On the One Baptism, against Petilian 20–32

Nor do we pass over without distinction that those who, being already baptized believers, deserted the Catholic Church do a humbler penance than those who were never in it; nor are they admitted to the clergy, whether they were rebaptized by the heretics, or, having been received earlier, went back to them, or were clerics or laymen among them. And those of ours who do this carelessly and perhaps make them clerics in the Catholic Church or allow them to remain so, though they are blamed with brotherly right by the more careful, yet even they do not think the clerical office should be conferred on them except on those whom they know or believe to have been amended from those evils. And so all who are separated from its unity by a wicked crime slander the Catholic Church in vain. For, to use rather the words of the apostle, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and injustice of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” This wrath, unless they correct themselves, will find these men too, who hold the truth of Christian baptism in the unrighteousness of their sacrilegious separation.

But the Catholic Church, which, as was foretold of it, is spread through all nations with abundant fruitfulness, so amends anyone’s iniquity as not to destroy in him the truth, which is not his but his Lord’s. Why, then, does this man exclaim, as if freely and confidently: “I baptized without anxiety one whom you, sacrilegious one, defiled; I baptized, I say; I did what the apostle Paul did”? Let him read where the apostle Paul did this. And if he wants it understood of those at Ephesus, let him dare to say, then, that the sacrilegious John defiled them. If he does not dare to say this, since it is a most manifest crime, let him stop at last raising fogs of false likeness from a very unlike matter.

As for what he adds about Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, about the renowned martyr Cyprian, about the seventy predecessors of Cyprian, that they did this and ordered it to be done: oh, how detestable is the error of people who think they praiseworthily imitate certain wrong deeds of famous men from whose virtues they are strangers! For in this way some would like to be compared with the apostle Peter if they denied Christ; and if they compelled the Gentiles to live like Jews, they would aspire to be called his brothers. These were blameworthy things in that great man; but such apostolic grace shone forth that they were at once wiped out, and no Christian or even bishop of our times who has neither denied Christ nor compelled the Gentiles to live like Jews can, I do not say be preferred to him, but even be equalled or closely compared with him. So too in the most glorious martyr Cyprian: if he refused to acknowledge the baptism of Christ given among heretics or schismatics, while he detested too much those whom he grieved to see separated from the Catholic unity he loved so much, his great merits went on to the triumph of martyrdom, so that by the light of the love in which he excelled that shadow was put to flight; and if the fruitful branch had anything to be pruned so as to become more fruitful, it was taken away, if by nothing else, then certainly by the final pruning-hook of his passion. Nor are we better than Cyprian because we acknowledge rather than deny the truth of baptism even in the iniquity of heretics, just as we are not better than Peter because we do not compel the Gentiles to live like Jews. This is my answer about Agrippinus and the other bishops who are said to have held those councils, who held different views in such a way as to remain in unity with those against whom they thought on this question, where love covers a multitude of sins. For to those walking thus in the truth of the church which they had reached, God could, as the apostle says, reveal also what they thought otherwise. For it was then a new question how heretics were to be received; and by its very novelty it troubled some brothers who rightly and vehemently detested the ruin of heresy, so that they believed that even this was to be rejected in heretics, the good which they held to their own harm. But to say briefly what I think on this matter: to rebaptize heretics, which those men are said to have done, was then a matter of human error; but to rebaptize Catholics, which these men still do, is always a matter of diabolical presumption.

But I want this man to solve a question for me, since, when he listed the bishops of the Roman church in order, he mentioned among them Stephen too, whom he admitted held the episcopate unblemished. Since, then, Stephen not only did not rebaptize heretics but even held that those who did so, or decreed that it be done, should be excommunicated, as the letters of other bishops and of Cyprian himself show, yet Cyprian remained with him in the peace of unity. What will they say to this? Let them shake out their wits as much as they can, and consider whether they can answer. See, there were two at one time, to say nothing of others, who thought differently: two bishops of the most eminent churches, namely of Rome and Carthage, Stephen and Cyprian, both set in Catholic unity; of whom Stephen held that the baptism of Christ was to be repeated in no one and was gravely angry with those who did it, while Cyprian thought that those baptized in heresy or schism, as not having Christ’s baptism, were to be baptized in the Catholic Church. Many thought with Cyprian, some with Stephen, both remaining in unity with them. If, then, what these men say is true, by which they try to assert or excuse the cause of their separation, that in one communion of the sacraments the bad stain the good, and therefore one must withdraw from the contagion of the bad by bodily separation lest all perish alike, it must be confessed that already then, in the times of Stephen and Cyprian, the church perished, and none was left to posterity in which Donatus himself might be spiritually born. But if they judge it wicked to say this, as it truly is wicked, if the church remained from those times to the times of Caecilian and Majorinus, without Donatus, and those admitted into it, by their account, without baptism, full of all their sins and crimes, could not destroy it by staining it, and no division was made by Cyprian and those who thought alike about baptism from their communion, since they did not think they could be stained by others’ evils in the unity and communion of the sacraments of Christ; then so the church could remain afterward too, which, growing through the whole world as was foretold of it, the others’ crimes of any betrayers and criminals could by no means stain; just as on one threshing floor the grain cannot be stained by the chaff until the time of winnowing, just as within one net the bad fish do not destroy the good by swimming with them until the time of the shore.

There was, then, no reason, but the greatest fury, by which these men, as if guarding against the communion of the bad, separated themselves from the unity of Christ, which is spread through the whole world. Unless perhaps they distinguish crimes from crimes by a wonderful art, bringing forth rules of distinction not from the Scriptures but from their own hearts, and saying that in the unity of the communion of the sacraments other crimes of others are tolerated without contamination, but that by the crime of betrayal all are held who have shared the sacraments with such men. But it is superfluous to argue longer on this, especially since they very rarely dare to say it, being ashamed themselves and sensing that they speak emptily, and when they say it they make no effort to prop it up with any divine testimony. For they are more accustomed to have on their lips, when they accuse some by the sins of others, to excuse the crime of their separation: “You saw a thief and ran with him,” and, “Do not share in others’ sins,” and, “Depart, go out from there, and touch no unclean thing,” and, “Whoever touches what is polluted is polluted,” and, “A little leaven corrupts the whole lump,” and others of this kind, in which the crime of betrayal is not distinguished from other crimes by any peculiarity, but all association with sin is forbidden. Yet if Cyprian had understood these divine testimonies or precepts as these men do, he would surely have separated himself from Stephen and would not have remained with him in the communion of Catholic unity. For Stephen, according to the view these men think must be held about baptism, by admitting into the church heretics and schismatics who, as they suppose, did not have baptism, was sharing in others’ sins; because, of course, the sins of those who had not been washed by true baptism certainly remained in them. So Cyprian ought to have departed from his communion, so as not to run with a thief, not to share in others’ sins, not to be defiled by the contagion of the unclean, not to become polluted by touching the polluted, not to be corrupted by others’ leaven. Since he did not do this, but remained in unity with them, the whole lump of that unity was then corrupted, and the church did not survive to give birth later to these men’s saints, Majorinus and Donatus. Since they by no means dare to say this, it remains for them to confess that the good remained with the bad in the communion of the Christian sacraments without any stain of their own, and that the church of Christ survived until the time of Caecilian, not without any bad people, as if already stored in the barn, but with chaff still mixed in, as set on the threshing floor. So, then, it could remain afterward too, as it does remain, until on the last day of judgment it is winnowed and cleansed.

What, then, does such great fury of separation mean on their part from the unity of the body of Christ, which, as we read prophesied and now see fulfilled, is spreading through the whole world and among all nations? Here certainly, as it is written, “a bad son calls himself just, but does not wash away his going out”; that is, he does not excuse, does not wash out, does not defend his not having feared to go out of the house of God by schismatic fury into the plague of heresy. For if he were truly just, then, as the apostle Paul with the false brothers over whom he groans in his letters, and as Cyprian with those whom he thought to be without baptism, full of their past sins, and whom he knew to be admitted to the church by Stephen, so he would remain in the church of Christ with those whom he either knew or thought unjust, without any staining of himself; and he would not desert the good because of the bad, but would rather tolerate the bad because of the good, bearing the threshing like grain with the chaff by the weight of love, not yielding to the winds even before the winnowing like the lightest dust. For in this way, persevering in Catholic unity even with the wicked, whom these nets must contain until the shore, he would yet not run with a thief, nor share in others’ sins, nor be stained by handling anyone’s uncleanness, nor be polluted by touching the polluted, nor be corrupted by anyone’s leaven. For these things happen by consent to sins, by which the serpent, through the woman, deceived the first man even in the happiness of paradise; not by communion of the sacraments, in which the unclean Judas could not contaminate his clean fellow disciples. But from the bad, with whom they share the sacraments of God, even now on the threshing floor, not yet in the barn, the good already depart and are separated by unlikeness of conduct, not by segregation of bodies; by living differently, not by going to other conventicles. So they neither become one with the bad nor depart from the unity of the church.

Why, then, do they magnify against us the crime of some betrayers or other, whom they nevertheless could never convict? But if we defend them against these men’s slanders, we will seem to be pleading the case of certain persons, not of the church. In any case, whoever and wherever the betrayers were, not only the sin of betrayers but also that of those who compelled people to hand over, and of all criminals, scandalous people, and sacrilegious people whatever, Stephen admitted into the church according to these men; because, if they did not have baptism, all the sins, however grave and dreadful, which they had committed were in them and held them guilty without any remission. Such people Stephen admitted; with such people Cyprian was in Catholic unity; and yet the church did not perish but persevered. So others’ sins stain no one in its unity; in vain did the bad son hurry to leave his father’s household; in vain does he call himself just, but he does not wash away his going out. Or perhaps they will say that those whom Stephen admitted in this way were cleansed by the very participation in unity, since love covers a multitude of sins? Would that they said it! For we too say this when we either urge or admonish them to return to unity. But on this agreement no question of baptism will any longer remain between us. For if those baptized among heretics or schismatics, when they come to the church, are cleansed by the very love of unity, surely they are rebaptized without cause.

You see, then, in this discourse to which you wanted me to reply, how much he has said for us. What need is there now for us to wash away the crimes charged by him against the bishops of the Roman church, whom he has attacked with incredible slanders? Marcellinus and his presbyters Miltiades, Marcellus, and Silvester are accused by him of the crime of handing over the divine books and of offering incense. But are they therefore also convicted, or shown to be convicted by any firm documents? He says they were wicked and sacrilegious; I answer that they were innocent. Why should I labor to prove my defense, when he did not try even faintly to prove his accusation? If there is any humanity in human affairs, I think we could more justly be blamed if we believed unknown people, whom enemies accuse without showing their crime by any testimony, to be guilty rather than innocent; because, if perhaps the truth is otherwise, what is due to humanity itself is at least rendered, when one person suspects nothing evil of another rashly and does not readily believe an accuser, when, charging a crime without witness and without any document, he has shown himself a slanderous reviler rather than a truthful accuser.

Add to this that, with Miltiades, then bishop of the Roman church, presiding by order of the emperor Constantine, to whom the accusers of Caecilian, bishop of the church of Carthage, had brought that whole case through the proconsul Anullinus, the same Caecilian was pronounced innocent. When these men’s forebears complained of this judgment to the said emperor with most importunate stubbornness, that it had not been fully or rightly examined and delivered, they said nothing about Miltiades’ betrayal or offering of incense; though they certainly ought not even to have come to his hearing, but rather to have suggested this to the emperor beforehand, or pressed for it to be suggested, that they ought not to plead their case before a betrayer of the divine books, defiled by sacrifices to idols. Since, then, they neither suggested this beforehand nor, after judgment was given against them for Caecilian, thought it worth charging even when defeated and angry, why do they now weave such late, empty slanders, as if to darken the innocence of Caecilian by discoloring the judge Miltiades, and the Roman church itself, where they could neither condemn anyone by any judgment of theirs nor substitute any of their own in the place of one condemned; against which they at first sent stealthily, from far away, imported intruders for a very few Africans of their party, whom this man was not ashamed to mention by name, until they ordained for a deceived little congregation bishops as if their own? Surely, after Caecilian’s clearing, they accused before the emperor Felix, bishop of Abthugni, saying that he was a most manifest betrayer, and that therefore Caecilian could not be a bishop because he had been ordained by that betrayer. Then Constantine did not refuse a hearing even to this accusation of theirs, though he had found them slanderous in the fabricated crimes of Caecilian, and so ordered that Felix’s case be examined. It was examined in Africa by the proconsul Aelianus; Felix too was declared innocent. The proconsular minutes survive; let anyone who wishes take and read them. This pertains not only to the crowning demonstration of Caecilian’s innocence, the most evident clearing of Felix himself, and the exposure of the slanders of those who in their council had called him the source of all evils, but also to considering the life of Miltiades as most pure of their accusations. Unless perhaps anyone is so foolish as to believe that, when they did not spare Felix, by whom Caecilian had been ordained, they could have spared Miltiades, by whom he had been acquitted, if any rumor whatever had blamed that bishop’s life, even if no wound of conscience had destroyed him. Or would what had been fabricated about the forum of Abthugni be charged by them, and what had been done on the Capitol of the Romans be kept silent?

And what should I answer about Mensurius, when in his time, until the day of his death, no congregation of unity was split, and the very letter of Secundus of Tigisi, by which he is said to have been rebuked, confirms that they wrote to each other peaceably and remained in the fellowship of the college? As for his wishing to speak also about the church of Cirta, and attacking the Catholic bishops there with whatever abuse he liked: what else did he achieve, by reviling holy men of our own times, well known to us, than to show well enough what we ought to think about the unknown men whom he reviles likewise? Accordingly, if Profuturus, who died a very few years ago, and Fortunatus, who is still in the body and succeeded him as bishop, were Manichees, then so were those men betrayers, whom they do not cease to accuse, utterly unknown and far from our times; and the life of these, clear of these men’s insults, is now very well known to us.

It is indeed no small and no inglorious consolation to any of us if we are accused by the enemies of the church together with the church itself; yet its defense does not consist in the defense of those persons whom these men attack by name with false accusations. In any case, whatever Marcellinus, Marcellus, Silvester, Miltiades, Mensurius, Caecilian, and the others were, against whom they charge what they like for the sake of their dissension, they in no way prejudice the Catholic Church spread through the whole world; we are in no way crowned by their innocence, in no way condemned by their iniquity. If they were good, they were cleansed like grains in the threshing of the Catholic threshing floor; if they were bad, they were crushed like straw in the threshing of the Catholic threshing floor. Within this threshing floor both good and bad can be; outside it the good cannot be. Whoever is separated from this unity by the wind of pride, like chaff alone, why does he slander the Lord’s threshing floor because of the chaff mixed in it?

We too say, and not only say but prove by the records of church and public documents, that Secundus of Tigisi, by whose assembled council they say Caecilian was condemned, gave peace to confessed betrayers so that there would be no schism, when the crime of betrayal had been charged against him too by Purpurius of Liniata; we say that Victor of Rusicade, Donatus of Calama, Donatus of Mascula, Marinus of Aquae Tibilitanae, and Silvanus of Cirta were betrayers, and the same men the severest condemners of supposed betrayers. This we prove by ecclesiastical, municipal, and judicial records. But neither are all in the party of Donatus betrayers because these were in it, nor is the party of Donatus innocent if these men are shown innocent of the iniquity of betrayal. For we listen to holy Scripture better than either to slander anyone about others’ sins or to fear a like slander from anyone. For the soul that sins, it shall die; and each will bear his own burden; and whoever eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment not to another but to himself; and both are let grow until the harvest, lest, when the weeds are gathered before the time, the wheat be rooted up with them; and the kids and lambs are pastured mixed in the best pastures until they are separated by the Shepherd who cannot err; and the nets of unity are filled with every kind of fish until they are brought to the judgment of the shore. Except that these men prejudge themselves by their own perverse and false judgment, saying that they are justly separated from the communion of the Christian world because of others’ sins. For by this absurd and insane opinion they bring it about themselves that the sins of some of their own are charged to all. If they think this just, all of them are guilty of any most manifest crime found among them in a single man. But if they recognize this to be unjust, as it is, all of them are guilty of a most wicked separation.

Now, since in this discourse the question is rather about the one baptism, let our discussion be concluded where it began. Just as in the very unity of the Lord’s threshing floor neither are the bad to be praised because of the good nor the good to be deserted because of the bad; just as in one person neither is his perversity to be accepted because of what is sound in him, nor his soundness to be denied because of what is perverse in him; since in the iniquity of the Jews the truth of the resurrection of the dead is held, and in the iniquity of the Gentiles the truth of the one God who founded the world is held, and in the iniquity of those who scatter because they do not gather with Christ is held the truth by which in his name they drive out the unclean spirit, and in the iniquity of sacrilegious temples was found the truth by which they worshiped the unknown God, and in the iniquity of demons was found the truth by which they confessed Christ: so too the truth found in the iniquity of heretics, by which the sacrament of baptism is held, is not to be denied.