On Baptism, against the Donatists 5.1–5.19

That the Catholic Church now holds its ancient custom, when those coming from heretics or schismatics are not baptized again if they have received baptism consecrated with the words of the gospel, we use blessed Cyprian as witness. For he put the question to himself, certainly from the mouths of brothers, either seeking the truth or contending for the truth. For among his arguments by which he wished to show that heretics must be baptized again (which we have discussed sufficiently for the time in the previous books), he says: “But someone says: ‘What then will become of those who in the past, coming from heresy to the church, were admitted without baptism?’” Here the whole case of the Donatists, with whom we are in conflict on this question, is utterly shipwrecked. For if those who came from heretics and were received in this way truly did not have baptism, and their sins were upon them, when communion was held with such men, whether by those before Cyprian or by Cyprian himself, one of two things must be said: either the church had already perished then, stained by communion with such men, or the sins of others, even known ones, do no harm to anyone who remains in unity. But they cannot say the first, that the church perished then by the contagion of communion with those who, as Cyprian says, were admitted to it without baptism (otherwise they could not assert their own origin either, if the church perished then, since there are more than forty years between Cyprian’s passion and the burning of the divine books, from which these men, throwing out the smoke of their slanders, found the occasion for making a schism, as the list of consuls shows); it remains, then, that they admit that the unity of Christ is defiled by no such communion with the wicked, even known ones. And when they have admitted this, they will find no reason why they should contend that they had to separate themselves from the churches of the whole world, which we read alike were founded by the apostles; because those churches could not perish by mixture with any wicked men whatever, and these men, who would not have perished had they remained in unity with them, certainly perished in schism by separating themselves from them and breaking the bond of peace. For the sacrilege of schism stands out most plainly if there was no cause for separation. And it is plain that there was no cause for separation if the wicked, even known ones, do not stain the good in unity. And that the good are not stained in unity even by known wicked men we teach with Cyprian as witness, who says that in the past those coming from heresy to the church were admitted without baptism; whose abominable sacrileges, which were upon them, since they had not been forgiven by baptism, if they could not pollute and destroy the holiness of the church, it can perish by no contagion of the wicked. Therefore, if they agree that Cyprian spoke the truth, by his testimony they are convicted of the crime of schism; if they contend that Cyprian spoke falsely, let them not use his testimony on the question of baptism.

But now let us carry through what we have undertaken, to converse with blessed Cyprian, a man of peace. When he had raised against himself what he knew was said by the brothers, “What then will become of those who in the past, coming from heresy to the church, were admitted without baptism?”, he says, “The Lord is able by his mercy to grant pardon, and not to separate from the gifts of his church those who, admitted to the church in simplicity, have fallen asleep in the church.” He did well indeed to presume that the love of unity could cover a multitude of sins. But if they had baptism, and those who thought they should be baptized again did not think rightly, the love of unity covered that error, so long as it was not a diabolical departure but a human temptation, until, as the apostle says, the Lord should reveal to them whatever they thought otherwise. And therefore woe to these men, who, broken from unity by sacrilegious severance, rebaptize if baptism is both with us and with them, or, if it is only in the Catholic Church, do not even baptize. Whether, then, they rebaptize or do not baptize, they are not in the bond of peace, from which to apply a remedy to either wound of theirs. But if we admit people to the church without baptism, we are in the number of those whom Cyprian presumed could be pardoned for the sake of guarding unity. But if, as I think is now plain from what we have said in the previous books, the integrity of Christian baptism can exist even in the perversity of heretics, those who in those times rebaptized and yet did not withdraw from the framework of unity could attain to pardon by the same love of peace by which, as Cyprian testifies, even those admitted without baptism could not be separated from the gifts of the church. Further, if it is true that Christ’s baptism does not exist among heretics and schismatics, how much less would the sins of others harm those placed in unity, if even their own sins were loosed for those who came to unity and were admitted without baptism! For if, on Cyprian’s testimony, the bond of unity avails so much, how could those who would not withdraw from unity be harmed by the sins of others, if even the unbaptized who wished to come to it from heresy did not perish by their own sins?

And what Cyprian adds, saying, “Yet it does not follow that because there was error once, there must always be error, since it better befits the wise and those who fear God to obey gladly and without hesitation the truth once laid open and perceived, than to struggle obstinately and stubbornly for heretics against brothers and against priests,” he says most truly; and one who resists the plainest truth opposes himself rather than another. But through the many things we have now said, it is, I think, clearly apparent and certain that Christ’s baptism cannot be violated even by the perversity of heretics when it is given and received among them. But even if it is not yet certain, anyone who considers what has been said, while keeping it in mind, admits that it is at least still doubtful. So we are not resisting the plainest truth, but either contending for manifest truth, as I think, or at least, as those may think who believe this question not yet solved, still seeking the truth. And so, if the matter is otherwise than we say, we receive those baptized by heretics with the same simplicity with which those men received them whom Cyprian presumed could attain pardon because of unity. But if Christ’s baptism, as the many things already said indicate, can be entire even in a life or faith not entire, whether of those who seem to be within and yet do not belong to the members of that only dove, or of those who so do not belong to it that they are even openly outside, then those who repeated it in those times obtained the same pardon, because of the love of unity, which Cyprian believed those had obtained, because of such love, whom he thought had been admitted without baptism. So these men, who with no cause existing (since, as the same Cyprian shows, the wicked cannot harm the good in unity) cut themselves off from the love of that same unity, have lost all room for pardon; and since they would perish by the very crime of schism even if they did not rebaptize after the Catholic Church, of how great a punishment are they worthy, who either try to give to Catholics, who have it, what Cyprian asserts they themselves do not have, or, as the matter itself shows, accuse the Catholic Church of not having what they themselves too have!

But since now, as I had begun to say, we have undertaken to converse with Cyprian’s letters, I would not, I think, seem even to him, if he were present, “to struggle obstinately and stubbornly for heretics against brothers and against priests,” when he heard the many great things that move us to believe that, even among heretics perverted in their malicious error, Christ’s baptism can still be in itself most venerable and most holy. And since he himself testifies, and his testimony is of great weight for us, that they used to be admitted in this way in the past, let anyone who, moved by his words, does not doubt that heretics must be baptized again, count those who are not yet persuaded of this, because of the many great things said against it, as being like those in the past who admitted those baptized in heresy simply, with only their own error corrected, and could be saved with them through the bond of unity. But let anyone who understands, from the past custom of the church, from the later strength of a plenary council, from so many and such great testimonies of the holy Scriptures, and from Cyprian’s own many proofs and the clear reasons of truth, that Christ’s baptism consecrated with the words of the gospel is not made perverse by the perversity of any man, understand that those to whom something else seemed right at that time, with love preserved, could be saved by the same bond of unity. And by this it must at the same time be understood that those whom no tares, no chaff, could have stained in the fellowship of the church spread through the whole world, if they had wished to be wheat themselves, and who therefore broke away from that same bond of unity with no cause existing, whichever of those two is true, whether what Cyprian then thought or what the universality of the Catholic Church, from which he did not withdraw, has established, cannot be saved, set most openly outside in the manifest sacrilege of schism; and that all they have of the divine sacraments and of the generosity of the one lawful husband avails, while they are such, for their confusion rather than their salvation.

So even if heretics, having corrected their error, really wished to come to the church because they thought they did not have baptism unless they received it in the Catholic Church, not even so ought we to agree to repeating baptism; rather they should be taught that the integrity of baptism did not profit their perversity if they would not be corrected, and that the entire baptism was not violated by their perversity as long as they would not be corrected; and that because they wish to be corrected baptism does not become better in them, but they themselves depart from malice, and what was in them before for ruin begins now to profit for salvation. For learning this they will both desire salvation in Catholic unity and not think that what is Christ’s is theirs, and they will not mix the sacrament of truth, though placed in themselves, with their own error.

Besides, men so detest, by some hidden inspiration of God, anyone’s receiving again the baptism he had already received anywhere, that these heretics themselves blush when they argue about it; nearly all their laity who have grown old among them and have conceived a hot-headed obstinacy against the Catholic Church admit that this alone displeases them there; and many who wish to go over to them to obtain some worldly advantages or avoid disadvantages canvass with secret efforts to be granted this as a special and private favour, not to be rebaptized; and some who believe their other vain errors and false charges against the Catholic Church are held back by this one thing from wishing to join them, so as not to be forced to be rebaptized. Fearing this feeling, which wholly occupies the hearts of all men, these Donatists preferred to accept the baptism given among the Maximianists whom they condemned, and so to cut out their own tongues and stop their own mouths, rather than baptize again so many people of Musti and Assuras and other congregations whom they received with Felicianus and Praetextatus and others whom they had condemned and who were returning to them.

For when it is done rarely, in individual cases, across great stretches of place and time, the horror of the deed is not so much felt. But if those whom the said Maximianists had baptized over so long a time, either under pressing danger of death or at the Easter solemnities, were suddenly summoned together and told to be baptized again, because what they had received in the sacrilege of schism was nothing, there would indeed be said what the obstinacy of their error forced them to say, so that by some false shadow of consistency they might cover the stiffness and ice of their hardness against the warmth of truth. But since those people could not bear this, and those who were to do it could not stand what would be done to so many people, especially since the very men who had already baptized them in the party of Maximian would be rebaptizing them in the party of Primian, the baptism of the former was accepted and the pride of the latter was cut off. They would in no way have chosen this unless they had judged that men’s horror at repeated dipping opposed them more than reflection on their lost defence. I would not say this because we ought to be deterred by human feeling if truth compelled those coming from heretics to be baptized again; but because holy Cyprian says that heretics could be driven all the more to the necessity of coming if they were baptized again in the Catholic Church, I wished to recall how great a horror of this deed is lodged in nearly everyone’s mind; a horror which I would believe was poured in by God, so that the church might be protected by this very horror against whatever arguments the weak cannot sift.

When I look at Cyprian’s words themselves, I am reminded to say some things very necessary for settling a question of this kind. “For if they see it decided and settled,” he says, “by our judgment and sentence that the baptism with which they are baptized there is counted just and lawful, they will think that they possess the church too and the other gifts of the church justly and lawfully.” He does not say, “They will think that they possess the gifts of the church,” but “possess them justly and lawfully.” We, however, grant that they do not possess baptism justly and lawfully; but we cannot say that they do not possess it, since we recognize the Lord’s sacrament in the words of the gospel. They have, then, a lawful baptism, but they do not have it lawfully. For whoever has it both in Catholic unity and living worthily of it has it both as lawful and lawfully; but whoever has it either in the Catholic Church itself, like chaff mixed with wheat, or outside, like chaff carried off by the wind, has this baptism as lawful indeed, but not lawfully; for he has it as he uses it. And he does not use it lawfully who uses it against the law, as everyone does who, baptized, lives a lost life, whether within or without.

So just as the apostle said of the law, “The law is good, if one uses it lawfully,” so we can rightly say of baptism: baptism is good, if one uses it lawfully. And just as those who did not use the law lawfully did not then make the law not good or not exist at all, so whoever does not use baptism lawfully, whether because he lives in heresy or in very wicked morals, in no way makes baptism not good or not baptism at all. And so when he turns either to Catholic unity or to a life worthy of so great a sacrament, he does not begin to have another lawful baptism, but begins to have that very one lawfully. Nor does the forgiveness of sins, which cannot be revoked, follow baptism unless it is had not only as lawful but also lawfully. Yet if it is not had lawfully, and sins are either not forgiven or, forgiven, are rolled back, the sacrament of baptism in the baptized will not therefore be either evil or nothing. For just as Judas, to whom the Lord handed the morsel, gave the devil room in himself not by receiving something evil but by receiving it badly, so anyone who receives the Lord’s sacrament unworthily does not make it evil because he is evil, or make it that he received nothing because he does not receive it for salvation. For it was the body of the Lord and the blood of the Lord no less even for those to whom the apostle said, “He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself.” So let heretics seek in the Catholic Church not what they have but what they do not have, that is, “the end of the commandment,” without which many holy things can be had but cannot profit. “But the end of the commandment is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned.” Let them hasten to the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, not to have the sacrament of the washing, if they have already been dipped in it, though in heresy, but to have it to their health.

Now we must see what is said about John’s baptism. For we read in the Acts of the Apostles that those who had already been baptized with John’s baptism were baptized by Paul for no other reason than that John’s baptism was not Christ’s baptism, but was granted to John by Christ, so as to be called properly John’s, as the same John says, “A man cannot receive anything unless it has been given him from heaven.” And lest he perhaps seem to have received it from God the Father in such a way as not to receive it from the Son, speaking of Christ himself he says likewise, “We have all received of his fullness.” John received this by the grace of a certain dispensation, not to last long, but as much as was enough to prepare the way for the Lord, whose forerunner he had to be. And the Lord, about to enter on that way humbly and to lead to exaltation those who humbly followed him, just as he washed his servants’ feet, so he willed to be dipped with a servant’s baptism. For just as he subjected himself to the feet of those he directed, so too to the office of John, which he himself had given, so that all might understand with what sacrilegious pride anyone would despise the baptism he ought to receive from the Lord, when the Lord himself had received what he himself had granted to a servant to give as his own; and so that, when John, than whom none has arisen greater among those born of women, bore such witness to Christ that he confessed himself unworthy to loose the strap of his sandal, Christ might both be found the humblest among men by receiving his baptism and be believed the most high God by removing the place of John’s baptism, the same being the teacher of humility and the giver of exaltation.

For we read in the divine Scriptures that to none of the prophets, to no man at all, was it granted to baptize in the water of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as was granted to John; so that by this wonderful grace, holding the hearts of the peoples in suspense on himself, he might prepare the way in them for him whom he proclaimed to be so much greater than himself. But the Lord Jesus Christ cleanses the church with such a baptism that, once it is received, no other is required; whereas John dipped beforehand with such a baptism that, once it was received, the Lord’s baptism was also necessary, not so that John’s should be repeated, but so that Christ’s baptism, for which John was preparing the way, might also be given to those who had received John’s. For if Christ’s humility had not been commended, there would have been no need of John’s baptism; again, if the end were in John, there would be no need of Christ’s baptism after John’s. But since “Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness for everyone who believes,” John showed to whom one should go, and once one has reached him one stays. So the same John proclaimed both the Lord’s exaltation, when he set him far above himself, and his humility, when he baptized him as if the lowest. But if John had baptized Christ alone, John would have been thought the minister of a better baptism, with which Christ alone was dipped, than Christ’s, with which Christians are dipped. And again, if all had to be baptized first with John’s baptism and then with Christ’s, Christ’s baptism would rightly seem less full and less perfect, not being sufficient for salvation. Therefore the Lord was both baptized with John’s baptism, to bend the proud necks of men to his own saving baptism, and was not dipped in that baptism alone, lest he should show it to be superior by the very fact that he alone had been worthy to be baptized with it; and he did not allow it to continue beyond, lest his own baptism, with which he baptizes, should seem to need another going before it.

I ask, then: if sins were forgiven by John’s baptism, what more could be granted through Christ’s baptism to those whom the apostle Paul wished to be baptized with Christ’s baptism after John’s? But if sins were not forgiven by John’s baptism, were those men in Cyprian’s times better than John, of whom he himself says that they “seized estates by treacherous frauds and increased their gains by multiplying interest,” yet through whose baptizing forgiveness of sins took place? Or was it because the unity of the church held them? What then? Was John not in unity, that friend of the bridegroom, preparer of the Lord’s way, and baptizer of the Lord himself? Who would be mad enough to say that? Therefore, though I believe that John baptized in the water of repentance for the forgiveness of sins in such a way that sins were forgiven to those he baptized in hope, but in reality in the Lord’s baptism (just as the resurrection which is awaited at the end has been accomplished in us in hope, as the apostle says, that “he raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenly places,” and the same says, “For in hope we have been saved”; for John himself too, though he says, “I baptize you in the water of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,” on seeing the Lord says, “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world”), yet, in case anyone contends that sins were forgiven even in John’s baptism, but that some fuller sanctification was conferred through Christ’s baptism on those whom Paul ordered to be baptized again, I do not argue combatively.

For what most concerns the present matter must be considered: whatever the case with John’s baptism, since it is plain that he belonged to the unity of Christ, what cause made it necessary for people to be baptized after holy John, and not necessary after greedy bishops? For no one denies that in the Lord’s field John was wheat and, if no more is possible, yielding a hundredfold; likewise no one doubts that greed, which is the service of idols, is counted among the chaff in the Lord’s harvest. Why then is there baptism after the wheat and no baptism after the chaff? If Paul baptized after John because he was better than John, why did not Cyprian too baptize after his usurer colleagues, than whom he was better beyond comparison? If Cyprian did not baptize after such colleagues because they were in unity with him, neither ought Paul to have baptized after John, since they were held in the same unity. Or do defrauders and robbers perhaps belong to the members of that only dove, and he does not belong, to whom the very power of the Lord Jesus Christ was shown by the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove? On the contrary, he belongs most intimately, while these, to be separated from the wheat either on the occasion of some offence or at the last winnowing, in no way belong; and yet there was baptism after him, and there is no baptism after them. What then is the cause, unless that the baptism Paul ordered them to receive was not the one given through John? And so, in the same unity of the church, Christ’s baptism, if given by a usurer baptizing, cannot be repeated; but those who received John’s baptism, even from John himself, had afterward to be baptized with Christ’s baptism.

So I too could, using the words of blessed Cyprian himself, turn the hearts of hearers to consider something wonderful, if I said: “That John, held greatest among the prophets, filled with divine grace while still in his mother’s womb, upheld by the spirit and power of Elijah, who was not an adversary of the Lord but his forerunner and herald, who not only foretold the Lord in words but also showed him to the eyes, who baptized Christ himself, through whom the rest are baptized,” was not counted worthy to baptize in such a way that those he had baptized should not be baptized after him; and will no one think anyone in the church should be baptized after the greedy, defrauders, robbers, and usurers? When I have cried this out to stir indignation, is it not answered me: “Why do you think this unworthy, as if either John were dishonoured or the greedy man honoured? But the baptism of him ought not to be repeated of whom the same John says, ‘This is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ For through whatever minister it is given, the baptism belongs to him of whom it was said, ‘This is he who baptizes.’ But neither was John’s own baptism repeated when the apostle Paul ordered those baptized by him to be baptized in Christ. For what they had not received from the friend of the bridegroom they had to receive from the bridegroom himself, of whom that friend had said, ‘This is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’”

For the Lord Jesus could, had he wished, have given the power of his baptism to some one or several of his chief servants whom he had already made his friends, to whom he says, “I will no longer call you servants but friends”; so that, just as Aaron was shown to be priest by the rod that blossomed, so in his church, where more and greater miracles have been done, ministers and stewards of the mysteries of more excellent holiness, who alone should baptize, might be shown by some sign. But if this had happened, though the baptism was assigned to them by the Lord, it would then be called theirs, as John’s baptism was. That is why Paul gives thanks to God that he had baptized none of those who, as if forgetting in whose name they had been baptized, were dividing themselves by the names of men. For since baptism given through a contemptible man is worth as much as baptism given through an apostle, it is recognized as belonging neither to this one nor to that one, but to Christ. John testifies that he learned this in the Lord himself through that form of a dove. For I do not plainly see in what other sense he could have said, “And I did not know him.” For if he did not know him at all, he would not have said to him when he came to his baptism, “I ought to be baptized by you.” What then does he mean by saying, “Because I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. And I did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize in water said to me: He on whom you see the Spirit descending from heaven and remaining on him, he it is who baptizes in the Holy Spirit”? The dove had certainly descended on him after his baptism. But when he came to be baptized John had already said, “I ought to be baptized by you.” So he already knew him. What then does he mean, “I did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize in water said to me: He on whom you see the Spirit descending from heaven and remaining on him, he it is who baptizes in the Holy Spirit,” since this happened after he was baptized, unless that in one respect he knew him and in another did not yet know him? He knew, namely, that he was the bridegroom, the Son of God, from whose fullness all would receive; but since he himself had so received the power of baptizing from his fullness that it was called John’s baptism, he did not know whether he would give it so to others too, or would rather so keep his own baptism that, through whomever it was given, a minister of more excellent grace or of lesser, a man bearing a hundredfold or sixty or thirty, wheat or chaff, it would be recognized as belonging to that one alone; and this he learned through the Spirit descending like a dove and remaining on him.

So we find the apostles saying “my glory,” though of course in the Lord, and “my ministry,” and “my understanding,” and “my gospel,” though of course imparted and given by the Lord; but “my baptism” none of them ever said. For the glory of all is not equal, nor do all minister equally, nor are all endowed with equal understanding; and in preaching the gospel one works better than another, and so one can be called more learned than another even in saving teaching; but one cannot be called more or less baptized than another, whether he is baptized by a lesser or a greater. Therefore, since the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornications, uncleanness, debauchery, service of idols, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, animosities, dissensions, heresies, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like: if it is said as something wonderful, “People were baptized after John and are not baptized after heretics,” why is it not said as something wonderful, “People were baptized after John and are not baptized after the envious,” since Cyprian himself testifies in his letter on jealousy and envy that the envious are on the devil’s side, and Cyprian himself shows from the apostle Paul, as we have already taught, that there were envious proclaimers of Christ in the church of Christ in the very times of the apostles?

That John’s baptism, then, was not the same as Christ’s baptism has, I think, been declared enough. And so no proof can be drawn from it that one must baptize after heretics because there was baptism after John; for John was not a heretic, and could have a baptism granted by Christ yet not properly Christ’s, while having Christ’s love; and a heretic can have Christ’s baptism and the devil’s perversity, just as another within can have Christ’s baptism and the devil’s envy.

“But,” it is said, “there must be baptism after a heretic all the more, since John was not a heretic and yet there was baptism after him.” In the same way, someone may say, there must be baptism all the more after a drunkard, since John was sober and yet there was baptism after him. And we shall have nothing to answer him except that Christ’s baptism was given to those baptized by John who did not have Christ’s baptism; but in those in whom Christ’s baptism is, by no perversities of theirs can it come about that Christ’s baptism is not in them.

So it is not that “a heretic could obtain the right of baptism for the reason that he baptized first,” but that he did not baptize with his own baptism; and though he did not have the right to baptize, yet what he gave is Christ’s and he who received it is Christ’s. For many things are given against right and yet are not therefore called either nothing or not given. For neither does one who renounces the world in words only and not in deeds receive baptism by right, and yet he receives it. For Cyprian records that such men were in the church in his time too, and we experience it and groan over it.