On Baptism, against the Donatists 5.38–6.17

And that the church is described thus in the Song of Songs, “A garden enclosed, my sister, my bride, a fountain sealed, a well of living water, a paradise with fruit of apples,” I dare not understand except of the holy and righteous, not of the greedy, defrauders, robbers, usurers, drunkards, and the envious; and yet we learn and teach most abundantly from Cyprian’s own letters, as I have often recalled, that these had baptism in common with the righteous, with whom they certainly did not have love in common. For let someone tell me how they crept into the garden enclosed and the fountain sealed, who, Cyprian testifies, renounced the world in words only and not in deeds, and yet were within. For if they too are there, they too are Christ’s bride. Is she who is without spot or wrinkle really such, and is that beautiful dove disfigured by such a part of her members? Or are these the thorns in the midst of which she is like a lily, as it says in the same song? So in so far as she is a lily, in so far is she also a garden enclosed and a fountain sealed: namely, in those righteous who are Jews inwardly by circumcision of the heart (for “all the beauty of the king’s daughter is within”), in whom is the fixed number of the saints predestined before the foundation of the world. But that multitude of thorns lies outside, whether by hidden or by open separations, beyond the number. “I have announced,” he says, “and spoken: they are multiplied beyond number.” So the number of the righteous who are called according to his purpose, of whom it is said, “The Lord knows those who are his,” is itself the garden enclosed, the fountain sealed, the well of living water, the paradise with fruit of apples. Of this number some live spiritually and walk the more excellent way of love, and when they instruct a man overtaken in some fault in a spirit of gentleness, they look to themselves lest they too be tempted; and when perhaps they too are overtaken, the affection of love is somewhat checked in them, but not extinguished, and rising again and kindling, it is restored to its former course. For they know how to say, “My soul has slumbered for weariness; strengthen me in your words.” And when they think something otherwise, God will reveal that too to them as they remain in the fervour of love and do not break the bond of peace. Some, however, still carnal and natural, press on earnestly with their progress, and, so as to become fit for the food of the spiritual, are nourished with the milk of the holy mysteries; they avoid, in the fear of God, what is manifest even to popular judgment in wicked morals, and labour most watchfully to be less and less delighted by earthly and temporal things; they hold most firmly the rule of faith, carefully examined, and if they stray from it in anything, they are quickly corrected by Catholic authority, though in its words, by carnal sense, they still waver with various assaults of phantasms. There are also some of that number who still live wickedly, or even lie in heresies or in the superstitions of the Gentiles; and yet even there “the Lord knows those who are his.” For in that ineffable foreknowledge of God many who seem to be outside are within, and many who seem to be within are outside. Of all those, then, who, so to speak, are inwardly and secretly within, that garden enclosed, fountain sealed, well of living water, paradise with fruit of apples consists. The gifts granted to them by God are partly their own, such as in this time unwearying love and in the world to come eternal life, and partly shared with the wicked and perverse, such as all the rest, among which are also the sacrosanct mysteries.

From here, then, the consideration of that ark of which Noah was builder and pilot is put before us more easily and readily. For Peter says, “In the ark of Noah few, that is, eight souls of men, were saved through water; which baptism likewise saves you too, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the appeal of a good conscience.” Therefore, if there appear to men, among those baptized in Catholic unity, people who renounce the world in words only and not in deeds, how do they belong to the mystery of this ark, in whom there is no appeal of a good conscience? Or how are they saved through water who, misusing holy baptism, though they seem to be within, persist to the end of life in wicked and lost ways? Or how were those not saved through water whom Cyprian himself records were in the past admitted to the church in simplicity with the baptism they had received in heresy? For the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one was saved except through water. For he himself 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.” If not through water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the church? But if in the church, then certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, then certainly through water. So it can happen both that some baptized outside are, in God’s foreknowledge, more truly counted as baptized within, because there the water begins to profit them for salvation (for they cannot be said to have been saved in the ark otherwise than through water), and again that some who seemed to be baptized within are, by the same foreknowledge of God, more truly counted as baptized outside. For those who misuse baptism die through water, which then happened to no one but those who were outside the ark. Certainly it is plain that what is called within and outside in the church is to be thought of in the heart, not in the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water through which all who are outside in heart, whether they are also outside in body or not, die as enemies of unity. So just as not another but the same water both saved those placed in the ark and destroyed those placed outside the ark, so not by another but by the same baptism both good Catholics are saved and wicked Catholics or heretics perish. But what most blessed Cyprian thinks of the Catholic Church, and how by his authority heretics are utterly crushed, though I have said much already, I have resolved to say separately, if it pleases the Lord, somewhat more fully and clearly, after I have first said what I think I owe about his council. This, God willing, I will undertake in the next volume.

It might perhaps already be enough that, with the reasons so often repeated and turned over and treated in manifold argument, with the proofs of the divine Scriptures added and so many testimonies of Cyprian himself in support, even the slower of heart now understand, as I think, that Christ’s baptism cannot be violated by any perversity of man, whether of giver or receiver. And in those times, when this question was being discussed against a useful custom in disputations by men who argued while keeping love and unity, it seemed to some, even distinguished men, bishops of Christ, among whom blessed Cyprian stood out especially, that Christ’s baptism could not exist among heretics or schismatics, for no other reason than that the sacrament was not distinguished from the effect or use of the sacrament; and since its effect and use, in deliverance from sins and uprightness of heart, was not found among heretics, the sacrament itself too was thought not to be there. But when they turned their eyes to the multitude of chaff within, since it appears that even those who are perverse within unity itself and live lost lives can neither give nor have forgiveness of sins (for it was said not to wicked but to good sons, “If you forgive anyone’s sins, they will be forgiven him; if you retain anyone’s, they will be retained”), and yet that they have, give, and receive the sacrament of baptism, it became clear enough to the pastors of the Catholic Church spread through the whole world, through whom the original custom was afterward confirmed by the authority of a plenary council, that even the sheep that strayed outside and had received the Lord’s mark outside from its deceitful plunderers, when it comes to the salvation of Christian unity, is corrected from error, freed from captivity, healed of its wound, but the Lord’s mark in it is recognized rather than rejected; since many, both wolves and wolves’ victims, impress that very mark, who seem indeed to be within, yet are proved by the fruits of their conduct, in which they persist to the end, not to belong to that sheep which is one even out of many; because, according to God’s foreknowledge, just as many sheep stray outside, so many wolves lie in wait inside. Among whom, however, the Lord knows those who are his, who hear no voice but the shepherd’s, even when he cries out through men like the Pharisees, of whom it was said, “Do what they say.”

For just as a spiritual man, having the end of the commandment, that is, love from a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned, can, because of the body which is still corrupted and weighs down the soul, see something less clearly and think otherwise, which God will reveal when he wills to one who remains in the same love, so in a carnal and perverse man something good and useful can be found which comes from elsewhere, not from himself. For as in a fruitful branch something is found that must be pruned so that it may bear more fruit, so on a barren and dry reed, or one tied up, a grape often hangs. And therefore, just as it is foolish to love the prunings of a fruitful branch, but one does well who does not reject sweet fruit wherever it hangs, so whoever, cut off from unity, rebaptizes because Cyprian thought that those coming from heretics must be baptized again turns away from what is to be praised in so great a man and follows what is to be amended, and does not even attain what he follows. For Cyprian, while with zeal for God he gravely detested those who separated themselves from unity, thought they were separated even from baptism itself; but these men, thinking it little crime that they themselves are separated from Christ’s unity, contend that his baptism is not there either and went out with them. So they are so far from Cyprian’s fruitfulness that they do not even equal his prunings.

Likewise, whoever, not having love and walking the lost ways of the worst morals, seems to be within while he is outside, and does not repeat Christ’s baptism even in heretics: it does nothing to help his barrenness that he is laden not with his own but with another’s fruit. But it can happen that someone is strong in the root of love and thinks most rightly in what Cyprian thought otherwise, and yet there are more fruitful things in Cyprian than in him, and more to be pruned in him than in Cyprian. So not only do we in no way compare wicked Catholics, but we do not easily make even good ones equal to blessed Cyprian, whom the devout mother church counts among the rare and few men of most excellent grace; though these recognize Christ’s baptism even among heretics, whereas he thought otherwise, so that through him, seeing something less and remaining most firmly in unity, it might be shown more plainly to heretics by what a sacrilegious crime the bond of peace is broken. For the blind Pharisees, though they sometimes said what ought to be done, were not to be compared with the apostle Peter, though he sometimes said what ought not to be done. And not only is their dryness not to be compared with his greenness, but neither is the fruit of others to be made equal to his abundance. For no one now compels the Gentiles to live like Jews, and yet no one in the church now, however much he has advanced, is to be compared with the apostleship of Peter. Therefore, rendering due reverence and paying worthy honour as far as I can to the peaceable bishop and glorious martyr Cyprian, I still dare to say that he thought otherwise about baptizing schismatics or heretics than the truth afterward brought out, not by my own judgment, but by that of the universal church, strengthened and confirmed by the authority of a plenary council; just as, venerating Peter, as he deserves, as the first of the apostles and most eminent of martyrs, I still dare to say that he did not act rightly in compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews. For this too I say not from my own judgment but from the saving teaching of the apostle Paul, held and kept throughout the whole church.

So, discussing Cyprian’s opinion, though placed far below Cyprian’s merits, I say that the sacrament of baptism can be had, given, and received by both good and bad; by the good profitably and to salvation, by the bad harmfully and to punishment; yet it is equally entire in both, and it makes no difference to its equal integrity in all how much worse is the one who has it among the bad, just as it makes no difference how much better is the one who has it among the good. And so it also makes no difference how much worse is the one who hands it on, just as it makes no difference how much better; and likewise no difference how much worse is the one who receives it, just as none how much better. For it is in itself equally holy both in those who are not equally righteous and in those who are not equally wicked.

That the wicked who are in no way changed for the better have, hand on, and receive baptism, we have, I think, shown sufficiently both from the canonical Scriptures and from Cyprian’s own letters. That they do not belong to the holy church of God, though they seem to be within, appears most plainly from this: they are greedy, robbers, usurers, envious, malicious, and the like, whereas that one dove is modest and chaste, the bride without spot or wrinkle, the garden enclosed, the fountain sealed, the paradise with fruit of apples, and the other things likewise said of her; which is understood only of the good, holy, and righteous, that is, not only according to the workings of God’s gifts common to good and bad, but also according to the inmost and surpassing love, of those who have the Holy Spirit, to whom the Lord says, “If you forgive anyone’s sins, they will be forgiven him, and if you retain anyone’s, they will be retained.”

And so nothing fit is said why a wicked man who can have baptism cannot also hand it on, and, just as he has it harmfully, so also hand it on harmfully; not because he hands on something of that kind, nor because such a man hands it on, but because he hands it on to such a man. For when a wicked man hands it on to a good one, that is, to one changed by true conversion in the bond of unity, the giver’s wickedness is overcome between the good sacrament that is handed on and the good believer to whom it is handed on. And when sins are forgiven to one truly converted to God, they are forgiven by those to whom he is joined by that true conversion. For the same Holy Spirit forgives them who has been given to all the saints who cleave to him in love, whether they know one another bodily or not. Likewise, when anyone’s sins are retained, they are certainly retained by those from whom the one whose sins are retained separates himself by unlikeness of life and the turning away of a perverse heart, whether they know him bodily or not.

So all the wicked are separated spiritually from the good; but if they are also separated bodily by open dissension, they become worse. But, as has been said, it makes no difference to the holiness of baptism how much worse is the one who has it or how much worse the one to whom he hands it on. A separated man can hand it on, just as a separated man can have it, but as harmfully as he has it, so harmfully does he hand it on. But the one to whom he hands it on can receive it to his salvation, if he himself receives it not separated; as has happened to many who, with a Catholic mind and a heart not estranged from the unity of peace, under some necessity of pressing death fell upon some heretic and received from him Christ’s baptism without his perversity, and, whether they died or were delivered, in no way remained with those to whom they had never gone over in heart. But if he too receives it separated, he receives it the more harmfully the better is what he receives not well, and it avails the more for the destruction of the separated as it could avail more for the salvation of one joined. And so, if he is corrected from that perversity and turns from separation and comes to Catholic peace, his sins will be forgiven, because of the bond of love, under the same baptism he had received, under which his sins were retained because of the sacrilege of division; because it is always holy, both in a righteous man and in an unrighteous man, neither increased by anyone’s justice nor diminished by anyone’s wickedness.

Since this is so, what does it stand in the way of this now plain truth that many fellow bishops agreed with Cyprian in that opinion and brought forward their own agreeing opinions, except that the love of that man for Christ’s unity may be made known more and more? For if he had remained alone in thinking these things, with no one agreeing, he might seem to have cooled from the crime of schism because he found no companions in error. But with so many agreeing with him, his remaining in unity with the others who thought differently shows that he kept the most holy bond of Catholic universality not out of fear of being alone but out of love of peace. So it might indeed now seem superfluous to go over the individual opinions of the other bishops of that council too. But since the slower of heart do not think they have been answered if some point of anyone’s speech is answered not there but elsewhere, though it could also be applied there, it is much better that they be worn by much reading so as to be sharpened, than that they complain from too little understanding so as to be refuted.

First, then, we recall for consideration again Cyprian’s own inquiry, which shows a peaceable soul overflowing with abundant love, with which the council itself begins. “You have heard,” he says, “dearest colleagues, what Jubaianus our fellow bishop wrote to me, consulting our modest self about the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, and what I wrote back to him, judging, as we have judged once and again and often, that heretics who come to the church must be baptized and sanctified with the church’s baptism. Likewise another letter of Jubaianus has been read to you, in which, replying to our letter with sincere and religious devotion, he not only agreed but even gave thanks that he had been instructed. It remains that each of us should bring forward what we think on this very matter, judging no one and removing no one from the right of communion if he thinks differently. For none of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops or compels his colleagues to the necessity of obeying by tyrannical terror, since every bishop, by the freedom of his liberty and power, has his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone and only has the power both of setting us over the government of his church and of judging our conduct.”

We have, I think, already argued enough in the previous books, as far as we could, on behalf of the universal Catholic consensus and council, in whose unity these men remained as devout members, not only against the letter he wrote to Jubaianus, but also against the one he sent to Quintus, the one he wrote with some colleagues to some colleagues, and the one to Pompeius. So it now seems timely to consider also what the others judged one by one, with that freedom which he himself did not take from us when he said, “judging no one and removing no one from the right of communion if he thinks differently.” That he did not say this so as to catch the silent thoughts of his colleagues, dragged out of hiding by such a guarantee, but because he truly loved peace and unity, is very easy to see from other similar passages where he writes to individuals, as to Jubaianus himself: “We have written this back to you,” he says, “very briefly, dearest brother, according to our small ability, prescribing to no one and prejudging no one, so as to prevent each of the bishops from doing what he thinks, since he has the free power of his own judgment.” And lest anyone who thought differently with this same free power should seem fit to be driven from the fellowship of the others, he goes on to say: “We, for our part, do not quarrel over heretics with our colleagues and fellow bishops, with whom we keep divine concord and the Lord’s peace.” And a little later: “Love of heart,” he says, “the honour of our college, the bond of faith, and the concord of the priesthood are kept by us patiently and gently.” So too in the letter he wrote to Magnus, when it was asked whether there was any difference between those dipped and those sprinkled in baptism: “In this matter,” he says, “our modesty and restraint prejudge no one, so as to prevent each from holding what he thinks and doing what he holds.” From these words of his it is plain enough that these matters were treated by them at a time when they were not yet drawn out clearly without ambiguity, but were still being sought, shut up, with great effort. We, then, holding now the custom of the universal church, strengthened by universal councils too, about recognizing everywhere the simple truth of baptism, and having received greater confidence also from Cyprian’s words, by which I would have been allowed even then to think differently with the right of communion preserved, preferring and praising unity such as blessed Cyprian and his colleagues who held that council with him kept with those who thought differently, driving back and overturning the seditious slanders of heretics and schismatics, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, speaking through his apostle, “bearing with one another in love, eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” and through whom he also says, “If in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you,” we undertake to consider and treat the opinions of the holy bishops, keeping with them the bond of unity and peace, in holding which we imitate them as far as the Lord himself helps us.

Caecilius of Biltha said: “I know one baptism in the church alone, and none outside the church. It will be one here, where hope is true and faith sure. For so it is written: ‘One faith, one hope, one baptism’; not among heretics, where there is no hope and faith is false, where everything is done by lying, where a demoniac exorcizes, where he puts the sacramental questions whose mouth and words give off a cancer, where the unfaithful gives faith, the criminal grants pardon of sins, the antichrist baptizes in the name of Christ, one cursed by God blesses, the dead promises life, the unpeaceful gives peace, the blasphemer calls on God, the profane administers the priesthood, the sacrilegious sets up an altar. To all these is added this evil too, that a priest of the devil dares to celebrate the Eucharist. Or else let those who stand by them say that all these things are false about heretics. See to what sort of things the church is compelled to consent, and to hold communion without baptism and without pardon of sins! This thing, brothers, we ought to flee, and separate ourselves from so great a crime, and hold the one baptism that has been granted by God to the church alone.”

To this I answer: anyone even within who professes that he knows God but denies him in deeds (such as are the greedy and the envious, and those who, because of hatred of their brothers, are called murderers on the testimony not of me but of the holy apostle John) both has no hope, because he carries a bad conscience; and is faithless, because he does not do what he vowed to God; and a liar, because he professes falsehoods; and a demoniac, because he gives room in his heart to the devil and his angels; and his words work rottenness, since they corrupt good morals through evil conversations; and he is an unbeliever, since he laughs at what God threatens such men with; and a criminal, because he lives wickedly; and an antichrist, because his morals oppose Christ; and cursed by God, because holy Scripture everywhere curses such men; and dead, because he lacks the life of righteousness; and unpeaceful, because by contrary deeds he fights against God’s word; and a blasphemer, because through his lost deeds the Christian name is disparaged; and profane, because he is shut out spiritually from that inner sanctuary of God; and sacrilegious, because he corrupts the temple of God in himself by living badly; and a priest of the devil, because he serves fraud and greed, which is idolatry. And the apostle Paul and the bishop Cyprian testify that there are some such, indeed very many, even within. Why then do these baptize? Why are some also who renounce the world in words and not in deeds baptized unchanged from such morals, and not rebaptized when they are changed? Now as for his indignant saying, “See to what sort of things the church is compelled to consent, and to hold communion without baptism and without pardon of sins!”, he would certainly not have said it unless there were other bishops who were compelling others to these things. From which it is shown that those even then thought more truly who did not withdraw from the ancient custom, which was afterward confirmed by the universality of a council. And what is it that he adds, saying, “This thing, brothers, we ought to flee, and separate ourselves from so great a crime”? If he says this meaning that he will not do or approve these things, it is another matter; but if he means to condemn and segregate first those who think differently, he resists Cyprian’s words in which he says, “judging no one and removing no one from the right of communion if he thinks differently.”

To what Felix of Misgirpa said we say this: if there were no one true baptism except in the church, it would certainly not be in those who depart from unity. But it is in them; for they do not receive it again when they return, for no other reason than that they had not lost it when they withdrew. But as for his saying, “For what is done outside has no saving effect,” I agree and believe it to be altogether true. For it is one thing not to be there, another to have no saving effect. For to those who come to Catholic peace, the things that were in them outside, but did not profit, begin to profit.

And to Polycarp of Hadrumetum, since he said, “He who approves the baptism of heretics makes ours void,” we answer: if the baptism given through heretics is the heretics’, then the baptism given within by the greedy and by murderers is theirs. But if this is not theirs, neither is that the heretics’; and so, among whomever it is, it is Christ’s.

Novatus of Thamugadi said what he did, but brought nothing to show that he ought to have done what he did. For he named the testimony of the Scriptures and the decree of his colleagues, but brought nothing from them that we could consider.