Against the Donatists — Book 5

Against the Donatists · Optatus of Milevis · the golden age of the Fathers · part 8 of 10

Against the Donatists — Book 5

I. From Parmenian's own principles it follows that Baptism is One. II. That in Baptism the work is done by the Trinity, not by the person of the Minister. III. That Baptism is not to be repeated. IV. That it is God, not the Minister, who cleanses in the Sacrament of Baptism. V. Why and when the Baptism of Christ was conferred. VI. An answer to the argument, that a man cannot give that which he has not. VII. That the Grace of Baptism is the gift of God, not of man, who is shown to be only the Minister. VIII. Concerning the faith of him who receives Baptism. IX. That the example of Naaman the Syrian was brought by Parmenian without relevance. X. The Parable of the Marriage Feast was wrongly brought forward by Parmenian. XI. As the Donatists could not rebaptise children who were dead, why should they rebaptise the living? 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 I. From Parmenian's own principles it follows that Baptism is One. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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: '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. 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 be lawful to do this a second time after the Trinity, in the Name of the same Trinity. You say: whether it '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? 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.

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. 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. difference [to be considered between persons], He would have said: 'He that has been rightly For if there had been a 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, have said: for if these things had been said to Peter [only], Christ would '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: '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. 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. 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. 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. 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'! 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 and that the Sacraments are holy through themselves, you see that all who baptise are labourers, not lords, 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: '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 131 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 daughters of the Church. He did not say: ; it follows that God washes the sons and '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: '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,' 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. 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: '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 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,' 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. 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: '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. 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: '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 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' - --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. 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: '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 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. '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.

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 226 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: '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. 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: 'O woman, depart in peace. Thy faith hath made 241 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 246 perfect faith, but we must finish the story of at least three witnesses to Faith. 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: '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. 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 In that and grieve over the absence of some, and shall say that many have been called, but few chosen. case there will be no occasion for Him to be wrath with the man who is without the Wedding Garment.

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 infants, nor stretched in youth, nor changed in women! in 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: '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'?