# On the One Baptism, against Petilian - Author: [Augustine of Hippo](https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/authors/augustine-of-hippo/) - Latin title: *De unico baptismo contra Petilianum* - Date: ca. 410–411 (approximate) - Source: Michael Petschenig, ed., Sancti Aureli Augustini scripta contra Donatistas, pars III, CSEL 53 (Vienna: Tempsky; Leipzig: Freytag, 1910) (Latin text: Michael Petschenig, Liber de unico baptismo (CSEL 53, 1910), 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-unico-baptismo/ - Passages: 32 ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-1 - Source: CSEL 53:3 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine introduces his reply to a Donatist treatise “On the One Baptism,” given him by his friend Constantine. ### Latin text Respondere diuersa sentientibus et a regula ueritatis errantibus, Constantine frater, saepissime cogimur etiam de his rebus, quas aliis atque aliis sermonibus frequentauimus. quod utiliter existimo fieri et propter eorum ingenia tardiora, qui putant aliud dici, cum aliquid legunt aliter dici, et propter ipsam disputationum copiam, ut non solum ad diligentes res rara perueniat, sed quodlibet ex multis in manus etiam neglegentioris incurrat. proinde sermonem de unico baptismo ab eis conpositum, a quibus baptismus iteratur, quem mihi, cum in rure simul essemus, a nescio quo Donatistarum presbytero acceptum dedisti atque ut ei responderem multum petisti, non nisi uerborum strepitu inflatum et calumniosis criminationibus asperatum uide adiuuante domino quanta facilitate confutem. ### English translation (Claude) We are very often compelled, brother Constantine, to answer those who think differently and stray from the rule of truth, even about matters which we have treated repeatedly in one discourse after another. I think this is done usefully, both because of the slower wits of those who think something different is being said when they read the same thing said differently, and because of the very abundance of the discussions, so that the matter reaches not only the diligent as a rarity, but something out of many falls into the hands even of the more careless. Accordingly, see with what ease, with the Lord’s help, I refute the discourse on the one baptism composed by those by whom baptism is repeated. You gave it to me when we were together in the country, having received it from some Donatist presbyter or other, and you asked me earnestly to answer it; it is puffed up with nothing but a din of words and roughened with slanderous accusations. ### Translation notes - On the One Baptism (De unico baptismo), written about 410–411, answers a Donatist work defending rebaptism; Augustine later attributes it to Petilian (Retractations 2.34). Constantine is otherwise unknown. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 1 (CSEL 53:3; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/1). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-2 - Source: CSEL 53:3–4 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Donatist complains that a secret rite is debated publicly; Augustine answers that what is urged openly and harms in secret must be openly refuted. ### Latin text Prima illic inuidia est, quod uentilatur in publico res secreta. taceant ergo, qui hoc fieri debere non putant, aut si ad loquendum cogi se dicunt, ut respondeant contra sentientibus, haec etiam nostra causa est, ut respondeamus non solum contra sentientibus, uerum etiam contra facientibus. debet enim palam redargui quod in occulto nocet, quia et palam defenditur cum suadetur, ut in occulto noceat cum perficitur. nam quis coram profanis quemquam baptizat? et tamen baptizari christianos nullus profanus ignorat, qui audit in publico quod, si credit, percipiat in secreto. ### English translation (Claude) The first complaint there is that a secret matter is aired in public. Then let those be silent who think this ought not to be done; or, if they say they are compelled to speak in order to answer those who think differently, this is our reason too: to answer not only those who think differently but also those who act differently. For what does harm in secret ought to be refuted openly, since it is also defended openly when it is urged, so as to do harm in secret when it is carried out. For who baptizes anyone in front of the uninitiated? And yet no uninitiated person is unaware that Christians are baptized, who hears in public what, if he believes, he may receive in secret. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 2 (CSEL 53:3–4; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/2). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-3 - Source: CSEL 53:4 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Donatist claims Catholics accept his baptism as his; Augustine answers that baptism is Christ’s, not the minister’s, and to repeat it would be sacrilege. ### Latin text Uideamus ergo de baptismatis iteratione quid dicant, qui uerecundantur hoc in aperto dicere, quod utinam in aperto timerent admittere: ubi sit, inquit, uerum baptisma quaeritur, deinde subiungit: usque adeo meum est, ut, quod a me unicum datum est, nec ab ipsis sacrilegis iteretur. cui respondemus: sacrilegus non est qui unicum baptisma, non quod tuum, sed quod Christi est, iterare non audet. Christi est enim unica hominis in baptismate consecratio, tua est autem unici baptismatis iteratio. corrigo in te quod tuum est, agnosco quod Christi est. hoc enim iustum est, ut, cum mala hominum reprobamus, quaecumque in illis bona dei repperimus approbemus. hoc, inquam, iustum est, ut etiam in sacrilego non uiolem quod uerum inuenio sacramentum, ne sic emendem sacrilegum, ut in eo perpetrem sacrilegium. ### English translation (Claude) Let us see, then, what they say about repeating baptism, those who are ashamed to say this openly; would that they feared to do it openly! “The question is,” he says, “where true baptism is.” Then he adds: “It is so much mine that what was given by me as one is not repeated even by the sacrilegious themselves.” To him we answer: the man is not sacrilegious who does not dare to repeat the one baptism, not because it is yours but because it is Christ’s. For the one consecration of a person in baptism is Christ’s; but the repetition of the one baptism is yours. I correct in you what is yours; I acknowledge what is Christ’s. For this is just, that when we reject the evil of people we approve whatever good of God we find in them. This, I say, is just, that even in a sacrilegious man I should not violate what I find to be a true sacrament, so that I do not amend the sacrilegious man in such a way as to commit sacrilege in him. ### Translation notes - The Donatist author’s words are quoted as his. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 3 (CSEL 53:4; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/3). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-4 - Source: CSEL 53:4–5 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: As a Jew converting keeps his true beliefs while his errors are corrected, so a heretic’s true baptism, given by the Gospel rule, is kept while his error is corrected. ### Latin text Nam sic sunt isti mali in baptismo bono, quemadmodum sunt Iudaei mali in lege bona. itaque ut illi per ipsam legem iudicabuntur, quam malitia sua malam non fecerunt, ita et isti per ipsum baptismum iudicabuntur, quem bonum mali tenuerunt. ergo quemadmodum Iudaeus cum ad nos uenerit, ut christianus fiat, non in eo destruimus bona dei sed mala ipsius — nam quod errat non credendo, quod Christus iam uenerit natusque et passus sit et resurrexerit, hoc emendamus eaque infidelitate destructa fidem qua haec creduntur adstruimus, item quod errat umbris ueterum sacramentorum inhaerendo dissuademus iamque uenisse tempus, quo haec auferenda atque mutanda prophetae praedixerant, demonstramus; quod uero unum deum colendum credit, qui fecit caelum et terram, quod omnia idola et sacrilegia gentium detestatur, quod futurum expectat iudicium, quod uitam sperat aeternam, quod de carnis resurrectione non dubitat, laudamus approbamus agnoscimus, sicut credebat credenda, sicut tenebat tenenda firmamus —, ita etiam cum ad nos uenit schismaticus uel haereticus, ut catholicus fiat, schisma eius et haeresim dissuadendo et destruendo rescindimus, sacramenta uero christiana, si eadem in illo inuenimus, et quidquid aliud ueri tenet absit ut uiolemus, absit ut si semel danda nouimus iteremus, ne, dum uitia humana curamus, diuina medicamenta damnemus aut quaerendo sanare quod uulneratum non est hominem saucium et ubi sanus est uulneremus. proinde si de aliqua re ad fidem christianam et catholicam pertinente, si denique de ipsa etiam trinitatis unitate dissentientem haereticum inuenio et tamen euangelica et ecclesiastica regula baptizatum, intellectum hominis corrigo, non dei uiolo sacramentum. loquor de Iudaeis et schismaticis uel haereticis sub Christi utcumque nomine errantibus. ### English translation (Claude) For these men are bad in a good baptism just as the Jews are bad in a good law. So, just as the Jews will be judged by the law itself, which their malice did not make bad, so these will be judged by the baptism itself, which, being bad, they held while it was good. So, just as when a Jew comes to us to become a Christian, we do not destroy in him the good things of God but his own evil things (for we amend his error in not believing that Christ has already come, been born, suffered, and risen; and, that unbelief destroyed, we build up the faith by which these things are believed; likewise we dissuade him from his error in clinging to the shadows of the old sacraments, and show that the time has already come when the prophets foretold that these would be taken away and changed; but his believing that the one God is to be worshiped, who made heaven and earth, his detesting all the idols and sacrileges of the nations, his awaiting the judgment to come, his hoping for eternal life, his not doubting the resurrection of the flesh, we praise, approve, acknowledge, and confirm, as he believed what is to be believed and held what is to be held): so too, when a schismatic or heretic comes to us to become a Catholic, we cut away his schism and heresy by dissuading and destroying them; but the Christian sacraments, if we find the same in him, and whatever else of truth he holds, far be it that we should violate them, far be it that we should repeat what we know is to be given once, lest, while we cure human vices, we condemn the divine remedies, or, by seeking to heal what is not wounded, wound the injured man where he is sound. Accordingly, if I find a heretic who dissents on some matter belonging to the Christian and Catholic faith, even on the very unity of the Trinity, and yet he was baptized by the Gospel and ecclesiastical rule, I correct the man’s understanding; I do not violate God’s sacrament. I speak of Jews, and of schismatics or heretics straying in any way under the name of Christ. ### Scripture references - Rom 2:12: allusion, medium confidence - Col 2:17: allusion, medium confidence - Heb 10:1: allusion, low confidence ### Translation notes - Augustine’s comparison with the Jews and their law is translated as written. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 4 (CSEL 53:4–5; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/4). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-5 - Source: CSEL 53:5–6 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Paul in Rom 1 condemns the idolaters’ lie but affirms the true knowledge of God they held in unrighteousness. ### Latin text De ipsis gentilibus idolorumque cultoribus multa utique a nobis diuersitate distantibus nihil aliud nobis demonstrat apostolus, nisi ut in ipsis quoque ita quidquid prauum est corrigamus, ut quod forte rectum est approbemus. nam utique idolatras et quod est grauius non tantum cultores, sed et ipsos etiam institutores simulacrorum redarguebat ubi ait: qui cognoscentes deum non sicut deum glorificauerunt aut gratias egerunt, sed euanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum. dicentes se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt et immutauerunt gloriam incorruptibilis dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis et uolucrum et quadrupedum et serpentium. talia quippe nouimus fuisse simulacra Aegyptiorum, ubi et instituta esse multiplicior multoque ignominiosior idolatria perhibetur. numquid tamen cognitionem dei negauit in illis fuisse ac non potius confirmauit dicens: cognoscentes deum non ut deum glorificauerunt? si ergo istam cognitionem tamquam mendacium refellere et destruere conaretur, quod eam in sacrilegis inuenisset, nonne, quod absit, ueritatis inimicus existeret? ideoque id quod immutauerunt in mendacium suum — nam et hic dixit: immutauerunt gloriam dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis, talem scilicet fingentes deum, qualis non est deus, et non sicut eum cognouerunt tradentes hominibus, et paulo post de talibus dicit: qui immutauerunt ueritatem dei in mendacium, et coluerunt et seruierunt creaturae potius quam creatori, qui est benedictus in saecula; ueritas quippe creaturae a deo est, non est deus, quam illi in mendacium conuerterunt, tamquam deos colentes solem et lunam et quaecumque caelestia atque terrestria —: quod ergo immutauerunt in mendacium suum, culpat detestatur euertit, quod autem uerum in doctrina quamuis multis falsitatibus permixta confusaque seruarunt, approbat attestatur affirmat. nam et hic eundem locum ita coepit, ut diceret: reuelatur enim ira dei de caelo super omnem impietatem et iniustitiam hominum eorum, qui ueritatem in iniquitate detinent, non abnegans ueritatem quamuis in ini- ### English translation (Claude) As for the Gentiles themselves and the worshipers of idols, who are far removed from us by many differences, the apostle shows us nothing else than that in them too we should so correct whatever is wrong as to approve whatever may be right. For he was certainly rebuking idolaters, and, what is worse, not only the worshipers but the very founders of images, when he says: “Who, knowing God, did not glorify him as God or give thanks, but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed beasts and serpents.” Such, we know, were the images of the Egyptians, where an idolatry more varied and much more shameful is said to have been instituted. Yet did he deny that knowledge of God had been in them, and not rather confirm it, saying, “Knowing God, they did not glorify him as God”? If, then, he had tried to refute and destroy that knowledge as a lie because he found it in the sacrilegious, would he not, far be it, have shown himself an enemy of the truth? And so what they changed into their lie (for here too he said, “They changed the glory of God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man,” that is, imagining God to be such as God is not, and not handing him on to men as they knew him; and a little later he says of such people, “who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever”; for the truth of the creature is from God; it is not God; and they turned it into a lie, worshiping as gods the sun and the moon and whatever things in heaven and on earth): what, then, they changed into their lie, he blames, detests, and overturns; but what true thing they kept in their teaching, though mixed and confused with many falsehoods, he approves, attests, and affirms. For here too he began the same passage by saying: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and injustice of those men who hold the truth in unrighteousness,” not denying the truth, though held in unrighteousness; ### Scripture references - Rom 1:21–23: quotation, high confidence - Rom 1:25: quotation, high confidence - Rom 1:18: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The staged section ends in the middle of the word “iniquitate”, which continues in the next section; the clause is completed here in translation. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 5 (CSEL 53:5–6; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/5). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-6 - Source: CSEL 53:6–7 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Paul at Athens confirmed the pagan poets’ truth and the altar “to an unknown god,” as Cyprian too used pagan authors for the one God. ### Latin text quitate detentam, et in Actibus apostolorum cum de deo uno et uero Athenienses doceret, quod in illo uiuimus, mouemur et sumus, continuo subiunxit: sicut quidam secundum uos dixerunt. hoc igitur, quod in deo uiuimus et mouemur et sumus, ex illa ueritate est, quam et illi impii simulacrorum cultores in iniquitate detinent, qui cognoscentes deum non sicut deum glorificauerunt. hanc tamen ueritatem, sicut uidemus, apud impios et sacrilegos inuentam non destruit, sed confirmat apostolus eiusque utitur testimonio ad docendos eos, qui ista nesciebant. huius regulae apostolicae sectator episcopus Cyprianus de uno deo uero aduersus multorum deorum falsorumque cultores disputans multa profert testimonia de libris eorum, quos praeclaros auctores habent, hoc est ex illa ueritate quam in iniquitate detinent. multo autem mirabilius est quod fecit apostolus, ut eorum fana circumiens ara quadam inter aras daemonum inuenta, in qua scriptum esset: ignoto deo, neque hoc negando et refellendo destruxerit, sed potius confirmando hinc etiam reppererit oportunissimum suae disputationis exordium dicens: quem uos ignorantes colitis, hunc ego annuntio uobis. ### English translation (Claude) and in the Acts of the Apostles, when he was teaching the Athenians about the one true God, that “in him we live and move and are,” he at once added, “as some of your own have said.” This, then, that we live and move and are in God, is from that truth which those impious worshipers of images, too, hold in unrighteousness, who, knowing God, did not glorify him as God. Yet this truth, as we see, found among the impious and sacrilegious, the apostle does not destroy but confirms, and uses its testimony to teach those who did not know these things. A follower of this apostolic rule, Bishop Cyprian, arguing for the one true God against the worshipers of many false gods, brings forward many testimonies from the books of those whom they regard as distinguished authors, that is, from that truth which they hold in unrighteousness. Much more wonderful is what the apostle did, when, going round their shrines, he found among the altars of demons an altar on which was written, “To an unknown god,” and did not destroy this by denying and refuting it, but rather, by confirming it, found in it even a most fitting opening for his speech, saying: “What you worship unknowing, this I proclaim to you.” ### Scripture references - Acts 17:28: quotation, high confidence - Rom 1:21: quotation, high confidence - Acts 17:23: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Aratus, Phaen. 5 (Aratus, Phaenomena): allusion, medium confidence - Cyprian, Idol. 6 (That Idols Are Not Gods): allusion, low confidence ### Translation notes - Acts 17:28 quotes Aratus, Phaenomena 5. Cyprian’s use of pagan authors: That Idols Are Not Gods (Quod idola dii non sint). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 6 (CSEL 53:6–7; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/6). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-7 - Source: CSEL 53:7–9 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: As Paul used the Corinthians’ true baptism to rebuke their schisms, the church keeps the heretic’s true baptism while correcting his division. ### Latin text Hanc itaque et nos per maiores nostros traditam nobis sequentes apostolicam regulam si quid recti etiam in peruersis inuenerimus, eorum peruersitate correcta illud quod rectum est minime uiolamus, ut in uno homine ex his quae uera tenet etiam falsa emendentur, non ex falsis conuictis etiam uera destruantur. temporibus apostolorum qui dicebant: ego quidem sum Pauli, ego autem Apollo, ego uero Cephae, quamuis non per impiorum sed sanctorum nomina ipsi tamen impia schismata faciebant; hoc ipsorum erat proprium detestabile uitium. quod uero sciebant Christum pro se esse crucifixum et se in eius nomine baptizatos, non erroris eorum, sed diuini apud eos muneris erat; hanc dei ueritatem in iniquitate suorum schismatum detinebant. hanc adprehendens beatissimus Paulus non per illa uitia destructa etiam istam destruit, sed per hanc confirmatam illa emendanda conuincit — numquid Paulus pro uobis, inquit, crucifixus est, aut in nomine Pauli baptizati estis? —, ut per uerum dei quod tenebant de suo falso erubescerent quod agebant. sicut ergo dicitur Iudaeo: tene fidem resurrectionis mortuorum sicut tenebas, sed crede iam Christum resurrexisse a mortuis quod non credebas; ueritatem quippe dei de mortuis resurrecturis in tua iniquitate detines, qua Christum resurrexisse non credis; sicut idolorum cultori dicitur: tene ab uno deo uero mundum esse conditum quod tenebas, sed noli credere deos esse ligna et lapides et ipsius mundi quaslibet particulas quas colebas; dei enim ueritatem, qua credis ab ipso conditum mundum, in tua detines iniquitate, qua deorum cultor uis esse falsorum: sic etiam haeretico dicitur, qui sacramenta christiana, sicut in ecclesia catholica traduntur, nulla sua falsitate mutauit: tene christianum baptismum in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti sicut tenebas, sed agnosce Christi ecclesiam toto sicut prophetatum est orbe crescentem, cui sacrilega uoce maledicebas; dei enim ueritatem de unitate baptismatis in iniquitate detines tuae diuisionis. corrige iniquitatem haeretici figmenti, ne perdat te, et noli superbire de ueritate christiani sacramenti, quae ibi est ut iudicet te. ego autem absit ut sic detester iniquitatem tuam, ut Christi abnegem ueritatem, quam in te inuenio ad damnationem tuam, absit ut sic te corrigam, ut illud unde te corrigo destruam, nisi forte destruere debeo uerum quod inuenio in anima haereticorum, cum apostolus non destruxerit uerum quod inuenit in lapide paganorum. ### English translation (Claude) Following this apostolic rule, then, handed down to us through our forebears, if we find anything right even in the perverse, we correct their perversity and by no means violate what is right, so that in one man the false things are amended by the true things he holds, not the true things destroyed when the false are refuted. In the times of the apostles, those who said, “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas,” though by the names not of impious but of holy men, still made impious schisms; this was their own detestable vice. But their knowing that Christ was crucified for them and that they were baptized in his name was not of their error but of God’s gift among them; this truth of God they held in the unrighteousness of their schisms. Laying hold of this, the most blessed Paul did not, in destroying those vices, destroy it too, but by confirming it convicted those vices as needing amendment (“Was Paul crucified for you,” he says, “or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”), so that by the truth of God which they held they might blush at the falsehood of their own which they were doing. So, just as it is said to a Jew, “Hold the faith in the resurrection of the dead as you held it, but believe now that Christ has risen from the dead, which you did not believe; for you hold God’s truth about the resurrection of the dead in your unrighteousness, by which you do not believe that Christ has risen”; just as it is said to an idol-worshiper, “Hold, as you held, that the world was founded by the one true God, but do not believe that wood and stones and whatever parts of the world you worshiped are gods; for you hold the truth of God, by which you believe the world was founded by him, in your unrighteousness, by which you wish to be a worshiper of false gods”: so too it is said to a heretic who has changed the Christian sacraments, as they are handed on in the Catholic Church, by no falsehood of his own: “Hold the Christian baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as you held it; but acknowledge the church of Christ growing through the whole world, as was prophesied, which you cursed with a sacrilegious voice; for you hold God’s truth about the oneness of baptism in the unrighteousness of your division. Correct the unrighteousness of your heretical fabrication, so that it may not destroy you, and do not be proud of the truth of the Christian sacrament, which is there to judge you. But far be it from me so to detest your unrighteousness as to deny the truth of Christ, which I find in you to your condemnation; far be it from me so to correct you as to destroy that by which I correct you”; unless perhaps I ought to destroy the truth I find in the soul of heretics, when the apostle did not destroy the truth he found on the stone of the pagans. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 1:12–13: quotation, high confidence - Rom 1:18: allusion, high confidence - Matt 28:19: allusion, high confidence - Acts 17:23: allusion, medium confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 7 (CSEL 53:7–9; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/7). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-8 - Source: CSEL 53:9–10 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: As the Athenians worshiped the true God unknowingly outside the church, heretics give true baptism outside it; it profits them nothing but is to be acknowledged. ### Latin text Plus est unus deus quam unus baptismus — neque enim baptismus deus est, sed ideo magnum aliquid est, quia sacramentum est dei —, et tamen ipse unus deus etiam extra ecclesiam ab ignorantibus colebatur. sic ergo et unus baptismus etiam extra ecclesiam ab ignorantibus datur. qui dicit fieri non potuisse, ut deus unus et uerus ab ignorantibus extra ecclesiam coleretur, uideat non quid mihi, sed quid ipsi apostolo ualeat respondere dicenti: quem uos ignorantes colitis, hunc ego annuntio uobis. Quamobrem sicut nihil eis proderat ad salutem, qui uerum deum ignorantes eum tamen colebant, immo et oberat ad perniciem, quod falsos deos simul colentes eidem uero deo sacrilegam iniuriam faciebant, sic nihil prodest haereticis ad salutem, quod extra ecclesiam uerum baptismum per ignorantiam et tradunt et tenent, immo et obest ad damnationem, quod in sacrilega iniquitate erroris humani etiam diuini sacramenti non per quam mundentur, sed per quam seuerius iudicentur detinent ueritatem. et sicut apostolus, quando illos sacrilegos corrigebat, deum tamen uerum, qui extra ecclesiam ab eis ignorantibus colebatur, agnoscebat potius quam negabat, sic etiam nos, quando haereticorum (in) sacrilega separatione errores corrigimus, baptismum tamen uerum, quem per ignorantiam extra ecclesiam tradunt, utique agnoscere, non negare debemus. ### English translation (Claude) The one God is more than the one baptism (for baptism is not God, but it is something great because it is a sacrament of God); and yet the one God himself was worshiped even outside the church by those who did not know him. So too the one baptism is given even outside the church by those who do not know. Whoever says it could not have happened that the one true God was worshiped outside the church by those who did not know him, let him see what he can answer, not to me, but to the apostle himself, who says, “What you worship unknowing, this I proclaim to you.” Therefore, just as it profited nothing for salvation to those who worshiped the true God without knowing him, and indeed harmed them to ruin, because by worshiping false gods at the same time they did sacrilegious injury to the same true God; so it profits heretics nothing for salvation that they hand on and hold true baptism outside the church through ignorance, and indeed it harms them to condemnation, because in the sacrilegious unrighteousness of human error they hold the truth even of the divine sacrament, not to be cleansed by it but to be judged more severely by it. And just as the apostle, when he was correcting those sacrilegious men, acknowledged rather than denied the true God who was worshiped by them outside the church without knowing him, so we too, when we correct the errors of heretics in their sacrilegious separation, ought certainly to acknowledge, not deny, the true baptism which they hand on through ignorance outside the church. ### Scripture references - Acts 17:23: quotation, high confidence - Eph 4:5: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The editor’s addition “(in)” is translated. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 8 (CSEL 53:9–10; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/8). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-9 - Source: CSEL 53:10 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Paul’s baptizing of John’s disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19) does not support rebaptism: John was no heretic, and his baptism was not yet Christ’s. ### Latin text Sed: Paulus, inquiunt, cum uenisset Ephesum, quosdam, qui se dicebant Iohannis baptismate baptizatos, baptizari iussit in Christo. quisquis isto exemplo schismaticos et haereticos baptizandos putat, audeat dicere, si potest, haereticum uel schismaticum Iohannem fuisse. hoc si nefas est dicere, profecto illis hominibus quod deerat datum est, non quod inerat inprobatum, siue mentiti fuerint se habere baptismum Iohannis, sicut nonnulli arbitrantur, siue quia baptismus Iohannis non erat baptismus Christi, sed tamen militans Christo, sicut legis uetera sacramenta praecursorio quodam et praefiguratorio fungebantur officio. sed: si post Iohannem amicum sponsi baptizatum est, inquiunt, quanto magis post haereticum baptizandum est! potest alius uelut iusta similiter indignatione commotus dicere: (si post Iohannem baptizatum est, qui uinum penitus non bibebat, quanto post ebriosum iustius baptizandum est! hoc ergo isti faciant, si possunt; baptizent post ebriosos suos, si post Iohannem sobrium apostoli baptizarunt. quid hinc respondent, nisi propterea se post istos non baptizare, quia per eos qui baptizati sunt non eorum, sed Christi baptismum perceperunt? credant ergo propterea baptizatum esse post Iohannem, quia uel nullum illi baptismum habebant uel Christi baptismum nondum habebant. ### English translation (Claude) But, they say, “Paul, when he came to Ephesus, ordered certain people who said they had been baptized with John’s baptism to be baptized in Christ.” Whoever thinks from this example that schismatics and heretics are to be baptized, let him dare to say, if he can, that John was a heretic or a schismatic. If it is wicked to say this, surely what was lacking was given to those people, not what was in them rejected; whether they lied in saying they had John’s baptism, as some think, or because John’s baptism was not the baptism of Christ, though it served Christ, just as the old sacraments of the law performed a kind of forerunning and prefiguring office. But they say: “If after John, the friend of the bridegroom, people were baptized, how much more must they be baptized after a heretic!” Another, moved as it were by a similarly just indignation, might say: “If after John, who drank no wine at all, people were baptized, how much more justly must they be baptized after a drunkard!” Let these men do this, then, if they can: let them baptize after their own drunkards, if the apostles baptized after sober John. What do they answer to this, but that they do not baptize after such men because those who were baptized by them received not their baptism but Christ’s? Let them believe, then, that people were baptized after John because they either had no baptism or did not yet have Christ’s baptism. ### Scripture references - Acts 19:1–5: allusion, high confidence - John 3:29: allusion, high confidence - Luke 1:15: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The Donatist argument is quoted as theirs. John the Baptist as abstaining from wine: Luke 1:15; the friend of the bridegroom: John 3:29. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 9 (CSEL 53:10; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/9). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-10 - Source: CSEL 53:10–12 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Donatist author answers his own objection with Matt 12:30 and 7:21–23, but these texts support the Catholic case. ### Latin text Hoc quidem etiam ipse sibi cui respondemus obposuit obpositumque non soluit. ait enim: dicit forsitan aliquis: sed hi, quos Paulus iterum baptizauit, baptismo Iohannis abluti fuerunt, non baptismo Iesu Christi. unde rebaptizari dico non oportere quos constat esse a traditoribus, tamen in Christi nomine baptizatos. hoc cum ipse sibi proposuisset, adtende quemadmodum frustra respondere conatus sit: huic, inquit, rei dominus Christus respondit his uerbis: qui mecum non colligit spargit, et iterum: non omnis qui dicit mihi domine domine), intrabit in regnum caelorum. multi enim dicent mihi in illa die: domine domine, nonne in tuo nomine prophetauimus et in tuo nomine daemonia eiecimus et in tuo nomine uirtutes multas fecimus? et tunc dicam illis: non noui uos; recedite a me, operarii iniquitatis. perdidisse igitur falsum opus non dubium est, qui tametsi in nomine Iesu Christi, sacrilegi tamen ausi sunt operari. uelint nolint, proinde traditores sacrilegis sacramentis Christum magis offendunt, qui si et dicere audeant: in nomine tuo prophetauimus, dicet illis ut ceteris: recedite a me, operarii iniquitatis; non noui uos. recte illis hoc dicet, quoniam quidem in indignis non dissimiles causae sunt baptizare, daemonia pellere ceterasque mirabiles fecisse uirtutes. uide quam multa dixit et quod sibi ex aduerso proposuit soluere omnino non potuit; nec solum non soluit, sed etiam nos ipsos quae aduersus eos dicere deberemus ammonuit. neque enim tantum nihil eum adiuuant haec euangelica testimonia, sed etiam causae nostrae plurimum suffragantur. ### English translation (Claude) This indeed the man we are answering put to himself as an objection, and having put it did not resolve it. For he says: “Perhaps someone says: ‘But those whom Paul baptized again had been washed with John’s baptism, not with the baptism of Jesus Christ. Hence I say that those ought not to be rebaptized who, it is agreed, were baptized by betrayers, but yet in the name of Christ.’” When he had put this to himself, notice how vainly he tried to answer: “To this matter,” he says, “the Lord Christ answered in these words: ‘Whoever does not gather with me scatters’; and again: ‘Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven. For many will say to me on that day: Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name? And then I will say to them: I do not know you; depart from me, workers of iniquity.’ There is no doubt, then, that those have lost a false work who, though in the name of Jesus Christ, yet dared, being sacrilegious, to work. Like it or not, the betrayers therefore offend Christ the more with sacrilegious sacraments; and if they dare to say, ‘We prophesied in your name,’ he will say to them as to the others: ‘Depart from me, workers of iniquity; I do not know you.’ He will rightly say this to them, since in the unworthy the cases are not unlike: to baptize, to drive out demons, and to have done other wonderful mighty works.” See how much he said, and he could not at all resolve what he put to himself from the other side; and not only did he not resolve it, but he even reminded us of what we ought to say against them. For these Gospel testimonies not only do not help him at all, but even support our case very greatly. ### Scripture references - Matt 12:30: quotation, high confidence - Matt 7:21–23: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The Donatist author’s words are quoted as his. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 10 (CSEL 53:10–12; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/10). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-11 - Source: CSEL 53:12–13 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Christ’s rejection of those who work wonders in his name without love does not deny the truth of what they hold; as 1 Cor 13 shows, gifts remain great though their holder is nothing. ### Latin text De baptismo Iohannis agebatur, a quo baptizatos quosdam si baptizauit apostolus, non utique Iohannis baptismum habentibus iterum Iohannis baptismum dedit, sed Christi baptismum non habentes baptizari iussit in Christo, ac per hoc neutrum destruxit, sed utrumque distinxit. hoc etiam iste contra quem disserimus uidit, quod, cum sibi uelut ex aduersarii partibus obiecisset, quia et hi, quos traditores uocant, baptismo Christi, non Iohannis baptizant et baptizantur et ideo post eos baptismum nec rescindi nec iterari oportere, huic quaestioni dixit respondisse Christum cum ait: qui mecum non colligit spargit, quasi dixerit Christus: in eis, qui mecum non colligunt, etiam quod uerum et quod meum inuentum fuerit negetur exsuffletur destruatur. ait etiam quibusdam dicentibus: domine domine, nonne in nomine tuo prophetauimus et in nomine tuo daemonia eiecimus et in nomine tuo uirtutes multas fecimus? eum responsurum: non noui uos; recedite a me qui operamini iniquitatem. numquid etiam hic dixit: propter iniquitatem uestram negabo etiam ueritatem meam in uestra iniquitate detentam? neque enim in regnum suum recepturus est omnes, in quibus inuenerit aliquam ueritatem, sed in quibus inuenerit ueritati congruam caritatem, quae si defuerit iniquitas erit. in qua tamen detenta ueritas neganda non est, sed ipsa iniquitas non destructa ueritate damnanda est. unde et apostolus dicit: et si sciero omnia sacramenta et omnem scientiam, et si habuero omnem prophetiam et omnem fidem ita ut montes transferam, caritatem autem non habeam, nihil sum. se dixit nihil esse, si non habeat caritatem, non sacramenta et scientiam et prophetiam et fidem. illa enim magna sunt, etiamsi ille nihil sit, qui ea sine caritate habuerit et eorum ueritatem in sua iniquitate tenuerit. hoc et nos istis haereticis dicimus: (non destruimus ueritatem baptismatis, quam in uestra iniquitate detinetis, sed cum uos corrigimus illam destruimus et euertimus, hanc autem agnoscimus et tenemus. nihil itaque istum adiuuant plura euangelica testimonia. ### English translation (Claude) The question was about John’s baptism; if the apostle baptized certain people baptized by John, he certainly did not give John’s baptism again to people who had John’s baptism, but ordered people who did not have Christ’s baptism to be baptized in Christ; and so he destroyed neither but distinguished both. The man we are arguing against saw this too, since, when he had raised against himself, as if from the opponent’s side, that those whom they call betrayers also baptize and are baptized with Christ’s baptism, not John’s, and that therefore baptism after them ought neither to be annulled nor repeated, he said that Christ answered this question when he said, “Whoever does not gather with me scatters”; as if Christ had said: in those who do not gather with me, even what is found true and mine is to be denied, blown away in exorcism, destroyed. He also says that, to some who say, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?”, he will answer, “I do not know you; depart from me, you who work iniquity.” Did he here also say: because of your iniquity I will deny even my truth held in your iniquity? For he will not receive into his kingdom all in whom he finds some truth, but those in whom he finds love in keeping with the truth; and if this is lacking, there will be iniquity. Yet the truth held in it is not to be denied, but the iniquity itself is to be condemned, the truth not destroyed. Hence the apostle too says: “And if I know all sacraments and all knowledge, and if I have all prophecy and all faith so that I move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” He said that he is nothing if he does not have love, not that the sacraments and knowledge and prophecy and faith are nothing. For those things are great, even if he is nothing who has them without love and holds their truth in his own iniquity. This we too say to these heretics: “We do not destroy the truth of baptism, which you hold in your iniquity; but when we correct you we destroy and overturn that iniquity, while we acknowledge and keep this truth.” So the further Gospel testimonies do not help him at all. ### Scripture references - Acts 19:3–5: allusion, high confidence - Matt 12:30: quotation, high confidence - Matt 7:22–23: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 13:2: quotation, high confidence - Rom 1:18: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - “Blown away” (exsuffletur) refers to the breathing-out in the exorcism before baptism. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 11 (CSEL 53:12–13; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/11). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 12 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-12 - Source: CSEL 53:13–14 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Christ forbade hindering the man who cast out demons in his name though not following with the disciples; so the truth heretics hold is acknowledged while their division is condemned. ### Latin text Quemadmodum autem nobis etiam plurimum suffragentur aduerte. ecce ipsa uerba eius adtende: perdidisse, inquit, falsum opus non dubium est, qui tametsi in nomine Iesu Christi, sacrilegi tamen ausi sunt operari. hoc omnino uerum est, quoniam, qui sacrilegi in nomine Iesu Christi ausi sunt operari, falsum opus proprium perdiderunt: numquid ideo tamen nomen ipsum Iesu Christi sacrilegum est, etiam cum per illum sacrilegi aliquid operantur? quis hoc audeat uel dementissimus dicere, quis iam isto tempore uel paganus audeat adfirmare? unde et ipse Iesus Christus cum uerissime dixerit: qui mecum non colligit spargit, tamen cum ei discipuli dixissent quendam se inuenisse, qui in nomine eius daemonia eiceret, et prohibuisse, quia cum eis dominum non sequebatur, ad hoc respondit: nolite prohibere; nemo enim uirtutes facit in nomine meo et potest male loqui de me. in hoc utique propria iniquitas erat, quia non cum domino colligebat nec in eius gregis unitate pastorem cum discipulis sequebatur, in qua iniquitate sua ueritatem detinebat alienam, quod in nomine Iesu Christi eiciebat daemonia et de illo male non loquebatur. huius itaque iniquitatem illis uerbis dominus damnat ubi ait: qui mecum non colligit spargit, ueritatem tamen suam in illo non negat nec inprobat, cum dicit: nolite prohibere; nemo enim uirtutes facit in nomine meo et potest male loqui de me. hoc dominicum exemplum sequentes etiam nos pro uiribus nostris baptismi ueritatem et quidquid aliud uerum haeretici tenent negare non possumus, inprobare ac destruere non audemus, ipsorum autem iniquitatem, qua cum Christo non colligunt sed spargunt, merito detestamur et inuiolata quae in eis est ueritate damnamus uel quantum sinimur emendamus. ### English translation (Claude) But notice how much they even support us. See, attend to his very words: “There is no doubt,” he says, “that those have lost a false work who, though in the name of Jesus Christ, yet dared, being sacrilegious, to work.” This is entirely true: those who, being sacrilegious, dared to work in the name of Jesus Christ have lost their own false work. Yet is the name of Jesus Christ itself therefore sacrilegious, even when the sacrilegious do something through it? Who, even the maddest, would dare to say this; what pagan, even, in our time would dare to affirm it? Hence Jesus Christ himself, though he said most truly, “Whoever does not gather with me scatters,” yet, when his disciples told him they had found someone casting out demons in his name and had forbidden him, because he did not follow the Lord with them, answered: “Do not forbid him; for no one does mighty works in my name and can speak evil of me.” In this man there was certainly his own iniquity, because he did not gather with the Lord nor follow the Shepherd with the disciples in the unity of his flock; and in that iniquity of his he held another’s truth, in that he cast out demons in the name of Jesus Christ and did not speak evil of him. So the Lord condemns this man’s iniquity in the words, “Whoever does not gather with me scatters,” yet does not deny or reject his own truth in him, when he says, “Do not forbid him; for no one does mighty works in my name and can speak evil of me.” Following this example of the Lord, we too, according to our strength, cannot deny the truth of baptism and whatever else true the heretics hold, nor dare to reject and destroy it; but their iniquity, by which they do not gather with Christ but scatter, we rightly detest, and, the truth that is in them remaining inviolate, we condemn it or, as far as we are allowed, amend it. ### Scripture references - Matt 12:30: quotation, high confidence - Mark 9:38–39: quotation, high confidence - Luke 9:49–50: allusion, high confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 12 (CSEL 53:13–14; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/12). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-13 - Source: CSEL 53:14–15 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Christ’s sacraments are never sacrilegious even if given by sinners, just as his name remains his name when used by them. ### Latin text Perspiciat ergo iste, quo errore dixerit quod secutus adiunxit: uelint nolint, proinde traditores sacrilegis sacramentis Christum magis offendunt. alia est quippe temeritas sed utcumque tolerabilis, quod traditores dicit homines quos esse non probat; illud autem quis ferat, quod sacrilega dicit sacramenta Christi, etiamsi uere, sicut calumniatur, a traditoribus haberentur, quae in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti ritu euangelico celebrantur? hic fortasse dicat iam non esse Christi sacramentum, quod a sacrilegis datur. cur non ergo dicit non esse etiam nomen Christi, quod a sacrilegis dicitur? quod omnino non ausus est dicere. ait enim: perdidisse igitur falsum opus non dubium est, qui tametsi in nomine Iesu Christi, sacrilegi tamen ausi sunt operari. tametsi, inquit, in nomine Iesu Christi. numquid dixit non esse nomen Iesu Christi? sicut ergo nihil prodest sacrilegis, quod operantur in nomine Iesu Christi, sic nihil prodest haereticis, quod baptizant uel baptizantur in baptismo Iesu Christi. sed tamen sicut illud nomen est Iesu Christi, ita et iste baptismus Iesu Christi, et utrumque agnoscendum et approbandum, non negandum et destruendum est, ne tantis donis dei fiat iniuria, cum sacrilegorum eisdem bonis male utentium corrigitur uita. ### English translation (Claude) Let him see, then, in what error he said what he added next: “Like it or not, the betrayers therefore offend Christ the more with sacrilegious sacraments.” It is one rashness, though somehow tolerable, that he calls men betrayers whom he does not prove to be such; but who could bear his calling sacrilegious the sacraments of Christ, which are celebrated in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit by the Gospel rite, even if they were truly held by betrayers, as he slanders? Here perhaps he may say that what is given by the sacrilegious is no longer Christ’s sacrament. Why then does he not say that the name of Christ, which is spoken by the sacrilegious, is no longer Christ’s name either? This he did not dare to say at all. For he says: “There is no doubt, then, that those have lost a false work who, though in the name of Jesus Christ, yet dared, being sacrilegious, to work.” “Though,” he says, “in the name of Jesus Christ.” Did he say that it is not the name of Jesus Christ? So, just as it profits the sacrilegious nothing that they work in the name of Jesus Christ, so it profits heretics nothing that they baptize or are baptized with the baptism of Jesus Christ. But still, just as that name is the name of Jesus Christ, so this baptism is the baptism of Jesus Christ; and both are to be acknowledged and approved, not denied and destroyed, lest injury be done to such great gifts of God while the life of the sacrilegious who misuse these same goods is being corrected. ### Scripture references - Matt 28:19: allusion, high confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 13 (CSEL 53:14–15; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/13). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-14 - Source: CSEL 53:15–16 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Lord will reject the wicked inside the church too, and the Donatists themselves do not rebaptize those baptized by their own sinners. ### Latin text Ille dicit sacrilegis dicturum dominum: recedite a me qui operamini iniquitatem, qui extra ecclesiam baptizant uel daemonia eiciunt uel aliquas uirtutes in nomine Iesu Christi operantur; nos autem dicimus, immo ipsa ueritas dicit omnibus hoc dominum esse dicturum, etiam qui intra ipsa unitatis retia mali pisces cum bonis usque ad litus natant. quid enim eis aliud dicetur, cum in uasa collectis bonis illi mali separati proicientur, nisi: recedite a me qui operamini iniquitatem? nec tamen in eis Christi sacramenta destruimus, cum uel tales baptizantes uel tales baptizatos intra eadem retia unitatis agnoscimus. ipsos quoque non arbitror tam esse inpudentes, ut audeant dicere tam multis malis et sceleratis, qui in eorum parte sunt manifestis flagitiis et facinoribus perditi et inquinati, hoc est auaris atque raptoribus siue truculentis faeneratoribus siue cruentis circumcellionibus, dominum non esse dicturum: recedite a me qui operamini iniquitatem, et tamen sciunt uident tenent multos tales baptizare, multos a talibus baptizari, nec in eis Christi uiolant sacramentum etiam illi, quibus displicent scelera illorum. non solum itaque nihil contra nos dixit, cum haec euangelica testimonia protulit, uerum etiam nos quid contra eos diceremus ammonuit. ### English translation (Claude) He says that the Lord will say to the sacrilegious, “Depart from me, you who work iniquity,” to those who outside the church baptize or cast out demons or work any mighty works in the name of Jesus Christ; but we say, or rather the truth itself says, that the Lord will say this to all, even to the bad fish who swim with the good within the very nets of unity until the shore. For what else will be said to them, when, the good having been gathered into vessels, those bad ones are separated and thrown out, but, “Depart from me, you who work iniquity”? And yet we do not destroy Christ’s sacraments in them, when we acknowledge such baptizers or such baptized within the same nets of unity. Nor do I think they themselves are so shameless as to dare to say that the Lord will not say, “Depart from me, you who work iniquity,” to so many bad and wicked people who are in their party, lost and defiled by manifest scandals and crimes, that is, to the greedy and robbers, or savage usurers, or bloody circumcellions; and yet they know, see, and hold that many such baptize and many are baptized by such, and even those whom their crimes displease do not violate Christ’s sacrament in them. So not only did he say nothing against us when he brought forward these Gospel testimonies, but he even reminded us of what we should say against them. ### Scripture references - Matt 7:23: quotation, high confidence - Matt 13:47–49: allusion, high confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 14 (CSEL 53:15–16; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/14). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-15 - Source: CSEL 53:16–17 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: By the author’s own reasoning, schismatic baptism is as real as exorcism in Christ’s name; one who comes to the church keeps it and receives the unity that makes it profitable. ### Latin text Proinde quod sequitur et exultans dicit: solui breuiter quaestionem, uere soluit eam sed pro nobis, quandoquidem dicendo in indignis non esse dissimiles causas baptizare, daemonia pellere ceterasque non dissimiles fecisse uirtutes, quibus dicentibus in nomine tuo ista fecimus dicturus est: non noui uos; recedite a me, operarii iniquitatis, manifestauit tam uerum esse, quod baptizant baptismo Iesu Christi etiam qui separati sunt ab ecclesia, quam uerum est, quod daemonia pellunt in nomine Iesu Christi, sed eos utrumque nec ad uitam aeternam perducere nec ab aeternis suppliciis uindicare. ac per hoc quemadmodum si ueniret ad ecclesiam quisquam eorum, a quibus expulit daemonia ille quem uiderunt discipuli separatum a grege Iesu Christi pellere daemonia in nomine Iesu Christi, nequaquam uirtus quae in illo facta fuerat negaretur, sed ei quod deerat adderetur, ita quisquis extra ecclesiam ab haereticis fuerit uel schismaticis tamen Christi baptismate consecratus, cum ad ecclesiam uenerit, non est negandum sacramentum ueritatis quo inbutus est, sed adicienda pietas unitatis a qua separatus est et sine qua illud inesse illi posset, prodesse non posset. hoc facimus, hoc a maioribus traditum accepimus, hoc in catholica ecclesia, quae toto orbe diffunditur, contra omnes falsitatis nebulas custodimus. quid ergo hinc a nobis amplius disputandum est, quando ipse soluit breuiter quaestionem commemorando euangelica testimonia, quibus profecto, si contentiosus esse nollet, et suum damnaret errorem et baptismi cognosceret ueritatem? ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, as for what follows, where he says exultantly, “I have resolved the question briefly”: he truly resolved it, but for us. For by saying that in the unworthy the cases are not unlike, to baptize, to drive out demons, and to have done other mighty works, to whom, when they say, “We did these things in your name,” he will say, “I do not know you; depart from me, workers of iniquity,” he made it plain that it is as true that those separated from the church baptize with the baptism of Jesus Christ as it is true that they drive out demons in the name of Jesus Christ, but that neither brings them to eternal life nor frees them from eternal punishments. And so, just as, if anyone came to the church from whom that man had driven out demons whom the disciples saw driving out demons in the name of Jesus Christ while separated from the flock of Jesus Christ, the mighty work done in him would by no means be denied, but what was lacking would be added to him: so whoever has been consecrated outside the church by heretics or schismatics, yet with Christ’s baptism, when he comes to the church, the sacrament of truth with which he was imbued is not to be denied, but the piety of unity from which he was separated is to be added, without which that sacrament could be in him but could not profit him. This we do; this we have received as handed down by our forebears; this we guard in the Catholic Church, which is spread through the whole world, against all the fogs of falsehood. What more, then, need we argue on this point, when he himself resolved the question briefly by citing Gospel testimonies, by which, if he did not wish to be contentious, he would surely both condemn his own error and recognize the truth of baptism? ### Scripture references - Matt 7:22–23: quotation, high confidence - Mark 9:38–39: allusion, high confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 15 (CSEL 53:16–17; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/15). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-16 - Source: CSEL 53:17 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Catholic recognition of Donatist baptism does not prove the Donatists right; their separation is condemned while the baptism is acknowledged. ### Latin text Quid itaque opus est omnia eius uerba retexere, quibus argute sibi uidetur dicere et multa loquacitate uersare ideo apud se esse uerum baptismum, quia et a nobis agnoscitur, non negatur? nam quisquis firmum et inconcussum tenuerit, quod uerissima et inuiolabilis regula ueritatis ostendit, id in unoquoque inprobandum uel emendandum quod falsum atque uitiosum est, agnoscendum autem et acceptandum quod uerum atque rectum est, simul uidet et quid in Donatistarum haeresi detestemur et quid uiolare minime debeamus. cum enim in suae separationis iniquitate detineant baptismi ueritatem, iniquitas eorum a nobis culpatur, ueritas autem baptismi ubique agnoscitur et probatur. ### English translation (Claude) So what need is there to go over all his words, in which he thinks he argues cleverly, and turns over with much talk, that true baptism is with them because it is also acknowledged and not denied by us? For whoever holds firm and unshaken what the most true and inviolable rule of truth shows, that in each person what is false and faulty is to be rejected or amended, but what is true and right acknowledged and accepted, sees at once both what we detest in the heresy of the Donatists and what we ought by no means to violate. For since they hold the truth of baptism in the iniquity of their separation, their iniquity is blamed by us, but the truth of baptism is everywhere acknowledged and approved. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 16 (CSEL 53:17; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/16). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-17 - Source: CSEL 53:17–18 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: As the demons’ true confession of Christ is not denied, so heretics’ true baptism is not destroyed; James compared faith without works to the demons’ belief without denying its truth. ### Latin text Qui enim dicit destruendum esse baptismum Christi, quando illo haeretici baptizant, consequens est ut dicat negandum esse etiam ipsum Christum, quando eum daemones confitentur. hinc laudatus est Petrus quando dixit: tu Christus filius dei uiui, expulsi sunt daemones hoc ipsum dicentes: scimus qui sis, filius dei. ergo ista confessio Petro fructuosa, daemonibus perniciosa in utrisque tamen non falsa sed uera, non neganda sed agnoscenda, non detestanda sed adprobanda est. sic et baptismi ueritas datur a rectis catholicis tamquam a Petro illa confessio, datur a peruersis haereticis tamquam a daemonibus eadem ipsa confessio; illos adiuuat, hos condemnat, in utrisque tamen agnoscendo approbanda, in neutris negando uiolanda. unde et apostolus Iacobus cum quosdam redargueret, qui sufficere dicebant homini ueram fidem nec ei caritatis opera coniungebant, eos ex ista daemonum conparatione conuicit, ne ideo se ad deum pertinere existimarent, quod uerum de deo crederent, etiamsi bona opera adiungere fidei non curarent. tu credis, inquit, quoniam unus est deus? bene facis; et daemones credunt et contremescunt. eos igitur, qui de deo uerum credunt et maligne uiuunt, daemonibus comparauit, non tamen illud ipsum uerum, quod de deo daemones credunt, propter odium daemonum negando destruxit. quamobrem cum iste ipse contra quem disputamus proposuerit apostolum dicere: unus deus, una fides, unum baptisma, ecce inuenimus eundem deum extra ecclesiam ab ignorantibus coli, ecce inuenimus eandem de uno deo fidem extra ecclesiam non solum quosdam homines, uerum etiam daemones confiteri, sed utraque ab apostolis confirmata potius quam negata. cur non similiter et unum baptisma, in quibus extra ecclesiam constitutis inuenerimus, confirmamus potius quam negamus, ut non ex eo, quod in illis prauum est, etiam quod rectum est deprauemus, sed ex eo, quod rectum tenent, etiam illud in quo deprauati sunt corrigamus? ### English translation (Claude) For whoever says that the baptism of Christ must be destroyed when heretics baptize with it must, consequently, say that Christ himself must be denied when demons confess him. Hence Peter was praised when he said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” and demons were driven out saying this very thing: “We know who you are, the Son of God.” So this confession, fruitful to Peter, ruinous to the demons, yet in both is not false but true, not to be denied but acknowledged, not to be detested but approved. So too the truth of baptism is given by upright Catholics as that confession was by Peter; it is given by perverse heretics as the very same confession was by the demons. It helps the former, condemns the latter; yet in both it is to be approved by acknowledging it, in neither violated by denying it. Hence the apostle James too, when he was rebuking certain people who said that true faith was enough for a person and did not join to it the works of love, refuted them from this comparison with the demons, so that they would not think they belonged to God because they believed what is true about God, even if they did not care to add good works to faith. “You believe,” he says, “that God is one? You do well; the demons also believe, and tremble.” So he compared to demons those who believe what is true about God and live wickedly; yet he did not destroy by denying it that very truth which the demons believe about God, out of hatred of the demons. Therefore, since this very man whom we are arguing against has set forth that the apostle says, “One God, one faith, one baptism,” see, we find the same God worshiped outside the church by those who do not know him; see, we find the same faith in the one God confessed outside the church not only by certain people but even by demons; but both were confirmed by the apostles rather than denied. Why, then, do we not likewise confirm rather than deny the one baptism in those we find set outside the church, so that we do not, from what is wrong in them, deprave what is right, but, from the right thing they hold, correct also that in which they are depraved? ### Scripture references - Matt 16:16–17: quotation, high confidence - Mark 1:24: quotation, medium confidence - Luke 4:41: allusion, high confidence - Jas 2:19: quotation, high confidence - Eph 4:5–6: quotation, high confidence - Acts 17:23: allusion, medium confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 17 (CSEL 53:17–18; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/17). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-18 - Source: CSEL 53:18–20 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: True baptism can exist without true faith, as at Corinth; Scripture gives no explicit example either way, so the apostolic rule of keeping truth while correcting error decides. ### Latin text Quid est ergo, quod dicit illic esse uerum baptisma, ubi est uera fides? prorsus fieri potest, ut aliqui uerum habeant baptismum et non habeant ueram fidem, sicut fieri potest, ut uerum habeant euangelium, quod non recte intellegendo falsi aliquid credant de deo: numquid propter ipsam fidei falsitatem etiam euangelium, quod uerum apud eos inuenitur, detestandum aut emendandum putabimus? nec illos Corinthios arbitror, quos in schismata dissiluisse redarguit, ueram fidem habuisse in eo quod dicebant: ego sum Pauli; hoc enim falsum erat. uerum tamen baptismum habebant, ex cuius ueritate ut istam corrigerent falsitatem, ab eo ipso audiunt: numquid Paulus pro uobis crucifixus est aut in nomine Pauli baptizati estis? erant illic etiam, qui mortuos resurgere non credebant et in eo utique non ueram tenebant atque habebant fidem. ex eo tamen quod uerum habebant, quoniam credebant Christum resurrexisse, in quo fuerant baptizati, dat operam apostolus etiam illud curare, in quo eis fides sana non erat, dicens: si mortui non resurgunt, neque Christus resurrexit, ut, quoniam Christum resurrexisse crediderant et hoc in eis sanum erat, illud etiam sanaretur, quod resurgere mortuos errore perniciosissimo non credebant. quamobrem cum in scripturis sanctis canonicis nec illi inueniant haereticos ad ecclesiam catholicam uenientes denuo baptizatos nec nos inueniamus in eodem baptismo, quem in haeresi acceperant, fuisse susceptos, in hac re dumtaxat par nobis causa est, quia nec illi quod faciunt, ut haereticos uel quos haereticos putant denuo baptizent, nec nos quod facimus, ut etiam apud haereticos datum suscipiamus baptismum Christi, ullo temporum apostolicorum expresso confirmatur exemplo. sed nos repperientes apostolos in quibuslibet errantibus uel qualibet impietate sacrilegis, si quid ueri cognouerunt, confirmasse potius quam negasse, hominum autem errorem et impietatem saluo, quod in eis uerum inuentum est, emendasse siue damnasse, hanc regulam etiam in baptismi ueritate sectamur, ut, apud quos eam inuenerimus ita retentam atque seruatam, sicut in ecclesia catholica retinetur atque seruatur, non eam negemus neque destruamus, sed ea manente, quod uitiosum, quod prauum, quod falsum in unoquoque fuerit, curemus corrigamus emendemus aut, si non possumus, detestatum damnatumque uitemus. ### English translation (Claude) What, then, does he mean by saying that there is true baptism where there is true faith? It is entirely possible that some have true baptism and do not have true faith, just as it is possible that they have the true gospel and, by not understanding it rightly, believe something false about God. Shall we think that, because of that falsity of faith, the gospel too, which is found true among them, is to be detested or emended? Nor do I think that those Corinthians whom he rebuked for having split into schisms had true faith in saying, “I am of Paul”; for this was false. Yet they had true baptism, from whose truth they hear from him, so as to correct this falsehood: “Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” There were also people there who did not believe that the dead rise, and in this they certainly did not hold and have true faith. Yet from what true thing they had, since they believed that Christ, in whom they had been baptized, had risen, the apostle works to cure also that in which their faith was not sound, saying: “If the dead do not rise, neither has Christ risen”; so that, since they had believed that Christ had risen and this was sound in them, that too might be healed in which by a most ruinous error they did not believe that the dead rise. Therefore, since in the holy canonical Scriptures neither do they find heretics coming to the Catholic Church baptized again, nor do we find them received in the same baptism which they had received in heresy, in this matter at least our case is equal: neither what they do, baptizing again heretics or those they think heretics, nor what we do, receiving the baptism of Christ even when given among heretics, is confirmed by any explicit example of apostolic times. But we, finding that the apostles, in any who erred or were sacrilegious by any impiety, confirmed rather than denied whatever truth they knew, and amended or condemned people’s error and impiety while keeping what was found true in them, follow this rule also in the truth of baptism: where we find it retained and kept as it is retained and kept in the Catholic Church, we do not deny or destroy it; but, it remaining, we cure, correct, and amend whatever is faulty, wrong, or false in each person, or, if we cannot, we detest and condemn it and avoid it. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 1:12–13: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:12–13: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:16: allusion, medium confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 18 (CSEL 53:18–20; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/18). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/1/#p-19 - Source: CSEL 53:20 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Converts are received without their schism and error; the Donatists, by contrast, treat even Catholic bishops as unbaptized catechumens. ### Latin text Proinde cum eos suscipimus, non suscipimus eorum iniquitatem, qua se ab ecclesia Christi diremptione sacrilega diuiserunt, qua orbem christianum, cui deus per legem per prophetas per euangelium per psalmos per apostolos tam multa testimonia perhibet, calumniosis et maledicis criminationibus insectantur, nec eum ipsum errorem suscipimus, quo baptismum Christi etiam apud haereticos regula ecclesiastica custoditum nolunt agnoscere, audent destruere, non dubitant iterare; quin etiam non solum laicos, sed et clericos nec quoslibet clericos, uerum et presbyteros et episcopos, etsi in illis ecclesiis baptizati sunt, quas ipsi apostoli labore proprio fundauerunt, si aliquo modo seductos ad se transferre potuerint, catechumenos faciunt. haec eorum detestabilia mala nequaquam suscipimus, quandoquidem nisi eis correctis ad nos transire non possunt. ### English translation (Claude) Accordingly, when we receive them, we do not receive their iniquity, by which they have divided themselves from the church of Christ by a sacrilegious severance, by which they attack with slanderous and abusive accusations the Christian world, to which God bears so many testimonies through the Law, the Prophets, the Gospel, the Psalms, and the apostles; nor do we receive that error of theirs by which they refuse to acknowledge, dare to destroy, and do not hesitate to repeat the baptism of Christ kept even among heretics according to the church’s rule. Indeed, they make catechumens not only of laypeople but of clerics, and not just any clerics but presbyters and bishops, even if they were baptized in those churches which the apostles themselves founded by their own labor, if somehow they can lead them astray and bring them over to themselves. These detestable evils of theirs we by no means receive, since they cannot come over to us unless these are corrected. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 19 (CSEL 53:20; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/19). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/20/#p-20 - Source: CSEL 53:20–21 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Catholics who lapsed to the Donatists do a heavier penance and are barred from the clergy; the Donatists hold true baptism in unrighteousness and face God’s wrath. ### Latin text Nec illud sine distinctione praeterimus, ut humiliorem agant paenitentiam, qui iam fideles ecclesiam catholicam deseruerunt, quam qui in illa nondum fuerunt, nec ad clericatum admittantur, siue ab haereticis rebaptizati sint siue prius suscepti ad illos redierint siue apud illos clerici siue laici fuerint. et qui haec nostrorum neglegenter agunt et eos forte clericos in catholica faciunt uel esse permittunt, quamuis a diligentioribus fraterno iure culpentur, tamen nec ipsi eis clericatum deferendum putant, nisi quos ab illis malis uel nouerunt emendatos esse uel credunt. ac per hoc frustra calumniantur ecclesiae catholicae, quicumque ab eius unitate nefario scelere separantur. ut enim uerbis apostoli magis utar, reuelatur ira dei de caelo super omnem impietatem et iniustitiam hominum qui ueritatem in iniquitate detinent. haec ira, si non se correxerint, etiam istos inueniet, qui ueritatem christiani baptismatis in iniquitate detinent suae sacrilegae separationis. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - Rom 1:18: quotation, high confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 20 (CSEL 53:20–21; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/20). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/20/#p-21 - Source: CSEL 53:21 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Donatist boast of rebaptizing like Paul at Ephesus would make John the Baptist a sacrilegious defiler. ### Latin text Ecclesia uero catholica, quae sicut de illa praedictum est per omnes gentes copiosa fecunditate diffunditur, nullius sic emendat iniquitatem, ut in eo non ipsius, sed sui domini destruat ueritatem. quid ergo iste quasi licenter ac fidenter exclamat: baptizaui securus quem tu sacrilegus inquinasti; baptizaui, inquam; feci quod fecit apostolus Paulus? legat ubi hoc fecerit apostolus Paulus. quodsi de illis apud Ephesum uult intellegi, audeat ergo dicere, quod eos Iohannes sacrilegus inquinarit. quod si non audet dicere, quoniam apertissimum nefas est, desinat tandem de re multum dissimili falsae similitudinis nebulas excitare. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - Acts 19:1–5: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The Donatist author’s words are quoted as his. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 21 (CSEL 53:21; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/21). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 22 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/20/#p-22 - Source: CSEL 53:21–23 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Agrippinus and Cyprian erred on rebaptism but stayed in unity, and Cyprian’s love and martyrdom covered his error; rebaptizing heretics was human error then, rebaptizing Catholics is diabolical now. ### Latin text Nam illud quod adiungit de episcopo Carthaginiensi Agrippino, de inclito martyre Cypriano, de septuaginta praecessoribus Cypriani, quia hoc fecerunt et fieri praeceperunt, o quam detestandus error est hominum, qui clarorum uirorum quaedam non recte facta laudabiliter se imitari putant, a quorum uirtutibus alieni sunt! sic enim et nonnulli Petro apostolo comparari se uolunt, si Christum negauerint; si uero etiam gentes iudaizare coegerint, uocitari germani eius affectant. haec in illo tanto uiro reprehensibilia fuerunt, sed tanta eminuit apostolica gratia, ut continuo delerentur nec ei non dico praeferri, sed saltem possit aequari aut de proximo comparari, quisquis nostrorum temporum christianus aut etiam episcopus nec Christum negauerit nec gentes iudaizare conpulerit. sic et in martyre gloriosissimo Cypriano, si apud haereticos uel schismaticos datum Christi baptismum nolebat agnoscere, dum eos nimium detestaretur, quos a catholica unitate quam multum dilexit separatos dolebat, tanta eius merita usque ad triumphum martyrii consecuta sunt, ut et caritatis qua excellebat luce illa obumbratio fugaretur et sarmentum fructuosum ut fieret fructuosius, si quid habebat purgandum, si nulla re alia, certe passionis falce ultima tolleretur. nec nos, quia baptismi ueritatem etiam in haereticorum iniquitate agnoscimus potius quam negamus, ideo meliores Cypriano sumus, sicut nec Petro, quia gentes iudaizare non cogimus. hoc de Agrippino aliisque episcopis, qui illa concilia fecisse perhibentur, responderim, qui sic diuersa senserunt, ut cum eis, contra quos de hac quaestione sentiebant, in unitate persisterent, ubi caritas cooperit multitudinem peccatorum. sic namque ambulantibus in ecclesiae ueritate in quam peruenerant potuit deus, sicut apostolus dicit, id quoque illis reuelare quod aliter sapiebant. noua enim tunc quaestio fuit, quemadmodum suscipiendi essent haeretici, quae nonnullos fratres haereticam perniciem uehementer merito detestantes ipsa nouitate turbauit, ut crederent etiam hoc in eis esse inprobandum, quod malo suo tenebant bonum. ego autem ut quod de hac re sentio breuiter dicam: rebaptizare haereticos, quod illi fecisse dicuntur, tunc fuit humani erroris, rebaptizare autem catholicos, quod adhuc isti faciunt, semper est diabolicae praesumptionis. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - Matt 26:69–75: allusion, high confidence - Gal 2:14: allusion, high confidence - John 15:2: allusion, high confidence - 1 Pet 4:8: quotation, high confidence - Phil 3:15: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Agrippinus’s council at Carthage (ca. 220) and Cyprian’s councils (255–256). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 22 (CSEL 53:21–23; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/22). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 23 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/20/#p-23 - Source: CSEL 53:23–24 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Stephen and Cyprian disagreed on rebaptism yet stayed in one communion; if that church did not perish, communion with the bad does not destroy the church, and Donatist separation is baseless. ### Latin text Sed uolo mihi soluat iste quaestionem, quandoquidem, cum Romanae ecclesiae per ordinem commemoraret episcopos, inter eos commemorauit et Stephanum, quos episcopatum inlibatum gessisse confessus est. cum ergo Stephanus non solum non rebaptizaret haereticos, uerum etiam hoc facientes uel ut fieret decernentes excommunicandos esse censeret, sicut et aliorum episcoporum et ipsius Cypriani litterae ostendunt, tamen Cyprianus cum eo in unitatis pace permansit. quid hinc dicturi sunt? excutiant ingenia sua quantum possunt, et utrum ualeant respondere considerent. ecce duo erant uno tempore, ut de aliis taceam, qui diuersa sentiebant, duo erant eminentissimarum ecclesiarum, Romanae scilicet et Carthaginiensis, episcopi Stephanus et Cyprianus, ambo in unitate catholica constituti, quorum Stephanus baptismum Christi in nullo iterandum esse censebat et hoc facientibus grauiter suscensebat, Cyprianus autem in haeresi uel schismate baptizatos tamquam non habentes baptismum Christi baptizandos in ecclesia catholica existimabat. multi cum illo, quidam cum isto etiam sentiebant, utrique cum eis in unitate sistentes. si ergo uerum est, quod isti dicunt et unde causam suae separationis asserere uel excusare conantur: in una communione sacramentorum mali maculant bonos, et ideo corporali disiunctione a malorum contagione recedendum est, ne omnes pariter pereant, iam tunc Stephani et Cypriani temporibus perisse ecclesiam confitendum est nec aliquam posteris derelictam, ubi Donatus ipse spiritaliter nasceretur. quod si dicere nefarium iudicant, quia re uera nefarium est, si mansit ecclesia ex illis temporibus usque ad tempora Caeciliani et Maiorini sine Donati nec eam maculando perdere potuerunt, quicumque in eam secundum ipsos sine baptismo admissi sunt pleni omnibus peccatis et criminibus suis, nec ulla facta est a Cypriano et eis, qui pariter de baptismo sapiebant, ab illorum communione diuisio, quoniam non se arbitrabantur in unitate et communione sacramentorum Christi alienis malis posse maculari, sic potuit et deinceps ecclesia permanere, quam toto sicut de illa praedictum est terrarum orbe crescentem nullo modo poterant quorumlibet traditorum ac facinerosorum aliena crimina maculare, sicut in una area usque ad tempus uentilationis maculari paleis frumenta non possunt, sicut intra una retia usque ad tempus litoris mali pisces bonos simul natando non perdunt. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence - Matt 13:47–48: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Ep. 74.1 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Stephen of Rome (254–257). The Donatist author’s list of Roman bishops is mentioned as his. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 23 (CSEL 53:23–24; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/23). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 24 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/20/#p-24 - Source: CSEL 53:24–26 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The texts the Donatists cite against communion with sinners would have required Cyprian to leave Stephen; since he did not, the church survived mixed, as it still does. ### Latin text Nulla igitur ratio fuit, sed maximus furor, quo isti uelut malorum communionem cauentes se ab unitate Christi, quae toto orbe diffunditur, separarunt. nisi forte a criminibus crimina mirabili arte discernunt, non de scripturis, sed de cordibus suis distinctionum regulas proferentes atque dicentes in unitate communionis sacramentorum alia crimina aliena sine contaminatione tolerari, traditionis autem crimine omnes, qui cum talibus sacramenta communicauerint, detineri. sed hinc diutius disputare superfluum est, praesertim quia hoc et rarissime audent dicere, ipsi quoque uerecundantes et sentientes uana se loqui, et cum ea dicunt, nullo diuino testimonio fulcire nituntur. magis enim solent in ore habere, quando peccatis aliorum alios criminantur, ad excusandum nefas separationis suae: uidebas furem et concurrebas cum eo et: ne communicaueris peccatis alienis et: recedite, exite inde et inmundum ne tetigeritis et: qui tetigerit pollutum pollutus est et: modicum fermenti totam massam corrumpit et alia huiusmodi, quibus non traditionis crimen ab aliis criminibus aliqua proprietate discernitur, sed omnis peccati consociatio prohibetur. quae tamen diuina testimonia uel praecepta si eo modo quo isti intellegeret Cyprianus, profecto se ab Stephano separaret nec cum illo in catholicae unitatis communione persisteret. ille quippe secundum sententiam, quam de baptismo isti tenendam putant, haereticos et schismaticos sicut opinantur baptismum non habentes admittendo in ecclesiam communicabat peccatis alienis, quia uidelicet peccata eorum, qui baptismo uero abluti non erant, in eis utique permanebant. debuit ergo Cyprianus ab huius communione discedere, ne cum fure concurreret, ne peccatis communicaret alienis, ne contagione inquinaretur inmundi, ne pollutus fieret tangendo pollutum, ne fermento corrumperetur aliorum. hoc ergo quoniam non fecit, sed cum eis in unitate permansit, tota ipsius unitatis tunc massa corrupta est nec perseuerauit ecclesia, quae postea sanctos istorum Maiorinum pareret et Donatum. hoc quia dicere nullo modo audent, restat ut fateantur bonos cum malis in sacramentorum christianorum communione sine ulla sua labe mansisse et usque ad tempus Caeciliani perseuerasse ecclesiam Christi non sine ullis hominibus malis tamquam in horreo iam reconditam, sed adhuc commixta palea tamquam in area constitutam. sic ergo et deinceps potuit permanere, sicut et permanet, donec ultimo die iudicii uentilata mundetur. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - Ps 50:18 (49:18 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence - 1 Tim 5:22: quotation, high confidence - Isa 52:11: quotation, high confidence - Hag 2:13: allusion, medium confidence - Num 19:22: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 5:6: quotation, high confidence - Gal 5:9: allusion, medium confidence - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 24 (CSEL 53:24–26; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/24). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 25 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/20/#p-25 - Source: CSEL 53:26–27 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: A truly just man would remain in the church with sinners, as Paul and Cyprian did; defilement comes by consent, as in Eden, not by sharing sacraments, as Judas did not defile the apostles. ### Latin text Quid igitur sibi uult tantus furor separationis istorum ab unitate corporis Christi, quae, sicut prophetatum legitur implerique iam cernitur, toto orbe terrarum atque in omnibus gentibus dilatatur? hic certe, sicut scriptum est, filius malus ipse se iustum dicit, exitum autem suum non abluit, hoc est non excusat, non diluit, non defendit, quod furore schismatico in haereticam pestem de domo dei exire non timuit, quia, si uere iustus esset, sicut apostolus Paulus cum fratribus falsis, de quibus in suis epistulis ingemit, et sicut Cyprianus cum eis, quos sine baptismo suis peccatis praeteritis plenos existimabat et admitti ad ecclesiam ab Stephano sciebat, ita in ecclesia Christi cum eis, quos iniustos uel nouerat uel putabat, sine ulla sui commaculatione persisteret nec bonos propter malos desereret, sed malos propter bonos potius toleraret, tamquam granum cum palea pondere caritatis trituram ferens, non tamquam leuissimus puluis etiam ante uentilationem flatibus cedens. eo quippe modo etiam cum iniquis, quos necesse est usque ad litus retia ista contineant, in unitate catholica perseuerans non tamen cum fure concurreret nec peccatis communicaret alienis nec cuiusquam inmunditiae contrectatione macularetur nec pollueretur tangendo pollutum nec cuiusquam fermento corrumperetur. haec enim fiunt consensione peccatorum, qua per feminam serpens hominem primum etiam in paradisi felicitate decepit, non communione sacramentorum, in qua condiscipulos Iudas mundos inmundus contaminare non potuit. a malis autem, cum quibus dei sacramenta communicant, etiam nunc in area, nondum in horreo, iam tamen boni discedunt et separantur morum dissimilitudine, non corporum segregatione, aliter uiuendo, non ad alia conuenticula ueniendo. sic nec cum malis unum fiunt nec ab ecclesiae unitate discedunt. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - Prov 30:12: quotation, high confidence - 2 Cor 11:26: allusion, high confidence - Gal 2:4: allusion, medium confidence - Gen 3:1–6: allusion, high confidence - John 13:10–11: allusion, medium confidence - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Prov 30:12 is quoted from the Old Latin (from the Septuagint). Paul’s “false brothers”: 2 Cor 11:26; Gal 2:4. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 25 (CSEL 53:26–27; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/25). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 26 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/20/#p-26 - Source: CSEL 53:27–28 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: If Stephen’s church survived receiving sinners without rebaptism, others’ sins defile no one; and if unity’s love cleanses converts, rebaptism is needless. ### Latin text Quid ergo nobis nescio quorum traditorum crimen exaggerant, quos tamen nec ipsos umquam conuincere potuerunt? sed si eos contra istorum calumnias defendamus, quorundam hominum causam uidebimur agere, non ecclesiae. prorsus quicumque et ubicumque traditores fuerunt et non tantum traditorum peccatum, sed ipsorum etiam qui tradere compellebant et omnium omnino facinerosorum flagitiosorum sacrilegorum admittebat Stephanus in ecclesiam secundum istos, quia, si baptismum non habebant, omnia peccata, quaecumque grauia et horrenda commiserant, in eis erant et reos illos sine ulla remissione retinebant. tales admittebat Stephanus, cum talibus erat in unitate catholica Cyprianus, nec tamen periit, sed perseuerauit ecclesia. non igitur quemquam in eius unitate maculant aliena peccata; frustra filius malus a familia patris exire properauit, frustra se iustum dicit, exitum autem suum non abluit. an forte dicturi sunt eos, quos ita Stephanus admittebat, ipsius unitatis participatione mundatos, quoniam caritas cooperit multitudinem peccatorum? utinam dicant! hoc enim et nos dicimus, quando eos ad unitatem uel urgemus ut redeant uel monemus. hoc autem pacto iam etiam nulla inter nos baptismi quaestio remanebit. si enim apud haereticos uel schismaticos baptizati, cum ad ecclesiam ueniunt, unitatis ipsius caritate mundantur, profecto sine causa rebaptizantur. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - Prov 30:12: allusion, high confidence - Luke 15:12–13: echo, low confidence - 1 Pet 4:8: quotation, high confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 26 (CSEL 53:27–28; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/26). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 27 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/20/#p-27 - Source: CSEL 53:28–29 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine refuses to credit the Donatist author’s unproved charges that the Roman bishops Marcellinus, Miltiades, Marcellus, and Silvester were betrayers. ### Latin text Uides itaque in hoc sermone, cui me respondere uoluisti, quam multa dixerit ille pro nobis. quid ergo iam opus est ut episcoporum Romanae ecclesiae, quos incredibilibus calumniis insectatus est, obiecta ab eo crimina diluamus? Marcellinus et presbyteri eius Miltiades, Marcellus et Siluester traditionis codicum diuinorum et turificationis ab eo crimine arguuntur. sed numquid ideo etiam conuincuntur aut conuicti aliqua documentorum firmitate monstrantur? ipse sceleratos et sacrilegos fuisse dicit, ego innocentes fuisse respondeo. quid laborem probare defensionem meam, cum ille nec tenuiter probare conatus sit accusationem suam? si est ulla humanitas in rebus humanis, puto nos iustius posse reprehendi, si ignotos homines, quos criminantur inimici nec eorum crimen ulla testificatione demonstrant, nocentes potius quam innocentes crediderimus, quia, si forte se aliter ueritas habet, ipsi certe humanitati debitum redditur, cum homo de homine nihil mali temere suspicatur nec cuiquam criminanti facile credit, quando sine teste ac sine ullo documento crimen obiciens maledicus potius conuiciator quam ueridicus accusator extiterit. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Translation notes - Marcellinus, bishop of Rome (296–304); Miltiades, Marcellus, and Silvester were later bishops of Rome. The charges are the Donatist author’s. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 27 (CSEL 53:28–29; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/27). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 28 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/20/#p-28 - Source: CSEL 53:29–31 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Donatists never charged Miltiades with betrayal when he judged Caecilian, though they did charge Felix of Abthugni, who was cleared; their late charge against Miltiades is slander. ### Latin text Huc accedit, quia Miltiade tunc episcopo Romanae ecclesiae praesidente ex praecepto Constantini imperatoris, ad quem totam illam causam accusatores episcopi Carthaginiensis ecclesiae Caeciliani per Anullinum proconsulem detulerunt, idem Caecilianus innocens pronuntiatus est. de quo iudicio cum maiores istorum inportunissima peruicacia memorato imperatori quererentur, quod non plene neque recte fuerit examinatum atque depromptum, nihil de Miltiadis traditione uel turificatione dixerunt, ad cuius audientiam nec uenire utique debuerunt, hoc potius ante suggerentes imperatori aut ut suggereretur instantes, quod apud traditorem codicum diuinorum et idolorum sacrificiis inquinatum causam suam agere non deberent. cum hoc ergo nec ante suggesserint nec, posteaquam contra eos pro Caeciliano iudicatum est, saltem uicti et irati obiciendum putarint, quid nunc inanes tam sero conectunt calumnias, quasi ut innocentiae Caeciliani Miltiadis iudicis decoloratione fuscetur et ipsa Romana ecclesia, ubi nec damnare quemquam suo qualicumque iudicio potuerunt nec aliquem suorum uelut in locum subrogare damnati, contra quam paucissimis Afris partis suae primo interuentores aduenticios furtim longeque mittebant, quos istum nominatim commemorare non puduit, donec deceptae plebiculae quasi proprios episcopos ordinarent? nempe episcopum Aptucensem Felicem post Caeciliani purgationem apud imperatorem accusauerunt, quod ipse esset manifestissimus traditor et ideo Caecilianus episcopus esse non posset, quod ab illo traditore fuerit ordinatus. tunc Constantinus nec huic eorum accusationi negauit locum, quamuis eos in Caeciliani fictis criminibus calumniosos fuisset expertus, et ideo praecepit, ut causa Felicis discuteretur. in Africa discussa est a proconsule Aeliano; Felix quoque innocens declaratus est. extant gesta proconsularia; qui uoluerit, sumat et legat. hoc autem non solum ad innocentiae Caeciliani demonstrandae cumulum pertinet ipsiusque Felicis euidentissimam purgationem atque illorum calumnias declarandas, qui eum fontem omnium malorum in concilio suo dixerant, uerum etiam ad cogitandam Miltiadis ab eorum criminationibus purissimam uitam. nisi forte quisquam tam sit insipiens, ut credat eos, cum Felici non pepercerint, a quo Caecilianus fuerat ordinatus, Miltiadi parcere potuisse, a quo fuerat absolutus, si illius episcopi uitam, quamuis nullum uulnus conscientiae peremisset, saltem qualiscumque fama culpasset. an uero quod de foro Aptucensium fictum fuerat ab istis accusaretur, et quod in Capitolio Romanorum factum fuerat taceretur? ### English translation (Claude) 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? ### Translation notes - The text near “ipsa Romana ecclesia, ubi nec damnare quemquam … potuerunt” is disturbed and is translated by sense. The Donatists set up a bishop for their adherents in Rome. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 28 (CSEL 53:29–31; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/28). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 29 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/20/#p-29 - Source: CSEL 53:31 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Mensurius kept peace with Secundus; the author’s slanders against Profuturus and Fortunatus of Cirta, known to be false, show how little his charges against long-dead men are worth. ### Latin text De Mensurio autem quid respondeam, cum eius tempore usque ad obitus diem plebs unitatis nulla conscissa est ipsaeque litterae Secundi Tigisitani, quibus reprehensus asseritur, eos ad se inuicem pacifice scripsisse confirmant atque in collegii societate mansisse? iam uero quod etiam de Cirtensi ecclesia dicere uoluit et episcopos ibi catholicos maledictis insectatus est quibus uoluit, quid aliud egit, nisi ut uituperando sanctos etiam nostrorum temporum uiros nobisque optime cognitos satis ostenderet, quid etiam de ignotis, quibus similiter maledicit, sentire debeamus? proinde si Profuturus ante paucissimos annos defunctus et Fortunatus, qui in corpore adhuc est atque illi successit episcopo, quomodo Manichei fuerunt, sic fuerunt et illi traditores, quos longe a nostris temporibus ignotissimos accusare non cessant et iam illorum nobis pura ab istorum probris uita notissima est. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Translation notes - Profuturus and Fortunatus were Catholic bishops of Cirta (Constantina); the Donatist author had called them Manichees. Augustine means that both charges are equally false. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 29 (CSEL 53:31; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/29). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 30 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/20/#p-30 - Source: CSEL 53:31–32 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Whatever the accused bishops were, they neither crown nor condemn the worldwide church; within the threshing floor are good and bad, outside it no good. ### Latin text Non sane parua est parumque gloriosa consolatio cuiuscumque nostrum, si ab inimicis ecclesiae cum ipsa ecclesia criminamur; eius tamen defensio non in eorum hominum defensione consistit, quos isti nominatim falsis criminationibus appetunt. prorsus, qualescumque fuerint Marcellinus Marcellus Siluester Miltiades Mensurius Caecilianus atque alii, quibus obiciunt pro sua dissensione quod uolunt, nihil praeiudicant ecclesiae catholicae toto terrarum orbe diffusae; nullo modo eorum innocentia coronamur, nullo modo eorum iniquitate damnamur. si boni fuerunt, in areae catholicae tritura tamquam grana mundati sunt, si mali fuerunt, in areae catholicae tritura tamquam stipulae comminuti sunt. intra istam aream et boni et mali esse possunt, extra eam boni esse non possunt. quisquis ab hac unitate uento superbiae tamquam sola palea separatur, areae dominicae propter commixtam paleam quid calumniatur? ### English translation (Claude) 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? ### Scripture references - Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence - Ps 1:4: echo, low confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 30 (CSEL 53:31–32; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/30). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 31 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/20/#p-31 - Source: CSEL 53:32–33 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine can prove that Donatist founders were betrayers, but by Scripture each bears his own sin; only by the Donatists’ own principle would all of them share their founders’ guilt. ### Latin text Nos quoque dicimus nec tantum dicimus, uerum etiam litterarum monumentis ecclesiasticis et publicis comprobamus Secundum Tigisitanum, cuius congregato concilio Caecilianum dicunt esse damnatum, confessis traditoribus, ne schisma fieret, pacem dedisse, cum et eidem ipsi a Purpurio Liniatensi crimen traditionis fuisset obiectum, dicimus Uictorem Rusiccadiensem, Donatum Calamensem, Donatum Masculitanum, Marinum ab Aquis Tibilitanis, Siluanum Cirtensem fuisse traditores eosdemque quasi traditorum seuerissimos damnatores. hoc probamus et ecclesiasticis et municipalibus et iudicialibus gestis. sed nec ideo traditores sunt omnes in parte Donati, quia in ea isti fuerunt, nec ideo est innocens pars Donati, si isti innocentes a traditionis iniquitate monstrentur. melius enim audimus sanctam scripturam, quam uel cuiquam calumniamur de peccatis alienis uel cuiusquam similem calumniam formidamus. anima enim quae peccat ipsa morietur et unusquisque proprium onus portabit et qui manducat et bibit indigne, non alteri, sed sibi iudicium manducat et bibit, et sinuntur utraque crescere usque ad messem, ne, cum ante tempus colliguntur zizania, eradicetur simul et triticum, et commixti optimis pascuis haedi agnique pascuntur, donec a pastore qui errare non potest segregentur, et ex omni genere piscium retia complentur unitatis, donec ad iudicium litoris perducantur, nisi quod isti sua peruersa falsaque sententia sibi praeiudicant, qui propter aliena peccata iuste se dicunt ab orbis christiani communione separatos. per hanc enim absurdam insanamque opinionem ipsi faciunt, ut eis quorundam suorum peccata omnibus inputentur. quod si iustum arbitrantur, rei sunt omnes cuiuslibet apud se in uno homine inuenti manifestissimi criminis. si autem hoc, sicut iniustum est, iniustum esse cognoscunt, rei sunt omnes iniquissimae separationis. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - Ezek 18:20: quotation, high confidence - Gal 6:5: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 11:29: quotation, high confidence - Matt 13:30: allusion, high confidence - Matt 25:32: allusion, high confidence - Matt 13:47–48: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The bishops named appear in the minutes of the council of Cirta (Breviculus 3.27; Against Cresconius 3.27–30). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 31 (CSEL 53:32–33; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/31). ## On the One Baptism, against Petilian 32 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-unico-baptismo/20/#p-32 - Source: CSEL 53:33–35 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine concludes: as truth held by Jews, pagans, exorcists outside the fold, and demons is not denied, so the true baptism held by heretics is not to be denied. ### Latin text Iam uero quoniam in hoc sermone de unico magis baptismo quaestio est, ut unde coepta est nostra disputatio concludatur: sicut in ipsa unitate areae dominicae nec propter bonos laudandi sunt mali nec propter malos deserendi sunt boni, sicut in uno homine nec propter illud, quod in eo integrum est, eius est accipienda peruersitas nec propter id, quod in eo peruersum est, negari eius debet integritas, quia et in Iudaeorum iniquitate detinetur ueritas resurrectionis mortuorum et in gentilium iniquitate detinetur ueritas unius dei, qui condidit mundum, et in eorum iniquitate, qui cum Christo quia non colligunt spargunt, detinetur ueritas, qua in eius nomine pellunt spiritum inmundum, et in templorum sacrilegorum iniquitate inuenta est ueritas, qua colebant ignotum deum, et in daemonum iniquitate inuenta est ueritas, qua confessi sunt Christum: sic et in haereticorum iniquitate inuenta ueritas non neganda est, qua detinetur baptismi sacramentum. ### English translation (Claude) 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. ### Scripture references - Matt 3:12: allusion, medium confidence - Matt 12:30: allusion, high confidence - Mark 9:38: allusion, high confidence - Acts 17:23: allusion, high confidence - Mark 1:24: allusion, medium confidence ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Unic. bapt. 32 (CSEL 53:33–35; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-unico-baptismo/32).