One Faith, most honoured brethren, commends us all, who are Christians, to the keeping of Almighty God. To this Faith it appertains to believe that the Son of God, the Lord, shall come to judge the world that He, who has already come, has been born, according to His Human Nature, through Mary a Virgin, that He has suffered, died, and (after having been buried) has risen from the grave.

Also, before ascending to Heaven, whence He had descended, He left behind, through His Apostles, as His parting gift, to all Christians, Peace. And, lest it should seem that to His Apostles only He had left this Peace, He said:

And He also said:

Thus we see that Peace has been given to all Christians.

That it is God's Peace, we know, inasmuch as He says 'My Peace.' But when He says 'I give to you,' we know that He willed that it should belong not only to Himself, but to all those as well who should believe in Him,

If this Peace had remained whole and inviolate as it was given, and had not been disturbed by the authors of the schism, there would not be any disagreement today between us and our brethren, nor would they be causing God inconsolable tears (as Isaiah the prophet bears witness), nor would they deserve the name, and do the deeds, of false prophets; nor would they have built a crumbling and whitened wall; nor would they overturn simple but too credulous minds; nor would they, by wickedly imposing hands upon the heads of all, place upon them the veils of destruction; nor would they speak evil things to God; nor would they rebaptise the Faithful; nor should we now be grieving for the souls which they have either destroyed or slain, souls of the innocent, for whom God was the first to grieve, saying by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet:

Lest any one should say, that without thought I call them brethren, I would reply that such they are, for we cannot escape from the words of the prophet Isaiah; and, although they would not deny (as all men know well) that they hold us in abhorrence, and ban us utterly and are unwilling to be called our brethren, still we may not depart from the fear of God, for the Holy Spirit exhorts us by Isaiah the prophet, saying:

They all, each in his own district, make a great noise with wicked words. To some of their statements I may reply when opportunity arises. But we have found only one with whom it is possible to discuss these matters either by correspondence, or by the exchange of treatises, Parmenian our brother, if indeed he will allow us to call him brother. Since they are unwilling to be in communion, as we are, with the whole body of Bishops, let it be freely granted that they are not colleagues, if they refuse so to be, but (as we have already said), brothers they are.

Now, my brother Parmenian, in order that he might not speak like the rest, in a windy and unconvincing manner, has not only given utterance to his opinions in speech, but has also set them down in writing. Since, then, love of truth compels us to answer what he has said, we may still have some sort of conference even though we cannot meet together.

By this means also the wishes of certain people will be satisfied. For many have often expressed a desire for a public discussion between champions drawn from both sides, in order to elicit the truth. And this might well have been done. At any rate, though the Donatists forbid their people to come to us, and close the way to any approach to us, and avoid a meeting, and refuse to speak with us, let there be a conference, my brother Parmenian, between us two in this way, that, as I have not thought little of, nor despised, your treatises, which you have wished to be read and quoted by many, but on the contrary have patiently listened to everything that you have brought forward, so do you, in your turn, attend to the reply which, with humility, I make to you.

For instance, amongst other things which have no reference to us (that they have no such reference I shall prove), you say that we asked for armed troops to be employed against you.

But in other parts of your treatise there are some things which tell in our favour, and against you such are the analogy of the Flood, and that of Circumcision.

Some things there are which tell both for us and for you. For example, what you have written in praise of Baptism (excepting that you have said untrue things concerning the Flesh of Christ) tells in your favour as well as in ours, because, although you are outside, still, from us you went forth.

It would also be in favour of both sides if you had not joined yourselves to those who are certainly schismatics that you have proved that heretics are strangers to Catholic Sacraments. Some things are arguments for us alone. Such is your reference to the One Church. Some things that you have mentioned tell the wrong way for you, in consequence of your ignorance, as a foreigner, [of the facts] for instance, your indictment of 'Betrayers' and schismatics. The way in which you have written concerning the Sacraments and Sacrifice, offered by one who is in sin, also goes against you.

So, when we investigate, we discover that in reality you have brought nothing against us except your mistaken charge, that we asked to have troops employed against you. That this is a calumny we shall be able to prove to absolute demonstration. Take this calumny out of your book, and you are ours.

For what can be more to our purpose than your argument from the fact that there was only one Flood the type of Baptism? And, in maintaining that the one Circumcision availed for the salvation of the people of the Jews, you have written in defence of our doctrine, as though you were one of us. For this is our argument, who defend the Unity of Baptism conferred in [the Name of] the Trinity. It is not an argument in favour of you, who dare to repeat, against the laws, that Baptism, of which the one Flood and one Circumcision are typical. And this, although you yourselves would not deny that what has been commanded to be done once only, ought not to be repeated. But whilst you have praised with acuteness that which is worthy of all praise, you have by a quibble introduced your own persons, as if since it is only lawful once [to baptise] for you it were lawful, for others unlawful.

• If it be unlawful for Betrayers to baptise, it cannot be lawful for you, for we can prove that your first fathers were Betrayers.
• If it be unlawful for schismatics to baptise, it must therefore be unlawful for you, for you originated the Schism.
• If it be unlawful for sinners to baptise, we can prove from divine testimony that you are sinners also.

Finally, since the validity of Baptism does not depend upon the character of the man who has been chosen to baptise, but upon an act which lawfully is done but once, for this reason we do not set right baptisms which have been administered by you, because both amongst us and amongst you the Sacrament is one.

The whole nature of this Sacrament we shall set forth in our fifth book.

My brother Parmenian, you have indeed treated of many things, but I see that I must not answer you point by point, in the same order as that which you have employed. For you have written in the first place of the figures and praise of Baptism. Here (with the exception of your error concerning the Flesh of Christ) you have written well. But this, however, tells in our favour, as we shall show in its proper place.

• Secondly, you have maintained that there is only One Church, from which heretics are shut out. You have, however, been unwilling to recognise where this One Church is to be found.
• Thirdly, you have denounced the 'Betrayers' without fixing names or describing persons.
• Fourthly, you have attacked the makers of Unity.
• Fifthly (to pass over matters of but trifling importance), you have written about the Sacraments and Sacrifice of a sinner.

But it seems to me that in the first place the cities, positions, and names of the Betrayers and schismatics should be pointed out. In this way the true authors of the crimes, concerning which you have written, may be convicted of their certain guilt.

• Secondly, I shall have to say which is the Church, or where is to be found the One Church which is the Church because, besides the One Church, there is no other.
• Thirdly, I shall prove that we did not ask for the troops and that what is said to have been done by the makers of Unity does not concern us.
• In the fourth place, I shall show who is the sinner whose sacrifice God repudiates, or from whose Sacraments we must flee.
• Fifthly, I shall treat of Baptism; and in the sixth place of your ill-considered assumptions and mistakes.

But before I say anything of these subjects separately, I shall show briefly that you have spoken wrongfully of the Flesh of Christ, for you have said that the Flesh which was drowned by the floods of the Jordan, and was thus cleansed from all stains, was the Flesh of Sin. You might have said this with reason if the Baptism of the Flesh of Christ had sufficed for all, so that it were not necessary for any man to be baptised for himself. Had this been so, the whole human family would have been in the Jordan, and all that which is born in the flesh would have been there. In that case there would have been no difference between the Faithful and any one of the heathen, for flesh belongs to them all; and since there is no man who is without flesh, if, according to your mode of expression, the Flesh of Christ was drowned in the waters of the Jordan, the flesh of all men would have gained this benefit. But the Flesh of Christ is one thing in Christ quite another is the flesh of each man in himself.

What came over you to call the Flesh of Christ sinful? Would that you had said 'the flesh of men in the Flesh of Christ.' But even thus, you would have spoken without reason, since each believer is baptised in the Name of Christ, not in the Flesh of Christ, which belonged to Himself exclusively. I may add that His Flesh, which was conceived by the Holy Ghost, could not be washed, amongst others, for the remission of sins, for It was without any sin. You have gone on to say that It was drowned in the floods of the Jordan. This word drowned, you have used inadvisedly enough, for it is a word which should be used only of Pharaoh and his people, who were so drowned by the weight of their offences, as to remain, like lead, beneath the waters. But the Flesh of Christ, when It went down into and came up from the Jordan, ought not to have been spoken of by you as drowned. His Flesh was found to be more holy than the very Jordan, so that rather did It cleanse the water by Its entrance, than Itself was cleansed.

Moreover, I cannot pass over a matter in which I think you have acted craftily. In order that you might lead the minds of your readers off the point, or deceive them, after you had described Circumcision and the Flood, and after you had praised Baptism, you thought fit to raise, as it were from the dead, heretics who were already dead and, together with their heresies, buried in oblivion and this although not only their errors, but even their names, were unknown throughout Africa Marcion, Praxeas, Sabellius, Valentinus, and the rest up to the Cataphrygae, all of whom were confuted in their time by Victorinus of Pettau, by Zephyrinus of Rome, by Tertullian of Carthage, and by other champions of the Catholic Church.

Why, then, do you wage a war with the dead, who have nothing to do with the affairs of our time? For no reason, excepting that you, who are a schismatic of today, having nothing that you can prove against Catholics, have been pleased to enumerate so many heretics and their heresies, to spin out your somewhat wordy treatise.

Now there is another question: For what purpose have you mentioned those who have not the Sacraments which you and we alike possess? Sound health does not clamour for medicine; strength which is secure in itself does not need outside help; truth has no lack of arguments; it is the mark of a sick man to seek remedies; it is the sign of a sluggard and a weakling to run in search of auxiliaries; it belongs to a liar to rake up arguments. To return to your book, you have said that the Endowments of the Church cannot be with heretics, and in this you have said rightly, for we know that the churches of each of the heretics have no lawful Sacraments, since they are adulteresses, without the rights of honest wedlock, and are rejected by Christ, who is the Bridegroom of One Church, as strangers. This He Himself makes clear in the Canticle of Canticles. When He praises One, He condemns the others because, besides the One which is the true Catholic Church, the others amongst the heretics are thought to be churches, but are not such. Thus He declares in the Canticle of Canticles (as we have already pointed out) that His Dove is One, and that she is also the chosen Spouse, and again a garden enclosed, and a fountain sealed up.

Therefore none of the heretics possess either the Keys, which Peter alone received, or the Ring, with which we read that the Fountain has been sealed; nor is any heretic one of those to whom that Garden belongs in which God plants His young trees. Concerning these men, that which you have written at length (although it has nothing to do with our present business) is abundantly sufficient.

But to my surprise you have thought good to attach yourselves to those who certainly are schismatics, for in denying the Endowments of the Church both to those who are heretics, and also to schismatics, you have denied them to yourselves.

Amongst other things you have said that schismatics have been cut off, like branches, from the Vine, and that they have been reserved, marked off for punishment, like dried wood, for the fires of Hell.

But I see that you do not yet know that the Schism at Carthage was begun by your fathers. Search out the beginning of these affairs, and you will find that in associating heretics with schismatics, you have pronounced judgement against yourselves.

For it was not Caecilian who went forth from Majorinus, your father's father, but it was Majorinus who deserted Caecilian; nor was it Caecilian who separated himself from the Chair of Peter, or from the Chair of Cyprian but Majorinus, on whose Chair you sit a Chair which had no existence before Majorinus himself. Since then there can be no possible doubt that these things have thus happened, and that you are the heirs of Betrayers and schismatics, I am, my brother Parmenian, sufficiently surprised seeing that you are yourself a schismatic that you should have thought it advisable to join schismatics to heretics. If, however, these are your principles, and you wish to do so, heap up together what you have laid down only a little before. For you have said that 'It could not be that one who was stained should wash away sins in a baptism-that-is-not-Baptism, that one who is unclean should cleanse, that one who trips men up should raise them, that one who is lost should free, that one who is guilty should give pardon, that one who has been condemned should absolve.'

All these things might well be true of heretics alone, since they have falsified the creed, for amongst them one has said that there are two Gods, though God is One; another wishes the Father to be recognised in the Person of the Son ; another robs the Son of God of His Flesh, through which the world has been reconciled to God, and there are yet others of the same kind, who admittedly are separated from Catholic Sacraments. Wherefore you should regret that you have coupled schismatics with such men as these, for, when you thought that you were attacking others, you failed to observe how wide is the gulf between schismatics and heretics, and turned the sword of judgement upon yourself.

This is the reason that you do not see which is the Holy Church, and have in this way made confusion of everything.

Catholicism is constituted by a simple and true understanding in the law, by an unique and most true mystery, and by unity of minds. But schism, after the bond of peace has been broken, is brought into existence through passion, is nourished by hatred, is strengthened by envy and dissensions, so that the Catholic Mother is abandoned, whilst her unfilial children go forth outside and separate themselves (as you have done) from the root of Mother Church cut off by the shears of their hatred and wickedly depart in rebellion. They are not able, however, to do anything new, or different from that which long ago they learned from their Mother.

But heretics, exiles from the truth, deserters of the sound and most true Creed, corrupted by their wicked opinions and led astray from the bosom of Holy Church, reckoning nothing of their noble birth, in order to deceive the ignorant and ill-informed, have been pleased to be born of themselves. And they, who for a long time had been nourished on living food which not assimilated has turned to corruption have by impious disputations vomited forth deadly poisons, to the destruction of their wretched dupes.

You see, then, my brother Parmenian, that none but heretics only who are cut off from the home of truth possess 'various kinds of false Baptisms with which he, who is stained, cannot wash, nor the unclean cleanse, nor the destroyer raise, nor he, who is lost, free, nor the guilty man give pardon, nor the condemned man absolve.'

Rightly hast thou closed the Garden to heretics; rightly hast thou claimed the Keys for Peter; rightly hast thou denied the right of cultivating the young trees to those who are certainly shut out from the garden and from the paradise of God; rightly hast thou withdrawn the Ring from those to whom it is not allowed to open the Fountain. But to you schismatics, although you are not in the Catholic Church, these things cannot be denied, since you have shared true Sacraments with us.

Wherefore, since all these things are justly denied to heretics, why did you think well to deny them to yourselves as well, who clearly are schismatics, for you have gone outside? For our part we were willing that in this matter heretics alone should be condemned, but so far as lies with you, you have chosen to strike yourselves, together with them, in one condemnation.

But now (to return to the order upon which we have determined), in the first place listen to the names of those who were Betrayers and learn more distinctly who were the originators of the schism. It is certain that two evil things have been perpetrated in Africa even the worst of all the first Betrayal, the second Schism. Both these crimes were committed, in one period of time, by the same wicked men.

You ought, therefore, my brother Parmenian, to learn that of which you are understood to be ignorant; for sixty years and more have passed since the storm of persecution spread abroad throughout the whole of Africa a persecution which made some Martyrs, others Confessors, whilst not a few it laid low in a terrible death, leaving unharmed those who lay in hiding.

Why should I make mention of laymen who at that time were supported by no ecclesiastical dignity? Why name a host of clerics ? Or deacons in the third, or priests in the second degree of the sacerdotium, when the heads and chiefs of all, some Bishops of that period, in order to purchase for themselves, at the loss of Life Eternal, some very short prolongation of this uncertain day, impiously betrayed the records of the law of God? Amongst whom were Donatus of Mascula, Victor of Rusicca, Merinus from the Baths of Tibilis, Donatus of Calama, and Purpurius of Limata, the murderer who, when he was questioned on the charge of having killed his sister's sons in the prison of Mileum, confessed it with the words: 'Yes, I did kill them, and not them alone do I kill, but whoever shall act against me.' And Menalius who pretended that he had a pain in his eyes, and trembled at the idea of meeting his own people, for fear lest it should be proved against him by his fellow-citizens that he had offered incense to idols.

After the persecution, these Bishops and others whom we shall soon show to have been the first leaders of your schism, gathered together on the thirteenth of May at the town of Cirta in the house of Urbanus Carisius for the Basilicas had not yet been restored. This is attested by the writings of Nundinarius, then a deacon, and is proved by the age of the parchments, which I can show to anyone really in doubt, for in the Appendix to these books I have subjoined the whole number of these documents to certify the truth of my statements.

These Bishops, on being questioned by Secundus of Tigisis, acknowledged that they had been Betrayers. And, as Secundus himself was taunted by Purpurius not for having escaped, but for having been set free after he had remained for a long time amongst the soldiers, they all stood up and began to mutter that he had been set free only because he betrayed the sacred books. Then Secundus, fearing their temper, received advice from his brother's son, Secundus the Less, to remit an affair of this character to God.

The others, who had not been accused, that is to say, Victor of Garba, Felix of Rotarium and Nabor of Centurio, were then consulted. They said that a case of this kind ought to be reserved to the Lord. Then said Secundus 'Sit down all.' They all replied 'Thanks be to God,' and sat down. You see, therefore, my brother Parmenian, that it is quite clear who were the Betrayers.

It was not long after this, that these very persons whom I have mentioned, of the character I have described, Betrayers, men who had offered incense to idols, and murderers, proceeded to Carthage, and there, although Caecilian was already the Bishop, made the Schism by consecrating Majorinus on whose Chair, Parmenian, you sit. And since I have shown, that men who were guilty of Betrayal were your first fathers, it follows that Betrayers were also the originators of your Schism.

In order to make this matter clear and beyond doubt to all, we shall have to prove from what root the branches of error have stretched themselves forth to the present day, and from what fountain this your rivulet of noxious water, creeping stealthily along, has flowed down even to our times. We shall have to point out whence, and where, and from whom this evil of schism has arisen; what were the causes which met together to produce it; who were the persons who effected it; who were the authors of this wicked thing; who fostered it; by whom appeal was made to the Emperor, that he should judge between the parties; who were they that sat in judgement; where the Council was held; what were its decrees.

The question is about a Division. Now in Africa, as in other parts of the world, the Church was One, before it was divided by those who consecrated Majorinus whose Chair you have inherited, and now occupy. We shall have to see who has remained in the root, with the whole world; who went forth; who sits on a second chair, which had no existence before the Schism; who has raised altar against altar; who has consecrated a Bishop when another was in undisturbed possession; who it is that lies under the judgement of John, the Apostle, when he declared that many Anti-Christs should go forth without,

Therefore, he who was unwilling to remain with his brethren in unity has followed the heretics, and gone forth without, as an Anti-Christ.

No one is unaware that the Schism, after the consecration of Caecilian, was effected at Carthage through a certain mischief-making woman named Lucilla. When the Church was still in tranquillity, before her Peace had been disturbed by the storms of persecution, this woman could not put up with the rebuke which she received from the archdeacon Caecilian. It was said that she kissed a bone of some martyr or other if he was a martyr before she received the spiritual Food and Drink. Having then been corrected for thus touching before she touched the Sacred Chalice the bone of a dead man (if he was a martyr, at least he had not yet been acknowledged as such ), she went away in confusion, full of wrath. This was the woman upon whom, whilst she was angry and afraid that she might fall under the discipline of the Church, on a sudden, the storm of persecution broke.

It was at this time also that a deacon called Felix who had been summoned before the tribunals on account of a much spoken-of letter which he had written concerning the usurping Emperor, fearing his danger, is said to have lain hidden in the house of Bishop Mensurius. When Mensurius publicly refused to give him up, an account of the matter was despatched. A rescript came back that unless Mensurius would surrender the deacon Felix, he should be himself sent to the palace. On receiving this summons he found himself in no small difficulty, for the Church possessed very many gold and silver ornaments, which he could neither hide under ground, nor take away with him. So he confided them to the care of some of the seniors, whom he believed to be worthy of trust, not, however, before he had made an inventory, which he is said to have given to a certain old woman. He charged her, that, when peace was restored to Christians, she should hand this over, if he himself did not return home, to whomsoever she found sitting on the Bishop's Chair. He went away and pleaded his cause; he was commanded to return, but was not able to reach Carthage.

The storm of persecution passed over, and subsided. By the disposition of God, Maxentius sent pardon, and liberty was restored to Christians. Botrus and Celestius so it is said wishing to be consecrated Bishops at Carthage, arranged that, without inviting the Numidians, only the neighbouring bishops should be asked to perform the ceremony at Carthage. Then, by the vote of the whole people, Caecilian was chosen, and was consecrated Bishop, Felix of Autumna laying his hand upon him. Botrus and Celestius were disappointed of their hope. The inventory of the gold and silver, as had been ordered by Mensurius, was handed over, in the presence of witnesses, to Caecilian, who was now in possession of the See. The above-mentioned seniors were summoned; but they had swallowed up in the jaws of their avarice, as booty, that which had been entrusted to their keeping. When they were commanded to make restitution, they withdrew from communion with Caecilian. The ambitious intriguers, who had failed to obtain their consecration, did likewise. Lucilla, too, that influential, mischief-making woman, who had before been unwilling to brook discipline, together with all her retainers, separated herself from her Bishop. Thus wickedness produced its effect through the meeting together of three different causes and sets of persons.

In this way it came to pass, that at that time the Schism was brought to birth by the anger of a disgraced woman, was fed by ambition, and received its strength from avarice.

It was by these three that the accusations were concocted against Caecilian, so that his Consecration might be declared void. They sent to Secundus of Tigisis to come to Carthage, whither the Betrayers, of whom we have already made mention, proceeded. They received hospitality not from Catholics, at whose request Caecilian had been consecrated but from the avaricious, from the ambitious, from those who had been unable to govern their tempers. Not one of them went to the Basilica, where all the people of Carthage had assembled with Caecilian. Then Caecilian demanded:

Nothing could at that time be got up against him by all these enemies of his; they imagined, however, that he might be blackened by his Consecrator being falsely alleged to have been a Betrayer. So Caecilian gave a second demand that, since so they thought Felix had bestowed nothing upon him, they should themselves ordain him, as if he were still a deacon.

Then Purpurius, relying upon his usual ribaldry, thus spoke, as though Caecilian had been his sister's son:

When the bearing of all this was seen, the whole Church [of Carthage] retained Caecilian, in order not to hand itself over to murderers.

The alternatives were, either that he should be expelled from his See as guilty, or that the Faithful should communicate with him as innocent.

The church was crowded with people; Caecilian was sitting in his episcopal Chair; the altar was set up in its own place that very altar upon which Bishops acknowledged by all had in past times offered sacrifice Cyprian, Carpophorius, Lucian and the rest.

In this manner they went forth, and altar was raised against altar; and there was an unlawful consecration; and Majorinus, who had been lector when Caecilian was archdeacon Majorinus, a member of the household of Lucilla at her instigation, and through her bribes was consecrated Bishop by Betrayers, who in the Numidian Council had (as we have already said) acknowledged their crimes and granted pardon to one another. It is, therefore, clear that both the Betrayers who consecrated, and Majorinus who was consecrated, went forth from the Church.

Meanwhile, out of the fountain of their own crimes, which had gushed forth amongst them in channels of many kinds of wickedness, they thought that a single one that of Betrayal might be spared with which to calumniate the consecrator of Caecilian. For, since, as they foresaw, slander would not be able to occupy herself at the same time with two charges of a similar nature, they endeavoured to blacken the life of another man, that by this means they might consign their own crimes to silence. And, through fear that they should themselves be convicted by the innocent, they strove to convict the innocent instead. To this end they distributed on all sides a letter, inspired by their hatred. (This letter we have placed, together with the other Acts, in the Appendix.)

As they were still at Carthage, they sent their letters before them, that by untruthful reports they might plant their falsehood in the ears of all. Rumour spread the lie broadcast amongst the people. Thus, whilst these calumnies were noised abroad about one man only, their own most certain crimes were hidden away in silence.

It often comes to pass that sin is blushed for, but at that period there was no one for whom to blush, since, with the exception of a few Catholics, all had sinned, so the wickedness which had been committed by many wore the cloak of innocence. The shame of Betrayal, which admittedly had been committed by Donatus of Mascula and the others whom we have mentioned, seemed but of small account. To this Betrayal they added the enormous wickedness of schism.

Therefore, my brother Parmenian, you see these two accusations so evil, so terrible of Betrayal and Schism proved against your chiefs. Acknowledge, though late, that you, in attacking others, have fallen upon your own people. And whilst it is certain that those who went before you worked this second abomination, you too strive to follow them in their sin-stained footsteps, so that you also have been doing for long, and are even now doing, that of which your Fathers were guilty in the beginning of the Schism. They in their day broke peace; you now banish unity. It can be said with reason of your Fathers as well as of yourselves, that, if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the ditch. A raging malice blinded your Fathers' eyes; envy has robbed yours of sight. Even you will not by any means be able to deny that schism is the supreme evil.

Yet, without fear, you have imitated Dathan, Abiram and Koran, your shameless teachers, and you have been unwilling to keep before your eyes the fact that God has both forbidden this wickedness, and gravely punished it when it has been committed. Moreover, remember that the way in which sins are either forgiven or punished shows that there are degrees of guilt.

Now, by the Commandments of God, three things are, amongst others, forbidden by Him. Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not go after strange gods, and summing up the commands, thou shalt not commit schism.

Let us see concerning these three, what should be punished, and what it may be lawful to pardon.

Murder of kith is the chief sin. Nevertheless, God did not strike Cain dead in his guilt, but declared that He would punish any man who might be his murderer. In the city of Nineve one hundred and twenty thousand inhabitants sacrilegiously followed after strange gods, but when, by the preaching of Jonah the prophet, God had declared His anger, a short period of fasting, together with prayer, obtained their pardon. Let us see whether any such forgiveness was granted to those who first of all ventured to divide the people of God.

God had placed over so many thousands of children of Israel, from whose necks His Divine Providence had cast away the yoke of servitude, one Priest, holy Aaron. But his ministers, coveting and lawlessly usurping a priesthood to which they had no right, and leading astray a part of the people, imitated the sacred rites, and placed more than two hundred of their followers (who were to perish with them) censers in their hands before the people whom they had led astray. God, to whom schism is displeasing, could not see this and let it pass; they had, after a certain fashion, declared war against God, as if there were a second God, who would accept a second sacrifice. Therefore God was wrathful with a mighty wrath, on account of the schism which had been made, and what He had not done in punishment of the sacrilegious and the fratricide, that He did do in punishment of schismatics. The army of ministers stood in array, and the sacrilegious host that (together with its forbidden sacrifices) was to perish in an instant. The opportunity for penance was denied them and withdrawn, for this was not the kind of sin that should deserve pardon. The earth was commanded to hunger after its food. Forthwith it opened its jaws for those who had divided the people, and with eager mouth swallowed them up that had despised the commandments of God. Within the space of one moment the earth opened to devour them, seized her victims, was shut once again, and, so that they might not appear to reap any benefit from the suddenness of their death, it was not allowed these men who were unworthy to live even to die. Of a sudden they were shut in the prison of Hell, and were buried there before they died.

And yet you wonder that something of similar severity has been done against you you who either cause or approve schism, although you see here what they, who compassed the first schism, deserved to suffer! Or is it because punishment of this kind has now ceased, that on this account you claim innocence for yourself and for your party? In each of these occurrences, God has set forth a model by examples of the punishment that will come to their imitators. The first sins He has put an end to with punishment, as an example for all time. The sins that come after He will reserve for His Judgement. What have you to say to this, you, who having usurped the name of the Church, both secretly foster and without shame defend the schism?

I hear that some of your party, in their love of disputation, produce documents. But we have to ask which of these are worthy of trust, which are in accordance with reason, which agree with the truth? It may be that your documents if indeed you have any will be found to be stained with falsehoods. Our documents are proved to be true by the rival arguments and pleadings of the parties, by the final judgements, and by the letters of Constantine.

With regard to that which you ask of us:

If it be a crime to be acquainted with kings, the whole of the odium falls upon you, for your fathers Lucianus, Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Fidentius and the rest, when the Emperor Constantine was still without any knowledge of these affairs, addressed a petition to him, of which I will transcribe a copy:

After having read this letter, Constantine replied with much anger. And in his rescript he testified to the matter of their petition in the words:

Nevertheless, he granted them judges Maternus from the city of Cologne, Reticius from the city of Autun, Marinus of Aries. These three Bishops from Gaul and fifteen others, who were Italians, arrived in Rome. They met in the House of Fausta on the Lateran, on the second of October which was a Friday, in the year when Constantine for the fourth, and Licinius for the third time, were Consuls.

There were present Miltiades, Bishop of the city of Rome, and Reticius, Maternus and Marinus, Bishops from Gaul, and Merocles of Milan, Florianus of Sinna, Zoticus of Quintianum, Stennius of Ariminum, Felix from Florence of the Tuscans, Gaudentius of Pisa, Constantius of Faenza, Proterius of Capua, Theophilus of Beneventum, Sabinus of Terracina, Secundus of Preneste, Felix of the Three Taverns, Maximus of Ostium, Evandrus of Ursinum and Donatianus of Criolo.

When these nineteen Bishops had taken their seats together, the case of Donatus and that of Caecilian were brought forward. This judgement was passed against Donatus by each of the Bishops that he acknowledged having both rebaptised, and laid his hand in Penance upon Bishops who had fallen away a thing foreign to the Church. Donatus brought forth his witnesses; they admitted that they had nothing of which they could accuse Caecilian. Caecilian was pronounced innocent by the sentence of all the above-named Bishops; also by the sentence of Miltiades, by which the matter was closed, and judgement pronounced in these words:

It is, therefore, sufficient, that Donatus was condemned by the verdict of so many Bishops, and that Caecilian was cleared by the judgement of so great an authority. Yet Donatus thought well to appeal. To this appeal the Emperor Constantine replied in these words:

At the same time Donatus also asked that he might be allowed to return, and promised that he would not go to Carthage. Then it was suggested to the Emperor by Filuminus his advocate, that, for peace' sake, Caecilian should be detained at Brescia and so it was done. Then two Bishops were sent to Africa, Eunomius and Olimpius, to do away with the dual Bishops and establish a single one. They came, and remained at Carthage forty days, that they might declare where was the Catholic Church. The seditious party of Donatus could not endure this, and every day noisy uproars were made through party spirit.

Eventually these Bishops, Eunomius and Olimpius, delivered their final decree to the effect that the Catholic Church was that which was dispersed all over the world, and that the Judgement of the nineteen Bishops which had already been delivered could not be upset. Accordingly they communicated with the clergy of Caecilian, and went their way. All this we can prove from the written Acts which any who please may read in our Appendix. When these things had taken place, Donatus was the first to return to Carthage, unasked. Caecilian, on hearing this news, hastened back to his own people. In this way the schism was planted anew. But the fact remains that so many Bishops had by their Judgement condemned Donatus, and had also pronounced the innocence of Caecilian.

But since two persons on the Catholic side had been for some time accused in this matter the consecrated and the Consecrator even after the consecrated had been acquitted at Rome, it still remained for the Consecrator to be declared guiltless. Then Constantine wrote to Aelianus, the pro-consul, to lay aside his public duties and make public inquiry into the life of Felix of Autumna.

The appointed officer took his seat. The witnesses were Claudius Saturianus, a state commissioner, who had been in the city of Felix all through the time of the persecution, and had been a commissioner when he was impeached, Callidius Gratianus and Alfius Caecilianus the magistrate; also Superius the Warder was summoned, and Ingentius the public notary, who was in constant fear of the torture with which he was threatened. By the evidence of all it was ascertained that there was nothing that could disgrace the life of Felix the Bishop.

The Volume of Acts is in existence in which are recorded the names of those who had been present at the trial, Claudius Saturianus the official, and Caecilianus the Magistrate, and Superius the Warder, and Ingentius the Notary, and Solon a public official of the time. After they had given their replies, the above-mentioned pro-consul gave his Judgement, of which this is a part:

And so he left the court, cleared of every stain upon his reputation and wonderfully praised. Up to that time men did not know what to think of him, and he had walked under a dark cloud, caused by the breath of hatred and jealousy, whilst truth lay hid. And besides, every document, mentioned either in the Acts or in the letters which we have mentioned or read, was disclosed.

You see, my brother Parmenian, that you have assaulted Catholics to no purpose falsely nicknaming them Betrayers, changing the names of those who were concerned, and transferring their deeds. You have shut your eyes, that you might not recognise the guilt of your fathers; you have opened them to cast accusations upon the innocent and blameless. You have stated everything according to what is opportune, nothing according to what is true; so that it was of you that the most Blessed Apostle Paul said:

We have just now proved that your fathers were Betrayers and schismatics; yet you, who are their heir, have not wished to spare either schismatics or Betrayers, so that by the proofs which we have alleged, all the darts which you mistakenly wished to hurl against others have glanced back warded off by the shield of truth to strike your fathers. Everything, then, which you have been able to say against Betrayers and schismatics, belongs to yourselves, for we have nothing to do with any of it, we who both remain in the Root, and are joined, with all, in the whole [Catholic] world.

The donatists have been guilty of shamelessly scraping the heads of Priests, and of Murders, of giving the Eucharist to Dogs, and of casting away the Holy Chrism.

We have shown who were the Betrayers, and have pointed out the origin of the Schism in such a manner that we have almost seen it take place before our eyes. The difference between heresy and schism has also been explained. It is now our business to show (as we promised that we would do in the second place) which is the One Church, called by Christ His Dove and His Bride.

The Church, then, is One, and her holiness is not measured by the pride of individuals, but is derived from the Sacraments. It is for this reason that she alone is called by Christ His Dove and His own beloved Bride.

The Church cannot be amongst all the heretics and schismatics. It follows that [according to you] she must be in one place only.

You, my brother Parmenian, have said that she is with you alone. This, I suppose, can only be because, in your pride, you strive to claim some special holiness for yourselves, so that the Church may be where it pleases you, and may not be where it pleases you not. And so, in order that she may be with you in a little piece of Africa, in a corner of one small region, is she not to be with us in another part of Africa? Is she not to be in Spain, in Gaul, in Italy, where you are not? If you maintain that she is with you only, is she not to be in Pannonia, in Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, Achaia, Macedonia and in all Greece, where you are not? In order that you may be able to argue that she is with you, is she not to be in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Pamphylia, Phrygia, Cilicia and in the three Syrias, and in the two Armenias, and in all Egypt and in Mesopotamia, where you are not? And is she not to be throughout innumerable islands and so many other provinces which can hardly be counted, where you are not?

Where in that case will be the application of the Catholic Name, since on this very account was the Church called Catholic, because she is in accordance with reason, and is scattered all over the world?

For if you limit the Church just as it may please you, into a narrow corner, if you withdraw whole peoples from her communion, where will that be which the Son of God has merited, where will that be which the Father has freely granted Him, saying, in the second Psalm:

To what purpose do you break so mighty a promise, so that the breadth of all the kingdoms is compressed by you into a sort of narrow prison? Why do you strive to stand in the way of so great a largesse? Why do you fight against the Saviour's Merits? Permit the Son to possess that which has been granted to Him; permit the Father to fulfil that which He has promised.

Why do you put bounds, why set limits? There is nothing in any part of the earth which has been withheld from His dominion, since the whole earth has been promised by God the Father to the Saviour. The whole earth has been granted to Him together with its nations. The whole world is Christ's as His undivided possession. God proves this when he says:

And in the seventy-first Psalm, it has been written of the Saviour Himself,

When the Father gives, He makes no exception; you, that you may give Him one fraction, endeavour to take away the whole measure. And, still, you endeavour to persuade men that the Church is amongst you alone, taking away from Christ that which He has won denying that God has performed His promises. What ingratitude! What folly! What presumption is yours! Christ invites you, with all others, into the company of the Heavenly Kingdom and exhorts you to be co-heirs with Him; and you strive to rob Him of the inheritance given Him by the Father, allowing Him a part of Africa and refusing Him the whole world, which the Father has bestowed upon Him.

Why do you desire to make the Holy Ghost appear a liar, who in the forty-ninth Psalm tells of the goodness of Almighty God, saying:

Therefore the earth has been called to become flesh. And, as it has been written, so has it been done, and the earth owes praises to its Creator.

Once more this is mentioned, where the Holy Spirit exhorts us in the hundred and twelfth Psalm with the words:

And again, in the ninety-fifth Psalm:

If this were the only verse, you might say that the Holy Ghost had exhorted you alone. But that He might show that this has been said not to you alone, but to the Church which is everywhere, He continued:

He said:

He did not say, 'in a small part of Africa, where you are'; He did say 'Declare amongst all peoples.'

He who said 'all peoples' excepted no man. Yet you are proud to be alone and separated from 'all peoples,' though to them this command was given; and you maintain that you, who are not in any part of the whole, are yet yourselves alone the whole. He has said:

Can then the Pagans, who are outside the covenant of Christ, either sing to God or praise the name of the Lord? Is it not His Church alone, which is within the covenant, that may praise Him? Therefore, if you say that the Church is with you only, you are defrauding God's ear of its due. If you alone are praising Him, 'the whole world,' which is from the rising of the sun to its going down, will be keeping silence. You have shut the mouths of all the Christian nations. You have imposed silence on all the peoples who desire to praise God from moment to moment. If then God waits for the praise which is His due, and if the Holy Spirit exhorts men to sound His praises, if 'the whole world' is prepared to render to God His due, lest God be robbed then should you also praise Him, together with all, or, (since you have refused to be with all,) in your isolation, hold your tongues.

So we have proved that the Catholic Church is the Church which is spread throughout the world.

We must now mention its Adornments, and see where are its five Endowments (which you have said to be six), amongst which the Cathedra is the first; and, since the second Endowment, which is the 'Angelus,' cannot be added unless a Bishop has sat on the Cathedra, we must see who was the first to sit on the Cathedra, and where he sat. If you do not know this, learn. If you do know, blush. Ignorance cannot be attributed to you it follows that you know. For one who knows, to err is sin. Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned.

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas) that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner.

Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calixtus, to Calixtus Urban, to Urban Pontianus, to Pontianus Anterus, to Anterus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus, to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Marcellinus, to Marcellinus Eusebius, to Eusebius Miltiades, to Miltiades Silvester, to Silvester Marcus, to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius, who today is our colleague, with whom 'the whole world,' through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion.

Now do you show the origin of your Cathedra, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!

But you allege that you too have some sort of a party in the City of Rome.

It is a branch of your error growing out of a lie, not from the root of truth. In a word, were Macrobius to be asked where he sits in the City, will he be able to say on Peter's Cathedra? I doubt whether he has even set eyes upon it, and schismatic that he is, he has not drawn nigh to Peter's 'Shrine,' against the precept of the Apostle who writes:

Behold, in Rome are the 'Shrines' of the two Apostles. Will you tell me whether he has been able to approach them, or has offered Sacrifice in those places, where as is certain are these 'Shrines' of the Saints.

So it follows that your colleague Macrobius must confess that he sits where once sat Encolpius; and if Encolpius himself could be questioned, he would say that he sat where before him sat Bonifacius of Balla; and if Bonifacius could be asked, he would in his turn reply that he sat where Victor of Garba sat, whom some time ago your people sent from Africa to a few wanderers.

How do you explain that your party has not been able to possess a Roman citizen as Bishop in Rome? How is it that in that City they were all Africans and strangers who are known to have succeeded one another? Is not craft here manifest? Is this not the spirit of faction the mother of schism?

This Victor of Garba was sent first, I will not say as a stone into a fountain (for he could not ruffle the pure waters of the Catholic people), but because some Africans who belonged to your party, having gone to Rome, and wishing to live there, begged that someone should be sent from Africa to preside over their public worship. So Victor was sent to them. He was there as a son without a father, as a beginner without a master, as a disciple without a teacher, as a follower without a predecessor, as a lodger without a home, as a guest without a guest-house, as a shepherd without a flock, as a Bishop without a people. For neither flock nor people can that handful be termed, who amongst the forty and more Basilicas in Rome, had not one place in which to assemble.

Accordingly they closed up a cave outside the City with trellis-work, where they might have a meeting-house at once, and on account of this were called Mountaineers.

Since then, Claudian has succeeded to Lucian, Lucian to Macrobius, Macrobius to Encolpius, Encolpius to Boniface, Boniface to Victor. Victor would not have been able, had he been asked where he sat, to show that anyone had been there before him, nor could he have pointed out that he possessed any Cathedra save the Cathedra of pestilence; for pestilence sends down its victims, destroyed by diseases, to the regions of Hell which are known to have their gates gates against which we read that Peter received the saving Keys Peter, that is to say, the first of our line, to whom it was said by Christ:

and these keys > the gates of Hell shall not overcome.

How is it, then, that you strive to usurp for yourselves the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, you who, with your arguments, and audacious sacrilege, war against the Chair of Peter?

Thus do you repudiate the blessedness deserved by him who walked not in the counsel of the wicked, and did not stand in the way of sinners, and sat not on the Chair of Pestilence. Your fathers walked in the counsel of the ungodly, to divide the Church. They also walked in the way of sinners, when they strove to divide Christ, whose garments not even the Jews would rend, though the Apostle Paul cries out and says:

Would that your fathers, after having already walked in the evil way, had recognised their sin, and turned back upon themselves; would that they had set right their wicked deeds; would that they had recalled the Peace which they had put to flight.

That would have been to turn back on their way, for on the way we have to walk, not stand still. But, since your fathers would not come back, it is certain that they stood in the way of sinners. They, whose steps had been impelled by mad wickedness, were held back, bound and benumbed by the spirit of strife; and, that they might not be able to return to better things, themselves placed the shackles of schism upon themselves, so that with obstinacy they stood in their error, and were not able to come back to the Peace which they had deserted. Nor did they listen to the Holy Spirit speaking in the thirty-third Psalm:

but they stood in the way of their sins.

Your fathers also sat on the Chair of Pestilence, which, as we have said above, sends down to death those whom it has beguiled. But you, whilst by your zealous defence you pay homage to your fathers' error, have made yourselves the heirs of their wickedness, when you might have been, though late, the sons of Peace. For it has been written in the Prophet Ezekiel:

If you would disown your fathers' sin, they alone would have to give an account of their own deed. By acting thus, even you might be blessed and receive praise from the mouth of the Prophet, who says in the first Psalm:

What does it mean to have the 'will in the Law,' unless both to learn the divine precepts with piety, and fulfil them with fear to have the will set on that Law in which it has been written (in the Gospel):

and in another place (in Isaiah the Prophet 73):

and in another (the eighty-fourth Psalm):

and in yet another (the seventy-fifth Psalm):

and again (in the seventy-first Psalm):

and in the Gospel:

and Paul says:

and in all his epistles:

and in the thirty-third Psalm:

Peace had been put to flight by your fathers and departed. You ought to seek it as God has commanded, though, until now, you have neither been willing to seek it yourselves, nor to accept it, when it was freely offered to you.

For who is there in so many Provinces that has heard of whom you have been born, and (if there be anyone who had heard this) who is there that does not marvel at your error? Who is there that does not condemn your wickedness? Wherefore, since it is clear, yea, clearer than the light itself, that we are with so many peoples who cannot be numbered, and that so many countries are with us; whilst you see that you are to be found only in a portion of one country; and that you, by your errors, are separated from the Church; in vain do you claim for yourselves alone this name of the Church with her Endowments, which are rather with us than with you.

Now these Endowments are connected one with another, and are distinct, but in such a way, that it may be understood that one cannot be separated from another. For they are numerically distinct, but with one act of the mind we see them joined in their Body, as are the fingers on the hand each of which we perceive to be removed by spaces from the others. Therefore he who possesses one, must possess them all, since not one of them can be apart from its fellows.

We may add that we possess and that in the strictest sense not one Endowment alone, but all.

So, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other. Send him out if you can, and let him exclude from his communion seven angels, our colleagues in Asia, to whose churches wrote the Apostle John churches with which you cannot prove that you have any intercourse whatsoever.

On what ground, then, can you maintain that you possess an Angel able to move the Fountain, or one who, as such, can be numbered among the other Endowments of the Church?

Whatever is without the Seven Churches is alien. Supposing then that you really had even one Angel who belongs to the Church, through that one Angel you would be in communion with other Angels too, and through them with the above-mentioned Churches, and through these Churches with us also.

If these things be as I have stated them, you have lost your case.

Now perhaps you will see that the Endowments of the Church cannot be with you, for you cannot claim for yourselves alone the SPIRIT of God, nor can you shut up (in a small corner of Africa) Him whose Presence we recognise though we see it not. For so has it been written in the Gospel:

Permit God to come whence He willeth, and allow Him freedom to go where He pleaseth. He can be heard, but He cannot be seen. And yet, through your lust for calumny, you have been pleased to blaspheme and say:

Thou hast vomited forth thine invective and hast thought that thou mightest thus be able to strengthen thyself by producing testimony from the Gospel, where we read:

If this accusation unjust and groundless though it be had to be made at all, would that it had been made by any other of your party than yourself. Indeed I am lost in wonder that you, of all men, should have dared falsely to bring against another a charge, the very thought of which might well make you blush, were you but to consider your own Consecration. For you have reminded us that we read in the Gospel:

that is, to change his sect. As for you personally, I have no idea to what sect you previously belonged. But your quotation was unfortunate. I think that perhaps you are already sorry that you made it. Is it we who have travelled through any lands? Is it we who have compassed any seas? Is it we who have set sail to foreign ports? Is it we who have brought in a Spaniard or a Gaul? Have we consecrated a foreigner, not known to our people?

It is certain that the FOUNTAIN also is one of the Endowments, from which heretics can neither drink themselves, nor give others to drink. For, as they alone do not possess the SEAL, that is to say the Catholic Creed, in its integrity, they cannot open the true Fountain.

For since it has been written in the Canticle of Canticles:

you have tried to say that the Navel is the Altar. If the Navel be a member of the body, from the fact that it is a member, it cannot be amongst the Endowments. To be an Ornament, it must not be part of the body.

The Endowments then are seen to be Five. Since these Endowments belong to the Catholic Church (which is in so many countries already mentioned by us), they cannot be wanting to us here in Africa.

Understand, however late, that you are disobedient sons, that you are boughs broken off from the tree, that you are branches cut off from the vine, that you are a river separated from its source. For that stream which is small and which is derived from another cannot be the source. Nor can the tree be cut off from the branch, since the tree, which has been planted and is alive, has its own roots; whereas the branch, which has been cut off, withers and dies.

Now do you see, my brother Parmenian, now do you recognise, now do you understand, that by your arguments you have fought against yourself?

For it has been proved that we are in the Holy Catholic Church, who have too the Creed of the Trinity; and it has been shown that, through the Chair of Peter which is ours through it the other Endowments also belong to us.

Again, ours is the Sacerdotium, which you have affected to regard as in our case of no account by way of some excuse for your error and hatred in re-baptising after us though this you do not after your own people, even when they have been proved guilty of sin; for you have maintained that, if the priest be in sin, the Endowments are able to work alone.

So to answer you we have shown what is heresy, and what is schism, and which is the Holy Church, and that of this Holy Church there has been constituted a Representative, and that the Catholic Church is the Church which is scattered over the whole world (of which we amongst others are members), and that her Endowments are with her everywhere. We have also shown in our first Book that we cannot justly be reproached with the crime of Betrayal, and that this crime has been condemned not only by you, but by us also.

Now I should like you to tell me this. Why have you thought well to speak only of the Endowments of the Church, and have said nothing about her holy members and her inward organs, which without doubt are in the Sacraments and in the Names of the Trinity? These Names are met by Faith and its profession, recorded upon the Acts of the Angels; here are sown heavenly and spiritual seeds, so that, for those who are born again, a new nature may be procreated from a holy germ, and he who had once been born to the world may, where the Trinity meets Faith, be spiritually new-born to God.

In this way does God become the Father of men, thus does the Holy Church become their Mother.

I perceive that all these things have been left unmentioned by you, on purpose, lest in them all, the true principles of Baptism might be recognised, in which there is nothing that the human minister may, after your fashion, claim for himself.

For this reason you determined to occupy yourself with the Endowments alone, which you have denied to Catholics, vainly striving to claim them for yourselves exclusively, having clutched them, as it were in your hand, or shut them up in a box. Although the question is about regeneration, and man's renovation, you have made no mention either of Faith or of its profession by the Faithful. You determined rather to speak of the Endowments alone, and have passed over in silence all these things without which spiritual faith and reparation cannot exist. And although the Endowments belong to the Spouse, not the Spouse to the Endowments, you dealt with the Endowments as if life were given by them, not by the inward organs, which we understand to be rather in the Sacraments than in the Ornaments.

Nor do I pass over the fact that you have said openly that the Church is (as we believe) a Paradise a thing which without doubt is true a garden in which God sets His little trees. And yet you have denied to God His rich possessions by compressing His garden into a narrow corner, claiming without reason everything for yourselves alone. Surely the plantations of God, through different precepts, have different seeds. The just, the continent, the merciful, the virgins are spiritual seeds. Of these seeds God raises little plants in His Paradise. Grant to God that His garden be spread far and wide. Why do you deny to Him the Christian peoples of East and North, also those of all the provinces of the West and of innumerable islands with whom you share no fellowship of communion against whom you few in number and rebels are ranged, in isolation?

It is now time to condemn, as is only right, your falsehood, with which each day you season your Sacrifices. For who can doubt that you dare not pass over what is prescribed in the Mystery of the Sacraments? You say that you offer the Sacrifice to God on behalf of the Church, which is One. This in itself is part of your falsehood, to call that One, of which you have made Two. You proclaim that you sacrifice to God on behalf of the One Church, which has been spread throughout the whole world.

But what reply would you make were God to say to any one of you:

If we are displeasing to you, what wrong has the City of Antioch done you, or the Province of Arabia?

Yet we are able to prove that those who come from Antioch and Arabia have been rebaptised by you.

In one thing alone we cannot be ungrateful to you, my brother Parmenian. You have praised our Church (that is the Catholic, which is contained throughout the entire world) although you do not belong to her by enumerating her Endowments (mistaken though you are as to their number) and by teaching that she is a garden enclosed and a fountain sealed up, and the only Bride.

This we say of that which is our own; you have said, it of that which does not belong to you. Whatever you have been able to say in praise of the Church, we, before you, have said the same. We too, with you, condemn the Betrayers those men whom, if you remember, we have shown up in our first Book.

And although we are in communion with the whole [Catholic] world, and all the Provinces are in communion with us, you for some time past have thought well to provide two churches, as if Africa alone had Christian people that Africa in which, through your fault, two parties have been made! And you not remembering Christ, who says that His Spouse is One have said, not that there are two parties in Africa, but two Churches. Without doubt that Church is One, to which it has been granted to be pointed out by the Word of Christ, who says:

But you, having forgotten this, have used these words in order to stir up hatred against Catholics:

The Church has her own determinate members Bishops, priests, deacons, clerics, and the mass of the faithful. Tell us against which class of men in our Church the charge that you have thought well to bring can be proved. Name some cleric individually, point out some deacon by his name; show that this evil thing has been done by some priest; prove the guilt of Bishops. Make us see that any one of our people has plotted against any man. Who of us has persecuted any one? Who is there on your side, of whom you can either say or prove that he has been persecuted by us?

Unity displeases you.

So if you deem it to be a crime, convict us of being in communion with Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and the Seven Churches which are in Asia.

If it seems to you wicked or a proof of guilt to communicate with the 'shrines' of the Apostles and of all the Saints, far from denying this, we make it our boast.

But that I may show that to quote your words it was your party which

your rabid madness must now be described from its beginning; now the story of your wickedness must be related anew; now your folly must be proved.

First we have to show that the cause of your gladness ought to be your shame, and how wicked is your joy at having received liberty to return to your original wrongdoing.

Go over again the times that are past, enter into the sequence of events, consider how different were the persons concerned, and how different were their aims.

Recall Constantine the Christian Emperor to your memory. Think of the service which he rendered to God, and remember his ardent desire that schism should be removed, and all dissension die away, so that Holy Mother Church might see, rejoicing, her children throughout the world living in unity. He restored the unity of communion; he gave back wives to husbands, children to parents, brothers to brothers.

These are the things concerning which God bears witness that He is well pleased, when He says in the hundred and thirty-second Psalm:

For Peace in unity joined together the peoples of Africa and of the East, and the rest beyond the sea, and this unity itself, through the representation of all its members, made the Body of the Church solid. And then over this the Devil, whom it always tortures to see brethren living in peace, was sorely vexed.

At that time, under a Christian Emperor, Satan, as if shut up in the idols, lay abandoned in his temples. Your leaders too and first fathers had been sent, as they deserved; into banishment. In the Church there were no schisms. Pagans were not allowed their sacrilegious rites. Peace, beloved by God, dwelt amongst all Christian peoples. The devil mourned in his temples; you mourned in foreign lands.

Next, as is known to all men, there followed another Emperor, who, in conjunction with you, devised evil plans, and from the servant of God became the tool of God's enemy. His edicts bore him witness that he was an apostate. Yet this was the man whom you entreated to be allowed to return. If you deny that you sent such entreaties, we reply that we have read them. Nor did he whom you entreated make difficulties. He commanded you to come back, as you asked. For he knew well that you would come, with fierceness, to break up Peace.

If you have any shame, blush.

The same decree, which gave freedom to you, ordered the temples to be opened to their idols.

You returned, in your madness, to Africa almost at the moment when the devil was loosed from his dungeons.

Still you do not blush you who, at the same time as the Enemy, have reasons for rejoicing, which you share with him.

You came raging; you came full of wrath, rending the members of the Church; subtle in your deceits; savage in your slaughters, provoking the children of Peace to war. A large number you banished from their homes. Approaching with a hired band, you rushed upon the Basilicas. Many of your party throughout numerous districts (which it would be too long to mention by their names) worked massacres so bloody, that the judges of the time sent a report to the Emperor concerning deeds of such atrocity.

But the Judgement of God intervened and came to our aid, so that the Emperor who had already long ago ordered you to come back, and who, at your instigation, had arranged, or was even then arranging, for our persecution, died in the midst of his profanity and sacrileges.

Catholics were slaughtered in the above-mentioned districts. You remember how your people ran to and fro from place to place. Were not Felix of Zaba and Januarius of Flumenpiscinum of your party, and the others who rushed all together as swiftly as they could, to a fortified place called Lemella? So soon as they saw that the Basilica, notwithstanding their clamours, was closed against them, they commanded their followers to climb to the top, strip the roof, and throw down the tiles. These orders were executed without delay. In the defence of the altar, a number of Catholic deacons were wounded with tiles of whom two were killed Primus the son of Januarius, and Donatus the son of Ninus. Your fellow-Bishops, whose names I have just given, were present and urged them on, so that, without doubt, of your party has it been said:

Primosus, the Catholic Bishop of the place, complained of all this whilst you listened disingenuously to his complaints at your Council held in the City of Theneste.

See then how you did the things, of which you have said:

and again you have said:

What in your hatred you bring as a charge against us was done by others, not by us; that which you say ought not to have been done, has been done by you.

You have recalled how the most blessed Apostle Paul has said that the Church ought to be without wrinkle and without stain. In the presence, and at the order, of your Bishops, Catholic deacons were slain over the altar.

The same things happened also at Carpi. Do not such deeds appear to you indelible stains? When you came into the cities of Mauritania, the people were overwhelmed with dread, so that children who were near to birth died in their mothers' wombs. Does not this seem to you to be a 'wrinkle' such as cannot be stretched or made smooth by any reparation whatsoever? What have we done of such a character as this? We wait for the vengeance of God.

And yet you create a prejudice against Macarius, although anything that he may have done with harshness on behalf of unity may well be regarded as of light account, when compared with these monstrous, bitter, bloodstained acts of war done by you on behalf of dissension. Why should I mention Tipasa, a city of Mauritania Caesariensis, whither rushed from Numidia Urban of Forma and Felix of Idicra, two burning torches, set on fire by hatred? These men upset the minds of quiet people, who were established in unity, and, aided by the favour and fury of certain officials, in the very presence of Athenias the magistrate, with colours flying, broke up the Catholic assemblies, with bloodshed. Catholics were driven out from their homes. Their men were wounded. Their women were dragged into captivity. Their infants were slain. Mothers miscarried.

Look now at your church. Under the guidance of its Bishops it

After all this, you have gone on to say:

What, then, has happened to the common saying that a liar should have his memory in due keeping? Have you forgotten what you said a moment before, that in the Canticle of Canticles

If yours is the One Church, the Dove is One. What then did you mean by saying that

Moreover, a hideous crime (which seems to you something of little importance) was committed, in such a fashion that your above-mentioned fellow-Bishops profaned everything which is most holy. They commanded the Eucharist to be cast to the dogs. This did not pass without evidence of the Divine Judgement, for these same dogs were inflamed with madness, and tore their own masters in pieces as though they had been murderers, and attacked with avenging teeth those guilty of the Holy Body, as if they had been strangers and enemies.

They also threw a phial of chrism out of a window, in order to break it, and although its fall was precipitated by violence, an angel's hand was there to bring it down gently to earth, with the support that is from heaven. Though thrown away, it was not allowed to feel its fall, but, by the protection of God, found its home unbroken amongst the rocks.

You never could have done such things as these, if you had borne in mind the Commands of Christ, who has said:

Could the makers of Unity have done anything of a like nature, out of which you might labour to create a baseless prejudice against us Catholics?

Urban of Forma and Felix of Idicra, when they came back, found that nuns whom they had seduced from their state of chastity had become mothers. Such, my brother Parmenian, is the character of the Bishops, whose deeds you cover up; and, when you ought to be blushing for your own sins, you bring charges against innocent Catholics.

At this time the above-mentioned Bishop Felix, amongst his other crimes and horrible misdeeds, seized a young maiden to whom he himself had given the veil by whom he had a short time before been called by the name of Father and did not hesitate in the least to be guilty of shameless incest. And, as if, through his sin, he had been made holy, he went with haste to Tysedis! There he ventured to rob of the episcopal name and office and honour Donatus, a Bishop seventy years of age, against whom no charge could be brought. The Catholic Bishop was approached by the schismatic, the innocent by the guilty, the priest of God by one steeped in sacrilege, the chaste by the incestuous. The Bishop was attacked by one no longer a Bishop, who, relying upon the decrees and conspiracy of your party, and armed by your laws and your commands, cast those hands which a short time before had been made heavy by sins, upon the head of the innocent, and dared to let judgement fall from that tongue of his, which was not now worthy even to be allowed to do penance. See, my brother Parmenian, the sort of persons whom you defend; see the kind of men they are, on whose behalf you have, this long while, maintained that the Endowments of the Church are working.

Will you then you who wish men to think you holy and innocent tell me this whence comes this sanctity of yours, which you too freely claim for yourselves a sanctity which the Apostle John does not dare to profess, when he writes:

He who spoke thus kept himself, with wisdom, prepared for the grace of God.For it belongs to a Christian man to will what is good, and to run the course which he has rightly willed. But it is not given to man to bring to perfection; so that after the stages, which a man can go, there remains something for God with which He may meet man's deficiency. For He alone is perfection; and perfect alone is Christ, the Son of God. We, the others, are all half-perfect; for it is ours to will, it is ours to run, but it is God's to make perfect. So the most blessed Apostle Paul has written:

For perfect sanctity has not been given, but promised, by Christ our Saviour. Thus He says:

So that He alone is perfect and holy. He did not say 'You are holy' but He did say

With what reason then do you, in your pride, claim for yourselves perfect holiness, except it be to make it clear that you deceive yourselves, and that the truth is not in you?

You have been unwilling to live in the school of John, for, when you lead some astray, you promise them that you will grant them forgiveness of their sins; and, when you are pleased to forgive sins, you profess your own innocence and bestow forgiveness of sins, in such a manner as though you had no sin yourselves. This in you is not presumption [merely]; it is deception. This is not truth; it is a falsehood. For it is only a moment after you have laid your hands upon the heads of others and pardoned their crimes, that you turn to the altar, and are unable to pass over the Lord's Prayer. Then no doubt you say:

What ought you to be called when you confess your own sins, if you are holy when you forgive the sins of others? In this way do you deceive yourselves, and the truth is not in you.

But it is clear that this is dictated to you by your nursing mother Pride, as Christ bears witness in the Gospel. Although He did not mention your names, still He pointed out your character by a parable. For thus has it been written:

The evidence itself clearly shows that, when you puff yourselves up as holy, and plainly and openly despise us, this has been said of you. Two men, He said, went up into the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a Publican. The Pharisee swollen out, proud, puffed up, such as we see you too to be, his body not humbled, his neck not bent, but with raised countenance and swelling breast cried aloud:

This is to say to God:

O wildness of a madman! O pride that must be punished and condemned! God is prepared to pardon and the guilty one hastens to reject forgiveness. The Publican in his humility, recognising that he was a man, besought in this manner:

Thus did he deserve to be justified; thus did pride go down from the Temple, condemned in the Pharisee your teacher.

More tolerable is it to find sins where there is humility, than innocence where there is pride.

But you, though you are burdened with the heavy sins of Betrayal and Schism, take credit to yourselves that you are proud as well!

Now that we have proved that you ought to blush with shame for those things at which you rejoice, and have shown with what mad rage you conducted yourselves in so many places, something should be said about the depth of your impiety. For who ever will be able to explain the crimes that have been done, or those that are being actually done, by you? It is clear that, with a certain wicked ingenuity, you arranged all your plans in such a way as by one bad action to accomplish different results. For example, when a priest or a Bishop was removed by you from his post, you saw to it that you might capture all his flock. How could a mass of men stand firm when they saw you tear their ruler from them? In this manner is it always that, after the shepherd has by some misfortune been killed, wolves set upon the sheep. You exorcised the Faithful, and without reason washed the walls of the churches, that by wickedness of this kind you might undermine the minds of very simple people. By such evil designs as these you throttled the intelligence of not a few, and having disguised the light of your cunning by covering it all under a cloud of feigned simplicity, you shot arrows from your quiver, to lay low the miserable by the seductions that your hearts contrived. Even as the Holy Ghost foretold of you, through David the Prophet, in the Psalm:

In what way have your deeds fallen short of your plans? You have shot the innocent, you have disarmed the faithful. Bishops have been stripped of the office belonging to their title. O unheard-of impiety, upon whom have you laid your cut-throat hands, to keep them amongst the torments of Penance?

The savagery of highway robbers is seen to be a thing of less account, when compared with the deeds that you have done. The robber gives those whom he murders a quick death; you slay your victim, yet leave him amongst the living. Those whom you have succeeded in deceiving have been entrapped through the weakness of their understanding, for they who had been ordained in the Name of God had, by God's own work, been made perfect [in their office]. And you fight fiercely against the work of God, destroying His work by the engines of your wickedness.

It is clear, therefore, that of you it has been written in the tenth Psalm:

Your impiety has filled you with pride, but

accuses you; whilst on earth men praise you with mistaken praise for doing wickedness, so that of you the Holy Ghost has said in the ninth Psalm:

What greater iniquity than yours can there be found to be praised? What is there more iniquitous than to exorcise the Holy Ghost, to break down altars, to cast the Eucharist to animals? Yet your people praise you and thus do they plunge you into folly call you fortunate, and name you for good luck, and swear by your name, and so are seen already to treat your persons as though you were God.

Men are accustomed to use the Name of God when they swear, as a pledge of their truthfulness, but your party, when they swear by you, keep silence about God and Christ. If the worship due to God has passed from Heaven to you (as would seem from the fact that men swear by you), then let none of you or your party fall sick! Then refuse to die; give orders to the clouds: draw down the rain, if you can, that they may swear even more freely in your name, and may keep silence about God. For what could the Devil effect more by the hands of your people, than he did in the ages that are past, when he caused his temples to be built and his idols to be fashioned excepting this, that silence should be kept about God, whilst men in their foolishness speak of him alone.

O sacrilege heaped upon impiety! You gladly listen to men swearing by you, but refuse your ears to the voice of God in the hundred and fourth Psalm, when He says:

That both kings and priests are God's Anointed is shown by the books of Kings and also by David, saying in the hundred and thirty-second Psalm:

You, on the contrary, have striven against God to despise His precepts, as earnestly as they who fear God strive to keep His Commandments. Tell us, where is your authority for scraping the heads of priests, when there are so many examples to the contrary, showing that this may not be done? Saul, before he sinned, received the grace of being anointed. After his anointing, he sinned grievously. God, when He saw this, wishing to give us an example not to touch the Oil, professed His repentance. For we read that the Lord spoke thus:

Yet surely God might have taken away the Oil which He had bestowed; but, since He wished to teach that the Oil should not be touched even in a sinner, He who had given it, declared that it repented Him. If then God, in order to teach you, could not (because He would not) take away that which He had given, who are you to take away what you did not give?

And when you ought to have opened your ears to listen, you prepared your razor for sin. When you ought to have been the sons of God, you preferred to be the sons of men, and, in order to bite into other men's offices, turned your teeth into arrows and arms. You sharpened your tongues into swords; you fulfilled that which was written of you in the fifty-sixth Psalm:

So you have sharpened your tongues into swords with which you slew not the bodies of men, but their dignities; you have destroyed not their members, but their titles. What boots it for those to live, who have been slain by you in their office? Their members are indeed whole and sound, but they carry about the corpse of the dignity which you have scratched away. For you stretched forth your hand and placed the death-bearing Veils upon every head; so that whilst there are (as I have said above) four kinds of heads in the Church Bishops, priests, deacons, and the Faithful, yon have not spared one.

You have overturned the souls of men. God holds these actions of yours up to detestation in Ezekiel the Prophet, when He says:

that is, who place your hands

You have found boys, you have wounded them with Penance, so that none of them might be ordained.

You have found old men amongst the Faithful, you have made them do Penance.

You have found deacons, priests, Bishops, you have made them as laymen.

He, upon whose head thou hast now endeavoured to lay thine hands, had, for a long time, been thy fellow and companion. You were once wont to run together. Guilty he was not but let us assume his guilt.

In that case, as thou thinkest, he has fallen. See then (if thou hast read the Apostle) to Whom thou dost stand, and let him see, to Whom he has fallen. If thou art a servant, recognise thy Lord, and understand that he who, a short time ago, ran together with thee, to thee has not fallen. Why dost thou invade Another's power, why dost thou in thy rashness ascend the tribunal of God? And though thyself art guilty, darest to pass judgement upon another? Yet thou hast read:

Who then art thou to judge Another's servant?

That you have no right to touch the Oil bestowed by God upon a Bishop, you ought to have learnt from David the servant of God, who was anointed by Samuel, with the condition that what had already been given to Saul, should by no means be taken away. When, through the command, or the providence, of God, they were shut up together in one cave, Saul, who had sinned, came into the power of the youth David. Saul, although he sees not, is seen, because (as usually happens to one that passes from the light of day) he was not able, in the darkness of the shut-in-air, to see the other who was near him. A great army followed the old king. Still he had fallen into the power of another. David had the chance of victory in his hands. Without effort he might have slain his incautious adversary who was wrapt in security. Without bloodshed, and the clash of arms, he might have summarily changed war into slaughter. The opportunity was there. His soldiers were in favour of this course. The situation urged him on to snatch a victory. Already he commenced to draw his sword. His armed hand was now reaching for his enemy's throat. But the remembrance of the divine commands completely blocked the way. He fought against the persuasion of his soldiers, and resisted the fitness of the circumstances, as if he had said:

He wished to conquer his foe, but desired even more to keep the commands of the Lord.

He checked his hand and his sword he feared to violate the Oil; he saved his enemy; and, that he might accomplish his duty towards his King to the end, after his death took up his defence.

You neither fear God, nor regard those who are your brethren. You have sharpened the razors of your tongue upon the whetstone of your malice, and, trampling underfoot the precepts of Heaven, have rushed upon the heads of miserable men, that, after you had slain their leaders, you might drag them in their blindness and ignorance into bondage. You hunger after the dignities of innocent priests, with a hunger so furious that you have made open sepulchres of your throats. For each separate sepulchre one funeral is enough, and then it is closed. For your throats many funerals of many dignities have not by any means been enough. They still remain open, seeking whom they may devour. So that with reason was it said of you:

for with cursing you are beforehand, though it has been written:

If any man has done anything against your will, you threaten him with horrors and foul menaces; and then, since some there are who deserve more evil than good, you attribute to your bitter curses whatever has befallen them from the Judgement of God, or is the just result of their sins. With reason was it said of you in the thirteenth Psalm:

You boast that some men have been known to die after you have cursed them.

It is certain that it is not lawful to kill. On this account do you hold yourselves innocent, merely because you have not used cold steel? If there be no murder without steel, the poisoner, also, may judge himself to be innocent; and a man need not deem himself guilty who has killed another by withdrawing his food; he also, then, may claim to be guiltless who smothers his victim still clinging to life by stifling his breath. Of murders there are many kinds, but the name of Death is one. Thou dost declare with confidence that a man has died through thy curses. What difference does it make whether thou smitest him with the sword, or dost strike him with the tongue? Beyond doubt thou art a murderer, if a man, who was alive, has met his death through thee.

Whoever of thy party has thus acted professes in vain that he is a Christian, or a priest of God, for he takes no care to imitate the Mildness of God, though it is written in Solomon:

I do not believe that you are able to forget the crimes that you have committed throughout several districts, where you set to work to slay those who were preaching the Law of God, that is to say, His Prophets, contrary to His command, who says:

Deuterius, Partenius, Donatus and Getulicus, Bishops of God, you slew with the sword of your tongue. You shed the blood, not of their body, but of their dignity. Afterwards they still lived, but were slain by you in their dignities they who were Priests of God.

It is known to many (and has been proved) that in the time of persecution some Bishops fell away through cowardice from the confession of the Name of God, and offered incense to idols. But never did any one of those who remained faithful either place his hand [in Penance] upon the fallen, or command them to bend their knees [as penitents]. Yet you today do to those who preserved Unity that which was never done by any man to those who offered incense to idols. For it has been written;

God avenges the Oil which is His own, for the sin belongs to man, but the unction to God. 'Touch not,' He says, 'Mine Anointed,' in order that when the sin of man is punished, the Oil, which is God's, be subjected to no indignity. God has reserved to His own Judgement that which is His own, but you everywhere rush upon that which is Another's, and destroy the happiness of all. For, what greater unhappiness, than for priests of God to live, and not be what they once had been?

Matrons, together with boys and virgins, although they had committed no sin, were compelled by you to learn to do Penance, with you for their instructors, whilst they still remained in possession of their innocence and modesty. Is this a small unhappiness? You have destroyed both sexes; you have harassed all ages. Truly of you has it been said in the thirteenth Psalm:

You have prescribed Penance for the people. It was not performed voluntarily by any man, but it was enforced by you, nor did you inflict it equally, for the same periods of time, but arranged everything with respect of persons. By your command one person did Penance for a whole year, another for a month, yet another for hardly a day.

If to consent to unity is (as you will have it) a sin, if it is the same fault in all, why is there not the same Penance for the same guilt?

There is no doubt that the people who believe have been called Israel, and that the Faithful, one by one, are the daughters of Israel, that is, those who see God with their mind, and have faith in God. Yet you have compelled these people to bend and incline their necks, have joined their heads in a row, and made of them a crowd of penitents.

These are the Faithful over whom God grieves, saying, by the mouth of Ezekiel the Prophet: 'Woe to you, daughters of Israel who mend pillows,' appurtenances of the neck, to place them under the elbow and under the hand that is, under your elbows and under your hands, when you stretch the veils of Penance over the heads of these men and women.

The extent of your wickedness and rage I have now set forth, and I have pointed out your pride.

It remains to make clear your folly also, but this I will do in my Sixth Book.

The Four Reasons on Account of which it was not possible to bring about unity without Severity.

• Because the Schismatics had built Churches that were not wanted.
• Because Donatus of Carthage had appealed to the Emperor to bring about Unity.
• Because Donatus of Bagaia collected Bands of Armed Men to stop the Work of Unity.
• Because none of those Things with which the Work of Unity has been reproached came to pass in Opposition to the Will of God.

I have written in my second Book (as I think, at sufficient length) concerning the Church, which is the Bride of Christ, and about her Endowments, and of the Saviour's inheritance. It remains for me to show, in the first place, the errors of the schismatics; secondly, to point out how it came to pass that unity was enforced; and thirdly, to prove who brought it about that an armed force was sent.

That much severity was shown by the makers of unity cannot be denied. But why impute this to Leontius, Macarius or Taurinus? Ascribe it rather to your own ancestors, who, as the prophet has written, 'have themselves eaten sour grapes, that your teeth may be set on edge.'

They are primarily responsible, who divided the people of God and built basilicas which were not wanted.

Secondly, Donatus of Carthage ought to be blamed, for it was in consequence of his appeal that an attempt was made to enforce unity at the next opportunity.

Thirdly, Donatus of Bagaia, who got together a mob of madmen, so that Macarius asked for the help of an armed force, in order to protect himself and the interests which had been committed to his care.

Then came armed men 'with their quivers,' and 'every town was filled with those who shout.' Unity was proclaimed, and you all 'took to flight.' To no man was it said 'Deny God'; to none was the commandment given 'Burn the Scriptures'; to none was it said 'Place incense in the censer'; or 'Pull down the basilicas.' These are the commands which give birth to martyrs. Unity was proclaimed. There were merely exhortations that the people should assemble in one place, to pray together to God and His Christ. At first there were no threats; no one had seen a weapon or a prison; there were, as I have said, exhortations merely. Yet you were all filled with fear; you fled; you trembled so that which has been written in the fifty-second Psalm was certainly said of you:

Then all your Bishops, with their clergy, 'took to flight.' Some died. The 'more hardy' were 'captured and banished to a distance.'

Still, none of these things was done at our instigation, none by our advice, none with our privity, none by our aid. They were all done through the grief of God, (who grieved bitterly) to punish your sin against |the water of Baptism which, contrary to His command, you had moved a second time, drawing to yourselves, as it were, the water of the ancient pool. I know not whether it contained that Fish by which is understood Christ, the Fish captured, as we read in the book of the Patriarch Tobias captured in the River Tigris, of which the gall and the liver were taken by [young] Tobias as a protection for his wife Sara, and to give sight to his father in his blindness that Fish through the entrails of which Asmodeus, the devil, was put to flight by Sara the maiden (by whom is understood the Church), and blindness was removed from Tobias. This is that Fish, which in Baptism, through the Invocation of God, is placed in the waters of the font, so that what had been water is, from the Fish, also called 'piscina.'

This is that Fish, the name of which in Greek contains in its one name alone, through each of its letters, a number of holy names, ΙΧΘΥΣ, that is to say in Latin, Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Salvator Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour. This 'piscina,' which in the whole Catholic Church throughout the world is joyfully filled with saving waters for the life of the human race, you have drawn away according to your own wills; and have made null that one only Baptism (through which walls have been built up for the protection of men ), and have made as it were other walls, building an unworthy building, since you have not been able to build up without throwing down.

And what kind of building can that be which is built out of a ruin? This it is over which God grieves and weeps, through the prophet Isaiah, saying that the daughter of His people (generis) was laid low. For it is the genus of God to have no genus. He is of Himself, and He remaineth for ever. And like to Him in this is the water, of which we do not read that it was created. To avenge the injury done to this water, God points out His Tears, which you have caused Him. These He declares can be dried by no consolation, addressing you by Isaiah His prophet:

In this passage our innocence is defended, whilst God with grief makes clear His wrath against you, giving the cause and alleging the reason.

Besides, He does not say 'in Sion,' for it is not in the whole of Sion, but only in its valley that judgements were delivered. Not that Mount Sion which in Syrian Palestine is separated by only a small river from the walls of Jerusalem, on the summit of which there is not the great plain, on which were the seven synagogues, whither the Jewish people might assemble and learn the law given to Moses but where no lawsuits were heard and no judgements were given by any, for it was a place of teaching, not of controversial discussion. (If anything of this sort had to be done, it was done within the walls of Jerusalem.) Therefore was it written in Isaiah the prophet:

It was not therefore on this Mount Sion that Isaiah beheld the valley, but on the holy mountain, that is the Church, which has reared her head throughout all the Roman world, beneath the whole expanse of Heaven.

This is the mountain on which the Son of God rejoices that He is made King by God the Father, saying:

that is, over the Church, of which He is King and Spouse and Head not on the hill [in Palestine], where there were no gates beloved by God, but on the mount, by which the Church is spiritually signified. The gates of this Church are entered by the innocent, the just and the merciful, by the pure of heart, and the virgins. These are the gates of which the Holy Ghost makes mention, through David, in the eighty-sixth Psalm, when He says:

not the gates of that material mountain, where now, after the triumphs of the Emperor Vespasian, there are no gates, and scarce any traces of its ancient ruins are to be found.

Wherefore, the spiritual Sion is the Church, in which Christ was made King by God the Father that is in the whole world, where there is One Catholic Church... for the most holy prophet David bears witness in another place also that Sion is the Church:

We understand the various provinces of the whole world to represent the various valleys of the mountain. And since Isaiah had not his vision of the whole mountain, but of one valley, that means in Africa alone, for in Africa alone your fathers were pleased to build fresh temples, although the first were amply sufficient. In Africa alone walls were cast down, and in order that walls might be made the water of the holy font was turned to a wrong purpose, and novelty was introduced by you against antiquity, and water of human origin was provided, against that which is divine.

Chiding the valley of Sion, God challenges all this, demanding:

Elamites in the Latin tongue are called choirs of the camps. And he goes on to say:

This has happened in Africa alone, and God pointed out for what reason all this was done, blaming you with these words:

So you see, my brother Parmenian, that you, by whose first fathers the seed of all these things was sown, find yourselves burdened with the crop.

Secondly, Donatus of Carthage was responsible, for through his poisonous wiles the question of [effecting] unity was first mooted.

I shall be able to show that the makers of unity did nothing at our instigation, nor of their own wickedness, but that everything happened through provocatory causes, which were set in motion by Donatus of Carthage, in his lightness of heart, and were due to the actions of individuals controlled by him, whilst he was struggling to be thought great. Is there anyone that can be ignorant of all this excepting yourself; for, since you were a stranger, they have been able to get you to believe idle fables?

Again, who can deny a fact, to which the whole of Carthage is the leading witness, that the Emperor Constans did not originally send Paul and Macarius to bring about unity, but to be his almoner, in order that the poor people in the various churches might be afforded assistance, by means of which they might breathe anew, be clothed, fed, and rejoice?

But when they came to Donatus, your father, and told him why they had come, he, as was usual with him, fell into a rage, and burst out with these words:

And, from the fountain of his levity, he poured forth torrents of reproaches no less evil-sounding than those with which he had once upon a time not hesitated to assail the prefect Gregory calling him 'Gregory, the stain upon the Senate, the disgrace of Prefects,' and the like. Gregory replied to him with patience worthy of a Bishop. Copies of these letters exist and are in the mouths of many chanted everywhere. Then Donatus against the commands of the Apostle Paul planned to do a wrong to those in high places, and to kings, on behalf of whom, if he had listened to the Apostle, he would have prayed every day, since this is the teaching of the blessed Apostle Paul:

For the State is not in the Church, but the Church is in the State, that is to say, in the Roman Empire, which Christ calls Libanus in the Canticle of Canticles, saying:

that is to say, from the Roman Empire, where are the holy offices of the priesthood, and modesty and virginity, which exist not amongst foreign peoples, and which, if they did exist, could not be safe from outrage. With reason does Paul teach us that we must pray for kings and powers, even though the Emperor be living a pagan life. How much more, then, if he be a Christian how much more if he fears God, and is pious, and full of mercy, as facts prove this one to have been?

For he had sent ornaments to the Houses of God, he had sent alms for the poor, nothing to Donatus! Why, then, did Donatus act like a madman? Why was he full of anger? Why did he refuse the gifts which had been sent? For when the commissioners announced that they were going through the different provinces, and that they would give alms to those who were Mailing to accept them, he declared that he had sent letters everywhere in advance to forbid that anything which had been brought should be distributed anywhere amongst the poor. Oh, this is the way to console the wretched, to provide for the needs of the poor, to come to the aid of sinners! God cries out:

Not that He was unable to give to the poor man also. But, if He had given to the poor as well as to the rich, the sinner would not be able to discover any means of helping himself. On this account has it been written that:

It is certain that both are now with God the one who wished to give, and the other who stood in the way of his giving. Well, if God were now to say to Donatus 'O Bishop, what do you wish to make out Constants to have been? If he was innocent, why would you not receive from an innocent giver? If he was a sinner, why did you not permit aims to be given by him, for whose sake I made the poor man?' When questioned after this fashion, what sort of face will he show? Why in his levity and madness did he work so hard to keep good things from so many poor people?

He believed that he held dominion over Carthage; and since there is no one superior to the Emperor excepting God alone (who made the Emperor), Donatus, in raising himself above the Emperor, had already, as it were, passed the boundaries apportioned to humanity, so that he almost regarded himself, not as man, but as God, when he refused to revere him, who, after God, was feared by mankind.

Finally, the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, rebukes the prince of Tyre, that is to say, the prince of Carthage, with these words:

That Tyre is Carthage is shown, in the first place, by Isaiah, when, after describing the vision of Tyre, he goes on:

In the second place this is also proved by profane literature, and, if there be any other city called by this name, there is no other in which any of those things were done which are known to have been done at Carthage.

'Speak,' says the Lord, 'against the prince of Tyre.' He does not command the prophet to speak against any secular king, nor was he to speak to many, but to one that is to Donatus, Bishop of Carthage. For it was not fitting for Ezekiel, whose words I have just quoted, to compare to any man, excepting to a prince, that Bishop who claimed for himself (as we have said) princedom over Carthage, who puffed up his heart, and thought himself to be superior to men and wished to have even all his own colleagues beneath him from whose offerings he would never deign to accept aught. Now, his conscience, and Christ his God bear witness to this and the complaints of many. For in his very intercourse with others, he did them this wrong, that he acted in some secret way or other, alone by himself, and afterwards only in a perfunctory manner mingled with the rest.

In this fashion was his heart puffed up, so that in the end he seemed to himself no longer to be man, but God.

Moreover, in the mouths of the people he was seldom called a Bishop, but was spoken of as 'Donatus of Carthage.' And deservedly was he both addressed and chided as Prince of Tyre (that is of Carthage), because he was the first of the Bishops, as though he were something more than the rest. And whilst he wished to have nothing common to mankind, he lifted up his heart, not like the heart of a man, but like the heart of a god, since he desired to be something more than other men.

But God follows after Donatus with these words:

For though he did not make use of this expression, still he either himself accomplished, or suffered, that which would bring about its result. He puffed up his heart in such a way as to think that no other man ought to be compared with him, and, in the swelling of his own mind, he seemed to himself to be something higher than the others. Since whatever is above men, in a sort of way is God.

Besides, whereas Bishops ought to serve God, he demanded so much for himself from his Bishops, that they all had to venerate him with no less fear than they venerated God because to himself he seemed to be God. And though men are wont to swear by God alone, he allowed men to swear by him, as if by God. If this were done by any man in mistake, it was his duty to forbid it. As, then, he did not forbid it, to himself he seemed to be God. Again, whilst all those who believed in Christ were, before the day of his insolence, called Christians, he ventured to divide the people with God, so that those who followed him were no longer called Christians, but Donatists, and when any people visited him from any province of Africa, he did not ask those questions (which the custom of men always calls for) about the weather, about peace and war, about the harvest, but to everyone who came into his presence, he spoke thus:

As though he had now really divided the people with God, so that, without faltering, he dared to call it his 'party.' For, from his time to the present day, whenever any action is brought before the public courts on ecclesiastical affairs; all [of his sect] have, on being questioned (as we read in the records of the proceedings), spoken in such a way as to assert that they belong to the party of Donatus. Concerning Christ they kept silence. And what am I to say of their clergy, when I read the petition which (as I have stated in the first book) was sent to Constantine, subscribed by Bishops in this manner: 'Given by Capito and by Nasutius, Dignus, and the other Bishops of the party of Donatus'? They, we know, made their complaints against Bishops, who, whilst they did not belong to the party of Donatus, dwelt in the Catholic Church of Christ.

Since, then, Donatus did not live as a Bishop amongst his fellow-Bishops, and refused to be a man amongst men, it is certain that he puffed up his heart and seemed to himself to be God. And as for the Bishops by whom you were consecrated, their names, my brother Parmenian, are well known to you, and you know also where they lived, and which of them made a petition to return home in your company. You know, too, who it was to whom they made this petition, and you know his character. Now, all this we have learned through their having brought before the judges in Africa this same old petition in which they had written: 'Given by the Bishops of the party of Donatus.'

What reply, I ask, will they make in the approaching Judgement of God, since they in this world acknowledged equivalently that they belonged, not to the Church of Christ, but freely confessed that they were of the party of Donatus, though it is written in the Gospel that Christ has said:

These men confessed, not Christ, but Donatus.

That the evidence by which clearly to identify the person of Donatus might be by no means scanty there is yet another proof, with which the above-mentioned accusation was closed. God had said that Donatus would not die upon the earth. That this is the case is known to all. He dwelt in the house of God, but lived in the heart of the sea. We read that the sea always signifies the world. It was not enough for him to be beloved by some Christian people, but, by reason of his acquaintance with worldly letters, he was also in the heart of the sea, that is, was beloved by the world, and on account of his knowledge seemed to himself to be wise. But of this wisdom of his God made little, saying:

With how great reason, and how well, has been humbled that wisdom of his, which made him think himself wiser than was Daniel (when he refused the gifts of the King), and would not accept that which had been sent by a Christian Emperor. And he seemed to himself to be a new Daniel, or to have been raised above Daniel in wisdom, for we read that Daniel, when he was once required to receive presents from King Balthassar a ring; a chain and the rest answered thus:

He answered with wisdom, and did not hurl abuse at the King, and did not blame him for what he offered, but put the matter off for a while.

Quite otherwise Donatus, who both spoke to Constans as abusive words as he knew how, and refused what had been destined for the poor. We can see the wisdom of holy Daniel in not accepting that day the gifts that were offered him. For the question that they asked him was still [known only] in Heaven, and it would have been the act of a fool to receive any kind of reward for that which he had not yet in his power to reveal. Therefore he was for the time unwilling to accept these presents. Afterwards, when God showed him what he should say to the King, he told it to Balthassar, and, later on, gladly accepted that which he was known formerly to have rejected. Deservedly, therefore, does God rebuke the Prince of Tyre (that is Donatus), when He asks him:

But oh! how far removed is the presumption of Donatus from the character of Daniel! For what Balthassar gave, he gave to Daniel, not to the poor; but that which Constans, the Christian Emperor, had sent, he had sent to the poor, not to Donatus.

So to Donatus God said:

for thou hast refused to learn from the words of Solomon:

Moreover, he would not learn from Daniel himself the lesson which Daniel gave to Nebuchadnezzar, as to how one who had offended God might make satisfaction:

Daniel advised a king, who was a sinner and sacrilegious, to give alms. Donatus, who has deserved to be blamed, hindered Constans, a Christian Emperor, from doing deeds of mercy. Therefore is he blameworthy, because wise men have not taught him their wisdom, for he did not suffer the gifts sent by this King to be distributed through his hands.

From all these things it is certain that Donatus was the fountain from which flowed the causes of the evils which ensued.

So, you see, my brother Parmenian, to whose charge any severity that may have occurred in the work of bringing about unity ought to be attributed. You say that an armed force was asked for by us Catholics. If so, how is it that no one at that time ever saw an armed soldier in the proconsular Province?

Paul and Macarius came in order to console the poor everywhere, and exhort everyone individually to unity. But when they drew near to the city of Bagaia, then it was that the second Donatus (as we have already written) who was the Bishop of that city, in his desire to oppose an obstacle to unity, and to place a check in the way of the above-mentioned legates of the Emperor, sent his heralds through the neighbourhood, and especially to all the fairs, and called upon his fighting dervishes to come in a body to a place which he had fixed for them. So it was that at that juncture those men were called together, whose madness had been deemed by these same Bishops, only a short time previously, to have been set on fire by their wickedness.

For when men of this sort were, before the attainment of unity, wandering about in every place, and in their insanity called Axido and Fasir 'Captains of the Saints,' no man could rest secure in his possessions. Written acknowledgments of indebtedness had lost their value. At that time no creditor was free to press his claim, and all were terrified by the letters of these fellows, who boasted that they were 'Captains of the Saints.' If there was any delay in obeying their commands, of a sudden a host of madmen flew to the place. A reign of terror was established. Creditors were hemmed in with perils, so that they who had a right to be supplicated on account of that which was due to them, were driven, through fear of death, to be themselves the humble suppliants. Very soon everyone lost what was owing to him even to very large amounts, and held himself to have gained something in escaping from the violence of these men.

Even journeys could not be made with perfect safety, for masters were often thrown out of their own chariots and forced to run, in servile fashion, in front of their own slaves, seated in their lord's place. By the judgement and command of these outlaws, the condition of masters and slaves was completely reversed.

So when the Bishops of your party were reproached [with this state of affairs], they are said to have written to Taurinus, who was at the time in possession of civil authority, saying that as men of this class could not be corrected by the Church, they requested that they should be punished by the above-mentioned officer.

In answer to this letter Taurinus ordered an armed force to go through the fairs, where these mad vagrants were accustomed to wander about.

In the district round Octavum a large number were put to death, of whom many were beheaded. Even to the present day we may count their bodies by the whitened altars or tables. When the custom was introduced of burying some in the basilicas, the priest Clarus in the district of Subula was required by his Bishop to undo the burial. Through this it came to be known that what was done had been done through a command, when not even burial in the House of God was permitted them.

Afterwards the numbers of these fanatics had once more increased; so Donatus of Bagaia found the means of getting together from them a furious horde with which to oppose Macarius.

Of the same class were those who, out of desire for a false martyrdom, hired men to strike and kill them to their own destruction. From amongst these also they were drawn who cast themselves down headlong from the summits of lofty mountains, throwing away their good-for-nothing lives.

See the character of these men, from whom a Bishop, the second Donatus, provided himself with cohorts!

Alarmed, then, at this state of terror, those who had brought the treasure to distribute amongst the poor, conceived the plan, in such extreme necessity, of asking for soldiers from the Prefect Silvester, not to do violence to anyone, but to put an end to the violence which had been arranged by the above-mentioned Bishop Donatus.

In this way did it come to pass that soldiers were seen in arms. Now, consider to whom it is right, or possible, to attribute that which followed afterwards. The fanatics had got together an enormous horde, and it is known that they had prepared an ample commissariat. They had turned a basilica into a sort of public granary, where they awaited those upon whom they might expend their savagery; and they would have done whatever their madness might have urged, had not the presence of an armed force stood in their way.

For, when quartermasters were, as is usual, sent ahead of the soldiers, they were not received with due respect contrary to the command of the Apostle, who says

Those who had been sent on horseback were maltreated by the men whose names you have blown about with the fan of hatred. They were the authors of their own wrongs, and. by their example, through the injuries which they inflicted upon others, brought upon themselves whatever sufferings they may have endured. The soldiers who had been thus molested went back to their quarters, and everyone resented that which two or three had endured. All were profoundly stirred up, and not even their officers could hold back these soldiers in their anger. In this way that came to pass, which you have recorded thus, to create prejudice against unity. These events, and others which you have mentioned, have their own causes, and the persons whose names I have given are responsible. We have not even seen them, though we have heard of them, just as you have done.

If to have heard of a thing makes us guilty, we hold you to be partners of our guilt, since you have heard of it likewise; if to know of a thing by hearing gives freedom from responsibility, then that which was done, in consequence of your appeal, by others, ought not to be ascribed to us.

You set down your complaints in due order, saying that under Leontius and under Ursacius a very large number suffered wrongfully, that some were put to death under Paulus and Macarius, that under their successors unnamed individuals were proscribed for a time. What has this to do with us, or with the Catholic Church? It is you who have brought about everything of which you complain, for you refused to accept gladly the peace which had been praised by God, valuing the inheritance of schism more highly than the precepts given us by the Saviour.

You have brought accusations against the makers of unity. Blame unity itself, if you can! For I imagine that you do not deny that unity is the supreme good?

How does the character of the workmen affect us, provided it be certain that they effected a work which is good? For the grape is trodden and pressed underfoot by sinful workmen, yet thence comes the wine with which Sacrifice is offered to God. Oil, too, is made by wretched people, some of whom are men of evil lives and unclean tongues, yet it is used without reproach in condiments, in lamps, even in the holy Chrism.

You say that the makers of unity did evil things. Perhaps this was according to the Will of God, who is sometimes pleased to permit that which He might have prevented. For some evil things are done in an evil way; some evil things are done in a good way. The murderer does an evil thing in an evil way, the judge does an evil thing in a good way when he punishes the murderer.

For this is the Voice of God:

and:

is also His Voice.

One God, and two differing Voices. Thus when Phineas, the priest's son, found an adulterer with an adulteress, he stood with raised sword in his hand and hesitated between the two divine Voices. One sounded in his ears:

the other:

Were he to strike, he would act contrary to law. Were he not to strike, he would fail in his duty. He chose the offence which was better to strike. And perhaps there were not wanting those who would have wished to brand him as a murderer for inflicting this punishment. But God, that He might show that some evil things are done in a good way, spoke thus:

Thus God was pleased with the act of homicide, because thereby adultery was punished. What if God has now been pleased with those things which you say that you have suffered you who refused to have unity, well pleasing to God, with the whole [Catholic] world, and with the 'Shrines' of the Apostles?

I am now compelled, against my will, to make mention of those men whom I do not wish to mention who are placed by you amongst the martyrs, by whom you swear, as the one thing which those of your communion hold sacred. I should indeed prefer to pass them over in silence, but this is forbidden me by considerations of truth. On account of the names of these men, a mad hatred yelps thoughtlessly against unity, and on account of them there are some who reject unity with contumely, thinking that it is something to be fled from or assailed, because Marculus and Donatus are said to have been slain and to be dead. As if no one at all ought ever to be killed in punishment of offences against God. No one ought to have been injured by the makers of unity, but neither ought the divine precepts to be despised by Bishops, to whom, the command was given:

and once more:

And again:

Whatever evils those persons who refused to hear these words willingly, or loyally to carry them out, may have endured, they have themselves if to be killed is an evil brought their own evil upon themselves.

But you contend that Macarius is to be blamed, because you think that his actions were not in accordance with the Will of God. Yet you will find men of old who were guilty of similar conduct. You should bring your charge first against Moses himself, the Lawgiver, who, coming down from Mount Sinai, when the Tables of the Law on which it had been written:

had scarce been promulgated, ordered three thousand men to be killed in one instant.

Put Macarius aside for a little while. First appeal to Phineas, the priest's son, whom I mentioned just now, to judge you if indeed you know where to find any judge excepting God. For that which you blame has been praised by God in His own person, because it was done through zeal for God. Meanwhile suppress for the moment charges prompted by hatred against Macarius.

First give your mind to the Prophet Elias, who at the brook Cison, in obedience to the Will of God, slew four hundred and fifty men. But perhaps you will answer that these were slain deservedly your partisans unjustly. Punishment never follows without due cause. Moses inflicted punishment (as we have said), and Elias, and Phineas but you will not have it that Macarius punished with justice.

If those who are said to have been killed had in no way offended, it may be granted that Macarius was guilty in that which was done by him alone a business of which we know nothing, but which was provoked by you.

Why is prejudice created against us for things that were done by somebody else? Moreover, you are the cause of that which is said to have occurred, for it came about on your account, who were 'outside' (even as you are still outside), not on account of us, who dwell 'within,' and have never departed from the root.

But, since we have spoken concerning the above instances in order, let us now see why Moses commanded three thousand to be slain, why Phineas two, why Elias four hundred and fifty, why Macarius those two whose names you daily (as I have already said) fan with the fan of hatred.

It is clear that those were punished who despised a divine command; for

is the Voice of God, and

is the Voice of the same God. The same God has said

and

and

is the Commandment of the same God.

In the days of Moses the people of Israel worshipped the head of a calf, which they had made in a sacrilegious fire; on this account three thousand men deserved death, because they despised the Voice of God. Phineas at one blow slew the adulterers. He deserved to be praised by God, because he put to death those who despised His Commands. And the four hundred and fifty whom we read to have been slain by Elias, were slain for this reason, that, contrary to the Command of God false prophets that they were they had despised the divine Precepts. So also those two whose death you lay to the charge of Macarius are not far removed from false prophets. (For that God said you would be false prophets, we shall prove very soon.) And in refusing to look at Peace, lest they should dwell in unity with their brethren, they stood out obstinately against the Commands and against the Will of God.

So you see that similar things were done by Moses and Phineas and Elias and Macarius, because the Commands of one God were vindicated by them all.

But I see you now distinguishing between times, and saying that the times before the Gospel were different from those after the Gospel, and you can bring forward the fact that it has been written that Peter put back into his sheath the sword with which he had cut off the ear of the high priest's servant, whom, as though out of devotion, he might have slain.

But Christ had come to suffer, not to be defended. And if Peter had carried out his intention, it would have appeared that in the Passion of Christ, a servant was punished, not a people freed.

For that Macarius did not draw forth the sword which Peter sheathed, is proved by God, who, speaking to the valley of Sion, says:

Show, if you can, that any one man in the time of Macarius was struck with the sword. He goes on to say:

So you should consider carefully whether it be not rash to call men, who experienced no war waged against Christians, by the name of martyrs.

For nothing was at that time either done or heard, such as it has been customary to do or say in a war against Christians in a war that is called persecution, like that which was carried on under two of the four beasts which Daniel saw rising from the sea.

Of these beasts, the first was like a lion. This was the persecution under Decius and Valerian. The second was like a bear. This was the second persecution under Diocletian and Maximian, when impious magistrates waged war against the Christian Name amongst whom, sixty years and more ago, were Anulinus in the Proconsular Province, and Florus in Numidia.

It is well known to all what their carefully planned cruelty brought about. War, declared against the Christians, was raging furiously. In the temples of the demons the devil was triumphant. The altars were smoking with unclean odours, and those who could not come to the sacrilegious sacrifices were everywhere driven to offer incense. Every spot was made into a temple of abomination. Old men, soon to be on their deathbeds, were defiled; unwitting infancy was polluted; little children were carried by their mothers to the shameful deed; parents were driven to the bloodless slaughter of their children; some were driven to destroy the temples of the living God, others to deny Christ, others to burn the books of God, others to offer incense.

Not even you will be able to pretend that any of these things was done by Macarius. Under the persecutor Florus, Christians were forced to the temples of idols; under Macarius, the slothful were ordered to the [Christian] basilica. Under Florus, the command was given to deny Christ and pray to idols. Under Macarius, on the contrary, all were warned that one God should be prayed to by all together in the Church.

Since then you see that no war was waged against Christians; and that God mentions that some have died without war, saying 'And they who died in thee did not die in war'; and that those may well be held to be but doubtful martyrs who were not urged either to sacrilegious sacrifices, or to profane offering of incense, or to denial of the Name of God; and that there is no path to martyrdom excepting through confession with what reason can you call those men martyrs, who were not confessors? Or, which among them was driven to deny Christ, and confessed His Name?

So, if there can be no martyrdom apart from confession of the Name of Christ and if in this case no one confessed Christ and if that which you assert to have been done, was done in vindication of the Commands of God and if, whereas God had prophesied that this should come to pass, His Commands were vindicated, whilst you are unable to prove that we had any share in it if these things be so, consider whether it be not merely idle, but also superstitious, to place those who died without persecution where they are, who, having confessed Christ, were allowed to die on behalf of the Name of God.

Or, if you will have it that they are martyrs prove that they were lovers of Peace (in which are laid the first foundations of martyrdom), or that unity, beloved by God, was dear to them, or that they lived in charity with their brethren (for that all Christians are brothers we have proved in our first Book, and shall also prove beyond doubt in our fourth).

Those men who (as you maintain) ought to be called martyrs, refused to recognise their brethren, and had no charity.

And let it not be said in their excuse that they were unwilling to hold communion with Betrayers, since it has been most clearly proved that they themselves were the sons of Betrayers. Therefore you have no way of excusing them, for it is abundantly clear that they had not charity, without which martyrdom can neither be [rightly] named nor have any existence, without which the very greatest and most commanding virtue loses its effect, without which the knowledge of all tongues is worthless, without which even the fellowship of angels is of no avail as says the Apostle Paul:

If one so great, if the blessed Paul, if the Vessel of Election, declares that (although possessing commanding virtue and the company of angels) he is nothing, unless he have charity, consider whether they ought not to be called something very different from martyrs, who, having deserted charity, may, by reason of that desertion, perhaps have suffered something.

The whole world rejoices concerning Catholic unity, excepting a portion of Africa, in which a conflagration has been blown up from a spark. You complain that some evil deeds or other were committed by the makers of unity. No complaint of this kind is made by Italy, or by Gaul, or by Spain, or by Pannonia, or by Galatia, or by Greece, or by any of the Provinces of Asia.

No one was sent there to put things right, because there was nothing there which needed setting right. No tailor (so to speak) was sent to them, because amongst them there was no rent to repair.

Here, too, in Africa, of old so long as the people remained in unity the garment had been whole, but it was torn by the envious hand of an enemy. It may be said, metaphorically, that pieces, coming originally from one garment, were hanging loose, and that branches, coming from the same root, were divided one from another.

Why does part prefer itself before part? Why does one piece of the garment raise itself above the second, though it cannot prove itself to be better? What if the despised piece were to say:

'Why dost them sound thine own praises only? Have we not grown up together? Have we not been together in the hands of those who made us up into one, and have we not together been cleansed by Him who washed us? An enemy has wished to cut us off from one another; an adversary has wished to mar our beauty.'

In part of the garment we are still one, but we hang on different sides. For that which has been rent has been partly divided, not totally, since it is surely certain that you and we have one ecclesiastical discipline, and if men's minds are at war, the Sacraments are not at war. Finally, we can also say:

When he who arranges or works at a matter of this sort wishes to restore the garment to its former appearance, he torments the threads that are next to his hand. The tailor, who wounds whilst he is mending the rent, displeases you. He who brought it about that the tailor has had the opportunity of offending, should displease you even more. And [remember] that the things which you allege to have been committed by the makers of unity either should be attributed to your fathers, of whose actions they were the result, or came from the Will of God. But we had nothing to do with them.

How will it be if the severities (great though they may have been) were nevertheless inflicted as we have said by the Will of God? For we read in the Prophet Ezekiel of a whitened wall, against which God threatened storm, rain, thunderbolts and accusations:

Call to mind how of old you tore away one from another the members of Mother Church. For you were not able to seduce any one family at once. Either the wife departed and the husband stayed behind, or the parents were seduced and the children refused to follow them, or the brother stood firm, when his sister wandered off. At your instigation divisions were made between man and wife between parents and their children and you could not even leave in peace that which natural law permits.

No doubt, you have said:

but God on the other hand asks:

that is to say:

'They,' He says, 'built a wall which is ready to fall.'

The House of God is one.

They who have gone out and wished to make a party, have built a wall, not a house, for there is no second God, to dwell in a second house.

On this account false prophets are said to have made a wall, and if a door be placed in this wall, anyone who enters through that door is [still] outside. Nor can a single wall have the Corner Stone the Stone which is Christ, who, receiving into Himself two peoples Gentiles and Jews joins both walls with the bond of peace.

For a wall has as many disadvantages as a house has advantages. The house protects all that is shut within it, turns the edge of the storm, throws off the rain, keeps out murderer and thief and beast. Thus also the Catholic Church embraces all the sons of peace in her bosom and breast. On the other hand the wall, which has been built in a ruinous state, supports no corner stone; it has a purposeless door; it keeps nothing inside it; but is soaked with the rain, is struck by the storm, and is able neither to keep off the murderer, nor to stop the thief when he approaches.

The wall belongs to the house, but is not the house.

So your party is a quasi-church, but is not the Catholic Church.

'And,' He says, 'they whiten it.' That is to say that you judge yourselves alone to be saints. You complain that you have had some sufferings (though we had nothing to do with them). Therefore it is certain that these were sufferings which you endured alone, for the time of peace is different from the time of persecution.

If you consider that it was a persecution, tell us, what had all the Provinces, of which the Catholic Church is composed, to suffer together with you?

Since it was 'punishment,' not persecution, the wall suffered alone, against which God threatened storm, rain, thunderbolts and accusations, for thus did He speak:

'Why have you built up a ruin? Why have you made it white? Why have you painted it? This is against My Will, saith the Lord.'

You are displeased with the days of a Leontius, of an Ursacius, of a Macarius and the rest. Put right the Will of God, if you can, who has said:

And do not let any of your party object with the question:

For this reason, that the matter has been arranged thus by God, who threatened storm, rain, stones and accusations. Now these four things could not happen at the same time. First there was a storm under Ursacius. The wall was then shaken, but did not fall, so that rain might have an opportunity to work. Rain then followed under Gregory. The wall was made wet, but was not swamped, so that the stones might have their opportunity. Under the makers of unity the stones followed after the rain. The wall was scattered about, but built itself up again from its foundations. Three things have already been accomplished. Accusations are still due to you, but how they are to come and when, is known to Him, who has been pleased to make these declarations concerning you.

And that no one might doubt as to the meaning of this, God has added these words:

Consider whom this word 'deceive' fits. All were in communion with us. You rushed in upon us in our absence, but, in order to possess those whom you coveted, you had to beguile them and all men know what are your words of beguilement.

You are wont to say:

You are wont to say:

You are wont to say to Christian men even to clerics:

But in saying 'Look behind you,' you are acting against the gospel, in which it has been written:

And do you wish to know what was the fate of the one who looked behind, and of the one who looked before? Remember those who escaped from Sodom Lot and his wife. She looked behind her and was changed into a pillar of salt, whilst he who looked before him escaped free. Why then do you say 'Look behind you '? Moreover, when you say 'Redeem your souls,' I would ask from whom did you buy them, that you should sell them? Who is that angel who deals in souls as in the market-place? When you say 'Redeem your souls' you are renouncing the Redeemer, for Christ alone is the Redeemer of souls, which before His coming were possessed by the Devil. These Christ our Saviour redeemed in His Blood, as the Apostle says:

For it is certain that we have been all redeemed by the Blood of Christ. Christ has not sold those whom He redeemed. Souls bought by Christ cannot be sold, to be redeemed again as you would have it by you.

Again, how can a soul have two Lords? Or, is there, perhaps, a second Redeemer? What prophets have announced that a second is to come? What Gabriel has spoken a second time to a second Mary? What Virgin has a second time given birth to a Child? Who has worked new or second deeds of power?

If there is none, save One, who has redeemed the souls of all believers, what means it that you say 'Redeem your souls '? What kind of thing is this that you say to Christian men even to clerics 'Be ye Christians'? And you dare to say to each one, as though you expected a miracle:

You call him, who has acknowledged that he has been converted to God, a pagan him you call a pagan, who has been washed by us or by you neither in our name, nor in yours, but in the Name of Christ (for some there are who have been baptised by you, and have afterwards passed over to our Communion) him you call a pagan, who before the altar has prayed to God the Father through His Son. For whoever has believed, has believed in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, yet him you call a pagan after his Profession of Faith!

If which God forbid any Christian should fall away, he may be called a sinner; a pagan he cannot be a second time.

But all these things you wish to be held of no account. And if he, whom you deceive, listens to you, then his consent alone, and the stretching forth of your hand, and a few words spoken by you are enough in your sight to make a Christian out of a Christian, and he seems to you to be a Christian who has done what you want, rather than the man whom Faith has drawn [to Baptism].

And if anyone should be rather slow in giving adhesion to your deceitful words, you have no lack of arguments, with which you may with some ease persuade men, even against their will, to do what you like telling them that it has been heard from the lips of your old Bishops that he who partook or received of the sacrifice of unity as it drew near, partook of a sacrilegious sacrifice. We do not deny that this was said by some, who, as is certain, afterwards offered, with complete security, that sacrifice from which shortly before they had held back the people. But one consideration made them speak in this fashion, quite another consideration determined their action.

For with regard to those who are reported to have said these things, they were led thus to speak by a false rumour which had filled their ears, and those of all the people. For it was said that Paul and Macarius would come at that time, to be present at the sacrifice, and that, when the altars were set in festal array, they would bring out an image,which they would first place upon the altar, and that then in this way was the sacrifice to be offered.

As soon as their ears heard this, not only were their minds disquieted, but everyone's tongue was stirred up to use these words, so that all who had heard the story cried out:

And rightly would this have been said, if any corresponding truth had attached to such a tale.

But when the above-mentioned officers arrived, nothing was seen of that, concerning which a little before lying reports had been spread. Christian eyes saw nothing to shock them, their sight afforded no proof of those things which had upset their hearing.

No stain was beheld, and the solemn rite was observed after the accustomed manner. When they saw that in the divine sacrifices nothing was changed, or added or taken away, the Peace which God has praised was pleasing to men of good will.

On this account none of those ought to be blamed who from your body has made his way to Peace. They who had been disturbed by an unfortunate story were strengthened by the simple and pure truth. And let it not be said that he [who came from you to Unity] of the bitter has made the sweet, or that of the sweet he has made the bitter.

The bitterness, which was proclaimed by falsehood, remained and continued in the breast of [mere] opinion; the truth which was seen with the eyes, having its own sweetness in itself, was separated from the boundaries of a false opinion. So neither was that which is sweet made out of bitterness, nor was that which is bitter made out of sweetness. For what was seen was something else and quite different, and the report had been very far from the actual facts.

So, you perceive that you have brought forward your abusive accusation unjustly, making up a story, at your own pleasure, of whatever you liked, to tear in pieces Macarius and Taurinus. You have lost that, which you were quite clever enough to have seen, whilst hatred has led astray your senses, and closed the avenues of your understanding.

In what way and why Macarius was admitted to Communion

Now your malice has come to such a pitch that you say that Macarius after these events ought not to have been admitted to Communion, but rather should have been repelled by Catholic Bishops. In the first place, communion has only one name, but various modes. A Bishop is in communion with a Bishop in one way and a layman is in communion with a Bishop in another way.

Secondly, it would be a grave matter if Macarius had done that which he is said to have done, of his own will, since those who act thus are punished by the public courts and the Roman laws. For that man is a murderer who, compelled by no necessity, by no one's commands, by no superior authority, but, driven on by rage, of his own will, does what the laws forbid. But it was in consequence of your appeal that Macarius did what he is said to have done.

He was not a Bishop, and did not discharge the duties of a Bishop. Neither did he lay hands on anyone, nor did he offer sacrifice. Wherefore, as it is clear that he had nothing to do with the functions of Bishops, no Bishop was polluted by reason of one who did not offer sacrifice with Bishops. Nothing remains for you but to urge that he communicated with the people, and, indeed, it is certain that he spoke amongst the people, but only to press some point, not to preach which belongs to Bishops. For he spoke, if he was able to speak at all, stripped of any authority. On the other hand, a Bishop's discourse is approved by all, being adorned with sanctity, that is to say, with a twofold salutation. For a Bishop does not commence to say anything to the people without first saluting the people in the name of God. As he begins, so does he end. Every sermon in the church is begun by the name of God and with the name of God is also ended. Which of you will dare to say that Macarius saluted the people after the manner of Bishops? Therefore, since he neither saluted before he spoke, nor ventured to salute after having spoken, nor laid his hand on anyone, nor offered sacrifice to God with episcopal rite, how can you say that the College of Bishops can have been polluted, although you see that Macarius had nothing to do with any episcopal duty?

Your malice, having been in this point trodden under foot by the footprints of truth, is seen again to raise its head. For you say that he ought not even to have communicated amongst laymen. Yet it is certain that he was (as the Apostle Paul shows) a minister of the Will of God, and what wonder, if even the pagan judges should be considered ministers of the Will of God, according to the Apostle who says:

So, too, Macarius was a judge in his own person. And if he did not act judicially, he ought, by the laws of Rome, to have been punished by the judges. Or, if you say that even so Macarius should not have been admitted to communion, still we do not see that he ought to have been repelled, who acted in the same kind of manner as did Moses, whom God did not reject after twenty-three thousand men had been killed, but called him to speak with Him a second time. We do not see that he ought to have been repelled, who did the same thing as did Phineas (whom I have mentioned above), and then deserved to receive Divine praise. It does not seem to us that he ought to have been repelled, who did that which was done by Elias the prophet, when he slew so many false prophets. (For that they too were false teachers we have proved above.)

That even if Macarius was guilty, he ought not to have been removed from Communion

But were we to keep silence concerning these examples and admit with you that Macarius was guilty even so, he ought not to have been repelled by us in the absence of an accuser. For it has been written that no man should be condemned before his case has been heard.

Tell us, then, who accused him and was not listened to? Tell us (if you can) that Macarius confessed his fault and that we did not pronounce sentence. For after all, we are in the Church judges of a kind, as you yourselves do not deny. Indeed, you maintain that we ought to judge in accordance with truth. We, then, cannot do that which God has not done. In His Judgement He has thought well to separate persons, and has not willed that one man should be at the same time accuser and judge. For no man can in one case at the same moment bear the weight of two persons, so as to be in the same judgement both accuser and judge. This is a thing which God has not done by His omnipotence, but, in order to set before us the form of passing judgement, has taught us that neither should a guilty man be condemned without an accuser, nor should he be the accuser, who would be the judge in the same case.

Accordingly, at the very beginning of the world, when men were commencing to be born, after his brother Abel had been killed by Cain, we read that God called Cain and asked him where was his brother. He doubled his sin and said that he did not know, as though he would make God ignorant, and when could there be anything not known to God, under whose eyes and countenance are all things which are done? Nevertheless, God does not judge without an accuser and asks concerning a thing which surely He knew. And yet you wish us to repel one whom we have not seen doing any evil, and who has had no one to accuse him. I perceive here what your malice is about to whisper: you will say that what has been done has not escaped our knowledge. We acknowledge that we have heard about it, but to condemn one whom no man has ventured to accuse would be to sin. If you tell us that his deed has not escaped us, will you tell God, who had seen the brother's murder, why He asked about it? It would not have been right for us to do something which God refused to do, when He would not pass sentence, excepting on one who was guilty. You must find an accuser. Otherwise the condemnation could not be just unless he who should pass sentence was himself to be the accuser! Wherefore God says:

Thus it is that, since by no means can you prove that Macarius was accused before us by any man, you cannot find fault with our judgement.

We have now, my brother Parmenian, shown openly and clearly that in charging us with asking for the help of the soldiers, you have calumniated us to no purpose. Now learn this also, that what you have said about the Sacraments and sacrifice of a sinner refers to you rather than to us.

Since a man is not necessarily a sinner because you have so chosen to term him, it would be equally easy for us, copying your gratuitous assumption, to say that you are the sinners. But assumptions of this kind on both, sides should be sent packing. Let neither of us judge the other with man's judgement.

It belongs to God to know who is guilty; His it is to pass judgement. Let then all of us, who are but men, keep silence. Let God alone point out the sinner, whose sacrifice is unclean, and from whose hands one who wishes to be anointed should fear to receive unction.

How most clearly true this is, acknowledge, my brother Parmenian!

If, that is, you are freely content to hear this ascription of brotherhood which I have so often used. And I would beg of you to recognise that, however distasteful the word brother may be to you, still it has of necessity to be employed by us, lest perchance (considering the proof that it ought to be used) we should, by refraining from it, be blameworthy. For, if you are not willing to be my brother, I should begin to be unbrotherly, were I to keep silence concerning this name. For you are our brethren, and we are yours, as the Prophet says:

Nor can you avoid being our brethren, since to all has it been said:

And both you and we have received the one command in the words:

Our Saviour Christ alone is the Son of God by Birth, but both you and we have been made sons of God in the same manner, as it has been written in the Gospel:

We have both been made and are called His sons; you have been made His sons, but are not so called, because you are not willing to be in peace, or to listen to the Son of God Himself, when He says:

Christ by His coming recalled God and man to Peace, and

But you will not have peace with us, that is, with your brothers. For you cannot escape being our brothers you whom together with us one Mother Church has borne from the same bowels of her Mysteries, and whom God the Father has received in the same manner as sons of adoption.

Wherefore Christ, foreseeing this time how it would come to pass that you should today be at variance with us, gave such commands with regard to prayer, that, at least in prayer, unity might remain, and that supplications might join those who should be torn asunder by faction. We pray for you, for we wish to do so, and you pray for us, even though you do not wish it. Otherwise let any one of you say:

Accordingly, if things which have been prescribed may not be changed, you see that we have not been absolutely divided from one another, whilst we willingly pray for you, and you (though unwillingly) pray for us. You perceive, my brother Parmenian, that the bonds of holy brotherhood between you and us do not admit of being absolutely broken.

We have now to search for the sinner, at whose hands we should fear to receive unction, or whose sacrifice ought to be disowned.

Let human mistrust give way, and the arguments of both sides keep silence. God alone shall point out who is a sinner. We read in the forty-eighth Psalm in the second division that the Holy Ghost has said:

Here we have to give the whole attention of our mind, and see who is the sinner. For, if after we have read:

some such words as these were to follow:

then the soldier would have reason to fear, because he might seem to be the sinner. Or, if He said:

then the man of business would have to fear, because he might seem to be the sinner. Or, if He said:

then the sailor would have to fear, because he might seem to be the sinner. Or, if after we have read:

these words were to follow:

if these things were to be read immediately afterwards, then we should have to fear that we were the sinners. But when God says:

then all these things have been said to you. Clear yourselves from all of them, if you can!

So discipline has been held in contempt by you. To what end then dost thou. who dost not obey the covenant, recite the covenant, in which has been set forth the discipline which you will not observe? For you cannot say that you observe something, against which you bear arms! God says:

Thou hast rejected peace. Is not this to despise discipline? In the Gospel we read:

Thou wilt have neither peace nor good will. Is not this to despise discipline? Moreover, we read in the hundred and thirty-second Psalm:

Thou wilt not dwell in unity with thy brethren. Is not this to despise discipline? Christ says in the Gospel:

Thou by rebaptising dost cleanse anew. Is not this to despise discipline? God says:

You have stripped so many priests of God of their dignities. Is not this to despise discipline? Christ says:

You hold in hatred us, who are surely your brethren; nor have you been willing to imitate the Apostles, by whom Peter was beloved, though he denied his Lord. Is not this to despise discipline?

Thou declarest the commandments of God, and takest His covenant in thy mouth. How dost thou exhort: 'Seek peace,' though thou dost not possess peace? Thou recitest the covenant, and dost not obey the covenant, in which has been set forth discipline.

You have been chosen to sit and teach the people, and you slander us who are your brethren. As I have said above, one Mother Church has given us birth, one God the Father has received us, and yet you 'lay scandals against' us by forbidding each of your followers to salute us, or receive from us the customary signs of courtesy.

Consider your haughty words, consider your discourses, consider the commands that you have given, turn over your actions in your minds, and you will then find out why the man who formerly asked you for the Sacraments, has feared to receive them at your hands.

There is not one of you who does not mingle abuse of us with his discourses; not one of you who does not begin in one manner and continue in another. You begin the sacred readings on the Lord's Day, and unfold your comments in such a way as to do us wrong; you bring forth the Gospel, and heap abuse upon your brother in his absence; you pour hatred into the minds of those who listen to you, and by your teaching persuade men to live at enmity with one another. By all your discourses you 'lay scandals against' us. Therefore, to each one of you has it been said:

When God reproves the sinner and chides him that sits, it is clear that His words are addressed specially to you, not to the people who have no permission to sit in the church. You see therefore that without a doubt to you should be referred the Divine Words:

I have so many times proved that we have one mother, nor can you deny this you who 'lay scandals against' us though some of your party allege texts which they have not understood, in order to take away from us even what is usually shared by all men the courtesy of salutation. For some of you refuse us the embraces that are customary in everyday life, and many are taught not to say 'God speed you' to any one of us, and think that this is commanded by what they have read without understanding it, through not knowing of whom it was that an Apostle has said:

This was said of heretics, whose teaching at that time began to be full of errors, for through the subtle seductiveness of their speech, they introduced diseases, creeping along in the darkness, to corrupt the soundness of the Faith. Such a one was Marcion, who from a Bishop became an Apostate, and. brought in two Gods and two Christs; such was Ebion, who argued that not the Son but the Father had suffered; such Valentinus, who strove to take away from Christ His Flesh.

This is that speech which had a cancer to torment the members of the Faith. This has been said also of the heretic Scorpian, who maintained that there ought to be no martyrdom.

But let them keep their poisons for themselves, and let no discourse with them be allowed, lest by listening to them simple minds be troubled, however slightly.

Wherefore these are they whose speech has to be avoided, lest it creep in, like a spreading sore.

This was said too of Arius, who endeavoured to teach that the Son of God was made out of non-existing substances, and not born of God whose teaching, had it not been driven away by three hundred and eighteen Bishops in the Nicene Council, would, like a cancer, have entered the breasts of many.

This was said also of Photinus, a heretic of the present time, who has dared to say that the Son of God was merely a man, not God.

It may have been said of you as well, since your word has introduced no small cancer into the ears and minds of some. This is your word, which you address to the sons of Peace, when you say:

In this way have you made Penitents of the Faithful; thus have you destroyed the honours due to Priests. Behold! It is your word also, which today creeps on as a spreading sore, so that you forbid us the greetings and ordinary intercourse of life.

But how could our teaching have produced any such result? We guard the sons of Peace with pure teaching; we lead no strangers astray; we ruin no man. It is therefore clear that you daily 'lay scandals against' us, and it would be a long matter to go through all the ways in which you slander us, and all the kinds of scandal which you 'lay against' us.

For also when God says:

concerning what kind of thievery think you that this has been said? Was it perhaps on account of some stolen article of clothing, or some pocket that had been picked, or about goods the stealing of which brings loss and gain to men?

Yes, without doubt such thefts as these are forbidden; but in this passage God rebukes those which are made from Himself. Do you ask what thefts are made from God? They are to be found amongst you! God's possession is the mass of the Faithful, from which that thief the Devil tries every day to steal something, striving to corrupt in some way or other the morals of a Christian man or woman, and thus to snatch away, if not the whole man at any rate something or other from the man.

Since you saw this Thief bringing force to bear against us, you have helped him by your deeds. For none are unaware, that everyone who is born (even though he may be born of Christian parents) cannot be without the unclean spirit, who must of necessity be driven out and separated from a man before the saving layer. This is effected by the exorcism, through which the unclean spirit is cast forth and driven, in flight, to desert places.

The house in the heart of the Believer is made empty, the house is made clean. God enters and dwells therein, even as says the Apostle:

Whereas then each [baptised] man is full of God, and that Thief the Devil is endeavouring to steal something away from him, you exorcise that faithful man by rebaptising him, and say to God, who dwells within him:

that there may be fulfilled what was spoken by Ezekiel the Prophet:

So God hears wrongful insults, which are not His due, and departs from such a dwelling as this; and the man who, when he entered the church, was full of God, goes out an empty vessel.

The Devil, who wished, like a thief, to steal something, sees that the whole, from which he was striving to snatch some little thing, has become his by your assistance. Wherefore, of you God said:

Again it has been written in the Gospel:

That is:

He terms heretics adulterers, and their churches adulterous, which Christ contemns and disowns in the Canticle of Canticles, as though He should say: Why do you make churches that "are not wanted"?

that is, the Catholic Church, in which you too might be. And yet by rebaptising you have chosen to cast your lot amongst adulterers.

It has been most clearly proved by divine witness that you are sinners. It has also been shown that thine auxiliaries have warred against thee, for thou hast brought up to thy relief the saying of the Prophet:

Now, if you have any shame, recognise with grief that you are the sinners.

Also learn this, whose Word it is:

For whose voice is this thou hast not understood? It is surely the voice of Christ, who had not yet been anointed, when He prayed that the oil of the sinner should not soil His Head. Thou hast said, without understanding, that David the Prophet feared the oil of the sinner.

The Psalmist had already been anointed by Samuel. There was then no reason why he should be anointed a second time. Consequently it is the voice of Christ, which says:

It is a prayer, not a command; the expression of a desire, not a precept. For, were it a command, He would have said:

It is therefore the Voice of the Son of God, even then fearing to meet the oil of the sinner, that is of any man whomsoever, for no man is without sin, but God alone. Accordingly His Son feared the oil of man, for it would have been shameful that God should be anointed by man. Accordingly He prays the Father that He should not be anointed by man, but by God the Father Himself. It is then the Son who asks; let us see whether the Father has granted the request.

This the Holy Spirit points out and makes clear in the forty-fourth Psalm, wherein He says to the Son Himself:

His fellows had been the priests and kings of the Jews, each of whom was known to have been anointed by men. But, since it was right that the Son should be anointed by the Father God by God as the Son asked and the Spirit announced that it had been promised this the Father fulfilled in the Jordan. For when the Son of God, our Saviour, came there, He was pointed out to John with these words:

He went down into the water, not that there was anything in God that could be cleansed, but the water had to come before the oil that was to come after, thus to commence and ordain and fulfil the Mysteries of Baptism.

For when the waters went over Him, and He was held in the hands of John, the Mystery followed in due order, and the Father fulfilled that for which the Son had prayed, and the Holy Ghost had announced was to come. The Heaven was opened, as the Father anointed. Forthwith the spiritual oil descended in the likeness of a Dove, and sat upon His Head and flowed over Him. On this account He was first called Christ, when He was anointed by God the Father. And lest it might seem that the laying on of hands was lacking to Him, the Voice of God was heard, saying from the cloud:

Here, therefore, we find the meaning of that which was written:

Learn, then, though late, my brother Parmenian, the nature of the truth, for now is the time for learning how to find it.

And with regard to that which you have quoted from the Prophet Solomon:

this may well be understood to have been said in a literal sense. For, if you take it figuratively, you have excused those who are actually guilty of adultery. But grant that it was said in figure. In that case it has been spoken of heretics, whose sacraments are like invalid wedlock, in whose beds is to be found iniquity, where the very seeds [of life] have been corrupted to the destruction of the Faith.

When Valentinus maintains that the Son of God was on earth in a phantasm, not in Flesh, he corrupted his own faith and that of his followers. The seed of [spiritual] birth has been rooted out in those who have not believed that the Son of God was born in the Flesh of Mary the Virgin, and that in the Flesh He suffered.

Now with regard to what you mention that you have read in the Prophet Jeremiah that the people of God have done two evil things in that

you have indeed read this, but have been unwilling to understand the real state of the case.

In your love for bringing charges, you have twisted round everything so as to abuse Catholics, and, to suit your own purposes, you have attempted to digress a great deal according to your own whims. For if you imagine that everything which has been written by the Prophets belongs to our own times, you are making excuses for the Jews, concerning whom it is certain that it was written, that they forsook the Living God, the True God, the God who had bestowed His Blessings upon them, and made for themselves idols that is to say, broken cisterns, which can hold no water.

In God the Everlasting Majesty flows over, even as, in a fountain, water freely gushes forth from its channels. But idols, unless they be made, have no being, and wells, unless they be dug, hold no water in their depth. Cisterns cannot be hollowed out without skill and tools, nor can idols be made without a craftsman. In idols there is no virtue that belongs to them, but it is given and applied to them through the mistake of man. Virtue is believed to be in an idol, which is not there of its own nature. A cistern, the making of which is a weary work, is broken with deliberation, so that neither has it water of itself, nor of itself can it hold the water that it has received. Similarly an idol is not anything of itself, and, whilst it is being worshipped, is nothing.

This is the meaning of the Word of God, that His people did two evil things, in that they abandoned the fountain of living water and made for themselves broken cisterns which they had themselves dug out. For the people of Israel had forsaken the true water, had not recognised the Divine Majesty, and had followed the evil worship of idols.

This it is over which God grieves, this it is at which He says that the Heaven has shuddered. For God grieves over the same thing through the Prophet Isaiah, when in this matter He calls to witness two elements with these words:

How is it, my brother Parmenian, that you have had nothing to say concerning this passage? Or why is it that there is here no mention of water? It will be seen that, through your love of fault-finding, you have done such violence to the Law, that, whenever you read anything of water, you have, by some conjuring tricks, twisted it round for your purposes of hatred, and have made a sort of drag-net out of malicious arguments, and have thus drawn to yourself all things which in themselves are good.

For what intelligence have you shown with regard to this passage in Jeremy, since God cries out that He has been forsaken, and that cisterns have thus been made? His wrath is concerning Himself, not concerning something which is His, for the Baptismal Water belongs to God, but is not God Himself. And if you think that you [and your baptism] have been deserted, pray when were any of you baptised among us, so that it should be true that they who deserted your [baptism] came to us?

So we have shown that what you have said about the Sacraments and sacrifice of a sinner tells not against us, but against yourselves.

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:

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.

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:

But if that which was then done were to be done without any to effect it, God would have said:

So the Son of God who effected it was there. The Holy Ghost was there, as it has been written:

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.

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, but after the Trinity?

Concerning this Sacrament, no small contention has been engendered, and the question is discussed whether it be lawful to do this a second time after the Trinity, in the Name of the same Trinity. You say:

whilst we say:

Between your

and our

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:

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:

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:

This was the washing of which He said:

In saying once He forbade it to be done again, and spoke of the thing, not of the person. For if there had been a difference [to be considered between persons], He would have said:

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:

this is a general, not a particular declaration, for if these things had been said to Peter [only], Christ would have said:

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:

Do you then, who seem to take delight in striving to make Baptism twofold, if you give a second Baptism, give a second Faith; if you give a second Faith, give also a second Christ; if you give a second Christ, give a second God?

You cannot deny that God is one unless indeed you would fall into the traps of Marcion. God then is one. Of one God there is one Christ. He who is rebaptised had before been made a Christian. How can he be said to become a Christian a second time?

The one Faith is thus separated from the errors of the heretics, and the one only Faith from their varying faith. It has also a prescriptive right over against you, who reject that which is for once only, attributing everything to the [external] Endowments, nothing to the [hidden] Sacraments; though this quality of Faith belongs to the believer, not to the 'Minister.' For he who has believed in God at the interrogation of any person whomsoever, has believed. Yet after his one Credo thou dost exact a second Credo.

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.

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 you see that all who baptise are labourers, not lords, and that the Sacraments are holy through themselves, not through men, why do you claim so much for yourselves? Why is it that you try to shut God out from His own gifts? Allow Him to bestow those things, which are His own. For that gift, which belongs to God, cannot be given by man. If you think otherwise, you are endeavouring to make of no effect the words of the Prophets and the promises of God, by which it is proved that it is God, not man, who cleanses. Here David the Prophet is against you, for he says in the fiftieth Psalm:

and again in the same Psalm:

He said: 'Wash me.' He did not say:

And the Prophet Isaiah also has written that

We have proved in our Third Book that Sion is the Church; it follows that God washes the sons and daughters of the Church. He did not say:

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:

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:

He said:

and not:

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 said:

He did not say:

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?

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:

Yet we do not read that Christ rebaptised anyone after John. With regard, therefore, to these words:

Christ coming after John baptised no one. This promise was made for our times, that He might give what is given today, according to His Word:

And although the disciples of John said to their master:

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:

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:

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:

For this reason does He say:

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:

After 'today' 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:

and they said to him:

He persuaded them to receive the Baptism of Christ. You do not say:

but

and you protest 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.

I return now to that question of yours:

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.

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:

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:

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.

So consider how ridiculous is that saying, which is always heard to come from you, as though for your glorification:

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:

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:

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:

Whosoever has baptised in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, has discharged the Apostles' work.

And so it has been written in the Gospel. When John said:

Christ said:

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.

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:

that is,

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 today, 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:

You are workmen amongst others. When the sun goes in, that is to say, when the world has come to an end on the Judgement Day you may argue with us about reward.

Do not wish to claim for yourself that which belongs to the supreme authority of God. For if this is your due, then the servants who wait at the Lord's table should claim to be thanked by His guests for the courtesies which their Lord has rendered. It is the Voice of Christ, who gives the invitation:

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:

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.

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:

What comes of your saying:

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:

Of a truth it is 'of the giver,' not of him that receives! There are many things of this kind in the Gospel about perfect faith, but we must finish the story of at least three witnesses to Faith.

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.

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:

His disciples marvelled and said:

and Christ asked:

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.'

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 not 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.

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:

O tunic ever one and unchangeable, which fitly clothes all ages and forms, which is not too loose in infants, nor stretched in youth, nor changed in women!

Assuredly the day will come, when the heavenly nuptials begin to be celebrated. There without anxiety shall they sit down, who have preserved the one Baptism. For with regard to any who has allowed himself to be rebaptised by you resurrection is not denied him, for he has believed in the resurrection of the Flesh. He shall rise indeed, but naked. But because he has allowed you to spoil him of his wedding garment, he shall hear the Father of the Family speak thus:

For no one can be angry with one who has not something, which has not been given him.

However many they are who come thus, they shall have no place at that banquet.

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:

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

For what is an altar excepting the seat of both the Body and the Blood of Christ?

All these altars you, in your madness, have either scraped, or broken, or taken away. Whatever reason you may have had prompting you to this wickedness (for which no atonement is possible), it should have been done in the same way everywhere. But in one place, the abundance of wood it was (as I think) that led to the altars being broken up, in other places the lack of timber caused them to be scraped, whilst yet again elsewhere it was partly the sense of shame, which induced men to take them away. But in each case a disgraceful wickedness was committed when you laid sacrilegious and impious hands upon so great a Thing.

Why should I mention the hired mob of abandoned wretches, and the wine that was given as the pay of crime—the wine, for which a fire was made out of the broken remnants of the altars, that unclean lips might drink it hot with sacrilegious draughts? If in your jaundiced judgement we seemed to you to be corrupt, what harm had God done you, God, who at those altars was once habitually invoked? In what way had Christ offended you, whose Body and Blood were wont during determinate times there to dwell? In what way had you yourselves even offended yourselves, that you should break down those altars, upon which before us you had (as you think, with sanctity) offered sacrifice for long periods of time? In impiously attacking our hands there, where the Body of Christ used to dwell, you have also smitten your own.

By thus acting you have imitated the Jews. They laid hands upon Christ on the cross; you have struck Him upon the altar. If you wished to attack Catholics at these altars, there you might have spared at least your own former sacrifices.

Thy pride has now been manifested in that place where formerly thou didst offer sacrifice with humility, there thou dost freely sin, where once thou wert accustomed to pray on behalf of the sins of many. After this fashion you have, of your own accord, entered into the company of sacrilegious priests, and are associated with the crimes of wicked men, concerning whom Elijah the prophet makes his plaint before the Lord. For he has used these words (with which you too, amongst others, have deserved to be accused by him):

When he says Thine, he shows that the altar where any offering has been made to God by anyone whomsoever, belongs to God.

It might have satisfied your madness, to have wounded the members of the Church, and to have divided by your beguilements the peoples of God, who were formerly placed in unity. Amongst all your other proceedings, you might at least have spared the altars. Why did you break, together with the altars themselves, the entreaties and longings of men? For from them the people's prayer was wont to go up to the ears of God. Why did you cut to pieces the road of their prayers to Him? With impious hands you have laboured in a sort of fashion to draw away the ladder, that you might prevent supplication ascending in the accustomed way to God.

And though all of you shared in one conspiracy, still, in this matter, whilst your wrongdoing was the same, you carried it out by different methods.

If it was sufficient to move, it was not lawful to break; if it was right to break, it is a sin to have scraped. For if, as your assembly decreed, it was not lawful to preserve the altars, that man who broke them up would seem to have acted rightly. In that case he is guilty who, by scraping, preserved the larger part of them.

What is this new and foolish wisdom of yours to seek for that which is new in the very heart of that which is old? It is as though, after having removed some skin from the body, you were to look, as it were, for a second skin in that part of the body which lay hid under the part which you had cut away. The gift which is proper to itself and, by reason of its unity, is a whole in itself, may, after something has been taken from it, be lessened. Changed it cannot be. You have, it is true, scraped what seemed good to you, but what you hate is still there! Again, even though you have agreed, that whatever has been touched by us in the Name of God in His actual service, should be deemed by you to be unclean, which of the Faithful is there who is unaware that during the celebration of the Mysteries, the wood of the altar is itself covered with linen? During the sacred rites themselves, the covering can be touched, not the wood. Or, if the veils can be penetrated by the touch, then so can the wood; and, if the wood can be penetrated, then so can the earth. If you scrape the wood, you should also dig up the earth which is underneath, you should make a deep hole, whilst you are searching after that which you are pleased to judge to be purity. But take care lest you go down to those below, there to find Korah, Dathan and Abiram, the schismatics—your masters. It is, then, well known that you have both broken and scraped altars. How is it that in this matter your madness seems to have presently somewhat cooled down? For we see that afterwards you changed your plan, and that the altars were now no longer either broken or scraped by you, but only moved. If this was enough, then you yourselves prove that what you did at first should by no means have been done.

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

But I perceive that, in this matter, in order to stir up undeserved hatred against us, you wish to have recourse to the book of the Prophet Haggai, where it has been written:

For those who are in anger, it is easy whilst the anger lasts to hurl abuse, but whenever an accusation is made, some clear proof is necessary.

Who then amongst us has ever entered the temples of idols? Who has watched the sacrilegious sacrifices? Men may be defiled by incense, odours, sacrileges, sacrifices, blood. But in this matter between us, who has entered the temple? Who has burnt incense to idols? Who has been stained by unclean odours? Who has looked upon the blood of an unclean beast, or of a man, poured forth? Whom can you prove to have given his advice for the perpetration of any evil deed? Prove—if you can—that even one Bishop has been mixed up with any wrongdoing. You have your suspicions, about some Primate or other, who was at that time reported to have faltered. Suspicion is not a sufficient ground for accusation. Who has charged him? Who has convicted him? On what occasion was he ever ashamed, or put out of countenance? Keep your suspicions to yourselves.

So, as we have said above, if in this matter anything was done with severity, we have shown, when it is looked at in its commencement, that your fathers are responsible. Why then do you speak of Catholics, as though they were defiled? Is it because we have followed the Will and Command of God by loving peace, by communicating with the whole world, in union with those who live in the East, where Christ was born, where His holy footsteps touched the ground, where His adorable Feet have walked, where so many and such great miracles were worked by the Son of God Himself, where so many Apostles accompanied Him, where is the Sevenfold Church, on having been cut off from which, you do not merely fail to grieve, but in a sort of way rejoice? You call us defiled, because we have loved Unity well-pleasing to God. Because we have agreed with and hold communion with the Corinthians, Galatians, Thessalonians, you call us defiled. You call us defiled, because we have not, together with you, read corrupt books—deny, if you can, that you read books which differ from those of the Church. How do you venture to read the Epistles written to the Corinthians, you who have refused to communicate with the Corinthians? To what purpose do you read aloud that which was written to Galatians or to Thessalonians, with whom you are not in communion?

Since it is certain that all these things are so, understand that you have been cut off from the holy Church, and that we are not defiled. What ground, therefore, have you for thinking that the prophet Haggai can be of any help to you?

The altars, then, and the sacred vessels, which we have mentioned above, were formerly in both your hands and ours. If you slander our hands, why at those altars condemn your own hands as well?

But you say that you have read:

Suppose that anyone has been defiled, so that the things which he has touched appear to be defiled—let it be granted, if there has only been the touch, that the things which the defiled has touched, without any invocation of the Name of God, may be contaminated—provided that silence has been kept about God. For if there be invocation of the Name of God, the invocation itself sanctifies even that which appeared to have been defiled. Thus when two hundred and fifty censers, which had been carried in the hands of sinners, remained cast away (after those sinners were swallowed up by the earth), as the Holy priest Aaron hesitated what to do about them, he heard the Voice of God, saying:

And surely to carry is more than to touch. Therefore it is quite clear that a thing can be made holy by the invocation of the Name of God, even though it be a sinner who invokes God. For the touch cannot have as much efficacy, as has the invocation of God's Name. And do you too, who count on your own sanctity, tell us whether the touch makes holy or the invocation. Surely it is the invocation not the touch. Otherwise if you rely upon the touch alone, touch a board, a stone, a garment—and let us see whether (if silence be kept about God) they can be sanctified.

Now consider what a foolish—what an empty thing it is for you to have exercised your will and your sham authority by making God's virgins learn to do Penance, so that they who had already made their Profession had afterwards by your orders to change the signs of their choice upon their heads, and were compelled to cast away their veils, and to receive others in their place. First tell us where there is any commandment that has been given concerning veils. For virginity is a matter of choice, not of necessity.

So Paul the Apostle, that famous innkeeper, to whose care was entrusted a people wounded with the wounds of their sins, had received two pence to lay out—that is, the two Testaments. These he, as it were, expended by his teaching, and taught how Christian husbands and wives ought to live; but, when he was asked what command he would give concerning virgins, he answered that nothing about virginity had been commanded. He acknowledged that he had laid out the two Testaments, that is the two pence. In a certain way the commission was exhausted, but, inasmuch as Christ, who had entrusted the wounded man to his keeping, had promised that He would repay whatsoever over and above might be expended upon his care, Paul, after having laid out the two pence, gives not commandments, but a counsel with regard to virginity. He does not stand in the way of those who desire it, but neither does he drive or force those who desire it not.

These are words of counsel, nor are any precepts joined to them, neither as to the kind of wool from which the veil should be made, nor with what sort of purple dye it should be stained. For virginity cannot be aided with this kind of garment, nor with it are quenched the heats of the soul, which sometimes are enkindled by the summer, nor by it is the mind relieved, which from time to time is pressed down by the burdens of desires. For if it were otherwise, not one veil, but very many, would be placed on the virgin's head, that, whensoever the desires of the flesh should trouble the soul, the number of veils might fight against the stings of the mind. The veil was thought of as a sign for the head, not as a remedy on behalf of chastity. So a garment of this kind may get old, and be gnawed through and worn out; and yet virginity, as long as it has suffered no damage, can be safe without a veil.

This kind of life is a kind of spiritual marriage. They had already come to the nuptials of their Spouse by their choice and Profession; and had already loosed their hair, thus to show that they had given up worldly nuptials, and were joined to their spiritual Spouse. They had already celebrated heavenly nuptials. For what reason have you forced them to loose their hair a second time? For what reason is it, I say, that you have exacted of them a second Profession? Who is the second spiritual spouse whom they may wed a second time? When did He die, to whom they had been wedded, that they may marry again? You have laid heads once more bare, which had already received the veil. You have stripped them of the marks of their Profession, which seem to have been introduced, as a protection against abductors or suitors. The veil is a sign of their free choice—not an aid to chastity—lest the suitor should either continue to sue for, or the abductor dare to violate, that which had already been consecrated to God.

The veil, accordingly, is a sign, not a sacrament. You have then found virgins of this kind, who had already been wedded spiritually—these you forced to second nuptials, and ordered once more to loose their hair.

This is not suffered even by those women who enter upon a natural marriage. For if it should have chanced to any one of them to change her husband, after widowhood has befallen her, the great secular festivity is not repeated; she is not puffed up to the skies; there is no great assemblage of people provided. Therefore, you have not taken away ornaments from their heads, but (as we have said above) the proofs of the choice of the better part. You have sprinkled the hair, which had been already consecrated to God, with unclean ashes. You even gave orders that they should be washed with salt water.

And would that you had quickly restored that which you had taken away. You lengthened out delays, so that some who were dragged back to the world remained a long time in their original dress, after you had removed the outward signs, with which they had fortified themselves against suitors and abductors. For when men saw that you had removed the barrier which formerly stood in their way, instead of suitors they became abductors. Nor did anyone seem to himself to have sinned, in carrying off one who was such as he had seen her to be, at the time when he was looking for a wife.

In this business how great were the injuries that you did to God, how great were the gains that you won for the Devil. You impiously melted down Chalices, you savagely broke and foolishly scraped altars, you forced wretched maidens (not without disgrace) to take a second veil, although nothing can be read in Scripture about the first. And I cannot pass over a thing, which neither is pleasing to God, nor can be excused by your adherents, nor be defended by any man. You judged that by civil courts and public laws the books of the Divine Law should, through the action of officials, be torn away from very many, wishing to have for themselves alone that which before the schism the Church had held for all in common. I do not fear, as a Christian, to state a fact of which, through your accusations, the pagan officers could not be unaware. You seized with violence the altar cloths and books belonging to the Lord, which formerly had been possessed in common. You also seized the palls and the manuscripts. In your proud judgement you thought that in each case they had been defiled. If I mistake not, you made haste to purify all these things. Without doubt you washed the palls. Tell us what you did with the manuscripts. If you are to act wisely you must pass the same judgement in all things. Either wash both, or leave both alone. If you act differently, you will have tainted your own efforts. The pall you wash; the manuscript you wash not. If you do well on one side, you do evil on the other. You are unable to deny that you give scandal on the one hand, if you do well on the other; and if you rejoice to seem full of respect for religion in one matter, you ought also to bewail that you are held to be guilty of sacrilege in the other.

Now, what kind of thing have you done when you determined in many places to have even the walls washed, and ordered the whole interior to be sprinkled with salt water?

O Water, which by God wert created sweet, over which the Holy Spirit was borne before the very birth of the world! O Water, which, that thou mightest make the land pure, hast washed the earth! O Water, which, in the days of Moses, after thou hadst been sweetened by wood, so that thou mightest lose the bitterness that is natural to thee, didst satiate by thy most sweet draughts the hearts of so many people! It has remained for thee, after so high an office, to receive no slight degradation! In the presence of Moses bitterness dies in thee, and today thy sweetness, together with the Catholic people, is harassed by schismatics. Together we suffer the conflict, together we look for the vengeance of God.

Tell us, my brother Parmenian, what injury the place had done you, what injury the very walls that they should suffer such things as these at your hands? Is it because within them God was entreated? Or, that there Christ was praised? Or, that there was invoked the Holy Ghost? Or, that there, though you were absent, the books of the Prophets and the Holy Gospels were read aloud? Or, that there the minds of brethren, who had once been at strife, had been brought into harmony? Or, that unity, well pleasing to God, had found there a house, wherein to dwell? Point out to us what it is that you have found to wash. If it be the footsteps of Catholics—we have trodden both street and square—why do you not cleanse them all? For you and we, in order to care for our bodies, have cleansed them in the same baths, and many of ours have often used them before you. If you think that everything should be purified after us—wash the water also, if you can. Or, if, as we have just said, our footsteps seem to you to be defiled, it might be enough to wash the earth. Why, then, have you thought fit to wash the walls also, on which the footsteps of men cannot be placed? We could not tread the walls, but have only been able to see them. But if you think that what has been touched even by our looks should be washed, why have you left other things unwashed? We see the roof; we also see the heavens. They cannot be washed by you! Have you deserved well of God by washing the one? In that case you would seem to have committed a sin, for which there is no expiation, in not washing the other. As, then, you wish to appear full of a sort of diligence in one quarter, you have been found to have been negligent in another. Your diligence, however, should be termed folly, or—to call it by its true name—vanity—unless, indeed, in thus acting you have perhaps inspired the uneducated populace with terror, making them think that, since the pillar in the church has been washed, so also should be their bodies. If you have had this cunning design, you have craftily deceived the wretched people; if you have acted as you have done without thought, then your dulness has been exposed. Those whom you have led astray know that your conduct in these matters has been stupid, and this you will not yourselves be able to deny.

Why should I also mention that great act of irreverence which arose from your conspiracy to seize the temples for this purpose, that you might claim the cemeteries for yourselves alone, and not permit the bodies of Catholics to be buried? To terrify the living, you do wrong even to the dead and refuse them a place for their funeral rites. If you had been at war with them whilst they were living, at least the death of your foe might appease your hatreds. Now that man is silent, with whom a moment ago you were in conflict, why insult his obsequies? Why interfere with his burial? To what purpose do you enter into strife with the dead? You have lost the fruit of your malice. And if you are not willing that bodies should rest together, you will not be able to separate their souls, set together before God.

To make an end—it is impossible fully to narrate all the evil things that you have done; but we may take them for granted in you, who are the leaders of this wrongdoing. Still who could keep silence about those who are now yours—those, that is, whom you have succeeded in drawing to your faction either by party-spirit or by subtle craft—not only men, but also women? From sheep they have been suddenly made wolves, from being faithful they have become faithless, from being patient full of rage, from lovers of peace lovers of strife, from lovers of simplicity full of craft, from lovers of modesty without shame, once gentle now they are savage, once innocent now they are doers of evil.

After persons of either sex have fallen away to you, they grieve that others are still there, where they were born; they urge those who are standing firm to follow them in their fall. If they knew that they had gained glory, they would have enjoyed their own happiness in silence. But, desiring to have some consolation for their own wicked departure, they invite others to fall in like manner, and accuse those who are resting in the bosom of Mother Church as though they were slothful and slow. For they are not ashamed to use these words:

That is to say:

That is to say:

You are bird-catchers, and these men or women are the birds. For there is not only one kind of bird-catchers.

Some there are who with an art that is not artful go to trees resting on deep roots, which are to be found in front of a grove, where the birds fly naturally and sit on real boughs. Amongst them you will find no frauds, no wily devices. These men rely only upon their art and skill in bird-catching.

But I say that you resemble the bird-catcher, who, unlike the rest, is not content to go, after night has departed, before sunrise, to real trees. He carries his tree with him, and makes up into a bundle what will be his grove. Out of which, with all kinds of devices, he fashions a tree that has neither pith nor roots. On this he places false boughs. So that, which had been lately cut down, now receives strange leaves in place of those which it had lost. Some birds he carries with him shut up in a cage. Upon the false branches he places others that have been stuffed to look as though they were alive. The living birds are hid in their cages, the others are seen, like living birds upon the branches. A double fraud is united by the craft of one man. And to deceive the simplicity of the birds that are alive and flying about, those which are certainly dead seem to stretch out their necks and sing, whilst those which are out of sight in their prison are thought to be singing from the throats of the others. Between the appearance on the trees and the sound from the cage one crafty mind does its work. The birds that were already captured capture those that are free, and the birds that are dead slay those that are alive. Such are they whom you have wounded either by re-baptising them, or by making them submit to Penance. These men and women strive with great zeal and labour, that other men and women may perish with them—for fear lest they should perish alone.

Having shown up the Betrayers and having pointed out the holy Church—having refuted the calumnies which you were wont to utter against us, and having exposed your sins—which have merited to be chidden by God—and your repetition of the Sacraments, and your gratuitous claims and your violence, we ought now to finish our answers and statements; but, since I perceive that, though the wood of malice has been cut down by the axes of truth, challenges are still sprouting forth from you or from your friends, in which, as I hear, you maintain that, in consequence of your being known as the children of Betrayers, you ought not to be invited to the communion of unity—to this let me say a few words in reply.

It is most true that the Catholic Church was sufficient for herself with her countless peoples in all countries; she was sufficient for herself also in Africa, although here she is but in few places. But God was not pleased with your separation, for the members of one body had been torn asunder, and, against the Will of God, you, who are our brothers, wandered away from your brethren. Sentence had been passed at home upon your fathers, that they who ought to have been expelled in consequence of their confession of Betrayal, should go forth of their own accord. No formal judgement was pronounced, yet the effect of the sentence was obtained. They should have been cast off after the Betrayal, to which they owned in the Council in Numidia. But, not to give an opportunity for the display of their malice, the severity of judgement was refrained from, and your ancestors of their own accord made their plans, in consequence of their guilt, to cover up their crime and depart with the appearance of pride—when they should have grieved and blushed for shame. For if at that time they had thought it right, for the sake of Peace, to enter into unity, and had come to the Catholic Church of their own accord—unlike you, who are known to have been drawn by the Will of God to return whence you had wandered (though you are wandering still)—if, as I have said, they had come of their own accord to the Catholic Church, perhaps our fathers would have hesitated about receiving them, because they had been Betrayers; but we have cause for rejoicing, that none guilty of Betrayal have lived down to our times.

So today we find quite a new state of affairs, since we have to deal, not with them, but with you. Although it appears that a stain has passed from them to you by inheritance, nevertheless you cannot on this ground be held guilty together with your fathers, according to the Judgement of God, who has spoken by Ezekiel the prophet, saying:

And this was proved even in ancient times—at the very beginning of the world, in that his father's sin did not belong to Seth, the son of Adam. And that no one might say that in another place it was written by the Lord that He would

—these are undoubtedly both words of God, but both do not refer to one people. The first was said through Moses to a definite set of men, the second through Ezekiel to a different class. God, since He knew that the Jews would declare to Pontius Pilate:

in His foreknowledge saw that what they would say, was, in comparison with the greatness of their sin, but little, and threatened the Jews themselves, in order that their crime might be expiated by adequate penalties, saying that He would punish the offences of the fathers even to the fourth generation. So this word belongs in a particular way to the Jews, and to them alone; but the other, in which God has deigned to promise not to punish in sons any sins of their fathers, nor in fathers any faults perchance committed by their sons, belongs to Christians.

Your fathers, who are proved to have done these things in the days of Unity, have fallen away from the number of the living, leaving you as it were an inherited stain, which God has already washed away by His Providence, when He made a distinction (as we have said above) between fathers and their sons. Accordingly, since Betrayal is a sin, your fathers must see to it, as to what answer they may make in the Judgement of God; but your sin it cannot be, since you are living in other times.

So it is that for long past we have desired to receive you into our Communion, because it was not you that sinned at that time, but your fathers.

Nor ought any man to judge concerning another man, as though he were himself wholly without sin, since it has been written in the Gospel that Christ says:

And this above all, because it will not be possible to find one who is absolutely holy. For should any such there be, who are unable to sin, they are guilty of lying in the Lord's Prayer, if without reason they beg for pardon and say to God the Father:

So the Apostle John both shows the consciences of all men and discloses his own with these words:

a saying the reason of which we have explained more clearly in our Fourth Book. But grant that there are some who have been made perfect with complete sanctity, it is not lawful for them to be without brethren, whom they are taught not to repel by the precepts of the Gospel, wherein we find described a field—that is the whole world, in which is the Church and Christ the Sower, who gives wholesome precepts. On the other hand there is an evil man—that is the Devil, who sows cruel sins not in the light, but in the darkness. Different kinds of seeds come to birth in one field. Similarly, in the Church there is not a mass of souls all alike. The field receives good seeds or bad—the seeds are different. But there is One Creator of all souls—one Lord of the field. There are Two who sow seeds where the tares are born, but the field has one Lord, the Lord God Himself. His is the earth; His are the good seeds; His is also the rain. Accordingly, we have consented to receive in unity you, who have been drawn to the Catholic Church, for we are not free either to separate or to reject even sinners who have been born with us in one field and have received nourishment from one water—that is from the one Baptism; even as the Apostles were not free to separate the tares from the wheat (since separation is impossible without destruction), lest, whilst pulling up what ought to be pulled up, that which ought not to be, should be trodden down. In like manner Christ has commanded that both His own seeds, and those which belong to the other, should grow in His field throughout the entire world, in which there is the One Church.

After all have ripened together, shall come the Day of Judgement, which is the harvest of souls. Then there shall sit the Judge, the Son of God, who recognises what is His own and what is the other's. His it shall be to choose what He may gather in His barn, and what deliver over to the burning—whom He shall condemn to torments that know no end, and upon whom He may bestow the rewards which He has promised.

Let us recognise that we all are men; let no one usurp to himself the power of Judgement that belongs to God. For if any Bishop were to claim it all for himself, pray, what will there be for Christ to do in Judgement? It should be enough for a man not to be guilty of sins of his own, without wishing to be judge of the sins of another.

So it is our declaration not only that we do not reject you, but even that for the sake of Peace we would not have rejected your fathers, if it had come to pass in their day that unity was accomplished. For it would be a sin for us Bishops to do now, that which was not done by the Apostles, who were not permitted either to separate seeds or to pluck up the tares from the wheat.

But even if the Catholic Church should hesitate about receiving you, ought you not to have striven to attain the pattern of unity? But you have shrunk from bringing forward the examples to be found in the Gospel, as for instance what has been written concerning the person of the most blessed Peter, where we may read a description of the way in which unity is to be retained or procured. Without doubt it is evil to do anything against a prohibition, but it is worse not to have unity when you may. We see that this unity was preferred to punishment by Christ Himself, who chose that all His disciples should be in unity rather than punish a sin against Himself. For, as He did not wish to be denied, He declared that whosoever should deny Him before men him would He deny before His Father, but He did not declare that He would punish one who should give up any Scripture, since it is more serious to deny Him who spoke, than to give up the words which He has spoken. And though this has been thus written, nevertheless, for the sake of unity, blessed Peter (for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only) both deserved to be placed over all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to communicate to the rest. So from this example it is given us to understand that for the sake of unity sins should be buried, since the most blessed Apostle Paul says that charity can cover a multitude of sins:

he says; and in another place:

And he has said well. For he had seen all these things in the other Apostles, who for the sake of unity, through charity, would not withdraw from the communion of Peter—of the man, that is to say, who had denied Christ. But if their love of innocence had been greater than the gain of peace and unity, they would have said that they ought not to hold communion with Peter, who had denied his Master and the Son of God, the Lord. They might, as has been said, not have held communion with the most blessed Peter; it would have been possible for them to quote against him the words of Christ, who had declared that He would deny before His Father whosoever should have denied Him before men. We ought industriously to pay attention to the inward meaning of this. Whilst I say a few words concerning it, may the blessed Saint Peter himself pardon me, if I mention that which we read and know that he did. I hesitate to say that so great holiness as his has sinned, but he himself proved this fact, when he grieved bitterly and wept copiously, since he would neither have grieved nor wept, had he not committed any offence. Now the Head of the Apostles might surely have so governed himself, as to have done nothing, on account of which he should grieve. But many faults are seen in this one case of his, for this reason, that it might be shown that for the sake of unity all things should be reserved for God. And I know not whether in any other man this kind of sin could be of such weight, as was clearly the case in blessed Peter. For whoever during some persecution perchance denied the Son of God, will be seen, when compared with blessed Peter, to have sinned more lightly, if he denied Him whom he had not seen, if he denied Him whom he had not recognised, if he denied Him to whom he had made no promise, if he denied but once. For in blessed Peter this kind of sin was broadened out—in the first place, when Christ asked of all, whom did men say that He was, one said Elias, another said the Prophet; then we read that Christ said:

and Peter said to Him:

—on account of which recognition he deserved to be praised by Christ, because this he had said through the prompting of God the Father. Behold, when the others did not recognise the Son of God, He was recognised by Peter alone.

In the second place, when Christ said on the eve of His Passion:

when the others kept silence, he alone promised that he would not go back. Out of His Foreknowledge, the Son of God said:

Something else was added to the weight of his sin—a promise, which he would not fulfil. After Christ was brought into the house of Caiaphas, out of so great a number no one was questioned—to fill up the measure of his transgression—save blessed Peter. When questioned, at first he denies; when questioned, he denies a second time; thirdly, he said that he knew Christ not at all; and the cock crew, not to mark the time by his crowing, but that blessed Peter might recognise how he had sinned. At last he grieved bitterly and wept copiously.

Behold (as we have said above), when the others did not recognise he alone recognised, when the others made no promises he alone promised, when the others did not deny once he alone denied and that three times, but yet, for the sake of unity, he was not to be separated from the number of the Apostles. From which we understand that all things were ordered by the Providence of the Saviour, that Peter should receive the Keys. The way of malice was stopped up, that the Apostles might not conceive in their minds that they were free to judge, and condemn with severity, him who had denied Christ. So many guiltless ones are standing upright, and the sinner receives the Keys, that the work of unity might receive its pattern. It was provided that the sinner should open for the guiltless, lest the guiltless might close the gates against sinners, and thus the unity which is necessary could not be.

If you had mentioned these things, and asked for communion, how could the Catholic Church, our Mother, have hesitated to receive you in her Bosom, since it is certain that you are not Betrayers, but the sons of Betrayers?

Now some of your party in their desire to point us out to their people as worthy of contempt, mix up in their discourses that which was said by the Prophet Solomon concerning the flies that are soon to die:

and call us flies that are soon to die. That liquid which is seasoned by the Name of Christ, and, after it has been seasoned is called Chrism, they call Oil. Before consecration it is still by nature simple oil; it becomes sweet, when it is seasoned from the Name of Christ.

There are then three things, of which the Prophet Solomon has made mention—the oil, the sweetness and the flies that are soon to die which destroy the sweetness. These three things have their places in due order. In the first place is the oil, in the second is the sweetness that has been produced, in the third the dying flies which banish the sweetness. Let then whoever amongst you brings forward such an argument prove why he calls us flies that are soon to die. You think that you have the power of consecration which gives its sweetness to the oil—you have then both the oil and its sweetness. Do we banish your oil, so that you may with reason call us flies which are soon to die? That which is yours remains with you. And if anyone passes over from you to us, he is left by us, as he was sent away by you. So how can you say that we are flies soon to die, which corrupt the sweetness of the oil, when, coming after you, we do no such deed?

Again if you say that the sweetness of the oil can be corrupted by us, either we can effect something, and give sweetness to the oil, or if, as you maintain, we are not able to effect anything, then the oil still remains such as it was by nature. How then do you say that we are flies soon to die, which corrupt the sweetness of the oil?

Accordingly, the oil, before it is consecrated by us, is such as it was by nature. After it has been consecrated, it is able to receive sweetness from the Name of Christ. How can we by the same action both consecrate and corrupt?

It follows that, if the oil be sweet of its own nature, there is nothing more left for men to effect, when it is consecrated in the Name of Christ.

The same workman cannot at the same time make two things which are repugnant and opposite to each other.

When we, in your absence, consecrate, we do not corrupt. But if we do corrupt, who had before us consecrated anything for us to corrupt? Wherefore—that the saying of the Prophet (if it be such) may not remain without application—understand that you are the flies that are soon to die. For you have banished what it had not by nature, but by consecration, since we read that what is sweet is not capable of corruption by nature, for oil is simple and has its own one and distinctive name. Once it has been consecrated it is called Chrism, in which there is the sweetness which, having shut out the hardness of sins, softens the outward skin of the conscience, which renews a gentle mind, which prepares a habitation for the Holy Spirit, so that He may be hither invited and, after bitterness has been put to flight, may deign here gladly to dwell. This is the sweetness of the oil which flies that are soon to die are able to corrupt. If we were to banish the oil which you had consecrated, with reason might you call us flies that are soon to die, but so long as we preserve that which you have anointed even as we find it, we cannot be flies that are soon to die; but whilst you, driven by the storms of jealousy, falling, as it were, like flies into the oil, banish (by rebaptising) the sweetness of that oil, which has been consecrated in the Name of Christ—from which good morals should be seasoned, and the light of the mind be enkindled to a health-giving and true understanding—you are banishing the reality in which was the oil and sweetness.

But how have we been able to corrupt a sweetness, which no man before us produced by consecration? You have led men astray. You have rebaptised. You have anointed a second time. Oh for shame! To your own destruction have you—like flies, which destroy even whilst they are dying—banished that which had been consecrated in the Name of Christ. Now, sin which has no pardon is death. It has been written that:

Wherefore, inasmuch as you untruly call us flies, and hasten to annul all that we have done, and say that we ought to be rejected or despised, claiming sanctity for yourselves alone, you put forward your innocence, as the ground for promising that you can forgive the sins of others. You see therefore that it was not of us, as you argue, but of yourselves that the most blessed Apostle Paul has said:

Now, to turn to the fact that you have thought fit to take upon yourself the character of Moses, who, as the Apostle Paul tells us, was opposed by Jamnes and Mambres—if this be so, what is the truth, that may be found with you, which the Catholic Church opposes?

Or, what is there with us which you can prove to be a lie? Is it that we are in one communion with the whole world? Will you be able to prove that this is a lie? Is it that we keep and defend the true and one Creed? Will you be able to prove that this is a lie? Will you be able to prove that the Chair of Peter is a lie—and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which were granted him by Christ, with which we are in communion?

In the very passage of Scripture which you have mentioned, consider the order of the actions of the persons themselves, and pay attention as to which was the first. Yes, surely, Jamnes and Mambres who by their false artifices strove to fight against Moses and the truth, are in the second place. Moses, whose miracles they attempted in vain to impugn, was before them.

As Moses is the first, so also is the Catholic Church the first. As Jamnes and Mambres fought against and opposed Moses, so also do you in rebellion fight against the true Catholic Church. Why, then, is it that you have wished to change names between yourselves and us excepting that thou mightest prove thyself on a level with thy colleagues? For there are some of your party, who, having forgotten, or being ignorant of past times, say against us things which belong of right to those men who, having already fallen away from the Catholic Church, consecrated Majorinus—that is to say to the authors of Schism and Betrayal. Because they still preserved Peace, before they banished unity, well-pleasing to God—they were the light of the world, and with reason were they termed the salt of the earth. So long as they taught Peace, they were still called the sons of Peace. Before they were puffed up, they were blessed in their poverty of spirit, and were part of the savour. Whilst they were meek, they were blessed—they were part of the savour. Whilst they were just, they were blessed—they were part of the savour. Whilst they were sons of Peace, they were blessed—they were the whole of the savour. After they bestowed the riches of error upon their breath and lungs and made the schism, they were seen to be cruel and without mercy; whilst they impiously tore asunder the members of the Church following after wickedness, they held the Kingdom of God in contempt, and, dividing the Church, were unwilling to be in Peace, they became salt that has been spoiled, from which nothing could be seasoned to please God with its sweetness. And since your first leaders were thus wicked, some of your colleagues argue in a wrong-headed way, so that they say that those were foolish, who, quitting the Schism, having, however late, recognised the truth and their Mother the Catholic Church, followed after Peace. Some of your party think that these men made a mistake; they consider that, as it were having lost their savour, they departed from wisdom. From which it is clear that you all make the same mistake in your application of names. For you have compared both Jamnes and Mambres to peace-loving Catholics, and yourselves, who are schismatics, you have compared to Moses—something very far removed from the truth. And some of your foolish colleagues have thought well to pass judgement on the wise, so as to say that the lovers of Peace have become fools and have refused to understand that their own fathers have, through their dissension, lost their savour.