Trans.

Maureen Tilley 2011 DRAFT -- NOT FOR CITATION OR DISSEMINATION

ON BAPTISM
Book I

Augustine fulfills his promise to discuss sacraments and the authority of Cyprian
I.1. In the treatises I wrote against Parmenian's letter to Tyconius, I promised to discuss the
question of Baptism more thoroughly. Even if I had not made that promise then, I recognize
and acknowledge a debt to my brothers
1
who have been asking about it. So, with the help of
the Lord, in this work I have assumed the task not only of refuting the arguments which the
Donatists keep proposing against us on this issue, but also of speaking about the authority of
the most blessed martyr Cyprian. It is with his authority that they try to prop up their
perversity in order to prevent it from collapsing under the onslaught of truth which the Lord
will have provided. I am doing this so that all who are not blinded by partisan zeal may
assess how the Donatists are not only not helped by the authority of Cyprian, but how they
are thoroughly proved wrong and subverted by it.

The important question: can sacraments be administered or lost outside the Church?

1
I.e., members of the catholic clergy.
2. Now in fact the treatises to which I referred state that Baptism can be administered
outside the Catholic community, and that it can be retained outside it. None of the Donatists
deny that even apostates have Baptism, since it is not administered all over again to those
who return and are converted through penance. Therefore, it cannot be considered lost. It is
the same with those who have left the communion of the Church through the sacrilege of
schism. They surely retain the baptism they received before they left. If they return, it is not
administered to them again. It is obvious from this that what they receive when they are in
unity with us, they cannot lose when they are separated from us. If it can be retained on the
outside, why can't it be administered there too? If you say: "It is not rightly administered on
the outside," I respond: "Just as it is not rightly retained on the outside, but nevertheless it is
retained, in the same way it is not rightly administered on the outside, but nevertheless, it is
administered. However, just as what is not fruitfully retained outside of unity [with the
Catholic Church] begins to be fruitful through reconciliation to unity, in the same way, what
was not fruitfully administered on the outside begins to be fruitful by that same
reconciliation. It is not right to say that what was given was not given, and it is not right to
misrepresent anyone as having not given it, as if the person had not given it, when that
person professes to have given what that the other person has actually received. For the
sacrament of Baptism is what a person who is baptized has, and it is the sacrament of
administering Baptism which the person who is ordained has.


2
However, if anyone who is baptized withdraws from unity, that person does not lose
the sacrament of Baptism; in the same way that the ordained person, if he withdraws from
unity, does not lose the capacity to administer Baptism. There is no harm done to either
sacrament. If one sacrament is impaired by evil, the other is impaired; if one perdures in
spite of evil, the other perdures. Therefore, just as Baptism is received and anyone who
departs from unity cannot lose it, in the same way Baptism is to be received from the person
who administers it because he did not lose the ability to administer the sacrament when he
left the Church. For just as those who return to the Church who were baptized before they
left are not rebaptized, so those who return who were ordained before they left are not in fact
ordained again. In fact, they administer what they had been administering, if utility to the
Church demands this even if they do not administer Baptism, nevertheless, they retain the
sacrament of their ordination, and therefore, hands are not laid on them [in penance when
they return] as if they were members of the laity. For Felicianus did not lose either the
sacrament of Baptism or the sacrament of giving Baptism when he left them with
Maximianus. Now they have him in their company along with those very people whom he
baptized when he was on the outside in the Maximianist schism. For this reason, even
though they had not joined our community, the others were able receive from them that
which they had not lost when they left our community. So it is obvious that they act
impiously when they try to rebaptize those in unity. We have the courage to act rightly when
we do not invalidate the sacraments of God even when they are administered in schism.
Where they agree with us, they are there with us. However, where they disagree with
us, they part company with us. Approaching and departing are not to be measured by
corporeal movements and then not by spiritual ones. Just as the joining of physical bodies
might be done through contiguity of place, so there is a sort of contact between souls
through the agreement of wills. Therefore, if the person who withdrew from unity wished to
do something different from what he did while in unity, that person withdraws on that
particular issue and is separated from us. But if that person wishes to do whatever he did
while in unity with the Catholic church where he received Baptism and learned about it, he
remains in unity and is united to us.

What if a Catholic is baptized by a Donatist?
II.3 So Donatists agree with us in certain things; in other things they disagree with us.
Consequently we do not forbid them to act on those issues on which they agree with us.
However, on those issues where they disagree with us, we encourage them to receive
benefits by coming to us or to regain them by returning to us. Then when they have been
corrected and freed from their faults and they choose to do so, we shall be diligent in charity,
in whatever way we can. Therefore, we do not say to them, "Do not administer Baptism,"
but "Do not administer it in schism." And we do not say to those whom they seem to be
about to baptize: "Do not receive it," but "Do not receive it in schism." For perhaps someone


3
will not have found a Catholic priest from whom to receive the sacrament and will have
been forced under extreme duress--while keeping united to Catholicism in their heartand
they received from someone separated from Catholic unity what they would have received
inside Catholic unity. If that person immediately departed from this life, I would not
consider that person to be anything but Catholic. However, if he were brought back from the
brink of death, when he physically returned to Catholic congregation which he never left in
his heart, we not only would not condemn what he did; we would even praise him most
confidently and truly because that person believed that God was present in his heart where
he preserved unity. In addition, that person did not wish to depart from this life without the
sacrament of holy Baptism, believing as he did that wherever he found it: it came from God
and not from a human being. But consider the case of someone who can receive Baptism in
the Catholic Church but chooses through some perversity of mind to be baptized in schism.
What if that person later thinks about coming over to the Catholic side because he's sure that
the sacrament would be beneficial in that setting, since it can be received elsewhere, though
it cannot be profitable there? This person is without a doubt beyond perverse and wicked, all
the more so because of the fact that he knew what he was doing. That person does not doubt
that the sacrament is received there, so he does not doubt that what he have received
elsewhere will be profitable.

The four basic questions
III.4 There are two things which we affirm: that there is Baptism in the Catholic Church and
that it is rightly received only there. The Donatists deny both of these. There are two other
things we affirm: that there is Baptism among the Donatists and that it is not rightly received
there. They strongly affirm one of these two, i.e., that there is Baptism, but they do not wish
to admit that it is not received rightly among them. Only three of these four statements are
ours. But we agree on one of them. Only we say that there is Baptism in the Catholic
Church, that it is received there rightly, and that it is not rightly received among the
Donatists. That it truly is Baptism among them and that it is received, this they assert and
this we concede.

The wavering converts first objection
Therefore, whoever wishes to be baptized and is sure that they ought to choose our
church for Christian salvation and that the Baptism of Christ is fruitful in that church alone,
even if it were received elsewhere, and yet wishes to be baptized into the Donatist party
because neither they alone nor we alone but the both of us say that there is Baptism there,
that person should consider the three other points. If that person chooses to follow us in the
things which they do not affirm and the person privileges those things which we both surely
affirm over those which we alone say, it is enough for us that those things which they do not
say and we alone say have more weight over those which they alone assert. However, we


4
affirm that there is Baptism in the Catholic Church; they do not affirm this. We say that
Baptism is rightly received in the Catholic Church; they do not affirm this. We say that
Baptism is not received rightly in the Donatist party; they do not affirm this. Therefore, he
should rather believe that what we alone say ought to be believed; he should rather do what
we alone say ought to be done. However, if he thinks this way, he should believe more
strongly what we both affirm over we alone affirm. For one ought to believe more strongly
that the Baptism of Christ is in the Donatist party which is affirmed by both of us, than that
Baptism is with the Catholics which is affirmed only by Catholics. On the contrary, the
person should believe even more that the Baptism of Christ is with us, which we alone
affirm, than that it is not with us, which they alone affirm. For that person has already
decided and is sure that on those issues where we disagree, the person should prefer us to
them. Therefore, that person ought to place greater faith in that which we alone assert is
rightly received with us than in what they alone assert is not rightly received with us because
they are the only ones saying this. By the same rule, that person ought to believe even more
that it is not rightly received among them, which we alone assert, than to believe it is rightly
received among them, which they alone assert. Therefore, this person would erroneously
feel secure if she or he received there [i.e., with the Donatists] what we both say in fact exists
there, but we do not both say ought to be received there. However, this person has chosen to
stick with us on the issue where we disagree. Therefore here [i.e., with the Catholics] that
person may feel secure and is sure that the sacrament exists here and is received profitably.
So the person may not receive what they say is surely there but they do not say ought to be
received there. What if the person has some doubt that what is received rightly in the
Catholic Church might also be received there? He would sin gravely with respect to those
things which pertain to the salvation of his soul if he simply preferred what was not certain
to what was certain. He is right to be sure that a person should be baptized in the Catholic
Church by the very fact that when a person was baptized there he decided to come over to
this side. Let him consider as less than certain that a person baptized among the Donatists
was baptized profitably since the people who say this are those whose opinions he already
accepts as more certain than those of the Donatists, and by preferring the certain to the
uncertain, let the person be baptized here where for that reason he is sure that things are
done in the right way, because while he was thinking about doing it elsewhere, he had
already decided that he would come over to our side.

The analogy of the tattoo
IV.5. Now surely if anyone does not understand how this can happen, that we say that what
we confess to exist among the Donatists is not rightly administered there, let that person pay
attention to the fact that we do not say that it is rightly there just as they say it is not among
those who have left their communion. They should also consider the analogy of the military
tattoo, that can be retained and received by deserters outside of the military, but,


5
nevertheless, it should not be retained or received outside the military, and when someone
returns to the military or is inducted, it is not altered or reimposed.
But truly it is one thing for a person who out of ignorance goes running to those
heretics, thinking that they are really the Church of Christ, and it is another for those who
knew that it is not the Catholic Church which, as it was promised, is spread throughout the
whole world and extends even to the ends of the earth, which grows among the weeds
2
and
in the midst of its weariness looks for the rest that will someday come and speaks in the
Psalms saying, From the ends of the earth I have cried out to you when my soul was weary.
You raised me up onto a rock (Ps 60:3)and that rock was Christ (1 Co 10:4). In him the Apostle
says we have been raised up and are seated in heaven
3
, not yet in actuality, but in hope.
4
So
it is that the Psalm continues and says: You have lead me, because you became my hope, a tower of
strength is the face of the enemy (Ps 60:3-4). And so from those promises which are like spears
and javelins stored up in the most well-fortified tower, the enemy is guarded against, and is
even overthrown, even when he disguises his wolves in sheeps clothing,
5
so they cry out,
Here is the Christ, there he is (Mt 24:23) in order to separate many people from the whole of the
city established on a mountain,
6
catching them in their own sectarian snares and
slaughtering them.
7


Waiting to join the Catholics as a sin

2
Mt 13:25-30.
3
Ep 2:6.
4
Rm 8:24.
5
Mt 7:15.
6
Is 2:2; Mt 5:14.
7
While Augustine is referring to spiritual slaughter, the language he uses here parallels descriptions of
ambushes of catholic clergy by Circumcellions.
And even though they know this, they choose to receive the Baptism of Christ outside the
communion of the unity of the body of Christ, and will later transfer themselves to that same
communion with the baptism which they received elsewhere, knowing that they will retain it
against the Church of Christ on the very day they receive it. If this is a crime, who is the
person who says: Allow me just for this one day to commit a crime? For if he is going to
come over to the Catholics, I ask what is his reason. What else will he have to answer but
that it is evil to be in the Donatist party and not to be in Catholic unity? Therefore, as many
days as you have done this evil, just so many days will you be doing evil. While it can be
said that a greater evil is done in a greater number of days and a lesser evil done in fewer
days, it cannot be said that no evil has been done at all. At that rate, what need is there for a
person to commit such a damnable evil for a single day or even one hour? The person who
wants to allow himself to do this can ask of the Church and of God himself to allow him to
be an apostate for that single day. For why should he be afraid to spend a single day as an
apostate and not be afraid to spend a day as a schismatic or a heretic? There really is no


6
reason.

The wavering converts second objection
V.6. He says, I prefer to receive baptism there where both sides agree that the Baptism of
Christ exists. But those whom you are about to join say that it is not rightly received there,
but it is rightly received, they say, from those whom you are going to quit. What the
Donatists say, those whom you yourself trust less by comparison to those whom you trust
more, is if not false, to use a milder term, at least uncertain. Prefer the true to the false and
the certain to the uncertain. Not only those whom you are about join but you yourself, as
you are about to join them, profess that what you desire can be received rightly with those
whom you are leaving having been baptized elsewhere. For if you doubt whether it can be
received rightly there, then you might even doubt whether you should go over to them. If it
is not clear whether it is not a sin to receive it in the party of Donatus, who could doubt that
it is clear that it is a sin not to receive it here where it is clear that it is not a sin? Truly those
who are baptized there through ignorance, thinking that this is the Church of Christ, sin less
by comparison to the previous individuals. Nevertheless, they are wounded by the sacrilege
of schism but not as seriously as the others who are wounded more seriously, since it was
said about those people, It will be more tolerable for Sodom on Judgment Day than you (Mt
11:24). Now it was not said that the people of Sodom would not be tortured but that they
would not be tortured as severely.

The case of the Maximianist schism proves that the question is no longer debatable.
7. Now perhaps this was formerly obscure or uncertain. But what heals those who pay
attention and are corrected aggravates those who, when they are no longer allowed to be
ignorant, persist in their madness to their own destruction.
Certainly the condemnation of the Maximianists and the reception of those who were
condemned with those whom they baptized outside of their communion in sacrilegewhich
even their council declares a sacrilegesettles the whole question and resolves the discussion.
There is no point of contention between us and the Donatists who are in communion with
Primianus which might cause one to doubt that not only is the Baptism of Christ retained
but can even be administered by those who are separated from the Church. Just as they are
forced to say that those whom Felicianus baptized in schism received true Baptism because
they now consider them to be with them in that very baptism which they received in schism,
so we say that there exists even outside the Catholic communion the Baptism of Christ
which those who have been cut off from that same communion administer because they did
not lose it when they were cut off. God truly grants to them in the Catholic communion
what they [Donatists] thought they had conferred on those whom Felicianus had baptized in
schism, when they reconciled them to themselves, that is, not as if they received what they
did not have, but so that what they had received without benefit and retained in schism


7
might benefit them. This happened when they came from whatever heresy of schism in
which they received the Baptism of Christ. It happened not so that they might begin to have
the sacrament of Christ which they did not have, but so that what they had might begin to
benefit them.

Is a smaller, purer Church better?
VI.8. For that reason, between us and true Donatist leaders, whose bishop is Primianus at
Carthage, there is no point of contention . For God wished to bring an end to it through the
Maximianists, so that because of their example they might declare what they did not wish
to say under the influence of charity. But this brings us to consider that those who are not in
communion with them might seem to be saying to themselves that they hold that the fewer
the Donatists there are, the purer they are. And if these were only Maximianists we would
not be justified in disregarding their salvation. How much more must we consider that when
the same party of Donatus is sliced into so many tiny crumbs, all those little slivers blame
this one much larger part in which Primianus is for admitting the baptism of the
Maximianists. Each party endeavors to assert that true Baptism remained only with them
and does not exist anywhere else at all, not in the whole world in which the Catholic Church
is spread out, not even in the larger party of Donatus and not even in one of the tiniest
parties outside their own! If all these little pieces would have wished to turn, not to the voice
of a human being, but to voice of the most clear Truth and overcome their proud spirit of the
perversity, then they would return from their own dessication not by any means to the larger
party of Donatus from which they cut themselves off but to the very vigor of the Catholic
root. Certainly all of those who are not against us are for us, but where they do not gather
with us, they scatter.
8


Finding proof in the scriptures: the alien exorcist

8
Mt 12:30.
VII.9. Now I dont want what I say to depend on merely human argumentation. The
obscurity of the issue on the Church dates from the time before the Donatist schism. It
forced many great men, our father-bishops who were endowed with great charity, to debate
and waver among themselves for the sake of peace. Thus for a long time they approved
diverse statutes in their councils in different areas until in a plenary council of the whole
world discerned what was most conducive to salvation and removed the wavering. But I
prefer the reliable testimonies from the gospel. It is through these, with the help of the Lord,
that I will show how rightly and truly in the sight of God it had been determined that, no
matter what the schism or heresy it may be, ecclesiastical medicine may cure the wound by
which it was separated, and that which remains healthy is to be recognized and approved
rather than disapproved and wounded. For surely the Lord says in the gospel: The one who is


8
not with me is against me, and the one who does not gather with me scatters (Mt 12:30).
Nevertheless, when the disciples reported to him that they had seen a certain man expelling
demons in his name and that they had prevented him because he was not among the
followers of the Lord, he said: Do not prevent him. The one who is not against us is for us. No one
can do something in my name and speak ill of me (Mk 9:39-40). If there is no problem with this
person which needed correction, then a person would be safe to set himself up outside the
communion of the Church and gather in the name of Christ, separated from the Christian
community. In that case it would be false to say: The one who is not with me is against me and
the one who does not gather with me scatters. But if he had to be corrected on the point about
which the disciples of the Lord wished to correct him in their ignorance, why did the Lord
by saying, Do not prevent him, prevented them from preventing him? But then how will it be
true when he says: The one who is not against us is for us? In what the person did, he was not
against them but for them when he healed through the name of the Lord. Just if it is true
where it says, The one who is not for me is against me and The one who does not gather with me
scatters and where it says, Do not prevent him. The one who is not against us is for us, (Mk 9:40),
what must we understand so that a person can be supported in their veneration of the Name
if he was not against the Church but for the Church, but also that the person was to be
considered guilty in his separation where if, when he gathered, he really scattered? So it is
that if perhaps the person came to the Church, he would not have received here what he
already had, but [the Church] would correct him in the way he had strayed.

Finding proof in the scriptures: the example of Cornelius
VIII.10 Nor is it the case that the prayers of the Gentile Cornelius were not heard and that
his alms were not accepted. Rather he deserved to have an angel sent to him and to see it
and even without human intervention to learn all that he needed.
9
However, whatever good
he had in his prayers and almsgiving would not do him any good unless the bond of
Christian community and the peace of the Church brought him in. He was ordered to send
for Peter and through him he learned of Christ and through him he was baptized into
fellowship with the Christian people and joined to their communion to which he had been
linked by what only looked like good works. It would have been harmful for him to disdain
the good which he did not yet have, taking pride in what he did have.

Some truth shared with schismatics
So too the people who separate themselves from the rest of society and injure charity
and break the bond of unity, if they observe none of the things that they have received from
that society, they separate themselves completely. Therefore, if anyone whom they
[Donatists] have brought into their community wishes to return to the Church, he would

9
Ac 10:1-8.


9
have to receive all those things which he has not received. But if they do some of the same
things, they do not separate themselves in these things from that part of the structure of the
Church in which they are not separated, but they are cut off in the rest. In the same way, if
they associate themselves with a person, the person is connected to that part of the Church
from which they are not separated, and therefore if he wishes to come to the Church, he is
cured where he was wounded by erring, but where he is healthy and united to the church, he
is not cured but he is acknowledged. Therefore, those whom they baptized they cure of the
wounds of idolatry and unbelief, but they wound him more seriously by schism. The sword
killed the idolaters among the people of God while a cleft in the earth swallowed up the
schismatics.
10
And the Apostle says: If I have enough faith to move mountains, but I do not have
charity, I am nothing (1 Co 13:2).

The analogy of the wounded person
11. What if a person were brought to a doctor with a serious wound in some essential part of
the body, and the doctor said, You are going to die unless I treat you? I dont think that
the people who brought the person in would be so foolish as to consider all the other healthy
parts of the body and say to the doctor: Are not all the healthy parts of the body enough to
keep him alive? Is this one wound going to make him die? Theres no way they would say
this, but they would bring him in to be cured. And because they have brought him in they
would ask the doctor not to cure what was healthy, only to apply a remedy to that one place
where death immediately threatened all the other healthy parts. What good is it for a person
to have a healthy faith or perhaps just a healthy sacrament of faith when the health of
charity is destroyed by the deadly wound of schism when it drags all of the healthy parts to
death by this one mortal wound? So that this will not happen, the mercy of God, through the
unity of the Church, does not cease. Thus they might come and be cured through the
medicine of reconciliation, through the bond of peace. Therefore, they should not think that
they are healthy just because we say that they retain something healthy nor again should
they think that something which is healthy needs to be cured because we point out that
something was wounded. So it is that in the health of the sacrament they are for us because
they are not against us, but in the wound of schism, whatever they do not gather with Christ,
they scatter.
11
Why do they let their proud eyes fall only on what is healthy? Would that
they were humble enough not only to perceive not what is there but also to pay attention to
what is not.

Without charity, they are nothing.
IX.12. I wish that they would see how many important things are of no use to them if they
are lacking one. Let them see what that one thing is. Let them hear it not from me but from

10
Ex 32:27, Nb 16:30-33.
11
Mk 9:40.


10
the Apostle: If I speak, he says, with a human voice or that of angels, but I do not have charity, I
have become sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and know all the
mysteries and all knowledge and if I have faith enough to move mountains, but Ido not have charity, I
am nothing (1 Co 13:1-2). What good would it do them if they somehow had the ability to
speak of the sacred mysteries with the tongues of angels and the ability to prophesy like
Caiaphas and Saul
12
whom the sacred scriptures condemned, if they not only knew about
the sacraments but had them, like Simon Magus had them,
13
if they had faith, like the
demons who confessed Christ, but they did not believe the scriptures when they said, What
have you to do with us, Son of God? We know who you are (Mk 1:24)? What if they give away all
they have to the poor,
14
as many do, not only in the Catholic Church but even among the
various heresies, if in some violent persecution they hand over their bodies to the flames for
the sake of the faith that they confess with us? Nevertheless, because they do these things
separated from us, not putting up with each other in love and not trying to serve the unity of
the Spirit in the bond of peace,
15
not having charity, in spite of all these things which are of
no use to them, they are not able to attain eternal salvation.

The first question of the Donatists: how does Mother Church give birth to Christians in Baptism?
X. 13. But they think that they inquire most cunningly when they ask whether or not the
Baptism of Christ can give birth to children in the party of Donatus, so that if we concede
that it does give birth to them, they assert theirs to be the Mother Church which could give
birth to children through the Baptism of Christ, and that there has to be only one Church.
Then they charge that we are not the Church. But if we had said it does not give birth to
children, they would say: Then why are those who transfer from us to you not born again
in Baptism when they were baptized by us, if indeed they were not reborn again?

The answer
14. It is as if the Church gives birth to children from this party by reason of being separated
and not by reason of being joined to it, for it is separated from the bond of charity and peace
but is joined to it in one Baptism. Therefore there is only one Church, the one which is
called Catholic, and whatever it has of its own in the diverse communities separated from its
unity, it is through that which it is among them that it gives birth wherever, not they who
give birth. It is not their separation that gives birth to children but what they hold among
them that is from the Church. If they abandoned this, they would not give birth at all.
Among all of them it is the Church whose sacraments they retain which gives birth. This is
how anything can be brought to birth anywhere, even though not all of those to whom the

12
Jn 11:15 and 1 S 10:10.
13
Ac 8:13.
14
1 Co 13:3.
15
Ep 4:2-3.


11
Church gives birth belong to its unity which will save those who persevere to the End. But it
is not only those who are exposed as being in the obvious sacrilege of separation who do not
belong to the Church but even those who are physically mixed in its unity who are separated
through their terrible lives. It [the Church] even brought forth Simon Magus through its
Baptism, even though it was said of him that he had to share in the inheritance of Christ.
16

Was he ever lacking Baptism or the gospel or the sacraments? Because he lacked charity, he
was born for no good reason and perhaps It would have been better for him had he not been born
(Mt 26:24). Were they never born, those of whom the Apostle says, As if you were infants in
Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not solid food (1 Co 3:1-2)? Those are the people he calls back
from the schism into which they rushed because they were carnal. As if you were infants in
Christ, he says, I gave you milk to drink, not solid food. You were not then capable but even now
you are not for you are still carnal. For if there is envy and contention among you. Are you
still carnal and walking in the way of human beings? When one says, Im from Paul, another
says, Im from Apollo, are you not human beings? (1 Co 3:1-4). Earlier he says, I charge you,
brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to all say the same thing, that there not be a
schism among you. But be perfect in the same sense and same sentiment. But it was reported to me
about you, my brothers and sisters, by those who are from Chloes household, that there is contention
among you. But I say this, that each one of you is saying: Now I am from Paul, But I am from
Apollo, Im really from Cephas, But I am from Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul was ever
crucified for you or were you ever baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Co 1:10-13). So if those people
remain obstinate and perverse, surely they will have been born, but they do not belong to
that same Church through the bond of peace and unity.

The allegory of wives and servants as mothers: Part I
So it is that the Church gives birth to children from her womb and from the wombs of
servants, from the same sacraments and even from the seed of her Husband. It is not for
nothing that the Apostle says that All these things have happened as an allegory (1 Co 10:11). But
those who are proud and do not do not cling to their legal mother are like Ishmael about
whom it was said: Throw out the servant and her son. The son of the servant will not be an heir with
my son Isaac (Gn 21:10). Those who peacefully love the wife of their legal father, those who
are brought to birth according to the law, are like the sons of Jacob. Although born of
servants, they have a share in their same inheritance.
17
But if those born from the womb of
the same mother inside the Church neglect the grace they received, they are like Esau, the
son of Isaac, who was rejected according to the testimony of God which says: I loved Jacob,
but I hated Esau (Ml 1:2-3; Gn 25:23), even though both were conceived at the same time and
were born from the same womb.


16
Ac 8:9-25.


12
The second question of the Donatists: are sins always forgiven in Baptism?
XI.15. The Donatists ask whether sins are forgiven through baptism in the Donatist party. If
we said that they were, they would respond, Then the Holy Spirit is there because it was
given to the disciples when the Lord breathed on them, and what comes next is what he
says: Baptize the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19).
If you forgive a person, their sins are forgiven and if you retain them, they are retained (Jn 20:23).
And so it is, they say, that our communion is the Church of Christ, for the Holy Spirit
does not effect the forgiveness of sins outside the Church. And if our communion is the
Church of Christ, your communion is not the Church of Christ. There is only one about
whom it is written: One is my dove. She is the only one of her mother (Sg 6:8). And there cannot
be as many churches as there are schisms. But if we had said that sins were no forgiven
there, they would say, So there is no real baptism there and for that reason you have to
baptize those whom you receive from us. But you dont do that, so you have to say that you
are not in the Church of Christ.

The answer

17
Gn 30:3.
16. This is how we make them stop. We ask them to look in the Scriptures so that they
answer for us the question they themselves are posing. I am asking that they say whether
sins are forgiven where there is no charity. Sins are darkness in the soul. Surely we have
heard John saying: The person who hates a fellow Christian is still in darkness (1 Jn 2:11). But no
one creates a schism unless he is blinded by hatred for fellow Christians. So if we say sins are
not forgiven here, how can those baptized by them are reborn, for what does it mean to be
reborn through Baptism except to be renewed from the old way of life? And how can one be
renewed from the old way of life if their previous sins are not forgiven? If a person is not
reborn, neither had that person put on Christ. As a result, it would seem that the person
would have to be rebaptized. So the Apostle says: As many of you as have been baptized in Christ
have put on Christ (Ga 3:27). If a person had not put on Christ, one cannot maintain that the
person has been baptized in Christ. Moreover, because we say that a person has been baptized
in Christ, we confess that the person has put on Christ; and if we confess this, we confess that
the person has been reborn. If that is so, the persons sins have been forgiven. How then does
John say: The person who hates a fellow Christian still remains in darkness (1 Jn 2:11), if the
remission of sins has already happened? Is it not because there is hatred for other Christians?
Who will say this when both the origin and the obstinacy of schism are nothing other than
the hatred of other Christians?

The case of Simon Magus


13
17. They seem to have found the solution to this problem when they say: There is no
remission of sins in schism and therefore there is no regeneration of the new person and on
that account there is no Baptism of Christ. But we who confess that the Baptism of Christ
exists here propose to solve the problem for them. Was Simon Magus truly marked with the
Baptism of Christ? They will answer, Yes, because they are forced to do so by the
authority of sacred scripture. Then I ask whether they would confess that his sins were
forgiven. They would confess this right off. Then I would respond by asking why Peter said
to him that he had no part in the lot of the saints. Because, they say, he later sinned by
trying to buy the gift of God which he believed the apostles were selling.
18


The third question of the Donatists: what about the insincere convert?
XII. 18. Then if a person came pretending to want to be baptized, would that persons sins
be forgiven or wouldnt they? Let them choose whichever they wish. Whichever they chose
would be alright with us. If they were to say that they were forgiven, how then would the
Holy Spirit of discipline flee from falsehood (Ws 1.5), if the Spirit had effected the remission of
sins? If they were to say that they were not forgiven, I would ask, if afterwards he admitted
his pretense and he was truly repentant and really sorry, would they have decided that he
would have to be baptized all over again? It would be absolutely crazy to say so. They would
be admitting that a person could be baptized with the Baptism of Christ and nevertheless be
persisting at heart in evil and sacrilege, not allowing the obliteration of sin to be
accomplished.

The answer

18
Ac 8:18.
They should understand that people could be baptized in communities separated
from the Church, there where the Baptism of Christ is administered and received in the
celebration of the same sacrament. But it nevertheless provides for the remission of sins
when the person is reconciled to unity and abandons the sacrilege of dissent in which the
persons sins are retained and are not permitted to be forgiven. So it happens that when the
person who approached in pretense is not baptized all over again but is purified by
conscientious correction and truthful confession, which would not have been possible
without Baptism. Thus, when that pretense withdraws in the face of a truthful confession,
what was administered before would then begin to bring about salvation. It is the same with
someone who was hostile to the charity and peace of Christ and received the Baptism of
Christ in some heresy or schism: those who separated had not lost their baptism, but the
persons sins were not forgiven until he corrected himself and came over to the community
of the Church and unity. The person did not have to be baptized all over again because by
that reconciliation and peace it is clear that the sacrament which the person had received


14
and could not benefit him in schism might begin to benefit him for the remission of their sins
in unity.

The fourth question of the Donatists: do sins of the unrepentant return after Baptism?
19. But what if they were to say that the person who came in pretense had their sins forgiven
because of the power of the sacrament at that very instant, but because of the persons
pretense they immediately returned . That would mean that the Holy Spirit which was there
at the baptism so that the persons sins might withdraw would flee from the continuance of
the pretense and the sins would return. Thus it would be true that: All of you who have been
baptized in Christ have put on Christ (Ga 3:27) and that the Holy Spirit of discipline flees from
falsehood (Ws 1:5), i.e., the holiness of Baptism clothes the person in Christ and the sinfulness
of pretense strips him of Christ.

The answer
This is what happens when anyone crosses over from darkness to light and then back
again to darknesstheir eyes are always trained on darkness and the light cannot penetrate
them except as the person is passing from one side to the other. So if they say this, they
would have to understand that this is what happens to those who are baptized outside the
communion of the Church but nevertheless are baptized with the Baptism of Christ. That is
why it is holy wherever it may be. So the holiness does not come from those who separate
but from that from which they separate themselves. Yet it benefits them only to the extent
that when they pass through light to the darkness of their dissent, immediately there return
to them the sins which the holiness of Baptism forgave at the moment they received it.
Nevertheless the light went out as they passed from one side to the other, as they returned to
the darkness.

Proof from scripture: the unforgiving debtor
20. For the Lord taught most clearly that the sins which were forgiven return where there is
no fraternal charity when he spoke about that servant who when he was found to owe ten
thousand talents was forgiven it all when he pleaded, but when that same servant did not
have pity on his fellow servant who owed him one hundred denarii.
19
The master ordered
him to pay back the amount that had been forgiven him. The time in which one receives
forgiveness through Baptism is like the time for settling accounts so that all debts that had
been found might be paid back. But it was not afterwards that the servant gave to his fellow
servant money he lent, for which he did not show him mercy when he could not repay it, but
his fellow servant already owed him the money when the first servant had to settle his
account to his master and was forgiven such a huge debt. He did not first forgive his fellow

19
Mt 18:23-35.


15
servant what he owed and then approach the master to forgive him. This is proved by the
words of his fellow servant who said, Be patient with me and I will repay you (Mt 18:26).
Otherwise he would have said, You already forgave me. Why are you asking me again?
The words of the Lord clearly reveal this, for he said, But the servant went out and found one of
his fellow servants who owed him one hundred denarii (Mt 18:28). He did not say, Whose debt
of one hundred denarii he had forgiven. If he had forgiven it, the other servant would not
have owed it. But since the Lord said, He owed him, it is clear that he had not forgiven him.
It would have been better and it would have been more suitable for such a debtor who was
about to settle an account and expected mercy from his master to have already forgiven his
fellow servant what he had owed him and then gone to settle an account and ask for mercy
from his master. The fact that he had not forgiven his fellow servant did not prevent his
master, when he was settling accounts, from forgiving all of his debt. But what good was it,
seeing that it all immediately turned back again on him because he persisted in his hatred?
In the same way, the grace of Baptism is not prevented from forgiving all sins, even if
the hatred of another persisted in the soul of the person whose sins are being forgiven.
Yesterday is forgiven and all that went before it is forgiven, even the very hour and moment
before baptism and in baptism. But then the person immediately begins to be guilty not only
of what follows but even of the previous days, hours and moments. All that was forgiven
comes back, and how often this happens in the Church.

The case of the person baptized in danger of death
XIII.21. How often it happens that a person has an enemy that he hates most wickedly even
though we are commanded to love wicked enemies and to pray for them.
20
But suddenly
under the threat of death the person begins to be troubled and to request Baptism, which the
person receives in such a great hurry that the danger of the time hardly permits the necessary
questioning in even a few words, much less in a long speech, such that this hatred might be
driven from his heart, if it were known to the one baptizing him. Surely this does not cease
to occur not only among us but also among the Donatists. What should we say then? Are
this persons sins forgiven or not? Let them choose whatever they wish, but they
immediately return. The gospel says so; truth proclaims it. Whether they are forgiven or not,
some medicine is immediately necessary. Yet if the person had lived and had learned that he
had to be corrected, and indeed he had been, he would not be baptized again either among
us or among them. So in those things where neither schismatics nor heretics have different
opinions or practices from what the true Church does, when they come to us, we do not
correct them but rather we recognize them. In those things where they do not disagree with
us, in those things they are not separated from us. Nevertheless, it does them no good, as
long as they are schismatics or heretics, because of the other things in which they disagree

20
Lk 6:27.


16
with the truth and on account of the absolutely monstrous crime of dissent. Either their sins
remained with them or, if they were forgiven, they immediately returned. For that reason we
encourage them to come to salvation in peace and charity, not just so they might have
something they dont have, but so that what they did have will begin to benefit them.

If Donatists have Baptism, why join the Catholics?
XIV. 22. It is no use for them to say to us, If you receive our baptism, what do we lack such
you think we should consider joining your communion?
We reply: we do not receive any baptism as yours, because that Baptism is not the
baptism of schismatics or heretics, but it is the Baptism of God and the Church, wherever it
is found and wherever it is received. But, on your part, you have no ideas except false ones
and you perform sacrilegious acts and engage in irreligious schism. And even if all the other
things you held and believed were true but you remained in that same schism against the
bond of fraternal peace, against the unity of all your fellow Christians who are present
throughout the whole world just as they were promised, theres no way you could ever know
and discuss all their situations and their motives so that you could justly condemn them,
those who could not on that account be guilty, because they placed their trust in ecclesiastic
judges rather than litigants.

Answer: the necessity of charity
This is the only thing you lack: you lack charity. Now what need do we have to
censure you? You yourselves need to examine the writings of the Apostle to find out what
you lack. What does it matter to the person who lacks charity
21
whether that person is
carried away outside the Church on some wind of temptation or if the person does not
withdraw from the table of the Lord inside the Church only to be separated in the final
winnowing?
22
Even people like this, if they have once been born through baptism, do not
have to be born again.

The allegory of wives and servants as mothers: Part II
XV. 23. It is the Church that gives birth to all of them through Baptism whether they are
carried in her own home, i.e., in her own womb, or outside it, from the seed of her Husband.
Even Esau who was born of a wife was separated from the people of God because of
disagreement with his brother,
23
and Asher who was born with the consent of a wife but
from a slave received the land of the promise because of agreement with his brother.
24
It was
not the fact that his mother was a servant that harmed Ishmael and separated him from the

21
1 Co 13:2.
22
Mt 3:12; 13:39-40.
23
Gn 25:23.
24
Gn 30:13.


17
people of God, but it was his disagreement with his brother.
25
The status of the wife whose
child was the elder son did not benefit him, although through the same conjugal rights he
was conceived of a servant and received into the family from that servant.
So too it is with the Donatists, that by the right of the Church which gives birth by
Baptism to whoever are born and are of one mind with their brothers, they arrive at the land
of the promise through the unity of peace, not by coming forth from their mothers womb
but by being recognized as true offspring of their father. But if they persist in their
disagreement, they will share the fate of Ishmael. Ishmael was born first and then Isaac;
Esau was born first and then Jacob. It is not because heresies give birth before the Church or
that the Church itself gives birth to first carnal and animal children and then spiritual ones.
But in the very lot of our mortality by which we are born as children of Adam, it is not that
we are spiritual first and then animal and only later spiritual,
26
but Because the animal human
does not perceive the things that belong to the spirit of God (1 Co 2:14), all disagreements and
schisms arise from this animal sense. Those who persevere in that sense, the Apostle says,
belong to the Old Testament,
27
i.e., is to the desire for the earthly promises, by which
spiritual realities are prefigured, but the animal human does not perceive the things that belong to
the spirit of God.

Proofs from the correlation of the Old and New Testaments
24. Such then are the times in which people of this kind come into existence, so that they are
already initiated into divine sacraments according to their times, but they still know things
carnally and they hope for and desire carnal things from God both in this life and the next
life and they remain animals. But the Church, which is the people of God even on the
pilgrimage of this life, is an ancient institution. It has an animal portion composed of some
people and a spiritual one composed of others. The Old Testament relates to the animal
portion, the New Testament to the spiritual. However, in times past, from Adam all the way
up to Moses, both were hidden. But from the time of Moses the Old was revealed and the
New was hidden in it, because it was signified in a hidden manner. Afterwards when the
Lord came in the flesh,
28
the New was revealed. The sacraments of the Old came to an end,
but those things pertaining to concupiscence did not. For those whom the Apostle says have
already come to be born by the sacrament of the New Testament he still calls animal, i.e.,
they cannot perceive the things which belong to the spirit of God.
29
Just as certain spiritual
persons were living under the sacraments of the Old Testament and belonged to the New
Testament which was concealed in a hidden manner, likewise now in the sacrament of the
New Testament which is already revealed there are still many people living the animal life.

25
Gn 16:11, 17:20 and 21:9-10.
26
1 Co 15:46.
27
Ga 4:24; 2 Co 3:14.
28
1 Jn 4:2.


18
There are those who do not wish to make progress in perceiving what belongs to the spirit of
God by which the word of the Apostle exhorts them. They belong to the Old Testament. But
if they do make progress, even before they attain it, by their progress in approaching it, they
belong to the New Testament. And if they are taken from this life before they become
spiritual, they are safeguarded by the holiness of the sacrament and are counted among the
inhabitants of the land of the living
30
where Lord is our hope and our inheritance. I cannot
find a better interpretation for what is written: Your eyes saw my imperfection and what follows,
And all is recorded in your book (Ps 138:16).

The inhabitants of the Two Cities
XVI.25. But she who gave birth to Abel and Enoch and Noah and Abraham also gave birth
to Moses and later to the prophets of the times before the coming of the Lord, and it is she
who gave birth to the apostles and our martyrs
31
and all the good Christians. All born as
they are in various times appeared, and these people are contained in the community of a
single people and they are citizens of the same city. They have experienced the trials of this
pilgrimage and some do so even now, and others will experience them even to the end.
Likewise she who gave birth to Cain and Ham and Ishmael and Esau is the very same
person who gave birth to Dathan and other people like that, and she it is who gave birth to
them gave birth to Judas the false apostle and Simon Magus and the rest of the false
Christians even up to the present time, persisting obstinately in their animal attitude. Either
they are found mixed in unity or they dissent in open division. But when these false
Christians are evangelized by spiritual people and initiated into the sacraments, it is Rebecca
who gives birth to them as she did to Esau.
32
But when those who preach the gospel without
pure intent
33
bring forth people like that in the people of God, it is like Sarah did but through
Hagar.
34
Again when good spiritual people are brought to birth through the preaching of the
gospel and baptizing by carnal people, it is just as if Leah or Rachel gives birth to them
through their prerogative as wives but through the womb of a servant.
35
When good
Christians are born in the gospel through spiritual persons and attain a state of spiritual
maturity or do not cease attempting to move toward it or even do not do so because they
cannot, they are born into a new life and the New Testament, like Isaac from the womb of
Sarah and Jacob from Rebecca.
XVII.26. Also whether they seem to live inside or openly on the outside, what is flesh is

29
1 Co 2:14.
30
Ps 142:6.
31
Here Augustine is distinguishing between the true martyrs of the Catholics and the false martyrs of
the Donatists. The difference between the two is that true martyrs die for the true faith and false ones die, being
persecuted for their adherence to heresy.
32
Gn 25:25.
33
Ph 1:17.
34
Gn 16.15.


19
flesh.
36
Whether it remains on the threshing floor of its own sterility or it is borne away to
the outside during a time when the wind of temptation blows, what is chaff is chaff,
37
and it
is always separated from the unity of that Church which is without stain or wrinkle (Ep 5:27)
even when one is mixed in with the gathering of the saints in carnal obstinacy. But one
should never give up hope for one who appears like this on the inside or one who clearly
stands in opposition on the outside. The spiritual or those who in their piety and zeal are
making progress toward the same goal do not go outside. Even when they seem to be
expelled from the Church because of some perversity or human necessity, their value is
better proved in this situation than if they had remained on the inside, since they have not
rebelled in any way against the Church, but with the strongest charity they strike their roots
in the solid rock of unity. This is what is meant when scripture says of the sacrifice of
Abraham: But he did not divide the birds (Gn 15.10).

Conclusion
XVIII.27. Therefore, I think I have discussed the question of Baptism quite enough now:
how this very plainly clear schism is known by the name of Donatist. All that is left is to
show how we religiously believe about Baptism what the whole Church holds far from the
sacrilege of schism. Now as long as peace is preserved, some may believe one thing and
others another concerning this question, since this clearly and truly was the pleasure of a
universal council, just as it is written: Charity covers a multitude of sins (1 P 4:8). In its absence,
nothing else seems important; but when it is present certain things can be considered less
serious.28. Great evidence survives in the letters of the blessed martyr Cyprian. I want to get
to them but the Donatists flatter themselves carnally using his authority, while they are
spiritually annihilated by his charity. There was a time before the consent of the whole
Church confirmed by the judgment of the plenary council what must be observed on this
issue. At that point it seemed to him, along with nearly eighty fellow bishops of the African
churches, that the person who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic
Church had to be baptized all over again upon coming into the Church. On this point the
Lord had not yet revealed to such a man as this that it was not right to do this. The purpose
was that his pious humility and charity in keeping the peace of the Church might become
known and might be noticed not only by Christians of his own time but also to those who
came later as, if I may say so, a remedy. A bishop of such merit, of such a church, of such a
disposition, of such eloquence and such virtue, along with many of his colleagues, thought
something different about Baptism than what diligently sought truth was later to endorse.
Nevertheless, he did not break communion with those who had a different opinion while he
did not stop trying to persuade those who thought otherwise, such that they put up with one

35
Gn 30:3.
36
Jn 3:6.
37
Mt 3:12.


20
another in love striving to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ep 4:2-3). Thus there
remained the cohesiveness of the body so that if any member of this unity were weak, the
health of the rest might help the person to recover rather than to allow some deadly
scrupulosity to cut the person off with no cure. And if the sick person separated himself, how
many people would follow him! What reputation would he have! How much more famous
would the Cyprianists have been than the Donatists! But he was not one of the sons of
perdition,
38
about whom it is said: You have cast them down even as they were lifted up (Ps
72:18), but he was one of the sons of the peace of the Church who, in spite of the brilliant
light shining on his heart, could not seem to be better. And, says the Apostle, I will show you
an even better way. If I speak with a human or angelic voice, but do not have charity, I have become a
sounding brass or tinkling cymbal (1 Co 13:2). But Cyprian had not advanced so far that he
could perceive the mystery hidden in the sacrament, but even if he knew all the sacramental
mysteries, but he did not have charity, he would have been nothing. Even though he had a
less penetrating perception of the sacrament, nevertheless, he cared for it humbly, faithfully
and strongly so that he might merit enduring the crown of martyrdom. Then even if a fog
crept over his brilliant but human mind, the glorious serenity of the martyrs blood would
have put it to flight. The Lord Jesus Christ himself, when he says that he is the vine and that
his own are the branches on the vine, does not speak in vain when says that they are cut off
and taken away as useless branches when they do not produce fruit.
39
Now what is the fruit
except that new production about which he says: I am giving you a new commandment that you
should love one another (Jn 13:34)? This is the charity without which nothing is profitable. And
the Apostle says: The fruits of the Spirit are charity, joy, peace, long-sufferingness, kindness,
goodness, faith, gentleness, and continence (Ga 5:22-23). All of these spring from charity and,
combining with the rest, they form something like a marvelous plant. It was not without
reason that the Lord added: But my Father prunes the branches which produce fruit in me so that
they may bring forth more fruit (Jn 15:2), except for the fact that those who are strong in the
fruit of charity could nevertheless have some need to be pruned, which the keeper of the
vineyard would not neglect. If then this holy person entertained an idea about Baptism
different from the reality which was later established by a extended and most diligent
consideration, he remained in Catholic unity. The fruitfulness of charity balanced out his
fault and he was purified by the pruning-hook of passion.
XIX. 29. Now I dont want to seem to be avoiding the burden of proof in praising the glory
of the most blessed martyr, a glory which is not so much his as that of the One in whose
grace he was outstanding. So now we are going to produce evidence from his letters which
will really shut up the Donatists. It is his authority that they ignorantly invoke to
demonstrate that they are doing the right thing when they rebaptize Christians who come
over to them. They are just so pathetic and, unless they correct themselves, they are

38
Jn 17:12; 2 Th 2:3.


21
completely condemned by their own testimony. They choose to imitate such a man in that
peace which did him no harm because he walked with the most steadfast steps to the very
end. But it is that peace from which they wandered because they did not know the way of
peace.
40


39
Jn 15:1-6.
40
Cf. Ps 14:3.
Now the fact that the Baptism of Christ is considered holy everywhere, even among
the heretics and schismatics, does not mean that it belongs to heretics and schismatics, and
therefore, not to the Catholic Church, so that they should be rebaptized. But the judgment
of Cyprian is one thing, and it is another to be wandering from Catholic peace falling into
the abominable ditch of schism and determining that people need to be rebaptized. For the
abundance of his charity covered up that blemish on the brilliance of his holy soul, but this
restive wound exposes the foulness of their infernal filth. However, since we have to treat
what pertains to the authority of the blessed Cyprian we will treat it in the next book.