Breviculus Collationis cum Donatistis

Collation of the First Day. When the Catholic bishops and those of the Donatist party, by order of the emperor, had conferred with each other in disputation, the proceedings being held before the tribune and notary Marcellinus as cognitor, a very lengthy transcription of those same proceedings was made, although the whole matter could have been conducted much more briefly. But those who knew they did not have a good cause first did what they could to prevent the conference itself from taking place and the case itself from being heard at all. But since they were utterly unable to obtain this, they brought it about, by the multiplicity of the proceedings, that what was done could not be easily read. Hence it seemed good to embrace everything in this breviary, so that by means of the numerical signs, which are noted both in this breviary and in the proceedings themselves, anyone may find without difficulty what he wishes. When both parties had entered, the rescript of the emperor was first recited, by which he ordered the conference to be held between the aforementioned bishops, so that manifest reason might refute superstition.

Secondly, the edict of the same cognitor was read out, which he sent throughout the province, so that the bishops of both parties might assemble and gather at Carthage for the purpose of the conference within the day before the Kalends of June. In that edict, he restored the basilicas to the Donatists without the emperor’s command, who promised that they would come, so that in this way he might invite them to the conference even by benefits. In the same edict, he also offered them that they might appoint with him another judge whom they wished, and he swore that he would judge what truth would suggest, and the other things which are contained in that same edict for the exhortation of their assembly. Thirdly, the other edict of the cognitor was read out, which he published when the bishops of both parties were already present at Carthage, concerning what place and what manner the conference would be, the aforementioned day being likewise recalled and appointed, and he admonished that each party should write back to him whether the things which he included in the edict pleased them.

Fourthly, when the bishops of the Donatist party demanded that their opponents state the reason why they had been assembled, the cognitor postponed the matter, so that everything which had been done before the day of the conference might first be recited in order. And the Donatists’ notification was read out, in which they said that they were not pleased with what he had placed in his edict, namely that only those bishops should come to the place of the conference whom the rest had chosen to conduct the case itself, who numbered thirty-six in all, eighteen on each side—that is, seven to debate among themselves, another seven to be summoned to the council if need be, and another four to preside over the preservation and transcription of the records; but they requested that all who had come should rather be present, so that their number might be apparent, claiming that their opponents had falsely said they were few. There they said that all had come, even the most gravely aged, so that only those were absent whom ill health of body had prevented, and the other things which that notification contains.

Fifthly, the letter of the Catholics was read aloud, which they had written back to the cognitor, as he had urged by edict, indicating that they consented to all that had been arranged in that edict. In the same letter they also bound themselves and promised that if the truth of the Church were shown to them in the Donatist party, they would not seek episcopal honor there, but would follow their counsel for the sake of Christian salvation; but if, on the contrary, the truth of the Church were shown to be rather in their own communion, they would not deny episcopal honors to them, and this they would do for the sake of peace, so that those to whom this was granted would understand that the Catholics detested in them not Christian consecration, but human error. And if the congregations could not bear two bishops in one church, with both withdrawing, single bishops would be appointed, to be ordained by those bishops who were found singly in their own congregations. In the same letter the case of the Maximianists was also mentioned, from whom, after they had been condemned by them, for the sake of the peace of the Donatist party they received some in their intact honors and did not rescind the baptism given in the sacrilegious schism, and the other things contained in the aforementioned letter.

Sixthly, the edict of the cognitor himself was read aloud, which he had posted together with the aforementioned notoria of the Donatists and the aforementioned letter of the Catholics, informing the people what each party had replied in writing. Seventhly, the letter of the Catholics given to the cognitor was read aloud, by which they responded to the notoria of the Donatists, granting them what they had requested, that all who had come should be present in the place where the conference was to be held, although on the Catholic side only those bishops were present whom the cognitor had defined in his edict, so that, if any disturbance arose—which the Catholics greatly feared—it would not be imputed to those who were very few in number, but rather to those who had wished their multitude to be present. In the same letter the whole case itself was also included, to show that the Catholic Church was not the party of Donatus, but rather that which fructifies and grows throughout the whole world beginning from Jerusalem according to sacred scripture, and that no prejudice was caused to it by any who were evil within it, to be separated at the final divine judgment, and that not even against Caecilian himself were their predecessors able to prove anything, since he was found and declared innocent by ecclesiastical judgments and especially by the emperor, before whom he had been accused by them.

and because they are accustomed to make invidious complaints about the imperial decrees that are established for the Catholic Church, it was also recalled from sacred scripture that kings in their own kingdoms had decreed the gravest penalties for those who blasphemed God; the case of the Maximianists was also recalled, whom they themselves had prosecuted in public courts and from among those condemned they received some in their intact honors and did not destroy the baptism given by them in schism, because they said that those to whom they had granted a delay while communicating with Maximian were not polluted by his contagion, and the other matters contained in that same letter. All these things were recalled there lest, if the Donatists should reflect and see how bad a case the party of Donatus had, they might be unwilling for all who had come to enter the place of the conference, so that peace and unity might be achieved. Eighthly, when the cognitor inquired whether, as he saw from the Catholics, so also from the party of Donatus, representatives had already been chosen to conduct the case that had been undertaken, it was answered by the party of Donatus that the case had already been conducted by the Catholics before the person of the disputants was established, because of that letter of the Catholics which briefly contained the whole case. Then they began to insist that first there should be a discussion about the time, the mandate, the person, and the case, and then the merits of the matter would be reached.

And when the judge had declared that nothing of the case had been mutilated, and had again inquired whether his edict regarding the establishment of the number of disputants had been complied with—since through them all matters that needed to be conducted were to be handled—the Donatists began to argue about the time, because the case itself could not be conducted, since the day had passed. For on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of June, four months had been completed from the day of the judge’s edict, which he had sent to the province, as the office replied when questioned. And because the emperor had ordered that the case be conducted within four months, they said that the day had already passed, and they demanded that sentence be pronounced against the Catholics as though they were contumacious, as if the Catholics were absent, or as if the Donatists had ever entered to conduct the case in their absence, or as if the Catholics, when warned or summoned, had failed to appear. Therefore, they were saying these things in a calumnious and evasive manner—things that would not even be done lawfully in a court—unwilling for anything to be conducted. But to this the judge himself replied that both parties had agreed on the Kalends of June, and that even if either party had not yet appeared up to that point, the two additional months which the emperor had added could have been preserved by three edicts.

Ninthly, because the judge had earlier said that to plead a time limit, so that the case would not be heard, was an objection not of an episcopal but rather of a forensic nature, the Donatist party found an occasion to say that therefore nothing should be conducted with them by public law, but only by divine scriptures. When the judge asked what each party thought about this, the Catholics answered that he should order the mandate of the Catholic council to be read, where the method of proceeding was enjoined upon the chosen disputants: that it could better appear there that the case was being conducted not by forensic evasions, but rather by divine testimonies. And for some time a conflict was prolonged, with the Catholics insisting that the mandate be read, while the others refused. But afterwards, with all delaying contentions removed, the judge ordered the mandate to be read. Tenthly, the mandate of the Catholic council was read, by which the defense against the accusations of the Donatists was enjoined upon the bishops of the Catholic Church chosen for the disputation.

In this mandate again, as in the earlier letter, the whole case is briefly summarized: first, that the case of the Church, which is spread throughout the whole world as promised, should be distinguished from the case of Caecilian, whatever it might have been, so that it might be shown that evil men in the Church, who are either unknown or tolerated for the sake of the unity of peace by the good, cannot harm those who do not consent to their evils, by means of evangelical similitudes and the example of the prophets and of the Lord Christ himself and of the apostles and of bishops and by the judgment of the Donatists themselves concerning the Maximianists; then, that the case of Caecilian himself was shown by certain documents not to have been evil, by which both he and his ordainer, Felix of Aptunga, whom they had accused more criminally in their council, were proved to have been cleared; and the other things contained in that same mandate, whether concerning baptism or concerning persecution, which the Donatist party is accustomed to object to the Catholics. For the case of the Maximianists is again recalled there, as in the earlier letter, by which the Donatists were shown to have refuted by their own judgment everything that they are accustomed to object to the Catholics concerning baptism or concerning persecution or concerning the contagion of communion. It was also added that, if even now the Catholic bishops should wish to interpose delays by bringing charges, for the sake of ending the case that was first pressing, those charges should be heard and discussed later.

This, however—that is, that the whole case should be comprehended both in the earlier letters and in this mandate—was done by the Catholics with the intention that, if, as rumor alleged, the Donatists should attempt to introduce some delaying exceptions and, perhaps not permitted to do so, should withdraw from the conference itself, the case of the Catholic Church, albeit briefly, would remain in the written record of the proceedings to be read, and they would be understood to have feared it and therefore to have been unwilling to confer. In the eleventh place, when the judge had pronounced that in the mandate of the Catholics more divine testimonies than forensic bonds had been brought forward, and had also ordered the subscriptions of all to be recited, a conflict arose and was prolonged for some time, as the Donatists demanded the presence of those who had subscribed to the mandate, objecting that persons who were not bishops could have been substituted for them and could deceive the judge, in whose presence they were recorded as having subscribed, and that they had added other bishops to the ancient sees in order to increase the number. The Catholics, however, resisted that their own people be produced, fearing that the Donatists might prepare some disturbance by which the conference itself would be completely broken off, which the Donatists seemed altogether unwilling to have take place, especially when they wished to plead a prescription based on time, as if the case had already lapsed and could not be heard.

they were thought not yet to have made such a disturbance, because, if it were made, they saw it could not be imputed to the Catholics, who were very few in attendance, but rather to themselves, whose multitude was present. But when the Catholics yielded to their will, so that all who had subscribed might enter, it later became apparent that the Donatists had wanted this because they believed that so many Catholics as the subscriptions showed had not assembled at Carthage. They were thought to have believed this because the Catholics had not entered Carthage with the same pomp as they had, and for this reason they suspected that few of them had come. In the twelfth place, when the Catholic bishops whose presence was requested had entered, they were all recited one by one and, coming forward, were recognized by the Donatists either by their neighbors or by those with whom they were in one place; and whenever Catholic bishops from those places where the Donatist party did not exist were recited, it was sufficiently known even to the Donatists themselves that they had no colleagues or communion there, and that there were Catholics there whom they either knew or had heard of in the vicinity of their region. Thus it came about that no Catholic’s subscription was recited at all concerning whose presence they doubted.

Now when it came to the name of Victorianus, Catholic bishop of Musti, and he came forward and replied that he had two opponents, Felicianus in the city of Musti and Donatus in the place of Turres, the Catholics demanded that it be recorded in the acts that Felicianus was in communion with Primianus; for they had condemned him, together with others, as a condemner of Primianus and an ordainer of Maximianus himself, whom they later received back in full honor and did not destroy the baptism in those whom he had baptized in the schism of Maximianus. But they refused to answer the Catholics' question, saying that this ought not to be demanded of them, and when it was demanded more insistently, they said that this was a matter of internal action. And the judge, in accordance with them, interposed that what had been begun should be proceeded with, and that matter, if necessary, should be inquired into later. In the diocese of Musti itself, it also appeared that they themselves had added another bishop to an ancient see, which they had charged against the Catholics with empty malice; and it was later declared that they had done this in other places as well.

In the thirteenth place, after the Catholics present who had subscribed were listed and identified, the judge offered them the opportunity to sit while conducting the proceedings rather than stand. But the Donatists refused, though giving thanks that he had offered a seat to such elderly men, and in that refusal they said many things in praise of themselves and of the judge himself, which anyone who wishes may read in the written record of the proceedings. For it is relevant to the matter how they praised him in such a way as to call him honorable, just, reverent, and kind, yet they were unwilling to have the case, for the sake of which so many had assembled, conducted before him. In the fourteenth place, the mandate of the Donatists was also produced and read, drawn up briefly so that those whom they had chosen might act as if against traitors and their persecutors. Their names were also read, after the Catholics had requested this be done, to establish whether they were present at Carthage and had subscribed. But the Donatists much more insistently wrung it from the judge that this be done, so that their number too might appear, which they showed they wanted with great eagerness. In that reading, indeed, some were found for whom others had subscribed in their absence. One was also found who did not respond when his name was read, and they said he had died on the journey. And when the Catholics asked how he could have subscribed at Carthage if he had died on the journey, they wavered for a long time, troubled and not knowing what to answer.

For first they said that it had been suggested not about him, but about another. And when the Catholics thought they were speaking about another, that is, about a cleric, who could have subscribed for a dead man, it was asked whether the cleric subscribed in his own name or in that of the dead man. But afterwards they answered that he himself indeed subscribed while present, when the mandate was made on the eighth day before the Kalends of June, but since he had subscribed while ill, returning to his own people he had died on the journey. Upon hearing this, the Catholics asked that their earlier words be recited, so that the detected inconsistency might become clear. When this had been done and it became apparent, the judge asked whether at least they would affirm under the testimony of God that he was at Carthage when those present gave a mandate to those present to subscribe. At this, they were more vehemently disturbed and answered: What if someone else put himself forward in his place? Leaving this detected falsehood of theirs to the judgment of God, he ordered the rest of the names to be recited. When these had been recited, he asked about the number of bishops on each side. The office replied that the names of the Donatist bishops were two hundred and seventy-nine, including also those for whom others had subscribed in their absence, and counting also the deceased one. But the names of all the Catholics present were established to be two hundred and eighty-six.

For twenty had not subscribed, who nevertheless, presenting themselves and coming forward, except those whom bodily infirmity detained there at Carthage, professed in the presence of the official record to commit themselves and give consent. Therefore, at the place of the conference, that is, in the Gargilian Baths, because that place had later been agreed upon, of those Catholics who had subscribed to the mandate and who had committed themselves in the presence of the official record, only those were absent who were detained at Carthage by inconvenient health. But of those whose names the Donatists’ subscription contained, not only were those absent whom they had answered were ill at Carthage, but also those for whom, being absent, that is, not present at Carthage, others had subscribed. Since, therefore, the Donatists were boasting about their numbers, apart from the fact that it was established that more Catholics had come to Carthage, it was said by the Catholics that one hundred and twenty other bishops had not come to Carthage, because some of them were hindered by old age, some by infirmity, some by various necessities.

When the Donatists heard this, they replied that many more of their own had not come to Carthage and that many of their sees were widowed of bishops, although in their petition, which they had given to the commissioner, they had stated most openly that they had all come to Carthage to such an extent that not even the most grievous old men had been deterred by age and exertion, and that only those had not come whom ill health had detained in their own sees or on the journey. With regard to the sees which they said were vacant of bishops among them, it was also replied by the Catholics that there were sixty for which successors as bishops had not yet been ordained. And by this, in the subscriptions of both parties, it was established that falsehoods had been detected among the Donatists and that their number of bishops was smaller, since only the sick had not come to Carthage, for whom, however, others had subscribed while they were ill on the journey. And the subscription contained the names of all, including even those for whom others had subscribed, two hundred and seventy-nine, and it is in no way credible that many more than one hundred and twenty, that is, a third part of all of them, could have been sick in their own sees and therefore not have come to Carthage.

On the fifteenth point, when all who were already superfluously present had left, and only those whom both sides had chosen as necessary remained, the conference was adjourned to the next day but one by the consent of both parties, since the present day seemed already spent. CONFERENCE OF THE SECOND DAY. First point: when, after the intervening day, they had assembled at the aforementioned place, as had been agreed and arranged, the commissioner again offered the session, requesting that it take place. And immediately the Catholics sat down, but the Donatists refused. In this refusal, among other things, they also said that it was written for them not to sit with such persons. To this the Catholics, to avoid delays, did not then reply, but did so at a more opportune point in the conference of the third day. Then, therefore, the commissioner himself replied that he would conduct the hearing standing. Second point: the notice was read out which they had given the previous day, asking that the mandate of the Catholics be published, so that, having considered it, they could be prepared and present on the appointed day, since the notaries could not keep up with the transcription of the proceedings, and the commissioner’s response to that same notice, by which he ordered that what they asked for be done.

Thirdly, when the judge asked what they also had to say about the subscriptions—that is, whether they agreed with what he had proposed in his edict, that each party should subscribe to their own pleadings—and the Catholics had replied that they had already expressed their consent in writing, the others said that they were greatly troubled because this was not customary. And when the judge asked whether the number of guardians for recording the proceedings given from each side sufficed for them, they began to seek an adjournment, so that the written proceedings might be given to them and they could then reply. Here arose a lengthy conflict with them, as their consent, by which it had been agreed that the matter would be conducted on that day, was often read out from the tablets. And when they said they were ignorant of the notes, asking that the written proceedings be given to them first, the judge ordered that what their notaries had taken down be read to them from the delivered codices which were kept sealed, lest they go against their own consent. And when they themselves often complained about the publication of the proceedings, saying that the recorders had not come to write the proceedings, this also was answered to them: that they had said they had asked for their own notice to be given to them—that is, the Catholic mandate—so that they might come instructed to the present day, because the recorders could not come with the publication of the proceedings. When they found nothing to say, they wished again to revive the objection about the day, concerning which they had already been answered more than enough, and from which they had already moved on on the first day.

but then the Catholics also responded to this, that not only was the day of the Kalends of June set in the judge’s edict, but they themselves had written their mandate on the eighth day before the Kalends of June, after the day on which they said the case ought to have been heard—that is, the fourteenth day before the Kalends of June—had already passed. It was also said that Primian himself had promised to appear at the Kalends of June. All these things were said by the Catholics because they had heard that the Donatists were speaking maliciously about this matter among their own people; and yet, amid all this, they persisted most vehemently in seeking a postponement. When the Catholics saw that they were wasting time with many words, so as to burden the records with much verbiage, they asked the judge to grant them the postponement they were seeking. And a postponement of six days was granted, with the notaries responding as to when the publication of the records could take place, and with the Donatists promising that, when the records were published, they would subscribe to their own pleadings.

COLLATION OF THE THIRD DAY. On the third day of the collation, that is, the sixth day before the Ides of June, when the parties had entered, the judge first inquired whether the proceedings had been published to them. The office replied that it had published them before the day it had promised, which would be proved from the cautions of both parties. And the cautions were read out, by which it was established that the Catholics had received the proceedings on the eighth day before the Ides of June at the fifth hour of the day, and the Donatists on the same day at the third hour. Secondly, when the judge had ordered the principal matter to be set forth, it was said by the Catholics that they had long wished to take up the principal matter, and that this was, that the charges which the Donatists were accustomed to bring against the Church spread throughout the whole world should, if possible, be proved by them. The Donatists replied that it should first be inquired who were the ones who were acting, so that delays might be made by the discussion of persons. After a long conflict on this matter, with the Catholics refusing and vehemently insisting that, once the tergiversations of superfluous delays were removed, the case should be reached, the Donatists on the contrary contended most obstinately that the persons should be discussed, and demanded that it be expressed who had asked the emperor for this collation to be held.

For they wished it to be established that the Catholics were the petitioners, so that they could, by forensic law, challenge the persons of the petitioners, although in the first action the mandate of the Catholics had already been recited, wherein they showed themselves not to be petitioners, but defenders against the charges which those men are accustomed to bring against their communion; especially since they themselves had previously demanded that the case of the Church be conducted not by forensic formulas, but rather by the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, and had confessed, after the reading of the Catholic mandate, that they wished to confirm the case of the Church by the holy Scriptures, and had promised that they would in turn act on the same authority of the divine law. Then, therefore, as if forgetful of what they had demanded and what they themselves had also promised, when the Catholics had proposed that the accusation and purgation of the Church ought to be dealt with, they began to seek the persons of the petitioners, so that they could challenge them by forensic law. Against this, therefore, the Catholics resisted, and for the sake of cutting short the delays, which they had heard them preparing and already saw them weaving, they persistently insisted that the case of the Church rather be conducted. In the conflict, it came to the point that the emperor’s decree, by which he had ordered the collation to be held, was read, so that in this way the person of the petitioners might be established. For it seemed even to the judge that, lest anything be denied to the Donatists as if they were justly demanding it even with regard to forensic law itself, the persons of the petitioners should first be established.

Therefore, when the imperial order was recited, it was declared that the Catholics had sought the conference and that it had been granted. Then the Donatists also began to demand the petitions by which that conference had been requested by them. At this point, when the judge himself replied to them that in a pragmatic rescript it was not customary to insert petitions, they turned to demanding that the mandate of the Catholics, by which they had mandated that the conference be sought from the emperor, and the same legates whom they had sent to obtain this, be produced and disclosed to them, asserting that they ought to examine what had been mandated, and that there they could find what had been said about them to the emperor. When the Catholics understood that this was being investigated in order to find occasions for introducing delays and postponements of lengthy time, they asserted that what they were seeking was entirely irrelevant to the case, since the emperor himself had most clearly shown that the conference had been sought by them, in that he had appointed a judge so that manifest reason might refute superstition, and they vehemently urged that, with all interpositions of delays and inquiries into other matters to be interposed set aside, what ought rather to be done was that which the emperor had ordered to be done in that conference, which it was established had been both sought from him and granted.

Meanwhile, regarding the name "Catholic" and with whom it more properly belonged, a few things were said and objected by each side in turn, and it was ordered that this be reserved rather for the main issue of the case. And after some time, when mention was again made of the Catholic name and the Donatists said that the Catholic Church was rather with them, the judge interposed that, for the time being and without prejudice to anyone, he could not call Catholics otherwise than the emperor, by whom the judge was appointed, had called them; but that the more they claimed to be Catholics, the more they ought to proceed with the case itself, removing all delays, in which they could prove that they were rather the Catholics. At this point, after so many delays and so many interlocutory rulings of the judge issued against them, demanding that the case rather be conducted and testifying that neither the persons of the legates nor the mandate which had been given to them pertained to the case, nor had he been instructed to inquire into this, the Donatists said that, if the Catholics were unwilling to comply with the judge's orders regarding the disclosure of the legates or the mandate given to them, at least they should answer this: whether they stood in the place of the petitioners. The Catholics greatly wondered why the Donatists said that they were not obeying the judge's orders in producing the mandate of the legates, when the judge had rather pronounced so many interlocutory rulings against them.

The Catholics therefore asked by whose judgment they had not obeyed, and when the Donatists did not respond to this, the judge ruled that the Catholics should answer the point which the Donatists had raised about the petitioner’s status. And they answered that they were proposing this, so that the charges which the Donatists usually bring against their communion might either be proven or refuted, so that the Donatists’ separation might either be defended or corrected. Then, when the judge demanded a response from the Donatists, they answered that the Africans who called themselves Catholics wished to defend someone else’s case, that is, the Church of the whole world, about which nothing ought to be prejudged against them, since this matter was being debated among Africans, and that they rather awaited the overseas Church, so that whoever won would seem to belong to it and would hold the Catholic name; but at the end of their speech they again demanded that they be answered concerning the petitioner’s status. Here the Catholics briefly responded to both points: that the question of persons had already been settled in the first and second hearings, and that they, not the Donatists, were in communion with the Church spread throughout the whole world, to which divine Scripture bears witness, whence they are deservedly both called and are Catholics. The Donatists, however, responded that the name “Catholic” was instituted not from the universality of nations, but from the fullness of the sacraments, and they demanded that the Catholics prove that all nations were in communion with them.

The Catholics received this most gratefully and asked to be permitted to prove it. Again, however, they [the Donatists] began to revive the question concerning that mandate which they had demanded be read to them as imposed upon the legates, and again to recoil from the case of the Church, which had already come forward to be examined in the middle of the proceedings—now by demanding the aforementioned mandate, now by insisting that the person of the petitioner be established, now by demanding that the judge rule on these very things which they had petitioned, concerning which he had already so often made an interlocutory pronouncement and declared that they were seeking them in vain. But the judge, although it might seem that they were not right to demand that the mandate imposed upon the legates be read to them—because what was sufficient for the case, namely that the conference had been requested and granted, was established—nevertheless did not consider it unjust for them to ask that the person of the petitioner be established.

The Catholics, however, seeing what had already been reported to them beforehand and understanding well enough from their intention that the Donatists sought the persons of the petitioners for no other reason than to be allowed, by the discussion of persons, to introduce the longest delays of time and postponements—since they vehemently did not want the case itself to be reached, in which they had nothing to say, as the matter itself, even if late, afterwards fully revealed—the Catholics, therefore, seeing this, refused to take upon themselves the role of petitioners, asserting that they were not bringing charges but defending charges brought against them, and that when they had defended them and shown them to be false, it would consequently appear who they were and with how great iniquity they had separated themselves from unity. At this point the Donatists asserted that in whatever way, even concerning the very charges which the Catholics wished to refute, if the Catholics voluntarily compelled their adversaries to respond, they held the role of petitioners. But the Catholics replied that they had sought the conference for this purpose, not to bring charges to be refuted, but to refute charges brought against them, since both the mandate of the Donatists against the traditors and persecutors had been made, and the words of Primianus, when he was first summoned by the Catholics concerning the conference, testified that he was bringing a charge against them, where he had said: "It is unworthy that the sons of martyrs and the offspring of traditors should meet together," and although he had then refused to confer, he had afterwards said in the court of the prefects that he wished to be heard and examined.

holding to their agreement concerning the conference, the Catholics had petitioned the emperor that this be done. Then the judge ordered them to prove the crimes they had already alleged, and not to use the person of the petitioner to block the requested conference, if both sides were proved to have petitioned for it. At this point the Donatists began again to ask that he rule on the person. And the judge ruled, saying that if both sides had petitioned for the conference, the one who alleged the crimes was the petitioner. And the Donatists demanded that the Catholics prove whether both sides had petitioned for the conference. When the judge said, “The Catholics will have to prove this,” a delaying conflict arose again over the name “Catholic” as used by the Donatists and the Caecilianists. Then the Catholics produced the official records of a hearing before the prefect’s court, by which they could prove that the Donatists too had petitioned for the conference. When the judge ordered these to be read aloud, they again returned to earlier matters and began to demand that the judge rule on those points on which he had already ruled so many times—that is, on the person and on the mandate of the legates, which they had so often and superfluously demanded be produced. And they were doing this, as was understood, because they feared that the prefect’s records would be read, in which they had damaged their own case by certain thoughtless and reckless responses.

For a long time, therefore, they struggled, and especially with the judge himself, as they demanded that the mandate given to the legates be read out to them, or that he declare that they had asked for this superfluously; but he said that he had already declared, and did declare, that this did not pertain at all to the present judgment, where it would be made clear by the imperial letters what had been asked and what had been granted. And finally, at his order, they began to recite the praefectorial records. When the date and consuls of these records had been read out, the Donatists immediately interrupted again and began to demand those same past matters. But when the judge interposed that the records ought to be recited so that the identity of the petitioner might be established, they on the contrary began from the start to say that there were earlier records, which ought rather to be recited. On the Catholic side it was said that they were unwilling for the praefectorial records to be read because they feared their own statements in them.

Therefore the Donatists offered the proconsular and vicarial records, in which the Catholics had requested that they be summoned by municipal records, so that by a conference of both sides the error might be removed, long before they themselves had sought that conference from the emperor; and by these records they wished to show that the Catholics were in the position of petitioners, because in them they had called them heretics committing many things against divine and human laws. Against this the Catholics said that they had even then demanded a conference in order to reply on behalf of the Church against their charges. And so they repeatedly requested that, if those records were to be read which were found to be earlier, those should rather be read in which the Donatists had first sent the case of Caecilianus to the emperor Constantine through the proconsul Anullinus by way of accusation; and after the records which they themselves produced had been read, those which had been held before the prefects and had already begun to be read were not read. And a conflict began, so that if for this reason the records which the Donatists had produced were preferred to the records which had been produced by the Catholics because they were found to be earlier, and those were read instead, at least after their reading there should also be read those far earlier records in which it would appear that in this whole case which was being conducted they had originally been accusers through the proconsul before the emperor.

Therefore the Donatists vehemently resisted the recitation of these records, opposing with many and manifold arguments, just as they had struggled and extorted that the prefectorial records not be read. In this struggle they often repeated that already worn-out argument, repelled by so many interlocutions of the judge, about the mandate of the legates being produced by them. They also repeated the question, which had already been settled before, whether the Catholics preferred to proceed by testimonies of the law or by public records, and they said that if the Catholics chose testimonies of divine law, they would forfeit all public laws and records, but if they preferred to proceed by public laws and records, they would abandon divine testimonies. And yet, if the Catholics chose to proceed by the evidence of public records, the Donatists said they would not permit even those records offered by the Catholics to be read, because they had a valid prescription of time, namely that about which they had been sufficiently answered both by the Catholics and by the judge himself, since they said that the case itself had lapsed and could no longer be pursued, because the day had passed on which the four months would be completed.

They clearly feared greatly that the records might be read, by which it would be shown that their ancestors had first accused Caecilianus before the emperor, and that he had then been acquitted and cleared by both ecclesiastical and imperial judgments—that is, that the very case for which they had come might be fully heard, where they felt they could most evidently be defeated. Yet they were so unwilling and afraid that they were even compelled to confess this, saying that they were being gradually, that is, little by little, drawn into the case and led into its inner details—which they ought to have desired, if they trusted not in empty and delaying objections, but in the truth of the case itself. Therefore the Catholics, while they earnestly strove that the case might be reached—since they saw that the Donatists absolutely did not want to reach it—nevertheless responded again and again to the very same points which the Donatists kept repeating as if already settled.

And since there were two matters that had come up—one concerning the publication of the mandate which had been entrusted to the legates, and the other, whether the Catholics would prefer to proceed by divine testimonies or by public records—regarding the publication of that mandate, the Catholics replied that it did not pertain to them nor to the present case at all, and the judge himself, as he had pronounced more often, pronounced again that he could not at all examine the person of the legates and the mandate they had undertaken, and that he ought not to depart from what had been entrusted to him, since it was sufficiently evident from the imperial letters by which the judge had been appointed for this case that the conference had been granted by the emperor. But concerning the other matter, where they were asking what the Catholics would choose—whether divine documents or public records—the Catholics replied more than once that if the Donatists did not bring charges of crimes against men, which they were accustomed to hurl as if against traditors, but only sought what or where the Church was, they would do nothing with public records, but only with the testimonies of the divine Scriptures; but if they persisted in that accusation and crimination of men, because they themselves could not demonstrate such things except by such records, without doubt the Catholics would also defend such crimes by public records; for otherwise such things could neither be accused nor defended.

These things were repeated and impressed upon them more often, both by the Catholics and by the judge himself, in many and various ways, with many of their speeches returning to the same points and repeating the same things, so that the case would not be conducted and the proceedings would not be read, which they saw were already in hand. But at length the judge overcame such long obstinacies and ordered that what had been given by the Catholics be recited, and the case for which so many bishops of both sides had assembled finally began to be conducted. This happened in a remarkable way, so that, while the Donatists were seeking the person of the petitioner in order to prevent reaching the case, the very inquiry into the petitioner suddenly brought the case into the open. Therefore, these things were done in the third place. The report of Anullinus the proconsul to the Emperor Constantine was read; and when the Donatists asked from where it had been produced, the Catholics replied that it should be sought in the proconsul's archive, if they doubted. In this report it is most clearly contained that they themselves had first sent accusations to the Emperor Constantine through the aforementioned proconsul, charging Caecilianus with crimes. When this had been read, the Donatists began to ask whom the Catholics called their father. When it was answered to them according to the Gospel, where it is written: "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for your only father is God," even after hearing this, they nonetheless began to ask whether Caecilianus was their father or their mother.

When it had already been stated by the Catholics that he was for them neither father nor mother, but brother—whether good if he were good, or bad if he were bad, because even a bad man, on account of the common sacraments, would be a brother—the Donatists contended over this for some time, repeating the same points, and the Catholics responding with the same answers. For the Donatists also objected this: how the Apostle could say, "And if you have many pedagogues in Christ, yet not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel." And the Catholics responded that this was said as a matter of honorificence on account of the evangelical mystery which the Apostle was administering; for the father in faith and eternal salvation is none other than God. For the Apostle could not speak contrary to Christ, since when He said, "Do not call yourselves father on earth; for your one father is God," the Apostle, as if resisting Christ's words, would call himself the father of those to whom he had announced the Gospel, unless it were certainly to be distinguished what is said by way of divine grace and what by way of human honorificence.

They also inquired who had ordained Augustine, preparing, as they boasted, some calumnies of unknown nature. When he answered them fearlessly that he had been ordained by Megalius, who was at that time the primate of the Catholic Church in Numidia, and pressed them urgently to bring forth what they had prepared, so that even there they might be shown to be slanderers, they twisted their intention elsewhere, returning to the person of Caecilian, whom the Catholics said did not harm the Church even if his true crimes were shown, and yet even those could not be shown to be true. Then the Donatists produced a letter, which they said they had received from their entire council, in reply to the mandate of the Catholics, which had been cited on the first day of the proceedings and which, on the following day, before the second session came on the third day, the Donatists had demanded be published to them by a notice, so that they might come to the hearing informed. And perhaps it was for the sake of carefully writing this letter that they also sought a delay for the second session itself, which was granted them of six days. So these things were done in the fourth place. The aforementioned letter of the Donatists was read, in which they attempted to reply to the mandate of the Catholics, which was inserted into the records of the first session.

Anyone who wishes to read and consider both documents will find that they were unable to respond to that mandate: first, because they refused not only to discuss but even to touch upon the testimonies drawn from the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Apostolic and Gospel writings, by which it is shown that the Catholic Church spreads throughout the whole world, beginning from Jerusalem, whence it came, growing into nearby and distant places, even into Africa and into other places and cities through which it was first extended, in which many churches belonging to that one Church were founded by apostolic labor, and with which it is clear that the Donatists do not communicate; nor did they dare to produce in their own rather lengthy letter any testimony from the Holy Scriptures by which they might assert that the church of the party of Donatus was foretold and foreannounced, just as the Catholics produced so many for the Church with which they communicate, which, beginning from Jerusalem, spreads throughout the whole world. Therefore, since they had not touched upon these parts of such great testimonies at all, but had passed them over as if they had not been spoken in that mandate of the Catholics to which they seemed to be responding, they attempted to show, by producing many testimonies from the divine Scriptures, that the Church of God was not foretold as being mixed with evil men.

and yet afterwards, when they came to the evangelical similitude which the Catholics had placed in their mandate, concerning nets cast into the sea, by which the Lord said all kinds of fish are gathered and the good are separated from the bad on the shore, that is, at the end of the world, they themselves admitted that in the Church there are at least hidden evil men mixed in, but they said that the tares are mixed with the wheat not in the Church, but in the world itself, because the Lord says: the field is this world. As for the threshing-floor, to which the Catholics had said the chaff is mixed until the time of winnowing, since nothing of the sort is written in the Gospel, they did not even attempt to explain that similitude, but as if the Catholics had said this on their own, they merely criticized it, citing the testimony of the prophet Jeremiah, who says: what have the chaff and the wheat in common?—not considering the context in which he said this. For he was not speaking about the Church, but about the divine visions of the prophets and human dreams, so that they might in no way be compared. Likewise, the similitude of the sheep and the goats, which graze together and will be separated at the end of the world, which the Catholics had placed among others from the Gospel, they refused to touch at all. For they could not say there that even the goats are not recognized by the shepherds in the common pastures, as they had said that among the nets the bad fish in the sea are not seen by the fishermen.

Again, when the Catholics in their mandate, wishing to show that the wicked are tolerated by the good in the Church and that the good are not contaminated by the contagion of the wicked, had recalled the examples of the prophets and of the Lord Christ Himself and of the apostles, and after these also of good bishops and the judgment of the Donatists themselves, who denied that some of their own placed in the schism of Maximianus were polluted by the contagion of Maximianus, they in their letters attempted to respond to these things concerning the prophets and the Lord Christ and the apostles, whatever they said, but concerning the bishops and the Maximianists they were silent. For in the bishops they were pressed by the authority of Cyprian, whose words from his letter, which the Catholics had placed in their mandate, most clearly showed that he had both commanded that for the sake of unity the wicked should be tolerated in the Church and that the Church should not be abandoned on account of them, and that he himself had tolerated in the Church certain colleagues of his, from whose evil morals he was far removed and about whose worst deeds he was not silent. Therefore, oppressed by this authority, the Donatists, although they had said something concerning the prophets and the Lord Christ and the apostles to the effect that the wicked mixed in the Church should not be tolerated, wished to say nothing at all concerning the bishops.

And yet, even concerning Judas the traitor and those whom Paul tolerated as they proclaimed Christ amid envy, Cyprian himself understood and wrote in the same way as the Catholics placed it in their mandate: that the Lord endured Judas as an example of the wicked to be tolerated in the Church, and that Paul sustained those about whom he spoke such things not outside, but within the Church. But regarding the Maximianists, what would they answer, when men were still alive by whom they could be most openly and easily convicted? Accordingly, to that which the Catholics had said in their mandate—that the same Maximianists had been driven from their basilicas by the Donatists through public judgments—they attempted to respond somehow, not that they had accused them criminally or had forced anyone invited to their communion, but that they had civilly reclaimed their own property or that of their people, forgetting that Primian had once ordered it to be stated in the records: "They take away others' property; we refrain from what has been taken." But to those things which were said about the Maximianists in the Catholics' mandate—that they had received those condemned by themselves in full honor, that they had denied that Maximian's associates were polluted by him, that they had preferred to approve rather than rescind and repeat the baptism given by them in schism—they did not even lightly attempt to respond, but passed over all those things with a certain remarkable silence, as if they had not been said.

Concerning baptism itself, that in that mandate it was said by the Catholics that the apostle spoke of certain persons: "they hold the truth in iniquity," to show that it can happen that truth is held without destroying iniquity, they either did not understand, or they wished to obscure with their own words what they themselves had understood, lest it be understood by others, saying that the apostle said this about the error of the Gentiles, as if it matters about whose error he spoke, since he nevertheless showed that truth can be held in iniquity, so that, when these two are found in one man, the truth is approved and the iniquity corrected, as the Catholic Church does when it recognizes in the Donatists and embraces the truth of the sacrament, but detests in them and corrects heretical iniquity. And that which was said by the Catholics in the mandate, that the baptism of Christ is not to be destroyed because even heretics administer it, just as Christ is not to be denied because even demons confess him, they likewise either did not understand or wished to obscure, saying that the Catholics spoke against the martyrs, yet not expressing which martyrs they meant, and also saying that they wish to communicate with demons when communion is held with heretics whose iniquity is anathematized, although the baptism found in their consecration is not destroyed, just as the iniquity of demons is anathematized, although the name of the Lord heard in their confession is not denied.

Concerning the persecutions also, which they complain of suffering, they set forth many things in their letters, yet they did not dare to respond to that which was said in the mandate of the Catholics: that they themselves first accused Caecilian before the Emperor Constantine, they who complain of the laws of emperors, exaggerating to the discredit of the Catholics either the deaths which their Circumcellions inflict upon themselves, or all things which they suffer through public laws and disciplines not for the communion of Donatus, but for the crimes with which they violently rage and wickedly live, as they also dared to recall concerning the town of Bagai, where it was made manifest how great evils they committed and how much lesser things they suffered. To that also in the mandate of the Catholics, which was said concerning the purgation and absolution of Caecilian and Felix of Aptunga, concerning whose crimes they were accustomed to stir up great ill-will against the Catholics among the ignorant, when the whole cause for which they had come was there being debated, they wished to make no response at all in such lengthy letters, because even in that which they said and seemed to support with divine testimonies—that the wicked are not to be tolerated in the Church, but that one must withdraw from them on account of the contagion of sins—they showed themselves to speak in such a way that they nevertheless confessed that no one can be stained by the unknown sins of others.

For they had also said about the bad fish, that just as fishermen do not see those hiding in the waves, even though they are already within the nets, so priests do not know the wicked hiding in the Church and are therefore not polluted by them. Yet in such lengthy letters, written with so much time allowed, they did not even lightly or faintly attempt to prove what was especially recalled in the mandate of the Catholics: that they should prove not only that the charges against Caecilian were true—for that is little—but also that the Church, which is spread throughout all nations to the ends of the earth, could have had those charges proved and made known, so that consequently, at least according to them, it could be stained by the contagion of known sins. When, therefore, the letters of the Donatists had been read aloud, the judge wished that what the Catholics had given to be read should also be read. But the Donatists began to demand that a response be given to what they had written, which the Catholics also wanted more, lest those letters remain as if they could not be answered. So, as the Catholics began to respond, the Donatists began to interrupt and shout them down, so that the continuous speech of the respondent could not proceed, just as their own letters had been read aloud with no one interrupting.

When the Catholics, therefore, were willing to show the divine testimonies which they themselves had set forth, and those which the Donatists had recalled, how they ought to be understood, lest they be found to be contrary to each other, since they were both divine and certainly ought to be harmonious, not discordant, they first began to speak about the similitude of the threshing-floor. Then the Donatists, interrupting, said that the threshing-floor was not read as written in the Gospel. And when the Catholics more explicitly recalled the Gospel passage, the Donatists, again interrupting, said that the hidden wicked were called the chaff to be winnowed later. Thence, amid their clamors and interruptions, a disagreement arose about the tares and the wheat on account of the word "world," which the Donatists refused to understand as the Church, because it is written: "The field is this world," and they adduced many testimonies by which Holy Scripture had recalled "world" only in reference to the wicked, such as: "He who has loved the world, the love of the Father is not in him," and other such things, so that from this they might show that the Church could by no means be signified by the name "world." Against this, the Catholics brought forth other testimonies by which the name "world" was shown to be used in a good sense, such as: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself," and other things of this kind, by which it would be shown that the Church, since it is certainly reconciled to God through Christ, is meant.

And these things were being done while the Catholics, by continuing their speech, were trying to carry it through without interruption, while the others, by making a din, were preventing this from happening, since they did not reserve their response, as the Catholics had done when their letter was read, but by interjecting frequent contradictions, they hindered the Catholics’ uninterrupted exposition from proceeding.

Therefore, while the Catholics were demanding patience from them and, with difficulty, obtaining it through many interlocutions of the judge, they replied to their letter, showing by many testimonies of the holy scriptures and examples that the wicked are now so mixed in the Church that, although ecclesiastical discipline must be vigilant to correct them not only by words but also by excommunications and degradations, yet not only are they unknown while lying hidden in it, but often, for the sake of the peace of unity, they are tolerated even when known. Thus they showed that the divine testimonies are consistent, so that those testimonies by which the Church is commended as having a mixture of the wicked signify this time of hers, such as she is in the present age, and those testimonies by which she is commended as not having the wicked mixed in signify that time of hers, such as she will be in the future age, eternally; just as now she is mortal, that is, consists of mortal men, but then she will be immortal, when no one will die in her; just as Christ himself in that time was mortal for her sake, but after the resurrection he no longer dies and death will no longer have dominion over him, which he is also to bestow upon his Church at the end of the age.

These two times of the Church—what it is now and what it will be then—are signified also by the two fishings: one before the resurrection of Christ, when He ordered the nets to be cast, naming neither the left nor the right side, so that He might teach that not only the bad nor only the good, but the bad mixed with the good, would be within the nets of His sacraments; and the other after the resurrection, when He ordered the nets to be cast to the right side, so that we might understand that after our resurrection only the good will be in the Church, where there will no longer be heresies and schisms, by which the nets are now torn. For the Gospel did not conceal that in the first fishing it records that the nets were torn, and in the last it is said: "And although the fish were so large, the nets were not torn." It is of such a Church that it is said that through it no uncircumcised and unclean person will pass; for to the unclean belong the schismatic separations, which will not exist then, because the nets are not torn. This also signified that the raven, an unclean bird, went out of the ark and did not return; yet that ark, when the raven went out, did not of course lack all unclean animals, but in it there were both clean and unclean until the flood, just as in the Church there are good and bad until the end of the age. But just as Noah offered sacrifice not from unclean but from clean animals, so it is not those who are bad in the Church, but those who are good, who reach God.

Concerning the prophets also, because the Donatists had said in their letters that they did not communicate with those against whom they had uttered such great evils, the Catholics replied that there was one temple which all used, and that none of the prophets who had said such great things against the wicked had set up for themselves another temple, sacrifices, or priests. And as to what the Donatists had placed in their letters—testimonies of Scripture by which they showed that children also are implicated in the sins of their parents, although this has never been rightly understood except of those children who would imitate the iniquities of their parents—the Catholics replied: since such great and bitter things were said in the divine utterances against that people, which the Donatists themselves also recalled in their letters, so that it seemed as if no good person remained there, not only were those same holy prophets present there, but also from that very people there had arisen those whom the Lord Himself, at the coming of His flesh, found praiseworthy, such as Zacharias and Elizabeth and their son John, and such as Simeon the elder and Anna the widow. Hence it appears how impiously and slanderously the crimes of Caecilian were charged against the Catholics spread throughout the whole world, when the crimes of that people—in which they were born and consecrated with the sacraments of that same people, crimes which not human opinion but divine speech had charged against that people—could not be charged against Simeon and Anna and others like them.

The prophetic testimony was also recalled, where those who groaned at the crimes committed in their midst, yet were not physically separated, were marked so that they would not perish with the wicked. Then it was recalled there what kind of separation the good ought to make from the impious and the wicked in this time, so as not to share in the sins of others, namely by heart and by dissimilarity of life and morals, and that what is written—"Depart from their midst, withdraw from there, and do not touch the unclean"—ought to be understood in no other way, that is: be distinguished by living differently and do not consent to impurity. There also, at a most opportune place, a response was given to the Donatists concerning what they had said, when the judge asked them to sit down, that it was written for them not to sit with such persons. For it was said by the Catholics, when they were replying to their letters, that separation from the wicked in this time is not to be understood as those had understood it, who did not sit with them as if with the impious, because it is written: "I did not sit in the council of the impious," when, of course, if they considered them impious, they ought not to have kept silent about what is consequently forbidden in the same psalm. For there it follows: "And I will not enter with those who do iniquitous deeds." Therefore, since they had entered with those whom they considered impious, why did they not also sit, so that in both respects they would seem to have avoided not a physical but a spiritual sitting and entering?

There also the case of the Maximianists was recalled, so often already thrown in their teeth, where both they themselves and those to whom they had granted a delay, though placed in the schism of Maximianus and associates of the same in the condemnation of Primianus, were nevertheless said by them not to have been polluted by that contagion—they who contended that the Christian world had perished to the ends of the earth because of the crimes of Caecilian. To this the Donatists, since they could not respond with the strongest proofs from the Scriptures and their own example concerning the Maximianists, returned to that which had already been settled, saying that the world is not rightly understood as the Church, in which both wheat and tares are commanded to grow, although the Catholics had already cited so many divine testimonies by which it was shown that the world is also placed in a good sense and in that sense can only be understood as the Church, and that, however the world might be taken, when both seeds grow throughout the world, the wheat of the whole world should not be abandoned because of the tares. Therefore, when these things had already been said and the question itself seemed already concluded, they returned to it again out of extreme poverty, repeating the same things through the same, asking how the devil could have sown tares in the Church, and then slandering that the Catholics had spoken of two Churches—one which now has the wicked mixed in, another which after the resurrection would not have them—as if the saints who will reign with Christ were not the same ones who now, living justly for His name, tolerate the wicked.

To these things the Catholics responded that they themselves had already confessed that there were hidden evil persons in the Church, and they asked in turn how the devil sowed them in the Church, since the Donatists, as if it could not happen, were demanding proof from the parable of the tares. The Catholics also repeated the testimony of Cyprian, who understood that same evangelical similitude in no other way than to say that the tares are in the Church and are not hidden but are seen. Against that testimony the Donatists had dared to answer nothing at all, although they hold Cyprian’s authority so highly that they try to defend by it what they wrongly think and do about rebaptism. The Catholics also refuted their calumny about two Churches, showing again more clearly what they had said: that it was not the Church which now has evil persons mixed in that they had said was alien from the kingdom of God where there will be no evil persons mixed in, but that same one and holy Church itself is now one way and will be another way then, now has evil persons mixed in, then will not have them; just as now it is mortal, because it consists of mortal men, but then it will be immortal, because in it no one will be dying in body; just as there are not two Christs because the one who died earlier is later not going to die.

It was also said about the outer and inner man, which, though they are different, are nevertheless not called two men: how much less should two churches be spoken of, when the very same persons who now, as good, tolerate the wicked mixed among them and, destined to rise again, die, will then have no wicked mixed among them and will not die at all! Regarding also the number, since the Donatists, by the testimony of the Scriptures, commended one church as if against two, which they boasted the Catholics affirmed, it was answered by the Catholics that many churches are also found spoken of in the Scriptures, and the seven to which John writes, which many, however, were understood to be members of that one unique church, so that from this it would appear that they ought much less to be charged with two, since they said that same one church is not now such as it will be at the resurrection, inasmuch as the apostolic letters are not charged with many, from which that one would consist. To these things the Donatists did not cease to repeat the same points, adding moreover and boastfully alleging, that the Catholics had called the church mortal, and therefore denying that it is mortal, because the Trinity is immortal, by whose grace the church is consecrated, and because Christ died for it in order to make it immortal; as if the Catholics had said that it does not become immortal by the grace of God and the blood of the Savior shed for it.

But they said that the times were to be distinguished, namely the present, in which all the saints die, just as Christ himself died, and the future, in which they will rise again and, with none about to die, will live with him who has already risen. While these matters were being debated among them, and although they were obvious and clear, they were being needlessly repeated by the struggling Donatists. The judge promised that he would give a final judgment on what he had sufficiently heard, and he ordered that the matter from which the first cause of the schism arose should rather be pursued. Then the Donatists began to insist that he should first judge what he had heard. And when the Catholics also demanded this, and he persisted in what he had said and ordered that the cause of the first schism should rather be shown, the Catholics asked that what they were offering be read aloud. When he had ordered this to be done, the Donatists began to resist more strenuously and to compel him to judge what had already been heard, repeating the same things that had been transacted and adding that he ought not to judge at all in that cause which he wanted to be pursued by the reading of what the Catholics had offered to be recited, saying that Christ should be the judge of this cause, and casting blame on the Catholics for having sought a human judge, also saying the usual things about the persecutions which they seemed to suffer.

To this the Catholics replied that they ought not to make invidia concerning a human judge demanded, who themselves had judged concerning the cause of the Maximianists and had not reserved it for Christ as judge, and had first sent the very cause of Caecilianus to a human being, that is to the emperor Constantine, by accusing it, nor concerning the persecutions, that the Catholics sought something from the emperors for the church, when their Circumcellions with clerical leaders were committing such horrible evils. Where they answered in vain that this pertained nothing to the priests, since those were said to have done such things with clerical leaders. There also when it had been said that they had persecuted human eyes with lime and vinegar, in which crime they surpassed the devil in cruelty, who did not do this in the flesh of a holy man which he had received into his power to afflict, here the Donatists asked whether those who do are sons of the devil or those who suffer; as if the Catholics had said anything other than their own most savage sufferings at the hands of their clerics and Circumcellions. Nevertheless, even here the Catholics did not fail, with the opportunity offered them, to object concerning the Maximianists and said that according to their judgment the Maximianists were better, whom they had persecuted before three or more proconsuls; for if those suffered, these did. And the Catholics urged that they answer whether they had not received Felicianus from among those whom they had condemned and persecuted, and whether they did not have him in their own college.

To this objection they, as always completely falling silent, turned to another matter by objecting to the Catholics that they had defended the devil, because they had said that he had spared the eyes of holy Job, whereby they had surpassed him in cruelty. And they undertook to accuse the devil as if defended by the Catholics, saying that he had more cruelly spared the eyes in Job's flesh, so that they might remain to witness the wound which he had inflicted on the whole body. It is very surprising why they wished to say this as something important, unless perhaps so that they might be understood to have piously done what they did, who persecuted the eyes in men, lest they be tormented by seeing their own wounds, which they had received from them throughout the whole body. But when the Donatists again, exaggerating the persecutions they suffer, recalled certain deaths of their own in the town of Bagai, the Catholics replied that they had suffered this while resistance was being offered to their violence, which they had also attempted to inflict upon the judge. In that town, the Catholics recalled that horrible things had been committed by them, so that even a basilica had been burned and holy codices thrown into the fire, but that their deaths were more from the custom they have of throwing themselves headlong. And when the Donatists, responding to these things, again exaggerated, as it were, the persecutions they suffered, as if from these fruits.

Their adversaries kept boasting that they were the good tree and repeatedly demanded that judgment be passed concerning the field and the tares and the one and immortal Church. The Catholics, on the other hand, recalled their schisms and rebaptisms and the fact that they themselves had first accused their own predecessors before the emperor. And while the conflict dragged on for a long time in mutual accusations of this kind, the judge preferred to restrain all these matters, promising a judgment on them in a later ruling, and ordered the reading of what the Catholics had already begun to have read and had been interrupted. Thus was concluded the case of the Church, which the Catholics had taken great care to distinguish from the case of Caecilian, since the Church could not be prejudged by the crimes of any individual, having merited so many divine testimonies against all human accusations. From this point, the case of Caecilian also began to be tried. In the fifth place, then, these proceedings took place. Two reports of Anullinus the proconsul to the emperor Constantine were read out: one, which had already been read earlier, in which he showed that the Donatists' predecessors, that is, those of Maiorinus' party, had given him documents of accusations against Caecilian and had asked that they be sent to Constantine, and that he had sent them to the aforementioned emperor; the other, in which he showed that by order of the same emperor he had convened ten from each side to conduct the case, and that they had promised to do so.

Then the aforementioned emperor’s letter to the bishops was read, in which he entrusted them with hearing the case of Caecilianus. And from that point, the episcopal judgment of Miltiades, bishop of Rome, and of the other Gallic and Italian bishops with him, conducted in the same city of Rome, began to be read in order. When the first part of that judgment—that is, the proceedings of the first day—had been recited, in which the accusers of Caecilianus who had been sent denied that they had anything to say against him, and in which Donatus of Casis Nigris was also convicted in person of having made a schism at Carthage while Caecilianus was still a deacon—for from the schism of Carthage the Donatist party arose against the Catholic Church—and in which the same adversaries of Caecilianus also promised to produce on another day those whom they were accused of having withheld as necessary for the case, and then, having lied about this, refused to appear further for the judgment: when this part of the judgment had been recited, and the reading of what was done on the other day had begun, the Donatists interrupted and began to demand most insistently that what they were offering be read first, asserting that it was not proper for the acquittal of Caecilianus, whom they had not yet accused, to be read before that; and they argued about this for some time, while the Catholics said that what had already begun to be read should not be interrupted.

until all the acts of that same judgment were concluded, while those on the other side asserted that what was being interrupted ought not to have even begun to be read, since it was not proper for a man to be defended before he was accused. To this the Catholics replied: when the judge inquired into the cause of the schism, they had asked that those documents be read which had been presented for reading, when the matter concerned the person of the petitioner. They had therefore wished those documents to be recited for two reasons: so that it might appear that those who were making the Catholics odious for having a human judge presiding in this conference had themselves originally demanded a human judge in this case, and so that the identity of the petitioner might be established; and since the reading had been begun, it ought not to be interrupted but should be carried through to the end by recitation. Amid these proceedings, the judge first wished what the Catholics requested—that what had begun to be recited be finished—but afterwards the Donatists extorted from him that what they themselves were offering be allowed to be read, with those other documents set aside.

Then the Donatists spoke at some length, alleging that Mensurius, who had been bishop of the Carthaginian church before Caecilian, had handed over the holy scriptures to the persecutors during the time of persecution; and to prove this, they read his letter addressed to Secundus of Tigisi, who at that time held the primacy of the bishops of Numidia. In that letter, Mensurius seemed to confess his own crime, though he had not written that he had handed over the sacred codices, but rather that he had removed and preserved them so that they would not be found by the persecutors, and that he had left in the basilica of the Novi whatever worthless writings of heretics there were, which, when the persecutors found and carried off, they demanded nothing further from him. Nevertheless, certain men of the Carthaginian order later suggested to the proconsul that those who had been sent to seize and burn the Christians' scriptures had been deceived, because they had found only some things not pertaining to them, while the scriptures themselves were being kept in the bishop's house, from where they ought to have been brought out and burned; but the proconsul had refused to consent to this. In the same letter it was also read that those who, not having been arrested, offered themselves to the persecutors and voluntarily declared that they had scriptures which they would not hand over—though no one had asked them for these—had displeased Mensurius, and that he had forbidden Christians to honor them.

Some persons, even criminals and debtors to the treasury, were accused in the same letter, who, on the occasion of the persecution, either wished to be rid of a life burdensome with many debts, or thought to purge themselves and, as it were, wash away their crimes, or certainly to acquire money and enjoy luxuries in custody from the service of Christians. Yet the Donatists brought no charge against Mensurius except concerning the delivered codices; for they said he had lied, that those were not sacred codices, and that he had wished to conceal his sin, although they also condemned the falsehood itself. They also recited the peaceful replies of Secundus of Tigisis to the same Mensurius, where he himself related what the persecutors had done in Numidia, and who had been seized and, unwilling to deliver the holy scriptures, had suffered many evils and been tortured with the most severe punishments and killed, and he commended them as worthy of honor for the merit of their martyrdom, praising them for not having delivered the holy scriptures, after the example of that woman who, in Jericho, refused to hand over the two spies, in whom the two testaments, the Old and the New, were prefigured, to the persecutors. This example, if it is to be understood under this figure, rather supported Mensurius. For in his letter Mensurius reproached those who, although they did not deliver the holy scriptures, nevertheless confessed that they had them, which that woman did not do; for she did not confess that the spies who were sought were with her, but denied it.

Secundus also wrote that a centurion and a beneficiarius had been sent to him by the curator and the municipal council, who demanded the divine codices to be burned, and that he had replied: 'I am a Christian and a bishop, not a traditor,' and that when they wished to take from him some scrap or anything at all, he did not give this to them either, following the example of Eleazar the Maccabee, who did not even wish to pretend to eat swine's flesh, lest he provide others with an example of prevarication. These letters of Mensurius and Secundus, until they were finished being read, the Catholics patiently heard, although they testified that they were private and did not pertain to the case of the Church. Therefore the judge, reminding the Donatists to return the favor of patience, ordered to be read through what had been offered by the Catholics and had already been recited in part. Here the Donatists demanded that what they were offering concerning the case of Caecilian be read first. This also, with the Catholics permitting it without any difficulty and commending how patiently they allowed this, so that the Donatists might repay them in turn, the judge ordered what was offered to be recited. And there was recited by the Donatists a council of nearly seventy bishops against Caecilian held at Carthage, where they condemned him in his absence, because he had refused to come to them as one ordained by traditors, and because, when he was a deacon, he was said to have forbidden food to be brought to the martyrs placed in custody.

Also named were certain colleagues of Caecilianus, who were alleged to be traditores according to public records, which records, however, were not read. Among these, however, Felix of Aptunga was accused most bitterly, so that he was called the source of all evils. Then sentences were pronounced by each individually, first by Secundus of Tigisis, who was their president, then by the rest, by which they expressed that they would not communicate with Caecilianus and his colleagues. When this council was read, the Catholics replied that those letters exchanged between Mensurius and Secundus sufficiently showed them to be peaceful, and that afterwards no charge of crime concerning the deed of Mensurius was either accused or judged; but as for the council which had been held against Caecilianus, which they had read, it indeed lacked a consul and a day, but they did not bring any charge on this account, since this could have been due more to negligence than to fraud. But the same Catholics offered another council held under the same Secundus of Tigisis in the city of Cirta, whose consul and day were being read, when the Donatists said that neither consul nor day were accustomed to be had by such decrees. Here the Catholics replied that this was perhaps the custom of those who did not wish their councils to be convicted of any falsehood, whereas the councils of Catholics had always had consuls and days. Then the council which the Catholics had brought began to be read again, where Secundus questioned certain men, about whose tradition he had heard, one by one, and removed those who confessed from the assembly.

in such a way that it was recited that, after the confession of the traditores had been read from the Council of Cirta, his name was also read from the Council of Carthage as one of those condemning the traditores in the case of Caecilianus. Then it came to the charge brought by Purpurius of Limata against Secundus of Tigisis himself, to which same Purpurius Secundus had objected that he had killed his sister's sons in the prison at Milevis; whereupon he in turn charged him with the crime of tradition, saying that he had been detained by the curator and the municipal order so that he would hand over the scriptures, and that he could not have been released unless he had handed over something. But this charge which Purpurius brought against him—that he had been detained by the curator and the municipal order to hand over the scriptures—Secundus himself almost confessed in the letter he wrote back to Mensurius, where he says that a centurion and a beneficiarius had been sent to him by the curator and the municipal order, and that the scriptures or any kind of writings had been demanded from him, which indeed he said he did not hand over; but since he himself there commemorated so many martyrs who, when they refused to hand over, were tortured and killed, how he himself, detained and convicted and unwilling to hand over anything, could have suffered nothing and been released, he neither wrote to Mensurius nor answered Purpurius. For he did not say to the centurion and the beneficiarius that he did not have the scriptures, but replied that he would not hand them over at all.

that it is not apparent how, after he was dismissed, they could have reported what they heard without their own destruction, especially since the same Secundus said that even heads of households, not just the lowliest, were killed by the most cruel deaths when they gave the same answer to the persecutors. But on this matter the Catholics brought no charge against Secundus, but only wished to have recited what Purpurius charged him with, and because of which, in order to prevent a schism, he made peace with the traditores, leaving all that to God, so that it might appear what sort of men had pronounced sentences against the absent Caecilian. After this was recited, the Catholics asked that the matters which had been postponed be read as well, asserting that from them it could be shown what had been done concerning Caecilian and what was to be thought, from the Council of Carthage, in which it had been read that the absent Caecilian had been condemned by many bishops. (Against this, the Donatists pressed the Catholics to admit that that council was genuine, because the Catholics had recited the reports of the proconsul Anullinus, by which it appeared that the documents of the charges against Caecilian had been sent to the emperor Constantine, which the agents certainly confirmed, that their predecessors had accused Caecilian before the emperor.)

The Catholics replied that the Council of Carthage did not prejudice the absent Caecilian, just as the council of those who condemned Primian in the case of Maximian did not prejudice the absent Primian, because the Donatist party held more firmly to what was done later for Primian than to the authority of the council by which he had previously been condemned; thus, in the case of Caecilian as well, what was done later ought to be considered. Here the Donatists, pressed on the case of Maximian, said that neither does one case prejudice another case nor one person prejudice another person. This is a saying that all Catholics are accustomed to have on their lips when the Donatists, charging others with the crimes of still others, defended their own separation and accused the Christian world of some African crimes or other. For even in this conference, everything that the Catholics had done to distinguish the cause of the Church from the cause of Caecilian—asserting that evil men mixed in the Church do not harm the good nor stain them with their sins—they had done this precisely so that neither one case would prejudice another case nor one person another person. This was confirmed by the adversaries with the clearest voice, while something else was being discussed. But when the judge asked what the Catholics replied concerning the Council of Carthage, they answered again that the similarity of the case of Primian was not to be despised, because even the Lord Christ, convicting the Jews by their own deeds, led them to the truth.

Then the Donatists argued at length, seeking to have Caecilian's condemnation confirmed by the authority of that Council of Carthage, on the grounds that he had refused to come before so many priests—as if Primian also had not, with similar willingness, failed to come to those by whom he was condemned, once he recognized their faction—and that Caecilian had not waited to be ordained by a primate, whereas the custom of the Catholic Church is otherwise, namely that the bishops of the church of Carthage are ordained not by the bishop of Numidia but by the nearer bishops, just as the bishop of the Roman church is ordained not by any metropolitan bishop but by the bishop of Ostia, who is nearby. In saying this, however, they were trying to prejudice the Catholic Church on the basis of their own custom, which I know not when they instituted; if that custom were ancient, they would have objected it to Caecilian himself when they condemned him in his absence. They also said that Optatus had written that Caecilian said: "If those who ordained me are traditors, let them come and ordain me." But if this was said, it could have been said to mock those to whom he is reported to have given this instruction, since he was certain that his ordainers were not traditors. For he did not say: "Because they are traditors," but: "If they are traditors," so that their innocence would remain to be proven where it could rightly be proven.

To these and whatever else they said in a lengthy speech, the Catholics briefly replied that the Council of Carthage was not sufficient for the case of Caecilian, since they themselves had judged it, 'who sent the case to the emperor by accusing, and thus showed that what ought to be considered is rather the outcome to which the matter came, up to the emperor's sentence, to which they thought the same case should be sent. For the Catholics insisted that, once all the screens of delay were cut away, those documents should rather be read, by the reading of which the case had long ago been finished and the innocence of Caecilian appeared clearer than daylight. The Donatists, not wanting these to be read at all, hindered this by interposing anything else whatever. For when the judge asked whether the Council of Carthage had been held first and the case of Caecilian had been sent to the emperor afterwards, the Catholics said that, since that council had no consul and day, they would answer both ways: because, if the case was sent to the emperor first, the outcome by which it was terminated ought to be considered; but if afterwards, nonetheless the judgment not of these men but of that one was to be sought, by which they thought it should be sent after their own judgment.

But when the Donatists kept inserting many things about the consul and the day, why it was not read in the council of their own predecessors, lest they be accused of falsehood on this account, and they asserted that it was ecclesiastical custom that days and consuls not be written into the decrees of bishops, wanting even the council of Cyprian to be read to prove this, because nothing else was being sought but delays—for the Catholics had not placed their case in this, when they had responded to both, whether that council which they had held against Caecilian at Carthage was earlier or later—the judge ordered, at the insistence of the Catholics, that those matters which had been postponed be read instead. Then the Donatists interposed another question full of delays, but one in which they truly wished to labor on their own behalf, if they could show what they wanted, namely that the Council of Cirta was false, where the confessions of the traditors forgiving one another had been read, lest a schism occur, because they themselves were read among others to have pronounced sentences against the absent Caecilian. Therefore, trying to demonstrate this to be false, they said many things, but judging some of them to be trivial, they strongly commended two particular points in that question and dwelt on them at length: one, that contrary to ecclesiastical custom, the Council of Cirta itself had a day and a consul; the other, that a council could not be gathered during a time of persecution.

Therefore, the Donatists demanded from the Catholics that they either produce other ancient councils of bishops, where consuls and days were also recorded, or recite something of that kind from the holy Scriptures themselves. When the Catholics saw that extraordinary and inexplicable delays were being interposed over a most trivial matter—for who would believe that they would object to falsehood here, where a notation of times was read for greater diligence, lest perhaps through this a necessary investigation of the truth might sometimes be required? Who, then, would believe that they would object to this, so that ancient councils might be prepared to demonstrate this custom? Or who would then go and unroll ancient ecclesiastical archives?—when the Catholics saw this, they both demonstrated the day and consul in the Council of Miltiades and recalled from the holy Scriptures themselves that the prophets had prefixed indications of the most ancient times in their writings, in which year of which king, in which month of the year, on which day of the month the word of the Lord had come upon them. The judge, however, deeming that objection about the day and consul to be contemptible and to be removed, ordered the rest of the acts held before Miltiades to be recited, and they were recited. From these it appeared that, by the sentences of all the bishops who had then sat and of Miltiades himself, Caecilianus had been acquitted and cleared, but Donatus had been condemned—that Donatus from Casis Nigris, who had been present and convicted in the first hearing, and it was then established that he had been present.

After this had been read out, when the Donatists were asked what they would reply to that Council of Cirta, they returned to the attempt to show it was false, saying that a council could not have been gathered during a time of persecution. The judge did not disregard this and, considering it valid, demanded a response from the Catholics, and in the midst of this asked how it could be proven that it was a time of persecution. Then the Donatists produced the acts of the martyrs, where they were heard and suffered for their confession. The judge also ordered the court office to calculate and report, after considering both sets of consuls and days—those read from the Council of Cirta and those from the acts of the martyrs—because the Catholics had said that after the passion of those martyrs, by which the time of persecution was proven, nearly a year had elapsed up to the consul and day of the Council of Cirta. However, the response of the calculating office suggested that a month had intervened. The Catholics therefore wished to have what they had said removed from the records, so that the proceedings would retain only what the office had responded—for they believed this to be truer—but the Donatists refused to have what the Catholics had said removed from the records, whereupon the Catholics did not contest it, so that the Donatists' malicious intent in this matter would be apparent.

But the truer account was what the Catholics had said, while the official, erring in his calculation, had made a false report, as the records, when later transcribed and more carefully examined, showed—as anyone who cares to read and is not too lazy to calculate can verify. For the martyrs’ acts, by which the time of the persecution was demonstrated, were dated to the consulship of Diocletian for the ninth time and Maximian for the eighth time, on the day before the Ides of February; the episcopal acts of the Council of Cirta, however, were dated to the third day before the Nones of March after the same consulship. And by this reckoning, an interval of thirteen months is found—more, indeed, than the eleven months which the Catholics had earlier answered, calculating less carefully. But the official, so that he might be deceived and answer that an interval of one month existed, thought it was the same consulship and did not notice the phrase “after the consulship,” where another year was already in progress. Consequently, the Catholics, on the basis of what seemed to be the true response of the official, were compelled to show that during the time of the persecution those eleven or twelve bishops could have assembled in a private house, while the Donatists insisted that they should demonstrate this from other councils, if they could find any councils of bishops held at some time during the persecution.

that the Catholics, since they could not at that time investigate and examine the old documents in the church archives on the spot, replied that it was much easier for twelve men to have gathered in a house at that time, when even congregations of the people were accustomed to be held, although the persecution was raging, as was shown by the very acts of the martyrs, who confessed in their passions that they had held a gathering and celebrated the Lord's day. This, however, the Catholics had said before the official calculated and replied. It was also said by the Catholics that those episcopal acts of Cirta, which the diligence of our ancestors had been able to preserve and discover down to these times, were to be regarded in the same way as those letters of Mensurius and Secundus which the Donatists recited. For the Council of Carthage, where seventy condemned the absent Caecilian, was also mentioned as having been held by Miltiades, where Caecilian was acquitted. But those letters of Mensurius and Secundus were said to be nowhere else mentioned, whence the truth of them was asserted by no other testimony, yet the Catholics did not on that account say they were false. It was also said by the Catholics that the Donatists should prove, if they could, that during the time of persecution bishops wrote to each other in the same way as they produced Mensurius and Secundus as having written.

They did not say this, the Catholics, in order thereby to show that those letters of Mensurius and Secundus were false—which, whether true or false, would in no way harm the case—but so that the Donatists might understand from this with what empty tergiversation they were compelling the Catholics to produce other councils gathered at the time of persecution, because, if it were said to them with similar obstinacy: 'Produce also other letters written and sent in such a manner at the time of persecution, which, if they were in any way discovered, and the hidden codices could be demanded, then the *ordo*, the *curator*, the *centurio*, and the *beneficiarius* would come to the peril of their lives—those who were proved to have let Secundus go unpunished when he was unwilling to hand over the scriptures'—they would in no way find at that hour other letters given in like manner at the time of persecution from bishops to bishops in such distant lands.

Therefore, when a lengthy dispute arose over this, with the Donatists repeatedly insisting that during the time of persecution a council could not have been gathered to ordain a bishop, because the world was in apostasy and there were no people for whom an ordination could be performed, and other such things, and with the Catholics responding that even so few bishops could easily have been gathered together that it should not even be called a council, when congregations were being gathered, as the acts of the martyrs testified, and there were undoubtedly people for whom bishops could be ordained, namely those very congregations which the acts of the martyrs said were customarily gathered at that time—when these things were being said and responded to repeatedly in many and various ways (for it was established that a private house was provided for gathering Christians during the time of persecution, as was read in certain acts of the martyrs, because the Donatists said it could not have happened that anyone would offer his house at that time, and it was recalled that it was so far from being incredible that those few bishops came together in a private house during the time of persecution, that during the height of persecution martyrs are shown to have been baptized in prison and the sacraments celebrated there by Christians, where Christians were held imprisoned on account of those same sacraments)—therefore, in the midst of these things, finally, after the judge had also repeatedly intervened that that gathering of bishops could have taken place, when congregations were proven to have been gathered, he compelled the Donatists to argue against the council and judgment of Miltiades, by which Caecilian was cleared and

He was read out as acquitted, if they had anything to say, since the case rested there rather than in that Council of Cirta. Then the Donatists began to accuse Miltiades himself of the crime of traditio and to say that their predecessors had for that reason shunned his judgment, because he had been a traditor, as if they were not also present at his judgment and did not answer that they had nothing to say against Caecilianus. But nevertheless, with the judge intent, whether any judgment, either public or ecclesiastical, concerning the crime of traditio of Miltiades might be produced, and with the Catholics themselves waiting and demanding that it be proved, the Donatists read out some very lengthy proceedings before the prefect, where neither the prefect himself of what sort he was appeared, nor was the place read out where these things were done. But the proceedings themselves, with a very long recitation, resounded with many persons handing over many ecclesiastical items, where the name of Miltiades did not sound at all. When these were finished, and the judge wondered that one thing had been promised and another recited, they, still demanding his patience, recited other proceedings, in which it was read that Miltiades had sent deacons with letters of the Emperor Maxentius and letters of the Praetorian Prefect to the Prefect of the City, so that they might recover those things which, taken away during the time of persecution, the aforementioned emperor had ordered to be returned to the Christians.

and when in these proceedings as well no crime of Miltiades appeared either to the judge or to the Catholic advocates, the Donatists said that Straton, a deacon whom Miltiades had sent along with others to receive the ecclesiastical properties, had been read out in the earlier proceedings as a traditor, and therefore they wished to besmirch Miltiades himself with the crime of traditio, because he used that deacon without having deposed him. In their prosecution, however, they said that Miltiades was the third bishop from the one who was in office when that traditio had occurred. At this point the judge asked whether at least in those proceedings concerning the traditio it was stated that Straton was a deacon, and it was read out that he had been called an instigator of the most vain superstition, which was a name applied not only to him but also to the others who were handing over [the scriptures]. But the Donatists replied that the pagan persecutors had so called both deacons and presbyters as an insult to the religion.

Therefore the Catholics responded that, since it was not surprising and was most common in human affairs that not only two but even more men are called by the same name, it could indeed have happened that the traitor Straton was a presbyter, while this other Straton was a deacon, because the Donatists had said that both deacons and presbyters were called "exhorters of the most vain superstition" by the pagans; although the pagans could have called all clerics by that insulting name, and it was much more uncertain what rank that traitorous cleric had been; nevertheless, even if it could be shown that he was a deacon, this was neither incredible nor surprising, since a short time before in the city of Rome itself there had been two deacons named Peter. That was also added by the Catholics, that even if it were demonstrated—which was not demonstrated at all—that the same Straton the deacon had handed over the scriptures, whom Miltiades later sent with other deacons to receive the ecclesiastical properties, Miltiades was not immediately stained by that crime, for the persecution could have kept him far away and ignorant of this entirely, and he could have considered innocent a man whom no one accused and proved guilty. Against these points the Donatists vainly shouted the same things over and over for a very long time.

After the conference, they also slandered Cassian of Miltiades, because this name too is found both among the deacons whom Miltiades sent to the prefect and in those records where the act of tradition was read out. If they had said this at the conference, the Catholics could easily have replied that in so great a crowd of Roman clergy it was no wonder if two or more were found not only named Strato but also Cassian, since among the twelve apostles we read not only two Judases but also two Jameses; unless perhaps it was permitted to them to distinguish Casensis from Donatus of Carthage, when they feared that the greater authority of their own Donatus of Carthage might be thought condemned in the judgment of Miltiades, and it was not permitted to the Catholics to have several men called by similar names in so great a multitude of Roman clergy. For it was false what the Donatists had said, that the persons, the places, the regions matched, when neither the places nor the regions nor even the expressed dignities of the persons in the two sets of records matched, but only the agreement of names was read, which custom does not cease to make common among different persons of the human race.

So the judge, spurning the most uncertain suspicions, ordered that something manifest be brought forward against those records, or at least that the judgment of Constantine, which had already been mentioned, be recited. And the judgment of Constantine was recited, how he had written to Eumalius, vicar of Africa, that he had heard the case of Caecilian between the parties, and that, with all arbiters removed, he had found Caecilian innocent and those men most slanderous, also mentioning the episcopal judgment made for Caecilian in the town of Arles, to which judgment many from the dissension had already consented, while the rest were still resisting and disagreeing, whence he himself was compelled to judge the whole matter between the parties. After the recitation of these imperial letters, the judge asked the Donatists what they had to say against them. There the Donatists again tried to return to the slanderous accusation against Miltiades; but when they were repelled by the judge’s interlocution and were demanded to recite something against the judgment of Miltiades or the imperial sentence, if they had anything, they replied that even the imperial ears had been inflated by base suggestions. There the judge answered them that he had most attentively noted that judgment had been made between the parties. But they began to demand that it be read whether the emperor had judged between the parties.

When this had been recited at the judge’s order, finding nothing to say, they began to cavil about the consul in the aforementioned imperial letter, because it had been recited without a consul. From this a conflict arose: the Donatists invidiously said that the episcopal council had been recited with a consul and the emperor’s letter did not have a consul, and the Catholics replied that the case did not rest there. The judge also interposed that it was defined by the most evident laws that imperial enactments, even if consuls were not read, were not to be called into doubt. Then the Catholics pressed that they should state openly that what had been read was false; for the archives could be searched. But repulsed from this, as if about to bring forward something very strong, they asked for Optatus to be read, which they had also asked for before, saying that from it they would prove that Caecilian had been condemned by the emperor; and this had been promised to them, but postponed. So the judge first wanted them to express whether they dared to accuse the imperial letter of falsehood. This indeed they did not dare at all; nevertheless they complained most invidiously that the consul was missing. But they demanded that Optatus be read much more insistently. While these things were being carried on for a long time, the consul was found in another copy of that imperial letter. When this was pointed out, the Donatists said: “Surely it ought not to have a consul”; as if it had ever been said that it ought not to have one, and not that, even if the consul had been missing, the truth of the imperial enactment would not be impeded.

When the judge had replied to them in the same way, Optatus was also recited by the Donatists reading, where he says: “At the same time the same Donatus asked that it be permitted him to return and to come to Carthage; then his suggester Philumenus suggested to the emperor that Caecilianus be held at Brixa for the sake of peace, and it was done.” In these words of Optatus, since no condemnation of Caecilianus could be found at all, as they had promised they would demonstrate, the judge ordered the whole page to be recited, so that the intention of the one who had written might be known from the preceding and following words. And it was recited by the official record: “Caecilianus is pronounced innocent by the sentences of all those mentioned above.” While this was being recited, the Donatists said that they had not asked for this to be recited, chafing against those who could not contain their laughter when they heard how clear a page they had produced against themselves. Then, when they said that Optatus had diminished the condemnation of Caecilianus in those words which they themselves had recited and had been unwilling to express it, it was demanded of them that they read from elsewhere the clear statement which they claimed he had diminished. Since they were quite unable to do so, and after some delays with empty perplexities, even after they had contended about the name of Donatus—that it was not Donatus of Carthage but Donatus of Casae who had stood in the judgment of Miltiades against Caecilianus, which the Catholics also conceded—the matter was at length moved on.

Then, because the judge was compelling them to respond, if they had anything, to the letters of Constantine, by which it was established that he had heard the parties and had judged in favor of Caecilianus against them, they requested that their own petition be read, which they said had been given to Constantine by their predecessors. In that petition they showed clearly and openly how false was what they had said about the condemnation of Caecilianus at Brixa; for the same petition shows how Constantine had decided against them. For there they say that they would by no means communicate with the bishop of that scoundrel, and that they were prepared to suffer whatever he might wish to do to them; by which bishop of Constantine’s scoundrel they undoubtedly meant Caecilianus. How then could they call him the bishop of Constantine, while they, speaking against Constantine, affirmed that they would not communicate with him, if they had prevailed over him before Constantine, so that they knew he had been condemned by him at Brixa?

When, therefore, the Catholics had said that they had recited this against themselves, and the judge himself had also made the same observation, they added yet another great support for convicting their own falsehood, reciting the letters of Constantine himself, written to Verinus the vicar, ordering that they be released at their own free will, indicating that he had commanded that they return from exile. In these letters, Constantine so detests them that nothing more shameful than that indulgence can be found. For he would certainly not have blamed them in this way, but would rather have praised them, if Caecilianus had been defeated by them before him and condemned by him, and had been relegated to Brixa. And by this, bringing forth and reciting these things against themselves, they most clearly showed that they had been overcome by Caecilianus in the judgment of the aforementioned emperor, and they most openly convicted their own falsehood, by which they claimed that he had been condemned. And those who boasted that the Catholics were persecuting, while they themselves were suffering, nevertheless wished even falsely to boast that Caecilianus had been condemned by the emperor through their accusations.

After these documents had been recited, when the Catholics said and briefly reminded the judge—what he himself also perceived—that they had been recited in their favor, that is, in favor of the innocence of Caecilianus against them, and that he himself had also made the same observation in his interlocution, the Donatists answered, saying: 'Your power says nothing about free will'; for they thought that, according to the letters of Constantine, they could be granted by the present judge to have them also recited against themselves for the case of Caecilianus. When the judge had answered them that he had received a different instruction from the emperor of the present time, they went on to another point, which they brought forth against themselves in a much more remarkable way. For they recited other letters of the same Emperor Constantine, given to the proconsul Probianus, which indeed had no consuls; but the Catholics chose to make nothing of this as a mutual objection, although from this the Donatists convicted themselves of how calumniously they had objected this to the Catholics, since the earlier document, from which the judgment of Constantine by which Caecilianus was acquitted was recited, had no consuls, which however were soon found in another document. These letters, then, given to the proconsul Probianus, contain an order of the emperor, by which he commanded that Ingentius be sent to him, by whose confession in the judgment of the proconsul Aelianus, Felix of Aptunga, the ordainer of Caecilianus, had been acquitted of the charge of traditio.

This imperial command, however, the Donatists said they were reciting in order to show, as it were, that the case of Caecilianus had still been pending even after that judgment in which Constantine had already written that he had settled everything between the parties, when even in the same letter, which was given to the proconsul Probianus and which they recited—by which they sought to show that the judgment was still pending, because the emperor had ordered Ingentius to be sent to him—they read so much against themselves that it is utterly astonishing with what eyes they could look upon or with what mouth they could utter those words. For there Constantine said that a hearing had been granted by the proconsul Aelianus, that Felix had been found innocent of the burning of the divine codices, and that those who did not cease to petition him on ordinary days were to be refuted in their presence, so that it would clearly appear to them that they had vainly sought to stir up ill will against Caecilianus and had wished to rise up violently against him. Therefore, through that letter they demonstrated not only that Caecilianus, but also Felix, had been cleared, and that they themselves had stood before the emperor as persecutors of the innocent.

Having taken this opportunity, the Catholics brought forward for reading both the report of the then proconsul Aelianus himself on this matter, given to Constantine, where he records that he had heard and concluded the case of Felix, and the proconsular proceedings themselves, by which Felix was acquitted and proven innocent of the crime of traditio by the testimony of all necessary persons. After these were read, the judge inquired what could be objected. Then the Donatists, repeating what they had begun to say earlier, again asked whether Ingentius had been sent to the court by imperial command, and demanded that the Catholics show what had been done afterwards, and attempted to refute the proconsular proceedings by which Felix was acquitted with whatever words they could, objecting the favor of the judge or that persons had been substituted, and other things which men are accustomed to cast about as suspicious complaints against proceedings by which they are defeated; they also said that Felix had not been rightly acquitted in his absence. To this, the Catholics responded that everything which had been read pertained most clearly to the acquittal of Caecilianus and Felix, but if the Donatists thought that by Ingentius being sent to the court judgment had been given in their favor and that the judgment had been changed, by which Constantine, judging between the parties, had adjudged Caecilianus purged and them most calumnious, they themselves ought to produce it.

When the Catholics were saying this, in that brief period of time the consuls could not be examined; anyone who wishes to examine the order of consuls in those proceedings will find that Caecilian was absolved by the emperor Constantine later than the case of Felix was examined and cleared by the proconsul Aelianus, and that after some years Constantine wrote to the vicarius Verinus the letter which they themselves recited, in which they claimed that free choice had been granted to them by that emperor, and in which letter he showed them to be most wicked and enemies of Christian peace. He certainly would not have done this if he had judged anything in their favor against Caecilian, when Ingentius had been sent to the court. Therefore the judge interposed that proceedings which such antiquity had strengthened could not be set aside unless other later proceedings to the contrary were recited. It was also said by the Catholics that it had been more beneficial for declaring Felix's innocence that he had been acquitted in his absence, because suspicion of favor would rather have arisen if he had been present.

Then the judge began to press them, so that, if the Donatists had any later proceedings against the absolution of Caecilian or Felix, they should produce them immediately. At this point, they attempted to return to the beginning, as it were, and to rehearse again those things which they had already said so many times and which had already been concluded, with the Catholics having responded to everything so many times. When the judge had interjected, warning them that they should now be weary of repeating the same things which had already been done and finished, and compelling them to produce, if they had anything to read against the most evident absolutions of Caecilian and Felix, and they, bringing forward nothing at all against those things, did not cease repeating the same things, so that a judgment might be made concerning what they had said, and the judge rather demanded that they read, if they had anything that could be read against the imperial and proconsular judgment, so that a pronouncement could be made on everything. Since the laws forbid rendering a half-complete sentence, the Catholics also insisted that, with all matters made clear to the judge and the Donatists, finding nothing to answer, repeating the same things, the case should finally be ended. At last the judge said: "If there is nothing against which you read, be so good as to leave, so that a full sentence may be written on everything." And with both sides leaving, he wrote the sentence, which, when the parties were again admitted, he recited, embracing in it everything that he could recall from the lengthy action of three days.

In which he recalled certain things not in the order in which they were done, yet set down everything truthfully, pronouncing that the Donatists had been refuted by the Catholics through the manifestation of all the documents. From Augustine's Retractations, Book II, Chapter 54 (39) (Page 177, Knoell edition). A Brief Summary of the Conference with the Donatists, Three Books. After our conference with the Donatists had taken place, I briefly recalled what was done, and I committed it to writing according to the three days on which we conferred with them; and I considered this work useful, so that anyone, being reminded, might either know without labor what was done, or, by consulting the numbers which I have appended to each individual matter, might read in the same proceedings at the place whatever he wishes, since their excessive length wearies the reader. The title of this work, however, is: A Brief Summary of the Conference. This work begins thus: "When the Catholic bishops and those of the party of Donatus...