In which Augustine proves that it is to no purpose that the Donatists bring forward the authority of Cyprian, bishop and martyr, since it is really more opposed to them than to the Catholics. For that he held that the view of his predecessor Agrippinus, on the subject of baptizing heretics in the Catholic Church when they join its communion, should only be received on condition that peace should be maintained with those who entertained the opposite view, and that the unity of the Church should never be broken by any kind of schism,

Augustine undertakes the refutation of the arguments which might be derived from the Epistle of Cyprian to Jubaianus, to give colour to the view that the baptism of Christ could not be conferred by heretics,

In which he treats of what follows in the same Epistle of Cyprian to Jubaianus,

He examines the last part of the Epistle of Cyprian to Jubaianus, together with his Epistle to Quintus, the letter of the African Synod to the Numidian bishops, and Cyprian's Epistle to Pompeius,

In which is considered the Council of Carthage, held under the authority and presidency of Cyprian, to determine the question of the baptism of heretics,

In which the remaining judgments of the Council of Carthage are examined,

Written in the form of a letter addressed to the Catholics, in which the first portion of the letter which Petilian had written to his adherents is examined and refuted,

In which Augustine replies to all the several statements in the letter of Petilianus, as though disputing with an adversary face to face,

In this Book Augustine refutes the second letter which Petilianus wrote to him after having seen the first of Augustine's earlier Books. This letter had been full of violent language; and Augustine rather shows that the arguments of Petilianus had been deficient and irrelevant, than brings forward arguments in support of his own statements,

A Letter of Augustine to Boniface, who, as we learn from Epistle 220, was Tribune, and afterwards Count in Africa. In it Augustine shows that the heresy of the Donatists has nothing in common with that of Arius; and points out the moderation with which it was possible to recall the heretics to the communion of the Church through awe of the imperial laws. He adds remarks concerning the savage conduct of the Donatists and Circumcelliones, concluding with a discussion of the unpardonable nature of the sin against the Holy Ghost,