Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 25 part 2/16

Were not those born to whom the Apostle says: as to little ones in Christ I gave you milk to drink, not solid food? Yet he recalls them from the sacrilege of schism, into which they were rushing for this reason, that they were carnal: as to little ones, he says, in Christ I gave you milk to drink, not food; for you were not yet able. But not even now indeed are you able; for you are still carnal. For since there are among you envy and strife, are you not carnal and do you not walk according to man? For when one says: I indeed am of Paul, but another: I am of Apollos, are you not men? For of these he says above:

I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you, but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been reported to me concerning you, my brethren, by those who are of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that each one of you says: I indeed am of Paul, but I of Apollos, but I of Cephas, but I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? These, then, if they remained in this obstinacy and perverseness, had certainly indeed been born, yet did not belong, through the bond of peace and unity, to that very Church of which they had been born.

She therefore begets both through her own womb and through the wombs of handmaids, from the same sacraments, as it were from the seed of her husband. For not in vain does the Apostle say that all those things were done in a figure. But those who are proud and are not joined to the lawful mother are like Ishmael, of whom it was said: cast out the handmaid and her son; for the son of the handmaid shall not be heir with my son Isaac. But those who peacefully love the lawful wife of their father, by whose lawful right they were begotten, are like the sons of Jacob, though born of handmaids and yet receiving the same inheritance.

But those who, born within the unity from the womb of that same mother, neglect the grace which they received, are like Esau the son of Isaac, who was rejected, God bearing witness and saying: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated—though both were conceived from one embrace and born from one womb. They also ask whether sins are forgiven through baptism in the party of Donatus, so that if we say they are forgiven they may answer: therefore the Holy Spirit is there, since, when he had been given to the disciples by the breathing of the Lord, it then followed and he said: baptize the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they shall be forgiven him; if you retain anyone's, they shall be retained. And if this is so, they say, our communion is the Church of Christ;

for the Holy Spirit does not work the forgiveness of sins apart from the Church. And if our communion is the Church of Christ, your communion is not the Church of Christ. For she is one, whatever she may be, of whom it was said: one is my dove, one is she to her mother; nor can there be as many churches as there are schisms.' But if we say that sins are not there forgiven, 'therefore,' they say, 'there is not true baptism there, and on that account those whom you receive from us you ought to baptize. And because you do not do this, you confess that you yourselves are not in the Church of Christ.' We resist them in this way, according to the Scriptures, questioning them so that what they ask of us they may answer to themselves.

For I ask them to say whether sins are forgiven where love is not. For sins are the darkness of souls. We hear indeed John saying: he who hates his brother is in darkness even until now. But none would make schisms unless they were blinded by fraternal hatred. If, then, we say that sins are not there forgiven, how is he born again who is baptized among them? For what is it to be born again through baptism, except to be renewed from the old state? But how is he renewed from the old state to whom past sins are not forgiven? And if he is not born again, neither has he put on Christ; from which it is concluded that he must seemingly be baptized anew, since the Apostle says: for as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ;

and if he has not put him on, neither is he to be held as baptized in Christ. But further, because we say he is baptized in Christ, we confess that he has put on Christ; and if we confess this, we confess that he is regenerated. But if this is so, his sins also have been forgiven. How then does John say: he who hates his brother remains in darkness even until now, if the remission of sins has already been made? Or is there not in schism fraternal hatred? Who would say this, since both the origin and the persistence of schism is nothing other than hatred of a brother? This question they think they solve for themselves when they say:

'There is therefore in schism no remission of sins, and consequently neither the regeneration of the new man, and on that account neither the baptism of Christ.' But we, because we confess that the baptism of Christ is there, propose to them this question to solve: whether Simon Magus was dipped in the true baptism of Christ. They will answer 'yes,' because they are compelled by the authority of Holy Scripture. I ask, therefore, whether they confess that his sins were forgiven him. Assuredly they will confess it. Again I ask why Peter said to him that he had no part in the lot of the saints. 'Because,' they say, 'he afterward sinned, wishing to buy with money the gift of God, of which he believed the apostles to be sellers.' What, if he came to baptism itself feignedly, were his sins forgiven him or not forgiven?

Let them choose what they will; whichever they choose, it suffices for us. If they say his sins were forgiven, how then will the Holy Spirit of discipline flee the feigned man, if in this feigned man he wrought the remission of sins? If they say they were not forgiven, I ask: if afterward, with a shaken heart and true grief, he confessed his feigning, would he be judged to be baptized anew?

But if it is most senseless to say this, let them confess that a man can be baptized with the true baptism of Christ, and yet, his heart persevering in malice or sacrilege, the abolition of sins is not permitted to take place; and thus let them understand that men can be baptized in communions separated from the Church, where the baptism of Christ is given and received by the same celebration of the sacrament, which nevertheless then profits unto the remission of sins when each one, reconciled to unity, is stripped of the sacrilege of dissension, whereby his sins were held bound and were not permitted to be forgiven.

For just as in that man who had come feignedly it comes about that he is not baptized anew, but is purged by that very pious correction and truthful confession—which he could not be without baptism, but so that what was given before then begins to avail unto salvation, when that feigning has departed through truthful confession—so also this man, who received the baptism of Christ (which those who separated themselves did not lose), being an enemy of Christ's love and peace, in some heresy or schism, whereby, through that sacrilegious wickedness, his sins were not being forgiven: when he has corrected himself and come to the society and unity of the Church, he is not to be baptized again, because by that very reconciliation and peace it is granted that the sacrament, which received in schism could not profit, now in unity begins to avail unto the remission of his sins.

But if they say that in the man who came in feignedly, through the holy power of so great a sacrament, his sins were indeed forgiven at that very point of time, yet that through his own pretence they returned at once — so that the Holy Spirit both was present to the baptized that his sins might depart, and fled the persistence of his pretence so that they might return — in such a way that both this saying holds true: 'As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ' (Gal. 3:27), and also this:

'For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit' (Wisd. 1:5) — that is, so that the holiness of baptism clothes him with Christ, and the destructiveness of his pretence strips him of Christ, just as it happens when anyone passes from darkness through light into darkness: his eyes indeed are directed continually toward the darkness, yet the light cannot but flood him as he passes through — if, then, they say this, let them understand that the same thing takes place also in those who are baptized outside the communion of the Church, yet with the Church's baptism.

For wherever it may be, this sacrament is holy in itself, and therefore it belongs not to those who separate themselves, but to Him from whom they separate; nevertheless it avails even among them thus far — that through its light they pass over to the darkness of their own dissension, while the sins at once return which the holiness of baptism had forgiven at that point of time, just as the obscurity returns which the light had dispelled in passing. For that forgiven sins return where fraternal charity is absent, the Lord teaches most plainly in the Gospel concerning that servant whom, when he found him a debtor for ten thousand talents, he forgave all upon his entreaty; but when this man had had no mercy on his fellow servant who owed him a hundred denarii, the master commanded him to repay what he had forgiven him (Matt. 18:23-34).

Therefore the time in which pardon is received through baptism is, as it were, the time for rendering account, so that all the debts which are found may be remitted. Yet that servant did not afterward lend his fellow servant a sum of money which, being unable to repay, he then had no mercy on; rather, his fellow servant already owed it to him at the time when he himself, rendering account to his master, was being released from a debt of so great a sum — and he had not forgiven his fellow servant what was owed him, yet had so come forward that his master forgave him. This the fellow servant's words indicate when he says, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you' (Matt. 18:29); otherwise he would say, 'You already forgave me this; why do you demand it again?' This too the Lord's own words make more plainly clear. For He says:

'But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.' He did not say, 'to whom he had already forgiven a debt of a hundred denarii'; for if he had forgiven it, the man would not have owed it to him. Since, then, He said 'he owed him,' it is manifest that he had not forgiven it. And it would indeed have been better, and would have more befitted so great a debtor about to render account and awaiting the mercy of his lord, that he himself should first forgive his fellow servant what was owed him, and so come to render account where the mercy of his lord was to be implored. Nevertheless, that which he had not yet forgiven his fellow servant did not hinder his lord from forgiving him, at that time of receiving the account, all that he owed.

But what did it profit him, seeing that, because of the persistence of his hatreds, all was at once heaped back upon his own head? So the grace of baptism is not hindered from forgiving all sins, even if fraternal hatred persists in the soul of him to whom they are forgiven. For yesterday is dissolved, and whatever is before it is dissolved, even the very hour and moment before baptism and in baptism. But thereafter he at once begins to be guilty not only of the following days, hours, and moments, but even of the past ones, all that was forgiven returning. And these things often happen in the Church. For it commonly comes about that a man has an enemy whom he most unjustly hates, although we are commanded to love even unjust enemies and to pray for them (Matt. 5:44).

But suddenly, in peril of death, he begins to be troubled and demands baptism, which he receives in such haste that the time of danger scarcely admits the necessary questioning of a few words — how much less a very long discourse, that this hatred might be driven from his heart, even if it were known to the one baptizing! Assuredly these things cease not to occur, not only among us but even among them. What then do we say? Are this man's sins forgiven, or are they not forgiven? Let them choose outright whichever they will. For if they are forgiven, they return at once — the Gospel speaks it, the truth cries it out. Whether, then, they be forgiven or not forgiven, a remedy is necessary afterward.

Yet if he lives and learns that this must be corrected, and corrects it, he is not baptized anew, whether among them or among us. So too those things which schismatics or heretics hold no differently, and do no differently, than the true Church — when they come to us we do not amend them, but rather approve them. For in those matters in which they do not dissent from us, in them they are not disjoined from us.

But nevertheless, because these things profit them nothing so long as they are schismatics or heretics — on account of the other matters in which they dissent from the truth, and on account of the utterly monstrous crime of separation itself, whether the sins remained in them or, having been at once forgiven, returned — we exhort them to come to the salvation of peace and charity, not only that they may have something they did not have, but that even what they had may begin to profit them. In vain, then, do they say to us: 'If you accept our baptism, what less do we have, that you should think we ought to be counselled about your communion?' For we answer:

We do not accept your baptism, because that baptism is not that of schismatics or heretics, but of God and of the Church, wherever it be found and whithersoever it be carried. But what is yours is nothing except that you hold perverse opinions, act sacrilegiously, and impiously separate yourselves. For if you were to hold or think all other things true, and yet were to persist in the same separation against the bond of fraternal peace, against the unity of all the brethren who throughout the whole world, as they were promised so have been made manifest — the causes of all of whom...

And their hearts you could in no way ever know or examine, so as justly to condemn them — men who cannot on that account be held guilty, because they trusted the ecclesiastical judges rather than the litigants — in this alone you have less: what he has less who has not charity. And now what need is there that we should retrace it? Look yourselves in the Apostle to see how great is that which you have less. And what difference does it make whether one who has not charity flies outside, carried off by some wind of temptation, or within does not depart from the Lord's harvest, to be separated at the final winnowing? And yet even such, if they have already once been born through baptism, need not be born again.

For the Church begets all through baptism, whether within herself, that is, from her own womb, or outside herself, from the seed of her husband. But even Esau, born of a wife, was on account of fraternal discord separated from the people of God; while Asher, born indeed by the authority of the wife but from a handmaid, on account of fraternal concord received the land of promise.

Whence also, that Ishmael was separated from the people of God, it was not his handmaid mother that harmed him, but fraternal discord harmed him, and the authority of the wife whose son he rather was did not profit him — because by her conjugal rights he had been both sown in the handmaid and received from the handmaid. So too among these people, by the right of the Church which is in baptism, all who are born are born; but if they be in concord with the brethren, through the unity of peace they will come to the land of promise, not to be cast out again from the maternal womb, but to be acknowledged in the paternal seed; if, however, they persist in discord, they will belong to the lot of Ishmael.

But Ishmael was first and Isaac afterward, and Esau first, Jacob later — not because heresy gave birth before the Church, nor because the Church herself brought forth first the carnal or animal and afterward the spiritual, but because in this very lot of our mortality, from the time we are born of Adam, that which is spiritual is not first, but that which is animal, and afterward the spiritual (1 Cor. 15:46). And from this very animal sense, because 'the animal man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God' (1 Cor. 2:14), all dissensions and schisms are generated. Those persisting in this sense the Apostle said belong to the Old Testament, that is, to the desire of earthly promises, in which spiritual things are indeed figured, but the animal man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God.

At whatever time, then, such men begin to exist in this life — men who, though already imbued with divine sacraments according to the dispensation of the ages, yet still savor of carnal things and hope for and desire carnal things concerning God, whether in this life or after this life — they are animal men. But the Church, which is the people of God, even in the pilgrimage of this life is an ancient thing, having in some men an animal portion, but in others a spiritual one. To the animal belongs the Old Testament, to the spiritual the New. But in the earliest times both were hidden, from Adam until Moses. From Moses onward, however, the Old was made manifest, and in it the New was hidden, because it was secretly signified.

But after the Lord came in the flesh, the New was revealed. The sacraments of the Old, however, ceased, but such concupiscences did not cease. For among those there are men whom the Apostle says, though already born through the sacrament of the New Testament, are still animal and cannot perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God. For just as under the sacraments of the Old Testament certain spiritual men lived, belonging secretly to the New Testament which was then hidden, so also now, under the sacrament of the New Testament which has already been revealed, very many live as animal men. And if these are unwilling to advance toward perceiving the things that are of the Spirit of God — to which the apostolic word exhorts them — they will belong to the Old Testament.

But if they advance, even before they attain it, by that very progress and approach they belong to the New. And if, before they become spiritual, they are snatched from this life, being kept safe through the holiness of the sacrament, they are reckoned in the land of the living, where our hope and portion is the Lord. Nor do I find what could be more truly understood in that which is written, 'Your eyes saw my imperfection,' seeing that there follows, 'and in your book shall all be written' (Ps. 138:16). But she who bore Abel and Enoch and Noah and Abraham, the same bore also Moses and the prophets of a later time before the Lord's coming; and she who bore these bore also the apostles and our martyrs and all good Christians.

For all, though born at diverse times, have appeared, yet are contained in the fellowship of one people, and as citizens of the same city have experienced the labors of this pilgrimage; and some of them experience them now, and the rest will experience them even unto the end. Likewise she who bore Cain and Ham and Ishmael and Esau, the same also bore Dathan and others like them in the same people; and she who bore these bore also Judas the false apostle and Simon Magus and the rest, down to these times, the false Christians obstinately hardened in animal affection, whether they be mingled in unity or dissent by open severance.

But when such men are evangelized by spiritual persons and imbued with the sacraments, it is as if Rebecca herself bore them, as she bore Esau; but when such men are begotten in the people of God through those who do not chastely proclaim the Gospel, it is Sarah indeed, but through Hagar. Likewise, when good spiritual men are begotten by carnal persons who evangelize or baptize, it is Leah indeed or Rachel who bears them by conjugal right, but through the womb of the handmaid; but when good believers are begotten through spiritual men in the Gospel — men who either come out into the disposition of a spiritual age, or do not cease to strive toward it, or fail to do so only because they cannot — then, as from the womb of Sarah came Isaac, or from Rebecca came Jacob, they are born into the new life and the New Testament.

And so, whether they seem to dwell within or are openly outside, what is flesh is flesh; whether it persist on the threshing-floor in its own barrenness, or by the occasion of temptation be carried off as by a wind to the outside, what is chaff is chaff; and always is he divided from the unity of that Church which is 'without spot and wrinkle' (Eph. 5:27), even he who mingles with the congregation of the saints in carnal hardness. Yet of none must we despair, neither of him who appears such within, nor of him who more manifestly opposes without.

But the spiritual, or those advancing with pious zeal toward this very thing, do not go outside; because even when they seem to be expelled by some perversity or necessity of men, they there rather prove that they remain within, since they are in no way raised up against the Church, but are rooted in the solid rock of unity with the most steadfast strength of charity. For to this pertains what is said in that sacrifice of Abraham: 'But the birds he did not divide' (Gen. 15:10). Of the question of baptism, then, I have now, I think, discoursed sufficiently. And since this is the most manifest schism which is designated by the name of the Donatists, it remains that concerning baptism we piously believe what the whole Church, removed from the sacrilege of schism, guards.

Yet in that Church, if some held one view and others another concerning this question, while peace was preserved, until by a universal council some one thing, refined and pure, should be approved, the charity of unity would cover the error of human infirmity, as it is written: 'because charity covers a multitude of sins' (1 Pet. 4:8). For where it is absent, all else is held in vain; where it is present, certain things are venially not held. There stand in the letters of the blessed martyr Cyprian great testimonies — for I now come to him, upon whose authority these men carnally flatter themselves, while by his charity they are spiritually destroyed.

For in those times, before the consensus of the whole Church, by the sentence of a plenary council, should confirm what was to be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, together with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church ought, on coming to the Church, to be baptized anew. That this was not rightly done, the Lord doubtless did not for this reason reveal to so great a man — that his piety and humility and charity in wholesomely guarding the peace of the Church might shine forth, and might be marked, so to speak, for medicinal knowledge, not only to the Christians of that time but also to those coming after.

For although a bishop of such merit, of so great a church, of such heart, of such eloquence, of such virtue, held concerning baptism a view other than that which the more diligently investigated truth was to establish — and although many of his colleagues, though it was not yet clearly manifested, nevertheless held that which both the past custom of the Church and afterward the whole Catholic world embraced — yet he did not, by a separated communion, disjoin himself from the rest who thought differently; and he did not cease to persuade even the others that they should 'bear with one another in love, being eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace' (Eph. 4:2-3).

For thus, while the joining of the body remained, if anything in certain members was weakened, it might rather recover from the health of the others, than, mortified by severance, admit the care of no cure. And if he had separated himself, how many would have followed! What a name would he have made for himself among men! How much more widely would they have been called Cyprianists than Donatists! But he was not a 'son of perdition,' of such as it is said, 'you cast them down while they were exalted' (Ps. 72:18); rather he was a son of the Church's peace, who, endowed with so great an illumination of heart, did not on that account see a certain thing, in order that through him something more surpassing might be seen. And 'still,' says the Apostle, 'I show you a more excellent way' (1 Cor. 12:31).

'If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not charity, I have become sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal' (1 Cor. 13:1). Less deeply, then, did he penetrate, so as to discern the hidden secret of the sacrament; but if he had known all the sacraments, yet had not charity, he would be nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). But since, discerning that lesser thing less, he nevertheless guarded this greater thing humbly, faithfully, bravely, he merited to attain the crown of martyrdom, so that, if any cloud from the human condition had crept into his lucid mind, it might be put to flight by the glorious serenity of his shining blood.

For not in vain did the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, when He called Himself the vine and His own as branches in the vine, say that they are cut off and taken away from the vine as useless branches which bore no fruit (John 15:1-6). And what is the fruit but that new offspring of which He likewise says, 'A new commandment I give you, that you love one another' (John 13:34)? This is that very charity, without which all else profits nothing. The Apostle also says: 'But the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control' (Gal. 5:22-23). All these begin from charity, and through the rest of the joining make, as it were, a wondrous cluster of grapes. Nor yet in vain did the same Lord add:

'But the branches which bear fruit in me, my Father prunes them, that they may bear more fruit' (John 15:2) — except because even they who prevail by the fruit of charity can nevertheless have something to be pruned, which the husbandman does not leave uncultivated? Therefore, that that holy man, holding concerning baptism otherwise than the matter stood — which was afterward thoroughly examined and established by most diligent consideration — remained in Catholic unity, was both compensated for by the abundance of charity and pruned by the sickle of his passion. XIX. 29.

But lest I seem, for the sake of avoiding proof, to say these things in praise of the most blessed martyr — praise which indeed is not his, but His by whose grace he became such — let us now bring forward testimonies from his letters, by which especially the mouths of the Donatists may be stopped. For they cast his authority in the teeth of the untaught, so as to show that they act rightly, as it were, in baptizing anew the faithful who come to them — most wretched men, and, unless they correct themselves, wholly condemned by their own selves, who choose to imitate in so great a man that which did not harm him for this reason: because he walked with steps most persevering unto the end into that peace, from which these men, who 'have not known the way of peace' (Rom. 3:17), have strayed.

It is indeed the case that the baptism of Christ is everywhere holy, and although it be among heretics or schismatics, it is nevertheless not of the heresy or schism itself, and therefore neither ought those coming from thence to the Catholic Church itself be baptized anew. But yet this is one thing, and it is another to judge that those deviating from Catholic peace and cast headlong into the wicked pit of severance ought moreover to be rebaptized. For that blemish on the whiteness of a holy soul the breasts of charity covered over, but this sootiness the unpacified countenance flaunts in the hellish foulness of these men. But the things that we are henceforth to treat, so far as pertains to the authority of blessed Cyprian, we shall take up from another beginning. SECOND BOOK.