IV. Why Optatus thought it well to undertake the task of refuting Parmenian's book.
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 |8 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 |9 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.
V. 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.
Indeed, though you are not a Catholic, what you say often tells in favour of the Catholic Church. Therefore it will only be necessary for us to answer you when through wrong information you write, not of what you have yourself seen, 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 ' ). |10
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, |11 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 |12 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, |13 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.
VI. The arguments set forth in Parmenian's treatise.
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.