Donatus of Carthage anything, neither Januarius, neither Petilianus? When would the swelling of his pride permit him to say this, which now causes the man to think himself to be something, when he is nothing, deceiving himself? CHAP. 55. 67. A minister, therefore, that is a dispenser of the word and sacrament of the gospel, if he is a good man, becomes a fellow-partner in the working of the gospel; but if he is a bad man, he does not therefore cease to be a dispenser of the gospel. For if he is good, he does it of his own free will; CHAP. 54.-66. Finally, again, a little after- but if he is a bad man,—that is, one who wards, when he resolved and was firmly pur- seeks his own and not the things of Jesus posed, as it were, to reconsider once more Christ, he does it unwillingly, for the sake the words of the apostle which he had brought of other things which he is seeking after. up against him, he was unwilling to set down See, however, what the same apostle has said: this that I had said, preferring something else"For if I do this thing willingly," he says, "I in which by some means or other the swelling have a reward; but if against my will, a dispenof human pride might find means to breathe. sation of the gospel is committed unto me; "For to reconsider," he says, 66 those words as though he were to say, If I, being good, of the apostle, on which you founded an argu- announce what is good, I attain unto it also ment against us; he said, 'What is Apollos, myself; but if, being evil, I announce it, yet what is Paul, save only ministers of Him in I announce what is good. For has he in any whom ye have believed?' What else, for exway said, If I do it against my will, then shall ample, does he say to all of us than this, I not be a dispenser of the gospel? Peter What is Donatus of Carthage, what is Janu- and the other disciples announce the good arius, what is Petilianus, save only ministers tidings, as being good themselves. Judas did of Him in whom ye have believed?" I did it against his will, but yet, when he was sent, not bring forward this passage of the apostle, he announced it in common with the rest. but I did bring forward that which he has They have a reward; to him a dispensation been unwilling to quote, "Neither he that of the gospel was committed. But they who planteth is anything, neither he that water- received the gospel at the mouth of all those eth; but God that giveth the increase." But witnesses, could not be cleansed and justified Petilianus was willing to insert those words of the apostle, in which he asks what is Paul, and what is Apollos, and answers that "They are ministers of Him in whom ye have believed." This the muscles of the heretic's neck could bear; but he was wholly unable to endure the other, in which the apostle did not ask and answer what he was, but said that he was nothing. But now I am willing to ask whether it be true that the minister of Christ is nothing. Who will say so much as this? In what sense, therefore, is it true that "Neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase," except that he who is something in one point of view may be nothing in another? For min istering and dispensing the word and sacrament he is something, but for purifying and justifying he is nothing, seeing that this is not accomplished in the inner man, except by Him by whom the whole man was created, and who while He remained God was made man, by Him, that is, of whom it was said, "Purifying their hearts by faith;" and "To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly." And this testimony Petilianus has been willing to set forth in my words, whilst in his own he has neither handled it, nor even touched it. Are we to suppose Or by him that planted, or by him that watered, 51 Cor. ix. 17. for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel, which is Christ's, but so that a the gospel.' " He says, "I have begotten you" minister also may call it his in virtue of his to the same men to whom he says in another office of administering it, can be received by place, "I thank God that I baptized none of a man even at the hands of an evil minister you but Crispus and Gaius, and I baptized without danger to himself, if he does accordalso the household of Stephanus.”2 He had ing to what he says, and not after the exambegotten them, therefore, not through himself, ple of what he does, how much more may any but through the gospel. And even though he one who comes in good faith to Christ receive had been seeking his own, and not the things without fear of contagion from an evil minof Jesus Christ, and had been doing this un-ister the baptism of Christ, which none of the willingly, so as to receive no reward for him- apostles so administered as to dare to call self, yet he would have been dispensing the it his own? treasure of the Lord; and this, though evil himself, he would not have been making evil or useless to those who received it well. CHAP. 57.-69. Furthermore, if, while I have continued without intermission to prove how entirely the passages of Scripture which CHAP. 56.-68. And if this is rightly Petilianus has quoted against us have failed said of the gospel, with how much greater to hurt our cause, he himself has in some certainty should it be said of baptism, which cases not touched at all what I have quoted, belongs to the gospel in such wise, that with- and partly, when he has endeavored to handle out it no one can reach the kingdom of heaven, them, has shown that the only thing that he and with it only if to the sacrament be added could do was to fail in finding an escape from righteousness? For He who said, "Except them, you require no long exhortation or ada man be born of water and of the Spirit, he vice in order to see what you ought to maincannot enter into the kingdom of God," 3 said tain, and what you should avoid. But it may Himself also, "Except your righteousness be that this has been the kind of show that shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes he has made in dealing with the testimony of and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into holy Scripture, but that he has not been withthe kingdom of heaven." The form of the out force in the case of the documentary evisacrament is given through baptism, the form dence found in the records of the schism itof righteousness through the gospel. Neither self. Let us then see in the case of these one without the other leads to the kingdom too, though it is superfluous to inquire into of heaven. Yet even men of inferior learning them after testimony from the word of God, can baptize perfectly, but to preach the gospel perfectly is a task of much greater difficulty and rarity. Therefore the teacher of the Gentiles, that was superior in excellence to the majority, was sent to preach the gospel, not to baptize; because the latter could be done by many, the former only by a few, of whom he was chief. And yet we read that he said in certain places, "My gospel; "s but he never called baptism either his, or any Chronicles to have been a traditor while he one's else by whom it was administered. For was yet a sub-deacon. Against this fact he that baptism alone which John gave is called did not venture to whisper a syllable. And John's baptism. This that man received as yet you cannot fail to see how strong the the special pledge of his ministry, that the pressure was which must have been urging preparatory sacrament of washing should him to reply, that he might show a man, who even be called by the name of him by whom was his predecessor, not only one of his party, it was administered; whereas the baptism but a partner, so to speak, in his see, to have which the disciples of Christ administered been innocent of the crime of delivering up was never called by the name of any one of the sacred books, especially as you rest the them, that it should be understood to be His whole strength of your cause on the fact that alone of whom it is said, "Christ loved the you give the name of traditor to all whom you Church, and gave Himself for it, that He either pretend or believe to have been the sucmight sanctify and cleanse it with the wash-cessors of traditors in the path of their coming of water by the word." If, therefore, what he has quoted, or what he has proved. For, after pouring forth a violent invective against traditors, and quoting loudly many passages against them from the holy books themselves, he yet said nothing which could prove his opponents to be traditors. But I quoted the case of Silvanus of Cirta, who held his own see some little time before himself, who was expressly declared in the Municipal munion. Although, then, the very exigencies of your cause would seem to compel him to undertake the defence of a citizen even of Russicadia, or Calama, or any other city of your closed. What if the holy and true Church of Christ were to convince and overcome you, even if we held no documents in support of our cause, or only such as were false, while you had possession of some genuine proof of party, whom I should declare to be a traditor, on the authority of the Municipal Chronicles, yet he did not open his mouth even in defense of his own predecessor. For what reason, except that he could not find any mist dark enough to deceive the minds of even the slow-delivery of the sacred books, what would then est and sleepiest of men? For what could he remain for you, except that, if you would, have said, except that the charges brought you should show your love of peace, or otheragainst Silvanus were false? But we quote wise should hold your tongues? For whatthe words of the Chronicles, both as to the ever in that case you might bring forward in date of the fact, and as to the time of the in- evidence, I should be able to say with the formation laid before Zenophilus the ex-con- greatest ease and with the most perfect truth, sul. And how could he resist this evidence, that then you are bound to prove as much to being encompassed on every side by the most the full and Catholic unity of the Church, excellent cause of the Catholics, while yours already spread abroad and established was bad as bad could be? For which reason throughout so many nations, to the end that I quote these words from my epistle to which you should remain within, and that those he would fain be thought to have replied in whom you convict should be expelled. And this which I am now refuting, that you may if you have endeavored to do this, certainly see for yourselves how impregnable the posi- you have not been able to make good your tion must be against which he has been able proof; and, being vanquished or enraged, you to find no safer weapon than silence. have separated yourselves, with all the heinous guilt of sacrilege, from the guiltless men who could not condemn on insufficient proof. But if you have not even endeavored to do this, then with most accursed and unnatural blindness you have cut yourselves off from the wheat of Christ, which grows throughout His whole fields, that is, throughout the whole world until the end, because you have taken offense at a few tares in Africa."3 To this, which I have quoted from my former epistle, Petilianus has made no answer whatsoever. And, at all events, you see that in these few words is comprised the whole question which is at issue between us. For what should he endeavor to say, when, whatever course he chose, he was sure to be defeated? CHAP. 58.-70. For when he quoted a passage from the gospel as making against us, where our Lord says, "They will come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves; ye shall know them by their fruits," I answered and said, "Then let us consider their fruits;" and then I at once went on to add the following words: "You bring up against them their delivery of the sacred books. This very charge we urge with greater probability against their accusers themselves. And not to carry our search too far: in the same city of Constantina, your predecessors ordained Silvanus bishop at the very outset of his schism. He, while he was still a sub-deacon, was most unmistakably entered as a traditor in the archives of the city. If you, on your side, bring forward documents against our predecessors, all that we ask is equal terms, that we should either believe both to be true, or both to be false. If both are true, you are unquestionably guilty of schism, who have pretended that you avoid offenses in the communion of the whole world, though these were common among you in your own fragmentary sect. But again, if both are false, you are unquestionably guilty of schism, who, on account of the false charges of traditors, are staining yourselves with the heinous offense of severance from the Church. But if we have something to urge in accusation, while you have nothing, or if our charges are true, while yours are false, it is no longer matter of discussion how thoroughly your mouths are 1 See Book III. c. Cresconium, cc. 27, 28, 31, 32. 2 Matt. vii. 15, 16. 71. For when documents are brought forward relating to the traditors, both by us against the men of your party, and by you against the men of our party, (if indeed any really are brought forward on your side, for to this very day we are left in total ignorance of them; nor indeed can we believe that Petilianus would have omitted to insert them in his letter, seeing that he has taken so much pains to secure the quotation and insertion of those portions of the Chronicles which bear on the matter in opposition to me),—but still, as I began to say, if such documents are brought forward both by us and by you,documents of whose existence we are wholly ignorant to this very day,-surely you must acknowledge that either both are true, or both false, or ours true and yours false, or yours true and ours false; for there is no further alternative that can be suggested. 3 See Book I. cc. 21, 22, 23, 24. formation which was given, rather to the judges who took cognizance of the case, than to the murmurers who were defeated? So far then, Petilianus deserves all praise, in that, when he saw that on this point I was absolutely impregnable, he passed it by in silence. Yet he does not deserve praise for his attempts to obscure in a mist of words other points which were equally impregnable, which yet he thought could be obscured; or for having put me in the place of his cause, when the cause left him nothing to say; while CHAP. 59. But according to all these four-its ignorance arising either from the fact hypotheses, the truth is on the side of the that no one reported the sin to it, or from its communion of the Catholic Church. For if having given credence, in respect of the inboth are true, then you certainly should not have deserted the communion of the whole world on account of men such as you too had among yourselves. But if both are false, you should have guarded against the guilt of most accursed division, which had not even any pretext to allege of any delivery of the sacred books. If ours are true and yours are false, you have long been without anything to say for yourselves. If yours are true and ours are false, we have been liable to be deceived, in common with the whole world, not about the truth of the faith, but about the unrighteous-even about myself he could say nothing exness of men. For the seed of Abraham, dispersed throughout the world, was bound to pay attention, not to what you said you knew, but to what you proved to the judges. Whence have we any knowledge of what was done by those men who were accused by your ancestors, even if the allegations made against them were true, so long as they were held to be not true but false, either by the judges who took cognizance of the case, or at least by the general body of the Church dispersed throughout the world, which was only bound to pay heed to the sentence of the judges? and establishing it, between proofs and ficGod does not necessarily pardon any human guilt that others in the weakness of human judgment fail to discover; yet I maintain that no one is rightly deemed guilty for having believed a man to be innocent who was not convicted. How then do you prove the world to be guilty, merely because it did not know what possibly was really guilt in the Africans, cept what was either altogether false, or undeserving of any blame, or without any bearing whatsoever upon me. But, in the meantime, are you, whom I have made judges between Petilianus and myself, possessed of discrimination enough to decide in any degree between what is true and what is false, between what is mere empty swelling and what is solid, between what is troubled and what is calm, between inflammation and soundness, between divine predictions and human assumptions, between bringing an accusation tions, between pleading a cause and leading one away from it? If you have such power of discrimination, well and good; but if you have it not, we shall not repent of having bestowed our pains on you, for even though your heart be not converted unto peace, yet our peace shall return unto ourselves. |