For behold, when an unrighteous minister is hidden — from whom nevertheless you do not rescind the baptism given — can not all those words of yours be turned back upon you: that the spotted purifies, the filthy washes, the unclean cleanses, the unbeliever gives faith, and the criminal makes innocent? Not he himself, you say, but his good repute, though empty and false. From this I will not refrain from crying out: O crime, O monstrous thing! — not, as a certain man said, to be exported to the farthest lands, but rather to be driven, if it could be done, beyond all heaven and all lands. I do not mean you yourself, whom I wish corrected, but this error, from which I desire you to be corrected.
Is it so, then, that for the cleansing of a man, when the true life of a good minister is lacking, the false repute of an evil minister then suffices — such that it accomplishes what a good life would accomplish — so that, for the sanctifying of a man, when the minister's iniquity lies hidden, falsehood serves as God's handmaid? All this you say for this reason: lest you say what we say — that whether one receive the sacrament from a faithful or from a faithless dispenser, none sanctifies but God. Then you recall my words, that I said: Let Christ always give faith, let Christ be the origin of the Christian, let the Christian fix his root in Christ, let Christ be the Christian's head. I said it plainly and I say it, and you were quite unable to answer. For you seemed as it were to have succumbed to so great a weight of truth, when you subjoined:
This we too urge, this we too wish. Then again you set up a man in whom the one about to receive should place his hope: But we ask, you say, through whom this may better be done. And because we too do not say that a man can be baptized without a minister, you ask me whether the minister had better be unjust or just. Whereto I answer that it is better for this reason that the minister be just — namely, that the weakness of a man, for whom what God commands is laborious and difficult without an example, may by the imitation of a good minister more easily be raised up to a good life; whence the apostle Paul says: Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.
But as for a man to be baptized and sanctified: if what is received is better in proportion as he is better through whom it is handed on, then there is as great a variety in the baptisms of those who receive as there is diversity of merits among the ministers. For if — as is believed without dispute — Paul was better than Apollos, then according to that empty and perverse opinion of yours he gave a better baptism; and if he gave a better baptism, then assuredly he begrudged those whom he rejoices not to have baptized himself. Furthermore, if among good ministers, though one is better than another, the baptism given through the better is not better, then in no way is that baptism bad which is given even through a bad minister, since it is the same baptism that is given.
And therefore, through unequal ministers, the gift of God is equal, because it is not theirs but His. Not then, as you empty-headedly charge, do we make no distinction between the faithful and the faithless; rather, we distinguish human merits, not the divine sacraments — which you too, drawn by the force of truth and forgetful of your heretical contention, declared to us to be not diverse but one and the same. How do you say:
「This we too urge and desire: that Christ always give faith, that Christ be the origin of the Christian, that the Christian fix his root in Christ, that Christ be the Christian's head」 — while yet you defend the writings of Petilian, where, most openly, when he was commending the merit of the baptizer and how much human righteousness availed for conferring baptism, striving on behalf of the cause he had taken up to show it, he said: 「The conscience of the one who gives in holiness is what is regarded, the conscience that is to cleanse the one who receives. For he who knowingly receives faith from a faithless man receives not faith but guilt.」 And, as though someone had said to him, 「Whence do you prove this?」, he went on to add: 「For everything consists of its origin and root, and if it does not have a head, it is nothing.」
Why, I ask, because you have fallen into the defense of a rash falsehood, do you strive to pour fog over things plain? The man says openly that the origin, the root, and the head of one to be reborn through baptism can be none other than he by whose ministry he is baptized. And you say: 「This we too desire, that Christ be the origin and root and head of the Christian; but we ask through whom this comes about better.」 This is one thing that you say, another that Petilian said; and what you say, even if it be true, is not what he said. Accordingly, if you too wish this — that Christ be the origin and root and head of the Christian — resist Petilian, not me, since 「neither he who plants is anything nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.」
When I had set this down from the Apostle in my writings, you chose to answer thus, saying: 「It is indeed God's to give the increase; but just as, though it be the planter and the waterer, none but a faithful and diligent husbandman is sought, so also in the sacrament of baptism none but a faithful and most righteous laborer is employed.」 As if, forsooth, what an unfaithful husbandman has planted would, on account of his unfaithfulness, fail to sprout! The power of the seed, the fecundity of the earth, and the mildness of the sky have received this efficacy from God, that for the propagation of their fruits they await only a planter or waterer as a laborer, and care not in what mind he works, with what intention he labors, whether he faithfully loves the master of the field or seeks his own gain and not his lord's.
You also add a prophetic testimony, saying: 「I will give you shepherds after my own heart, and they shall feed you, feeding you with discipline.」 I know it: this has been fulfilled — such were the apostles, and such there are even now, though, in proportion to the breadth of the Church, very few, yet they are not lacking. But what is also said through the prophet Ezekiel against evil shepherds, you ought to have sought out, to have read, to have pondered. For there He says: 「I myself will feed them, not the shepherds.」 Accordingly, both through good shepherds and through evil ones, when He dispenses His word and sacrament, He Himself feeds, since He says of Himself: 「that there be one flock and one shepherd.」 For 「it is better to trust in the Lord than to trust in man,」 and: 「cursed is everyone who places his hope in man.」
What I recalled in that letter you show that you so understand as to say that for this very reason you the more inquire that the one through whom this sacrament is celebrated be righteous and faithful: because you have hope and confidence in God, not in man, and because the faith and righteousness which you always regard in His ministers are of God. In this you speak truly, for of all good things we have nothing which we have not received, and therefore faith and righteousness are ours from God. But when you say that God cannot give this to you unless the man through whom you are baptized possess it, you do indeed place your hope in a man of whom you know not whether he shares in righteousness; and if he does not, then you regard his reputation, and when you have found a false good report about a hidden evil man, you believe it suffices for your sanctification.
I beseech you: if you have confidence in God, not in man, and for this reason the more inquire that the one through whom this sacrament is celebrated be righteous and good and faithful, because faith and righteousness are of God — is the falsity of reputation also of God, the reputation which, if an evil minister possess it as a good one, you say suffices for your sanctification? By now I would rather you trusted in a man — from which I most vehemently forbade you — than in the falsity of his reputation. For a man, whatever sort he be, as regards what pertains to his being a man, is a creature of God; but no falsehood is a creature of God. Furthermore, if he is cursed who places his hope in man, how much more he who places his hope in the falsity of human opinion, so as to fall into that other thing which is written:
「He who trusts in falsehoods feeds the winds」 — that is, he becomes food for evil spirits! 「If baptism given by whomsoever and howsoever ought not to be rescinded,」 you say, 「why did the apostles baptize after John?」 With how much greater force is it thus put forward: 「If the apostles baptized after John, why does not one either better or equal baptize also after any holy man?」 — so that even from this you may be compelled to understand that John's baptism does not pertain to this question! 「And Peter said to the Jews baptized by Moses,」 you say, 「「Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.」」
If the Jews were already baptized for this reason — that Moses had, so long a time before, baptized their forefathers through the Red Sea — then those who are born of baptized Christians are baptized today without cause. And yet you say these things and write these things, and are heard and read, and are thought to answer our writings, as though this were to have been able to answer, which is to have been unwilling to be silent. Nor did you, at the beginning of this letter, refute — as you seem to yourself to have done — what was said by me: 「If those who wished to be of Paul went astray, what hope, pray, is there for those who have wished to be of Donatus?」
For who does not see that from this source this division was made, that from this source it persists even today in this plague — namely, while hope is placed in the righteousness of a man, so that the baptism of Christ is then acceptable only if each is dipped by a righteous man? Against which error, against those who had already begun to make schisms on account of the diverse merits of men, Paul himself cries out: 「I give thanks to God that I baptized none of you, lest anyone say that I baptized in my own name.」 What else is he implying but that the baptism of Christ belongs to none but Him in whose name it is given, and therefore is not made better when given through a better man, nor worse through a worse one? In vain, then, do you afterwards exult and say:
「It follows that I conclude that all those things which are written in holy Petilian's discourse, or in anyone's discourse, were rightly said.」 For the very words which you conclude to have been, as it were, rightly said, do not prove themselves rightly said — since the conscience of the one who gives in holiness, which is to cleanse the receiver, is not even regarded, when the giver's stain is hidden. There, defeated, though you ought to have acquiesced in the truth, you appealed to his false reputation as to a judge unhappily deceived by a lie — for neither is his conscience regarded when his reputation is regarded, and no one can be cleansed by another's false reputation any more than by another's evil life; and no one receives the Christian faith from a man, whether faithless or faithful, but from Him of whom it is written: 「cleansing their hearts by faith.」
For if a man hears through a faithful minister what is to be believed, he indeed imitates him, yet is not justified by him. For if a minister justifies the ungodly, it follows that belief should rightly be placed even in the minister; but the apostolic sentence is clear and certain: 「To him who believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned unto righteousness.」 Accordingly, if the minister does not dare to say, 「believe in me,」 let him not dare to say, 「you are justified by me.」 Now as to what follows: 「Everything consists of its origin and root, and if it does not have a head, it is nothing」 — if the origin and root and head of the baptized is the baptizing minister, then it is not Christ; but if it is Christ,
then he — the minister — is not it. Finally, when the minister is secretly evil, what is the origin, what the root, what the head of the baptized? Or is it his false reputation? This indeed Cresconius says, but the truth contradicts. Therefore, if in that case the origin and root and head is Christ, He is such also when the minister is good — lest, what is most absurd, the condition of one baptized through a hidden evil man (when Christ is the head) be better than that of one baptized through a manifest good man (if in that case the minister is the head). This I would say also concerning the good seed; for it follows: 「Nor does anything rightly regenerate unless it be regenerated by good seed.」 But as to what follows from Petilian's letter set down by you, where he says:
「Since these things are so, brethren, what perversity can there be, that one who is himself guilty of his own crimes should make another innocent, when it is written: 「A good tree bears good fruit, and a bad tree bears bad fruit. Do they gather grapes from thorns?」 and again: 「Every good man brings forth good things out of the treasure of his heart, and an evil man brings forth evil things out of the treasure of his heart.」」 — these words sufficiently and openly convince us that Petilian referred all these things to none but the man through whom baptism is administered: so that he himself, if he is innocent, is understood to make innocent the one whom he baptizes; he himself is the good tree whose fruit is the one baptized; he himself the good man out of the treasure of whose heart proceeds the sanctification of the baptized.
And so, when this man is secretly evil, tell me: by whom is that other made innocent? tell me: of what tree will he be the fruit? tell me: out of the treasure of whose heart will the baptized be sanctified? Or if, in that case, he deserves to have as the author of his innocence, as the tree from which good fruit is born, not a human minister of baptism but Christ, then he has fallen more happily upon a hidden evil minister than if he had fallen upon a manifest good one. But since this is said most absurdly and most insanely, he is Christ's fruit who is sanctified by His baptism, by whatever minister's work he be baptized.
Unless perhaps he is to resort to your counsel, when he falls upon a minister's conscience stained and hidden, so that you may show him, as the tree from which he is born, the falsely good reputation of an evil man — whose root, if you seek it, you will find to be the cunning of a deceiver; and if a good fruit could be born of it — which be far from us! — then Christ lied, who said: 「A bad tree cannot bear good fruit.」 But because Christ spoke truly, let the good man, as a good tree, have good fruit, a good work, just as the evil man, as an evil tree, has evil fruit, an evil work; but he who is baptized, let him be born not of any man but of the Spirit of Christ, if he wishes to be a fruit that is not corrupted by the wind, and a tree that is not uprooted.
Since these things are so, when you have said, 「It follows that I conclude that all those things which are written by holy Petilian, or in anyone's discourse, were rightly said,」 I think rather that I conclude all those things to have been not rightly said. Now let us see what next you have woven together in your letter — how the case of Optatus and of the Maximianists — nay rather, that I may be made more learned by you, of the Maximianenses of yours — instructed you. And concerning Optatus indeed, of whom I am able to recite nothing that has been written down, I readily yield whatever you may think. This one thing I know: if the things are true which of him were — not to say demonstrated, yet certainly — alleged, then neither was he good nor did he have a good reputation.
Wherefore whoever were baptized through him could be cleansed neither by his conscience, according to Petilian, nor by his reputation, according to you. But if envious rumor, as often is wont, has spread false evils about him, see how rightly we do not easily believe what you have never been able to prove to us about the 「traditors」 whom you accuse — since evil rumor is wont to lie even about good men. If therefore not their innocence, nor finally — what is true and firm — the grace of God and our conscience makes baptism valid for us, let at least your own opinion make it so. For you yourself, when you were speaking of Optatus, said: 「I for my part neither absolve nor condemn Optatus.」
If I say this — nay, not only I, but the whole African Catholic Church, and how much more also the Church beyond the sea, so far and wide diffused — concerning Caecilian and his ordainers: 「I neither absolve nor condemn them,」 do you think it too little for those whom these men baptized (none of whom ever saw Caecilian), when you believe it sufficient concerning Optatus for those whom he even baptized with his own hands? Or is it that, because you recite a council of your forefathers concerning Caecilian, but no council concerning Optatus is recited by us, you therefore think it lawful for none of us to say, 「I neither absolve nor condemn Caecilian,」 which was lawful for you concerning Optatus?
But a later judgment beyond the sea was made in favor of Caecilian, at the instance of your own party that it should be made before the emperor Constantine. Or if ecclesiastical judgments, once made, can no longer be overturned, what will you do about Primian, your Carthaginian bishop, against whom first a hundred — surely more than against Caecilian — passed judgment, and, his episcopate having been abrogated, appointed Maximian in his place? Does not Primian rely on a later judgment, which was made in his favor in the town of Bagai, according to which judgment he refuses to have himself doubted, but extorts absolution for himself from all of you? Wherefore we too, according to the later judgment concerning Caecilian, absolve him outright and without hesitation.
Yet it suffices for the case if we say of him what you said of Optatus: 「We neither absolve nor condemn Caecilian.」 Let them — whether yours or ours — look to how they have judged concerning him; let them render the account of their own verdicts; let them bear the burden of their own work, whether evil or good: to us at least permit to doubt about the deeds of others, lest we be compelled to condemn in ourselves those sacraments about which it is not lawful to doubt. But I have already said: think of Optatus what you will; for there is no source whence we might convict him, who did not commit before the records what he yet so committed that among Gildo's henchmen he was held to be the chief, was held fast, and died.
Are we then permitted to prattle whatever we please even concerning Felicianus and Praetextatus, the associates of Maximian, whom your three hundred and ten bishops, together with the rest similarly named by name, condemned by one and the same sentence of the council of Bagai, and whom, not long afterward, together with all whom the condemned had baptized, they received as bishops, just as they had been? Wherefore whatever you have said against us or against our people, as though sparing and passing over, without names, without witnesses, without any documents at all — partly blaming what is not to be blamed, partly not proving what is to be blamed — it is superfluous to wish to clear.
These men, these very men attend to again: Felicianus of Musti and Praetextatus of Assuras — regard them somewhat more diligently, whose whole case I will, if the Lord permit, so unfold in its place that, even if you should wish to be an excessive enemy of the truth, you would be unable to defend or deny the lie of your people. But for now, meanwhile, it pleases me to proceed according to what they told you; I do not yet discuss how untrue was what they said. I do not yet show with what wondrous blindness of impudence they lied. Certainly, when in my letter you were reading through about those whom I called Maximianists — both condemned by the council of your people and received back — you were, as you write, greatly moved, seeing that as yet — for I will use your own words — you were ignorant of what the truth held. Finally, straightway,
as you relate, more diligently inquired of your bishops, and, they instructing you, you learned both the decree of the council and the sentence pronounced against those who were condemned and the order of the whole affair; and because you believed that I too was ignorant of what had been done, you exhorted me, that I might learn what the truth held, and thus went on to relate everything. See that in this case I set down your very own words from your letter; for they are most necessary to me. 「When,」 you say, 「the error of Maximian was striving to associate to itself very many bishops, a council having been convened by our people, a sentence was pronounced against all who had persisted in his schism」 — which you too testify that you have read. 「And when this sentence was being confirmed by the consent of all,」
「it was nevertheless resolved,」 you say, 「by decree of the council, that a delay of time be granted, within which if any were willing to be corrected he would be held innocent.」 「So it came about,」 you say, 「that not only those two whom you mention, but also many others, cleansed and innocent, restored themselves to the Church; whose baptism therefore ought not to be rescinded, because, being restored within the appointed day, they were not held by the peremptory sentence, nor, when they were baptizing, had they been separated from the Church, seeing that they were not yet cut off by the defined limit of the granted time. But those who even after the said day persisted obstinately with Maximian, held by the sentence of condemnation, lost at once both baptism and the Church.」
These words of yours, my Cresconius, you certainly recognize as expressed in the fabric of your letter. Accordingly I ask you: if they had not yet been separated from the Church, how was a sentence pronounced against all who had persisted in Maximian's schism — a sentence which, when it was being confirmed by the consent of all, it nevertheless pleased by decree of the council to grant a delay of time, within which if any were willing to be corrected he would be held innocent? By which words you show that of those who had persisted in Maximian's schism, if any were willing to be corrected within the delay of time, he would be held innocent. He would therefore be corrected — if because he was willing to be corrected — from that schism in which he had persisted with Maximian.
Accordingly, before he was corrected, he was in the schism in which he had persisted, although in it — because he was corrected within the appointed time — he had not persisted obstinately. For also in the later words a little afterward you thus distinguish: 「But those who even after the said day persisted with Maximian, held by the sentence of condemnation, lost at once both baptism and the Church.」 Saying assuredly 「persisted obstinately,」 you show that even those who were corrected had persisted, but not obstinately; against all of whom together that sentence was pronounced, and, it having been confirmed by the consent of all, you say it nevertheless pleased by decree of the council that that delay of time be granted.
How then were they in the Church, who, before they were corrected, were persisting in schism with Maximian? But if they were not in the Church, because they were in schism, how were they baptizing? Next, how did it come about — as you say — that not only those whom I have mentioned, but also many others, cleansed and innocent, restored themselves to the Church, if they had not been separated from the Church? To what did they restore themselves, from which they had not departed? Or if they had departed, tell me, I pray: before they restored themselves to the Church, by what right did they baptize? 「Whose baptism,」 you say, 「therefore ought not to be rescinded, because, being restored within the appointed day, they were not held by the peremptory sentence.」 Restored to what? Wake up, I beseech you: tell us, to what were they restored.
Assuredly you are going to say: 「to the Church」 — to which you said they restored themselves. Is anyone restored to the Church who has not been separated from the Church? Does anyone not separated from the Church persist in schism for however few days? Does anyone not separated from the Church restore himself to the Church after however brief a time? I judge, dearest, that you not only did not consider your own words as they were to be written, but did not even read them once written. Yet what were you to do, on whom in this work necessity was pressing that concerning Maximian and his associates you should defend, as best you could, a sentence not your own but pronounced by others? For even if you did not use these words, I would recite that very decree of the council of Bagai, where it is written:
「But those whom the sacrilegious shoots did not pollute — the plantings, that is, who with the modest shame of faith withdrew their own hands from Maximian's head — we have permitted to return to the mother Church.」 Accordingly, even if I did not find such words of yours, here certainly I would say, here for the sake of truth I would cry out: How are they permitted to return to the mother Church, who did not depart from the mother Church?
Or if they did depart, by what right, before they returned, could they baptize — unless because, in the business of patching up this schism, you forgot your own vanity, whereby, while tracing an unshaken succession of bishops from the very sees of the apostles down to these times, you nevertheless decree that not one man, not one house, not one city, not one nation, but the whole world must be rebaptized? Or certainly because the shame of this deed always shook even the hearts of those doing it, so that, when so many peoples were returning to your communion from Maximian's communion, it pleased you indeed to restore so many, but it shamed you to rebaptize so many.
Yet this you would do, though any might detest and shudder at it, for the sake of men's salvation — a salvation which, the more numerous the people it concerned, the less by any means was to be despised, if you ever did it out of regard for the truth and not out of prejudice for error. You certainly see, in this return of the Maximianenses to your communion, that what is said by us about baptism has been made plainly true. For if there is any understanding in men either of saying anything or of hearing it, he who baptizes before he returns to the Church assuredly baptizes outside the Church, and yet the baptism is not to be rescinded — just as it was not rescinded by you in those men.
For, this being unchanged — that each baptizes not in his own name nor in anyone else's, but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit — then, besides the sacrament of baptism, which remains whole whether unto the punishment of the perverse or unto the salvation of the upright or of the corrected, I wish to say something about the very expiation or cleansing of the corrected. For you remember what you said against us: that we hold those who come to us from you, out of the sacrilegious error of heretics, received without any expiation. Do you now tell us: those returning to you from Maximian's schism, since they were received even in their own honors, by what expiation, pray, were they cleansed? Or were they not, that so great a crime having been shared, defiled by so wicked a fellowship?
Attend to what it sounds forth, what it rebukes, what in that famous council that truth-telling mouth of your bishops confesses: 「Maximian,」 it says, 「the rival of faith, the adulterer of truth, the enemy of the mother Church, the minister of Dathan, Korah, and Abiram, the bolt of sentence has struck out from the bosom of peace; and because the gaping earth has not yet swallowed him, it has reserved him for the Powers above unto greater punishment. For, being snatched away, he had gained his punishment by the shortcut of death; now he collects the interest of a heavier usury, since, though dead, he is present among the living.」