expellerentur, renitentes exhiberentur. ### English translation (Claude) So now I do not say, “Maximian suffered persecution; Optatus carried it out,” since you answer that we do not know this, and he did it in such a way that I can read out no records about it (although, in so recent a memory, the cities themselves, if asked, cannot deny it). This, then, I do not say; but I say: “Maximian suffered persecution; Primian carried it out”; and I read out records by which I show that Primian, through a mandated agent, under the name of a church exorcistery, with the legate Sacerdos favoring him, as the records themselves show, took away a house which Maximian was defending as his own. But suppose the judge acted from justice and not favor (I do not deny it, I do not refute it): why then did Primian, among other things he ordered to be put forward insultingly about us in the records of the magistrate of Carthage, say, “They take away what belongs to others; we let go what has been taken,” when he himself had taken away what belonged to another, if the house was Maximian's; and, if Maximian had rather usurped it, he had not let go what was taken? But if you will not have this either count as persecution, I say that your bishops and your clergy carried out persecutions against the Maximianensians who remained in those sees in which they had long been ordained, accused them before proconsuls, obtained orders, and gained, for executing those orders, the pressure of the officials and the help of the cities; so that those who had already been condemned by the severity of the sentence of Bagai and cut off from the body of your communion with brief pain, lest the pestilent poison creep through all the limbs, and who were no longer causing you any danger by the morbid contagion of their communion, but frequented their own meetings with their congregations cut off together with them, and kept by perpetual possession, with the peoples cleaving to them, places and basilicas which they had not invaded, should be terrified, thrown into confusion, expelled, and, if they resisted, brought into court. ### Translation notes - Sacerdos was a legate (deputy of the proconsul) at Carthage. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.57 (CSEL 52:554–555; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-57). ## Against Cresconius 4.58 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-58 - Source: CSEL 52:555–556 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine tells how the Donatist bishop Restitutus prosecuted the Maximianist Salvius of Membresa, whom the proconsul advised to flee his persecutors. ### Latin text Lege quae de illis uel in illos aduocatis prosequentibus dicta sunt, quae obiecta crimina sacrilegii, quo impetu accusationis concitatae sunt potestates; quaere quae facta sint Saluio Membresitano, quia non ei potuit illius persecutionis exagitationibus extorqueri, ut rediret a consortio criminis, maluitque se committere examini et persecutoribus suis in proconsulari iudicio respondere, ea credo fiducia, quod sciret aduersarios suos legibus contra haereticos promulgatis uti non posse apud iudicem, nisi etiam se ipsos eis pariter inretirent. sed fefellit eum ista cogitatio. apud Seranum enim tunc proconsulem uel gratia plus ualuit uel magis forte Bagaiense concilium, quod illic etiam contra eundem Saluium recitatum est. quadam sane interlocutione quid per se ageretur ostendit, id est ut Saluium aut choro episcoporum communionis Primiani redderet aut fugaret a sedibus, ut Restitutus, quem contra eum Primianus ordinauerat, loca omnia, quae a Saluio tenebantur, sine aduersario possideret; et tamen in eadem interlocutione quod persecutionem Saluius pateretur expressit. sic enim in eisdem gestis legitur: Seranus pro consule dixit: lis episcoporum secundum legem ab episcopis audienda est: episcopi iudicauerunt. quare non aut sub satisfactione ad chorum reuerteris uetustatis aut, ut habes scriptum, terga persecutoribus prodis? quid hic tibi uidetur? placetne istum Saluium appellare iustum, cui pro consule, apud quem Restituto episcopo uestro contra stante accusabatur, etiam de sancta scriptura dat consilium, ut terga persecutoribus prodat, quoniam scriptum est in euangelio: si uos persecuti fuerint, fugite? uides certe, quam speciem Saluius apud suos uel martyris uel confessoris ostendat, qui persequente Restituto haec meruit a proconsule audire, et tamen non solum secundum nos, uerum etiam secundum uos impius et sacrilegus iudicatur. ### English translation (Claude) Read what was said about them or against them by the advocates who pleaded; what crimes of sacrilege were charged; with what force of accusation the authorities were stirred up. Ask what was done to Salvius of Membresa, since the harassments of that persecution could not force him to return from partnership in the crime; and he preferred to submit to examination and to answer his persecutors in the proconsular court, trusting, I suppose, that he knew his adversaries could not use the laws promulgated against heretics before the judge without entangling themselves in them equally. But that thought deceived him. For before Seranus, then proconsul, either influence prevailed more, or perhaps rather the council of Bagai, which was read there too against the same Salvius. Indeed, by a certain interlocutory remark he showed what was being pressed through him, namely, that he should either restore Salvius to the choir of bishops of Primian's communion or drive him from his seat, so that Restitutus, whom Primian had ordained against him, might possess without an adversary all the places held by Salvius; and yet in the same remark he expressed that Salvius was suffering persecution. For thus it is read in the same records: “Seranus, proconsul, said: ‘A dispute of bishops must, according to the law, be heard by bishops: the bishops have judged. Why do you not either return with satisfaction to the choir of antiquity, or, as you have it written, turn your back on your persecutors?’” What do you think here? Will you call this Salvius righteous, to whom the proconsul, before whom he was being accused with Restitutus, your bishop, standing against him, even gives advice from holy Scripture, to turn his back on his persecutors, since it is written in the gospel, “If they persecute you, flee”? You surely see what appearance of martyr or confessor Salvius presents among his own, who, while Restitutus persecuted him, deserved to hear this from the proconsul; and yet not only according to us but also according to you he is judged ungodly and sacrilegious. ### Scripture references - Matt 10:23: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 10:23. Seranus was proconsul of Africa (ca. 394–395). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.58 (CSEL 52:555–556; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-58). ## Against Cresconius 4.59 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-59 - Source: CSEL 52:556–557 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine recounts how the people of Abitina, enforcing the Donatist judgment, paraded the aged Salvius with dead dogs tied to his neck. ### Latin text Iam uero posteaquam sententia proconsulis Abitinensibus allegata est, per quam ciuitatem uicinam iudicatum impleri uestri meruerant, eo quod paene omnes Membresitani Saluium diligebant, quae fecerint idem Abitinenses homini aetate grauissimo, piget dicere, quia ea non apud acta fecerunt; sed tam recenti memoria cum omnibus documentis sit clarior ipsa testificatio ciuitatum, breuiter attingam, quod illic, cum iter agerem, conperi. nam quia eis pro defendendis ex quantacumque parte sedibus suis etiam post proconsulis iudicatum turbae sibi fauentis fiducia Saluius repugnare temptauerat, uictus aliquando conprehensus est, non iam ducendus ad iudicem, ubi inter partes fuerat prolata sententia. sed pompa miserabili triumphandus. capto enim seni mortuos canes alligauerunt in collo et sic cum illo quantum libuit saltauerunt. hoc si uellem exaggerare dicendo, nonne fortassis hanc poenam uix tormentis regum Etruscorum, quibus mortua uiuis corpora coniungebant, conparandam esse monstrarem? nonne homo senex et qui haberi uolebat episcopus omnium iudicio de societate uiuorum atque mortuorum exterminandus esset, si duobus sibi suppliciis, unde unum subeundum esset, propositis non potius haerere cadaueribus humanis quam saltare eligeret cum caninis? ### English translation (Claude) And after the proconsul's sentence was presented to the people of Abitina, the neighboring city, through which your people had obtained that the judgment be carried out, since nearly all the people of Membresa loved Salvius, what those same Abitinians did to a man so venerable in age I am loath to say, since they did not do it in recorded proceedings; but since, in so recent a memory, the testimony of the cities themselves is clearer than all documents, I shall touch briefly on what I learned there when I was traveling. For since Salvius, trusting in the crowd favoring him, had tried to resist them in defending his seat in whatever part he could even after the proconsul's judgment, he was at last overcome and seized, not to be led to a judge, since sentence had been pronounced between the parties, but to be paraded in a pitiable triumph. For they tied dead dogs to the old man's neck and so danced with him as much as they pleased. If I wished to exaggerate this in speaking, would I not perhaps show that this punishment could scarcely be compared with the tortures of the Etruscan kings, who joined dead bodies to living ones? Would not an old man, who wished to be held a bishop, deserve in everyone's judgment to be banished from the society of the living and the dead, if, offered two punishments of which one had to be undergone, he did not choose to be fastened to human corpses rather than to dance with canine ones? ### Extrabiblical texts - Virgil, Aen. 8.485–488 (Virgil): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The Etruscan king Mezentius bound living men to corpses (Virgil, Aeneid 8.485–488). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.59 (CSEL 52:556–557; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-59). ## Against Cresconius 4.60 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-60 - Source: CSEL 52:557–558 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine concludes from the case of Salvius that persecution can be just, so suffering it proves nothing for the Donatists. ### Latin text Nunc aspice illa mea uerba, quae te refellisse arbitratus es, immo iam non ipsa, sed pro ipsis ista quae dicam. ecce enim non dico: si persecutionem facere non licet, fecit Optatus, sed dico: si persecutionem facere non licet, fecit Restitutus, nec dico: si persecutionem qui patitur habendus est innocens, Maximianus est passus. sed dico: si persecutionem qui patitur habendus est innocens, passus est Saluius. gesta recito, uerba quae non uis repeto: fecit Restitutus, passus est Saluius. quem mihi ex his duobus christianum nisi Restitutum, quem sacrilegum nisi Saluium respondebis? iaceat igitur oportet inprobatumque respuatur et quod dixisti nullam esse iustam persecutionem et quod dixisti: quis non uult testamento consentire prolato, qui persecutionem patitur an qui facit?, quia et iusta persecutio est, quam pertulit Saluius et Restitutus fecit. passus est Saluius, et tibi est Restitutus laudabilis, damnabilis Saluius. neque enim occulte factum esse dicturus es aut posset hoc latere Primianum, quod in ea ciuitate factum est. ubi ipse episcopus praesidebat, et in tanta ciuitate. apud tantum iudicem, ut ex hoc aliis etiam ciuitatibus occultum esse non posset. aut si et hoc inter occulta deputandum est, cur non uis ignorare orbem terrae, si quid male fecit — quod quidem absit ut fecerit — persecutionis tempore Caecilianus, si persecutionem, quam passus est Saluius ab illo, quem ipse contra eum ordinauit, et in ea ciuitate, ubi super collegas principatum gerit, potuit nescire Primianus? fateberis igitur uelis nolis, ne Restitutum, ne Primianum, ne partem Donati damnare cogaris, non solum et iniustos pati, uerum etiam et iustos facere posse persecutionem. aut si eam quae iuste fit non esse appellandam persecutionem putas, nec uos a nobis nec uestros a nostris persecutionem poteris probare perpessos, magisque nos demonstrabimus eam nos perpeti a clericis et circumcellionibus uestris, qui corde duro et insulso nec intellegentes nec ferentes, quod eis consulimus ad salutem, tanto in nos furore saeuiunt, ut ea quae nobis faciunt nec numerare nec commemorare nec digne uerbis explicare sufficiam. ### English translation (Claude) Now look at those words of mine which you thought you refuted, or rather now not those, but instead of them these which I shall say. For see, I do not say, “If it is not lawful to persecute, Optatus persecuted,” but I say, “If it is not lawful to persecute, Restitutus persecuted”; nor do I say, “If one who suffers persecution is to be held innocent, Maximian suffered it,” but I say, “If one who suffers persecution is to be held innocent, Salvius suffered it.” I read the records; I repeat the words you do not want: Restitutus carried it out, Salvius suffered it. Which of these two will you answer me is the Christian, if not Restitutus, which the sacrilegious, if not Salvius? Let both, then, lie fallen and be rejected as disproved: both what you said, that no persecution is just, and what you said, “Who will not agree with the Testament set forth, he who suffers persecution or he who carries it out?”, since there is also a just persecution, which Salvius suffered and Restitutus carried out. Salvius suffered, and for you Restitutus is praiseworthy, Salvius damnable. For you will not say it was done in secret, or that it could be hidden from Primian, since it was done in the city where he himself presided as bishop, and in so great a city, before so great a judge, that it could not be hidden from other cities either. Or if this too is to be counted among hidden things, why will you not have the world ignorant if Caecilian did anything evil in the time of persecution (God forbid that he did), if Primian could be ignorant of the persecution which Salvius suffered from him whom Primian himself ordained against him, and in that city where he holds primacy over his colleagues? You will confess, then, whether you will or not, so as not to be compelled to condemn Restitutus, Primian, and the party of Donatus, that not only can the unjust suffer persecution, but the just can also carry it out. Or if you think that what is done justly is not to be called persecution, you will be able to prove neither that you suffered persecution from us nor that your people suffered it from ours; and we shall rather show that we suffer it from your clergy and Circumcellions, who, with a hard and senseless heart, neither understanding nor bearing that we are taking measures for their salvation, rage against us with such fury that I cannot suffice to number, mention, or fittingly set out in words what they do to us. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.60 (CSEL 52:557–558; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-60). ## Against Cresconius 4.61 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-61 - Source: CSEL 52:558–559 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine compares the laws against the Donatists to a physician binding a madman, and says excesses are no more the church's fault than the Abitinians' cruelty was Primian's. ### Latin text Proinde cum freneticus medicum uexat et medicus freneticum ligat, aut ambo inuicem persequuntur aut, si persecutio nisi quae male fit non est, non utique persequitur medicus freneticum, sed freneticus medicum. saeuitia igitur uestra et uiolentissima audacia per circumcelliones uestros clericorum uestrorum satellites omnibus nota conprimenda fuit legibus, quae contra uos latae sunt, et quodammodo conliganda, simul ut, in quo essetis errore et quo sacrilegio contra unitatem pacemque Christi diuideremini, saltem ipso terrore commoniti cogitare atque emendare uelletis, sicut terroribus uestris per potestatum saecularium iussiones exagitati Felicianus et Praetextatus — quod corde nimium duro et peruersissimo Saluius noluit — schisma quod a uobis fecerant correxerunt et ad uestram communionem societatemque redierunt. totum autem corrigeretur, si ad radicem catholicam a uobis omnibus rediretur. quidquid uero factum est aduersus uos, quod temperamentum christianae dilectionis excederet, tam non est imputandum catholicae ecclesiae quam nec illud, quod Saluio fecerunt Abitinenses, Primiano uel Restituto imputauerim. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, when a madman harasses his physician and the physician binds the madman, either both persecute each other, or, if only what is done wrongly is persecution, the physician certainly does not persecute the madman, but the madman the physician. Your savagery, then, and your most violent audacity, through your Circumcellions, the bodyguards of your clergy, known to all, had to be restrained by the laws passed against you and, in a way, bound; at the same time so that, admonished at least by the very terror, you might be willing to reflect in what error you were and by what sacrilege you were divided against the unity and peace of Christ, and to amend it; just as Felicianus and Praetextatus, harassed by your terrors through the orders of secular powers, corrected the schism they had made from you (which Salvius, with an excessively hard and most perverse heart, would not do) and returned to your communion and fellowship. But the whole would be corrected if all of you returned to the Catholic root. Whatever was done against you that exceeded the moderation of Christian love is no more to be imputed to the Catholic church than I would impute what the Abitinians did to Salvius to Primian or Restitutus. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.61 (CSEL 52:558–559; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-61). ## Against Cresconius 4.62 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-62 - Source: CSEL 52:559–560 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes the Donatists made peace with the Maximianists despite applying the same harsh texts to them, so they could make peace with the Catholic church too. ### Latin text Quod uero post exaggeratas persecutiones, quas partem Donati perpessam fuisse dixisti, et totum tacens quod praecessit a uestris et multa dicens quae non probantur in nostris, de psalmis testimonium subiecisti et dixisti: nonne de his qui talia faciunt dictum est: ueloces pedes eorum ad effundendum sanguinem, et uiam pacis non cognouerunt?, haec ipsa et alia multa longeque grauiora illo Bagaiensi concilio episcopi uestri in Felicianum Praetextatumque dixerunt. et certe illi nullius carnis sanguinem fuderunt, nullum in uos uiolentiae corporalis impetum fecerunt, sed qui haec in eos dicebant multo sceleratius eos sacrilegio schismatis sanguinem spiritalem fundere iudicabant. unde si cum illis post tam grauiter (acriter)que in eos dicta pacem sine honoris eorum decoloratione, sine baptismi rescissione fecistis, non desperandum est, quod et nobiscum concordare possitis. multo enim magis uos allectare debet ad pacem faciendam totus orbis christianus quam Praetextatus et Felicianus, quoniam, si non uos inquinauerunt, quos tanta criminationis atrocitate damnastis, multo minus uos inquinat unitas tot gentium christianarum, cui nescio quorum Afrorum crimina (non) demonstrastis, et multum uos inquinat scelus, quo uestram societatem ab eius ecclesiae, pro qua tot ac tanta diuina testimonia recitantur, societate separastis; quibus diuinis testimoniis humana temeritate ausus es contradicere, cum et tu ipse nescio quomodo eadem ui ueritatis fateri coactus sis, quod in christianum nomen totus cotidie uertitur mundus. ### English translation (Claude) As for your adding, after exaggerating the persecutions which you said the party of Donatus suffered, keeping silent about all that your people did first and saying many unproven things about ours, a testimony from the Psalms, and saying, “Is it not of those who do such things that it was said, ‘Their feet are swift to shed blood, and the way of peace they have not known’?”: these very things, and many others far graver, your bishops said in that council of Bagai against Felicianus and Praetextatus. And certainly they shed no one's bodily blood, they made no attack of bodily violence on you; but those who said these things against them judged that by the sacrilege of schism they shed spiritual blood, far more wickedly. Hence, if you made peace with them after things said so gravely and sharply against them, without tarnishing their honor, without cancelling their baptism, there is no reason to despair that you can come to concord with us too. For the whole Christian world ought to attract you to making peace much more than Praetextatus and Felicianus; since, if those whom you condemned with such atrocity of accusation did not defile you, much less does the unity of so many Christian nations defile you, to whom you have not proved the crimes of I know not what Africans; and the crime greatly defiles you by which you separated your fellowship from the fellowship of that church for which so many and such great divine testimonies are read; which divine testimonies you dared with human rashness to contradict, though you yourself, somehow compelled by the same force of truth, confessed that the whole world is daily turning to the Christian name. ### Scripture references - Rom 3:15: quotation, high confidence - Rom 3:17: quotation, high confidence - Isa 59:7: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 3:15, 17 (from Isa 59:7–8; Ps 14:3 LXX). The words in round brackets are the editor's supplements. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.62 (CSEL 52:559–560; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-62). ## Against Cresconius 4.63 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-63 - Source: CSEL 52:560–561 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers the claim that truth lies with the few: the Maximianists are fewer still, and Scripture promises the church multitudes from all nations. ### Latin text Ausus es, inquam, testamento dei reluctari, cum dicat apostolus: hominis testamentum confirmatum nemo irritum facit aut superordinat. Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius. hoc testamentum irritum facere, huic testamento partem Donati superordinare minime timuisti et, cum deus in eodem testamento dicat ad Abraham: sic erit semen tuum sicut stellae caeli et sicut arena maris, hoc tu irritum faciens et partem Donati, pro qua nullum testimonium recitas, superordinans in paucis, inquis, frequenter est ueritas, errare multorum est. non intellegens, quomodo a domino dictum sit paucos intrare per angustam portam, cum et multos dixerit ab oriente et occidente recubituros cum Abraham, Isaac et Iacob et in Apocalypsi demonstrentur ex omni gente et tribu et lingua milia candidatorum, quae nemo numerare possit. qui profecto et multi sunt per se ipsos et idem ipsi pauci sunt in conparatione longe plurium, qui cum diabolo puniendi sunt. quae tamen frumenta diuinis in aeternum horreis destinata per totum mundum dilectionis unitate sociata siue ab scandalis et uiolentiis haereticorum siue ab interiore tamquam palea sua multis non recte uiuentibus aestus et trituram huius saeculi tolerant ultima uentilatione purganda. sed tibi ad haec omnia nihil facilius quam Maximianensium causa respondet. si enim in paucis frequenter est ueritas et errare multorum est, permitte ut Maximianenses, quanto uobis sunt inpares paucitate, tanto uos superent ueritate. non facis: noli ergo in conparatione multitudinis gentium catholicarum de uestra paucitate gloriari, sicut non uis, ut Maximianenses in conparatione multitudinis uestrae de sua paucitate glorientur. ### English translation (Claude) You dared, I say, to struggle against the testament of God, though the apostle says, “Even a man's testament, once ratified, no one annuls or adds to. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed.” You were not at all afraid to annul this testament and to set the party of Donatus over this testament; and when God says in the same testament to Abraham, “So shall your seed be, as the stars of heaven and as the sand of the sea,” you, annulling this and setting over it the party of Donatus, for which you read no testimony, say, “Truth is often among few; to err is the mark of many”; not understanding how the Lord said that few enter by the narrow gate, when he also said that many would recline from east and west with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and in the Apocalypse thousands clothed in white are shown from every nation and tribe and tongue, which no one could number. These are certainly both many in themselves and the same are few in comparison with the far more numerous who are to be punished with the devil. Yet this wheat, destined for the divine barns forever, joined through the whole world in the unity of love, endures the heat and threshing of this age, whether from the scandals and violence of heretics or from its own inner chaff, the many who do not live rightly, to be purged by the last winnowing. But to all this nothing answers you more easily than the case of the Maximianensians. For if truth is often among few and to err is the mark of many, allow the Maximianensians to surpass you in truth as much as they are unequal to you in fewness. You do not: then do not boast of your fewness in comparison with the multitude of the Catholic nations, just as you do not want the Maximianensians to boast of their fewness in comparison with your multitude. ### Scripture references - Gal 3:15: quotation, high confidence - Gal 3:16: quotation, high confidence - Gen 22:17: quotation, high confidence - Matt 7:14: allusion, high confidence - Matt 8:11: allusion, high confidence - Rev 7:9: allusion, high confidence - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Gal 3:15–16; Gen 22:17; Matt 7:13–14; Matt 8:11; Rev 7:9; Matt 3:12. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.63 (CSEL 52:560–561; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-63). ## Against Cresconius 4.64 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-64 - Source: CSEL 52:561–562 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine sets the prophecy and gospel of the church spreading from Jerusalem to all nations against the Donatist claim, and notes that the Maximianists' associates were not polluted. ### Latin text Quod autem de Afris traditoribus narras, ita(ne) nescis aut qualiscumque hominis corde non sentis, in conflictu quo ueritas quaeritur, cum probatio non sequitur, quam sit uana et inepta narratio? in qua refellenda operam non consumerem, nec si non haberem in causa Maximianensium tam facile sine ulla ambage conpendium. sacrae sunt litterae: deus deorum dominus locutus est et uocauit terram a solis ortu usque ad occasum: ex Sion species decoris eius. huic prophetico testimonio concinit euangelium, ubi de se ipso idem dominus dicit: oportebat Christum. pati et resurgere a mortuis tertia die, et praedicari in nomine eius paenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum per omnes gentes, incipientibus ab Hierusalem. quod enim illic dictum est: uocauit terram a solis ortu usque ad occasum, hoc dictum est hic: per omnes gentes, et quod ibi dictum est: ex Sion species decoris eius, hoc dictum est hic: incipientibus ab Hierusalem. non enim tantummodo ibi passus est Christus, sed ibi etiam resurrexit, inde ascendit in caelum, ibi centum uiginti homines congregatos die pentecostes misso de caelo sancto spiritu impleuit, ibi uno die tria, alio quinque milia credentium in suum corpus conuersa suscepit, inde in totam Iudaeam et Samariam et in orbis terrarum ceteras gentes se fructificando diffudit et diffundit ecclesia. quod discipulis praedicens et iam ascensurus in caelum: eritis, inquit, mihi testes in Hierusalem et in totam Iudaeam et Samariam et usque in fines terrae. haec igitur ecclesia incipiens ab Hierusalem seque per omnes gentes tam euidenti fecunditate diffundens. ut te ipsum confiteri cogat, quod in christianum nomen prouidentia dei totus cotidie uertitur mundus, haec, inquam, ecclesia, quae domino deo deorum loquente a solis ortu usque ad occasum uocatur, nullo modo ab Afris traditoribus pollui potuit quos omnino nesciuit, si Maximiani sacrilegi surculi non polluere plantaria tot collegas eius, tantum quia ordinando manus ei non imposuerunt, quamuis eum a Primiano damnatum laudauerint Primianumque damnauerint, quamuis in eius schismate constituti dilationem qua reuerterentur acceperint ### English translation (Claude) As for what you narrate about African traitors, do you really not know, or do you not feel in the heart of a man of any kind, how empty and inept narration is in a contest where truth is sought, when proof does not follow? I would not spend effort refuting it even if I did not have in the case of the Maximianensians so easy a shortcut without any detour. The writings are sacred: “The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth from the rising of the sun to its setting; out of Zion the beauty of his glory.” With this prophetic testimony the gospel harmonizes, where the same Lord says of himself: “It was necessary for the Christ to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” For what is said there, “He called the earth from the rising of the sun to its setting,” is said here, “to all nations”; and what is said there, “Out of Zion the beauty of his glory,” is said here, “beginning from Jerusalem.” For not only did Christ suffer there, but there he also rose again, from there he ascended into heaven, there on the day of Pentecost he filled a hundred and twenty men gathered together with the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, there on one day three thousand, on another five thousand believers were converted and received into his body; from there into all Judea and Samaria and into the other nations of the world the church spread itself and spreads itself by bearing fruit. This he foretold to his disciples when about to ascend into heaven: “You will be my witnesses,” he said, “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth.” This church, then, beginning from Jerusalem and spreading itself through all nations with so evident a fruitfulness that it compels you yourself to confess that by God's providence the whole world is daily turning to the Christian name; this church, I say, which is called from the rising of the sun to its setting by the Lord God of gods speaking, could in no way be polluted by African traitors whom it knew nothing of at all, if the shoots of Maximian's sacrilegious branch did not pollute so many of his colleagues merely because they did not lay hands on him in ordaining him, though they praised him when condemned by Primian and condemned Primian, though, placed in his schism, they received an extension within which to return. ### Scripture references - Ps 50:1 (49:1 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 50:2 (49:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Luke 24:46: quotation, high confidence - Luke 24:47: quotation, high confidence - Acts 1:15: allusion, high confidence - Acts 2:41: allusion, high confidence - Acts 4:4: allusion, high confidence - Acts 1:8: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Ps 50:1–2 (49:1–2 LXX); Luke 24:46–47; Acts 1:15; 2:1–4, 41; 4:4; Acts 1:8. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.64 (CSEL 52:561–562; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-64). ## Against Cresconius 4.65 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-65 - Source: CSEL 52:562–563 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine shows from the sentence of Bagai's own “more salutary” that a comparative can be set against an opposite, answering Cresconius's grammatical point. ### Latin text Quin etiam quia dixi: traditionem multo probabilius nos uobis obicimus, respondes me hoc modo fuisse confessum, quod eam uos nobis probabiliter obiecistis. docens etiam regulam locutionis, qua conparatiuus gradus (quod ante positum est auget, non quod ante dictum est inprobat, et adiungens, sicut bene* et melius, male et peius, (probabiliter* et (horribilius), ita esse (probabiliter) et probabilius*. unde tibi colligere uideris et dicis: si uos probabilius, nos ergo probabiliter. hinc ego in illo prolixiore trium librorum opere suo loco tibi satis aut plus quam satis fortasse respondi et ostendi ex illis litteris, ubi uerba didicimus, quomodo conparatiuus gradus non semper augeat quod conparat, aliquando inprobet cui conparatur. inde est: di meliora piis, inde est: melioribus opto auspiciis. lege diligenter, plura ipse repperies. sed nonne miraris, obsecro te, in hac causa Maximianensium, ex qua tibi ad omnia nunc statui respondere. nec huius mihi defuisse locutionis exemplum? in illa quippe luculentissima et facundissima sententia concilii Bagaiensis: inuenta est, inquiunt, causa salubrior, ne per cuncta membra pestilens inrepat uirus, ut conpendioso dolore natum decidat uulnus. certe secundum regulam tuam salubris, non salubrior) dicere debuerunt; neque enim illud salubre, sed perniciosum erat, ut per cuncta membra pestilens uirus inreperet. salubrior ergo erat causa, ut conpendioso dolore natum decideret uulnus, quamuis non esset salubris, sed contra exitiabilis, ut per cuncta membra pestilens inreperet uirus. sic traditionem probabilius nos uobis obicimus, quamuis eam uos nobis non probabiliter obiciatis. ### English translation (Claude) Moreover, because I said, “We charge you with handing over much more probably,” you answer that in this way I confessed that you charged us with it probably; teaching also the rule of speech by which the comparative degree increases what is placed before and does not disprove what was said before, and adding that, as with “well” and “better,” “badly” and “worse,” “horribly” and “more horribly,” so it is with “probably” and “more probably.” From this you seem to yourself to gather and say: “If you more probably, then we probably.” I answered you on this in its place in that longer work of three books, sufficiently or perhaps more than sufficiently, and showed from those writings in which we learned our words how the comparative degree does not always increase what it compares, but sometimes disproves that with which it is compared. Hence comes “May the gods grant better things to the pious”; hence “I wish you under better auspices.” Read carefully; you will find more yourself. But do you not wonder, I ask you, that in this case of the Maximianensians, from which I have now decided to answer you on everything, an example of this usage was not lacking to me either? For in that most brilliant and most eloquent sentence of the council of Bagai they say, “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.” Surely, according to your rule, they ought to have said “salutary,” not “more salutary”; for it was not salutary but destructive that the pestilent poison should creep through all the limbs. The course was therefore “more salutary,” that the wound that had arisen should be cut away with brief pain, although it was not salutary, but on the contrary deadly, that the pestilent poison should creep through all the limbs. So we charge you with handing over more probably, although you do not charge us with it probably. ### Extrabiblical texts - Virgil, Georg. 3.513 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Virgil, Georgics 3.513; the second phrase (“I wish you under better auspices”) is a Latin poetic tag, source uncertain. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.65 (CSEL 52:562–563; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-65). ## Against Cresconius 4.66 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-66 - Source: CSEL 52:563–565 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine repeats the records proving Silvanus of Cirta a traitor, compares his condemning Caecilian to the elders accusing Susanna, and contrasts Felicianus's change of side. ### Latin text Iam illud quod in Siluanum Cirtensem episcopum uestrum dixi, fuisse traditorem municipalia gesta testantur ibidem apud Cirtam a curatore rei publicae Munatio Felice confecta. nam sicut ibi scriptum legimus, posteaquam apertum est ad bybliothecam, inuenta sunt ibi armaria inania. ibi protulit Siluanus capitulatam argenteam et lucernam argenteam, quod diceret se post arcam eas inuenisse. cui Uictor Aufidii dixit: mortuus fueras, si non eas inuenisses. Felix autem curator cum ei dixisset: inquire diligentius, ne quid hic remanserit, Siluanus dixit: nihil hic remansit, totum hoc eiecimus. quae gesta cum apud acta Zenophili consularis recitarentur eisque insererentur inter alia testium multa documenta, quaesiuit consularis: quid amministrabat tunc Siluanus in clericatu? Uictor respondit: sub Paulo episcopo orta persecutione Siluanus subdiaconus fuit. huic tu publicorum gestorum euidentissimo documento quo minus credatur, magnum aliquid tibi uideris opponere, quia commemoras sententiam, quam dixit in Caecilianum uelut puniens traditores, et argumentaris fieri non potuisse ut traditor fuerit, qui traditionis tam seuerus ultor extiterit: quasi aliquid seuerius uidebatur illis nequissimis senioribus, quando in occidendam Susannam tanta instantia saeuiebant, cum eorum conscientia ipso flagitio foderetur, quod se in illa punire uelle fingebant. sed omittamus talia. quid Felicianus? numquid non cum Primiano nunc damnat, quod cum Maximiano ipse commisit, sed plane meliore sententia correctior, non inpudentior? quod Siluanus si facere uoluisset, non in Caeciliano falsam, sed in se ipso ueram traditionem salubri emendatione damnasset et ad Caeciliani innocentiam etiamsi non episcopus, tamen correcta prauitate transisset, si Felicianus ad Primianum, quem similiter, ut ille Caecilianum, damnauerat innocentem, potuit tamen sine macula Primiani uel sua cum episcopali etiam honore transire. ### English translation (Claude) Now as to what I said against Silvanus of Cirta, your bishop, that he was a traitor, the municipal records testify, drawn up there at Cirta by the curator of the commonwealth, Munatius Felix. For, as we read written there, 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. To him Victor son of Aufidius said: “You would have been dead if you had not found them.” And when Felix the curator had said to him, “Search more carefully, lest anything remain here,” Silvanus said: “Nothing remains here; we have thrown all this out.” When these records were read in the proceedings of the consular Zenophilus and inserted in them among many other proofs from witnesses, the consular asked: “What office did Silvanus hold then in the clergy?” Victor answered: “When persecution arose under Paul the bishop, Silvanus was a subdeacon.” Against this most evident proof from public records, so that it may not be believed, you seem to yourself to set something great, since you mention the sentence he pronounced against Caecilian as if punishing traitors, and you argue that it could not be that he was a traitor who appeared as so severe an avenger of handing over; as if anything seemed more severe to those most wicked elders when they raged with such persistence to kill Susanna, while their conscience was pierced by the very shameful deed they pretended they wished to punish in her. But let us leave such things. What of Felicianus? Does he not now condemn with Primian what he himself committed with Maximian, but plainly by a better judgment, more corrected, not more shameless? If Silvanus had been willing to do this, he would have condemned, by a salutary amendment, not a false handing over in Caecilian but a true one in himself, and, even if not as a bishop, would have passed over to Caecilian's innocence with his wickedness corrected; if Felicianus could pass over to Primian, whom he had likewise condemned when innocent, as Silvanus had Caecilian, without stain to Primian or himself, even with his episcopal honor. ### Extrabiblical texts - Act. whole (Proceedings before Zenophilus (Gesta apud Zenophilum)): quotation, high confidence - Sus 1 (Susanna): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Proceedings before Zenophilus (320), quoting the search at Cirta (303). Susanna (Daniel 13, Greek). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.66 (CSEL 52:563–565; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-66). ## Against Cresconius 4.67 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-67 - Source: CSEL 52:565–567 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the Donatist forefathers should have proved their charges to the overseas churches or else tolerated the accused, as Cyprian taught, rather than separate. ### Latin text Nec illud, quod dixi: nescio quos traditores, quos uestri maiores arguebant, si ueraciter arguebant, debuisse conuincere, sic acceperis, tamquam hoc apud se ipsos facere debuerint sic enim respondes, quod fecerint et ideo nostros perdidisse baptismum iudicauerint. lege prius diligenter contra quod scribis, et aut intellege quae dicuntur aut noli quod intellegis uertere in aliud. ego dixi non apud uestros, sed apud ecclesias transmarinas, quibus innocentes illi uidebantur qui arguebantur a uestris, eos debuisse conuinci. nam et Maximianenses conuictum sibi uidentur damnasse Primianum, sed non apud eos, qui longius positi et a gratia uel inuidia remotiores tale de illo possent ferre iudicium, quod uniuersae parti Donati facile probaretur. nunc uero damnauerunt eum centum, et amplius quam trecentis absoluendum reliquerunt, apud quos ipsi periculum damnationis incurrerent. eis quippe tam pluribus suam debuerunt persuadere sententiam, ut ipsi cum eis intus essent, Primianus autem foris, si damnatus paenitentiam respuisset. si autem hoc tam maiori numero collegarum et tot suae communionis ecclesiis per totam Africam diffusis persuadere non possent, aut sententiam suam consilio saniore rescinderent, in qua falli sicut homines de homine potuerunt, aut, si uera eius crimina sine ulla dubitatione didicerant, quae tamen persuadere tanto pluribus ceteris non ualebant, nocentem scientes tolerarent prudentius et patientius, quam se a tot innocentibus. qui ista nescirent, impio schismate separarent. tenerent enim illam beati Cypriani plenissimam caritatis pietatisque sententiam, qua dicit: nam etsi uidentur in ecclesia esse zizania, non tamen impediri debet fides aut caritas nostra, ut quoniam zizania esse in ecclesia cernimus ipsi de ecclesia recedamus. quod quidem illis tono prodesset, si in ecclesiae catholicae gremio purgati purgamenta tolerarent, quae ante tempus separare non possent. sed quod eos dicimus in hac erroris uestri societate, quam ueram ecclesiam esse arbitramini, facere debuisse, hoc maiores uestri in illa perspicue uera, in cuius unitate fuerunt, ne ab illa separarentur, facere debuerunt. sicut enim quilibet partis uestrae homo causam Primiani prorsus ignorans tamen. quamuis a centum Maximianensibus damnatum, simpliciter innocentem credit eum, qui tanto pluribus se probauit, ita etiam in communione catholica, quem causa Caeciliani latet, non inmerito sibi innocentem fuisse persuadet eum, qui non solum per Africam. uerum etiam per tot gentium christianarum terras tanto pluribus episcopis ceteris uel innotescere innocens potuit uel occultari nocens, apud quos aut ab agnoscente meruit absolui aut non meruit ab ignorante damnari aut corrupto iudice contra quam meruerat absolutus non potuit aliis, qui non iudicauerant, demonstrari. uos igitur sacrilega separatione ab unitate populorum innocentium tot tantorumque separamini, qui cum in hac causa iudices esse non possent, aut ullos hinc fuisse iudices aut utrum hinc aliquid uel quid iudicatum sit nescierunt aut electis iudicibus potius quam uictis litigatoribus crediderunt. ### English translation (Claude) Nor should you take what I said, that your forefathers ought to have convicted the traitors (whoever they were) whom they were accusing, if they accused them truly, as if they ought to have done this among themselves; for so you answer, that they did it and therefore judged that our people had lost baptism. First read carefully what you are writing against, and either understand what is said or do not turn what you understand into something else. I said that they ought to have been convicted, not among your people, but before the churches overseas, to whom those accused by your people seemed innocent. For the Maximianensians too think they condemned Primian convicted, but not before those who, placed farther off and more removed from favor or envy, could give such judgment of him as would readily be accepted by the whole party of Donatus. But now a hundred condemned him and left him to be acquitted by more than three hundred, before whom they themselves would incur the danger of condemnation. For they ought to have persuaded so many more of their sentence, so that they themselves would be inside with them and Primian outside, if, condemned, he refused penance. But if they could not persuade of this so much greater a number of colleagues and so many churches of their communion spread throughout Africa, either they should have cancelled their sentence by sounder counsel, since as men they could be mistaken about a man; or, if they had learned his crimes truly beyond any doubt, but could not persuade so many more others of them, they should have tolerated, knowing him guilty, more prudently and patiently, rather than separate themselves by impious schism from so many innocent men who did not know these things. For they would hold that statement of blessed Cyprian, most full of love and piety, in which he says: “For 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.” This would indeed have profited them, if, purged in the bosom of the Catholic church, they tolerated the impurities which they could not separate before the time. But what we say they ought to have done in this fellowship of your error, which you think the true church, this your forefathers ought to have done in that plainly true church in whose unity they were, so as not to be separated from it. For just as any man of your party, wholly ignorant of Primian's case, yet simply believes him innocent, though condemned by a hundred Maximianensians, since he proved himself to so many more, so too in the Catholic communion one to whom Caecilian's case is unknown not undeservedly persuades himself that he was innocent who, not only throughout Africa but throughout the lands of so many Christian nations, could either become known as innocent or be hidden as guilty to so many more bishops; before whom he either deserved to be acquitted by one who knew, or did not deserve to be condemned by one who did not know, or, acquitted by a corrupt judge against his deserts, could not be shown to others who had not judged. You, then, separate yourselves by sacrilegious separation from the unity of so many and such great innocent peoples, who, since they could not be judges in this case, either did not know that there were any judges in it, or whether or what was judged, or believed the chosen judges rather than the defeated litigants. ### Scripture references - Matt 13:30: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Ep. 54.3 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Cyprian, Letter 54.3. The word “tono” is corrupt and is translated by sense (“would have profited”). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.67 (CSEL 52:565–567; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-67). ## Against Cresconius 4.68 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-68 - Source: CSEL 52:567 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that Cresconius chose the fourth option of his dilemma and evaded it with talk of argument forms. ### Latin text Hinc docetur in eo etiam, quod ex illa mea quadripertita distributione ultimum tibi — neque enim aliud poteras — elegisti, quam facile superemini. dixi enim, quod, si documenta criminum traditionis fuerint ex utraque parte prolata, aut utraque sunt uera aut utraque falsa aut nostra uera et uestra falsa aut nostra falsa et uestra uera. et cum in tribus superioribus facillimam nostram uictoriam demonstrassem, in quarta quoque uos uinci aut minus intellexisti aut, quod magis credo, ne ab aliis intellegeretur, nescio quibus umbraculis id conatus obtegere de argumentationis genere disputandum putasti; unde tecum alias, si opus fuerit, fortasse tractabimus, ne tempus nunc rebus non necessariis insumamus. ### English translation (Claude) From this it is shown also, in that you chose the last of my fourfold division (for you could choose nothing else), how easily you are overcome. For I said that, if documents of crimes of handing over have been brought from both sides, either both are true, or both false, or ours true and yours false, or ours false and yours true. And when I had shown our very easy victory in the first three, you either did not understand that you are defeated in the fourth as well, or (what I rather believe), so that it should not be understood by others, trying to cover it with I know not what shades, you thought you should dispute about the kind of argument; on which we shall perhaps deal with you elsewhere, if it is necessary, so as not to spend time now on things not necessary. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.68 (CSEL 52:567; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-68). ## Against Cresconius 4.69 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-69 - Source: CSEL 52:567–569 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine imagines future Donatists answering Maximianist charges against Primian, and applies their answer to the Catholic church: unproved African crimes cannot make the world guilty. ### Latin text Proinde attende, utrum ualeam in illo perspicuo speculo uestro, hoc est in causa Maximianensium, etiam hoc demonstrare. namque mortuis omnibus, (a quibus) et apud quos haec gesta sunt, fieri aliquando poterit, ut inter uestros et illorum posteros quaestio communionis agitetur. dicturi sunt illi a maioribus suis ferme centum uel amplius episcopis damnatum esse Primianum et illam primo quae apud Carthaginem, deinde aliam quae apud Cebarsussi contra eum conscripta est sententiam prolaturi; contra uestri concilium Bagaiense recitabunt. flagitabunt illi, ut diluta esse doceantur crimina Primiani, quae suorum maiorum sententia continentur. nonne multo iustius dicent uestri: haec crimina, quae obicitis iam mortuo, si uera sint, hoc probate, quod ad maiores nostros ea detuleritis, quod eis haec uera esse ostenderitis. quod si facere conati estis nec implere potuistis, maiores ipsos nostros inquinare non poterant aliena crimina quamuis uera, quae illis non fuerant demonstrata; quanto minus, si ea nec conati estis ostendere! unde igitur ad nos causae illius reatus transire potuit, qui nec ipsos, qui cum Primiano tunc uiuebant, ignoratus et non probatus inuoluit? uos itaque schismatis reos perspicua ueritate conuincimus, quos a nobis fratribus uestris propter aliena crimina, quae tunc maioribus nostris demonstrata non sunt, quando fuerant demonstranda, separatos uidemus. si hoc iustissime dicturae sunt plebes et clerici eorum locorum, ex quibus erant trecenti et decem, qui contra Maximianenses Bagaiense concilium condiderunt, si hoc, inquam, recte dicturi sunt Afri Afris, Numidae et Mauri quam plurimi paucis Byzacenis et prouincialibus, quanto iustius de criminibus, etiamsi uera essent, nescio quorum in Africa traditorum haec dicit Afris orbis terrarum, cum praesertim et in Africa ipsa ecclesia catholica tanta sit, ceteris gentibus unitatis uinculo sociata. quae nihilominus clamet: documenta etiam criminum alienorum, quae mihi nunc conaris ostendere, non faciunt reos populos gentium, quibus quando debuerunt non demonstrata sunt, (uel quia non potuistis) uel quia non curastis. a quibus populis in hac causa innocentibus si me dissociauero pro criminibus alienis, innocens esse non potero a sacrilego crimine schismatis. proinde et plurimum ualeatis et nunc mihi haec uera esse doceatis: damnamus mortuos traditores, uiuos non deserimus innocentes. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, notice whether I can show this too in that clear mirror of yours, that is, in the case of the Maximianensians. For when all are dead by whom and before whom these things were done, it may some day happen that a question of communion is raised between your posterity and theirs. They will say that Primian was condemned by their forefathers, nearly a hundred bishops or more, and will bring forward that sentence written against him first at Carthage, then another at Cabarsussa; your people will read out against them the council of Bagai. They will demand that the crimes of Primian contained in their forefathers' sentence be shown to have been washed away. Will not your people say much more justly: “These crimes which you charge against a man now dead, if they are true, prove that you brought them to our forefathers, that you showed them to be true. If you tried to do this and could not accomplish it, others' crimes, even if true, which had not been demonstrated to them, could not defile our forefathers themselves; how much less, if you did not even try to show them! How, then, could the guilt of that case pass to us, when, unknown and unproved, it did not involve even those who were living with Primian then? We therefore convict you by plain truth of being guilty of schism, since we see you separated from us, your brothers, because of others' crimes which were not then demonstrated to our forefathers when they ought to have been.” If the congregations and clergy of the places from which the three hundred and ten came, who drew up the council of Bagai against the Maximianensians, will say this most justly; if, I say, Africans will rightly say this to Africans, very many Numidians and Mauretanians to a few from Byzacena and the proconsular province, how much more justly does the world say this to Africans about the crimes, even if they were true, of I know not what traitors in Africa; especially since even in Africa itself the Catholic church is so great, joined to the other nations by the bond of unity. And it nonetheless cries out: “Even the documents of others' crimes, which you now try to show me, do not make guilty the peoples of the nations, to whom they were not demonstrated when they ought to have been, either because you could not or because you did not care. If I dissociate myself from these peoples, innocent in this case, on account of others' crimes, I cannot be innocent of the sacrilegious crime of schism. Accordingly, even if you prevail greatly and now teach me that these things are true: we condemn the dead traitors; we do not desert the living innocent.” ### Translation notes - The words in round brackets are the editor's supplements. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.69 (CSEL 52:567–569; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-69). ## Against Cresconius 4.70 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-70 - Source: CSEL 52:569–570 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine compares the Donatist claim to have expelled the worldwide church with the absurd Maximianist claim to have expelled Primian. ### Latin text Cum ergo dixerim: sed si qua uera essent uestra documenta, ecclesiae, hoc est catholicae, uos ea probare debuisse, ut uos intus essetis, illi autem quos conuinceretis pellerentur foras, quid est quod respondere uoluisti ideo separationem factam, quod nos foras essemus propulsi, uestri autem in ecclesia plenaria et catholica remanserunt? hoc si totidem uerbis uobis Maximianenses dicant, quid respondebis nisi nec refelli dignos, sed tantum rideri, qui ecclesiam plenariam cum episcopis iam minus quam centum contra tantam numerositatem ac multitudinem, cui amplius quam trecenti praesident, audeant adfirmare, cum per omnes Africae regiones, ubi Maximianenses sunt, non desit etiam communio Primiani, per alias autem multo plures latioresque Africae partes unum Maximianensem nemo repperiat nisi uix forte peregrinantem? quo igitur ore contra ecclesiam a solis ortu usque ad occasum promissam uoce ueritatis et redditam audes ecclesiam plenariam dicere partem Donati, cum ipsa non sit nisi Africae, illa uero cum tot gentibus sit et Africae? (sed uidelicet ista illam misit foras. ne, quaeso, tu istam uocem mittas foras: in facie est frons hominis, non sub umero. ergone ista illam misit foras? non uides, si illa mittatur foras, de qua dicit deus ad Abraham: in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes, de qua praedictum legitur, quod erit in nouissimis diebus manifestus mons domini et uenient ad eum uniuersae gentes, de qua praedictum canitur: commemorabuntur et conuertentur ad dominum uniuersi fines terrae et adorabunt in conspectu eius uniuersae patriae gentium, de qua praedicatur, quod in toto mundo fructificet et crescat, quam ipse dominus dicit dilatari per omnes gentes, incipientibus ab Hierusalem, non, inquam, uides, si haec mittitur foras, eam cum lege dei, cum prophetis, cum psalmis, cum apostolis, cum ipso euangelio, cum toto denique testamento et cum ipso herede mitti foras? Quod nefas si attendis, si perhorrescis, si contremescis, uide ubi sitis et redite intro, quoniam non misistis, sed uos potius existis foras. uide, quid faciat animosa caecitas. dicitur, quod Maximianus Primianum miserit foras, et ridetur; dicitur, quod pars Donati labores apostolorum per uniuersum mundum fructificantes et crescentes misit foras, et non exhorretur. ### English translation (Claude) Since, then, I said, “But if your documents were at all true, you ought to have proved them to the church, that is, the Catholic church, so that you would be inside and those whom you convicted would be driven outside,” what is it that you chose to answer, that the separation was made because we were driven outside, while your people remained in the full and Catholic church? If the Maximianensians said this to you in so many words, what would you answer, except that they are not worth refuting but only laughing at, who dare to claim to be the full church with bishops now fewer than a hundred against so great a number and multitude, over which more than three hundred preside; since through all the regions of Africa where there are Maximianensians the communion of Primian is not lacking either, while through the other, far more numerous and wider parts of Africa no one would find a single Maximianensian, except perhaps barely one traveling? With what face, then, against the church promised from the rising of the sun to its setting by the voice of truth, and fulfilled, do you dare to call the party of Donatus the full church, when it is only of Africa, while the other is with so many nations and also of Africa? “But of course this one sent that one outside.” Please do not send this saying outside; a man's brow is in his face, not under his shoulder. Did this one, then, send that one outside? Do you not see that, if that church is sent outside of which God says to Abraham, “In your seed all nations will be blessed”; of which it is read foretold that in the last days the mountain of the Lord will be manifest and all nations will come to it; of which it is sung in prophecy, “All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will worship before him”; of which it is preached that it bears fruit and grows in the whole world; which the Lord himself says spreads through all nations, beginning from Jerusalem: do you not see, I say, that if this church is sent outside, it is sent outside with the law of God, with the prophets, with the psalms, with the apostles, with the gospel itself, finally with the whole testament and with the heir himself? If you attend to this wickedness, if you shudder at it, if you tremble, see where you are and come back in; for you did not send it out, but rather you went out. See what animosity's blindness does. It is said that Maximian sent Primian outside, and people laugh; it is said that the party of Donatus sent outside the labors of the apostles, bearing fruit and growing through the whole world, and people do not shudder. ### Scripture references - Gen 22:18: quotation, high confidence - Isa 2:2: allusion, high confidence - Ps 22:27 (21:28 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Col 1:6: allusion, high confidence - Luke 24:47: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Gen 22:18; Isa 2:2; Ps 22:27 (21:28 LXX); Col 1:6; Luke 24:47. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.70 (CSEL 52:569–570; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-70). ## Against Cresconius 4.71 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-56/#p-4-71 - Source: CSEL 52:570–571 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the church is now a threshing floor with chaff, and the Donatists, by claiming to be pure wheat, have blown away like dust. ### Latin text Ne quid sane fallaris aut fallas, quoniam id, quod tam crebro commemoraui, non aduertens uel te aduertisse dissimulans dixisse me adfirmas non esse frumenta dominica quam ego ecclesiam catholicam sic adserui, quomodo eam non adserit scriptura diuina, frumenta sola in horreo recondentur, nunc ecclesia tamquam area cum palea trituratur. hoc est quod uos urget ac premit et nisi corrigamini extinguit, quia huius areae paleam; quod uos esse monstrastis, non uos posse tolerare dixistis, purgatum frumentum inpudenter uos esse finxistis, ac sic ex ipsa area uanis calumniis turbulenti, tamquam leuissimus triturae puluis per inane sublatus, ante nouissimum uentilationis tempus existis. uox denique adrogantissima atque falsissima uestra est illa, non nostra: quid paleae cum frumento? quod de somniis uanorum et reuelationibus prophetarum Hieremias ait, et tamquam de nobis et uobis dictum sit, Parmenianus hoc scribit. quaere quoque a Maximiano; nihil aliud de se dicet. non enim est alius impiae superbiae tumor apud omnes, qui se a Christi unitate discindunt, quam se solos christianos esse iactare et damnare ceteros non solum quibus eorum lis nota est, uerum etiam quibus eorum nec nomen auditum est. ### English translation (Claude) So that you may not be deceived or deceive in anything, since, not noticing what I have mentioned so often, or pretending not to have noticed, you affirm that I said that the Catholic church which I asserted is not the Lord's wheat, in the way divine Scripture does not assert it: the wheat alone will be stored in the barn; now the church is threshed like a threshing floor with chaff. This is what presses and weighs on you and, unless you are corrected, extinguishes you: that you said you could not tolerate the chaff of this threshing floor, which you have shown yourselves to be, and shamelessly pretended that you are purged wheat; and so, turbulent with empty slanders, you went out from the threshing floor itself, like the lightest dust of the threshing carried up through the void, before the last time of winnowing. Finally, that most arrogant and most false saying is yours, not ours: “What has chaff to do with wheat?” Jeremiah said this of the dreams of the vain and the revelations of the prophets, and Parmenian writes it as though it were said of us and you. Ask Maximian too; he will say nothing else of himself. For there is no other swelling of ungodly pride among all who cut themselves off from the unity of Christ than to boast that they alone are Christians and to condemn the rest, not only those to whom their dispute is known, but also those who have not even heard their name. ### Scripture references - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence - Jer 23:28: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Matt 3:12; Jer 23:28. Parmenian's letter, answered in Augustine's Against the Letter of Parmenian. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.71 (CSEL 52:570–571; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-71). ## Against Cresconius 4.72 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-72/#p-4-72 - Source: CSEL 52:571–572 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that his willingness to read Scripture from any copy shows confidence in the truth, not an admission that Catholics burned the books. ### Latin text Iam illud quam eleganter tibi uisus es dicere, quod, cum ego de testamento dei dixissem: nunc undecumque prolatum est recitetur, respondendum putasti, quod iam hoc confessionem criminis habeat et ideo dixerim: a quocumque prolatum est recitetur, quia apud me constat et a nostris exustum et a uobis seruatum atque prolatum. ita uero si ueritate confisus a Maximiano uelis proferri codicem legis, unde recites Dathan, Core et Abiron, qui uiui terra dehiscente submersi sunt, quibus istum Bagaiensis sententia conparauit, non eo firmius contra illum recitabitur, quia in eius codice repperitur? quod ergo dixi: testamentum undecumque prolatum est recitetur, non est confessio criminis, sed fiducia ueritatis. quid enim commodius, quid praeclarius quam ut, si fieri potest, quod aduersus te legatur a te proferatur? non quia ego non habeo pro me, sed facilior est certiorque conuictio, ut tu habeas contra te quod pro te, si corrigaris, fiat. ### English translation (Claude) Now how elegant you thought you were in saying, when I had said of God's testament, “Now let it be read, from wherever it is brought forth,” you thought you should answer that this already contains a confession of the crime, and that I said, “Let it be read, by whomever it is brought forth,” because I hold it established that it was burned by our people and kept and brought forth by yours. But really, if, trusting in the truth, you wished a book of the law to be brought forth by Maximian, from which to read about Dathan, Korah, and Abiram, who were swallowed alive when the earth opened, to whom the sentence of Bagai compared him, would it not be read against him all the more firmly because it is found in his own book? What I said, then, “Let the testament be read, from wherever it is brought forth,” is not a confession of crime but confidence in truth. For what is more fitting, what more splendid, than that, if possible, what is read against you should be brought forth by you? Not because I do not have it on my side, but because the conviction is easier and more certain when you have against you what, if you are corrected, becomes for you. ### Scripture references - Num 16:31: allusion, high confidence - Num 16:32: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Num 16:31–33. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.72 (CSEL 52:571–572; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-72). ## Against Cresconius 4.73 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-72/#p-4-73 - Source: CSEL 52:572–573 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine compares the Catholic church, present wherever schisms exist, to the Donatists, who are present wherever their own splinter groups are, while the reverse is not true. ### Latin text Contra uniuersitatem uero ecclesiae quia te inania repetere libuit, etiam hic tibi respondeo. sicut in Africa pars Donati uos estis, a quibus apparet partem Maximiani schisma fecisse, quoniam non est per totum Africae qua uos estis, uos autem et in regionibus in quibus illa est non deestis — nam et alia schismata facta sunt ex uobis, sicut Rogatenses in Mauritania Caesariensi, Urbanenses in quadam Numidiae particula et alia nonnulla, sed ubi praecisa sunt, ibi remanserunt; et hinc eminet eos a uobis exisse, non uos ab ipsis, quia uos etiam in his terris estis ubi ipsi sunt, illi autem, quaquauersus uos estis, non nisi forte peregrinantes inueniuntur —, sic ecclesia catholica, quae, sicut ait Cyprianus, ramos suos per uniuersam terram copia ubertatis extendit, ubique sustinet scandala eorum, qui ab illa uitio maxime superbiae praeciduntur, aliorum hic, aliorum alibi atque alibi, qui partes suas ostentantes dicunt: ecce hic est Christus, ecce illic, quibus ne credatur ipse praemonuit. non enim ostendunt uiam, de qua prophetatum est in psalmis: ut cognoscamus in terra uiam tuam, in omnibus gentibus salutare tuum, sed suae communionis quisque regiones, ecce hic, ecce illic. ubi enim cadunt, ibi remanent, et ubi separantur, ibi arescunt. unde ipsa de qua praeciduntur etiam in eas terras extenditur, ubi iacent illa in sua quaeque regione fragmenta; in illa uero singula quacumque ipsa distenditur non sunt, quamuis aliquando uix rarissima folia ex eorum ariditate uentus elationis in peregrina dispergat. ### English translation (Claude) Since you were pleased to repeat empty things against the universality of the church, here too I answer you. Just as in Africa you are the party of Donatus, from whom it is plain that the party of Maximian made a schism, since it is not throughout Africa where you are, while you are not lacking in the regions where it is (for other schisms too have been made from you, such as the Rogatists in Mauretania Caesariensis, the Urbanists in a certain small part of Numidia, and several others; but where they were cut off, there they remained; and hence it stands out that they went out from you, not you from them, since you are also in those lands where they are, while they, wherever you are, are found only perhaps traveling); so the Catholic church, which, as Cyprian says, extends her branches over the whole earth with abundance of fruitfulness, everywhere bears the scandals of those who are cut off from her, chiefly through the fault of pride, some here, others there and elsewhere, who, displaying their own parties, say, “Behold, here is Christ, behold, there,” whom he himself warned beforehand not to be believed. For they do not show the way of which it was prophesied in the psalms, “that we may know your way on earth, your salvation among all nations,” but each the regions of his own communion: behold here, behold there. For where they fall, there they remain; and where they are separated, there they dry up. Hence she from whom they are cut off extends even into those lands where those fragments lie, each in its own region; but they individually are not wherever she spreads, although sometimes the wind of pride scatters a very few leaves from their dryness into foreign parts. ### Scripture references - Matt 24:23: quotation, high confidence - Ps 67:2 (66:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Unit. eccl. 5 (On the Unity of the Catholic Church): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The Rogatists (in Mauretania Caesariensis) and Urbanists (in Numidia) were Donatist splinter groups. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church 5; Matt 24:23; Ps 67:2 (66:3 LXX). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.73 (CSEL 52:572–573; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-73). ## Against Cresconius 4.74 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-72/#p-4-74 - Source: CSEL 52:573–574 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine cites the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of blessing to all nations, and puns that the Donatists remain only “in the south” (Africa). ### Latin text Haec igitur ecclesia, quae, ut eiusdem identidem uerbis utar, ramos suos per uniuersam terram copia ubertatis extendit, ad multas etiam barbaras gentes extra orbem Romanum crescendo peruentura est. quod et te inquisisse et comperisse arbitror, ut diceres: omitto gentium barbararum proprias religiones, Persarum ritus, sidera Chaldaeorum, Aegyptiorum superstitiones, deos magorum, ut omnia ista non sint, quia prouidentia dei in christianum nomen totus cotidie uertitur mundus. haec tu uera dixisti, et sic impletur promissio quae dicta est Abraham: in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes. omnes inquit gentes, non dixit: omnium gentium omnes homines. unde necesse est non solum fecunditate crescentis ecclesiae, uerum etiam permixta multitudine inimicorum eius, per quos pietas eius exerceri et probari possit, usque in finem iudiciariae separationis totus orbis impleatur. sic commemoratum est hoc testamentum et ad filium eius Isaac domino dicente: et statuam iuramentum meum, quod iuraui Abraham patri tuo, et ampliabo semen tuum tamquam stellas caeli, et dabo tibi et semini tuo omnem terram, et benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae, sic et ad nepotem eius Iacob: et erit semen tuum sicut harena terrae et dilatabitur supra mare et in africum et in aquilonem et ad orientem, et benedicentur in te omnes tribus terrae. (supra mare autem plerumque scriptura cum dicit, occidentalem partem solere significari nouit qui legit. huic tu testamento si prolato consentire uoluisses, non in solo africo remansisses. ### English translation (Claude) This church, then, which, to use the same man's words again and again, extends her branches over the whole earth with abundance of fruitfulness, will by growing reach even many barbarian nations outside the Roman world. This I think you too have inquired into and found out, so as to say: “I pass over the religions proper to the barbarian nations, the rites of the Persians, the stars of the Chaldeans, the superstitions of the Egyptians, the gods of the magi; so that all these may come to nothing, because by the providence of God the whole world is daily turning to the Christian name.” This you said truly; and so is fulfilled the promise which was spoken to Abraham: “In your seed all nations will be blessed.” He said “all nations”; he did not say “all the people of all nations.” Hence it must be that the whole world is filled, not only by the fruitfulness of the growing church, but also by the mixed multitude of her enemies, by whom her piety can be exercised and tested, until the end of the separation by judgment. So this testament was also recalled to his son Isaac, the Lord saying: “And I will establish my oath which I swore to Abraham your father, and I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and I will give you and your seed all the earth, and in your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed”; so too to his grandson Jacob: “And your seed will be as the sand of the earth, and it will spread over the sea and to the south and to the north and to the east, and in you all the tribes of the earth will be blessed.” Whoever reads knows that, when Scripture says “over the sea,” it usually signifies the western region. If you had been willing to agree with this testament when brought forward, you would not have remained in the south alone. ### Scripture references - Gen 22:18: quotation, high confidence - Gen 26:3: quotation, high confidence - Gen 26:4: quotation, high confidence - Gen 28:14: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Gen 22:18; Gen 26:3–4; Gen 28:14. Augustine plays on africus, “south” (wind), and Africa. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.74 (CSEL 52:573–574; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-74). ## Against Cresconius 4.75 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-72/#p-4-75 - Source: CSEL 52:574–575 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says the Catholic church is found wherever heresies are, but not vice versa, and that broken branches are regrafted without repeating baptism, as the Donatists did with the Maximianists. ### Latin text Non ergo nobis communicant, sicut dicis, Nouatiani Arriani Patripassiani Ualentiniani Anthropiani Appelliani Marcionitae Ofitae ceteraque, ut uerbis tuis utar, nefariarum pestium, non sectarum, sacrilega nomina. uerumtamen ubicumque sunt isti, illic catholica, sicut in Africa ubi et uos, non autem, ubicumque catholica est, aut uos estis aut haeresis quaelibet illarum. unde apparet, quae sit arbor ramos suos per uniuersam terram copia ubertatis extendens et qui sint rami fracti, non habentes uitam radicis atque in suis quique iacentes et arescentes locis. sed si non permanserint in infidelitate, sicut de Israhelitis dicit apostolus, inserentur; potens est enim deus iterum inserere illos, non ut iterum accipiant sacramentum baptismatis, quod iam tractum ex arbore non mutarunt, sed ut reuiuiscant ex radice caritatis et unitatis, a qua separati sterilitate animositatis arescunt; sicut rursus inserendos putastis Praetextatum et Felicianum, quos secum praeciderat Maximianus, nec praecisorum baptismum reprobastis. quibus uere aliquid praestaretis, si non eos fragmento uestro, sed et uos et illos radici catholicae redderetis. ### English translation (Claude) It is not, then, as you say, that the Novatians, Arians, Patripassians, Valentinians, Anthropians, Apellians, Marcionites, Ophites, and the rest, to use your words, sacrilegious names of wicked plagues rather than sects, communicate with us. And yet, wherever these are, there the Catholic church is, as in Africa where you are too; but not, wherever the Catholic church is, are either you or any one of those heresies. Hence it appears which is the tree that extends its branches over the whole earth with abundance of fruitfulness, and which are the broken branches, without the life of the root, each lying and drying up in its own place. But if they do not remain in unbelief, as the apostle says of the Israelites, they will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again; not so that they receive again the sacrament of baptism, which, drawn from the tree, they have not changed, but so that they may revive from the root of love and unity, separated from which they dry up in the sterility of animosity; just as you thought Praetextatus and Felicianus, whom Maximian had cut off with himself, should be grafted in again, and you did not reject the baptism of those cut off. You would truly confer something on them if you restored not them to your fragment, but both yourselves and them to the Catholic root. ### Scripture references - Rom 11:23: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 11:23. Cresconius's list of heresies; “Anthropians” are probably anthropomorphites. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.75 (CSEL 52:574–575; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-75). ## Against Cresconius 4.76 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-72/#p-4-76 - Source: CSEL 52:575–576 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that the Donatists do not rebaptize returning schismatics, conceding that baptism remains in those who leave, though without profit. ### Latin text Iam uero ad illud quid respondeam, quod tibi uisus sum dixisse pro uobis, quoniam dixi non prodesse baptismum eis qui ab unitate discedunt, inesse illis tamen hinc probari, quod redeuntibus non restituitur? firmasti enim et uos hoc dicere, quod maioribus nostris ad ecclesiam non redeuntibus baptismus quem ibi acceperant non profuerit. hoc si diceretis. nihil inter nos aliud quaereretur, nisi quae sit ecclesia ubi baptismus prosit. sed uos non dicitis in nobis baptismum esse ac non prodesse, sed dicitis omnino non esse, quod ab eis acceperimus, qui eum discedendo perdiderant. unde nec potuisti respondere nec poteris ad illud, quod a me positum est, inesse baptismum discedentibus hinc probari, quia redeuntibus non restituitur. si enim baptismum Felicianus a uobis recedendo perdiderat, cur non denuo rediens baptizatus est, ut ei quod perdiderat redderetur? ipse denique Maximianus si ad uos redeat, non baptizatur, quod deberet utique, si perdiderat baptismum. tua quippe uerba sunt, quod in eius schismate sententia damnationis retenti simul et baptisma et ecclesiam perdiderunt. sicut ergo eis redeuntibus redditur ecclesia, reddatur baptismus; baptizentur, inquam, redeuntes, si baptismum amiserunt abscedentes. hoc quia non facitis, etiam uos fatemini ab ecclesia recedentibus inesse baptismum nec prodesse. dant ergo sicut habent, id est ut et ipsis, qui ab eis extra ecclesiam sumunt, insit baptismus nec tamen prosit. unde sicut illis redeuntibus non redditur quod non amiserunt, ita et illis non dandum est quod acceperant, sed agendum cum eis, ut per ecclesiam prosit utrisque quod extra ecclesiam inesse potuit, non prodesse. ac per hoc nec pro uestro errore aliquid dixi et ei quod dixi non respondisti. ### English translation (Claude) Now what shall I answer to your thinking I spoke for you when I said that baptism does not profit those who depart from unity, yet that it is in them is proved by the fact that it is not given again to them when they return? For you affirmed that you too say this: that the baptism our forefathers had received there did not profit them when they did not return to the church. If you said this, nothing else would be in question between us except which is the church where baptism profits. But you do not say that baptism is in us and does not profit; you say that it does not exist at all, because we received it from those who lost it by departing. Hence you could not answer, nor will you be able to answer, what I set down: that baptism is proved to be in those who depart because it is not given again to them when they return. For if Felicianus had lost baptism by withdrawing from you, why was he not baptized anew on returning, so that what he had lost might be restored to him? Finally, Maximian himself, if he returns to you, is not baptized; which he certainly ought to be if he had lost baptism. For your words are that those held by the sentence of condemnation in his schism lost at once both baptism and the church. As, then, the church is restored to them when they return, let baptism be restored; let those returning be baptized, I say, if they lost baptism by departing. Since you do not do this, you too confess that baptism is in those who withdraw from the church, and does not profit. They give, then, as they have; that is, so that in those too who receive it from them outside the church baptism is present, and yet does not profit. Hence, just as to the former, when they return, what they did not lose is not restored, so to the latter what they had received is not to be given; but action must be taken with them, so that through the church what could be present outside the church but not profit may profit both. And so I said nothing for your error, and you did not answer what I said. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.76 (CSEL 52:575–576; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-76). ## Against Cresconius 4.77 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-72/#p-4-77 - Source: CSEL 52:576–577 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers the “enclosed garden” argument by asking how Felicianus, outside the Donatist “garden,” baptized validly in their eyes. ### Latin text Adiungis etiam de horto concluso et fonte signato, quod omnino unde dictum sit non intellegis. si conclusus est, inquis, hortus et fons signatus, quomodo qui extra foris est positus et ab horto, id est ecclesia, et fonte eius, id est baptismate, separatus, potest dare quod non habet? interroga Felicianum, utrum in horto concluso fuerat, quando illi reditus quasi ad eundem hortum conclusum dilationis ianua pandebatur. an forte exinde furatus est fontem, ubi laicos suos in Maximiani schismate baptizaret? quod si ita est, ubi tunc uestri suos abluebant? an eos pariter illa dilatione distulerunt, donec fures illi ad hortum cum fonte remearent? tunc non erant isti pseudoprophetae, quando de Primiani criminibus mentiendo deceptos ad suum sacrilegium traducebant, lupi rapaces, quando seductos de grege Primiani ad suae concisionis particulas pertrahebant? negas eas quas dixi tyrannicas uestrorum in fundis alienis dominationes et bacchationes ebrietatum: nega quantum potes; non uereor, ne propterea nobiscum uos pigeat concordare. non in uos tale aliquid dixi, qualia Maximianenses damnati a uobis audire meruerunt. negas furorem circumcellionum et praecipitatorum ultro cadauerum cultus sacrilegos et profanos; non tamen negas, cum Aegyptiorum admodum exemplo pereuntium funeribus plena essent litora, quibus in ipsa morte maior est poena, quod nec ipsam inuenerunt sepulturam, his uos insepultis cadaueribus inhaesisse. ibi enim iacebant Praetextatus et Felicianus; aut si apud uos reuixerunt, quid de baptismo agitis. quem tunc mortui tradiderunt? ### English translation (Claude) You add also something about the enclosed garden and the sealed fountain, not understanding at all of what it was said. “If the garden is enclosed,” you say, “and the fountain sealed, how can one who is placed outside, separated from the garden, that is, the church, and from its fountain, that is, baptism, give what he does not have?” Ask Felicianus whether he had been in the enclosed garden when the door of the extension was being opened to him for a return, as it were, to that same enclosed garden. Or did he perhaps steal the fountain from there, so as to baptize his laity in Maximian's schism? If so, where were your people washing their own at that time? Or did they put them off likewise with that extension, until those thieves came back to the garden with the fountain? Were these men not false prophets then, when by lying about Primian's crimes they led the deceived over to their own sacrilege; ravening wolves, when they dragged those seduced from Primian's flock into the little pieces of their cutting off? You deny what I said about the tyrannical dominations of your people on other men's estates and their drunken revels: deny as much as you can; I am not afraid that on that account you will be reluctant to come to agreement with us. I said nothing of the kind against you such as the Maximianensians condemned by you deserved to hear. You deny the fury of the Circumcellions and the sacrilegious and profane cults of the corpses of those who have thrown themselves down of their own accord; yet you do not deny that, when the shores were full of corpses like those of the Egyptians perishing, whose punishment is greater in death itself, in that they did not even find burial, you cleaved to these unburied corpses. For there lay Praetextatus and Felicianus; or, if they came back to life among you, what do you do about the baptism which they, dead at that time, handed on? ### Scripture references - Song 4:12: quotation, high confidence - Matt 7:15: allusion, high confidence - Exod 14:30: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Song 4:12; Matt 7:15; Exod 14:30. The Donatists honored as martyrs those who threw themselves from cliffs. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.77 (CSEL 52:576–577; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-77). ## Against Cresconius 4.78 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-72/#p-4-78 - Source: CSEL 52:577 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine repeats that he likened the Donatist error, not Petilian, to Satan, and that the Donatists said harsher things of the Maximianists. ### Latin text Dicis me non seruasse pacem ac lenitatem, quam principio litterarum mearum promiseram, quod satanan Petilianum appellauerim. ego non Petilianum nec quemquam hominem in parte Donati, sed ipsum errorem partis Donati satanae comparaui, ex cuius laqueis homines quos diligo cupio liberari. nam lege consideratius, inuenies. quamquam etsi aliquid durius dixi, lege quae ipsi non in errorem Maximianensium, sed in ipsos homines dixeritis. Felicianum ergo Petilianus imitetur et mihi pacem desideranti non irascatur. ### English translation (Claude) You say I did not keep the peace and gentleness I had promised at the beginning of my letter, because I called Petilian Satan. I compared not Petilian nor any man in the party of Donatus, but the very error of the party of Donatus to Satan, from whose snares I desire men whom I love to be freed. Read more carefully, and you will find it. And yet, even if I said something rather harsh, read what you yourselves said, not against the error of the Maximianensians, but against the men themselves. Let Petilian, then, imitate Felicianus, and not be angry with me who desire peace. ### Scripture references - Matt 12:26: allusion, medium confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.78 (CSEL 52:577; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-78). ## Against Cresconius 4.79 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-72/#p-4-79 - Source: CSEL 52:577–579 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers insinuations about his Manichaean past and about Megalius's letter, which its author retracted, and contrasts the mutual condemnations of Felicianus and Primian. ### Latin text Tibi certe ipse non suscenseo, quod mihi ex obliquo Manicheos obiciendos putaueris propter errorem adulescentiae meae. unde non tam doleo de praeterita infelicitate mea quam gaudeo de perpetua gloria liberatoris mei. et tamen, si placet, admoneo, ut quaeras et legas, quae et quanta et quomodo aduersus Manicheorum pestilentissimam haeresem scripserim. ibi uidebis, qua fide contra eos christianam defenderim ueritatem eorumque fallacias quanta perspicuitate destruxerim, et noli esse aduersus me incredulus, cum Felicianum credas Primiano fideliter inhaesisse, qui pro Maximiano tanta crimina in eum sententia damnatoria dixerit, contra eundem uero Maximianum et ab eo dissociatus aliquid forsitan scripserit, in quem non, sicut ego in illos, adulescens laicus catechumenus inciderat, sed senex senem ei, cui nunc adiunctus est, aduersarium episcopus episcopum fecerat. unde cum ego epistulam primatis nostri, quia fecisses sub eadem urbana obliquitate mentionem, quam de me ille scripsit iratus, cum in episcoporum concilio probare quod intenderat urgeretur, eius ipsius sententia se corrigentis et de hac re ueniam postulantis legam esse damnatam, tu quaere utrum possis legere, ubi correctus damnauerit Felicianus quae non accusans, sed damnans dixit in Primianum, uel saltem ipse Primianus euacuauerit quae damnans dixit in Felicianum. quod si inueneris, nec sic par erit causa, quia ille accusationem instituerat, quam falsam esse peruidens cum ueniae postulatione damnauit, non aspernans emendationis humilitatem dignitate primatus, sed potius recolens prudens quod scriptum est: quanto magnus es, tanto humilia te in omnibus et coram deo inuenies gratiam, isti autem non inuicem apud alios accusauerant, sed aduersus inuicem iudices sederant. proinde inuicem damnauerunt, damnati concordauerunt. non inuidemus in parte Donati pacem damnatorum, si et Christi pacem non respuant in orbe terrarum. ### English translation (Claude) I am certainly not angry with you myself for thinking you should obliquely charge me with the Manichees because of the error of my youth. From that I do not so much grieve over my past unhappiness as rejoice in the everlasting glory of my deliverer. And yet, if you please, I admonish you to seek out and read what, how much, and in what way I have written against the most pestilent heresy of the Manichees. There you will see with what faith I defended the Christian truth against them and with what clarity I destroyed their deceits; and do not be incredulous toward me, when you believe that Felicianus has faithfully cleaved to Primian, who in a condemning sentence for Maximian said such crimes against him, but perhaps wrote something against that same Maximian once he was dissociated from him; Maximian, upon whom he had not fallen, as I fell among the Manichees, a young lay catechumen, but an old man, a bishop, had made an old man, a bishop, the adversary of the one to whom he is now joined. Hence, since I read that the letter of our primate, which he wrote in anger about me (since you mentioned it with the same urbane obliqueness), when he was pressed in a council of bishops to prove what he had alleged, was condemned by the sentence of that very man correcting himself and asking pardon for this matter, you seek whether you can read where Felicianus, corrected, condemned what he said against Primian, not as an accuser but as a judge condemning; or at least where Primian himself annulled what he said against Felicianus in condemning him. If you find it, even so the case will not be equal, since our primate had brought an accusation, which, seeing it false, he condemned with a request for pardon, not spurning the humility of amendment for the dignity of the primacy, but rather wisely recalling what is written: “The greater you are, the more humble yourself in all things, and you will find favor before God”; whereas these men had not accused each other before others, but had sat as judges against each other. So they condemned each other, and, condemned, they came to agreement. We do not grudge the condemned their peace in the party of Donatus, if they do not reject the peace of Christ in the world. ### Extrabiblical texts - Sir 3:18 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Megalius of Calama, primate of Numidia, retracted his letter against Augustine's ordination. Sir 3:18. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.79 (CSEL 52:577–579; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-79). ## Against Cresconius 4.80 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-72/#p-4-80 - Source: CSEL 52:579 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says Cresconius answered much but refuted nothing, and that the Maximianist case needs no eloquence to prove it. ### Latin text Cernis iam, ut arbitror, quam inaniter dixeris, quod uidearis tibi ad omnia respondisse quae mea epistula continentur. si enim propterea respondisti, quia tacere noluisti, non quidem ad omnia, sed tamen respondisti. si autem ad hoc respondisti, ut ea quae a me dicta sunt euacuares, uideo te quidem ad multa respondisse, sed nihil te uideo refellisse. consideratis autem omnibus, quae a me dicta sunt, puto quod facillime intellegas non deuitandae contentionis causa, quae nulla est cum ueritas quaeritur uel non pro uana gloria litigatur, sed causae malae diffidentia tuos nobiscum nolle conferre. ut enim hanc solam Maximianensium causam in medium proferamus, nihil contradici posse nunc saltem fortasse iam agnoscis. unde non mihi adrogans, sicut credis aut calumniaris, uelut inuictam eloquentiam sic eam uolui commendare, sed magis ut intuerentur, qui legerent, talem esse causam, pro qua adserenda uel potius demonstranda nullius sit facundiae patrocinium requirendum. ### English translation (Claude) You see now, I think, how vainly you said that you seem to yourself to have answered everything contained in my letter. For if you answered because you did not wish to keep silent, you answered, though not to everything. But if you answered in order to void what I said, I see that you answered many things, but I see that you refuted nothing. And when everything I have said is considered, I think you will very easily understand that your people refuse to confer with us not to avoid contention, which does not exist when truth is sought and one does not litigate for vain glory, but from lack of confidence in a bad case. For, to bring forward this one case of the Maximianensians, you perhaps now at least recognize that nothing can be said against it. Hence I did not wish to commend it arrogantly, as you believe or slander, as if it were invincible eloquence, but rather so that those who read might see that the case is such that, to assert it, or rather to show it, no patronage of eloquence need be sought. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.80 (CSEL 52:579; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-80). ## Against Cresconius 4.81 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-72/#p-4-81 - Source: CSEL 52:579–580 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine drops the metaphors Cresconius mocked, noting that the Maximianist case stands regardless of wording. ### Latin text Ecce iam non dico tricipitem bestiam errorem uestrum, quia suauissimus uerborum emendator es, sed dico calumniam tripertitam; nec dico nos ei tamquam tridenti telo ex hac Maximianensium causa debere resistere, sed dico tripertita defensione; nec dico in eorum fronte configite aut in ora coartate, sed dico (eorum inpudentiam cohibete sermonemque reprimite). numquid, quoniam uerba mutata sunt et ex translatis facta sunt propria. ideo Maximianensium causa mutata est, cuius conpendio sic superamini, ut nihil uobis restet, si aliquando sapiatis, nisi finita peruicaci animositate pacari? ### English translation (Claude) See, I no longer call your error a three-headed beast, since you are a most delightful corrector of words, but I say a threefold slander; nor do I say that we ought to resist it from this case of the Maximianensians as with a trident weapon, but I say with a threefold defense; nor do I say, “Strike their brow” or “Close their mouths,” but I say, “Restrain their shamelessness and check their speech.” Because the words have been changed and from figurative made literal, has the case of the Maximianensians therefore changed, by the shortcut of which you are so overcome that nothing remains for you, if you are ever wise, except to end your stubborn animosity and be at peace? ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.81 (CSEL 52:579–580; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-81). ## Against Cresconius 4.82 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-72/#p-4-82 - Source: CSEL 52:580–581 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine sums up the Maximianist case on communion, persecution, and baptism, and answers the Donatists' proof texts for refusing debate. ### Latin text Si de communione agitur non peccatorum alienorum, sed diuinorum sacramentorum, communicatum est cum damnatis et dictum est de aliis sacrilegis, qui cum damnato Maximiano communicabant, quod eos sacrilegi surculi non polluere plantaria; si de persecutione agitur, damnatos persecuti estis, animosos persecutionibus correxistis; si de baptismo agitur, in sacrilego schismate datum baptismum suscepistis: quid adhuc inaniter, ne ueritas cognoscatur errorque fugiatur, diuina non intellecta testimonia proferuntur? scriptum est: si quis se putat contentiosum esse, nos talem consuetudinem non habemus. sed nec Restitutus, qui cum Saluio Membresitano propter cellulas et agellos, ut eum locis expelleret, forensi strepitu controuersiaque conflixit, contentiosus habitus est a uobis; quanto minus debet contentiosus putari. qui non pro usurpanda uel auferenda, sed pro communicanda hereditate caelestium eis, qui aliter sapiunt, fideliter disputat! scriptum est, inquis: in aures inprudentis noli quicquam dicere, ne inrident sensatos sermones tuos. nolite nobis in aures quasi secretum dicere, si non prudentes putatis, sicut nec Christus in aures Pharisaeorum dicebat, quod tamen ad eos refellendos ipsis audientibus proferebat. palam nobis ostendite, ut si non corrigimur conuincamur, quomodo uos, si ad unitatem ueneritis, maculet orbis christianus, quos damnatus non maculat Felicianus. scriptum est: noli respondere inprudenti secundum inprudentiam eius, ne similis fias illi. nonne ibi sequitur: sed responde illi contra inprudentiam eius, ne sibi sapiens uideatur? hoc et uos facite; nolite responsione uestra nostrae quam putatis inprudentiae consentire, sed unde possit redargui respondete. respondete, inquam, quomodo baptismum, quod Maximianenses in sacrilego schismate ministrarunt, sine aliqua destructione susceperitis et in ecclesiis, quas Christus per apostolos propagauit, datum baptismum destruatis. ### English translation (Claude) If the question is of communion, not in others' sins but in divine sacraments, communion was held with the condemned, and it was said of others, sacrilegious men who were in communion with the condemned Maximian, that the shoots of the sacrilegious branch did not pollute them. If the question is of persecution, you persecuted the condemned and corrected the obstinate by persecutions. If the question is of baptism, you received baptism given in a sacrilegious schism. Why then are divine testimonies, not understood, still brought forward in vain, so that the truth may not be known and error fled? It is written, “If anyone thinks himself contentious, we have no such custom.” But Restitutus, who fought with Salvius of Membresa with the din and controversy of the forum over little cells and small fields, to expel him from his places, was not held contentious by you; how much less ought one to be thought contentious who disputes faithfully with those who think otherwise, not to usurp or take away an inheritance, but to share a heavenly one! “It is written,” you say, “‘Do not say anything into the ears of a fool, lest he mock your sensible words.’” Do not say anything into our ears as a secret, if you do not think us prudent, just as Christ did not speak into the ears of the Pharisees, though he brought forward in their hearing what refuted them. Show us openly, so that, if we are not corrected, we may be convicted, how the Christian world would defile you if you came to unity, when the condemned Felicianus does not defile you. It is written, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him.” Does not this follow there: “But answer him against his folly, lest he seem wise to himself”? Do this too; do not by your answer agree with what you think is our folly, but answer with that by which it can be refuted. Answer, I say, how you received without any destruction the baptism which the Maximianensians ministered in sacrilegious schism, and destroy the baptism given in the churches which Christ spread through the apostles. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 11:16: quotation, high confidence - Prov 23:9: quotation, high confidence - Prov 26:4: quotation, high confidence - Prov 26:5: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - 1 Cor 11:16 (in an Old Latin form); Prov 23:9; Prov 26:4–5. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.82 (CSEL 52:580–581; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-82). ## Against Cresconius 4.83 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-72/#p-4-83 - Source: CSEL 52:581–582 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine concludes the work: the Maximianist case refutes every Donatist charge, and he urges Cresconius to return to the Catholic church for the peace of Christ. ### Latin text Proinde quod in fine epistulae tuae omnia, quae supra latius abs te dicta sunt, breuiter percurrenda arbitratus es, quo lectoris memoriam recreares, eodem ordine accipe, quam nec te nec alios fallere debeas. nam et arrogantiae non est uel quaerere uel adserere ueritatem, et quod numquam putas potuisse definiri, non solum prudentibus et deum timentibus definitum est, sed etiam uos totum, quod sine fine putabatis, Maximianenses suscipiendo finistis. et uos non ad contentionem, sed ad conlationem uocamus, qui Maximianenses etiam forensibus litibus perculistis et in eis, qui in Maximiani schismate baptizati sunt, quamuis nequaquam illic baptizari debuerint, tamen Christi baptismum cognouistis et ecclesiae fontem aliter debere intellegi, ad quem nisi bonus nullus accedit, acceptato baptismo, quem sacrilegi extra dederant, declarastis. et maiores nostros uel sanctam ecclesiam quam tenemus alienis criminibus turificationis et traditionis, quamuis a uobis numquam probata sint, tamen pollui non potuisse cogimini confiteri, qui dixistis, quod socios Maximiani, quibus ad redeundum dilationem dabatis, eiusdem Maximiani sacrilegi surculi non polluere plantaria; unde nos tanto post nati multo minus possumus ad eandem traditorum et turificatorum originem pertinere, si tunc pariter uiuentium societatem maiorum nostrorum maculare non potuit. et persecutiones quamuis contra ueritatem saeuissimas nobis obicere soleatis, tamen ex aliqua parte Maximianenses persecutionibus correxistis et eos, quamuis non ipsis iam damnatis data fuerit, tamen post illius dilationis terminum suscepistis et baptismum, quem foris a uestra communione dederant quibus dilatione redeundi ianuam pandebatis, etiam post eandem dilationem cognitum et adprobatum non rescidistis. quare cum uideas nihil a te dici potuisse, quod non haec una Maximianensium causa refellat atque conuincat, da ueniam, si quo fortasse uerbo durius emisso te offendi, et si Afer in Africa tam magnam Maximianensium causam in capite Africae exortam meis admonitus litteris tam sero requisisti nec requisitam falsa narrantibus uestris, sicut iam cernis, inuenire potuisti, timete deum, tot christianas gentes tam lata per mundum christiana unitate porrectas ignotorum Afrorum ignotisque criminibus nolite perfundere et pro pace Christi redite ad ecclesiam quae non damnauit incognitos, si pro pace Donati placuit reuocare damnatos. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, since at the end of your letter you thought you should run briefly through everything you had said more fully above, to refresh the reader's memory, receive in the same order how you ought to deceive neither yourself nor others. For it is not arrogance either to seek or to assert the truth; and what you think could never be settled has been settled not only for the prudent and God-fearing, but you too settled the whole matter, which you thought endless, by receiving the Maximianensians. And we call you not to contention but to conference, you who struck the Maximianensians even with lawsuits in the forum; and who, in those baptized in Maximian's schism, although they ought by no means to have been baptized there, nevertheless recognized the baptism of Christ, and declared, by accepting the baptism which sacrilegious men had given outside, that the church's fountain, to which none but the good comes, must be understood otherwise. And you are compelled to confess that our forefathers, or the holy church which we hold, could not be polluted by others' crimes of offering incense and handing over, even if they had ever been proved by you; you who said that the associates of Maximian, to whom you gave an extension to return, were not polluted by the shoots of the same Maximian's sacrilegious branch; hence we, born so long after, can much less belong to that same origin of traitors and incense-offerers, if then it could not stain the fellowship of our forefathers who were living at the same time. And though you are accustomed to charge us with the most savage persecutions, contrary to the truth, yet you corrected the Maximianensians in some part by persecutions; and you received them after the end of that extension, although it had not been given to those already condemned; and the baptism which those to whom you opened the door of return by an extension had given outside your communion, you recognized and approved, and did not cancel even after that same extension. Therefore, since you see that nothing could be said by you that this one case of the Maximianensians does not refute and confute, forgive me if I have perhaps offended you by some word uttered rather harshly. And if you, an African in Africa, inquired so late, admonished by my letter, into so great a case of the Maximianensians that arose in the capital of Africa, and could not find it when inquired into, because your people told you falsehoods, as you now see: fear God; do not drench so many Christian nations, stretched so widely through the world in Christian unity, with the unknown crimes of unknown Africans; and for the sake of the peace of Christ return to the church which did not condemn the unknown, if for the sake of the peace of Donatus you were pleased to recall the condemned. ### Translation notes - The closing appeal repeats Against the Letters of Petilian 1.10.11. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, C. Cresc. 4.83 (CSEL 52:581–582; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-contra-cresconium/4-83).