Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 53 part 2/3

One God, one faith, one baptism — behold, we find the same God worshipped outside the Church by those who do not know Him; behold, we find the same faith in one God confessed outside the Church not only by certain men, but even by demons — yet both are confirmed rather than denied by the apostles. Why do we not likewise confirm rather than deny the one baptism also, in those established outside the Church in whom we have found it, so that we do not, from that which is depraved in them, deprave also what is right, but rather, from that which is right which they hold, correct also that in which they are depraved? What is it, then, that he says there is true baptism where there is true faith?

It is altogether possible that some may have true baptism and not have true faith, just as it is possible that they may have the true Gospel, yet by not rightly understanding it believe something false concerning God: shall we, on account of that falsity of faith, think that even the Gospel, which is found true among them, is to be detested or amended? Nor do I think that those Corinthians whom he rebukes for having broken up into schisms had true faith in that which they were saying: I am of Paul; for this was false. Yet they had true baptism, from the truth of which — that they might correct that falsity — they hear from Paul himself: Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

There were also those there who did not believe that the dead rise again, and in that matter assuredly did not hold and have true faith. Yet from that which they held true — since they believed that Christ had risen, in whom they had been baptized — the Apostle takes pains to cure also that in which their faith was not sound, saying: If the dead do not rise, neither has Christ risen; so that, since they had believed that Christ had risen, and this in them was sound, that too might be healed, in that by a most pernicious error they did not believe that the dead rise again.

Wherefore, since in the holy canonical Scriptures neither do they find heretics coming to the Catholic Church rebaptized, nor do we find them received in the same baptism which they had received in heresy, in this matter at least our case is equal; because neither what they do — that they rebaptize heretics, or those whom they suppose to be heretics — nor what we do — that we accept even the baptism of Christ given among heretics — is confirmed by any express example of apostolic times.

But we, finding that the apostles confirmed rather than denied whatever of truth was recognized in any who erred or were sacrilegious with whatever impiety, and that they amended or condemned the error and impiety of men while preserving what true thing was found in them — we follow this same rule also in the truth of baptism: that among those in whom we find it so retained and preserved as it is retained and preserved in the Catholic Church, we neither deny nor destroy it, but, while it remains, we take care to correct, amend, and set right whatever is vicious, depraved, or false in each one; or, if we cannot, we detest and condemn it and shun it.

Accordingly, when we receive them, we do not receive their iniquity, by which they divided themselves from the Church of Christ by a sacrilegious rupture, by which they assail with slanderous and abusive accusations the Christian world, to which God bears so many testimonies through the Law, through the Prophets, through the Gospel, through the Psalms, through the apostles; nor do we receive that very error by which they are unwilling to acknowledge the baptism of Christ preserved even among heretics by the ecclesiastical rule, dare to destroy it, do not hesitate to repeat it;

nay more, not only laymen but also clergy — and not just any clergy, but even presbyters and bishops, even if they were baptized in those churches which the apostles themselves founded by their own labor — if by any means they can seduce and transfer them to themselves, they make them catechumens. These detestable evils of theirs we by no means accept, since indeed unless these are corrected they cannot cross over to us. Nor do we pass over even this without distinction: that those who, being already faithful, deserted the Catholic Church should perform a humbler penance than those who were not yet in it, and that they should not be admitted to the clergy, whether they were rebaptized by the heretics, or, having previously been received, returned to them, or were clergy or laity among them.

And those of our own who deal with these matters negligently, and perhaps make such men clergy in the Catholic Church or allow them to be so — although they are blamed by the more diligent according to the brotherly right — nevertheless even they do not think that the clerical office is to be conferred on them, except on those whom they either know to have been amended from those evils or believe to be so. And by this it is in vain that any who are separated from her unity by nefarious crime slander the Catholic Church. For, to use rather the words of the Apostle, the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and injustice of men who hold the truth in iniquity. This wrath, if they do not correct themselves, will find these men too, who hold the truth of Christian baptism in the iniquity of their sacrilegious separation.

But the Catholic Church, which, as was foretold concerning her, is spread among all nations with abundant fruitfulness, so amends no one's iniquity as to destroy in him the truth — not his own, but his Lord's. What then does this man exclaim, as though licentiously and confidently: 'I have baptized in security the one whom you, sacrilegious man, have defiled; I have baptized, I say; I have done what the Apostle Paul did'? Let him read where the Apostle Paul did this. But if he wishes it to be understood of those at Ephesus, let him then dare to say that John, a sacrilegious man, had defiled them. But if he does not dare to say this, since it is a most manifest impiety, let him at last cease from a matter so very dissimilar to stir up the mists of a false likeness.

For as to what he adds concerning Agrippinus the bishop of Carthage, concerning the illustrious martyr Cyprian, concerning the seventy predecessors of Cyprian, that they did this and commanded it to be done — O how detestable is the error of men who think they are laudably imitating certain things not rightly done by illustrious men, while they are strangers to those men's virtues! For thus also some wish to be compared to the Apostle Peter, if they have denied Christ; but if they have even compelled the Gentiles to Judaize, they affect to be called his very brothers.

These things were blameworthy in so great a man, but the apostolic grace shone forth so greatly that they were straightway blotted out; nor can any Christian of our own times, or even any bishop, who has neither denied Christ nor compelled the Gentiles to Judaize, be — I do not say preferred to him — but even be made equal to him, or nearly compared with him.

So too in the most glorious martyr Cyprian, if he was unwilling to acknowledge the baptism of Christ given among heretics or schismatics, while he detested too greatly those whom he grieved to see separated from the Catholic unity which he loved so much — his merits attained so far, even to the triumph of martyrdom, that both that overshadowing was put to flight by the light of the love in which he excelled, and, that the fruitful branch might become more fruitful, if it had anything to be purged, this was, if by no other means, then certainly by the final pruning-hook of his passion, taken away. Nor are we, because we acknowledge rather than deny the truth of baptism even in the iniquity of heretics, therefore better than Cyprian — just as neither than Peter, because we do not compel the Gentiles to Judaize.

This is what I would answer concerning Agrippinus and the other bishops who are reported to have held those councils, who thought differently in such a way that they nevertheless persisted in unity with those against whom they held their opinion on this question — where love covers a multitude of sins. For thus, to those walking in the truth of the Church into which they had come, God could, as the Apostle says, reveal that also to them, wherein they were otherwise minded. For it was then a new question, in what manner heretics were to be received — a question which by its very novelty greatly disturbed some brethren who rightly detested the heretical pest, so that they believed that even this in them was to be disapproved, which by their own evil they held as good. But that I may briefly say what I think concerning this matter:

to rebaptize heretics, which those men are said to have done, was then a matter of human error; but to rebaptize Catholics, which these men still do, is always a matter of diabolical presumption. But I want this man to solve a question for me, since, when he recounted in order the bishops of the Roman Church, among them he recounted also Stephen, whom he confessed to have held the episcopate unstained. Since therefore Stephen not only did not rebaptize heretics, but even judged that those who did this, or decreed that it should be done, ought to be excommunicated — as both the letters of the other bishops and of Cyprian himself show — nevertheless Cyprian remained with him in the peace of unity. What are they going to say to this?

Let them exert their wits as much as they can, and let them consider whether they are able to answer. Behold, there were two men at one time — to be silent about others — who thought differently; there were two bishops of the most eminent churches, namely the Roman and the Carthaginian, Stephen and Cyprian, both established in Catholic unity; of whom Stephen judged that the baptism of Christ was in no case to be repeated and was gravely incensed against those who did this, while Cyprian judged that those baptized in heresy or schism, as not having the baptism of Christ, were to be baptized in the Catholic Church. Many held with the former, some also with the latter, both parties remaining with them in unity.

If, therefore, what these men say is true — and from this they try to assert or excuse the cause of their separation — namely, that in one communion of the sacraments the wicked stain the good, and that therefore one must withdraw by bodily separation from contact with the wicked, lest all alike perish, then it must be confessed that already in the times of Stephen and Cyprian the Church perished, and that none was left to posterity, in which Donatus himself might be spiritually born.

But if they judge it wicked to say this—because it is in truth wicked—then, since the Church endured from those earlier times down to the times of Caecilian and Majorinus without Donatus, and they could not destroy it by any staining of it (for whoever, according to their own view, were admitted into it without baptism were full of all their own sins and crimes), and since no separation from their communion was made by Cyprian and by those who held the same opinion about baptism as he did—because they did not believe that they could be defiled by the sins of others while remaining in the unity and communion of the sacraments of Christ—so likewise the Church could thereafter continue to endure. Growing, as was foretold of her, over the whole circle of the lands, she could in no way be stained by the crimes of any traitors or malefactors whatsoever, just as on one threshing-floor the grain cannot be defiled by the chaff until the time of winnowing, and just as within one net the good fish, swimming together with the bad, are not destroyed by them until they reach the shore.

There was therefore no reason, but only the greatest madness, by which these men, as though guarding against communion with the wicked, separated themselves from the unity of Christ that is spread abroad over the whole world—unless perhaps they distinguish crimes from crimes by some wondrous art, bringing forth their rules of distinction not from the Scriptures but from their own hearts, and saying that in the unity of the communion of the sacraments other crimes belonging to others are tolerated without contamination, but that by the crime of surrendering (the Scriptures) all are held bound who share the sacraments with such men. But it is superfluous to argue this at greater length, especially since they scarcely ever dare to say it, being themselves ashamed and sensing that they speak vain things, and when they do say it, they strive to support it by no divine testimony.

For they are more accustomed to have on their lips, when they accuse some men of the sins of others in order to excuse the wickedness of their own separation, such texts as: 'Thou sawest a thief and didst run with him'; and 'Do not communicate in the sins of others'; and 'Depart, go out from there and touch not the unclean thing'; and 'He that toucheth what is polluted is polluted'; and 'A little leaven corrupteth the whole lump'; and others of this kind—by which the crime of surrender is not distinguished from other crimes by any special property, but rather all fellowship with sin is forbidden. Yet if Cyprian had understood these divine testimonies or precepts in the way these men do, he would surely have separated himself from Stephen and would not have persisted with him in the communion of catholic unity.

For he indeed, according to the opinion about baptism which these men think must be held, was communicating in the sins of others by admitting into the Church heretics and schismatics who—as they suppose—did not have baptism; for evidently the sins of those who had not been washed by true baptism assuredly remained in them. Cyprian therefore ought to have withdrawn from communion with such a man, lest he should run with a thief, lest he should share in the sins of others, lest he should be defiled by contagion with the unclean, lest he should be made polluted by touching what is polluted, lest he should be corrupted by the leaven of others. Since, then, he did not do this, but remained with them in unity, the whole lump of that very unity was then corrupted, and the Church did not endure—the Church which was later to bring forth these men's saints, Majorinus and Donatus.

Since they by no means dare to say this, it remains that they must confess that the good remained together with the wicked in the communion of the Christian sacraments without any blemish to themselves, and that the Church of Christ persevered down to the time of Caecilian—not without any wicked men, as though already stored away in the barn, but still with the chaff mixed in, as though set out on the threshing-floor. So then it could thereafter continue to endure, as indeed it does endure, until on the last day of judgment it is winnowed and cleansed. What, then, does the great madness of these men's separation from the unity of the body of Christ mean for itself—that body which, as we read was prophesied and now behold is being fulfilled, is spread abroad over the whole circle of the lands and among all nations?

Here indeed, as it is written, the wicked son calls himself righteous, but does not wash away his going forth—that is, he does not excuse, does not cleanse, does not defend the fact that in schismatic madness he did not fear to go out from the house of God into the heretic pestilence. For if he were truly righteous, then, as the Apostle Paul with the false brethren over whom he groans in his epistles, and as Cyprian with those whom he judged to be full of their past sins yet without baptism, and whom he knew were admitted to the Church by Stephen...

...so he too would persist in the Church of Christ together with those whom he either knew or thought to be unjust, without any staining of himself, and would not desert the good on account of the wicked, but would rather tolerate the wicked on account of the good—like a grain of wheat with the chaff, bearing the threshing by the weight of charity, not like the lightest dust that yields to the blasts even before the winnowing. For in that way, even together with the wicked, whom these nets must necessarily contain until the shore, persevering in catholic unity he would nevertheless not run with a thief, nor share in the sins of others, nor be defiled by handling anyone's uncleanness, nor be polluted by touching what is polluted, nor be corrupted by anyone's leaven.

For these things come about by consent to sins—the consent by which the serpent, through the woman, deceived the first man even in the felicity of paradise—not by communion in the sacraments, in which the unclean Judas could not contaminate his clean fellow-disciples. But from the wicked, with whom they share the sacraments of God, even now on the threshing-floor and not yet in the barn, the good already depart and are separated—by dissimilarity of morals, not by segregation of bodies; by living otherwise, not by coming to other assemblies. Thus they neither become one with the wicked nor depart from the unity of the Church. Why, then, do they exaggerate to us the crime of I-know-not-what traitors, whom they have nevertheless never been able even to convict?

But if we should defend these men against their calumnies, we would seem to be pleading the cause of certain men, not of the Church. In short, whoever and wherever there were traitors—and Stephen, according to these men, admitted into the Church not only the sin of the traitors but even of those very men who compelled others to hand over (the Scriptures), and of absolutely all malefactors, the wicked, the sacrilegious—because, if they did not have baptism, all the sins, however grave and horrible, which they had committed, were in them and held them guilty without any remission. Such men Stephen admitted; with such men Cyprian was in catholic unity; and yet the Church did not perish, but endured. Therefore the sins of others do not defile anyone in her unity.

In vain has the wicked son hastened to go out from his father's household; in vain does he call himself righteous, while he does not wash away his going forth. Or will they perhaps say that those whom Stephen thus admitted were cleansed by their very participation in unity, since charity covers a multitude of sins? Would that they might say it! For we too say this, when we either urge them to return to unity or admonish them. But on this understanding there will now remain no question of baptism between us. For if those baptized among heretics or schismatics are cleansed, when they come to the Church, by the charity of that very unity, then surely they are rebaptized without cause. You see therefore, in this discourse to which you wished me to reply, how many things that man has said on our behalf.

What need is there, then, that we should now refute the crimes cast by him upon the bishops of the Roman church, whom he has pursued with incredible calumnies? Marcellinus and his presbyters Miltiades, Marcellus, and Silvester are charged by him with the crime of surrendering the divine books and of offering incense. But are they on that account actually convicted, or are they shown to be convicted by any firmness of proof? He says they were criminals and sacrilegious men; I reply that they were innocent. Why should I labor to prove my defense, when he has not even feebly attempted to prove his accusation?

If there is any humanity in human affairs, I think we could more justly be reproached if we believed unknown men—whom their enemies accuse, yet demonstrate their crime by no testimony—to be guilty rather than innocent. For if perhaps the truth is otherwise, at least the debt due to humanity itself is paid, when a man rashly suspects nothing evil of another man and does not easily believe any accuser, seeing that one who casts a crime without a witness and without any proof stands forth as a slanderous reviler rather than a truthful accuser.

To this may be added that, while Miltiades was then presiding as bishop of the Roman church, by the command of the emperor Constantine—to whom the accusing bishops brought that whole case of the Carthaginian church's Caecilian through the proconsul Anullinus—this same Caecilian was pronounced innocent.

When the ancestors of these men, with most importunate obstinacy, complained to the said emperor about this judgment, saying that it had not been fully nor rightly examined and delivered, they said nothing about any surrender or incense-offering by Miltiades—to whose hearing indeed they certainly ought not even to have come—suggesting rather this beforehand to the emperor, or insisting that it be suggested: that they ought not to plead their case before a man defiled by the surrender of the divine books and by sacrifices to idols.

Since therefore they neither suggested this beforehand, nor—after judgment had been given against them in favor of Caecilian—did they think, at least when defeated and enraged, that it ought to be brought forward as an objection, why do they now, so belatedly, string together empty calumnies, as though the innocence of Caecilian might be darkened by discrediting Miltiades the judge, and the Roman church itself besmirched?—where they could neither condemn anyone by any judgment of their own, however faulty, nor subrogate any of their own men as it were into the place of one condemned; whereas, against the very few Africans of their own party, they secretly and from afar sent foreign intervenors—whom this man was not ashamed to mention by name—until they might ordain, for a deceived little rabble, as it were their own bishops.

Indeed, after the acquittal of Caecilian, they accused before the emperor Felix, bishop of Aptunga, alleging that he was a most manifest traitor and that therefore Caecilian could not be a bishop, because he had been ordained by that traitor. Then Constantine did not deny even this accusation of theirs a hearing, although he had found them to be calumniators in the fabricated crimes against Caecilian; and so he ordered that the case of Felix be investigated. In Africa it was investigated by the proconsul Aelianus; and Felix too was declared innocent. The proconsular acts are extant; whoever wishes may take them and read them.

But this pertains not only to the completeness of demonstrating Caecilian's innocence and to Felix's own most evident vindication, and to declaring the calumnies of those who in their own council had called him the fountain of all evils, but also to considering Miltiades' life as most pure from their accusations. Unless perhaps someone should be so foolish as to believe that these men—who did not spare Felix, by whom Caecilian had been ordained—could have spared Miltiades, by whom he had been absolved, if any rumor whatsoever, however slight, had blamed that bishop's life, even though no wound of conscience had destroyed it. Or would that which had been fabricated concerning the forum of Aptunga be accused by these men, while that which had been done in the Capitol of the Romans be passed over in silence?

But concerning Mensurius, what shall I reply, when during his time and down to the day of his death no portion of the people of unity was severed, and when the very letters of Secundus of Tigisi—by which he is asserted to have been reproved—confirm that they wrote to one another peaceably and that they remained together in the fellowship of the college? Now indeed, as to what he also wished to say about the church of Cirta, and how he assailed the catholic bishops there with whatever slanders he wished—what else has he done but, by reviling holy men even of our own times, well known to us, sufficiently show what we ought to think even about unknown men, whom he likewise reviles?

Accordingly, if Profuturus, who died a very few years ago, and Fortunatus, who is still in the body and succeeded him as bishop, were Manichees—in the same way those men were traitors whom they never cease to accuse, though they are utterly unknown, far removed from our times—then indeed the pure life of those men, free from these men's reproaches, is now most well known to us. Truly it is no small nor inglorious consolation for any of us, if we are accused by the enemies of the Church together with the Church herself; yet her defense does not consist in the defense of those men whom these people assail by name with false accusations.

In short, whatever sort of men Marcellinus, Marcellus, Silvester, Miltiades, Mensurius, Caecilian, and the others may have been—against whom, out of their own dissension, they cast whatever charges they please—they prejudice nothing against the catholic Church spread abroad over the whole circle of the lands; in no way are we crowned by their innocence, in no way are we condemned by their iniquity. If they were good, they were cleansed like grains in the threshing of the catholic floor; if they were wicked, they were crushed like stubble in the threshing of the catholic floor. Within this floor both good and wicked can be; outside it the good cannot be. Whoever is separated from this unity by the wind of pride, as though he were mere chaff, why does he calumniate the Lord's threshing-floor on account of the chaff mixed in?

We also say—and not only say, but even prove by the records of ecclesiastical and public documents—that Secundus of Tigisi, at whose convened council they say Caecilian was condemned, granted peace to confessed traitors, lest a schism should arise, although the crime of surrender had been objected against this very man by Purpurius of Limata; we say that Victor of Rusicade, Donatus of Calama, Donatus of Masculi, Marinus of Aquae Tibilitanae, and Silvanus of Cirta were traitors, and these same men were as it were the most severe condemners of traitors. This we prove both by ecclesiastical and by municipal and by judicial records.

But not for that reason are all who are in the party of Donatus traitors, because these men were in it; nor for that reason is the party of Donatus innocent, if these men should be shown to be innocent of the iniquity of surrender. For we listen more readily to holy Scripture than either calumniate anyone concerning the sins of others or dread anyone's like calumny against ourselves.

For 'the soul that sins, that same shall die,' and 'each one shall bear his own burden,' and 'he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment not to another but to himself'; and both are allowed to grow together until the harvest, lest, when the tares are gathered before the time, the wheat also be rooted up along with them; and the kids and the lambs, mingled together, are fed in the best pastures, until they be separated by the Shepherd who cannot err; and out of every kind of fish the nets of unity are filled, until they be brought to the judgment of the shore—except that these men, by their perverse and false opinion, prejudge themselves, who say that they are justly separated from the communion of the Christian world on account of the sins of others.

For by this absurd and insane opinion they themselves bring it about that the sins of certain of their own men are imputed to all. But if they judge this to be just, then all are guilty of any most manifest crime found among them in a single man. If, however, they recognize this to be unjust—as it is unjust—then all are guilty of a most iniquitous separation. Now indeed, since in this discourse the question is rather about the one baptism, that our discussion may be concluded where it was begun:

just as in that very unity of the Lord's floor the wicked are not to be praised on account of the good, nor are the good to be deserted on account of the wicked; just as in a single man his perversity is not to be accepted on account of that which is sound in him, nor ought his soundness to be denied on account of that which is perverse in him—since even in the iniquity of the Jews the truth of the resurrection of the dead is held fast, and in the iniquity of the Gentiles the truth of the one God who founded the world is held fast, and in the iniquity of those who, because they gather not with Christ, scatter, there is held fast the truth by which in His name they cast out the unclean spirit; and in the iniquity of sacrilegious temples there was found the truth by which they worshipped an unknown God, and in the iniquity of demons there was found the truth by which they confessed Christ: