{"author":null,"backreferences":[{"context_html":"<p><span class=\"smcap\">Chap. li.</span>—63. Next, listen for a short time to the kind of\r\nway in which he has tried to use, in his own behalf, the\r\npassages which I had advanced from the writings of the Apostle\r\nPaul. \"For you asserted,\" he says, \"that the Apostle Paul finds\r\nfault with those who used to say that they were of the Apostle<span class=\"pagenum\"><a id=\"Page_466\">[Pg 466]</a></span>\r\nPaul, saying, 'Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized\r\nin the name of Paul?'<a id=\"FNanchor_1152_1152\"></a><a class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_1152_1152\">[1152]</a> Wherefore, if they were in error, and\r\nwould have perished had they not been corrected, because they\r\nwished to be of Paul, what hope can there possibly be for those\r\nwho have wished to be of Donatus? For this is their sole\r\nobject, that the origin, and root, and head of him that is baptized\r\nshould be none other than he by whom he is baptized.\"<a id=\"FNanchor_1153_1153\"></a><a class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_1153_1153\">[1153]</a>\r\nThese words, and this confirmation from the writings of the\r\napostle, he has quoted from my epistle, and he has proposed\r\nto himself the task of refuting them. Go on then, I beg of\r\nyou, to see how he has fulfilled the task. For he says, \"This\r\nassertion is meaningless, and inflated, and childish, and foolish,\r\nand something very far from a true exposition of our faith. For\r\nyou would only be right in asserting this, if we were to say,\r\nWe have been baptized in the name of Donatus, or Donatus\r\nwas crucified for us, or we have been baptized in our own name.\r\nBut since such things as this neither have been said nor are\r\nsaid by us,—seeing that we follow the formula of the holy\r\nTrinity,—it is clear that you are mad to bring such accusations\r\nagainst us. Or if you think that we have been baptized in\r\nthe name of Donatus, or in our own name, you are miserably\r\ndeceived, and at the same time confess in your sacrilege that\r\nyou on your part defile your wretched selves in the name of\r\nCæcilianus.\" This is the answer which Petilianus has made\r\nto those arguments of mine, not supposing—or rather making\r\na noise that no one might suppose—that he has made no\r\nanswer at all which could bear in any way upon the question\r\nwhich is under discussion. For who could fail to see that\r\nthis witness of the apostle has been adduced by us with all\r\nthe more propriety, in that you do not say that you were baptized\r\nin the name of Donatus, or that Donatus was crucified\r\nfor you, and yet separate yourselves from the communion of\r\nthe Catholic Church out of respect to the party of Donatus;\r\nas also those whom Paul was rebuking certainly did not\r\nsay that they had been baptized in the name of Paul, or that\r\nPaul had been crucified for them, and yet they were making\r\na schism in the name of Paul. As therefore in their case,\r\nfor whom Christ, not Paul, was crucified, and who were bap<span class=\"pagenum\"><a id=\"Page_467\">[Pg 467]</a></span>tized\r\nin the name of Christ, not of Paul, and who yet said,\r\n\"I am of Paul,\" the rebuke is used with all the more propriety,\r\n\"Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the\r\nname of Paul?\" to make them cling to Him who was crucified\r\nfor them, and in whose name they were baptized, and not\r\nbe guilty of division in the name of Paul; so in your case,\r\nalso, the rebuke, Was Donatus crucified for you? or were ye\r\nbaptized in the name of Donatus? is used all the more\r\nappositely, because you do not say, We were baptized in the\r\nname of Donatus, and yet desire to be of the party of\r\nDonatus. For you know that it was Christ who was crucified\r\nfor you, and Christ in whose name you were baptized; and yet,\r\nout of respect to the name and party of Donatus, you show\r\nsuch obstinacy in fighting against the unity of Christ, who\r\nwas crucified for you, and in whose name you were baptized.</p>","headings":["WRITINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE DONATIST CONTROVERSY.","BOOK THIRD."],"marker_anchor":null,"paragraph_id":"pg45843-paragraph-742"}],"canonical_references":[],"date_end":null,"date_start":null,"deduplication_fingerprint":"80e61834d1d712e79f7e1cd2bdcad95943027a1a09c7dc65950ab7bf6826711a","edition_title":"Writings in Connection with the Donatist Controversy","edition_translators":["John Richard King"],"edition_year":1872,"explicit_reference_candidates":[{"book":"1CO","chapter":1,"kind":"unreviewed","source_notation":"1 Cor. i. 13","verse":13,"verse_end":13}],"headings":[],"id":"pg45843-Footnote_1152_1152","license_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html","public_import_allowed":false,"record_kind":"original-editor-translator-note","review_required":["work and recension attribution","original-work chronology","Bible reference numbering and citation kind","English edition rights and attribution"],"review_status":"needs_review","rights_evidence":"Provider catalog reports public domain in the USA. Title leaves identify J. R. King, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1872; catalog identifies translator John Richard King (1835-1907). Gutenberg credits Internet Archive/American Libraries without an exact scan identifier. Full provider license preserved with acquired original; republication and per-work metadata remain unreviewed.","source_anchor":"Footnote_1152_1152","source_ebook":45843,"source_html":"<div class=\"footnote\">\n<p><a id=\"Footnote_1152_1152\"></a><a class=\"pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_1152_1152\"><span class=\"label\">[1152]</span></a> 1 Cor. i. 13.</p></div>","source_sha256":"a7a04003f4d3c49eb73db6c5936713979fcecadd86884373a9914ac54373ac5b","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/45843/pg45843-images.html#Footnote_1152_1152","text_sha256":"4333b65cd3b9d57d6d4387220f0d705aa69a7109b54d999773c7d1aff38d1547","verified":false,"work_id":null}