Against the Donatists

Against the Donatists

continued

Book 4

Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 4. pp.180-202.

BOOK THE FOURTH

An Answer is made to certain Arguments of Parmenian, drawn from various Passages in the Old Testament. I. The Argument of this Book. We have now, my brother Parmenian, shown openly and clearly that in charging us with asking for the help of the soldiers, you have calumniated us to no purpose.1 Now learn this also, that what you have said about the Sacraments and sacrifice of a sinner 2refers to you rather than to us. Since a man is not necessarily a sinner 3 because you have so chosen to term him, it would be equally easy for us, copying your gratuitous assumption,4to say that you are the sinners. But assumptions of this kind on both, sides should be sent packing.5Let neither of us judge the other with man's judgement. It belongs to God to know who is guilty; His it is to pass judgement. Let then all of us, who are |181 but men, keep silence. Let God alone point out the sinner, whose sacrifice is unclean,6 and from whose hands one who wishes to be anointed should fear to receive unction.

How most clearly true this is, acknowledge, my brother Parmenian! II. That the Donatists are the Brethren of Catholics.7 If, that is, you are freely content to hear this ascription of brotherhood which I have so often used. And I would beg of you to recognise that, however distasteful the word brother may be to you, still it has of necessity to be employed by us, lest perchance (considering the proof that it ought to be used) we should, by refraining from it, be blameworthy. For, if you are not willing to be my brother, I should begin to be unbrotherly,8 were I to keep silence concerning this name. For you are our brethren, and we are yours, as the Prophet says: 'Has not one God made you, and one Father begotten you?' 9 Nor can you avoid being our brethren, since to all has it been said: 'You are all gods and sons of the Most High.' 10

And both you and we have received the one command in the words: |182 'Call no man your father on earth, because One is your Father in the Heavens.' 11 Our Saviour Christ alone is the Son of God by Birth,12 but both you and we have been made sons of God in the same manner, as it has been written in the Gospel: 'The Son of God has come. As many as received Him, to them has He given the power to become sons of God, to those who believe in His Name.' 13 We have both been made and are called His sons; you have been made His sons, but are not so called,because you are not willing to be in peace, or to listen to the Son of God Himself, when He says: 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.' 15 Christ by His coming recalled God and man to Peace,16 and

'taking away the wall of partition, made both One.' 17 But you will not have peace with us, that is, with your brothers. For you cannot escape being our brothers----you whom together with us one Mother Church has borne from the same bowels of her Mysteries,18 and whom God the Father has received in the same manner as sons of adoption. Wherefore Christ, foreseeing this time----how it |183 would come to pass that you should to-day be at variance with us, gave such commands with regard to prayer, that, at least in prayer,19 unity might remain, and that supplications might join those who should be torn asunder by faction. We pray for you, for we wish to do so, and you pray for us, even though you do not wish it. Otherwise let any one of you say: 'My Father, who art in Heaven,' and 'Give me my daily bread,' and 'Forgive me my trespasses, as I forgive him who trespasses against me.'

Accordingly, if things which have been prescribed may not be changed, you see that we have not been absolutely 20 divided from one another, whilst we willingly pray for you, and you (though unwillingly) pray for us. You perceive, my brother Parmenian, that the bonds of holy brotherhood between you and us do not admit of being absolutely 21 broken. III. That the Donatists are sinners. We have now to search for the sinner, at whose hands we should fear to receive unction, or whose sacrifice ought to be disowned.21 Let human mistrust give way, and the arguments of both sides keep silence. God alone shall point out who is a sinner. We read in the forty-eighth Psalm in the second division 22 that the Holy Ghost has said: 'But to the sinner God said.' Here we have to give the whole attention of our mind, and see who is the sinner. |184

For, if after we have read: "'But to the sinner God said,' some such words as these were to follow: 'Thou hast snatched up arms, thou hast marched out of the camp,23 thou hast stood against the foe in battle array,' then the soldier would have reason to fear, because he might seem to be the sinner. Or, if He said: 'Thou hast got together merchandise, thou hast gone on journeys, thou hast held fairs, thou hast bought and sold for the sake of profit,' then the man of business would have to fear, because he might seem to be the sinner. Or, if He said: 'Thou hast built a ship, thou hast fitted it out with rigging and sails, thou hast seized 24 the winds favourable for a voyage,' then the sailor would have to fear, because he might seem to be the sinner. Or, if after we have read:

'But to the sinner God said,' these words were to follow: 'Dissension and schism have been displeasing to thee, |185 thou hast agreed with thy brother and with the One Church, which is in all the world, thou hast communicated with the Seven Churches and with the Shrines of the Apostles.25Thou hast embraced Unity'---- if these things were to be read immediately afterwards, then we should have to fear that we were the sinners. But when God says: 'Why dost thou declare My commandments and take My covenant in thy mouth? For discipline thou hast despised, and thou hast cast My words behind thee. Sitting thou didst speak against thy brother, and didst lay a scandal against thy mother's son. Thou didst see a thief and didst run with him, and with adulterers thou hast been a partaker' 26; then all these things have been said to you. Clear yourselves from all of them, if you can!

IV. That the Donatists are despisers of discipline. So discipline has been held in contempt by you. To what end then dost thou. who dost not obey the covenant, recite the covenant, in which has been set forth the discipline which you 27 will not observe? For you cannot say that you observe something, against which you bear arms! God says: 'Seek peace, and thou shalt obtain it.' 28 Thou hast rejected peace. Is not this to despise discipline? |186 In the Gospel we read: 'On earth peace to men of good will.' 29 Thou wilt have neither peace nor good will. Is not this to despise discipline? Moreover, we read in the hundred and thirty-second Psalm: 'Behold how good and pleasant it is to dwell together in unity.' 30 Thou 31 wilt not dwell in unity with thy brethren. Is not this to despise discipline? Christ says in the Gospel:

'He who has once been cleansed, has no need to be cleansed anew.' 32 Thou by rebaptising dost cleanse anew. Is not this to despise discipline? God says: 'Touch not Mine anointed, and lay not thy hand upon My Prophets.' 33 You 34 have stripped so many priests of God of their dignities. Is not this to despise discipline? Christ says: 'From this I know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.' 35 You hold in hatred us, who are surely your brethren; |187 nor have you been willing to imitate the Apostles, by whom Peter was beloved, though he denied his Lord.Is not this to despise discipline? Thou 37 declarest the commandments 38 of God, and takest His covenant in thy mouth. How dost thou exhort: 'Seek peace,' though thou dost not possess peace? Thou recitest the covenant,39 and dost not obey the covenant, in which has been set forth discipline.

V. That the Donatists are slanderers and have propagated scandals. You have been chosen to sit and teach the people,and you slander us who are your brethren. As I have said above, one Mother Church has given us birth, one God the Father has received us, and yet you 'lay scandals against' 41 us by forbidding each of your followers to salute us, or receive from us the customary signs of courtesy.42 |188 Consider your haughty words, consider your discourses,43 consider the commands that you have given, turn over your actions in your minds, and you will then find out why the man who formerly asked you for the Sacraments, has feared to receive them at your hands.44 There is not one of you who does not mingle abuse of us with his discourses;43 not one of you who does not begin in one manner and continue in another.45 You begin the sacred readings on the Lord's Day,46 and unfold your comments in such a way as to do us wrong; you bring forth the Gospel, and heap abuse upon your brother in his absence; you pour hatred into the minds of those who listen to you, and by your teaching persuade men to live at enmity with one another. By all your discourses you 'lay scandals against' us. Therefore, to each one of you has it been said:

'Sitting thou didst speak against thy brother, and didst lay a scandal against thy mother's son.' 47 When God reproves the sinner and chides him that sits, it is clear that His words are addressed specially |189 to you, not to the people who have no permission to sit in the church.48 You see therefore that without a doubt to you should be referred the Divine Words: 'Sitting thou didst lay a scandal against thy mother's son.' I have so many times proved that we have one mother, nor can you deny this----you who 'lay scandals against' us----though some of your party allege texts which they have not understood, in order to take away from us even what is usually shared by all men----the courtesy of salutation. For some of you refuse us the embraces that are customary in everyday life,49and many are taught not to say 'God speed you' 50to any one of us, and think that this is commanded by what they have read without understanding it, through not knowing of whom it was that an Apostle 51 has said:

'With such as these not even to take food,' nor 'say "God speed you"' to him, 'for their speech creepeth on like a spreading sore.' 52 This was said of heretics, whose teaching at that time began to be full of errors, for through the subtle seductiveness of their speech, they introduced diseases, |190 creeping along in the darkness, to corrupt the soundness of the Faith.53 Such a one was Marcion, who from a Bishop became an Apostate, and. brought in two Gods and two Christs; such was Ebion,54 who argued that not the Son but the Father had suffered; such Valentinus, who strove to take away from Christ His Flesh. This is that speech which had a cancer 55 to torment the members of the Faith. This has been said also of the heretic Scorpian,56 who maintained that there ought to be no martyrdom. |191 But let them keep their poisons for themselves, and let no discourse 57 with them be allowed, lest by listening to them simple minds be troubled, however slightly.

Wherefore these are they whose speech has to be avoided, lest it creep in, like a spreading sore. This was said too of Arius, who endeavoured to teach that the Son of God was made out of non-existing substances,58 and not born of God----whose teaching, had it not been driven away by three hundred and eighteen Bishops in the Nicene Council, would, like a cancer, have entered the breasts of many. This was said also of Photinus, a heretic of the present time, who has dared to say that the Son of God was merely a man, not God. It may have been said of you as well, since your word has introduced no small cancer into the ears and minds of some. This is your word, which you address to the sons of Peace, when you say: 'You have perished. Look behind you. Your soul will be lost. How long do you hang back? 59 '

In this way have you made Penitents of the Faithful; thus have you destroyed the honours due to Priests.60 Behold! It is your word also, which to-day creeps on as a spreading sore, so that you forbid us the greetings and ordinary intercourse of life. |192 But how could our teaching have produced any such result? We guard the sons of Peace with pure teaching; we lead no strangers astray; we ruin no man. It is therefore clear that you daily 'lay scandals against' us, and it would be a long matter to go through all the ways in which you slander us, and all the kinds of scandal which you 'lay against' us. VI. That the Donatists are thieves and on what ground. For also when God says: 'Thou didst see a thief and didst run with him,' 62 concerning what kind of thievery think you that this has been said? Was it perhaps on account of some stolen article of clothing, or some pocket that had been picked,63 or about goods the stealing of which brings loss and gain to men?

Yes, without doubt such thefts as these are forbidden; but in this passage God rebukes those which are made from Himself. Do you ask what thefts are made from God? They are to be found amongst you! God's possession is the mass of the Faithful,64 from which that thief the Devil tries every day to steal something, striving to corrupt in some way or other the morals of a Christian man or woman, and thus to snatch away, if not the whole man----at any rate something or other from the man. |193 Since you saw this Thief bringing force to bear against us, you have helped him by your deeds. For none are unaware, that everyone who is born (even though he may be born of Christian parents) cannot be without the unclean spirit, who must of necessity be driven out and separated from a man before the saving layer. This is effected by the exorcism,through which the unclean spirit is cast forth and driven, in flight, to desert places.

The house in the heart of the Believer is made empty, the house is made clean. God enters and dwells therein, even as says the Apostle: 'You are the Temple of God, and God dwells in you.' 66 Whereas then each [baptised] man is full of God, and that Thief the Devil is endeavouring to steal something away from him, you exorcise that faithful man by rebaptising him, and say to God, who dwells within him: 'Go forth, O cursed one,' that there may be fulfilled what was spoken by Ezekiel the Prophet: 'And they spoke evil things to Me amongst My people for the sake of a handful of barley and a morsel of bread, that they might kill souls which ought not to die, whilst they announce to My people empty deceits.' 67 So God hears wrongful insults, which are not His due, and departs from such a dwelling as this; and the man who, when he entered the church, was full of God, goes out an empty vessel.

The Devil, who wished, like a thief, to steal something, sees that the whole, from which he was striving to snatch some little thing, has become his by your assistance. Wherefore, of you God said: 'Thou didst see a thief and didst run together with him.' Again it has been written in the Gospel: 'But when God shall have left a man, he remains an empty vessel, but the unclean spirit wandering through desert places, says, in his hunger 69: " My house is empty," 70that is to say, He who had shut me out has been Himself shut out. " I will go back and dwell therein." And he brings with him seven others more wicked, and he shall dwell there, and that man's last state shall be worse than his first.' That is: 'Thou didst see a thief and didst run together with him, and with adulterers didst cast thy lot.'

He terms heretics adulterers, and their churches adulterous,71 which Christ contemns and disowns in the Canticle of Canticles, as though He should say: 'Why do you make churches that "are not wanted 73"?' |195 'One is My beloved, one is My Spouse, one is My dove' 74 that is, the Catholic Church, in which you too might be.75 And yet by rebaptising you have chosen to cast your lot amongst adulterers. It has been most clearly proved by divine witness that you are sinners. It has also been shown that thine auxiliaries have warred against thee,76 for thou hast brought up to thy relief 77 the saying of the Prophet: 'The sacrifice of the sinner, is as of one who would offer in sacrifice a dog.' 78 Now, if you have any shame, recognise with grief that you are the sinners. VII. In what sense it has been said: Let not the oil of the sinner anoint My Head.

Also learn this, whose Word it is: 'Let not the oil of the sinner anoint My Head.' 79 For whose voice is this thou hast not understood? It is surely the voice of Christ, who had not yet been anointed, when He prayed that the oil of the sinner should not soil His Head. Thou hast said, without |196 understanding, that David the Prophet feared the oil of the sinner. The Psalmist had already been anointed by Samuel. There was then no reason why he should be anointed a second time. Consequently it is the voice of Christ, which says: 'Let not the oil of the sinner anoint My Head.' It is a prayer, not a command; the expression of a desire, not a precept. For, were it a command, He would have said: 'The oil of the sinner shall not anoint My Head.' It is therefore the Voice of the Son of God, even then fearing to meet the oil of the sinner, that is of any man whomsoever, for no man is without sin, but God alone. Accordingly His Son feared the oil of man, for it would have been shameful that God should be anointed by man. Accordingly He prays the Father that He should not be anointed by man, but by God the Father Himself. It is then the Son who asks; let us see whether the Father has granted the request.

This the Holy Spirit points out and makes clear in the forty-fourth Psalm, wherein He says to the Son Himself: 'The Lord thy God shall anoint Thee with the oil of gladness differently 80 from Thy fellows.' His fellows had been the priests and kings of the Jews, each of whom was known to have been anointed |197 by men. But, since it was right that the Son should be anointed by the Father----God by God----as the Son asked and the Spirit announced that it had been promised----this the Father fulfilled in the Jordan. For when the Son of God, our Saviour, came there, He was pointed out to John with these words 81: 'Behold the Lamb of God; He it is who taketh away the sins of the world.' 82 He went down into the water, not that there was anything in God that could be cleansed, but the water had to come before the oil that was to come after, thus to commence and ordain and fulfil the Mysteries of Baptism.83

For when the waters went over Him, and He was held in the hands of John, the Mystery followed in due order, and the Father fulfilled that for which the Son had prayed, and the Holy Ghost had announced was to come. The Heaven was opened, as the Father anointed. Forthwith the spiritual oil descended in the likeness of a Dove, and sat upon His Head and flowed over Him. On this account He was first called Christ, when He was anointed by God the Father. And lest it might seem that the laying on of hands was lacking to Him, the Voice of God was heard, saying from the cloud: 'This is My well-beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.84 Hear ye Him.' 85 Here, therefore, we find the meaning of that which was written: 'Let not the oil of the sinner anoint My Head.' Learn, then, though late, my brother Parmenian, the nature of the truth, for now is the time for learning how to find it.86

VIII. That heretics are children of adulterers. And with regard to that which you have quoted from the Prophet Solomon 87: 'The children of adulterers shall not come to perfection, and bastard slips cannot take deep roots,' this may well be understood to have been said in a literal sense. For, if you take it figuratively, you have excused those who are actually guilty of adultery. But grant that it was said in figure. In that case it has been spoken of heretics, whose sacraments are like invalid wedlock, in whose beds is to be found iniquity, where the very seeds [of life] have been corrupted to the destruction of the Faith.88 |199 When Valentinus maintains that the Son of God was on earth in a phantasm, not in Flesh, he corrupted his own faith and that of his followers. The seed of [spiritual] birth has been rooted out in those who have not believed that the Son of God was born in the Flesh of Mary the Virgin, and that in the Flesh He suffered.

IX. That a certain passage in Jeremiah is to be understood of the idolatrous Jews. Now with regard to what you mention that you have read in the Prophet Jeremiah that the people of God have done two evil things in that 'they forsook the Fountain of living water, and digged to themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water' 89; you have indeed read this, but have been unwilling to understand the real state of the case. In your love for bringing charges, you have twisted round everything so as to abuse Catholics, and, to suit your own purposes, you have attempted to digress a great deal according to your own whims.90 For if you imagine that everything which has been written by the Prophets belongs to our own times, you are making excuses for the Jews, concerning whom it is certain that it was written, that they forsook the Living God, the True God, the God who had bestowed His Blessings upon them, and made for themselves idols----that is to say, broken cisterns, which can hold no water.

In God the Everlasting Majesty flows over,91 even |200 as, in a fountain, water freely gushes forth from its channels. But idols, unless they be made, have no being, and wells, unless they be dug, hold no water in their depth.92 Cisterns cannot be hollowed out without skill and tools, nor can idols be made without a craftsman. In idols there is no virtue that belongs to them,93 but it is given and applied to them through the mistake of man. Virtue is believed to be in an idol, which is not there of its own nature. A cistern, the making of which is a weary work,94 is broken with deliberation, so that neither has it water of itself, nor of itself can it hold the water that it has received. Similarly an idol is not anything of itself, and, whilst it is being worshipped, is nothing. This is the meaning of the Word of God, that His people did two evil things, in that they abandoned the fountain of living water and made for themselves broken cisterns which they had themselves dug out. For the people of Israel had forsaken the true water, had not recognised the Divine Majesty, and had followed the evil worship of idols.

This it is over which God grieves, this it is at which He says that the Heaven has shuddered. |201 For God grieves over the same thing through the Prophet Isaiah, when in this matter He calls to witness two elements with these words: 'Hear, O Heaven, and perceive with thine ears, O Earth. I have brought up and have exalted children. But they have forsaken Me.' 95 How is it, my brother Parmenian, that you have had nothing to say concerning this passage? Or why is it that there is here no mention of water? It will be seen that, through your love of fault-finding, you have done such violence to the Law, that, whenever you read anything of water, you have, by some conjuring tricks, twisted it round for your purposes of hatred, and have made a sort of drag-net out of malicious arguments, and have thus drawn to yourself all things which in themselves are good.

For what intelligence have you shown 96 with regard to this passage in Jeremy, since God cries out that He has been forsaken, and that cisterns have thus been made? His wrath is concerning Himself, not concerning something which is His, for the Baptismal Water belongs to God, but is not God Himself.97 And if you think that you [and your baptism] have been deserted, pray when were any of you baptised 98 among us, so that it |202 should be true that they who deserted your [baptism] came to us? 99 So we have shown that what you have said about the Sacraments and sacrifice of a sinner tells not against us, but against yourselves. [Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered] 1. Cf. iii, 4. 2. de oleo et sacrificio peccatoris. For this phrase cf. i, 5, 6, 7; iv, 7, 9. For oleum cf. note 3, p. 11.

3. non ille debet esse peccator. 4. vestram praesumptionem. The Donatists boastfully claimed that the validity of the Sacraments depended upon their personal holiness. This was the 'presumption' with which they started. 5. facessat ex utraque parte praesumptio. Cf. 'facesse Tarquinios' (Liv. i, 47). 6. cuius sacrificium est canina victima. Canina = Like that of a dog. Cf. infra iv, 6: quasi qui victimet canem. The reference is to Deut. xxiii, 18: 'Non offeres pretium canis in domo Domini Dei tui'; cf. also Is. lxvi, 3: 'Facinorosus qui sacrificat Mihi vitulum, quasi qui canem occidat' (the reading of St. Aug. c. ep. Par men. ii, 5). 7. The whole of this chapter is a digression (cf. i, 3). 8. impius. 9. Malach. ii, 10. 10. Ps. lxxxi, 6. 11. Matt. xxiii, 9. 12. solus natus est Filius Dei. 13. John i, 11. 14. They had been made the sons of God by Baptism, but had, by reason of their schism, lost their right to the title.

15. Matt. v, 9. 16. Deum et hominem revocavit in Pacem. A very strong phrase. 17. Eph. ii, 13. 18. quos iisdem Sacramentorum visceribus (cf. ii, 10). 19. The Lord's Prayer. 20. in totum. 21. cuius potuit vel oleum timeri, vel sacrificium repudiavi. 22. sub secundo diapsalmate. Ps. xlix, 16. For Diapsalma cf. S. August. Enarr. in Ps. iv, 4; Quaest. ex utroque mixtim (Migne, P.L. p. 2334); S. Hieron. Ep. xxviii, De Voce Diapsalma. 23. processisti de castris. This is the reading of G. It is probably a conjecture but seems to give the right sense. RBv read proiecisti castris, which it is not possible to translate. Ziwsa conjectures proiecisti te castris (thou hast flung itself upon fortresses), but this is hardly Latin. Besides Optatus is not likely to have represented an army as first attacking, and afterwards as standing in array against the enemy in the field. 24. captasti.

25. Cf. ii, 14. 26. Ps. xlix, 16, 17, 18, 20. 27. St. Optatus here passes abruptly from the singular to the plural number, from Parmenian individually to the Donatists collectively. 28. Ps. xxxiii, 15. 29. Luke ii, 14. 30. Ps. cxxxii, 1. 31. Here St. Optatus returns to the singular. 32. John xiii, 10. 33. Ps, civ, 15. 34. We have the plural once more. 35. John xiii, 34. 36. Cf. vii, 3. 37. We have the singular again. 38. iustificationes. 39. Ziwsa has added at the beginning of this last sentence a second quomodo and places a note of interrogation at the end (Quomodo testamentum vecitas?). This addition (for which no reason is given) seems unnecessary. The vecitas testamentum corresponds well with the exponis iustificationes Dei etc. of the beginning of the paragraph. 40. electi estis, qui sedentes populum doceatis. To sit, i.e. when teaching the people. We learn from St. Augustine (Hom. xxvi; Tract. xix and cxii in S. Ioan.; in Expos. Ps. cxlvii etc.) that in the Churches of Africa the Bishops only were allowed to sit (though an exception was made in favour of those who were ill or tired, at least when the reading was long). He tells us, however, that a far better custom prevailed in some European Churches: 'longe consultius in quibusdam ecclesiis transmarinis, non solum antistites sedentes loquuntur ad populum, sed ipsi etiam populo sedilia subiacent' (de Catech. rudibus, c. xiii).

41. Ps. xlix, 20. 42. ne nos salutent, ne a nobis dignationem accipiant. In the early days of Christianity, Christians were accustomed to salute one another with the kiss of peace, not only at a stated time in the church during divine service, but also when meeting in the street. Casaubon points out that in Low Latin dignatio was used for facilitas or humanitas and quotes from Sidonius Apollinaris the phrase 'dignitate clarus, dignatione communis.' (For legitimum, cf. note 5, p. 164.) 43. tractatus----i.e. ad populum = sermons. Ziwsa, however, gives libellus as its equivalent. 44. et invenietis oleum vestrum timuisse, qui rogabat. Du Pin rejects this sentence, as not being consistent with the context; but it is found in all the MSS. 45. qui non aut aliud initiet aut aliud explicet. 46. lectiones dominicas. 47. Ps. xlix, 20. 48. non ad populum qui in Ecclesia non habent sedendi licentiam. Cf. supra: 'Electi estis, qui sedentes populum doceatis,' where see note.

49. in perfunctoria salutatione oscula denegatis solita. 50. Ave. 51. Apostolus. 52. We have here three passages joined together in one sentence----1 Cor. v, 11; 2 John 10; 2 Tim. ii, 17. Parmenian (or possibly some other Donatist) had quoted all the three texts. St. Optatus supposes the context known, and cites a portion of each, without continuing them. 53. quorum caeperat illis temporibus vitiosa esse doctrina, qui subtili seductione verborum morbis obscure serpentibus corrumperent fidei sanitatem. 54. The MSS. have Ebion. Du Pin substituted Praxeas who was accused by Tertullian. 'Patrem cruci fixit.' St. Optatus probably wrote Ebion by a slip of the pen. 55. qui habuit cancer. St. Augustine (De Bapt. con. Donat. iv, 12) writes that he would have understood the words in 2 Tim. ii, 17 (quoted above by St. Optatus), 'serpit eorum sermo velut cancer,' of wicked men within the Church, but that the authority of St. Cyprian will not admit of this interpretation. He proceeds, however, to argue against St. Cyprian, who had written (Ep. ad Iubaianum): 'Nam cum dicant [Apostoli] sermonem eorum [haereticorum] ut cancer serpere, quomodo is sermo dare remissam peccatorum qui ut cancer serpit ad aures audientium?' To this Augustine makes answer: 'Nec foris, sicut nec intus, quisquam qui ex parte diaboli est, potest vel in se vel in quoquam maculare Sacramentum quod Christi est . . . cum Baptisma verbis evangelicis datur ... si quis per hominem perversum id accipiens . . . remissionem accipit peccatorum non per verba sicut cancer serpentia, sed per Evangelica Sacramenta de caelesti fonte manantia.'

56. St. Optatus seems to have been led astray here by the fact that Tertullian gave the inscription of Scorpiace to the book which he wrote against the heretics, who had attacked the martyrs. Hence apparently he thought that there had been a heretic called Scorpian. But at the commencement of this book Tertullian attacks no individual, but terms Gnostics, Valentinians and other heretics in general Scorpios. 57. relatio. Relatio = recounting, i.e. narrative or teaching (from referre, to relate). Ziwsa says = sermo. 58. ex nullis substantiis ( = ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων) factum esse. 59. quamdiu vos tenetis? = quamdiu apud Catholicos manetis? Ziwsa says that se tenere here = zögern, sich aufrecht erhalten. 60. Cf. i, 2; ii, 24 supra etc. 61. simplici. Simplex = unadulterated, unmixed by any new teaching or heresy. 62. Ps. xlix, 18. 63. aut de involato gremio. Gremium----the fold of the garment-----pocket. Involato not from in-volare = to swoop upon, but from the unusual verb in-vola-re from vola, the palm of the hand, = to place in the palm of the hand----to steal (cf. French voler).

64. possessio Dei est turba Fidelium. 65. nam neminem fugit quod omnis homo qui nascitur, quamvis de parentibus Christianis nascatur, sine spiritu immundo esse non possit, quem necesse sit ante salutare lavacrum ab homine excludi et separari. Hoc exorcismus operatur etc. We see the importance which Optatus attached to the very ancient pre-baptismal exorcism. 66. 1 Cor. iii, 16. 67. Ez. xiii, 19: maledicebant . . . vanas seductiones (Vulgate 'violabant , . . mentientes populo Meo credenti mendaciis'). 68. Ps. xlix, 18. 69. ieiunus. 70. We have here a paraphrase of Matt. xii, 43-45. 71. Cf. note 4, p. 18. 72. aspernatur et repudiat. 73. non necessarias. Cf. note 3, p. 121. 74. Cant. vi, 8. 75. Catholica, in qua . . . esse, Cf. iii, 3: 'in Christi Catholica habitabant,' etc. 76. tua auxilia contra te militasse. We have this abrupt transition to the singular in order to emphasise the fact that Parmenian had quoted this text, which is now turned against him.

77. in auxilium addideras. 78. Is. lxvi, 3: quasi qui victimet canem. We read in the Vulgate 'quasi qui excerebret canem.' The word victimo is used in the sense of sacrifice by Apuleius. Excerebrare (literally to beat out the brains) is found only in the Vulgate. It is translated in the Douay Version: 'He that killeth in sacrifice.' (Cf. note 1, p. 181.) 79. Ps. cxl, 6. 80. aliter a consortibus tuis. (The Vulgate has 'prae consortibus tuis,') Ps. xliv, 8. 81. Ad Ioannem ostensus est his verbis. 82. John i, 29. 83. In Confirmation: Cf. Tixeront (op. cit. ii, 314). 84. de quo bene sensi. 85. Matt. iii, 17; Mark i, 11; Luke ix, 35; 2 Pet. i, 17. 86. ration em veritatis, f rater Parmeniane, vel sero, addisce, quoniam nunc tempus est invenire discendi. G reads tempus discendi invenisti ----evidently an emendation, but the rhythm is wrong, and the reading of the other MSS. gives good sense. Casaubon suggests the very violent and unnecessary change Nunc non tempus est iuvenile discendi.

87. Sap. iii, 16; iv, 3: filios adulterorum inconsummatos et spuria vitulamina altas radices dare non posse. (Vulgate: 'Filii adulterorum in inconsummatione erunt, et spuria vitulamina non dabunt radices altas.' ) 88. apud quos sunt sacramentorum falsa connubia, et in quorum toris iniquitas invenitur, ubi in exterminium Fidei corrupta sunt semina. For toris Du Pin reads choris with v. But the MSS, have toris, and the reference to Sap. iii, 16 makes this reading certain (cf. also note 4, p. 18). 89. Jer. ii, 13. 90. multum ad arbitrium tuum declinare conatus es. RBv have destinare. 91. in Deo perennis Maiestas exundat. This passage is absolutely corrupt in RBv. Ideo perennis male destans exultant, sicut in fonte aqua largiter defluentibus venis exuberant. From G it is clear that Ideo should be in Deo and that male destans should be Maiestas. Casaubon conjectured exundat for exultant and exuberat for exuberant. Ziwsa accepts this emendation. It is the text which I have translated.

92. sinus capaces habere non possunt. 93. in idolis virtus naturalis nulla est. 94. cuius fabrica vexatio est Gb, vexationes RB. Casaubon conjectured 'cuius si fabrica vitiata est aquam nec habeat etc' 95. Is. i, 2 (cf. Jer. ii, 13). 96. qualis est tuus intellectus----of what kind is your understanding? 97. pro Se irascitur, non pro re sua. Aqua enim baptismatis res Dei est, non Deus. Parmenian had taken fons aquas vivae to be true baptism, which Catholics had forsaken, whereas St. Optatus points out that it refers to God Himself. 98. baptizati, i.e. rebaptised. 99. et si [vos G] putatis desertos esse, quando apud vos fuerunt, qui apud nos baptizati sunt, ut merito vestri desertores ad nos venire viderentur? (For, apud vos fuerunt BG read apud nos fuerunt; for qui apud nos etc. RB read quia etc.) The Latin of this passage is obscure and the text not certain, but the argument of Optatus is clear. 'You say that we have deserted the font of true baptism, but, granted that you have true baptism, has your baptism ever been "deserted" by those that came over from you to us? We have never rebaptised any who had received baptism at your hands.' Viderentur is (as so often in Optatus) used pleonastically.

BOOK THE FIFTH

In this Fifth Book it is shown that though Men are the Ministers of Baptism, it is God Who cleanses, and that it is his Christ who gives what is received in baptism, and that the rebaptised cannot possess the kingdom of God, and that they have lost the Wedding Garment.

I. From Parmenian's own principles it follows that Baptism is One.

1 In our First Book we have shown by the clearest proofs who were the Betrayers of the Law and the originators of the schism; in the Second we have pointed out that with us is the One True Catholic Church, whilst in the Third we have proved that whatever is said to have been done with severity cannot rightfully be in any way ascribed to us. We have also maintained that there is divine warrant for saying that it is you, rather than we, who are 'sinners.' We must now in this place speak of Baptism. In the matter at present to be considered the whole question consists in this, that you have dared to do violence to Baptism----that you have repeated what Christ has commanded to be done but once. And this, my brother Parmenian, you do not deny, since at the beginning of your treatise you have said many things which are on our side, and tell for us, but against you. Thus with reference to Baptism, you have mentioned that there was only one Flood, and only one Circumcision for the people of the Jews. But although you dealt with these subjects at the beginning of your oration, as the sermon was developed you soon forgot all about them, and introduced two waters; so you made a silly commencement to your argument, for you knew that you were going on to discuss the true water and the false.

2 You strengthen the oneness of Holy Baptism, when trying to weaken it ; for you have wished to lay as it were a foundation, with regard to the Jewish Circumcision, that the Baptism of Christians had been foreshadowed in the Circumcision of the Hebrews. In this way you have defended, whilst attacking, the Catholic Church. As your treatise progressed, you claimed to empty of value one kind of Baptism,that you might fill the other to the full. By saying that (apart from the Baptism of heretics), there is one Baptism and yet a second, you could not deny----although you have tried to show that they are different ----that they are two; when you endeavoured to remove one of these, you laboured to treat the second as though it were the first. But before the coming of Baptism, Circumcision was sent forward in advance in a figure. Yet you have maintained that there are amongst Christians two waters. Show then that there are also two Circumcisions amongst the Jews----of which one was the better, the other the worse. If you search for this, you will not be able to find it. The family of Abraham----by descent from whom men are judged to be Jews----glory in being marked with this seal. Therefore the truth ought afterwards to follow, like in character to its figure, which was sent on before.

3 For God too, who wished to show that the reality to come (when the truth should follow the type) must be something unique, willed not that anything should be removed from the ear, nor from the finger; but that part of the body was chosen where what had been once cut away should leave them with a sign that is to our point, because it cannot be removed a second time. For when this is done once it preserves health; if done again it may do harm. Similarly, Christian Baptism, effected by the Trinity, confers grace; if it be repeated it causes loss of life. 4 What then has come over you, my brother Parmenian, to bring forward a thing which is one,and over against it to compare two Baptisms (even though you allege that they are different)----the one true, the other false? For in this way you have proceeded to argue that there are two waters, and claiming one as true for yourselves, wished to ascribe the other to us as false. After this you have made mention also of the Flood. This was indeed a figure of Baptism, inasmuch as the whole sin-stained world, after the sinners had been drowned, was, through the intervention of washing, restored----cleansed----to its former appearance. But since you were going to say that (besides the muddy fountains of the heretics) there was another water----that is a lying water in opposition to the true----to what purpose have you thought well to refer to the Flood, which happened but once? But as you will have it so, show first two Arks unlike one another, and two dissimilar doves, bearing different branches in their mouth----that is, if you are to prove that there is a true water and another which is false.

5 That water alone is true which has been sanctified not from any place, nor by any [human] person,but by the Trinity. And, as you have said that there is a water which is lying, learn where you may find such----with Praxeas, the Patripassian, who totally denies the Son, and maintains that the Father has suffered. Since the Son of God is Truth----as He Himself bears witness, saying: 'I am the Door, and the Way and the Truth' ----- therefore----if the Son of God is Truth----where He is not, there is a lie. And as the Son is not with the Patripassian, there the Truth is not, and where the Truth is not, there the water is lying. So, though late, cease now to concoct accusations, and do not transfer to Catholics that which was said against Patripassians. It has, then, been clearly demonstrated that what you have said of the Flood and of Circumcision might have been said just as well by us as in support of your side.

6 It remains to show that you have praised Baptism in such a way as to bring forward many things which tell both for you and for us, but something that tells against you. Whatever we share with you is in favour of both. For this reason does it favour you, because from us you went out. Thus, for example, you and we have one ecclesiastical discipline, we read from the same Scriptures, we possess the same Faith, the same Sacraments of Faith, the same Mysteries. With reason, therefore, have you praised Baptism, for who amongst the Faithful is unaware that the one Baptism is life for virtues, death to evil deeds, birth to immortality, the attainment of the heavenly kingdom, the harbour of innocence, and (as you too have said) the shipwreck of sins ? These are the blessings conferred upon every believer, not by the minister of this Sacrament, but by the Faith of him who believes and by the Trinity.

II. That in Baptism the work is done by the Trinity, not by the person of the Minister.

1 Then you will ask what you have, when praising Baptism, said against yourselves. Listen! But first you must acknowledge something which not one of you will be able to deny. You say that the Trinity counts for nothing, unless you be present. If you think little of us, at least reverence the Lord, who is First in the Trinity, who with His Son and the Holy Ghost effects and completes all things,even when no human person is present. But, my brother Parmenian, you have said in praise of the water, of which we read in the Book of Genesis, that the waters first gave forth living beings'.Could they have given them birth of their own instance ? Was not the whole Trinity there as well? Surely God the Father was there----He who had deigned to command: 'Let the waters bring forth swimming things, birds and the rest.' But if that which was then done were to be done without any to effect it, God would have said:

2 'O waters, bring forth.' So the Son of God----who effected it ----was there. The Holy Ghost was there, as it has been written: 'And the Spirit of God was borne over the waters.' I see nothing there which is a fourth----nothing less than the Three. Yet that which the Trinity effected came to birth, although you were not there. If then it be not allowed to the Trinity to do anything without you, call back the fishes to their first beginning ; if in your absence the Trinity may not effect anything, drown in the waters the birds as they fly.

III. That Baptism is not to be repeated.

1 Since then you have said that there was only one Deluge and that Circumcision could not be repeated, whilst we have taught that the heavenly gift is bestowed upon every believer by the Trinity, not by man----why have you thought it right to repeat Baptism not after us, bat after the Trinity? Concerning this Sacrament, no small contention has been engendered, and the question is discussed whether it be lawful to do this a second time after the Trinity, in the Name of the same Trinity. You say: 'It is lawful,' whilst we say: 'It is not lawful.' Between your 'It is lawful,' and our 'It is not lawful,' the souls of the multitude hesitate and sway backwards and forwards. Let no one believe either you or us. We are all like litigants in a suit. Judges must be sought for. If they are to be Christians, they cannot be provided by either side, because truth is impeded by party spirit. A judge must be sought for from outside. If he is to be a Pagan, he cannot know the Christian secrets. If he is to be a Jew, he is an enemy of Christian Baptism. Therefore, concerning this matter no judgement can be found on earth; we have to seek a Judge from heaven. But why need we knock at heaven's gate, when we have at hand in the Gospel a testament?

2 Here earthly things may with reason be compared with heavenly. For example, in the case of any man who has many sons, so long as the father is present, he himself gives his orders to each, nor is any testament necessary. Thus Christ, so long as He was present on earth (although even now He is not absent), gave His orders to the Apostles with regard to whatever was necessary for the time. But just as an earthly father, who feels himself to be on the borderland of death, and fears lest his sons may break peace after his death, and go to law, calls in witnesses and transfers his will from his breast, so soon to pass away, to a record which will last for a long time ----and should any dispute arise amongst the brothers, they do not go to the grave, but the testament is looked for, and he who rests in the grave silently speaks from the record; in the same manner He, to whom the testament belongs, is in heaven----therefore let His Will be sought in the Gospel as in His testament.

3 For through His foreknowledge Christ had foreseen the things which you do now, but which were then yet to come. Accordingly, when the Son of God washed the feet of His disciples, He spoke thus to Peter: 'That which I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know afterwards.' By saying 'thou shalt know afterwards' He pointed out these present times. In this way amongst other prescriptions of His testament, He gave this prescription concerning the Water. If, when He washed the feet of His disciples, and the others were silent, Peter had also been silent, He would have set the example of humility only, and would have made no declaration respecting the Sacrament of Baptism. But when Peter refuses, and does not allow his feet to be washed, Christ refuses him the Kingdom, unless he should accept this service. But so soon as there is mention of the heavenly Kingdom----whereas part of his body was demanded to have service rendered unto it----he offered his whole body to be cleansed.

4 Now come, be present, ye crowds and all Christian peoples, and learn what is lawful. When Peter makes his appeal, Christ teaches. Let him who doubts learn. For it is the Voice of Christ: 'He, who has once been washed, has no need of being washed again, for he is altogether clean.' And thus did He make His declaration concerning that washing which he had commanded to be done through the Trinity ----not concerning that of Jews or heretics, who, whilst they wash, defile, but concerning the holy water which flows from the fountains of the Three Names. For thus the Lord Himself commanded, when He said: 'Go, baptise all nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.' This was the washing of which He said: 'He that has been washed once has no need of being washed a second time.' In saying once He forbade it to be done again, and spoke of the thing, not of the person. For if there had been a difference [to be considered between persons], He would have said:

5 'He that has been rightly washed once,' but by not adding the word rightly, He points out that whatever has been done in the [Name of the] Trinity is done rightly. This is the reason why we receive without rebaptising those who come [to us] from you. When Christ says: 'He has no need of being washed a second time,' this is a general, not a particular declaration, for if these things had been said to Peter [only], Christ would have said: 'Because thou hast been once washed, thou hast no need of being washed a second time.' Wherefore, whenever anyone who has been baptised by you wishes to pass over to us, we, taught by this command and example, receive him with all simplicity.For far be it from us ever to exorcise one of the Faithful who has been made whole ; far be it from us to bring back to the font one who has been already washed, far from us to sin against the Holy Ghost----an offence for which forgiveness is denied in this world and in the world to come ; far from us to repeat that which is [to be done] only once, or to make twofold that which is one. For thus has it been written by the Apostle:

6 'One God, one Christ, one Faith, one Baptism.' Do you then, who seem to take delight in striving to make Baptism twofold, if you give a second Baptism, give a second Faith; if you give a second Faith, give also a second Christ; if you give a second Christ, give a second God? You cannot deny that God is one----unless indeed you would fall into the traps of Marcion. God then is one. Of one God there is one Christ. He who is rebaptised had before been made a Christian. How can he be said to become a Christian a second time? The one Faith is thus separated from the errors of the heretics, and the one only Faith from their varying faith. It has also a prescriptive right over against you, who reject that which is for once only, attributing everything to the [external] Endowments, nothing to the [hidden] Sacraments ; though this quality of Faith belongs to the. believer, not to the 'Minister.' For he who has believed in God at the interrogation of any person whomsoever, has believed. Yet after his one Credo thou dost exact a second Credo.

7 It follows then that Baptism is one, and, as, through the very fact that it is one, it is holy, so also, through the very fact that it is one, not only that it should be separated from the profane and sacrilegious baptisms of heretics, but also that what is one should not be made twofold, and that what is for once only should not be repeated.

IV. That it is God, not the Minister, who cleanses in the Sacrament of Baptism.

1 It is clear that in the celebration of this Sacrament of Baptism there are three elements, which you will not be able either to decrease or diminish, or put on one side. The first is in the Trinity, the second in the believer, the third in him who operates. But they must not all be weighed by the same measure.For I perceive that two are necessary, and that one is quasi-necessary. The Trinity holds the chief place, without whom the work itself cannot be done. The faith of the believer follows next. Then comes the office of the 'Minister,' which cannot be of equal authority. The first two remain always unchangeable and unmoved. For the Trinity is always Itself; and the Faith is the same in everyone. Both [the Trinity and Faith] always preserve their own efficacy. It will be seen, therefore, that the office of the minister cannot be equal to the other two elements [in the Sacrament of Baptism], because it alone is liable to change.

2 You will have it that between you and us there is a distinction, though the office is the same, and, judging yourselves to be more holy than we, you do not hesitate to place your pride higher than the Trinity,although the person of the 'Minister' can be changed, but the Trinity cannot be changed. And, whereas it is Baptism which should be longed for by those who receive it, you put yourselves forward as the persons to be eagerly sought after. Since you are----amongst others----' Ministers' of the Sacrament, show what is the nature of the place that you occupy in this Mystery, and whether you can belong to its 'body'! 3 The Name of Baptism is but one. It possesses its own body ----a body which has its own well-defined members, to which nothing can be added, in which nothing can be taken away. If the 'Minister' who has to be chosen is counted as one of these members,then the whole body belongs to the 'Minister.' All these members are both at all times and once for all with this 'body,' and cannot be changed, whereas the 'Ministers' are changed every day, both as to place and time, and in their own persons. For it is not one man only, who baptises always or everywhere. This work is now done by different men from those who did it of old. In the time to come it will be done by yet others. The 'Ministers' can be changed; the Sacraments cannot be changed. Since therefore you see that all who baptise are labourers, not lords, and that the Sacraments are holy through themselves, not through men, why do you claim so much for yourselves? Why is it that you try to shut God out from His own gifts? Allow Him to bestow those things, which are His own. For that gift, which belongs to God, cannot be given by man. If you think otherwise, you are endeavouring to make of no effect the words of the Prophets and the promises of God, by which it is proved that it is God, not man, who cleanses. Here David the Prophet is against you, for he says in the fiftieth Psalm:

4 'Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be cleansed beyond the snow' ; and again in the same Psalm: 'O God, wash me from my wickedness and cleanse me from my sin.' He said: 'Wash me.' He did not say: 'Choose for me one by whom I may be washed.' And the Prophet Isaiah also has written that 'the Lord shall wash away the defilement of the sons and daughters of Sion.' We have proved in our Third Book that Sion is the Church ; it follows that God washes the sons and daughters of the Church. He did not say: 'They shall wash who judge themselves to be holy.' Admit then that the Prophets overcome you, or, with them, recognise that it is not man who washes, but God. As long as you ask: 'How can he give, who has not anything to give?' understand that it is the Lord who is the giver,understand that it is God who cleanses each man, whoever he may be; for no one can wash away the defilement and stains of the mind, but God alone, who is also the Maker of the mind. Or, if you think that it is your washing [that cleanses], tell us what is the nature of this mind, which is washed through the body, or what 'form' it has, or in what part of a man it dwells. To know this has not been granted to any. How, then, do you think that it is you who cleanse, when you do not know the nature of that which you cleanse? It belongs not to man, but to God to cleanse, for He has Himself promised that He will cleanse, through the Prophet Isaiah, when He said:

5 'Even though your sins are like scarlet, I will make you white as snow.' He said: 'I will make you white,' and not: 'I will cause you to be made white.' If this has been promised by God, why do you wish to give that which it is not permitted to you either to promise, or to give, or to have? Behold by Isaiah God has promised Himself to wash those stained by sin, not through a man. Go back to the Gospel, and see what Christ has promised for the salvation of the human race. When the Samaritan woman refused water to the Son of God, then He said that which gives His answer to your contentions : 'He who shall drink the water which I give shall not thirst for ever.' He said: 'the water which I give.' He did not say: 'which they shall give, who deem themselves holy,'

6 as you think yourselves to be; but He did say that He would give. He Himself, therefore, it is who gives, and that which is given is His own. What, therefore, is it which you strive, with absolute unreasonableness,to vindicate for yourselves?

V. Why and when the Baptism of Christ was conferred.

1 To give the final proof concerning this matter, John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Saviour, when he was baptising many to repentance and the remission of their sins, declared that the Son of God was about to come. These are his words: 'Behold, He cometh to baptise you.' Yet we do not read that Christ rebaptised anyone after John. With regard, therefore, to these words: 'He cometh to baptise you,' Christ coming after John baptised no one. This promise was made for our times, that He might give what is given to-day, according to His Word: 'He who shall drink the water which I give shall not thirst for ever.' And although the disciples of John said to their master: 'Behold He, whom thou hast baptised, baptises.' He baptised indeed, but by the hands of His Apostles, to whom He had given the laws of Baptism. As it has been written in another place:

2 'For He Himself baptised no one, but His disciples baptised.' In this matter we are all His disciples, so that we should work, in order that He may give, who promised that He would give. Still, when John was baptising many thousands of men, even in the presence of Christ, the servant worked, and the Lord did nothing until He gave the Form of Baptism. After the lapse of a considerable period, thousands of men were washed in repentance and forgiveness of sins. But no one was washed in the Trinity, no one yet knew Christ, no one had heard that there was a Holy Ghost. But when there came the fullness of time, at a fixed moment, the Son of God gave the laws of Baptism. He gave also the way by which we might go to the Kingdom of Heaven, for He then commanded: 'Go ye, teach all nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'

3 From that day what He had commanded had to be done. It was not His will to amend that which had been done before that time, lest He might [seem to] give permission to rebaptise----although the Baptism of John was one thing, and the Baptism of Christ is another. Before His law [was given] He willed the Baptism of John, which was not full, to be held for full. And yet with regard to the thousands of men mentioned above, although they knew not the Son of God and the Holy Ghost, He could not refuse them the Kingdom of Heaven, because they had believed in God. So it is the Voice of the Son of God, who says: 'From the days of John to this day the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and they who do violence bear it away.' For this reason does He say: 'They who do violence,'

4 because John was still baptising. So, because the time before His commandments was different from the time after His commandments, they who have been baptised in the Name of the Saviour after the commandments, have entered the Kingdom, through the laws [of Baptism], whilst those who were before the commandments did violence, without the law, but were not shut out. Therefore, though before the commandments, the Baptism of John was imperfect, it was judged by Him, in whose place no man judges, as though it were perfect, because a certain line of division was placed between the times that preceded and those that followed His command. When the most blessed Paul saw some at Ephesus who had been baptised, after the commandments [of Christ], in the Baptism of John, he asked them whether they had received the Holy Ghost. They replied that they did not know whether there was a Holy Ghost, and he said to them that, after the Baptism of John, they must receive the Holy Ghost.

5 They had been baptised, in the same manner as had been the many whom John had baptised. But those who had been baptised before the law, belonged to the time of exemption, for He had been present who could give exemption. Those who were not bound by the laws were altogether not guilty. But those who, as we read, were baptised at Ephesus with the Baptism of John after the law, had after the laws erred in the Sacrament, because the Baptism of the Lord had now been introduced and the Baptism of the servant had been abrogated. And so it is that, after the divine commands, men had to go into the Kingdom by laws, not by violence. For Christ had already fixed the limit of time by saying: 'From the days of John until to-day.' After 'to-day' that which was lawful yesterday was lawful no longer. Wherefore do not deceive yourselves with the saying of the Apostle Paul,for he did not ask about the person of the 'Minister,' but about the thing. With the fact, not with the person, he was dissatisfied. So he commanded the Baptism of the Saviour, that they who did not know might learn, for this they had not received, but something different. But what do you change? If you have been able to change things, you will have done well, provided you have acted according to the Law. Paul said:

6 'In what Baptism have you been baptised?' and they said to him: 'The Baptism of John.' He persuaded them to receive the Baptism of Christ. You do not say: 'What have you received? but 'From whom have you received it? ' and you inveigh against the characters of men, and wish to repeat what is for once only. They who had been baptised at Ephesus, had believed in repentance and the forgiveness of sins. Rightly was it said to them, that they should be baptised in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. But what is there for you to change in men, who have already made profession that they believe in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost? Whether you ask them this again, or something else, be convinced that you must sin----if you either interrogate concerning that which has not been commanded, or wish to do something which has been done already.

VI. An answer to the argument, that a man cannot give that which he has not.

1 I return now to that question of yours: 'How is he, who has not anything to give, able to give?' Whence comes this saying? Where can it be found? It has not been read in a book, but has been brought in from the street. 'How is he, who has not anything to give, able to give?' These words have not been written in the Law, for if (as you will have it) it is man who gives, God does nothing----and if God does nothing, and if everything that has to be given is in your hands, then [the baptised] are converted to you. Let those whom you baptise be washed in your name. Blush at the most blessed Paul, who cries out and expresses his thanksgiving: 'Have you been baptised in my name?' He rejoices that he baptised only two persons and one household, but you strive to rebaptise whole peoples, and are contented both to have sinned in the past, and to go on sinning, saying:

2 'What does he give, who has not anything to give?' He, in whom we believe, is Himself the giver of that in which we believe, not another through whose instrumentality we are brought to believe. Besides, under John a vast multitude of men were baptised. Prove (if you can) that John either received, or possessed, anything to give. He was the 'Minister' ; the gift was from God, who does not fail in giving. And now whilst we all are Ministers of Baptism, the works are man's, but the gifts are from God.

VII. That the Grace of Baptism is the gift of God, not of man, who is shown to be only the Minister.

1 So consider how ridiculous is that saying, which is always heard to come from you, as though for your glorification: 'This gift of Baptism belongs to him who gives, not to him who receives.' And would that you should say this of God, who is the true Giver. But----a stupid thing----you say that you are the givers. If this be so, suppose that both you and we are dealing with two Pagans. Do you, who say that you are holy, ask the one whom you have in your hands, whether he renounces the Devil and believes the Lord, and we will suppose that he says: 'I will not.' On the other hand, let us who, as you will have it, are sinners, ask the other Pagan, whether he renounces the Devil, and believes God and the other questions, and we will suppose that he says: 'I do renounce and I do believe, and the rest' ----

2 will you tell me when you baptise the one who is unwilling, and we baptise the other who is willing, which of these two can arrive at the grace of God? Surely, without doubt, it is acquired by the one who believes, not by him, in whose case, as you say, your holiness takes the place of his own will. Recognise, though late, that you are only ministers. Or if (you say that) the work is in the workmen, and not in itself, find some who will claim this for themselves in their arts, so that we may, according to your challenge, compare human arts with things that are divine. When something is dyed with a precious colour, its nature is often changed. A white fleece is dyed, and becomes purple. Even as the white wool passes into the royal purple, so the catechumen passes into the Christian. Surely, whilst he begins to be that which he was not, he ceases to be that which he was. The wool changes both its colour and its name, and the man changes both his appellation and his disposition. We have to think of the results that have been effected, and must consider once more what it is that has effected those results. You say that it is your gift that has made that man a Christian.

3 If this is all your doing, then the workman also who makes the purple, may say that he has the precious colour in his own hands, and has no need to procure from the Ocean precious dyes----unknown to many----that the fleeces may be promoted to a marvellous dignity, and is free to assert that he can make the purple, merely by his touch, without admixture from the blood of the fish. But if on the contrary this workman is unable to give the colour by his touch alone, then neither is the workman in Baptism able to give anything of himself without the Trinity. Such is this question, about which we have our present contention. For in Whom the nations should be baptised has been ordained by the Saviour. Through whom they should be baptised was appointed without the making of any exception. He did not say to the Apostles:

4 'Do it you! Let not others do it.' Whosoever has baptised in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, has discharged the Apostles' work. And so it has been written in the Gospel. When John said: 'O Master, we have seen one casting out devils in Thy Name, and we have forbidden him, because he followeth not with us,' Christ said: 'Forbid him not, for he that is not against you is for you.' For to them the command had been given that their work should be sanctification by the Trinity, and that they should not baptise in their own name, but in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Therefore it is the Name which sanctifies, not the work. Understand, though late in the day, that you are labourers not lords. And, if the Church is the Vineyard, and men are the vines, and those who are to attend to the vines have been duly appointed, why do you rush upon that which appertains to the dominion of the Father of the Family? Why do you claim for yourselves what belongs to God? Why do you wish that something of which you cannot have even a part, should be yours altogether? For on account of swelling pride----yours----with which you are swollen against us ----the most blessed Paul chides the Corinthians. In himself and Apollo he gives a picture of that which happens in our time.

5 'Let not one,' he said, 'be puffed up against another.' And, that he may show how all this Sacrament of Baptism belongs to God, so that there is nothing here that the 'Minister' may claim for himself, he speaks as follows: 'I indeed have planted '---- that is, 'of a pagan I have made a catechumen'----'Apollo has watered'---- that is, he has baptised the catechumen, but God has given that which had been planted, or watered, the power to grow. In like manner anyone to-day, who wishes to dig up and loosen the ground in his vineyard,hires a labourer for an agreed sum, to make holes in the ground, in which----with bent back, the sweat running down his sides----he may place the little vines that have been selected, and (after he has trodden the ridges under his feet) pour water upon them. He is able to dig at the trenches and plant the vines. He is able to bring them water, but he is not able to command the water to hold them ; it is in the power of God alone from the pith of vine-branches to bring forth roots which assimilate themselves to the soil, and the budding eyelets, out of which leaves burst forth.

6 Even as the blessed Apostle Paul, to tame your presumption and pride, and that the workman may not think either that he has any dominion over Baptism, or claim any share for himself----however small----in so great a gift, writes as follows, showing that all belongs to God: 'Neither he that plants nor he that waters is anything, but God alone, who leads to the attainment of the increase .' You are workmen amongst others. When the sun goes in, that is to say, when the world has come to an end----on the Judgement Day ----you may argue with us about reward. Do not wish to claim for yourself that which belongs to the supreme authority of God. For if this is your due, then the servants who wait at the Lord's table should claim to be thanked by His guests for the courtesies which their Lord has rendered. It is the Voice of Christ, who gives the invitation:

7 'Come, ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.' The nations flock to receive His grace. He, who deigned to invite, is the giver thereof. A crowd of His servants exercise their ministry. Thanks must be rendered, not to those who serve, but to Him who provides the repast. Since you are the ministers, it is shameless in you to claim for yourselves the entire ownership of the banquet, though the most blessed Paul confesses with humility that he and the others are servants----in order that no one may imagine that he ought to place his hope in Apostles or Bishops alone. On this account says the Apostle: 'For what is Paul, or what Apollo? Surely the ministers of Him, in whom you have believed?' Accordingly, in all those who serve there is not ownership but service. Now, therefore, my brother Parmenian, you see that of the three elements [in Baptism] which I have mentioned above, the one which is threefold comes first, is immovable, is supreme and unchangeable, but that the person of any individual minister remains only for a time.

VIII. Concerning the faith of him who receives Baptism.

1 It remains now to say something of the merit of the believer, to whom belongs the faith, which the Son of God placed before both His Sanctity and Majesty. For you cannot be more holy than is Christ. When that woman, whose daughter was dead, came to Him, and besought that she should be restored to life, He promised nothing of His own Power, but asked about the faith of another, so that if the woman believed, her daughter should be raised up, in view of her mother's faith ; but that if she believed not, the Power of the Son of God would be idle, with nothing to do. The woman is questioned. She replies that she believed that what she had asked for could be accomplished. She is ordered to depart. She returns to her house, and finds the daughter alive whom she had left dead. She does not rush to kisses, she does not hasten to embraces, but returns to render thanks to the Saviour. And the Son of God, that He might show that He had stood by,and that her faith alone had worked, said to her:

2 'O woman, depart in peace. Thy faith hath made thee whole.' What comes of your saying: 'It is of the giver, not of the receiver' ? And what think you of the centurion's faith? He besought the Saviour to ward off death from his son, when he was ill. Christ then went to the dying boy. In such estimation did the centurion hold Him, that he acknowledged the unworthiness of his house, and begged that the Son of God would not enter it in person, but that He should send His Power, by which death might be put to flight, and the lad be restored to life. It was not the valour of the centurion, nor his wisdom that was praised, but his faith: 'And his son was cured at that hour.' Of a truth it is 'of the giver,' not of him that receives! There are many things of this kind in the Gospel about perfect faith, but we must finish the story of at least three witnesses to Faith.

3 What think you of that woman, who, after she had been ill for twelve years of a hidden malady, belonging to women, and had spent all her substance upon doctors, on beholding so many wonderful works performed by the Son of God, went into the crowd, saw the physician, saw also the people? Her pain urged her on to ask for medicine, shame hindered her from disclosing, in the presence of men, the cause of her complaint. Her silent faith told her what to do. 'I will send forth my hand,' [she said] 'and I will touch the hem of His garment and I shall be healed.' When no one observed her, in the midst of the crowd she put forth her hand. She touched and was healed. But she did not venture to tell aloud that for which she had not ventured to ask. However, that the fruit of her faith might not be hidden from those who were unaware of it, the Saviour asked:

4 'Who has touched Me?' His disciples marvelled and said: 'The crowds press on Thee, yet Thou dost ask, "Who has touched Me?"' and Christ asked: 'Who, I say, has touched Me? I have felt that virtue has gone forth from Me.' So the woman acknowledged that she it was who had touched Him and been healed. In the other cases the mother had asked for her daughter, the centurion had asked for his son. Here neither did the woman ask, nor did Christ promise, but faith obtained all that it anticipated. Without doubt 'it is of him that gives, not of him that receives.'

IX. That the example of Naaman the Syrian was brought by Parmenian without relevance.

In order to add to the bulk of your treatise, you have thought well, my brother Parmenian, to describe Naaman the Syrian at length as some kind of unripe mass of hardest wounds just coming to their birth.What has this to do with our present business? You might bring it forward relevantly, and might well have employed a long discourse about it, had you come across some catechumen of rudest morals and hardest heart, who should refuse to receive the most gentle grace of the saving Water. With relevance in that case would your words have shown how man may be renewed ; with relevance might you then have pointed out that an inveterate hardness of nature may be changed and softened into the flesh of an infant. But, with regard to this business, which we are at present discussing together, to what purpose have you recalled such a history as this ? For we do hot read here that anyone had washed that leprous Syrian before the word or at the command of Elisha, in such a way that he might be duly washed again to his greater advantage. But even if it were so, still, it would not serve your purpose,as something which you might lawfully imitate. For we do not read that he had first washed in the waters of Syria, or that he had been washed by anyone, without gaining thereby any advantage. But if it had been so, this would not appertain to the praise of Elisha (who did not wash him, but gave him advice); rather would it redound to the glory of the Jordan that the first grace came to the Syrian ----in that river wherein afterwards, in the time of John, through confession unto repentance, the sins of a multitude were to die.

X. The Parable of the Marriage Feast was wrongly brought forward by Parmenian.

1 Lastly what is to be said with regard to that part of your treatise concerning the heavenly nuptials, in which----taking away hope of future things----you have applied it all to the present time, saying that he, who escaped your doorkeepers and ministers,has been cut off from your fellowship, in such a way as to be cast outside, with contumely, far from the communion of the Faithful? If the parable mean this, nothing is left for faith to hope, nothing for the resurrection to restore, nothing further in heaven to be awaited, nothing for God, the King and Father of the Family, to recognise at His own Banquet, when He shall rejoice over the presence of many and grieve over the absence of some, and shall say that many have been called, but few chosen. In that case there will be no occasion for Him to be wrath with the man who is without the Wedding Garment.

2 For the Son of God, Christ Himself, is the Bridegroom; He is also the Garment and the Tunic, that floats in the water, to clothe many, yet awaits others innumerable and is never used up. And before anyone say that I have been rash in calling the Son of God the Garment, let him read the words of the Apostle who says: 'As many of you as have been baptised in the Name of Christ, have put on Christ.' O tunic ever one and unchangeable, which fitly clothes all ages and forms, which is not too loose in infants, nor stretched in youth, nor changed in women! Assuredly the day will come, when the heavenly nuptials begin to be celebrated. There without anxiety shall they sit down, who have preserved the one Baptism. For with regard to any who has allowed himself to be rebaptised by you----resurrection is not denied him, for he has believed in the resurrection of the Flesh. He shall rise indeed, but naked. But because he has allowed you to spoil him of his wedding garment, he shall hear the Father of the Family speak thus:

3 'My friend,' that is to say----'I recognise thee----once thou didst renounce the devil, and wert converted to Me, and I gave thee a wedding garment. Why hast thou come thus, without that which I gave thee?'----that is to say, 'why hast thou not what I gave thee?' For no one can be angry with one who has not something, which has not been given him. 'Thou didst receive a wedding garment, together with these others, and thou alone art without one. Why hast thou come naked and doleful ? Who has torn his spoils from thee? What thieves' doors hast thou entered ? What murderous robbers hast thou met on the way?' However many they are who come thus, they shall have no place at that banquet.

XI. As the Donatists could not rebaptise children who were dead, why should they rebaptise the living?

And to make an end, however late, I think that even this is enough. Still, although we may be making a mistake in bringing forward so many proofs, let me give this one more. Let us suppose that, in your absence, a thousand have been baptised. Of these say that a hundred have chanced to die. For a little while keep your hands off this wickedness. Let your 'holiness' (as you call it) first raise again those who have been buried, let it cleanse the dead if it can, and let them be brought back to the living. If you are not able to raise the dead, to what purpose do you endeavour to lay hands upon the living, excepting to fulfil that which God spoke of you through the Prophet Ezekiel, saying: 'that they might kill souls, which ought not to die'? [Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered]

BOOK THE SIXTH

In this Book it is shown that the Donatist Bishops wickedly destroyed altars, that they sold the Holy Vessels, and without Warrant stripped Nuns of their Veils.

I. The wickedness of the Donatists in breaking or scraping the altars.

1 Your wicked actions with regard to the Divine Sacraments have----so it seems to me----been clearly shown up. I now have to describe things done by you, as you yourselves will not be able to deny, with cruelty and folly. For what so sacrilegious as to break, to scrape, to take away altars of God, upon which you too once offered sacrifice, upon which were laid both the prayers of the people, and the Members of Christ,where Almighty God was called upon, where the Holy Spirit descended in answer to prayer, from which many have received the pledge of everlasting salvation, and the safeguard of faith, and the hope of resurrection? Altars, I say, upon which the Saviour forbade the gifts of the brotherhood to be laid, unless they should be seasoned with peace. 'Lay down,' He said, 'thy gift before the altar,and go back, agree with thy brother, that the priest may be able to offer on thy behalf.'

2 For what is an altar excepting the seat of both the Body and the Blood of Christ? All these altars you, in your madness, have either scraped, or broken, or taken away. Whatever reason you may have had prompting you to this wickedness (for which no atonement is possible), it should have been done in the same way [everywhere]. But in one place, the abundance of wood it was (as I think) that led to the altars being broken up, in other places the lack of timber caused them to be scraped, whilst yet again elsewhere it was partly the sense of shame, which induced men to take them away. But in each case a disgraceful wickedness was committed when you laid sacrilegious and impious hands upon so great a Thing. Why should I mention the hired mob of abandoned wretches, and the wine that was given as the pay of crime? ----the wine, for which a fire was made out of the broken remnants of the altars, that unclean lips might drink it [hot] with sacrilegious draughts? If in your jaundiced judgement we seemed to you to be corrupt, what harm had God done you, God, who at those altars was once habitually invoked? In what way had Christ offended you, whose Body and Blood were wont during determinate times there to dwell ? In what way had you yourselves even offended yourselves, that you should break down those altars, upon which before us you had (as you think, with sanctity) offered sacrifice for long periods of time? In impiously attacking our hands there, where the Body of Christ used to dwell, you have also smitten your own.

3 By thus acting you have imitated the Jews. They laid hands upon Christ on the cross; you have struck Him upon the altar. If you wished to attack Catholics at these altars, there you might have spared at least your own former sacrifices. Thy pride has now been manifested in that place where formerly thou didst offer sacrifice with humility, there thou dost freely sin, where once thou wert accustomed to pray on behalf of the sins of many. After this fashion you have, of your own accord, entered into the company of sacrilegious priests, and are associated with the crimes of wicked men, concerning whom Elijah the prophet makes his plaint before the Lord. For he has used these words (with which you too, amongst others, have deserved to be accused by him): 'O Lord,' he says, 'they have broken down Thine altars.' When he says 'Thine,' he shows that the [altar] where any offering has been made to God by anyone whomsoever, belongs to God.

4 It might have satisfied your madness, to have wounded the members of the Church, and to have divided by your beguilements the peoples of God, who were formerly placed in unity. Amongst all your other proceedings, you might at least have spared the altars. Why did you break, together with the altars themselves, the entreaties and longings of men? For from them the people's prayer was wont to go up to the ears of God. Why did you cut to pieces the road of their prayers to Him? With impious hands you have laboured in a sort of fashion to draw away the ladder,that you might prevent supplication ascending in the accustomed way to God. And though all of you shared in one conspiracy, still, in this matter, whilst your wrongdoing was the same, you carried it out by different methods. If it was sufficient to move, it was not lawful to break; if it was right to break, it is a sin to have scraped. For if, as your assembly decreed, it was not lawful [to preserve the altars], that man who broke them up would seem to have acted rightly. In that case he is guilty who, by scraping, preserved the larger part of them.

5 What is this new and foolish wisdom of yours to seek for that which is new in the very heart of that which is old ? It is as though, after having removed some skin from the body, you were to look, as it were, for a second skin in that part of the body which lay hid under the part which you had cut away.The gift which is proper to itself and, by reason of its unity, is a whole in itself, may, after something has been taken from it, be lessened. Changed it cannot be. You have, it is true, scraped what seemed good to you, but what you hate is still there! Again, even though you have agreed, that whatever has been touched by us in the Name of God in His actual service, should be deemed by you to be unclean, which of the Faithful is there who is unaware that during the celebration of the Mysteries, the wood of the altar is itself covered with linen ? During the sacred rites themselves, the covering can be touched, not the wood. Or, if the veils can be penetrated by the touch, then so can the wood; and, if the wood can be penetrated, then so can the earth. If you scrape the wood, you should also dig up the earth which is underneath, you should make a deep hole, whilst you are searching after that which you are pleased to judge to be purity.

6 But take care lest you go down to those below, there to find Korah, Dathan and Abiram, the schismatics----your masters. It is, then, well known that you have both broken and scraped altars. How is it that in this matter your madness seems to have presently somewhat cooled down ? For we see that afterwards you changed your plan, and that the altars were now no longer either broken or scraped by you, but only moved. If this was enough, then you yourselves prove that what you did at first should by no means have been done.

II. That the Donatists sacrilegiously broke and sold the chalices.

But when you broke the very Chalices, which carry the Blood of Christ, you committed two horrible sins. For you have melted them down, thus making money for yourselves by abominable bargains. Nor in this business did you even trouble to select the purchasers, but were guilty of sacrilege in selling indiscriminately, and of avarice in selling at all. You also suffered your own hands to be burned, with which you were accustomed, before us, to handle these same Chalices. Still you ordered the sale to take place everywhere. Perhaps wanton women bought them for their own purposes; Pagans bought them, so that from them they might manufacture vessels, in which to burn incense to their idols. O shameful wickedness! O unheard-of crime! To take away something from God, that you might give it to idols----to steal something from Christ, that it might serve for a sacrilege.