Letter 70: Alypius and Augustine press Naucelio on Felicianus and Donatist rebaptism.

When you reported to us what your bishop Clarentius had answered about Felicianus of Musti, namely that he did not deny Felicianus had been condemned by them and later received back into his office, but said that he had been condemned while innocent because he was absent and proved that he had been absent, this is what we say he must answer: it was not lawful to condemn unheard a man whom the very people who condemned him now say was innocent. Either an innocent man should not have been condemned, or a guilty man, once condemned, should not have been received back. If he was received as innocent, then he was condemned as innocent. If he was condemned as guilty, then he was received as guilty. If those who condemned him did not know whether he was innocent, they must be accused of rashness, because they dared to condemn unheard an innocent man about whom they did not know the truth. From this present case we understand that with the same rashness they also condemned those earlier men whom they branded with the crime of handing over the sacred books. If an innocent man could be condemned by them, then men who were not betrayers could also be called betrayers by them. Then again, this same Felicianus, after being condemned by them, was for a long time in communion with Maximian in that sacrilegious schism. If he was innocent when he was condemned, why did he later, while in communion with the criminal Maximian, baptize many people through his churches outside their communion? The witnesses are the very men who acted before the proconsul to have Felicianus expelled from the basilica as someone belonging to Maximian. So it was not enough to condemn him absent, to condemn him unheard, to condemn him, as they say, innocent; they even went to the proconsul against him to have him thrown out of the church. At least when they were expelling him from the church, they admit that they counted him among the condemned, the guilty, and the Maximianists. When, therefore, he baptized people while in communion with Maximian, did he give true baptism or false baptism? If he gave true baptism while in communion with Maximian, why is the baptism of the whole world accused? But if he gave false baptism while in communion with Maximian, why were the people he baptized in the Maximianist schism received with him in that condition, and why did no one in your party rebaptize them?

EPISTOLA 70 Scripta post a. 397 vel 400. Alypius Augustinusque Donatistarum temeritatem Catholicos insimulantium quod libros Sanctos in persecutione tradidissent, probant ex causa Feliciani Mustitani ab ipsis primum solemniter damnati ac postea in honore suo recepti (n. 1-2). Domino dilectissimo et honorabili fratri Naucelioni, Alypius et Augustinus Felicianus a Donatistis damnatus ac redintegratus. 1. Cum retulisses nobis quid ab episcopo vestro Clarentio responsum fuerit, id est, de Feliciano Mustitano non eum negasse, et damnatum ab ipsis, et postea in honore suo receptum, sed innocentem fuisse damnatum, quia absens fuerit, et absentem se fuisse probaverit; hoc dicimus, ut ad hoc respondeat, quia non licuit damnari inauditum, quem innocentem fuisse ipsi modo dicunt, qui eum damnaverunt. Aut ergo innocens damnari non debuit, aut nocens recipi damnatus non debuit. Si innocens receptus est, innocens damnatus est; si nocens damnatus est, nocens receptus est. Si nesciebant, qui illum damnaverunt, utrum innocens fuerit, arguendi sunt temeritatis, quia inauditum, innocentem, de quo nesciebant, damnare ausi sunt; et de praesenti facto intellegimus eadem temeritate illos damnasse etiam superiores quos traditionis crimine infamaverunt. Si enim potuit ab ipsis innocens damnari, potuerunt ab ipsis traditores etiam dici qui non erant traditores. Verumne an falsum baptisma contulerit Felicianus. 2. Deinde idem Felicianus damnatus ab ipsis multo tempore cum Maximiano communicavit; si innocens erat quando damnatus est, quare posteriore tempore cum scelerato Maximiano communicans multos baptizavit extra communionem ipsorum? Testes sunt ipsi, qui egerunt apud proconsulem, ut idem Felicianus tanquam cum Maximiano de Basilica excluderetur. Parum ergo erat damnasse absentem, damnasse inauditum, damnasse, sicut dicunt, innocentem; insuper et aditus est contra illum proconsul, ut de ecclesia expelleretur. Vel tunc quando illum expellebant de ecclesia, fatentur quia inter damnatos et sceleratos et Maximianistas eum deputaverunt. Quando ergo. ille baptizabat homines, Maximiano communicans, baptismum verum dabat an falsum? Si verum baptismum dabat qui cum Maximiano communicabat, quare accusatur baptismus orbis terrarum? Si autem falsum baptismum dabat, quando communicabat cum Maximiano, quare sic sunt recepti cum illo quos in schismate Maximiani baptizavit, et nemo eos in parte vestra rebaptizavit?