On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2
2.0 In which Augustin proves that it is to no purpose that the Donatists bring forward the authority of Cyprian, bishop and martyr, since it is really more opposed to them than to the Catholics. For that he held that the view of his predecessor Agrippinus, on the subject of baptizing heretics in the Catholic Church when they join its communion, should only be received on condition that peace should be maintained with those who entertained the opposite view, and that the unity of the Church should never be broken by any kind of schism PL 43, 109
In which Augustin proves that it is to no purpose that the Donatists bring forward the authority of Cyprian, bishop and martyr, since it is really more opposed to them than to the Catholics. For that he held that the view of his predecessor Agrippinus, on the subject of baptizing heretics in the Catholic Church when they join its communion, should only be received on condition that peace should be maintained with those who entertained the opposite view, and that the unity of the Church should never be broken by any kind of schism.
2.1 Chapter 1 PL 43, 109
Chapter 1.—1. How much the arguments make for us, that is, for catholic peace, which the party of Donatus profess to bring forward against us from the authority of the blessed Cyprian, and how much they prove against those who bring them forward, it is my intention, with the help of God, to show in the ensuing book. If, therefore, in the course of my argument, I am obliged to repeat what I have already said in other treatises (although I will do so as little as I can,) yet this ought not to be objected to by those who have already read them and agree with them; since it is not only right that those things which are necessary for instruction should be frequently instilled into men of dull intelligence, but even in the case of those who are endowed with larger understanding, it contributes very much both to make their learning easier and their powers of teaching readier, where the same points are handled and discussed in many various ways. For I know how much it discourages a reader, when he comes upon any knotty question in the book which he has in hand, to find himself presently referred for its solution to another which he happens not to have. Wherefore, if I am compelled, by the urgency of the present questions, to repeat what I have already said in other books, I would seek forgiveness from those who know those books already, that those who are ignorant may have their difficulties removed; for it is better to give to one who has already, than to abstain from satisfying any one who is in want.
2. What, then, do they venture to say, when their mouth is closed by the force of truth, with which they will not agree? "Cyprian," say they, "whose great merits and vast learning we all know, decreed in a Council, with many of his fellow-bishops contributing their several opinions, that all heretics and schismatics, that is, all who are severed from the communion of the one Church, are without baptism; and therefore, whosoever has joined the communion of the Church after being baptized by them must be baptized in the Church." The authority of Cyprian does not alarm me, because I am reassured by his humility. We know, indeed, the great merit of the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but is it in any way greater than that of the apostle and martyr Peter, of whom the said Cyprian speaks as follows in his epistle to Quintus? "For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim or assume anything insolently and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held the primacy, and should rather be obeyed of those who were late and newly come. Nor did he despise Paul because he had before been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted the counsel of truth, and readily assented to the legitimate grounds which Paul maintained; giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren and colleagues for the common health and weal." Here is a passage in which Cyprian records what we also learn in holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle Paul, when he adopted a custom in the matter of circumcision at variance with the demands of truth. If it was therefore possible for Peter in some point to walk not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, so as to compel the Gentiles to judaize, as Paul writes in that epistle in which he calls God to witness that he does not lie; for he says, "Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not;" and, after this sacred and awful calling of God to witness, he told the whole tale, saying in the course of it, "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"—if Peter, I say, could compel the Gentiles to live after the manner of the Jews, contrary to the rule of truth which the Church afterwards held, why might not Cyprian, in opposition to the rule of faith which the whole Church afterwards held, compel heretics and schismatics to be baptized afresh? I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever? But, granting the difference in the dignity of their sees, yet they have the same glory in their martyrdom. And whether it may be the case that the hearts of those who confess and die for the true faith in the unity of charity take precedence of each other in different points, the Lord Himself will know, by the hidden and wondrous dispensation of whose grace the thief hanging on the cross once for all confesses Him, and is sent on the selfsame day to paradise, while Peter, the follower of our Lord, denies Him thrice, and has his crown postponed: for us it were rash to form a judgment from the evidence. But if any one were now found compelling a man to be circumcised after the Jewish fashion, as a necessary preliminary for baptism, this would meet with much more general repudiation by mankind, than if a man should be compelled to be baptized again. Wherefore, if Peter, on doing this, is corrected by his later colleague Paul, and is yet preserved by the bond of peace and unity till he is promoted to martyrdom, how much more readily and constantly should we prefer, either to the authority of a single bishop, or to the Council of a single province, the rule that has been established by the statutes of the universal Church? For this same Cyprian, in urging his view of the question, was still anxious to remain in the unity of peace even with those who differed from him on this point, as is shown by his own opening address at the beginning of the very Council which is quoted by the Donatists. For it is as follows:
2.2 Chapter 2 PL 43, 126
Chapter 2.—3. "When, on the calends of September, very many bishops from the provinces of Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania, with their presbyters and deacons, had met together at Carthage, a great part of the laity also being present; and when the letter addressed by Jubaianus to Cyprian, as also the answer of Cyprian to Jubaianus, on the subject of baptizing heretics, had been read, Cyprian said: ‘Ye have heard, most beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus, our fellow-bishop, has written to me, consulting my moderate ability concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, and what answer I gave him,—giving a judgment which we have once and again and often given, that heretics coming to the Church ought to be baptized, and sanctified with the baptism of the Church. Another letter of Jubaianus has likewise been read to you, in which, agreeably to his sincere and religious devotion, in answer to our epistle, he not only expressed his assent, but returned thanks also, acknowledging that he had received instruction. It remains that we severally declare our opinion on this subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us. For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein.’"
Quid ergo isti dicunt, cum veritatis viribus praefocantur, cui consentire nolunt? Cyprianus, inquiunt, cujus tantum meritum novimus tantamque doctrinam, cum multis coepiscopis suis sententias proprias conferentibus, in concilio statuit haereticos vel schismaticos, id est omnes qui extra unius Ecclesiae communionem sunt, Baptismum non habere; et ideo quisquis ab eis baptizatus ad Ecclesiam venerit, esse in Ecclesia baptizandum. Non me terret auctoritas Cypriani, quia reficit humilitas Cypriani. Magnum quidem meritum novimus Cypriani episcopi et martyris; sed numquid majus quam Petri apostoli et martyris? De quo idem Cyprianus in epistola ad Quintum ita loquitur: Nam nec Petrus, inquit, quem primum Dominus elegit, et super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam , cum secum Paulus de circumcisione postmodum disceptaret, vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter, aut arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere, et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere; nec despexit Paulum, quod Ecclesiae prius persecutor fuisset: sed consilium veritatis admisit, et rationi legitimae quam Paulus vindicabat facile consensit; documentum scilicet nobis et concordiae et patientiae tribuens, ut non pertinaciter nostra amemus, sed quae aliquando a fratribus et collegis nostris utiliter et salubriter suggeruntur, si sint vera et legitima, ipsa potius nostra ducamus . Ecce ubi commemorat Cyprianus, quod etiam nos in Scripturis sanctis didicimus, apostolum Petrum in quo primatus Apostolorum tam excellenti gratia praeeminet, aliter quam veritas postulabat de circumcisione agere solitum, a posteriore apostolo Paulo esse correctum. Si ergo potuit Petrus non recte in aliquo ingredi ad veritatem Evangelii, ita ut Gentes cogeret judaizare, quod Paulus in ea scribit Epistola, in qua Deum testatus est non se mentiri: ait enim, Quae autem scribo vobis, ecce coram Deo, quia non mentior : et post hanc tam sanctam atque terribilem attestationem Dei, narravit haec omnia, in quibus dixit, Cum vidissem quia non recte ingrediuntur ad veritatem Evangelii, dixi Petro coram omnibus, Si tu cum sis Judaeus gentiliter et non judaice vivis; quemadmodum Gentes cogis judaizare ? Si potuit, inquam, Petrus contra veritatis regulam, quam postea Ecclesia tenuit, cogere Gentes judaizare; cur non potuit Cyprianus contra regulam veritatis, quam postea tota Ecclesia tenuit, cogere haereticos vel schismaticos denuo baptizari? Puto quod sine ulla sui contumelia Cyprianus episcopus Petro apostolo comparatur, quantum attinet ad martyrii coronam. Caeterum magis vereri debeo, ne in Petrum contumeliosus existam. Quis enim nescit illum Apostolatus principatum cuilibet episcopatui praeferendum? Sed et si distat cathedrarum gratia, una est tamen martyrum gloria: et si forte se invicem in aliquo praecedunt corda confitentium, ac pro vera fide in unitate charitatis morientium, Dominus noverit, cujus occulta et mirabili dispensatione gratiarum latro in cruce pendens semel eum confitetur, et die ipso in paradisum mittitur , Petrus Dominum sequens ter eum negat , et a corona differtur: nobis hinc judicare temerarium est. Verumtamen si quisquam nunc cogat circumcidi aliquem more judaico, et sic baptizari; multo amplius detestatur hoc genus humanum, quam si aliquis cogatur rebaptizari. Quapropter cum Petrus illud faciens a Paulo posteriore corrigitur, et pacis atque unitatis vinculo custoditus ad martyrium provehitur; quanto facilius et fortius quod per universae Ecclesiae statuta firmatum est, vel unius episcopi auctoritati, vel unius provinciae concilio praeferendum est? Cum idem ipse Cyprianus ita dixerit quid ei videretur, ut in pacis unitate esse voluerit, etiam cum eis qui de hac re diversa sentirent: quod indicat ipsius primus sermo in ejusdem concilii, quod ab istis profertur, exordio. Nam ita se habet:
CAPUT II.--3. « Cum in unum Carthagine convenissent calendis septembris episcopi plurimi, ex provincia Africa, Numidia, Mauritania, cum presbyteris et diaconibus, etiam praesente plebis maxima parte, et lectae essent litterae Jubaiani ad Cyprianum factae, item Cypriani ad Jubaianum rescriptae de haereticis baptizandis, quidque postmodum Cypriano Jubaianus idem rescripserit, Cyprianus dixit: Audistis, collegae dilectissimi, quid mihi Jubaianus coepiscopus noster scripserit, consulens mediocritatem nostram de illicito et profano haereticorum Baptismo; quidque ego ei rescripserim, censens scilicet quod semel atque iterum et saepe censuimus, haereticos ad Ecclesiam venientes Ecclesiae Baptismo baptizari et sanctificari oportere. Item lectae sunt vobis et aliae Jubaiani litterae, quibus pro sua sincera et religiosa devotione, ad epistolam nostram rescribens, non tantum consensit, sed et instructum se esse gratias egit. Superest ut de hac ipsa re quid singuli sentiamus proferamus; neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se esse episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit, quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suae arbitrium proprium, tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nec ipse potest alterum judicare; sed exspectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus et solus habet potestatem et praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione, et de actu nostro judicandi. »
CAPUT III.--4. Nunc se, si audent, superbae et tumidae cervices haereticorum adversus sanctam humilitatem hujus sermonis extollant. Insani Donatistae, quos ad pacem atque unitatem sanctae Ecclesiae remeare, atque in ea sanari cupimus et optamus, quid ad haec dicitis? Vos certe nobis objicere soletis Cypriani litteras, Cypriani sententiam, Cypriani concilium: cur auctoritatem Cypriani pro vestro schismate assumitis, et ejus exemplum pro Ecclesiae pace respuitis? Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam canonicam, tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, certis suis terminis contineri, eamque omnibus posterioribus episcoporum litteris ita praeponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quidquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit: episcoporum autem litteras quae post confirmatum canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur, et per sermonem forte sapientiorem cujuslibet in ea re peritioris, et per aliorum episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem doctioremque prudentiam, et per concilia licere reprehendi, si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est: et ipsa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum conciliorum auctoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere: ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari; cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, et cognoscitur quod latebat; sine ullo typho sacrilegae superbiae, sine ulla inflata cervice arrogantiae, sine ulla contentione lividae invidiae, cum sancta humilitate, cum pace catholica, cum charitate christiana?
CAPUT IV.--5. Quapropter sanctus Cyprianus, tanto excelsior, quanto humilior, qui documentum Petri sic amavit, ut diceret, « Documentum, scilicet nobis et concordiae et patientiae tribuens, ut non pertinaciter nostra amemus, sed quae aliquando a fratribus et collegis nostris utiliter et salubriter suggeruntur, si sint vera et legitima, ipsa potius nostra ducamus; » satis ostendit facillime se correcturum fuisse sententiam suam, si quis ei demonstraret Baptismum Christi sic dari posse ab eis qui foras exierunt, quemadmodum amitti non potuit cum foras exirent: unde multa jam diximus. Nec nos ipsi tale aliquid auderemus asserere, nisi universae Ecclesiae concordissima auctoritate firmati; cui et ipse sine dubio cederet, si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquata et declarata per plenarium concilium solidaretur. Si enim Petrum laudat et praedicat ab uno posteriore collega patienter concorditerque correctum, quanto citius ipse cum concilio provinciae suae universi orbis auctoritati patefacta veritate cessisset? quia profecto et uni verum dicenti et demonstranti posset facillime consentire tam sancta anima, tam pacata: et fortasse factum est, sed nescimus. Neque enim omnia quae illo tempore inter episcopos gesta sunt, memoriae litterisque mandari potuerunt, aut omnia quae mandata sunt novimus. Quomodo enim potuit ista res tantis altercationum nebulis involuta, ad plenarii concilii luculentam illustrationem confirmationemque perduci, nisi primo diutius per orbis terrarum regiones, multis hinc atque hinc disputationibus et collationibus episcoporum pertractata constaret? Hoc autem facit sanitas pacis, ut cum diutius aliqua obscuriora quaeruntur, et propter inveniendi difficultatem, diversas pariunt in fraterna disceptatione sententias, donec ad verum liquidum perveniatur, vinculum permaneat unitatis, ne in parte praecisa remaneat insanabile vulnus erroris.
CAPUT V .--6. Et ideo plerumque doctioribus minus aliquid revelatur, ut eorum patiens et humilis charitas, in qua fructus major est, comprobetur, vel quomodo teneant unitatem, cum in rebus obscurioribus diversa sentiunt; vel quomodo accipiant veritatem, cum contra id quod sentiebant, declaratam esse cognoscunt. Quorum duorum manifestatum tenemus unum in beato Cypriano, id est, quomodo tenuerit unitatem cum eis a quibus diversum sentiebat. Ait enim: « Neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. » Alterum autem, id est, quomodo accipere potuerit veritatem contra id quod sentiebat inventam, etsi litterae tacent, merita clamant; si epistola non invenitur. corona testatur; si concilium non indicat episcoporum, consortium indicat Angelorum. Non enim parvum documentum est pacatissimae animae, in ea unitate martyrium meruisse, unde se diversum sentiens noluit separare. Homines enim sumus. Unde aliquid aliter sapere quam res se habet, humana tentatio est. Nimis autem amando sententiam suam, vel invidendo melioribus, usque ad praecidendae communionis et condendi schismatis vel haeresis sacrilegium pervenire, diabolica praesumptio est. In nullo autem aliter sapere quam res se habet, angelica perfectio est. Quia itaque homines sumus, sed spe angeli sumus, quibus aequales in resurrectione futuri sumus , quamdiu perfectionem angeli non habemus, praesumptionem diaboli non habeamus. Ideo dicit Apostolus: Tentatio vos non apprehendat nisi humana . Humanum est ergo aliquid aliter sapere. Propterea dicit alio loco: Quotquot ergo perfecti hoc sapiamus; et si quid aliter sapitis, hoc quoque vobis Deus revelabit. Quibus autem revelat cum voluerit, sive in hac vita sive post hanc vitam, nisi ambulantibus in via pacis, et in nullam praecisionem deviantibus? Non quales isti sunt, qui viam pacis non cognoverunt , nec propter aliud unitatis vinculum disruperunt. Ideoque Apostolus cum dixisset, Et si quid aliter sapitis, hoc quoque vobis Deus revelabit; ne putarent praeter viam pacis quod aliter sapiebant sibi posse revelari, continuo addidit, Verumtamen in quod pervenimus, in eo ambulemus . In quo ambulans Cyprianus, perseverantissima tolerantia, non fuso sanguine, sed in unitate fuso , per martyrii confessionem pervenit ad angelicam lucem; ut si non antea, ibi certe revelatum agnosceret, quod cum aliter saperet, sententiam diversae opinionis vinculo non praeposuit unitatis.
CAPUT VI.--7. Vos itaque, Donatistae, quid ad haec dicitis? Si nostra sententia de Baptismo vera est, omnes qui aliter sapiebant Cypriani temporibus, non sunt ab Ecclesiae unitate separati, donec illud quod aliter saperent Deus illis revelaret: vos ergo quare separatione sacrilega pacis vinculum disrupistis? Si autem vestra sententia de Baptismo vera est, Cyprianus et caeteri cum quibus eum tale concilium celebrasse perhibetis, cum eis qui aliter sapiebant, in unitate manserunt: quare vos pacis vinculum disrupistis? Quodlibet horum elegeritis, contra vestram praecisionem sententiam ferre cogimini. Respondete, quare vos separastis? Quare contra orbem terrarum altare erexistis? Quare non communicatis Ecclesiis, quibus Epistolas apostolicas missas tenetis et legitis, et secundum ipsas vos vivere dicitis? Respondete, quare vos separastis? Propterea certe, ne malorum communione periretis. Quomodo ergo non perierunt Cyprianus et tot collegae ipsius? Qui cum crederent haereticos et schismaticos Baptismum non habere, sine Baptismo tamen receptis, cum peccata eorum tam immania tamque sacrilega super eos esse crederent, eis tamen communicare, quam separari ab unitate maluerunt, dicente Cypriano, Neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes.
2.3 Chapter 3 PL 43, 128
Chapter 3.—4. Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this address. Ye mad Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the peace and unity of the holy Church, that ye may receive health therein, what have ye to say in answer to this? You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?
CAPUT II.--3. « Cum in unum Carthagine convenissent calendis septembris episcopi plurimi, ex provincia Africa, Numidia, Mauritania, cum presbyteris et diaconibus, etiam praesente plebis maxima parte, et lectae essent litterae Jubaiani ad Cyprianum factae, item Cypriani ad Jubaianum rescriptae de haereticis baptizandis, quidque postmodum Cypriano Jubaianus idem rescripserit, Cyprianus dixit: Audistis, collegae dilectissimi, quid mihi Jubaianus coepiscopus noster scripserit, consulens mediocritatem nostram de illicito et profano haereticorum Baptismo; quidque ego ei rescripserim, censens scilicet quod semel atque iterum et saepe censuimus, haereticos ad Ecclesiam venientes Ecclesiae Baptismo baptizari et sanctificari oportere. Item lectae sunt vobis et aliae Jubaiani litterae, quibus pro sua sincera et religiosa devotione, ad epistolam nostram rescribens, non tantum consensit, sed et instructum se esse gratias egit. Superest ut de hac ipsa re quid singuli sentiamus proferamus; neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se esse episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit, quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suae arbitrium proprium, tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nec ipse potest alterum judicare; sed exspectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus et solus habet potestatem et praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione, et de actu nostro judicandi. »
2.4 Chapter 4 PL 43, 128
Chapter 4.—5. Wherefore the holy Cyprian, whose dignity is only increased by his humility, who so loved the pattern set by Peter as to use the words, "Giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren and colleagues, for the common health and weal,"—he, I say, abundantly shows that he was most willing to correct his own opinion, if any one should prove to him that it is as certain that the baptism of Christ can be given by those who have strayed from the fold, as that it could not be lost when they strayed; on which subject we have already said much. Nor should we ourselves venture to assert anything of the kind, were we not supported by the unanimous authority of the whole Church, to which he himself would unquestionably have yielded, if at that time the truth of this question had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council. For if he quotes Peter as an example for his allowing himself quietly and peacefully to be corrected by one junior colleague, how much more readily would he himself, with the Council of his province, have yielded to the authority of the whole world, when the truth had been thus brought to light? For, indeed, so holy and peaceful a soul would have been most ready to assent to the arguments of any single person who could prove to him the truth; and perhaps he even did so, though we have no knowledge of the fact. For it was neither possible that all the proceedings which took place between the bishops at that time should have been committed to writing, nor are we acquainted with all that was so committed. For how could a matter which was involved in such mists of disputation even have been brought to the full illumination and authoritative decision of a plenary Council, had it not first been known to be discussed for some considerable time in the various districts of the world, with many discussions and comparisons of the views of the bishop on every side? But this is one effect of the soundness of peace, that when any doubtful points are long under investigation, and when, on account of the difficulty of arriving at the truth, they produce difference of opinion in the course of brotherly disputation, till men at last arrive at the unalloyed truth; yet the bond of unity remains, lest in the part that is cut away there should be found the incurable wound of deadly error.
CAPUT III.--4. Nunc se, si audent, superbae et tumidae cervices haereticorum adversus sanctam humilitatem hujus sermonis extollant. Insani Donatistae, quos ad pacem atque unitatem sanctae Ecclesiae remeare, atque in ea sanari cupimus et optamus, quid ad haec dicitis? Vos certe nobis objicere soletis Cypriani litteras, Cypriani sententiam, Cypriani concilium: cur auctoritatem Cypriani pro vestro schismate assumitis, et ejus exemplum pro Ecclesiae pace respuitis? Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam canonicam, tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, certis suis terminis contineri, eamque omnibus posterioribus episcoporum litteris ita praeponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quidquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit: episcoporum autem litteras quae post confirmatum canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur, et per sermonem forte sapientiorem cujuslibet in ea re peritioris, et per aliorum episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem doctioremque prudentiam, et per concilia licere reprehendi, si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est: et ipsa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum conciliorum auctoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere: ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari; cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, et cognoscitur quod latebat; sine ullo typho sacrilegae superbiae, sine ulla inflata cervice arrogantiae, sine ulla contentione lividae invidiae, cum sancta humilitate, cum pace catholica, cum charitate christiana?
2.5 Chapter 5 PL 43, 129
Chapter 5.—6. And so it is that often something is imperfectly revealed to the more learned, that their patient and humble charity, from which proceeds the greater fruit, may be proved, either in the way in which they preserve unity, when they hold different opinions on matters of comparative obscurity, or in the temper with which they receive the truth, when they learn that it has been declared to be contrary to what they thought. And of these two we have a manifestation in the blessed Cyprian of the one, viz., of the way in which he preserved unity with those from whom he differed in opinion. For he says, "Judging no one nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us." And the other, viz., in what temper he could receive the truth when found to be different from what he thought it, though his letters are silent on the point, is yet proclaimed by his merits. If there is no letter extant to prove it, it is witnessed by his crown of martyrdom; if the Council of bishops declare it not, it is declared by the host of angels. For it is no small proof of a most peaceful soul, that he won the crown of martyrdom in that unity from which he would not separate, even though he differed from it. For we are but men; and it is therefore a temptation incident to men that we should hold views at variance with the truth on any point. But to come through too great love for our own opinion, or through jealousy of our betters, even to the sacrilege of dividing the communion of the Church, and of founding heresy or schism, is a presumption worthy of the devil. But never in any point to entertain an opinion at variance with the truth is perfection found only in the angels. Since then we are men, yet forasmuch as in hope we are angels, whose equals we shall be in the resurrection, at any rate, so long as we are wanting in the perfection of angels, let us at least be without the presumption of the devil. Accordingly the apostle says, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man." It is therefore part of man’s nature to be sometimes wrong. Wherefore he says in another place, "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." But to whom does He reveal it when it is His will (be it in this life or in the life to come), save to those who walk in the way of peace, and stray not aside into any schism? Not to such as those who have not known the way of peace, or for some other cause have broken the bond of unity. And so, when the apostle said, "And if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you," lest they should think that besides the way of peace their own wrong views might be revealed to them, he immediately added, "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule." And Cyprian, walking by this rule, by the most persistent tolerance, not simply by the shedding of his blood, but because it was shed in unity (for if he gave his body to be burned, and had not charity, it would profit him nothing), came by the confession of martyrdom to the light of the angels, and if not before, at least then, acknowledged the revelation of the truth on that point on which, while yet in error, he did not prefer the maintenance of a wrong opinion to the bond of unity.
CAPUT IV.--5. Quapropter sanctus Cyprianus, tanto excelsior, quanto humilior, qui documentum Petri sic amavit, ut diceret, « Documentum, scilicet nobis et concordiae et patientiae tribuens, ut non pertinaciter nostra amemus, sed quae aliquando a fratribus et collegis nostris utiliter et salubriter suggeruntur, si sint vera et legitima, ipsa potius nostra ducamus; » satis ostendit facillime se correcturum fuisse sententiam suam, si quis ei demonstraret Baptismum Christi sic dari posse ab eis qui foras exierunt, quemadmodum amitti non potuit cum foras exirent: unde multa jam diximus. Nec nos ipsi tale aliquid auderemus asserere, nisi universae Ecclesiae concordissima auctoritate firmati; cui et ipse sine dubio cederet, si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquata et declarata per plenarium concilium solidaretur. Si enim Petrum laudat et praedicat ab uno posteriore collega patienter concorditerque correctum, quanto citius ipse cum concilio provinciae suae universi orbis auctoritati patefacta veritate cessisset? quia profecto et uni verum dicenti et demonstranti posset facillime consentire tam sancta anima, tam pacata: et fortasse factum est, sed nescimus. Neque enim omnia quae illo tempore inter episcopos gesta sunt, memoriae litterisque mandari potuerunt, aut omnia quae mandata sunt novimus. Quomodo enim potuit ista res tantis altercationum nebulis involuta, ad plenarii concilii luculentam illustrationem confirmationemque perduci, nisi primo diutius per orbis terrarum regiones, multis hinc atque hinc disputationibus et collationibus episcoporum pertractata constaret? Hoc autem facit sanitas pacis, ut cum diutius aliqua obscuriora quaeruntur, et propter inveniendi difficultatem, diversas pariunt in fraterna disceptatione sententias, donec ad verum liquidum perveniatur, vinculum permaneat unitatis, ne in parte praecisa remaneat insanabile vulnus erroris.
CAPUT V .--6. Et ideo plerumque doctioribus minus aliquid revelatur, ut eorum patiens et humilis charitas, in qua fructus major est, comprobetur, vel quomodo teneant unitatem, cum in rebus obscurioribus diversa sentiunt; vel quomodo accipiant veritatem, cum contra id quod sentiebant, declaratam esse cognoscunt. Quorum duorum manifestatum tenemus unum in beato Cypriano, id est, quomodo tenuerit unitatem cum eis a quibus diversum sentiebat. Ait enim: « Neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. » Alterum autem, id est, quomodo accipere potuerit veritatem contra id quod sentiebat inventam, etsi litterae tacent, merita clamant; si epistola non invenitur. corona testatur; si concilium non indicat episcoporum, consortium indicat Angelorum. Non enim parvum documentum est pacatissimae animae, in ea unitate martyrium meruisse, unde se diversum sentiens noluit separare. Homines enim sumus. Unde aliquid aliter sapere quam res se habet, humana tentatio est. Nimis autem amando sententiam suam, vel invidendo melioribus, usque ad praecidendae communionis et condendi schismatis vel haeresis sacrilegium pervenire, diabolica praesumptio est. In nullo autem aliter sapere quam res se habet, angelica perfectio est. Quia itaque homines sumus, sed spe angeli sumus, quibus aequales in resurrectione futuri sumus , quamdiu perfectionem angeli non habemus, praesumptionem diaboli non habeamus. Ideo dicit Apostolus: Tentatio vos non apprehendat nisi humana . Humanum est ergo aliquid aliter sapere. Propterea dicit alio loco: Quotquot ergo perfecti hoc sapiamus; et si quid aliter sapitis, hoc quoque vobis Deus revelabit. Quibus autem revelat cum voluerit, sive in hac vita sive post hanc vitam, nisi ambulantibus in via pacis, et in nullam praecisionem deviantibus? Non quales isti sunt, qui viam pacis non cognoverunt , nec propter aliud unitatis vinculum disruperunt. Ideoque Apostolus cum dixisset, Et si quid aliter sapitis, hoc quoque vobis Deus revelabit; ne putarent praeter viam pacis quod aliter sapiebant sibi posse revelari, continuo addidit, Verumtamen in quod pervenimus, in eo ambulemus . In quo ambulans Cyprianus, perseverantissima tolerantia, non fuso sanguine, sed in unitate fuso , per martyrii confessionem pervenit ad angelicam lucem; ut si non antea, ibi certe revelatum agnosceret, quod cum aliter saperet, sententiam diversae opinionis vinculo non praeposuit unitatis.
2.6 Chapter 6 PL 43, 109
Chapter 6.—7. What then, ye Donatists, what have ye to say to this? If our opinion about baptism is true, yet all who thought differently in the time of Cyprian were not cut off from the unity of the Church, till God revealed to them the truth of the point on which they were in error, why then have ye by your sacrilegious separation broken the bond of peace? But if yours is the true opinion about baptism, Cyprian and the others, in conjunction with whom ye set forth that he held such a Council, remained in unity with those who thought otherwise; why, therefore, have ye broken the bond of peace? Choose which alternative ye will, ye are compelled to pronounce an opinion against your schism. Answer me, wherefore have ye separated yourselves? Wherefore have ye erected an altar in opposition to the whole world? Wherefore do ye not communicate with the Churches to which apostolic epistles have been sent, which you yourselves read and acknowledge, in accordance with whose tenor you say that you order your lives? Answer me, wherefore have ye separated yourselves? I suppose in order that ye might not perish by communion with wicked men. How then was it that Cyprian, and so many of his colleagues, did not perish? For though they believed that heretics and schismatics did not possess baptism, yet they chose rather to hold communion with them when they had been received into the Church without baptism, although they believed that their flagrant and sacrilegious sins were yet upon their heads, than to be separated from the unity of the Church, according to the words of Cyprian, "Judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us."
8. If, therefore, by such communion with the wicked the just cannot but perish, the Church had already perished in the time of Cyprian. Whence then sprang the origin of Donatus? where was he taught, where was he baptized, where was he ordained, since the Church had been already destroyed by the contagion of communion with the wicked? But if the Church still existed, the wicked could do no harm to the good in one communion with them. Wherefore did ye separate yourselves? Behold, I see in unity Cyprian and others, his colleagues, who, on holding a council, decided that those who have been baptized without the communion of the Church have no true baptism, and that therefore it must be given them when they join the Church. But again, behold I see in the same unity that certain men think differently in this matter, and that, recognizing in those who come from heretics and schismatics the baptism of Christ, they do not venture to baptize them afresh. All of these catholic unity embraces in her motherly breast, bearing each other’s burdens by turns, and endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, till God should reveal to one or other of them any error in their views. If the one party held the truth, were they infected by the others, or no? If the others held the truth, were they infected by the first, or no? Choose which ye will. If there was contamination, the Church even then ceased to exist; answer me, therefore, whence came ye forth hither? But if the Church remained, the good are in no wise contaminated by the bad in such communion; answer me, therefore, why did ye break the bond?
9. Or is it perhaps that schismatics, when received without baptism, bring no infection, but that it is brought by those who deliver up the sacred books? For that there were traditors of your number is proved by the clearest testimony of history. And if you had then brought true evidence against those whom you were accusing, you would have proved your cause before the unity of the whole world, so that you would have been retained whilst they were shut out. And if you endeavored to do this, and did not succeed, the world is not to blame, which trusted the judges of the Church rather than the beaten parties in the suit; whilst, if you would not urge your suit, the world again is not to blame, which could not condemn men without their cause being heard. Why, then, did you separate yourselves from the innocent? You cannot defend the sacrilege of your schism. But this I pass over. But so much I say, that if the traditors could have defiled you, who were not convicted by you, and by whom, on the contrary, you were beaten, much more could the sacrilege of schismatics and heretics, received into the Church, as you maintain, without baptism, have defiled Cyprian. Yet he did not separate himself. And inasmuch as the Church continued to exist, it is clear that it could not be defiled. Wherefore, then, did you separate yourselves, I do not say from the innocent, as the facts proved them, but from the traditors, as they were never proved to be? Are the sins of traditors, as I began to say, heavier than those of schismatics? Let us not bring in deceitful balances, to which we may hang what weights we will and how we will, saying to suit ourselves, "This is heavy and this is light;" but let us bring forward the sacred balance out of holy Scripture, as out of the Lord’s treasure-house, and let us weigh them by it, to see which is the heavier; or rather, let us not weigh them for ourselves, but read the weights as declared by the Lord. At the time when the Lord showed, by the example of recent punishment, that there was need to guard against the sins of olden days, and an idol was made and worshipped, and the prophetic book was burned by the wrath of a scoffing king, and schism was attempted, the idolatry was punished with the sword, the burning of the book by slaughter in war and captivity in a foreign land, schism by the earth opening, and swallowing up alive the leaders of the schism while the rest were consumed with fire from heaven. Who will now doubt that that was the worse crime which received the heavier punishment? If men coming from such sacrilegious company, without baptism, as you maintain, could not defile Cyprian, how could those defile you who were not convicted but supposed betrayers of the sacred books? For if they had not only given up the books to be burned, but had actually burned them with their own hands, they would have been guilty of a less sin than if they had committed schism; for schism is visited with the heavier, the other with the lighter punishment, not at man’s discretion, but by the judgment of God.
2.7 Chapter 7 PL 43, 130
Chapter 7.—10. Wherefore, then, have ye severed yourselves? If there is any sense left in you, you must surely see that you can find no possible answer to these arguments. "We are not left," they say, "so utterly without resource, but that we can still answer, It is our will. ‘Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.’" They do not understand that this was said to men who were wishing to judge, not of open facts, but of the hearts of other men. For how does the apostle himself come to say so much about the sins of schisms and heresies? Or how comes that verse in the Psalms, "If of a truth ye love justice, judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?" But why does the Lord Himself say, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment," if we may not judge any man? Lastly, why, in the case of those traditors, whom they have judged unrighteously, have they themselves ventured to pass any judgments at all on another man’s servants? To their own master they were standing or falling. Or why, in the case of the recent followers of Maximianus, have they not hesitated to bring forward the judgment delivered with the infallible voice, as they aver, of a plenary Council, in such terms as to compare them with those first schismatics whom the earth swallowed up alive? And yet some of them, as they cannot deny, they either condemned though innocent, or received back again in their guilt. But when a truth is urged which they cannot gainsay, they mutter a truly wholesome murmuring: "It is our will: ‘Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.’" But when a weak sheep is espied in the desert, and the pastor who should reclaim it to the fold is nowhere to be seen, then there is setting of teeth, and breaking of the weak neck: "Thou wouldst be a good man, wert thou not a traditor. Consult the welfare of thy soul; be a Christian." What unconscionable madness! When it is said to a Christian, "Be a Christian," what other lesson is taught, save a denial that he is a Christian? Was it not the same lesson which those persecutors of the Christians wished to teach, by resisting whom the crown of martyrdom was gained? Or must we even look on crime as lighter when committed with threatening of the sword than with treachery of the tongue?
11. Answer me this, ye ravening wolves, who, seeking to be clad in sheep’s clothing, think that the letters of the blessed Cyprian are in your favor. Did the sacrilege of schismatics defile Cyprian, or did it not? If it did, the Church perished from that instant, and there remained no source from which ye might spring. If it did not, then by what offense on the part of others can the guiltless possibly be defiled, if the sacrilege of schism cannot defile them? Wherefore, then, have ye severed yourselves? Wherefore, while shunning the lighter offenses, which are inventions of your own, have ye committed the heaviest offense of all, the sacrilege of schism? Will ye now perchance confess that those men were no longer schismatics or heretics who had been baptized without the communion of the Church, or in some heresy or schism, because by coming over to the Church, and renouncing their former errors, they had ceased to be what formerly they were? How then was it, that though they were not baptized, their sins remained not on their heads? Was it that the baptism was Christ’s, but that it could not profit them without the communion of the Church; yet when they came over, and, renouncing their past error, were received into the communion of the Church by the laying on of hands, then, being now rooted and founded in charity, without which all other things are profitless, they began to receive profit for the remission of sins and the sanctification of their lives from that sacrament, which, while without the pale of the Church, they possessed in vain?
12. Cease, then, to bring forward against us the authority of Cyprian in favor of repeating baptism, but cling with us to the example of Cyprian for the preservation of unity. For this question of baptism had not been as yet completely worked out, but yet the Church observed the most wholesome custom of correcting what was wrong, not repeating what was already given, even in the case of schismatics and heretics: she healed the wounded part, but did not meddle with what was whole. And this custom, coming, I suppose, from apostolical tradition (like many other things which are held to have been handed down under their actual sanction, because they are preserved throughout the whole Church, though they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils of their successors),—this most wholesome custom, I say, according to the holy Cyprian, began to be what is called amended by his predecessor Agrippinus. But, according to the teaching which springs from a more careful investigation into the truth, which, after great doubt and fluctuation, was brought at last to the decision of a plenary Council, we ought to believe that it rather began to be corrupted than to receive correction at the hands of Agrippinus. Accordingly, when so great a question forced itself upon him, and it was difficult to decide the point, whether remission of sins and man’s spiritual regeneration could take place among heretics or schismatics, and the authority of Agrippinus was there to guide him, with that of some few men who shared in his misapprehension of this question, having preferred attempting something new to maintaining a custom which they did not understand how to defend; under these circumstances considerations of probability forced themselves into the eyes of his soul, and barred the way to the thorough investigation of the truth.
CAPUT VI.--7. Vos itaque, Donatistae, quid ad haec dicitis? Si nostra sententia de Baptismo vera est, omnes qui aliter sapiebant Cypriani temporibus, non sunt ab Ecclesiae unitate separati, donec illud quod aliter saperent Deus illis revelaret: vos ergo quare separatione sacrilega pacis vinculum disrupistis? Si autem vestra sententia de Baptismo vera est, Cyprianus et caeteri cum quibus eum tale concilium celebrasse perhibetis, cum eis qui aliter sapiebant, in unitate manserunt: quare vos pacis vinculum disrupistis? Quodlibet horum elegeritis, contra vestram praecisionem sententiam ferre cogimini. Respondete, quare vos separastis? Quare contra orbem terrarum altare erexistis? Quare non communicatis Ecclesiis, quibus Epistolas apostolicas missas tenetis et legitis, et secundum ipsas vos vivere dicitis? Respondete, quare vos separastis? Propterea certe, ne malorum communione periretis. Quomodo ergo non perierunt Cyprianus et tot collegae ipsius? Qui cum crederent haereticos et schismaticos Baptismum non habere, sine Baptismo tamen receptis, cum peccata eorum tam immania tamque sacrilega super eos esse crederent, eis tamen communicare, quam separari ab unitate maluerunt, dicente Cypriano, Neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes.
2.8 Chapter 8 PL 43, 131
Chapter 8.—13. Nor do I think that the blessed Cyprian had any other motive in the free expression and earlier utterance of what he thought in opposition to the custom of the Church, save that he should thankfully receive any one that could be found with a fuller revelation of the truth, and that he should show forth a pattern for imitation, not only of diligence in teaching, but also of modesty in learning; but that, if no one should be found to bring forward any argument by which those considerations of probability should be refuted, then he should abide by his opinion, with the full consciousness that he had neither concealed what he conceived to be the truth, nor violated the unity which he loved. For so he understood the words of the apostle: "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace." "In which passage he has taught and shown, that many things are revealed to individuals for the better, and that we ought not each to strive pertinaciously for what he has once imbibed and held, but if anything has appeared better and more useful, he should willingly embrace it." At any rate, in these words he not only advised those to agree with him who saw no better course, but also exhorted any who could to bring forward arguments by which the maintenance of the former custom might rather be established; that if they should be of such a nature as not to admit of refutation, he might show in his own person with what sincerity he said "that we ought not each to strive pertinaciously for what he has once imbibed and held, but that, if anything has appeared better and more useful, he should willingly embrace it." But inasmuch as none appeared, except such as simply urged the custom against him, and the arguments which they produced in its favor were not of a kind to bring conviction to a soul like his, this mighty reasoner was not content to give up his opinions, which, though they were not true, as he was himself unable to see, were at any rate not confuted, in favor of a custom which had truth on its side, but had not yet been confirmed. And yet, had not his predecessor Agrippinus, and some of his fellow-bishops throughout Africa, first tempted him to desert this custom, even by the decision of a Council, he certainly would not have dared to argue against it. But, amid the perplexities of so obscure a question, and seeing everywhere around him a strong universal custom, he would rather have put restraint upon himself by prayer and stretching forth his mind towards God, so as to have perceived or taught that for truth which was afterwards decided by a plenary Council. But when he had found relief amid his weariness in the authority of the former Council which was held by Agrippinus, he preferred maintaining what was in a manner the discovery of his predecessors, to expending further toil in investigation. For, at the end of his letter to Quintus, he thus shows how he has sought repose, if one may use the expression, for his weariness, in what might be termed the resting-place of authority.
Si ergo tali communione malorum pereunt justi, jam Ecclesia temporibus Cypriani perierat. Unde igitur exstitit origo Donati, ubi catechizatus est, ubi baptizatus, ubi ordinatus, quando jam Ecclesiam contagio communionis exstinxerat? Si autem erat Ecclesia, nihil obesse mali bonis in una communione potuerunt. Quare vos separastis? Ecce in unitate video Cyprianum et alios collegas ejus, qui facto concilio censuerunt omnes qui extra Ecclesiae communionem fuerint baptizati, Baptismum non habere, et ideo eis dandum esse cum veniunt. Sed ecce rursus in eadem unitate video quosdam de hac re aliter sentire, et eos qui ab haereticis vel schismaticis venerint, agnito in eis Baptismo Christi non audere iterum baptizare. Hos omnes catholica unitas materno sinu complectitur, invicem onera sua portantes, et studentes servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis , donec alteris eorum, si quid aliter sapiebant, Dominus revelaret. Si vera isti sentiebant, ab illis non contaminabantur, an contaminabantur? Si vera illi sentiebant, ab istis non contaminabantur, an contaminabantur? Quod volueritis eligite. Si contaminabantur, jam tunc non erat Ecclesia: respondete, unde huc existis? Si autem permanebat Ecclesia, nullo modo boni a malis tali communione contaminantur: respondete, quare vinculum disrupistis?
2.9 Chapter 9 PL 43, 131
Chapter 9.—14. "This, moreover," says he, "Agrippinus, a man of excellent memory, with the rest, bishops with him, who at that time governed the Church of the Lord in the province of Africa and Numidia, did establish and, after the investigation of a mutual Council had weighed it, confirm; whose sentence, being both religious and legitimate and salutary in accordance with the Catholic faith and Church, we also have followed." By this witness he gives sufficient proof how much more ready he would have been to bear his testimony, had any Council been held to discuss this matter which either embraced the whole Church, or at least represented our brethren beyond the sea. But such a Council had not yet been held, because the whole world was bound together by the powerful bond of custom; and this was deemed sufficient to oppose to those who wished to introduce what was new, because they could not comprehend the truth. Afterwards, however, while the question became matter for discussion and investigation amongst many on either side, the new practice was not only invented, but even submitted to the authority and power of a plenary Council,—after the martyrdom of Cyprian, it is true, but before we were born. But that this was indeed the custom of the Church, which afterwards was confirmed by a plenary Council, in which the truth was brought to light, and many difficulties cleared away, is plain enough from the words of the blessed Cyprian himself in that same letter to Jubaianus, which was quoted as being read in the Council. For he says, "But some one asks, What then will be done in the case of those who, coming out of heresy to the Church, have already been admitted without baptism?" where certainly he shows plainly enough what was usually done, though he would have wished it otherwise; and in the very fact of his quoting the Council of Agrippinus, he clearly proves that the custom of the Church was different. Nor indeed was it requisite that he should seek to establish the practice by this Council, if it was already sanctioned by custom; and in the Council itself some of the speakers expressly declare, in giving their opinion, that they went against the custom of the Church in deciding what they thought was right. Wherefore let the Donatists consider this one point, which surely none can fail to see, that if the authority of Cyprian is to be followed, it is to be followed rather in maintaining unity than in altering the custom of the Church; but if respect is paid to his Council, it must at any rate yield place to the later Council of the universal Church, of which he rejoiced to be a member, often warning his associates that they should all follow his example in upholding the coherence of the whole body. For both later Councils are preferred among later generations to those of earlier date; and the whole is always, with good reason, looked upon as superior to the parts.
An forte schismatici sine Baptismo recepti non contaminant, et traditores sanctorum Librorum contaminant? Vestros quidem fuisse traditores manifestissima rerum gesta testantur. Et si tunc in illos quos arguebatis vera diceretis, causam vestram unitati orbis terrarum persuasissetis, ut vobis retentis illi excluderentur. Quod si conati estis facere et non obtinuistis, innocens est orbis terrarum, qui judicibus ecclesiasticis potius quam victis litigatoribus credidit: si autem noluistis agere causam vestram, innocens est orbis terrarum, qui damnare non potuit inauditos. Quare ergo vos ab innocentibus separastis? Sacrilegium schismatis vestri defendere non valetis. Sed haec omitto: hoc dico; si vos possent contaminare traditores, qui non sunt a vobis convicti, et a quibus vos estis victi, multo magis possent sacrilegia schismaticorum et haereticorum sine Baptismo secundum vestram sententiam recepta contaminare Cyprianum. Non se tamen ille separavit. Et quia permanebat Ecclesia, manifestum est quod contaminari non potuit. Quare ergo vos, non dico ab innocentibus, quod probatur; sed ab ipsis, quod non probatur, traditoribus separastis? An, ut dicere coeperam, graviora sunt crimina traditorum quam schismaticorum? Non afferamus stateras dolosas, ubi appendamus quod volumus, et quomodo volumus, pro arbitrio nostro dicentes, Hoc grave, hoc leve est: sed afferamus divinam stateram de Scripturis sanctis tanquam de thesauris dominicis, et in illa quid sit gravius appendamus; imo non appendamus, sed a Domino appensa recognoscamus. Tempore illo quo Dominus priora delicta recentibus poenarum exemplis cavenda monstravit, et idolum fabricatum atque adoratum est, et propheticus liber ira regis contemptoris incensus, et schisma tentatum; idololatria gladio punita est , exustio libri bellica caede et peregrina captivitate , schisma hiatu terrae, sepultis auctoribus vivis, et caeteris coelesti igne consumptis . Quis jam dubitaverit hoc esse sceleratius commissum, quod est gravius vindicatum? A talibus sacrilegis venientes, sine Baptismo, ut dicitis, si Cyprianum non contaminabant, quomodo vos contaminare poterant non convicti, sed conficti traditores? Qui si non Libros incendendos tradidissent, sed eos ipsi manibus suis incendissent, minoris fuissent utique sceleris, quam si schisma committerent; quia illud mitius, illud gravius vindicatum est, non humano arbitrio, sed divino judicio.
CAPUT VII.--10. Quare vos ergo separastis? Si ullus sensus in vobis est, videtis vos certe quid responderi possit non invenire. Non usque adeo, inquiunt, omnia defecerunt, ut non possimus respondere, Sic volumus. « Tu quis es, qui judices alienum servum? Suo domino stat, aut cadit » . Quod eis dictum non intelligunt, qui volebant non de factis manifestis, sed de cordibus alienis judicare. Nam quomodo ipse tam multa de sceleribus schismatum et haeresum loquitur? Aut quomodo canitur in Psalmis, Si vere justitiam diligitis, recte judicate, filii hominum ? Cur autem ipse Dominus dicit, Nolite personaliter judicare, sed rectum judicium judicate ; si non licet de aliquo judicare? Postremo ipsi de illis traditoribus de quibus falsa judicaverunt, cur omnino judicaverunt de servis alienis? Suo domino stabant, aut cadebant. Cur denique de recentibus Maximianistis plenarii concilii, sicut dicunt, ore veridico non dubitaverunt tale proferre judicium, ut eos primis illis schismaticis, quos vivos terra sorbuit, compararent? Quorum quosdam tamen, quod negare non possunt, aut innocentes damnaverunt, aut nocentes iterum receperunt. Sed cum verum dicitur cui respondere non possunt, rodunt murmura salebrosa: Sic volumus. « Tu quis es, qui judices alienum servum? Suo domino stat, aut cadit. » Cum autem infirma ovis in solitudine aspicitur, ubi pastor qui reclamet absens videtur, dentes exseruntur, frangitur guttur invalidum: Bonus homo esses, si non esses traditor. Consule animae tuae; esto christianus. O improbam rabiem! Cum christiano dicitur, Esto christianus; quid aliud docetur, nisi negare se christianum? Numquid aliud erat quod docere cupiebant illi Christianorum persecutores, quibus qui restiterunt, facti sunt martyres? An levius putatur quod gladio minante, quam quod lingua insidiante committitur?
2.10 Chapter 10 PL 43, 132
Chapter 10.—15. But what attitude do they assume, when it is shown that the holy Cyprian, though he did not himself admit as members of the Church those who had been baptized in heresy or schism, yet held communion with those who did admit them, according to his express declaration, "Judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us?" If he was polluted by communion with persons of this kind, why do they follow his authority in the question of baptism? But if he was not polluted by communion with them, why do they not follow his example in maintaining unity? Have they anything to urge in their defense except the plea, "We choose to have it so?" What other answer have any sinful or wicked men to the discourse of truth or justice,—the voluptuous, for instance, the drunkards, adulterers, and those who are impure in any way, thieves, robbers, murderers, plunderers, evil-doers, idolaters,—what other answer can they make when convicted by the voice of truth, except "I choose to do it;" "It is my pleasure so"? And if they have in them a tinge of Christianity, they say further, "Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?" Yet these have so much more remains of modesty, that when, in accordance with divine and human law, they meet with punishment for their abandoned life and deeds, they do not style themselves martyrs; while the Donatists wish at once to lead a sacrilegious life and enjoy a blameless reputation, to suffer no punishment for their wicked deeds, and to gain a martyr’s glory in their just punishment. As if they were not experiencing the greater mercy and patience of God, in proportion as "executing His judgments upon them by little and little, He giveth them place of repentance," and ceases not to redouble His scourgings in this life; that, considering what they suffer, and why they suffer it, they may in time grow wise; and that those who have received the baptism of the party of Maximianus in order to preserve the unity of Donatus, may the more readily embrace the baptism of the whole world in order to preserve the peace of Christ; that they may be restored to the root, may be reconciled to the unity of the Church, may see that they have nothing left for them to say, though something yet remains for them to do; that for their former deeds the sacrifice of loving-kindness may be offered to a long-suffering God, whose unity they have broken by their wicked sin, on whose sacraments they have inflicted such a lasting wrong. For "the Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, plenteous in mercy and truth." Let them embrace His mercy and long-suffering in this life, and fear His truth in the next. For He willeth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his way and live; because He bends His judgment against the wrongs that have been inflicted on Him. This is our exhortation.
CAPUT VII.--10. Quare vos ergo separastis? Si ullus sensus in vobis est, videtis vos certe quid responderi possit non invenire. Non usque adeo, inquiunt, omnia defecerunt, ut non possimus respondere, Sic volumus. « Tu quis es, qui judices alienum servum? Suo domino stat, aut cadit » . Quod eis dictum non intelligunt, qui volebant non de factis manifestis, sed de cordibus alienis judicare. Nam quomodo ipse tam multa de sceleribus schismatum et haeresum loquitur? Aut quomodo canitur in Psalmis, Si vere justitiam diligitis, recte judicate, filii hominum ? Cur autem ipse Dominus dicit, Nolite personaliter judicare, sed rectum judicium judicate ; si non licet de aliquo judicare? Postremo ipsi de illis traditoribus de quibus falsa judicaverunt, cur omnino judicaverunt de servis alienis? Suo domino stabant, aut cadebant. Cur denique de recentibus Maximianistis plenarii concilii, sicut dicunt, ore veridico non dubitaverunt tale proferre judicium, ut eos primis illis schismaticis, quos vivos terra sorbuit, compararent? Quorum quosdam tamen, quod negare non possunt, aut innocentes damnaverunt, aut nocentes iterum receperunt. Sed cum verum dicitur cui respondere non possunt, rodunt murmura salebrosa: Sic volumus. « Tu quis es, qui judices alienum servum? Suo domino stat, aut cadit. » Cum autem infirma ovis in solitudine aspicitur, ubi pastor qui reclamet absens videtur, dentes exseruntur, frangitur guttur invalidum: Bonus homo esses, si non esses traditor. Consule animae tuae; esto christianus. O improbam rabiem! Cum christiano dicitur, Esto christianus; quid aliud docetur, nisi negare se christianum? Numquid aliud erat quod docere cupiebant illi Christianorum persecutores, quibus qui restiterunt, facti sunt martyres? An levius putatur quod gladio minante, quam quod lingua insidiante committitur?
2.11 Chapter 11 PL 43, 133
Chapter 11.—16. For this reason, then, we hold them to be enemies, because we speak the truth, because we are afraid to be silent, because we fear to shrink from pressing our point with all the force that lies within our power, because we obey the apostle when he says, "Preach the word; be instant in season out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort." But, as the gospel says, "They love the praise of men more than the praise of God;" and while they fear to incur blame for a time, they do not fear to incur damnation for ever. They see, too, themselves what wrong they are doing; they see that they have no answer which they can make, but they overspread the inexperienced with mists, whilst they themselves are being swallowed up alive,—that is, are perishing knowingly and willfully. They see that men are amazed, and look with abhorrence on the fact that they have divided themselves into many schisms, especially in Carthage, the capital and most noted city of all Africa; they have endeavored to patch up the disgrace of their rags. Thinking that they could annihilate the followers of Maximianus, they pressed heavily on them through the agency of Optatus the Gildonian; they inflicted on them many wrongs amid the cruellest of persecutions. Then they received back some, thinking that all could be converted under the influence of the same terror; but they were unwilling to do those whom they received the wrong of baptizing afresh those who had been baptized by them in their schism, or rather of causing them to be baptized again within their communion by the very same men by whom they had been baptized outside, and thus they at once made an exception to their own impious custom. They feel how wickedly they are acting in assailing the baptism of the whole world, when they have received the baptism of the followers of Maximianus. But they fear those whom they have themselves rebaptized, lest they should receive no mercy from them, when they have shown it to others; lest these should call them to account for their souls when they have ceased to destroy those of other men.
Ad ista respondete, lupi rapaces, qui pellibus ovinis indui cupientes , beati Cypriani litteras pro vobis esse arbitramini. Contaminabat Cyprianum sacrilegium schismaticorum, an non contaminabat? Si contaminabat, jam tunc periit Ecclesia, non erat unde propagaremini. Si autem non contaminabat, quo scelere alieno possunt in unitate contaminari innocentes, si schismatis sacrilegio non possunt? Quare ergo vos separastis? Quare cum leviora quae fingitis, fugitis, ipsum sacrilegium schismatis, quod est omnibus gravius, commisistis? An forte jam placet fateri non fuisse jam illos vel schismaticos vel haereticos, qui extra communionem Ecclesiae, vel in schismate aliquo vel in haeresi fuerant baptizati, quia transeundo ad Ecclesiam, et errores suos pristinos anathemando, destiterant esse quod erant? Quomodo ergo sine Baptismo non super eos remanserant scelera eorum? An ille Baptismus Christi erat, sed eis extra Ecclesiae communionem prodesse non poterat; eum autem venerunt, et anathemato praeterito errore in Ecclesiae pacem per manus impositionem recepti sunt, tunc in charitate radicatis et fundatis, sine qua infructuosa sunt caetera, prodesse coepit et ad remissionem peccatorum et ad sanctificationem vitae, quod sine fructu extra portabant?
2.12 Chapter 12 PL 43, 133
Chapter 12.—17. What answer they can give about the followers of Maximianus whom they have received, they cannot divine. If they say, "Those we received were innocent," the answer is obvious, "Then you had condemned the innocent." If they say, "We did it in ignorance," then you judged rashly (just as you passed a rash judgment on the traditors), and your declaration was false that "you must know that they were condemned by the truthful voice of a plenary Council." For indeed the innocent could never be condemned by a voice of truth. If they say, "We did not condemn them," it is only necessary to cite the Council, to cite the names of bishops and states alike. If they say, "The Council itself is none of ours," then we cite the records of the proconsular province, where more than once they quoted the same Council to justify the exclusion of the followers of Maximianus from the basilicas, and to confound them by the din of the judges and the force of their allies. If they say that Felicianus of Musti, and Prætextatus of Assavæ, whom they afterwards received, were not of the party of Maximianus, then we cite the records in which they demanded, in the courts of law, that these persons should be excluded from the Council which they held against the party of Maximianus. If they say, "They were received for the sake of peace," our answer is, "Why then do ye not acknowledge the only true and full peace? Who urged you, who compelled you to receive a schismatic whom you had condemned, to preserve the peace of Donatus, and to condemn the world unheard, in violation of the peace of Christ?" Truth hems them in on every side. They see that there is no answer left for them to make, and they think that there is nothing left for them to do; they cannot find out what to say. They are not allowed to be silent. They had rather strive with perverse utterance against truth, than be restored to peace by a confession of their faults.
Nolite ergo nobis auctoritatem objicere Cypriani ad Baptismi repetitionem: sed tenete nobiscum exemplum Cypriani ad unitatis conservationem. Nondum enim erat diligenter illa Baptismi quaestio pertractata, sed tamen saluberrimam consuetudinem tenebat Ecclesia, in ipsis quoque schismaticis et haereticis corrigere quod pravum est, non iterare quod datum est; sanare quod vulneratum est, non curare quod sanum est. Quam consuetudinem credo ex apostolica traditione venientem (sicut multa quae non inveniuntur in litteris eorum, neque in conciliis posteriorum, et tamen quia per universam custodiuntur Ecclesiam, nonnisi ab ipsis tradita et commendata creduntur): hanc ergo saluberrimam consuetudinem per Agrippinum praedecessorem suum dicit sanctus Cyprianus quasi coepisse corrigi. Sed sicut diligentius inquisita veritas docuit, quae post magnos dubitationis fluctus ad plenarii concilii confirmationem perducta est, verius creditur per Agrippinum corrumpi coepisse, non corrigi. Irruente itaque tam magna quaestione, cum de remissione peccatorum et de spirituali hominis regeneratione, utrum posset apud haereticos vel apud schismaticos fieri, difficile ratio redderetur, et praecederet auctoritas Agrippini, et nonnullorum qui ei consenserant hominum in hac quaestione deficientium, qui maluerant aliquid novum moliri, quam tenere consuetudinem cujus defensionem non intelligebant; irruerunt in oculos animae verisimiles rationes, et intercluserunt iter pervestigandae veritatis.
CAPUT VIII.--13. Nec arbitror beatum Cyprianum propter aliud contra consuetudinem quid sentiret liberius exprompsisse, prioremque dixisse, nisi ut alium, si forte existeret, cui esset melius revelatum, gratissime acciperet; et ostenderet imitandam, non solum docendi diligentiam, sed etiam discendi modestiam: si autem nullus existeret, qui tale aliquid afferret, unde illae omnes verisimiles rationes quibus movebatur refellerentur, in eadem sententia permaneret, bene sibi conscius et non occultatae quae putabatur veritatis, et retentae quae amabatur unitatis. Nam et illud sic intellexit quod ait Apostolus: « Prophetae autem duo aut tres loquantur, et caeteri examinent; si alii revelatum fuerit sedenti, ille prior taceat » . Qua in parte, inquit, docuit et ostendit, multa singulis in melius revelari, et debere unumquemque, non pro eo quod semel imbiberat et tenebat, pertinaciter congredi; sed si quid melius et utilius exstiterit, libenter amplecti . His utique verbis non solum eos admonuit sibi consentire, qui melius aliquid non videbant; sed etiam hortatus est, si qui possent afferre aliquid quo prior consuetudo servanda potius firmaretur: ut si tale esset quod refelli non posset, etiam ipse ostenderet quam veraciter dixerit, « debere unumquemque non pro eo quod semel imbiberat et tenebat, pertinaciter congredi; sed si quid melius et utilius exstiterit, libenter amplecti. » Sed quia tunc non exstiterant, nisi qui ei consuetudinem opponerent; defensiones autem ipsius consuetudinis non tales afferrent, quibus illa talis anima moveretur: noluit vir gravissimus rationes suas, etsi non veras (quod eum latebat), sed tamen non victas, veraci quidem, sed tamen nondum assertae consuetudini cedere. Quam tamen consuetudinem nisi prior ante Agrippinus, et nonnulli per Africam coepiscopi ejus etiam per concilii sententias deserere tentavissent, non auderet iste saltem ratiocinari adversus eam: sed in tam obscura quaestione turbatus, et ubique intuens universalem robustamque consuetudinem, coarctaret se potius et prece et intentione mentis ad Deum, ut quod postea plenario concilio visum est, id verum esse perspiceret et doceret. Sed cum fatigatum praecedentis concilii quod per Agrippinum factum est excepisset auctoritas, maluit praedecessorum suorum tanquam inventum defendere, quam inquirendo amplius laborare. Nam in fine epistolae ad Quintum ita ostendit, in quo tanquam lectulo auctoritatis quasi fessus acquieverit.
CAPUT IX.--14. Quod quidem, inquit, et Agrippinus bonae memoriae vir, cum caeteris coepiscopis suis qui illo tempore in provincia Africa et Numidia Ecclesiam Domini gubernabant, statuit, et librata concilii communis examinatione firmavit: quorum sententiam religiosam et legitimam, salutarem, fidei et Ecclesiae catholicae congruentem, nos etiam secuti sumus. Hac attestatione satis ostendit, multo magis se fuisse commemoraturum, si quod de hac re transmarinum vel universale concilium factum esset. Nondum autem factum erat, quia consuetudinis robore tenebatur orbis terrarum, et haec sola opponebatur inducere volentibus novitatem, quia non poterant apprehendere veritatem. Postea tamen dum inter multos ex utraque parte tractatur et quaeritur, non solum inventa est, sed etiam ad plenarii concilii auctoritatem roburque perducta, post Cypriani quidem passionem, sed antequam nos nati essemus. Hanc autem fuisse consuetudinem Ecclesiae, quae postea multis discussis ambagibus perspecta veritate plenario concilio confirmata est, satis ostenditur et ipsius beati Cypriani verbis in eadem ad Jubaianum epistola, quae in concilio lecta memoratur. Ait enim: « Sed dicit aliquis, Quid ergo fiet de iis qui in praeteritum de haeresi ad Ecclesiam venientes, sine Baptismo admissi sunt? » Ubi certe quid fieri soleret, etsi non fieri vellet, satis ostendit; et eo ipso quod concilium Agrippini commemorat, aperte indicat fuisse aliam consuetudinem Ecclesiae. Neque enim opus erat hoc concilio velle statuere, si jam consuetudine tenebatur: et in ipso concilio nonnullae sententiae omnino declarant, eos contra Ecclesiae consuetudinem decrevisse, quod decernendum esse arbitrati sunt. Quapropter illud unum isti considerent quod omnibus patet: si auctoritas Cypriani sequenda est, magis eam sequendam esse in unitate servanda, quam in Ecclesiae consuetudine commutanda; si autem concilium ejus attenditur, huic esse universae Ecclesiae posterius concilium praeponendum, cujus se membrum esse gaudebat; et ut se in totius corporis compage retinenda caeteri imitarentur, saepius admonebat. Nam et concilia posteriora prioribus apud posteros praeponuntur, et universum partibus semper jure optimo praeponitur.
CAPUT X.--15. Quid autem agunt isti, cum docetur sanctus Cyprianus, etiamsi non admisit in haeresi vel schismate baptizatos, tamen communicasse admittentibus, quod apertissime declaravit, dicens: Neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes ? Si talium communione maculatus est, cur in tractando Baptismo ejus auctoritatem sectantur? Si autem talium communione maculatus non est, cur in unitate retinenda exemplum ejus non imitantur? Numquid hic restat, nisi ut dicant, Sic volumus? Quid aliud sermoni veritatis justitiaeque respondent omnes flagitiosi et facinorosi homines, luxuriosi, ebriosi, adulteri, et modis omnibus impudici, fures, raptores, homicidae, latrones, malefici, idololatrae, quid aliud respondent cum eos veritas arguit, nisi, Hoc volo, hoc me delectat? Et si christiano tincti sunt nomine, dicunt etiam, Tu quis es, qui judices alienum servum ? Verumtamen eo sunt isti modestiores, quia cum legibus divinis et humanis aliquid poenarum pro suis perditis moribus factisque patiuntur, non se martyres dicunt: isti autem simul habere volunt et sacrilegorum vitam et innocentium famam, et in sceleratis factis nullam poenam et in poenis justis martyrum gloriam: quasi non tanto sit erga illos major misericordia et patientia Dei, quanto magis eos partibus corripiens dat locum poenitentiae , et in hac vita flagella ingeminare non cessat; ut considerantes quae patiantur et quare patiantur, aliquando resipiscant: et qui jam pro unitate Donati Maximianistarum Baptismum receperunt, pro pace Christi orbis terrarum Baptismum potius amplectantur, reddantur radici, reconcilientur unitati, videant nihil sibi remansisse quod dicant, sed tamen remansisse quod faciant, ut pro factis eorum praeteritis sacrificium dilectionis offeratur placabili Deo, cujus unitatem nefario scelere disruperunt, cujus Sacramentis tam diuturnas injurias irrogarunt. Misericors est enim et miserator Dominus, longanimis et multum misericors et verax . Amplectantur in praesenti vita misericordem et longanimem, et timeant in futura veracem. Non vult enim mortem impii, quantum ut revertatur et vivat : quia sententiam flectit adversus injurias irrogatas. Haec est nostra exhortatio.
CAPUT XI.--16. Propter hoc eos habemus inimicos, quia vera dicimus, quia tacere metuimus, quia cessare ab instantia quanta possumus formidamus, quia obtemperamus Apostolo dicenti, Praedica verbum, insta opportune, importune; argue, hortare, increpa . Sed, sicut Evangelium loquitur, diligunt gloriam hominum magis quam Dei , et dum reprehendi ad tempus timent, damnari in sempiternum non timent. Vident etiam ipsi quid mali faciant, vident non esse quid omnino respondeant: sed nebulas imperitis offundunt, cum ipsi vivi sorbeantur, id est, scientes et agnoscentes intereant. Viderunt horrere homines, et graviter detestari, quod etiam se ipsi in multa schismata diviserunt, et maxime in Africae capite et notissima civitate Carthagine: conati sunt resarcire dedecus pannorum suorum. Putantes quod possent Maximianistas auferre, magno conatu per Optatum Gildonianum fortiter institerunt, multa illis mala et persecutiones saevissimas intulerunt. Receperunt inde aliquos, putantes quod possent omnes eodem terrore converti: his autem quos receperunt, noluerunt facere injuriam, ut ab eis in schismate baptizatos denuo baptizarent, vel potius ab his ipsis rebaptizari eos facerent intus, a quibus baptizati erant foris, atque hoc modo suae nefariae consuetudini praescripserunt. Sentiunt quam scelerate jam faciant, recepto Baptismo Maximianistarum, violare Baptismum orbis terrarum. Sed timent rebaptizatos suos, ne forte non eis parcant, si ipsi pepercerint caeteris; ne de illis exigant animas suas, si animas aliorum trucidare cessaverint.
CAPUT XII.--17. Quid de receptis Maximianistis respondeant, non inveniunt. Si dixerint, Innocentes recepimus: respondetur eis, Ergo innocentes damnaveratis. Si dixerint, Nesciebamus: Ergo temere judicastis (sic etiam de traditoribus sententiam temerariam protulistis); falsumque dixistis, Plenarii concilii ore veridico damnatos esse cognoscite (In Bagaitani concilii sententia ). Neque enim ore veridico innocentes damnari potuerunt. Si dixerint, Non eos damnavimus: recitatur concilium, recitantur nomina et episcoporum et civitatum. Si dixerint, Non est ipsum concilium nostrum: recitantur Gesta proconsularia, ubi non semel idem concilium allegaverunt, ut eosdem Maximianistas de basilicis excluderent, et judiciorum strepitu atque auxiliorum impetu proturbarent. Si dixerint, Felicianum Mustitanum et Praetextatum Assuritanum, quos postea receperunt, cum Maximiano non fuisse: recitantur Gesta quibus eos de basilicis excludendos ex concilio suo quod adversus Maximianistas fecerunt, de judiciis publicis postularunt. Si dixerint, Pro pace suscepti sunt: respondetur, Cur ergo veram et plenam non agnoscitis pacem? Quis vos impulit, quis coegit pro pace Donati schismaticum recipere damnatum, et contra pacem Christi orbem damnare inauditum? Urget eos undique veritas; vident se non habere quid respondeant, et putant se non habere quid faciant: quid loquantur non inveniunt. Tacere non permittuntur; malunt perversis vocibus veritati reluctari, quam confessis erroribus paci restitui.
CAPUT XIII.--18. Quis autem non intelligat quid in corde suo possint dicere? Quid ergo facimus, inquiunt, de his quos jam rebaptizavimus? Respondetur: Redite cum eis ad Ecclesiam, medicamento pacis offerte curandos quos vulnerastis, vitae charitatis offerte suscitandos quos occidistis. Multum valet ad propitiandum Deum fraterna concordia. Si duobus ex vobis, ait Dominus, convenerit in terra, quidquid patieritis fiet vobis . Si duobus hominibus, quanto magis duobus populis? Simul nos Domino prosternamus, participamini nobiscum unitatem, participemur vobiscum dolorem, et charitas cooperiat multitudinem peccatorum. Ab ipso beato Cypriano consilium quaerite, attendite quantum de unitatis bono praesumpserit, unde se non disrupit a diversa sentientibus; et cum arbitraretur eos qui extra Ecclesiae communionem baptizarentur, Baptismum non habere, credidit eos tamen in Ecclesiam simpliciter admissos propter ipsius unitatis vinculum posse ad veniam pertinere. Sic enim solvit quaestionem, quam sibi ipse proposuit ad Jubaianum ita scribens: Sed dicit aliquis, Quid ergo fiet de his qui in praeteritum de haeresi ad Ecclesiam venientes, sine Baptismo admissi sunt? Potens est Dominus misericordia sua indulgentiam dare, et eos qui ad Ecclesiam simpliciter admissi, in Ecclesia dormierunt, ab Ecclesiae suae muneribus non separare .
CAPUT XIV.--19. Quid sit autem perniciosius, utrum omnino non baptizari, an rebaptizari, judicari difficile est. Video quidem quid amplius homines detestentur atque horreant: verumtamen recurrens ad illam stateram dominicam, ubi non ex humano sensu, sed ex auctoritate divina rerum momenta penduntur, invenio de utraque re Domini sententiam. Nam et Petro dixit, Qui lotus est, non habet necessitatem iterum lavandi : et Nicodemo, Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non intrabit in regnum coelorum . Quid habeat secretior dijudicatio Dei, hominibus quales nos sumus, difficile est fortasse cognoscere: quantum tamen ad ipsa verba attinet, cuilibet homini manifestum est quantum distet inter, non habet necessitatem lavandi; et, non intrabit in regnum coelorum. Ipsa denique Ecclesia sic traditum tenet, ut hominem sine Baptismo ad altare prorsus non possit admittere; rebaptizatum autem cum post poenitentiam liceat admitti, quid aliud ostenditur nisi eum Baptismo non carere? Si ergo Cyprianus quos esse sine Baptismo arbitrabatur, tamen propter unitatis vinculum ad veniam pertinere praesumebat; potens est Dominus per ipsum unitatis vinculum et pacis etiam rebaptizatis placari, et eis a quibus rebaptizati sunt, ea ipsa pacis compensatione mitescere, et omnia quae in errore commiserant delicta donare, offerentibus sacrificium charitatis, quae cooperit multitudinem peccatorum; ut non attendat quam multi eorum discessu vulnerati sint, sed quam plures eorum reditu liberati. In quo enim vinculo pacis credidit Cyprianus posse per misericordiam Dei ab Ecclesiae muneribus non separari eos quos in Ecclesiam sine Baptismo existimabat admissos, in eodem vinculo pacis credimus per eamdem misericordiam Dei mereri veniam posse rebaptizatos.
CAPUT XV.--20. Ecclesia quippe catholica et temporibus beati Cypriani, et ante ipsum praeterito tempore, aut rebaptizatos, aut Baptismum non habentes, unitatis gremio continebat: aut illi, aut illi salutem non nisi unitatis ipsius merito consecuti sunt. Si enim non habebant Baptismum qui ab haereticis veniebant, sicut asserit Cyprianus; non recte admittebantur: et tamen eisdem ipse indulgentiam de Domini misericordia propter unitatem Ecclesiae non desperavit. Ita ergo si habebant Baptismum, non recte rebaptizantur; quid itaque illos nisi eadem unitatis charitas adjuvabat, ut quod in Sacramento tractando latebat humanam infirmitatem, divina misericordia non reputaret amantibus pacem? Cur ergo cum vestros rebaptizatos timetis, et illis et vobis salutis aditus invidetis? Fuit aliquando de Baptismo dubitatio: qui diversa senserunt, in unitate manserunt. Ea dubitatio procedente tempore perspecta veritate sublata est: quaestio quae nondum finita Cyprianum non deterruit ut recederet, vos finita ut redeatis invitat. Venite ad Catholicam concordantem, quam Cyprianus non deseruit fluctuantem: aut si vobis exemplum Cypriani jam displicet, qui communicavit eis qui cum Baptismate haereticorum recipiebantur, aperte dicens, Neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes; quo itis, miseri? quid agitis? Et vos ipsos fugite, quia inde processistis, ubi ille permansit. Si vero ei, propter abundantiam charitatis et amorem fraternitatis, et vinculum pacis, nec sua peccata, nec aliena obesse potuerunt; huc redite, ubi et nobis et vobis multo minus oberunt quae vestri finxerunt.
2.13 Chapter 13 PL 43, 134
Chapter 13.—18. But who can fail to understand what they may be saying in their hearts? "What then are we to do," say they, "with those whom we have already rebaptized?" Return with them to the Church. Bring those whom you have wounded to be healed by the medicine of peace: bring those whom you have slain to be brought to life again by the life of charity. Brotherly union has great power in propitiating God. "If two of you," says our Lord, "shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them." If for two men who agree, how much more for two communities? Let us throw ourselves together on our knees before the Lord. Do you share with us our unity; let us share with you your contrition and let charity cover the multitude of sins. Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, ‘What then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?’ The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep."
CAPUT VIII.--13. Nec arbitror beatum Cyprianum propter aliud contra consuetudinem quid sentiret liberius exprompsisse, prioremque dixisse, nisi ut alium, si forte existeret, cui esset melius revelatum, gratissime acciperet; et ostenderet imitandam, non solum docendi diligentiam, sed etiam discendi modestiam: si autem nullus existeret, qui tale aliquid afferret, unde illae omnes verisimiles rationes quibus movebatur refellerentur, in eadem sententia permaneret, bene sibi conscius et non occultatae quae putabatur veritatis, et retentae quae amabatur unitatis. Nam et illud sic intellexit quod ait Apostolus: « Prophetae autem duo aut tres loquantur, et caeteri examinent; si alii revelatum fuerit sedenti, ille prior taceat » . Qua in parte, inquit, docuit et ostendit, multa singulis in melius revelari, et debere unumquemque, non pro eo quod semel imbiberat et tenebat, pertinaciter congredi; sed si quid melius et utilius exstiterit, libenter amplecti . His utique verbis non solum eos admonuit sibi consentire, qui melius aliquid non videbant; sed etiam hortatus est, si qui possent afferre aliquid quo prior consuetudo servanda potius firmaretur: ut si tale esset quod refelli non posset, etiam ipse ostenderet quam veraciter dixerit, « debere unumquemque non pro eo quod semel imbiberat et tenebat, pertinaciter congredi; sed si quid melius et utilius exstiterit, libenter amplecti. » Sed quia tunc non exstiterant, nisi qui ei consuetudinem opponerent; defensiones autem ipsius consuetudinis non tales afferrent, quibus illa talis anima moveretur: noluit vir gravissimus rationes suas, etsi non veras (quod eum latebat), sed tamen non victas, veraci quidem, sed tamen nondum assertae consuetudini cedere. Quam tamen consuetudinem nisi prior ante Agrippinus, et nonnulli per Africam coepiscopi ejus etiam per concilii sententias deserere tentavissent, non auderet iste saltem ratiocinari adversus eam: sed in tam obscura quaestione turbatus, et ubique intuens universalem robustamque consuetudinem, coarctaret se potius et prece et intentione mentis ad Deum, ut quod postea plenario concilio visum est, id verum esse perspiceret et doceret. Sed cum fatigatum praecedentis concilii quod per Agrippinum factum est excepisset auctoritas, maluit praedecessorum suorum tanquam inventum defendere, quam inquirendo amplius laborare. Nam in fine epistolae ad Quintum ita ostendit, in quo tanquam lectulo auctoritatis quasi fessus acquieverit.
2.14 Chapter 14 PL 43, 134
Chapter 14.—19. But which is the worse, not to be baptized at all, or to be twice baptized, it is difficult to decide. I see, indeed, which is more repugnant and abhorrent to men’s feelings; but when I have recourse to that divine balance, in which the weight of things is determined, not by man’s feelings, but by the authority of God, I find a statement by our Lord on either side. For He said to Peter, "He who is washed has no need of washing a second time;" and to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." What is the purport of the more secret determination of God, it is perhaps difficult for men like us to learn; but as far as the mere words are concerned, any one may see what a difference there is between "has no need of washing," and "cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." The Church, lastly, herself holds as her tradition, that without baptism she cannot admit a man to her altar at all; but since it is allowed that one who has been rebaptized may be admitted after penance, surely this plainly proves that his baptism is considered valid. If, therefore, Cyprian thought that those whom he considered to be unbaptized yet had some share in pardon, in virtue of the bond of unity, the Lord has power to be reconciled even to the rebaptized by means of the simple bond of unity and peace, and by this same compensating power of peace to mitigate His displeasure against those by whom they were rebaptized, and to pardon all the errors which they had committed while in error, on their offering the sacrifice of charity, which covereth the multitude of sins; so that He looks not to the number of those who have been wounded by their separation, but to the greater number who have been delivered from bondage by their return. For in the same bond of peace in which Cyprian conceived that, through the mercy of God, those whom he considered to have been admitted to the Church without baptism, were yet not severed from the gifts of the Church, we also believe that through the same mercy of God the rebaptized can earn their pardon at His hands.
CAPUT IX.--14. Quod quidem, inquit, et Agrippinus bonae memoriae vir, cum caeteris coepiscopis suis qui illo tempore in provincia Africa et Numidia Ecclesiam Domini gubernabant, statuit, et librata concilii communis examinatione firmavit: quorum sententiam religiosam et legitimam, salutarem, fidei et Ecclesiae catholicae congruentem, nos etiam secuti sumus. Hac attestatione satis ostendit, multo magis se fuisse commemoraturum, si quod de hac re transmarinum vel universale concilium factum esset. Nondum autem factum erat, quia consuetudinis robore tenebatur orbis terrarum, et haec sola opponebatur inducere volentibus novitatem, quia non poterant apprehendere veritatem. Postea tamen dum inter multos ex utraque parte tractatur et quaeritur, non solum inventa est, sed etiam ad plenarii concilii auctoritatem roburque perducta, post Cypriani quidem passionem, sed antequam nos nati essemus. Hanc autem fuisse consuetudinem Ecclesiae, quae postea multis discussis ambagibus perspecta veritate plenario concilio confirmata est, satis ostenditur et ipsius beati Cypriani verbis in eadem ad Jubaianum epistola, quae in concilio lecta memoratur. Ait enim: « Sed dicit aliquis, Quid ergo fiet de iis qui in praeteritum de haeresi ad Ecclesiam venientes, sine Baptismo admissi sunt? » Ubi certe quid fieri soleret, etsi non fieri vellet, satis ostendit; et eo ipso quod concilium Agrippini commemorat, aperte indicat fuisse aliam consuetudinem Ecclesiae. Neque enim opus erat hoc concilio velle statuere, si jam consuetudine tenebatur: et in ipso concilio nonnullae sententiae omnino declarant, eos contra Ecclesiae consuetudinem decrevisse, quod decernendum esse arbitrati sunt. Quapropter illud unum isti considerent quod omnibus patet: si auctoritas Cypriani sequenda est, magis eam sequendam esse in unitate servanda, quam in Ecclesiae consuetudine commutanda; si autem concilium ejus attenditur, huic esse universae Ecclesiae posterius concilium praeponendum, cujus se membrum esse gaudebat; et ut se in totius corporis compage retinenda caeteri imitarentur, saepius admonebat. Nam et concilia posteriora prioribus apud posteros praeponuntur, et universum partibus semper jure optimo praeponitur.
2.15 Chapter 15 PL 43, 135
Chapter 15.—20. Since the Catholic Church, both in the time of the blessed Cyprian and in the older time before him, contained within her bosom either some that were rebaptized or some that were unbaptized, either the one section or the other must have won their salvation only by the force of simple unity. For if those who came over from the heretics were not baptized, as Cyprian asserts, they were not rightly admitted into the Church; and yet he himself did not despair of their obtaining pardon from the mercy of God in virtue of the unity of the Church. So again, if they were already baptized, it was not right to rebaptize them. What, therefore, was there to aid the other section, save the same charity that delighted in unity, so that what was hidden from man’s weakness, in the consideration of the sacrament, might not be reckoned, by the mercy of God, as a fault in those who were lovers of peace? Why, then, while ye fear those whom ye have rebaptized, do ye grudge yourselves and them the entrance to salvation? There was at one time a doubt upon the subject of baptism; those who held different opinions yet remained in unity. In course of time, owing to the certain discovery of the truth, that doubt was taken away. The question which, unsolved, did not frighten Cyprian into separation from the Church, invites you, now that it is solved, to return once more within the fold. Come to the Catholic Church in its agreement, which Cyprian did not desert while yet disturbed with doubt; or if now you are dissatisfied with the example of Cyprian, who held communion with those who were received with the baptism of heretics, declaring openly that we should "neither judge any one, nor deprive any one of the right of communion if he differ from us," whither are ye going, ye wretched men? What are ye doing? You are bound to fly even from yourselves, because you have advanced beyond the position where he abode. But if neither his own sins nor those of others could stand in his way, on account of the abundance of his charity and his love of brotherly kindness and the bond of peace, do you return to us, where you will find much less hindrance in the way of either us or you from the fictions which your party have invented.
CAPUT X.--15. Quid autem agunt isti, cum docetur sanctus Cyprianus, etiamsi non admisit in haeresi vel schismate baptizatos, tamen communicasse admittentibus, quod apertissime declaravit, dicens: Neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes ? Si talium communione maculatus est, cur in tractando Baptismo ejus auctoritatem sectantur? Si autem talium communione maculatus non est, cur in unitate retinenda exemplum ejus non imitantur? Numquid hic restat, nisi ut dicant, Sic volumus? Quid aliud sermoni veritatis justitiaeque respondent omnes flagitiosi et facinorosi homines, luxuriosi, ebriosi, adulteri, et modis omnibus impudici, fures, raptores, homicidae, latrones, malefici, idololatrae, quid aliud respondent cum eos veritas arguit, nisi, Hoc volo, hoc me delectat? Et si christiano tincti sunt nomine, dicunt etiam, Tu quis es, qui judices alienum servum ? Verumtamen eo sunt isti modestiores, quia cum legibus divinis et humanis aliquid poenarum pro suis perditis moribus factisque patiuntur, non se martyres dicunt: isti autem simul habere volunt et sacrilegorum vitam et innocentium famam, et in sceleratis factis nullam poenam et in poenis justis martyrum gloriam: quasi non tanto sit erga illos major misericordia et patientia Dei, quanto magis eos partibus corripiens dat locum poenitentiae , et in hac vita flagella ingeminare non cessat; ut considerantes quae patiantur et quare patiantur, aliquando resipiscant: et qui jam pro unitate Donati Maximianistarum Baptismum receperunt, pro pace Christi orbis terrarum Baptismum potius amplectantur, reddantur radici, reconcilientur unitati, videant nihil sibi remansisse quod dicant, sed tamen remansisse quod faciant, ut pro factis eorum praeteritis sacrificium dilectionis offeratur placabili Deo, cujus unitatem nefario scelere disruperunt, cujus Sacramentis tam diuturnas injurias irrogarunt. Misericors est enim et miserator Dominus, longanimis et multum misericors et verax . Amplectantur in praesenti vita misericordem et longanimem, et timeant in futura veracem. Non vult enim mortem impii, quantum ut revertatur et vivat : quia sententiam flectit adversus injurias irrogatas. Haec est nostra exhortatio.