Library › St Optatus of Milevis › Against the Donatists

Against the Donatists

St Optatus of Milevis, tr. Vassall-Phillips, 1917

Book 1, 5. The Nature of Parmenian’s Book

Now I understand well, and you do not deny,----and every man, who is not a fool, will quite plainly see for himself----that you never would have written at such a length for any other purpose, excepting that you might, by your writings, strike an undeserved blow at the Catholic Church. But (as it has been given me to discover) whilst your wishes say one thing, your arguments shout another. Moreover, I perceive that not all that you have written is an argument against Catholicism.¹

Indeed, though you are not a Catholic, what you say often tells in favour of the Catholic Church.² Therefore it will only be necessary for us to answer you when through wrong information you write, not of what you have yourself seen,³ but of what you have heard from others speaking falsely (although we have read in the Epistle of Peter:
‘Be ye unwilling to judge your brother without certainty ‘⁴).

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.⁵

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 favour⁶ 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 schismatics⁷----that you have proved that heretics are strangers to Catholic Sacraments.⁸

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,⁹ [of the facts]----for instance, your indictment of ‘Betrayers’¹⁰ and schismatics.

The way in which you have written concerning the Sacraments and Sacrifice,¹¹ 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 one¹² 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.¹³ It is not an argument in favour of you, who dare to repeat, against the laws,¹⁴ 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,¹⁵ 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.¹⁶

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 right¹⁷ baptisms which have been administered by you, because both amongst us and amongst you the Sacrament is one.¹⁸

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

Notes

contra Catholicam. Tertullian (Praescr. 30) was the first Father to use Catholica as a substantive. This use ceases after the seventh century. We find it 240 times in St. Augustine.
immo multa pro Catholica, cum Catholicus non sis.
Cf. iii, 12: ‘Veritas perspecta oculis dulcedinem suam in se habens a falsae opinionis limitibus separata est’ etc.
We have here probably a paraphrase of James iv, 11. St. Optatus (no doubt quoting by heart) must have written Petri instead of Jacobi by a lapse either of pen or of memory.
Parmenian had argued that the Flood was a type, and Circumcision the forerunner, of Baptism. But this told in favour of Catholics and against the Donatists (who rebaptised) since there was only one Flood and only one Circumcision.
Since Catholics admitted the validity of Baptism administered by Donatists.
The Donatists, though not yet heretics, had by making or joining a schism, lost their right to the Sacraments of the Church.
extraneos esse Catholicis Sacramentis = the Sacraments of the Catholic Church; cf. iii, 9 ‘de unitate Catholica’ = the unity of the Catholic Church.
quia peregrinus es (cf. iii, 3).
Traditorum. The crime of Traditio was the betraying of the Sacred Books and Vessels under the stress of persecution. I have throughout translated Traditores ‘Betrayers’ and Traditio ‘Betrayal.’
de oleo et sacrificio peccatoris. Oleum is here used for the Sacraments, since Unction has from very early times been used in Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Order (cf. note 3, p. 109) and the Last Anointing. The reference is to Ps. cxl, 5: ‘Oleum autem peccatoris non impinguet caput Meum.’ (Cf. iv, 7, etc.)
singularem. Cf. Singulare Baptisma (iii, 2; v, 1), Singulare Sacramentum (i, 11), Singularis Cathedra (ii, 2), and Res singularis (bis) (v, 10).
Cf. ii, 10.
sc. Baptismatis. (Cf. v, 4: ‘Apostolorum, quibus leges baptismatis dedit,’ and ‘certo tempore dedit leges baptismatis Filius Dei.’)
sc. the Oneness of Baptism.
The crafty argument of the Donatists was this: ‘There is only one Baptism, it is true, but the right to baptise is lost by the crime of ‘Traditio’----and the Catholics were Traditores. Therefore Baptism administered by Catholics was no Baptism. It was ‘unlawful,’ null and void from the beginning.
emendamus. Literally correct, sc. by rebaptising.
This is the enunciation of the true Catholic principle. Whether Peter baptises, or John, or James, or Judas Iscariot, it is truly Christ who baptises. (Cf. S. Aug. Tract. vi in Joannem: ‘Nam si pro diversitate meritorum Baptisma sanctum est, quia diversa sunt merita, diversa erunt baptismata; et tanto quisque aliquid melius putatur accipere, quanto a meliore videtur accepisse.’)