Dialogue Against the Luciferians. -Blessed Jerome.

Recently, one of Lucifer’s followers, in an unbearably talkative argument with another man who was a child of the Church, displayed eloquence that was purely dog-like in its malice. He claimed that the devil had taken possession of the entire world, and that the Church—as they are accustomed to say—had turned into a brothel. The other man, on the contrary, though he argued reasonably, did so inappropriately and at the wrong time, insisting that Christ had not died without cause, and that the Son of God had not descended from heaven merely for one foul leather tunic. And to what end? When the lanterns lit along the streets broke up the circle of their listeners and night put an end to the absurd dispute, they parted, nearly spitting in each other’s faces. Yet those who were present proposed that they should meet the very next morning in a secluded portico. When everyone gathered there as agreed, it was decided to have the speeches of both sides recorded by shorthand writers.

So when all had taken their seats, the Luciferian Helladius said: I want you first to answer me this: Are the Arians Christians, or not?

Orthodox: I will put a broader question to you: Are all heretics in general Christians?

Luciferian: Whoever you call a heretic, you have already said he is not a Christian.

Orthodox: Then all heretics are not Christians?

Luciferian: You have already heard it.

Orthodox: If they are not Christ’s, then they belong to the devil.

Luciferian: No one doubts that.

Orthodox: If they belong to the devil, then it makes no difference whether they are heretics or pagans.

Luciferian: I do not deny it.

Orthodox: So we have agreed between us that a heretic should be spoken of in the same way as a pagan.

Luciferian: Indeed, we have agreed.

Orthodox: Now ask whatever you wish, since we are agreed that heretics are pagans.

Luciferian: What I was aiming for with my question has been stated—that heretics are not Christians. Now the conclusion remains. If the Arians are heretics, and all heretics are pagans, then the Arians too are pagans. And if the Arians are pagans, and if the Church can have no communion with Arians—that is, with pagans—then clearly your Church, which receives bishops from the Arians (that is, from pagans), receives not so much bishops as priests from the Capitol. Therefore it ought rather to be called the synagogue of Antichrist than the Church of Christ.

Orthodox: Here the prophecy is fulfilled: “He dug a pit for me, and has fallen into it himself.”

Luciferian: How so?

Orthodox: If you say the Arians are pagans, and the gatherings of Arians are camps of the devil, then how do you accept someone baptized in the devil’s camp?

Luciferian: I accept him, but only when he repents.

Orthodox: You clearly do not understand what you are saying. Who accepts a pagan on the condition of repentance?

Luciferian: At the beginning of the conversation I answered simply that all heretics are pagans. But since the question was put with cunning, I concede victory to you on the first point and move to the next. This time I maintain that a layman coming from the Arians should be received through repentance, but a cleric should not.

Orthodox: I have won, as you say, on the first point; I have won on the second as well.

Luciferian: Explain how you have won.

Orthodox: Do you not know that both laymen and clergy have one and the same Christ, that the God of the newly converted is not different from the God of bishops? Why then would the one who receives repentant laymen not receive repentant clergy?

Luciferian: It is not the same thing to shed tears over sins and to touch the Lord’s body. It is not the same to fall at the knees of the brethren and to distribute the Eucharist to the people from an elevated place. It is one thing to grieve over what you once were, and another thing, having set aside sin, to be surrounded in the church with honor. You, who just yesterday blasphemously proclaimed the Son of God a creature; you, who daily—worse than a Jew—hurled stones of blasphemy at Christ; whose hands are full of blood, whose pen was the spear of a soldier—you, an adulterer, enter the virgin Church one hour after your conversion? If you repent of your sins, lay down the priestly office; if you intend to keep sinning, remain what you were!

Orthodox: You are orating and indulging in empty declamation just to avoid the difficulties you have run into in the argument. Leave off, I beg you, the commonplaces, and come back directly to the point; afterward, if you wish, we can speak more at length.

Luciferian: There is no declamation here. Grief surpasses patience; speak as you will, prove as you will—you will never convince me that a repentant bishop and a repentant layman are the same thing.

Orthodox: Since you stubbornly maintain that the position of a bishop is different from that of a layman, to shorten the dispute I will agree with you and will not grudge fighting you after yielding the ground to you. Explain to me then why you receive a layman coming from the Arians but do not receive a bishop.

Luciferian: I receive the layman because he acknowledges his error; and the Lord prefers the repentance of a sinner to his death.

Orthodox: Then receive the bishop too: for he also acknowledges his error, and the Lord prefers the repentance of a sinner to his death.

Luciferian: If he acknowledges that he was in error, how then can he remain a bishop? Let him lay down his priesthood, and I will grant absolution to the one who repents.

Orthodox: I will answer you with your own words. If a layman acknowledges that he was in error, how can he remain a layman? Let him lay down the “priesthood” of the layman—that is, baptism—and I will grant absolution to the one who repents. For it is written: “and hast made us kings and priests unto God and his Father” (Rev. 1:6). And again: “a holy nation, a royal priesthood, a purchased people” (1 Pet. 2:9). Everything that is unlawful for a Christian is equally unlawful for a bishop as for a layman. Whoever repents condemns his past. If it is unlawful for a repentant bishop to remain what he was, it is likewise unlawful for a repentant layman to continue in that for which he repents.

Luciferian: We receive laymen because no one would convert if he knew he would have to receive a second baptism; and by rejecting them we would become the cause of their destruction.

Orthodox: By receiving a layman you save one soul through that acceptance; but by receiving a bishop I join to the Church—not to say the inhabitants of one city, but an entire region that he governs. If I reject him, he will drag many along with him into destruction. That is why I ask you to apply to the salvation of the whole world the very same rule by which you are guided in receiving a few. But this does not please you, and you are so hard-hearted, and at the same time so unreasonably indulgent, that you consider the one who gave baptism an enemy of Christ, but the one who received it a son. We, however, do not contradict ourselves: either we receive the bishop along with the people whom he makes a Christian people, or—if we do not receive the bishop—we consider it necessary to reject the people as well.

Luciferian: Tell me, I beg you, have you read what is said about bishops: “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Matt. 5:13)—and likewise that when the people sin, the priest intercedes with God for them, but for the priest no one else intercedes (cf. 1 Sam. 3)? Both these passages of Scripture converge on one thought. For just as salt seasons every food, and nothing is so pleasant in itself that it would appeal to the taste without it, so too the bishop is the seasoning for the whole world and for his own church. And if he becomes insipid—whether through denial of Christ, or through heresy, or through lust, or, in a word, through sins of every kind—from whom will he receive seasoning when he himself was the seasoning for all? For the priest offers his sacrifice for the layman, lays his hand on the subordinate, invokes the return of the Holy Spirit, and in this way reconciles to the altar the one “delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved” (1 Cor. 5:5), through a prayer pronounced in the hearing of the people; and he does not restore the health of one member before all the members are joined together. A father readily forgives a son when the mother pleads for her child. Therefore, if a repentant layman is restored in the church with the status we have mentioned, and receives absolution in the same condition in which he previously mourned his sins, it is clear that a priest who has been deposed cannot be restored to the same place—because either he will lose his priesthood if he repents, or, if he continues to enjoy the honor, he cannot be received back into the church in the manner of one doing penance. But you, with your insipid salt, ruin the taste of the church for me; you place upon the altar one who, cast out, ought to lie on the dungheap, to be trodden under foot by all men! And where then is the well-known apostolic command: “A bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God” (Titus 1:7)? And again: “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat” (1 Cor. 11:28)? Where is the Lord’s saying: “Cast not your pearls before swine” (Matt. 7:6)? If you understand this as said about all people in general, how much more caution ought to be taken with regard to priests, when even laymen are to be guarded against so carefully? “Depart,” says the Lord through Moses, “from the tents of these hard-hearted men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins” (Num. 16:26). And again in the twelve prophets: “Their sacrifices are like the bread of mourners; all that eat thereof shall be polluted” (Hos. 9:4). And in the Gospel the Lord says: “The light of the body is the eye,” that is, the lamp of the church is the bishop. “If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light” (Matt. 6:22). For when the priest preaches the true faith, darkness is scattered from the hearts of all. And he gives the reason: “Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house” (Matt. 5:15). This means that God kindles in the bishop the spark of his knowledge so that he may not shine for himself alone, but bring benefit to all. And in conclusion he says: “But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matt. 6:23)! And rightly so. If a bishop is appointed in the church to keep the people from error, what will the wandering of the people be like when the teacher himself goes astray! How can one who is himself a sinner remit sins? How can a sacrilegious man make another holy? Whence does light come to me if my eye is blinded? Alas! The disciple of Antichrist rules over the Church of Christ! And to what purpose is the saying: “Ye cannot serve two masters” (Matt. 6:24)? And the other: “What communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” (2 Cor. 6:14–15). We read in the Old Testament: “What man soever hath any blemish or defect, let him not approach to offer gifts to the Lord” (Lev. 21:17). And again: “Let the priests that come near to the Lord God be clean, lest at any time the Lord look upon them” (Ex. 19:22). And in the same place: “Let those who approach the holy things not take upon themselves sin, lest they die” (Lev. 22:9). I pass over many other things that could be cited without end, for the sake of brevity. It is not the quantity of testimonies that matters, but their weight. From this it is evident that with a little leaven you have corrupted the whole lump of the church, and today you receive the Eucharist from the hands of one on whom yesterday you spat as on an idol.

Orthodox: Although you have, by recollection, quoted much and abundantly from the sacred books, yet if you pass through this whole forest, you will fall into my nets. Let it be, as you wish, that an Arian bishop is an enemy of Christ, that he is salt that has lost its savor, a lamp without flame, an eye without a pupil; on this basis you will certainly conclude that one who himself has no salt cannot season, that a blind man cannot give sight, that an extinguished wick cannot kindle. But how do you claim the cook has no salt when you devour food seasoned by him? Your church is lit by his spark, yet you slander that his lamp has gone out? He gives you eyes, yet he himself is blind? Therefore I beg you: either acknowledge the right to offer sacrifice for the one whose baptism you approve, or reject also the baptism performed by the one whom you do not regard as a priest. For it cannot be that one who is holy at the font is a sinner at the altar.

Luciferian: But I receive a repentant layman through the laying on of hands and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, in the conviction that heretics cannot confer the Holy Spirit.

Orthodox: All the paths of your reasoning converge on one single crossroads, and like timid deer fleeing from the imagined flapping of wings, you entangle yourselves in the strongest nets. For if a man baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit becomes a temple of the Lord; if, after the destruction of the old shrine, he is built up as a new temple of the Trinity—then how is it that according to you the Arians can remit sins without the descent of the Holy Spirit? How is a soul cleansed of its ancient defilements if it lacks the Holy Spirit? For it is not water that washes the soul, but the water itself is first washed by the Spirit so that it may then spiritually wash others. “The Spirit of the Lord,” says Moses, “moved upon the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:2). From this it is clear that baptism does not take place without the Holy Spirit. The Jewish pool of Bethesda received power to heal paralyzed bodily limbs only through the descent of an angel; yet you present me with a soul washed by plain water, as though in a bathhouse. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself—who was not so much cleansed by the font as he cleansed all waters in his font—had scarcely lifted his head from the river when he immediately received the Holy Spirit; not because he was ever without the Holy Spirit (for he was born in the flesh of the Holy Spirit), but to show us that true baptism is that in which the Holy Spirit descends. Therefore, if an Arian cannot confer the Holy Spirit, he cannot baptize either; for church baptism without the Holy Spirit is worthless. But you, who receive the one who has been baptized and then invoke the (not-yet-received) Holy Spirit upon him, must either baptize him—because he could not have been baptized without the Holy Spirit—or, if he was baptized in the Spirit, cease invoking the Spirit upon him, since he received him at the time of his baptism.

Luciferian: But come now, have you not read in the Acts of the Apostles that those who had already been baptized by John, when the apostles asked them and they answered that they had not even heard whether there was a Holy Spirit, afterward received the Holy Spirit? From this it is evident that a person can be baptized and yet not have the Holy Spirit.

Orthodox: I suppose the hearers are not so ignorant of the divine Scriptures that much needs to be said to resolve this little objection. But before I reply to your words, listen to what confusion appears in the Scriptures according to your understanding. What does it mean that John, in his baptism, could not give the Holy Spirit to others, when he did give him to Christ? And who was John himself? “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God” (Isa. 40:3; Matt. 3:3). Again he said: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). To put it briefly, even from his mother’s womb he cried out: “Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43). And yet he did not give the Holy Spirit—which Philip the deacon gave to the eunuch (Acts 8), and which Ananias gave to Paul (Acts 9)? But perhaps it will seem that I am boldly exalting John above all others. Listen to the words of the Lord: “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist” (Matt. 11:11). To no one among the prophets was it granted both to foretell Christ and to point him out with the finger. And what need is there for me to heap praises on such a man when God the Father himself calls him an angel? “Behold,” he says, “I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee” (Matt. 11:10). Indeed he was an angel—he who, after finding shelter in the wilderness from his mother’s womb, made sport with serpents in his childhood; he who, having seen Christ with his eyes, deemed nothing else worthy to look upon; he who trained his tongue—worthy of God—with words of God sweeter than honey and the honeycomb. To come quickly to the point, I say that it was fitting for the Forerunner of the Lord to grow in such a way. So then, he—such and so great—did not give the Holy Spirit, yet Cornelius the centurion received him even before his baptism? Tell me then, I beg you, why did he not give it? You do not know? Hear what the Scriptures teach: the baptism of John did not so much remit sins as it was a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins—that is, unto a future remission that would follow afterward through Christ’s sanctification. For it is written: “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). And a little later: “And they were baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins” (Mark 1:5). Just as he himself was the Forerunner of the Lord, so his baptism was a foreshadowing of the Lord’s baptism. “He that is of the earth,” he said, “speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all” (John 3:31). And again: “I indeed baptize you with water … but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 3:11). If then John, as he himself confessed, did not baptize spiritually, it follows that he did not remit sins either, because no man’s sins are remitted without the Holy Spirit. But perhaps in your contentiousness you will argue that John’s baptism remitted sins because it was from heaven; in that case, show me what greater thing we receive in Christ’s baptism. That which remits sins delivers from Gehenna. That which delivers from Gehenna is perfect. But baptism cannot be called perfect unless it is founded on the cross and resurrection of Christ. Therefore, in light of John’s own words—“He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30)—you are piously perverse: you attribute more to the baptism of the servant than it possessed, while you nullify the baptism of the Lord, leaving it no place. To what conclusion does this lead? To this: that you should not be surprised if those baptized by John received the Holy Spirit afterward, through the laying on of the apostles’ hands; for it is known that they did not receive even remission of sins without the faith that was to come in the future. But you, who accept one baptized by Arians and acknowledge his baptism as complete, on what ground do you invoke the Holy Spirit upon him—as though something minor were lacking—when Christ’s baptism without the Holy Spirit is worthless? However, I have spoken at too great length, and I shoot light arrows from afar when I could meet the enemy’s attack breast to breast. John’s baptism was so imperfect that, as is well known, those baptized by him were afterward baptized with Christ’s baptism. For the history says this: “And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts of Asia came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them” (Acts 19:1–6). Therefore, if they had been baptized with the true and lawful church baptism, and because of this received the Holy Spirit afterward, then you too imitate the example of the apostles: baptize those who do not have Christ’s baptism, and you may invoke the Holy Spirit upon them.

Luciferian: Those who feel thirst in a dream greedily press their lips to the river. But the more they drink, the more they thirst. That is how you seem to me, gathering refutations from every side against the little objection I raised, while the question nevertheless remains unresolved. Do you not even know the custom of the churches, by which hands are laid on those who have been baptized after their baptism, and thus the Holy Spirit is invoked upon them? You will ask where this is written?—In the Acts of the Apostles. Yet even if no testimony from Scripture had been preserved, the universal agreement of the world on this matter has the force of a positive command. For many other things observed in the church by tradition have the force of written law: such is the custom of triple immersion of the head in the font, and upon coming out, tasting milk and honey mingled together as a sign of spiritual childhood; likewise, praying on the Lord’s day and throughout the whole of Pentecost without bending the knees, and relaxing fasts. There are many other things observed reasonably without Scripture. From this you see that we follow the custom of the church, even though it is known beforehand that the person has been baptized before the invocation of the Holy Spirit.

Orthodox: I do not deny that there is such a custom in the churches, whereby a bishop comes to invoke the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands upon those who have been baptized by presbyters and deacons far from the larger cities. But how wickedly you act when you apply church laws to heresy, and try to reconcile the chastity of your virgin with the brothels of harlots! If a bishop lays on hands, he does so upon those baptized in the right faith, who believed in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in three persons, one substance. But an Arian—who believed in nothing else (I ask the hearers to stop their ears lest they be defiled by such impious words) except the Father, the one true God, in Jesus Christ the Savior as a creature, and in the Holy Spirit as the servant of both—how then will he receive the Holy Spirit from the church when he has not yet received remission of sins? The Holy Spirit dwells only in a pure habitation and does not enter a temple that lacks the champion of the true faith. If you now ask why one baptized in the church receives the Holy Spirit only through the bishop’s hand—though we maintain that he is conferred in true baptism—know that this custom arose because the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles after Christ’s ascension. And we find that in many places the same thing is done more for the honor of the priesthood than from any necessity of law. Otherwise, if the Holy Spirit descended only by the prayer of a bishop, we should have to mourn for those in villages, fortresses, and more remote places who, baptized by presbyters and deacons, die before bishops have visited them. The well-being of the church depends on the dignity of the chief priest: if he is not granted some extraordinary and preeminent authority above all others, there will arise as many schisms in the churches as there are priests. Hence it came about that without the anointing and command of the bishop, neither presbyter nor deacon has the right to baptize. We know that this is often permitted even to laymen when necessity demands it. For as one has received, so he can give. It cannot be thought that the eunuch baptized by Philip the deacon did not have the Holy Spirit, of whom Scripture says: “And they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Holy Ghost fell on the eunuch” (Acts 8:38–39). But perhaps you think to object to me that—“When the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them)” (Acts 8:14–16). But learn from what follows why this happened. He himself (the Holy Spirit) says: “only they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8:16–17). If you say that you act in a similar way because heretics did not baptize in the Holy Spirit, know that Philip was not separated from the apostles, that he had the same church, preached the same Lord Jesus Christ, and was truly a deacon of those who afterward laid on hands. But you, who say that among the Arians there is no church but synagogues, that their clergy are not of God but worshippers of creatures and idols—how can you claim to follow the same rule when the circumstances are utterly different?

Luciferian: Although you strongly and steadfastly repel my attacks directed straight at you, yet you have given ground and do not protect your exposed back from arrows. Let it be that the Arians have no baptism, and therefore cannot give the Holy Spirit, since they have not received even remission of sins; all this assists my victory, and the arguments you prepare for your own defeat work for my triumph. An Arian has no baptism—then how does he have priesthood? They have no layman, then how can there be a bishop? I cannot receive a beggar, yet you receive a king? You yield the camp to the enemy, and we are to reject the deserter?

Orthodox: If you remembered what came before, you would already know my answer to you; but carried away by the passion to contradict, you have strayed from the point, in the manner of certain people who are more talkers than eloquent, who, unable to reason, nevertheless never stop arguing. In the present case I do not so much condemn or defend the Arians as direct my speech to this: that we receive a bishop on the same ground on which you receive a layman. You grant absolution to one who has erred; and I forgive the repentant. If the one baptizing could not harm the baptized by his own faith, then neither could the one ordaining defile the ordained priest by his own faith. Heresy is subtle, and therefore simple souls easily fall into it. Deception is equally possible for a layman as for a bishop. But a bishop could not err. Yet in reality those elected to the episcopate are pupils of Plato and Aristophanes. For whom will you find among them who has not studied them perfectly? Finally, those ordained nowadays from the learned care not to draw the substance from the Scriptures but to tickle the people’s ears with flowery declamation. Moreover, Arian heresy stands more on worldly wisdom and draws its positions from Aristotle as from a source. So then, in the manner of children quarreling with one another, what you said I too will say; what you affirmed I will affirm; what you rejected I will reject. An Arian baptizes—therefore he is a bishop; he does not baptize—then reject the layman yourself, and I will not receive the bishop. I will follow you wherever you go, and either we will both stick in the mud together or we will both get out of it.

Luciferian: But a layman should be forgiven because he joined (the heresy) in simplicity, thinking it the true church of God, and as a believer received forgiveness according to his faith.

Orthodox: You are saying new things—that someone who was not himself a Christian made another a Christian. One who comes to the Arians, in what faith did he receive baptism? Undoubtedly in the faith that the Arians held. Otherwise, if he himself believed rightly and knowingly received baptism from heretics, he can no longer be excused by ignorance. But it would be utter absurdity if a disciple coming to a teacher were already an expert in the matter before he began to learn; or if one turning from idol-worship knew Christ better than the one teaching him. But you say: he believed in simplicity in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and therefore received baptism. What simplicity is this, I ask you, not to know what you believe in? He believed in simplicity… Believed in what? Surely, hearing three names, he believed in three gods and became an idolater; or believing in a three-named God under three words, he fell into the heresy of Sabellius. Or, taught by the Arians, he believed that the one true God is the Father, while the Son and the Holy Spirit are creatures. What else could he have believed in—I do not know—unless he had already received education in the Capitol and learned the Trinity homousion. He learned that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct not in substance but in persons? He learned that the name of the Son is in the Father, and the name of the Father in the Son? But it is extremely ridiculous to claim that someone entered into discussions about faith before he believed, that he knew the mystery before he was initiated into it, that the baptizer thought differently about God than the baptized. Moreover, during baptism, after the confession of the Trinity, when they solemnly ask: Do you believe in the holy church? Do you believe in the remission of sins?—in what church do you think he believed? In the Arian church? But they do not have it. In our church? But one baptized outside it cannot believe in a church he did not know.

Luciferian: Since you mock at everything and shelter behind the shield of your speech from the arrows we shoot, I will hurl such a spear as will by its own force pierce the boss of your shield and your noisy words; I will no longer suffer tricks to overcome courage. A layman, even though outside the church, if rightly baptized, is received through repentance; but a bishop either does not repent, and in that case remains a priest, or if he repents, he ceases to be a bishop. Therefore we act rightly in receiving the layman if he repents, and rejecting the bishop if he wishes to retain his priesthood.

Orthodox: It is hard to dodge an arrow shot from a tightly drawn bowstring. It will reach the one at whom it is aimed before he can raise his shield against it. But your propositions, on the contrary, cannot pierce the enemy because they are thrown without an iron point. And this spear of yours that you hurled with all your might, with which you threatened us, I will repel, as they say, with a mere flick. The question is not whether a bishop cannot be repentant while a layman can; but whether a heretic has baptism. If he does not—as is clear—then how can he be repentant without first becoming a Christian? Prove to me that a layman coming from the Arians has baptism, and then I too will not deny him repentance. But if he is not a Christian, if he had no priest to make him a Christian, then how will an unbelieving man offer repentance?

Luciferian: I beg you, leaving aside the philosophical manner of proof, speak to me with Christian simplicity—if indeed you are a follower not of dialecticians but of fishermen. Do you think it just for an Arian to be a bishop?

Orthodox: You prove that he is a bishop by the very fact that you receive one baptized by him; and for that you deserve censure, because while agreeing with us in faith and in receiving Arians, you fence yourselves off from us with walls.

Luciferian: I already asked you before to speak to me not philosophically but Christianly.

Orthodox: Do you want to learn, or are you arguing?

Luciferian: I am indeed arguing, because I seek from you the basis of your actions.

Orthodox: If you are arguing, then you already have your answer. I receive a bishop from the Arians on the same basis on which you receive one baptized by Arians. If you want to learn, cross over to my side. An opponent is defeated; a disciple is taught.

Luciferian: I cannot become a disciple without first hearing the teacher’s preaching.

Orthodox: Since you evade and wish to learn from me only in order to overpower your opponent, I will teach you in your own way. We agree in faith, we agree in receiving heretics; let us then agree also in the place of assembly.

Luciferian: That is not teaching; that is philosophizing.

Orthodox: Since you ask for peace while not laying down your shield, we too graft an olive branch onto the sword.

Luciferian: Behold, I raise my hands; I yield—you have won. But as I lay down my arms, I ask about the meaning of the sacrament in regard to which you demand an oath from me.

Orthodox: I congratulate you on this, and I thank Christ my God that you have graciously passed from the falsehood of the Sardians to the common way of thinking, and do not speak as some do: “Save me, O Lord, for the godly man ceaseth” (Ps. 12:1). Their impious voice nullifies the cross of Christ, subjects the Son of God to the devil, and applies to all men now that lament which the Lord poured out over sinners: “What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit?” (Ps. 30:9). No, God did not die in vain. The strong man is bound, and his vessels are plundered (Mark 3:27). The greeting of the Father is fulfilled: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession” (Ps. 2:8). “The channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered” (Ps. 18:15). “He hath set his tabernacle in the sun … and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof” (Ps. 19:4, 6). The psalmist, filled with God, sings: “The weapons of the enemy have come to an end forever, and thou hast destroyed their cities” (Ps. 9:6). And where, I ask you, are those extremely religious—or rather extremely ignorant—people who claim that there are far more synagogues than churches? How have the cities of the devil been destroyed, and the idols overthrown forever, that is, to the end of the ages? If Christ has no church, or has it only in Sardinia, then he has become extremely poor. If Satan possesses Britain, Gaul, the East, the peoples of India, barbarian nations—in short, the whole world—then how have the trophies of the cross been confined to one little corner of the universe? Surely the mighty adversary yielded to Christ only the Iberian otter; he thought it not worth holding exhausted men and a poor region… But if they think to find support in that well-known saying of the Gospel: “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8), let them know that this refers to that faith of which the Lord himself spoke: “Thy faith hath made thee whole” (Matt. 9:22). And in another place to the centurion: “I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel” (Matt. 8:10). And again to the apostles: “Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?” (Matt. 8:26). And again in that place: “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove” (Matt. 17:20). The centurion or that woman afflicted with a twelve-year issue of blood believed not in the mystery of the Trinity, which was revealed to the apostles only after Christ’s resurrection; the praise they deservedly received was not for that faith which is required in the mystery. What was approved was the simplicity of heart and the soul devoted to its God: “For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole” (Matt. 9:21). This is the faith about which God declared that it is found rarely. This is the faith which is found perfect with difficulty even among those who believe well. “Be it unto thee according to thy faith,” says God (Matt. 9:29). I would not wish to hear those words. For I would perish if it were done to me according to my faith. It is true, I believe in God the Father, in God the Son, in God the Holy Spirit—I believe in one God—and yet I do not wish it to be done to me according to my faith. For often the enemy comes and sows tares among the Lord’s harvest. I do not mean that there is anything greater than the faith confessed and purity of soul; but that faith in God, free from all doubt, is found with difficulty. I will give an example to make clear what I mean. I stand at prayer. If I did not believe, I would not pray. But if I truly believed, I would cleanse that heart by which God is seen; I would strike my breast with my fists, wet my cheeks with tears, tremble in body, grow pale in face, fall at the feet of my Lord, wash them with tears, wipe them with my hair—and at least cling to the wood of the cross and not leave it until I had obtained mercy. But now, during my prayer, I very often either walk about the porticoes, or calculate interest, or, stumbling upon a shameful thought, draw in my imagination things of which it is shameful to speak. Where then is faith? Do you think Jonah prayed like this? Or the three youths? Or Daniel among the lions? Or at least the thief on the cross? But I have said this only by way of example to clarify the thought. I leave it to each one to examine his own heart and be convinced from the experience of his whole life how rarely one finds a faithful soul that does nothing for the sake of glory or human praise. Is it necessarily true that one who fasts for God, who stretches out a hand to the poor, lends to God? Vices border on virtues. It is hard to be content with God alone as judge.

Luciferian: You anticipated my question, for I was reserving that passage of Scripture for myself until the end. And nearly all our people (though no longer mine) use it in arguments like a battering ram; I am glad that it is broken and completely shattered. But I ask you, explain to me—not as to an opponent but as to a disciple, with full thoroughness—the reason why the church receives those coming from the Arians. For though I cannot answer you with words, in my soul I am still not in agreement with you.

Orthodox: In the reign of Constantius, in the consulship of Eusebius and Hypatius, under the pretext of unity and faith, what is now acknowledged as unbelief was set down in writing. At that time nothing seemed so good and fitting to the servant of God as to preserve unity and not break communion with the rest of the world, especially since the formula on the surface presented nothing sacrilegious. “We believe,” they said, “in one true God, the Father almighty.” That we too confess. “We believe in the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of God before all ages and before every beginning.” “The only-begotten, one from the one Father, God from God, like to the Father who begot him according to the Scriptures, whose generation no one knows except the Father who begot him.” Here was not inserted: “There was a time when he was not,” or “The Son of God is a creation out of nothing.” To believe in God from God is perfect faith. And they called the begotten only-begotten, one, from the one Father. What is begotten? Clearly not created. Begottenness excludes the notion of creation. To this they added: who came down from heaven, conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, on the third day rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father, is to come to judge the living and the dead. The words rang with piety, and no one suspected that poison had been dissolved in this honeyed drink prepared for the public. Rejecting the word usia (substance), they gave a specious reason: “Since this word,” they said, “does not occur in the Scriptures, and by its novelty scandalizes many of the simpler sort, it has seemed good to exclude it.” The bishops did not trouble over a word when the meaning was not endangered. Moreover, at that very time, when rumor spread among the people that there was deceit in the formula, Valens, bishop of Mursa, who had signed it, in the presence of the praetor Taurus who was at the council by order of the emperor, confessed that he was not an Arian and deeply despised Arian blasphemies. But since this happened in secret, the popular rumor did not subside. Therefore on another day, when bishops and a great crowd of people had gathered together in the church at Ariminum, Musonius, bishop of the province of Byzacena, whom all regarded as senior because of his age, said the following: “We will command one of us to read to your holiness what has been spread abroad among the people and has reached our ears, so that all may unanimously condemn what is evil and ought to be removed from our ears and hearts.” All the bishops gave an affirmative answer. When Claudius, bishop of the province of Picenum, began at the common command to read those blasphemies which rumor attributed to Valens—Valens, acknowledging them as his own, raised his voice and said: “Whoever asserts that Christ the Lord, the Son of God, was not begotten of the Father before the ages, let him be anathema.” All responded: Let him be anathema. “Whoever denies that the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema.” All answered: Let him be anathema. “Whoever says that the Son of God is not co-eternal with the Father, let him be anathema.” All cried out: Let him be anathema. “Whoever says that the Son of God is a creature like the other creatures, let him be anathema.” They said the same: Let him be anathema. “Whoever says that the Son is from nothing and not from God the Father, let him be anathema.” All cried out: Let him be anathema. “Whoever says there was a time when the Son was not, let him be anathema.” With such a kind of clapping and stamping of feet, all the bishops and the whole church together heard Valens’ explanation. If anyone thinks this is our invention, let him search the public archives. At least the church chests are full, and the memory of the event is fresh. There are still living even men who were present at that council, and—what confirms the truth—the Arians themselves do not deny that it happened as we have said. And so, when all were praising Valens to the skies and repenting of their suspicion toward him, the same Claudius who had begun the reading above said: “There is still something overlooked by my lord and brother Valens; if it please you, let us consider this also together, so that no doubt may remain. Whoever says that the Son of God, though he is before all ages, is not before every time whatsoever, so that something preceded him, let him be anathema.” All said: Let him be anathema. And many other things that seemed suspicious Valens condemned at Claudius’ prompting. Whoever wishes to know this more fully, let him read in the acts of the council of Ariminum, from which we too have taken what we have related. After this the council was dissolved. All rejoiced as they returned to their provinces; for both the emperor and all good men were concerned to bind East and West in mutual communion. But evil deeds do not long remain hidden, and a poorly bandaged wound opens of itself. Valens, Ursacius, and the rest of their lewd accomplices (worthy, that is, priests of Christ) afterward began to boast of their victory, asserting that they had not denied that the Son is a creature, but had denied that he is like other creatures. By the abolition of the word usia, they said, the Nicene faith had been condemned. The whole world was deeply grieved and astonished to see itself Arian. As a result, some remained in communion only with their own flocks, others began correspondence with those confessors who had been exiled in the matter of Athanasius; some mourned with despair the better union that had begun. And a few, as is usual with men, defended the error with design. The little ship of the apostles was in danger; winds tossed it, waves beat against its sides; no hope remained: but the Lord awakes, commands the storm, the beast dies, calm is restored. To speak more plainly: All the bishops deprived of their sees, thanks to the clemency of the new emperor, return to their churches. At that time Egypt received back its victorious Athanasius; the Gallic church embraced Hilary returning from battle; on the occasion of Eusebius’ return, Italy cast off mourning garments. Bishops gathered who had unconsciously been numbered among the heretics, caught in the nets of Ariminum; they swore by the body of the Lord and by everything holy in the church that in conscience they had suspected nothing evil. “We thought,” they said, “that the meaning corresponded to the words, and we did not suppose that in the church of God, where straightforwardness and sincerity of confession reign, one thing could be hidden in the heart and another uttered by the lips. We were deceived by a good opinion of bad men. Being priests of Christ, we did not think to fight against Christ.” And many other things which I pass over for brevity they said with tears, ready to condemn both their former subscriptions and all Arian blasphemies. I now ask those extremely pious ones how they think one should deal with men who made such a confession? They will say that, deposing the former bishops, they would ordain new ones. There was such an attempt. But who, not being his own enemy, would allow himself to be deposed? Especially when the whole people, who loved their priests, almost took up stones and ran together to kill those deposing them? Let them say they should remain in communion only with their own flocks. But that would be, by unreasonable severity, delivering the whole world to the devil. For what would they condemn those who were not Arians? For what would they rend the church that remained in unanimous faith? For what, finally, by their stubbornness would they turn into Arians those who believed rightly? If we know that at the very Nicene council—which was convened precisely because of Arian perfidy—eight Arian bishops were received, and if at present there is not one bishop in the world except those ordained by that council, then how could they act contrary to the council for whose sake they suffered exile?

Luciferian: But were Arians received even then? Tell me, who were they?

Orthodox: Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia; Theognis, bishop of Nicaea; Saras, then a presbyter of Libya; Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and others too long to list. And the very head of them and author of all the evil, the presbyter Arius; the deacon Euzoius, who afterward became bishop of Antioch after Eudoxius; and the reader Achillas. These three clerics of the church of Alexandria were the founders of that heresy.

Luciferian: But if someone should assert that they were not received, how could he be convicted?

Orthodox: There are still living people who were present at that council. And if that is not enough (since because of the lapse of time such men are now rare and witnesses cannot be found everywhere), let us read the acts and episcopal subscriptions of the Nicene council; and we shall find that among the others those we mentioned above signed the homousion.

Luciferian: If you can, show that they committed perfidy after the Nicene council.

Orthodox: You have acted honestly in making such a remark. Those who do not believe what they do not wish to have happened usually deny it with their eyes closed. But how did they not change afterward—they for whose sake the council was convened, and whose letters and books published before the council still exist to this day? So if at that time three hundred—even more—bishops received a few such men whom they could have rejected without any harm to the church, I am astonished that there are some, and moreover supporters of the Nicene confession of faith, so severe as to think that three confessors returned from exile ought not, in extremity, to have done for the salvation of the whole world what so many and such great ones did voluntarily! But let us continue the account. After the return of the confessors, it was afterward decreed at the council of Alexandria that, excepting the leaders of heresy whose error could not be excused, the repentant should be joined to the church—not because former heretics could be bishops, but inasmuch as it was known that those received had not been heretics. The West agreed with this decree; and by such a necessary measure peace was snatched from the jaws of Satan. Now we have come to a very unpleasant place, where I am compelled to speak of blessed Lucifer otherwise than his merits and my own humanity would require. But what is to be done? Truth opens the mouth, and a heart accustomed to it compels the tongue to speak against its will. In such a time for the church, in the face of such ferocity of wolves, he separated a few sheep and utterly abandoned the rest of the flock. He himself may be a good shepherd, but he left greater prey to the beasts. I pass over what some malicious people assert as certain—that he did this from love of fame and a desire to hand his name down to posterity, as well as from enmity against Eusebius that began with the Antiochene disagreement. Of such a man I do not believe anything of the kind. One thing I constantly maintain on this point: that he does not agree with us in word but not in deed, if he receives those who received baptism from the Arians.

Luciferian: It is not at all what I was told before—and as I now understand, what misled more than clarified the matter! I thank Christ God who has poured a ray of truth into my mind; from now on I will no longer with sacrilegious lips call his virgin the devil’s harlot. One thing remains that I ask you to explain to me: how should one regard Hilary, who does not even receive those baptized by Arians?

Orthodox: Since Hilary, being a deacon, fell away from the church, and thinking by himself that there was disorder in the world, could not celebrate the Eucharist because he had no bishops or presbyters, so without the Eucharist he could not baptize either. And since he is already dead, the sect perished with the man: because a deacon could not ordain any cleric as his successor. And a church does not exist without priests. But setting aside a few men who are themselves both laymen and bishops, consider what one ought to think about the whole church.

Luciferian: You have, as they say, resolved a great question with three words. But while you speak, it seems to me I agree with you; when you are silent, I do not understand how doubts arise again concerning the reason why those baptized by heretics are received.

Orthodox: That is what I said to you: consider what ought to be thought about the whole church. This very doubt, as you say, troubles many. My account may be long; but the more so, the better for the truth. Noah’s ark represented the church, as the apostle Peter says; in Noah’s ark “few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:20–21). Just as there were all kinds of animals there, so here are men of every nation and custom. Just as there the leopard was with goats and the wolf with sheep, so here the righteous and sinners are mentioned—that is, vessels of gold and silver together with those of wood and clay. The ark had its nests; the church too has many dwelling places. In Noah’s ark eight human souls were saved; and our Ecclesiastes commands to “give a portion to seven, and also to eight” (Eccl. 11:2)—that is, to believe in both covenants. Therefore some psalms are entitled “for the eighth,” and in the one hundred and eighteenth psalm the righteous is instructed in octaves adapted to each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Eight are the beatitudes which the Lord, having spoken them to his disciples on the mountain, laid as the foundation of the church. Ezekiel too found the number eight in the structure of the temple. You will find many other things in Scripture marked by this number. So the raven is sent out from the ark and does not return; but the dove announces peace to the earth. So too in church baptism, after the expulsion of the ill-omened bird—that is, the devil—the dove of the Holy Spirit announces peace to our earth. The building ark, beginning from thirty (three hundred?) cubits, is gradually brought down to one cubit. In like manner the church, having many degrees, is completed at the end in deacons, presbyters, and bishops. Dangers threatened the ark in the flood; they threaten the church in the world. Coming out of the ark, Noah planted a vineyard and, drinking of it, became drunk; Christ, born in the flesh, planted the church and suffered. The elder son mocked the naked father, but the younger covered him; the Jews mocked the crucified God, but the Gentiles honored him. The day would be too short for me if I were to unfold all the mysteries of the ark, comparing it to the church. As bearing on the present subject, I will show who among us are eagles, who doves, who lions and deer, who worms and serpents. Not only sheep are in the church, nor only clean birds fly in it; wheat is sown in the field,

and over the shining crop arise, as lords, burdock and thistle and barren wild oats (Virgil. Georgics. 1.154).

What does the farmer do? Pull up the tares? But then the whole crop is trampled. Rustic industry daily drives off birds with noise, scares them with scarecrows: here they crack a whip, there they hang up a dummy. Yet even so, swift wild goats make raids, lively wild asses too; there small beasts gather the grain into their underground storehouses, here swarming armies of ants ravage the harvest. So it is. No one possesses a field without care. When the householder slept, the enemy man sowed tares; the servants proposed to go and root them out, but the master left it to time to separate the tares from the wheat (Matt. 13). These are the vessels of wrath and mercy in the house of God, of which the apostle speaks (Rom. 9; 2 Tim. 2). The day will come when, opening the church’s treasury, the Lord will bring out the vessels of his wrath; at their removal the saints will say: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us” (1 John 2:19). No one can claim Christ’s victory for himself; no one can judge men before the day of judgment. If the church is already purified—what shall we leave for the Lord? “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12). With such fallibility of judgment, what verdict can be certain?

Blessed Cyprian tried to avoid the commonly frequented pools and not drink foreign water; with the intention of rejecting the baptism of heretics, he, together with the then Roman bishop Stephen—who was the twenty-second from blessed Peter—held an African council on this matter. But his effort was in vain. The same bishops who with him decreed the rebaptism of heretics afterward returned to the ancient custom and issued a new decree. What is to be done? Our ancestors handed it down to us one way, and theirs handed it to them another. But why speak of later times? The blood of Christ was still fresh in Judea, yet the apostles needed assurance that the Lord’s body was not a phantom; the apostle again suffers birth pangs for the Galatians who turned to the observance of the (Jewish) law; and the Corinthians who do not believe in the resurrection of the body he endeavors to bring back to the truth with many proofs. Then Simon Magus and his disciple Menander claimed to be powers of God; then Basilides invented the supreme god Abraxas with three hundred sixty-five generations; then Nicholas, one of the seven deacons, entering into marriages day and night, dreamed of foul and shameful unions unfit for hearing. I pass over the Judaizing heretics who overthrew the delivered law; I pass over that the head of the Samaritans, Dositheus, rejected the prophets—that the Sadducees, descended from his line, denied even the resurrection of the body—that the Pharisees, separating from the Jews over unnecessary ceremonies, took their name from the separation—that the Herodians accepted Herod the king as Christ. I pass to those heretics who tore apart the Gospels. We read of a certain Saturninus, of the Ophites, Cainites, Sethians, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, his follower Ebion, and other plagues, very many of which appeared even in the lifetime of the apostle John; yet we do not read that any of them was rebaptized. Since we have mentioned such a man, let us bring proof from his own Apocalypse that heretics ought to be allowed repentance without baptism. The angel of Ephesus is blamed for forsaken love. The angel of the church in Pergamum is reproached for eating things sacrificed to idols and for the teaching of the Nicolaitans. The angel of Thyatira is censured for the prophetess Jezebel, food of idols, and fornications. And yet the Lord exhorts them all to repentance, only threatening punishment if they do not turn. He would not urge them to repentance if he did not forgive the repentant. Did he say that those baptized in the Nicolaitan faith should be rebaptized, or that hands should be laid on those who at that time among the Pergamenes so believed, who held the teaching of Balaam? Not at all; but he says: “Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against thee with the sword of my mouth” (Rev. 2:16). But if the disciples of Hilary and those who remained sheep without a shepherd should appeal to the passages of Scripture which blessed Cyprian cited in favor of rebaptizing heretics in his letters, let them know that he put forward those passages without threatening anathema against those who did not wish to follow him. He remained in communion with those who did not agree with his way of thinking; he only tried to persuade, in the matter of Novatus and many other heresies that appeared at that time, not to receive anyone from him without condemning his error. His explanation which he had on this subject with Stephen, the high priest of Rome, he concludes thus: “By our usual respect and sincere affection, we bring this to the notice of thee, beloved brother, being confident that by thy piety and orthodoxy thou wilt agree with what is equally pious and just. Nevertheless, we know that some, once having resolved on anything, do not abandon it and do not easily change their assumptions; but preserving with fellow ministers the bond of peace and concord, they retain something of their own that has once entered into use among them. In this we do violence to no one, nor do we issue a law that takes away the right to govern the church according to free judgment: every leader must give an account of his actions to the Lord.” When he writes also to Jubaianus about the rebaptism of heretics, he says at the end of the book: “According to our ability we have written this briefly to thee, beloved brother, prescribing to no one nor imposing our opinion, especially since each bishop acts as he deems necessary, having full authority to proceed according to his own judgment. As far as depends on us, we do not contend with our fellow ministers and bishops about heretics; but we preserve with them divine concord and the peace of the Lord, especially in view of the apostle’s words: ‘But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God’ (1 Cor. 11:16). Patiently and calmly we observe brotherly love, respect for fellowship, the bond of faith, the harmony of the priesthood.” There is besides another thing we mention, against which not even Hilary—this Deucalion of the world—will dare to murmur. If heretics have no baptism and must be rebaptized by the church because they did not belong to the church, then Hilary himself is not a Christian. For he was baptized in that church which always received baptism from heretics. Before the council of Ariminum took place, before Lucifer was exiled—Hilary, being a deacon of the Roman church, received those coming who were heretics with the baptism they had received before. Perhaps only Arians are heretics, and only those baptized by them cannot be received, but those baptized by others can! Thou, Hilary, wast a deacon and received those baptized by Manichaeans; thou wast a deacon and approved the baptism of Ebion. But after Arius appeared, thou suddenly strove with all thy might to hold the contrary. Thou separateth with thy followers and openest a new bath. If some angel or apostle had baptized thee, I would not reproach thee for following him. But if thou wast born in my bosom, if nourished with the milk of my breast, and raisest a sword against me: give back what I gave, and then, if thou canst, be a Christian. I am a harlot, but still thy mother. I do not keep the purity of monogamy, but so was I also at thy conception: I commit adultery with Arius, but I committed adultery before with Praxeas, Ebion, Cerinthus, Novatus. Thou didst embrace, thou didst receive into the house of thy mother adulterers already. I know not what one adulterer offends thee. If anyone should deny that our ancestors always received heretics, let him read the letters of blessed Cyprian, in which, addressing Stephen bishop of Rome, he proves the error of the established custom. Let him read the books of Hilary himself on the rebaptism of heretics, which he wrote against us, and he will find there Hilary’s own admission that Julius, Mark, Sylvester, and the other ancient bishops received all heretics likewise through repentance, and that he ought not to have taken upon himself to pronounce sentence against the custom: because the Nicene council too, which we mentioned a little above, received all heretics except the disciples of Paul of Samosata. And what is more important, that council preserves the rank of presbyterate for the Novatian bishop if he is converted. This decree refutes both Lucifer and Hilary: because it applies at the same time both to the cleric and to the baptized. I could speak in this vein all day, dry up all streams of objections with one ray of the church’s sun. But since we have already spoken much, and the length of the dispute has wearied the hearers’ attention, I will tell thee my inmost thought briefly and frankly: one ought firmly to hold to that church which, founded by the apostles, continues to exist to this day. Wherever thou hearest of such as count themselves Christ’s yet take their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ but from someone else—as for example Marcionites, Valentinians, Montanists or Campites—know that it is not the church of Christ but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the very fact that they appeared later points to them as those of whom the apostle foretold in the future. And let them not flatter themselves that they find, apparently, confirmation of their words in Scripture: for the devil too spoke something from Scripture; and the essence of Scripture is not in reading but in understanding. Otherwise, if we followed only the letter, we too could compose a new dogma for ourselves, affirming at least that such as wear shoes and have two tunics ought not to be received into the church.

Luciferian: Do not count thyself the only victor: we have both conquered; and each of us celebrates his victory—thou over me, I over error. O that I might always have to dispute in such a way that, succeeding to the better, I might leave behind the evil I held! Nevertheless, having learned well the character of my own, I will say one thing to thee—that they are easier to conquer than to convince.

source