Ad Donatistas Post Collationem

THE BOOK OF SAINT AURELIUS AUGUSTINE, BISHOP OF HIPPO, TO THE DONATISTS AFTER THE CONFERENCE.

Augustine warns the deluded laity of the Donatist party not to be seduced any further by their bishops, whom the Proceedings show to have been refuted already in the Conference held at Carthage, by their own words and opinions and by the documents produced by those same men. He dispels their vain calumnies against the judgment of that same Conference, examining in passing and refuting certain writings of theirs spread among the people after the Conference.

CHAPTER ONE. — 1. Why, Donatists, are you still seduced by your bishops, whose deceitful darkness has been scattered by the clear light; whose error has been exposed, whose obstinacy has been overcome? Why do they still boast vain lies to you? Why do you still believe conquered men? When they tell you that the judge was corrupted by a bribe, what new thing do they do? What else have all conquered men been accustomed to do, who are unwilling to consent to the truth, but lie about the injustice of the judge? Ask them, and let them first answer you this, if they can: why did they dare to come to Carthage and assemble with us in one place for the sake of the Conference? We had already summoned them publicly some years before, so that with us conferring the truth might appear and the dissension which divides us might be removed from the midst. But rejecting the truth itself, they answered in the proceedings, It is unworthy that the sons of the martyrs and the offspring of the traditors should assemble in one place.

Why, then, did they wish to meet with us now? I think they would not have done what seemed to them unworthy, unless they knew that we are not the offspring of the traditors. Or else let them answer you themselves: why did they say, "It is unworthy that the sons of the martyrs and the offspring of the traditors should meet together in one," and yet afterwards they met together with us in one? What compelled them to do what is unworthy? For they were not brought in bound, but they came together entirely free. If they say, "Because the Emperor had ordered it," then they do what is unworthy whenever the Emperor orders it? Why, then, are they angry at certain traditors who have no bearing on our case? For to hand over the Lord's books to the persecutors is certainly unworthy; yet when a traditor did this, he has no guilt, because the Emperor had ordered it. We say this, not according to the truth, but according to their own perversity. For they themselves said: "The public records proclaim it; they said it before the acts." It was not some unknown person, but Primianus, their bishop of Carthage, who said this. Primianus gave this in writing to the magistrate of Carthage, and commanded it to be said before the acts by his deacon: "It is unworthy that the sons of the martyrs and the offspring of the traditors should meet together in one." Behold, we have met together in one; what do they answer to this? If they say, "It is not unworthy," why did they lie when they said it was unworthy? If they say, "It is unworthy," why did they do what is unworthy?

They could claim in one way that they did not do what is unworthy, and that they did not lie in those words of Primianus, if they say: It is indeed unworthy that the sons of the martyrs and the offspring of the traditors should meet together as one, but we therefore came together with you as one because we have learned that you are not the offspring of the traditors. But if this is so, why did they, when we were already meeting together as one, throw those very calumnies at us, unless perhaps so that even we might recognize that they are not sons of the martyrs? For martyrs are called witnesses; but the witnesses of Christ are true witnesses. Yet these have been found to be false witnesses, who threw the crimes of traditio, and others' crimes upon others, and were unable to prove even those very things.

(CAPUT II. — 2. Why do you still attend to human lies, and not attend to divine testimonies? Why do you still believe conquered men, and do not believe the truth which has never been conquered? For the truth, as we proved even in the Collation itself, bears witness to its Church through many proofs of the holy Scriptures, through the prophetic and evangelical writings: both the place where the Church of Christ was to begin, and the ends of the earth, to which it was to reach. The Lord says that his Church will be through all nations, beginning from Jerusalem (Luke 24:47). The divine reading is recited, how it began from Jerusalem, where, when the faithful were first gathered, the Holy Spirit was sent from heaven (Acts 2).

The divine readings are recited, showing how it spread from Jerusalem through nearby and distant places. The names of the places are set forth, the names of the cities are made manifest, in which the Church of Christ was founded by apostolic labor. Those places and cities even merited to receive letters from the Apostles—letters which they themselves read in your congregations, and yet they do not communicate with the churches of those places and cities that merited to receive those very letters, objecting to them I know not what crimes of the Africans, that they perished from their contagion; although they themselves said in this very Conference, which we recently held at Carthage, that neither should a case prejudice a case, nor a person prejudice a person (Conference 5, chap. 372).

CHAPTER III — 3. But they said this then, when we said to them: The council which you bring forward against Caecilian does not harm Caecilian in his absence, just as the council which was held in the case of Maximian, by which Primianus was condemned, does not harm Primianus in his absence. For they brought forward there seventy and more bishops who condemned Caecilian in his absence, whereas there are brought forward more or less a hundred bishops of their own party who had condemned Primianus in his absence.

Since, therefore, we have said to them that this prejudiced Caecilianus just as it did not prejudice Primianus, because both councils were held against absent parties, they immediately, finding nothing to answer and suffering dreadful straits, said: "Neither let a cause prejudice a cause, nor a person prejudice a person." This the Catholic Church has on her lips against all human calumnies, but now much more strongly and much more freely, since what truth has always held, the confession of enemies has also confirmed. Who, then, could bear this without sorrow? Who could restrain his groaning? Who would not burst into tears and a voice of grief, if he considered this worthily? Behold, so that Primianus, condemned by the bishops of the party of Donatus, does not lose his episcopate, or so that Primianus, condemned, does not disturb the party of Donatus, neither does a cause prejudice a cause, nor a person a person; but so that Caecilianus, whom his enemies similarly condemned in his absence, is not reckoned a bishop, and contaminates all Christian peoples even to the ends of the earth, both a cause prejudices a cause, and a person prejudices a person.

CHAPTER IV. — 1. But let the churches of Pontus, Bithynia, Asia, Cappadocia, and the other eastern regions, to which the blessed apostle Peter writes (1 Peter 1:1), cry out with the voice of unity itself: We do not know what you say, you party of Donatus; why do you not communicate with us? If Caecilianus did something evil, which has not been proved or shown to us, yet if he did something evil, why does it prejudice us? If you are unwilling to hear us, hear yourselves saying, Neither does a case prejudice a case, nor a person a person. Or is your perversity so great that these words can avail so that Primianus does not prejudice you, and these words cannot avail so that Caecilianus prejudices us? Let the eastern churches also, the seven to which the apostle John writes—Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, and Pergamum (Revelation 1:11)—cry out in like manner, and say: What have we done to you, brothers, who have wished to be of the communion of Donatus rather than of ours? If Caecilianus sinned—although you could not even show his crime, because just as your Primianus, so too was he condemned in his absence—yet whatever sort of man he was, what have we done to you? Why do you not wish Christians to have peace with Christians? Why do you tear apart the sacraments common to us in us? What have we done to you? Why does the case of Primianus not prejudice the party of Donatus, except because it is true what you said, Neither does a case prejudice a case, nor a person a person?

Why, then, does the case of Caecilian prejudice the inheritance of Christ, in which we have been planted by the labor of the apostles? The apostle John writes to our own church, that it has a few names in Sardis, of those who have not defiled their garments; and yet the garments of those few were not polluted by those who were unclean within that same church, since it is true what you said, that neither does a case prejudice a case, nor a person a person. How, then, can the case and person of Caecilian prejudice us? Or if it does not prejudice, why do you separate from us? Let those churches also to which the apostle Paul writes speak—of the Romans, the Corinthians, the Philippians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians; for concerning Galatia and Ephesus we have already spoken above. Let these also therefore say: The letters written to us, brothers, you read daily, you who still wish to be of the party of Donatus. In those very Epistles the apostle greeted us by the name of peace, saying, Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Why have you learned peace by reading our Epistles, and yet refused to hold it with us? In lands so distant, placed across the sea, you reproach us with an African, Caecilian. Surely it is true what you said: neither does a case prejudice a case, nor a person a person.

What is this private and peculiar sanctification, by which it is permitted to you that the case of Donatus of Africa should not prejudice the case of Primian of Africa, nor should the person of Primian of Carthage prejudice the person of Felicianus of Musti, and yet African judgments are sent to us from so far away that the case of Caecilian prejudices us?

Let the catholic Church also, established in Africa itself and joined in communion with all those through the peace and unity of Christ, say this: let it say also, The case of Caecilian does not prejudice me either, against whom, in his absence, the sentence of seventy bishops was pronounced; because it does not prejudice the Church which is spread throughout the whole world, in whose communion I remain. Or certainly, let the case of Primian prejudice the party of Donatus, whom his colleagues similarly condemned in his absence by a more numerous council. But if for this reason it does not prejudice, because neither does a case prejudice a case, nor a person a person, much more must this justice be preserved toward the catholic unity of Christ, if the party of Donatus demands that it be preserved toward itself. This the catholic Church established in Africa proclaims: party of Donatus, you spoke these words, you acknowledged these words of yours, you even subscribed to these words: Neither does a case prejudice a case, nor a person a person. I read of Caecilian among the spirits of those long at rest; you still see Felicianus and have him with you in the body, by whom Primian was condemned. In the very case of Primian you condemned Felicianus, and afterward, just as he was, you joined him as bishop to Primian and to yourselves.

If it is of such force that neither a case prejudices a case nor a person prejudices a person, so that the communion of Felicianus, who lives with you today, does not prejudice you, how does the memory of Caecilianus, long since dead, prejudice me?

What do those reply to these things who still boast empty things to you, and lies that will harm their own salvation if they do not correct themselves? What will they still say—that we corrupted the judge so that a sentence might be brought forth in our favor? Did we also corrupt a bishop of such great merit among you, a most distinguished defender, so that he might speak such things in our favor? For this is what we were doing with all our strength, this is what we were pressing, that it be shown that the case and person of Caecilianus, whatever sort of man he was, do not pertain to the case and person of the Church, which God has strengthened by his holy testimonies. We were doing this also by evangelical similitudes, that the case and person of the tares not prejudice the case and person of the wheat, although in the same field they grow together in the same rain until the harvest, when they ought to be separated; that the case and person of the chaff not prejudice the person of the grain, although on the same threshing floor they are threshed together until they are separated in the final winnowing.

so that the case and person of the goats should not prejudice the case and person of the sheep, although both kinds of flock are kept mixed together in common pastures, until by the supreme shepherd, in the last judgment, some are separated to the left and some to the right; so that the case and person of the bad fish should not prejudice the case and person of the good fish, although they are held within the same nets, to be separated at the outermost shore, that is, at the end of the sea, which signifies the end of the age (Matthew 3, 13, and 25). By these parables and figures the Church was foretold as destined to have good and bad together until the end of the age, in such a way that the bad cannot harm the good, when they are either unknown or are tolerated for the peace and tranquility of the Church, if it was not proper for them to be exposed or accused, or they could not be pointed out to other good people; yet certainly in such a way that the vigilance of correction does not rest—by rebuking, degrading, excommunicating, and the other lawful and permitted coercions which, with the peace of unity preserved, are done daily in the Church according to the apostolic precept, with charity preserved, as he said: But if anyone does not obey our word through the letter, note this one; and do not associate with him, so that he may be ashamed; and do not regard him as an enemy, but rebuke him as a brother (2 Thessalonians.

Thus indeed discipline preserves patience, and patience tempers discipline; and both are referred to love, lest either undisciplined patience foster iniquity, or impatient discipline scatter unity.

CHAPTER V. 7. When these things are done by the good, they are not defiled by the wicked; because they neither share in their sins by consenting, and from them, even if not by bodily separation, yet by dissimilarity of spiritual life and diversity of conduct they depart, in that manner obedient to the Lord's command when he says, Depart from there, and do not touch the unclean thing (Isa. 52:11). For those who think this is not to be observed spiritually fall through the arrogance of vanity into that which the Lord detests through the same prophet, saying, Who say, Do not touch me, for I am clean; this is the smoke of my indignation (Isa. 65:5). This your bishops thought should be done, when, at a session offered to both of us by the judge, they refused to sit with us, saying that it was written for them not to sit with such men—understanding that, of course, not spiritually but carnally, which is set down in the Psalm, And I will not sit with the impious; and yet they did what is likewise forbidden in that very same passage of the Psalm. For there the Prophet says, And with those who work iniquity I will not enter in (Ps. 26:5, 4).

If, therefore, they were unwilling to sit with us because they either knew or thought us to be unrighteous, why did they enter with us—which is similarly forbidden—being in part holy and in part polluted, unless because, by not understanding the holy Scriptures and by thinking in a carnal way, they themselves scattered that very unity?

Do the evil, then, pollute the good when they are placed together in the same field, on the same threshing floor, in the same pastures, within the same nets? They do not, because the good do not share with them, but with the altar and the sacraments of God. But those who consent to the deeds of the evil do share with the evil. For it is written: Not only those who do these things, but also those who consent to those who do them (Rom. 1:32).

CHAPTER VI. — But when the evil are tolerated for the sake of preserving peace, they are not sought after in the fellowship of sharing iniquity, so that the wheat may drink the gentle rain together with the tares and yet keep its own fruitfulness, and not be turned into the barrenness of the tares, but both may grow together until the harvest, lest perhaps, when the tares are gathered, the wheat be uprooted at the same time. The evil have no participation with the good in salvation or in perdition. For what participation has righteousness with iniquity? The evil have no fellowship with the good in the kingdom, or in eternal fire. For what fellowship has light with darkness? The evil have no harmony of life and will with the good. For what harmony has Christ with Belial? The good have no part with the evil, neither in the punishment of crime nor in the reward of piety.

For what fellowship has a believer with an unbeliever? And while they are within the same nets until they come to the shore, they receive the divine sacraments together; these are joined, those are separated; these are in harmony, those are in discord; these have their portion with mercy, those with judgment: since the Church sings of mercy and judgment to the Lord: and he who eats unworthily eats judgment not for another but for himself. For of that very bread and from that very hand of the Lord both Judas received a portion and Peter received it: and yet what fellowship, what harmony, what portion has Peter with Judas? Since neither does the cause prejudice the cause, nor the person the person.

Whether, therefore, those go out of whom it is written, They went out from us, but they were not of us, or whether those seem to be within of whom the blessed Cyprian speaks most openly, saying, For even if the tares seem to be in the Church, nevertheless neither our faith nor our love ought to be hindered, so that because we perceive tares to be in the Church, we ourselves should withdraw from the Church. To these words your bishops dared to respond nothing at all, although they long contended in vain that the tares foretold were not going to be in the Church, because the Lord said, The field is this world; and he did not say, The field is the Church.

But we were saying that "the world" is used to signify the Church, just as Cyprian also understood, because the Church was prefigured through the whole world. Hence they were saying that "the world" is always used in a bad sense, and they were giving testimonies from the Scriptures, because it is written, If anyone has loved the world, the love of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15), and other such things. But we were answering that "the world" is used in the Scriptures not only in a bad sense but also in a good sense, and among other things we were recalling that which is written, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19)—who surely reconciles to himself nothing other than the Church.

CHAPTER VII. — Whether therefore the wicked go out, or are within and either are ignored or are seen, the mercy and justice of God bring this about, that the wicked do no harm to the good who do not consent to evil, but each bears his own burden: so that neither does a son receive the sins of his father, unless he has imitated him in evil; but the soul that has sinned, that same soul shall die (Ezek 18:4). When, therefore, anyone consents to evil with the wicked, he now has one cause with them, and the whole society of the wicked becomes one person: and through this, when they perish together and are condemned together, each one's own cause and own person prejudices him, not another's.

But when the good and the evil hear the same word of God together, and receive the sacraments of God together, and yet have different causes for their actions, and bear different persons by the diversity of their will—the same holy food being eaten by some worthily and by others unworthily—neither does the cause prejudice the cause, nor the person the person.

And for this reason, whatever testimonies of the divine Scriptures your bishops were able to cite, by which the Church was foretold as pure from every mixture of evil men, she was not foretold by those testimonies as she is now, but as she will be after this mortality in eternal life. And whatever testimonies of the Scriptures they set forth concerning sons who, by the merit of their parents in imitating their malice, willed to have one cause with them: not understanding this, they forced the divine testimonies to fight with one another, nor did they distinguish both voices of God according to the diversity of times, causes, and persons and bring them into concord, but just as they themselves fought against us, so also they wished the divine documents to fight among themselves. Nor is it strange if they did not understand the peace of God's Scripture, who had no peace with his Church.

CHAPTER VIII — ii. But we, accepting both sets of testimonies, were showing the agreement of both. For we accepted both that which they recalled in their own writings as having been said to the Church, "The uncircumcised and the unclean shall no more pass through you" (Isa. 52:1), and that which is written, "Let both grow together until the harvest" (Matt. 13:30)—but that this refers to the field, and that to the barn. Finally, even those who contended for a long time, saying that the tares were permitted to grow together with the wheat until the harvest, are not in the Church but in the world—contrary to the understanding of the martyr Cyprian, who said, "And if the tares are seen to be in the Church, nevertheless neither our faith nor our love ought to be hindered; so that, since we perceive tares to be in the Church, we ourselves should not withdraw from the Church." And being unwilling to agree that the Church can be signified by the name "world," they act contrary to the words of the Apostle who said, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself," and contrary to the words of the Lord himself who said, "The Son of Man did not come to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him" (John 3:17). For the world cannot be reconciled to God and saved through him unless by the name "world" is understood the Church, which alone, reconciled to God through him, is saved. Nevertheless, in that similitude which we recalled from the Gospel—that both the good and the

the fish, until they are separated on the shore, that is, at the end of the age, are contained within the same nets mixed together, having been conquered by the evidence of the truth, they confessed that the wicked will be in the Church mixed together until the end of the age; but they said that they are hidden, because they are thus unknown by the priests, just as fish within the nets, while they are still in the sea, are not seen by the fishermen within the nets. How, then, is the prophetic testimony which they placed in their response, which was said to the Church, "The uncircumcised and the unclean shall no more pass through you," understood to pertain to this time, when the Church has been compared to nets, in which, while they are still placed in the sea, they confessed that the bad fish are mixed with the good or hidden? Whence it is manifest that only in the future age after the judgment will no uncircumcised and unclean person pass through the Church. O violence of truth, which torments its enemies not in the flesh but in the heart, so that they confess it unwillingly!

CHAPTER IX, 12. Behold, what was said by us has been made manifest, that the times of the Church must be distinguished: that she is not now such as she will be after the resurrection; that she now has the wicked mixed in with her, but then she will not have them at all; that those divine testimonies by which God foretold her to be utterly alien to every mixture of the wicked pertain to that purity of hers, not to the mixture of this present time. Behold, even by the truth of the Gospel itself, those who said that wicked men are now mixed in with her, though hidden, were compelled to confess nothing else. Behold, now the unclean one passes through her, though hidden; therefore this is not the time that was foretold, when the Prophet says, The uncircumcised and the unclean shall no more pass through you; now, then, they pass through, though hidden. For even this very phrase, shall no more, shows that they were accustomed to pass through before, but will not pass through any more. And they used to demand of us invidiously how the devil could have sown tares in the Church of Christ, when they themselves admit that wicked men, at least hidden ones, are mixed in with the Church, and do not understand that they were sown by the devil.

CHAPTER X — 13. This very point, which they thought they had acutely discovered, they were in fact bringing forward against themselves. For if the Lord for this reason compared the Church to nets gathering good and bad fish alike, because He willed the bad in the Church to be understood as not manifest but hidden, whom the priests do not know, just as the fishermen beneath the waves do not know what they have caught in their nets: for this reason, then, she is also compared to a threshing floor, so that even the manifest bad would be foretold as mixed with the good in her, to be separated later. For the chaff which is on the threshing floor, mixed with the grain, does not itself lie hidden beneath the waves—chaff which is so conspicuous to the eyes of all that rather the grain in it is hidden, while the chaff itself is manifest. But concerning this likeness of the threshing floor, since we had also placed it from the Gospel among the others, they were able to write nothing against us in their letters, except that the prophet Jeremiah said, What has chaff to do with wheat? He said this because they are not alike, not because they cannot be mixed together; because they will not be together in the barn, not because they are not threshed together on the threshing floor. Although when Jeremiah said this, he was not dealing with the people of God, but with the dreams of men and the visions of the prophets: because these two are to be compared by no likeness, just as the emptiness of chaff cannot be compared to the fullness of wheat.

CHAPTER X — 13. Your bishops, indeed, have tried to twist the passage in the Gospel where the Church is compared to a threshing floor; but presently, convicted by the recollection of the Gospel words, they turned to this, that even there they should say that hidden evils were signified, not manifest ones, of which it is written, He will come bearing his winnowing fan in his hand, and he will cleanse his threshing floor; he will gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire (Matthew 3:12). Judge therefore yourselves, open your eyes, attend with your ears to the truth: if, as they themselves have said, the Lord compared the Church to nets for this reason, that he willed the evils in it to be understood as not manifest but hidden, which the priests do not see, just as the fishermen do not see the fish within the nets beneath the waves; is the threshing floor also threshed under water or under the earth? Or is it surely trampled at night, not in the sun, or does a blind farmer work on it? How much better, then, do they correct themselves than pervert the holy Gospels, and attempt to twist the Lord's utterances to the vain error of their own mind! For either that likeness of the fishes was given by the Lord not on account of hidden evils, but only on account of evils mixed into the Church; or certainly proper likenesses have been given to individual things—concerning the fishes, on account of hidden evils; concerning the threshing floor, on account of manifest evils—so that just as those are mixed with the good before the shore, so these are mixed with the good before the winnowing fan.

For they themselves remind us that by the chaff on the threshing floor we should understand the manifestly wicked in the Church, while they wish the bad fish within the swimming nets to be understood as the secretly wicked, because just as the fishermen do not know those fish, so the priests do not know these. For why should we not say, Therefore the chaff also are the manifestly wicked, because the threshers see it openly? But those fish cannot be separated before the end of the river, just as that chaff cannot be winnowed before the due time. But God guards the innocence of his saints and faithful ones, as of the good fish, as of the fat grains of wheat, so that the reprobate kinds mixed in within those nets may not harm them, and the chaff mixed in to be winnowed on that threshing floor may not harm them: because, as they themselves said, read out, and signed, neither the cause nor the person can be prejudiced by a person.

CHAPTER XI — 15. But they would deny that they had said these things, unless they could be contained by their own signature. Behold how diligently it was done for your salvation, that we should sign our words: which all ought to have done, and so that they might be silent, they were at last compelled by shame. For their words exist, where they were reproached for doing this; and again other words, where they consented to do this, which at first they denied. All things were written down, everything was signed. For this reason, then, they seemed unwilling to sign, so that they might be able to deny that they had said what they had said, and to slander the judge about corrupted records.

But because they cannot do this now, they say that the judge himself was corrupt; yet they alone made him judge against them, they who said so many things against themselves on our behalf, which they could not deny, and even though coerced and unwilling, they nevertheless subscribed to their own prosecution documents. Therefore they were unwilling to subscribe, so that they might be permitted by false accusation to deny that they had said what they said about corrupt proceedings; and therefore afterwards, when the judge insisted, they consented, because they felt that it was clear to all that by refusing to subscribe they indicated nothing other than that they feared their own words would be read against them. For they preferred to defend their prosecution documents afterwards with any clouds of obscurity, rather than to condemn them so quickly.

CHAPTER XII.—16. But see, we ask you, how by their very defense they entangle themselves worse, and plead our case, and utterly destroy their own. For after the Collation, after they wished to appeal as the defeated, their words were objected to them; and they try to defend them by a worse entanglement of their own, when you ask them what they did. For they think you have no heart, so that you do not understand that they have been utterly defeated; since they say to you things which they would certainly not say if they could find anything useful to say. For who could endure that defeated men complain that the sentence was pronounced against them at night—as if the necessity of hearing did not often compel judges to sit even until a late part of the night? Or is what is said therefore not true, because it is said at night?

Nor do they hear the Scripture crying out, By day the Lord hath commanded his mercy, and by night he hath declared it (Ps. XLI, 9); and again, To shew forth thy mercy in the morning, and thy truth in the night (Ps. XCI, 3). Or what they said, that the persecutors came to seize the Lord by night, not attending that even in those night hours the Lord also preached the truth to his disciples; nor would they consider what is written, that the apostle Paul prolonged his sermon until midnight (Acts XX, 7). If they had the truth on their side in what they said, this could not have hindered them. But surely they were enduring a most dark night in their own minds, when they brought forth so many things against themselves, and did not correct their perverse mind toward the light of truth. And still indeed it was day, when after the manner of the forum they prescribed to us concerning time, saying that the case had lapsed and could now by no means be argued; not understanding that they had shown nothing to men, except how much they feared that it should be argued, where their perversity and the catholic truth would be exposed.

CHAPTER XIII. — 17. It was still daylight when those who wished to destroy the judgment of the Roman bishop Melchiades, by which Caecilianus was cleared and absolved, said that Melchiades himself had been a traditor. When proof of this accusation was demanded of them, they recited very lengthy proceedings in which the name of Melchiades did not appear as one who had handed anything over. And they also recited other proceedings, in which it was read that Melchiades had sent deacons with letters of the emperor Maxentius and of the praetorian prefect to the prefect of the city, so that they might receive back the places which had been taken from the Christians in the time of persecution. Since no crime of Melchiades at all appeared there, they said that in the earlier proceedings concerning the tradition Straton had been named as a traditor, because one of the deacons whom Melchiades had sent to recover the places was also called by that name, contending that he was the same man, yet not proving it. For they did not even show that Straton, who had handed over, had at least been a deacon. But even if he had been, we answered them that a short time before there had been two deacons named Peter in the same clergy of the Roman Church.

Thus, blind in mind, they were weaving dark calumnies, adding even a most manifest falsehood: that not only the name but also the places, regions, and persons matched, by which it was shown that this was not another but Straton himself—although in those proceedings nothing at all matching was read, beyond the similarity of the name, with which the custom of the human race is full, that not only two but even more men are called by one name. For they themselves also cried out that their own Donatus of Carthage—lest he be thought to have been condemned in the judgment of Melchiades, whom many hold in great esteem—must be distinguished from Donatus of Casa, because Donatus of Carthage had been sent against Caecilianus to the episcopal judgment of Melchiades; bearing so thick a night in their heart that they were unwilling for Donatus to be defamed by the similarity of his own name, yet wished Melchiades to be stained by the similarity of another's name. But now they are said to add to Straton also the name Cassianus, which they passed over in silence at the Collation—as if Straton alone could have had a namesake, and Cassianus could not.

Nor could they pay attention, hindered by their own inner night, that there were not only two Johns, one the Baptist, the other the Evangelist, but also two Simons, one Peter, the other the Magician; and finally, in that very small number of the Apostles, not only two Jameses, one of Alphaeus, the other of Zebedee, but also two Judases, one holy, the other a devil. Yet whoever, similarly blind in mind, slandered the holy apostle Judas with the crime of Judas the traitor, would be imitating none but these men. For it is no wonder if the reputation of Melchiades, concerning the two Cassians or the two Stratons, endures such slanderers after so long a time, as the truth of the Gospel endures concerning the two Herods. For because it is not expressly stated which Herod died immediately after the infants were killed for Christ, and which Herod persecuted the Lord with Pilate, they, supposing there was one, bring against the Gospel the charge of falsehood—just as these men, supposing there was one Stration or Cassian, bring against Melchiades the stain of traditio. And yet those err more tolerably, because not only the name but also the rank agrees; for each is read to be King Herod. But these men have falsely claimed that the rank agrees, because they could in no way read that both were deacons.

CHAPTER XIV. — 18. It was still daylight when the council of Cirta — if indeed it is to be called a council, at which there were scarcely eleven or twelve bishops — from which we read out that certain traditors were the ones who, together with Secundus of Tigisis, pronounced sentences against Caecilian, wishing to show it to be false, said that in the time of persecution those eleven or twelve bishops could not have gathered in any house; and to prove that it was a time of persecution, they produced the acts of the martyrs, so that, with the days and consuls considered, it might appear that it was a time of persecution. But they were convicted of having produced those acts of the martyrs against themselves. For in those acts it was made manifest that in that time of persecution Christian congregations were accustomed to gather. From this it was established that it was not incredible that those bishops also were read to have likewise assembled in a private house, so that a bishop might be secretly ordained for the congregation that could gather, as was contained in the acts of the martyrs, even in the time of persecution — one who could himself also secretly ordain clergy in such great necessity, where the previous bishop with his clergy was shown to have fallen, through the letter of Secundus himself which was cited by these men.

From those acts of the martyrs which they themselves were producing, we were reminded also to pay attention to other acts of the martyrs; and we found, and we said, that in the heated time of persecution both a private house—which they had denied could have happened—was granted to the congregation of Christians, and that martyrs were baptized in prison: so that they might see how it was not incredible that in a time of persecution a few bishops should gather in a private house, when even in the very prison the sacraments of Christ were being celebrated, in which men were being held shut up for the faith of Christ. How much, then, the acts of the martyrs helped us by being produced, who does not see, who does not have in his heart a night like theirs, who did not see this?

CHAPTER XV. — 19. They even found fault with these very acts of Cirta on this ground, that days and consuls were read in them; and they demanded of us that we produce some ecclesiastical councils where days and consuls are recited. For they themselves were producing the council of Carthage as having been held with both a day and a consul. They said also that the council of Cyprian does not have consuls, though a day is read in it; but in that Carthaginian council of their own, not even a day. We, however, demonstrated that the Roman council of Melebiades, like that one of Cirta, had both a day and consuls—as was at hand. For it was not then necessary for us to examine the ancient archives of the church at that hour, from which it might be shown that this custom also belonged to the ancients. Nor, however, was it in vain.

We also wished to raise calumnious objections against them, asking why a date is found in Cyprian's council but not found in theirs—because they wanted to weave vain delays, which we were trying to avert. For they even demanded this, that we show somewhere from the Holy Scriptures that dates and consuls are recorded—as if councils of bishops had ever been compared to the canonical Scriptures, or as if they themselves could produce from the Holy Scriptures a council where the apostles sat as judges and either condemned or acquitted someone who was accused. And yet we answered them that even the Prophets commended their books by noting and defining the times: in what year, under which king, in what month of the year, on what day of the month, the word of the Lord came upon them—so that we might show how vainly and calumniously they stirred up the most empty questions about the dates and consuls of episcopal councils. For it can happen that this variation exists in the records, when some describe one date and consuls with greater diligence, while others omit them as superfluous. Just as even the codex in which we first read the judgment of Constantine, by which he pronounced Caecilian innocent between the parties, but them most calumnious, did not have the day and consul; but another codex, which we later produced against their calumnies, did have them.

For they had also most invidiously proclaimed there that we read out the emperor's letters without a date and consul; and yet they themselves also read out other letters of the same emperor in the case of Felix, the ordainer of Caecilian, which in marvelous blindness they produced against themselves, without a date and consul; nor did we object anything to them on that account, lest, like them, we should occupy necessary time with superfluous words. But now we say this, that you at least may open your eyes and be free of the dark night which your bishops carried in their heart, who thrust a nocturnal sentence upon the judge's examination, and themselves, wrapped in inner darkness throughout the day, in marvelous blindness said so many things against themselves.

CHAPTER XVI. — 20. There is read in the public records, set forth before the magistrate at Carthage, the express words of Primian, where he says that our forebears vexed their parents with various exiles; and in the Conference they try to prove that, with their forebears as accusers, Caecilian was condemned to exile by the Emperor. They say in their letters that their communion is the Church of truth, which suffers persecution, not which inflicts it (In the Mandate of the Donatists, below in the Appendix); and we attempt to show that Caecilian was condemned by the judgment of the Emperor, with their forebears as persecutors. And they say this was done, not through Donatus of Casae, but through him whom they proclaim before others, Donatus of Carthage.

For in their writings, through their own people, they are said to boast of this very thing, where, defeated, they accuse the judge, because the night-time truth confuted the night of their heart. That Donatus—that Donatus, I say, whom they had called the ornament of the Church of Carthage and a man of martyr glory—they wished so to commend him that they said that, at the hearing of the Emperor Constantine, he both charged and convicted Caecilian as guilty (In Collat. part 2, cap. 10). That man, then, of martyr glory, at the Emperor's hearing, charged and asserted Caecilian to be guilty, and that hearing was followed by the condemnation of Caecilian: with that man of martyr glory accusing and pressing, Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor. This indeed we prove to be false, we who have read out from the public archive the letters of the same emperor, in which he testifies that he heard and judged between the parties, where, with Caecilian absolved and cleared, he detested their calumnies. Against these they could find nothing at all to answer, and to confirm them they brought forward other things against themselves. Accordingly, it is established that Caecilian was accused before the Emperor by their predecessors; but it is not established that he was condemned—indeed, it is even established that he was absolved. But nevertheless, do you yourselves see how much your bishops have helped our cause, who wished even to boast of that falsehood.

For if that Donatus, a man of martyr-glory, asserted Caecilian to be a defendant in the presence of the Emperor, and while that man of martyr-glory was accusing and pressing the charge, Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor, let them answer you: when these things were being done, who was the martyr—Donatus, who was persecuting the man before the Emperor, or Caecilian, who, while he was persecuting, was condemned by the Emperor? Where now is that definitive rule of theirs, that the communion of Donatus is the Church of truth which suffers persecution, not which inflicts it? Behold, Caecilian suffers, Donatus inflicts: which of them is the man of martyr-glory?

CHAPTER XVII.—ii. Attend, take heed, do not let yourselves be seduced any longer into a pernicious error. The truth which was hidden from you, God has deigned to reveal; the falsehood which was being poured over you, God has deigned to refute. Why are you still ungrateful for so great a benefit of his? For this is surely what they used to say to you, whereby with cunning deceit they darkened the eyes of your heart: and even now, though convicted, they boast of this very thing, and on this account they tear us to pieces—because we inflict persecution, and they suffer it. This is what has remained to them, though they are overcome on every side, whereby they may still make clouds for the inexperienced, showing themselves from this as if they were the Church of truth, which suffers persecution and does not inflict it. Therefore let them not deceive you any longer: we do to them what they boast that their forebears, and that very man whom they proclaim as a man of martyr-glory, did to Caecilian.

What he did before the Emperor was this: that Caecilian, having been convicted, should be condemned by his judgment. This is what we have done too: that those men, having been convicted, should suffer similar things. If he did wrong, why did that Donatus do it? But if he did right, why does the party of Donatus not do this to the Catholic party? Nay, they do not doubt that it is rightly done—those who boast that their forebears, whom they greatly praise, did this—nor do we doubt it, who cannot deny that this must be done by them: that without the shedding of blood, those who are not corrected by words should be restrained by some most gentle penalty of the laws, being unruly; and if perhaps the Emperor, moved, has decreed that the obstinacy of a sacrilegious mind be punished with a heavier penalty, let the judges act more mildly, who have always been permitted to soften and mollify the sentence. In the meantime, therefore, although it cannot be shown that Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor Constantine, that error of yours has nonetheless been removed, by which you thought that the true Church is the one which suffers persecution, not the one which makes it; for Donatus made it, Caecilian suffered it. And if the party of Donatus suffers persecution, the party of Maximian suffers it along with it—which they themselves affirm is not the Church of Christ. And by this, both to make persecution is not an indication of iniquity, because both the good make it against the evil and the evil against the good; and to suffer persecution is not a proof of righteousness, because not only the good suffer it for piety's sake, but the evil suffer it for iniquity's sake.

Therefore it remains for you, once error has been driven out, to see and hold the Catholic Church of Christ—not so that you may choose to be in it because it suffers persecution. For when the Lord had said, "Blessed are those who suffer persecution," lest heretics boast on that account, he added, "for the sake of righteousness" (Matt. 5:10). For how many evils the most frenzied clergy and Circumcellions of the party of Donatus have done to our people, you also know. Churches have been burned, holy books have been thrown into the flames, private houses too have been burned, people have been dragged from their seats, and with all that was in them taken away or destroyed, they themselves have been beaten, torn, and blinded; nor could they refrain from murder—although it is gentler for one who is dying to lose this light than to take away this light from one who is living. They came to people, not so that they might be led away and kept somewhere, but only so that they might suffer these things. And yet we do not justify our people for the reason that they have suffered these things, but because they have suffered them for the Christian truth, for the peace of Christ, for the unity of the Church. But those men, under so many and so severe laws, and under so great a power of the Catholic Church, which the Lord has given to her, what such thing do they suffer? For if at any time they are punished with death, either they kill themselves, or while their bloody violence is being resisted, they are killed—not for the communion of the party of Donatus, nor for the error of sacrilegious schism, but for their most open crimes and wicked deeds, which they commit with savage fury and cruelty after the manner of robbers.

But on the part of Donatus they suffer scarcely anything of the kind that they said Caecilianus suffered at Donatus's urging.

Either, therefore, not every persecution is unjust, or it should not be called persecution when it is just. Wherefore, either the party of Donatus suffers a just persecution, or it does not suffer persecution, because it suffers justly. But Caecilianus did not suffer justly, because he was proved innocent and acquitted. This indeed they denied, and rather said he was condemned by the Emperor, and therefore they confessed that their forebears, and especially Donatus, whom they praise with such great preaching, made persecution against Caecilianus. But they could in no way prove that he was convicted and condemned; nay rather, they themselves also, by reading many things against themselves, confirmed what we were saying—that he was acquitted and cleared. And yet they boast that free choice was granted to them by the Emperor. Vanquished and confounded, they even now kept demanding that what their forebears did not grant to Caecilianus should be conceded to themselves: whom they so accused before the Emperor, whom by those accusations they even wished to lie that he had been condemned by the Emperor. If free will is to be granted to each one, it should first be granted to Caecilianus. If this is not to be permitted to a human judge, but rather to be left to God, Caecilianus should first not have been accused before the Emperor.

CHAPTER XVIII — 24. Awake at last; let no hellish sleep bind you, let no impious custom plunge you still deeper into the abyss of sacrilegious error. Now be in harmony with peace, hold fast to unity, submit to charity, yield to the truth. Recognize that the catholic Church, beginning from Jerusalem, is spread abroad everywhere; the party of Donatus does not communicate with her, and the case of Caecilianus does not prejudice her cause. For he was so many times cleared, so many times absolved, that even if he were not innocent, neither does a cause prejudice a cause, nor a person a person. These words the whole Church throughout the entire world resounds, and a member of her in Africa also cries out: I know the testimony of God, I do not know the case of Caecilianus; I believe him innocent, since your forefathers so often persecuted him whom I read to have been so often absolved. But whatever his case may be, it prejudices my case in nothing; whatever his person may be, it prejudices my person in nothing. You said this, you subscribed to this: neither does a cause prejudice a cause, nor a person a person. Behold, the Lord says, among all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Let us hold the divine truth in the one Church, and at last put an end to human disputes.

CHAPTER XIX — 25. For could they in any way defend those words of theirs after the Collation itself — where they said that neither the cause of a case nor the person should prejudice a person — and did they not rather entangle themselves far more perplexingly? For thus they spoke in certain of their writings: "That the cause should not prejudice the cause, nor the person the person, we remember to have been stated by us," they say. But we say to you that no prejudice is done to you by those who have been rejected or condemned by us; but those who descend from the ordination of Caecilian, whom their origin counts back to a predecessor for guilt — how can they not be bound by the crimes of their ordainer, when the rope of sins, stretched out in a series, has bound whomever with the bond of communion, it must necessarily make them sharers in the sin? What a wonderful defense! So thick is the mud in which their feet are stuck, that as they try to pull them out, they fix their jaws and heads in vain, and struggling in the same mire they are more tightly entangled. For from those whom they record that they have either rejected or condemned — that is, from the Maximianists — they have with them Felicianus, both the condemner of Primianus and one condemned by them in the case of Primianus. What is it that they contend that such a long rope from Caecilian even to these times entangles the Catholic Church, and yet they do not notice their own chain close at hand? For that famous judgment of Bagaia concerning Maximian and his associates says: "The chain of sacrilege drags very many into the fellowship of crime.

Felicianus, therefore, was dragged along by that chain. If Felicianus does not prejudice them, why does Caecilianus prejudice us? Or perhaps where they wish, he prejudices; but where they do not wish, the cause prejudices the cause, and by their own caprice the old rope is stronger than the new chain? Maximianus does not prejudice Felicianus, by whom he was condemned; Maximianus and Felicianus do not prejudice Primianus, by whom they were condemned; Maximianus does not prejudice those who received the dilation, with whom he was joined in one schism; Felicianus does not prejudice the party of Donatus, by which he was received in the same honor, nor is the baptism which he gave in sacrilegious schism destroyed there; and does Caecilianus prejudice so many Christian peoples, who was once condemned in his absence, as Primianus was, and three times absolved in his presence, as Primianus was not? The unknown Caecilianus, long dead, prejudices us; and does the living Felicianus not prejudice them, by whom he is read to have been condemned a little while ago, and to whom he is now seen to be joined? The rope of Caecilianus entangles us, by whom it is not known; and does the chain of Felicianus not entangle them, whose sentence against him is recited, in which that very chain is condemned? They are permitted to say, "We have received those whom we condemned for the peace of Donatus," because neither does a cause prejudice a cause, nor a person a person; and are we not permitted to say, "On account of those whom you condemned, we do not desert the peace of Christ," because neither does a cause prejudice a cause, nor a person a person? Iron brow!

the darkness of madness, setting before the Judge a verdict rendered at night, and groping in the night of their own heart, stumbling, falling, rabidly litigating against us, and saying such great things on our behalf!

CHAPTER XX. 26. Moreover, even now they still dare to cite prophetic and apostolic testimonies, to which we responded universally at that Collation, showing that the prophets themselves were holy while they dwelt with the wicked in one temple, under the same priests, among the same sacraments, and yet were not polluted by the wicked; because they knew how to distinguish between the holy and the unclean—not, as these men think, by dividing the people bodily, but by judging well and living well. And this they did without interruption, so that in that great house where they were, as the Apostle says, some vessels unto honor and some unto dishonor, they cleansed themselves from strifes by the diversity of their conduct, and were vessels unto honor, useful to the Lord, always prepared for every good work (II Tim. 2:21). But it is well that they themselves, out of the many testimonies which, not understanding them, they inserted in their writings, which they brought forward and read at the Collation, have now, after the Collation, as though it were something special, cited the testimony of the prophet Haggai (Haggai 2). In this prophet, therefore, we demonstrate much more evidently what we have already shown, that it is not bodily contact but spiritual contact, which comes about through consent, that pollutes men, whose cause that very consent makes one.

For when the Lord wished to destroy the wicked even by visible punishment, he himself separated the righteous from them by admonition: as Noah with his household from those whom he was about to destroy by the flood; as Lot from those whom he was about to consume with fire; as his people from the synagogue of Abiram, which he was soon to extinguish. Therefore also that man who did not have a wedding garment—not those who had invited him, but the Lord himself whose the banquet was—he ordered to be bound and cast out. For neither was he himself like a fish beneath the waves, so that he could not be seen by the inviters as by fishermen. Accordingly, lest it be thought, as these men claim, that some load of evil had crept in secretly among the ignorant; at once the Lord in that one same man, whom he ordered to be bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness from that banquet, made it understood that there is a great fellowship of the wicked, among whom the fewer good live in the Lord's banquet, and he did not delay to signify this. For after he said, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, he immediately added, For many are called, but few are chosen. How is this true, since rather many had been cast out by the Lord into outer darkness, unless because in that one man was figured the great body of all the wicked who are destined to perish at the Lord's judgment, having been present at the Lord's banquet?

From these the good are for the time being separated in heart and in conduct, even while eating together and receiving the body and blood of the Lord, but with a great distinction: because the former are clothed with the wedding garment in honor of the bridegroom, seeking not their own things but the things of Jesus Christ; the latter, however, do not have the wedding garment, that is, the most faithful love of the bridegroom, seeking their own things, not the things of Jesus Christ. And by this, although they are at one and the same banquet, the former eat mercy, the latter judgment: because it is of that same banquet that the song speaks, which I also mentioned above, "Mercy and judgment will I sing to you, O Lord" (Ps. 100:1).

Nevertheless, ecclesiastical discipline does not for that reason sleep, so as to correct the unruly. For we do not separate from the people of God those whom we reduce to a humbler place of penitence, either by degradation or by excommunication. And where we are not permitted to do this for the sake of the peace and tranquility of the Church, we do not for that reason neglect the Church; but we tolerate what we do not wish, so that we may arrive at what we wish, using the caution of the Lord's precept, lest, when we wish to gather the tares before the time, we root up the wheat along with them (Matt. 13). Using also the example and precept of the blessed Cyprian, who for the sake of peace endured his fellow bishops, usurers, defrauders, and plunderers, being such men (Sermon on the Lapsed), and was not himself cast down by contagion with such men.

Hence we too, if we are wheat, may most confidently speak the words of that same blessed martyr: "For even if the tares appear to be in the Church, our faith or our love ought not to be hindered by this, so that because we see tares in the Church, we ourselves should withdraw from the Church" (Epistle to Maximus). Our forebears would have spoken these words most justly and most piously, even if they saw Caecilianus and some of his fellow bishops to be wicked, whom nevertheless they could not separate from the Church, on account of those to whom the wicked could not be shown, and who thought them good and innocent. These words they would certainly have spoken, this they would certainly have held, lest in wishing rashly to separate the tares, they should at the same time uproot the wheat as well.

Therefore, what a certain prophet was commanded—neither to eat bread nor to drink water in Samaria, whither he had been sent to rebuke those who had set up calves to be worshiped after the manner of the idols of the Egyptians (1 Kings 13)—this he ought altogether to have done which the Lord had commanded, to whom it then pleased in that manner to rebuke them, so that the prophet whom he had sent should touch none of the food there. For this is not done daily in the Church, when those whom we rebuke more sharply—even if we are on their property—we touch nothing there among them, so that they may feel how much we grieve over their sins. Yet is the tearing apart of the people therefore also to be done, so that, like tender grass, the weak might be indiscriminately added to them, who cannot judge concerning the hearts of men and the unknown milk, even if it be made known to us?

For in Samaria itself there were both Elijah and Elisha; and if they were in the wilderness, it was not for the sake of sacraments to be avoided, but because they were suffering persecution from impious kings. For there were there, though certainly not in the wilderness, seven thousand men separate, whom Elijah himself did not know, who did not bend the knee to Baal (3 Kings 19). And blessed Samuel, held among the foremost saints, both severely rebuked Saul and yet went with him without excuse to offer sacrifice to the Lord (1 Kings 16); nor was he polluted by the contagion of his sins, but remained altogether clean by the preservation of his own merits.

But although this question of ours has been clearly resolved both in the Collation and just now, let Haggai resolve it more clearly still, whose testimony they chose above the rest, so that they might boast of it alone as yet on behalf of all. The Lord spoke through the prophet Haggai to the remnant of the people from Babylon, where they were held captive, because they were neglecting the house of the Lord and cultivating their own houses; and he says that on this account he struck their region with the plague of barrenness. Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jesus the son of Josedech the high priest, and all that people, divinely inspired, began to work in the house of the Lord their God.

For thus the same Scripture says: And the Lord stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, of the tribe of Judah, and the spirit of Jesus the son of Josedech, the high priest, and the spirit of the remnant of all the people, and they went in and were doing the work in the house of the Lord their God Almighty, on the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month, in the second year under King Darius. Behold, both the day and the month and the year are defined when they went in to work in the house of God. I believe that those men, and that people working in the house of God, were not unclean, especially since the Lord had said to them, I am with you, and had stirred up their spirit to do good in his house. Finally, see what follows; for the same Scripture continues and says: In the seventh month, on the twenty-first day of the month, the Lord spoke by the hand of Haggai the prophet, saying to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, of the tribe of Judah, and to Jesus the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to all the remnant of the people, saying, Who among you is there who saw this house in its former glory? And how do you see it now, as though it were not in your sight? And now be strong, Zerubbabel, says the Lord; and be strong, Jesus, son of Josedech, high priest; and be strong, all you people of the land, says the Lord Almighty; and my spirit stands in your midst.

Be of good courage, for thus says the Lord Almighty: Yet once more, and I will shake heaven and earth, the sea and the dry land, and I will shake all nations, and the chosen things of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house, says the Lord Almighty; and the rest that he added, foretelling even things to come; which are usually understood more correctly of the times of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose people is the truest and holiest temple of God—not also in those who are tolerated while mixed in, but in those alone who now for a time are spiritually separated from such by living well, and afterward are to be separated even bodily. But that people to whom this prophecy was foretold, and who were then working in the house of God, where those two also were, Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Jesus the son of Josedech—how it was exhorted and commended by the Lord is sufficiently evident in these words of the Prophet, which, as they were spoken, we have set down. Can we then call that people unclean, such that whoever approaches it is defiled—the people to whom it is said, And now be strong, Zerubbabel, says the Lord; and be strong, Jesus the son of Josedech, great priest; and be strong, all you people of the land, says the Lord Almighty; and my Spirit is present in the midst of you? What man, however utterly mad, would say that this is the people such that whoever approaches it is defiled?

Now therefore attend to what Scripture next sets forth in sequence after that prophecy which was announced to this people concerning the times of Christ. In the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, in the second year under King Darius, the word of the Lord came to Haggai the prophet, saying: Thus says the Lord Almighty: Ask the priests for the law, saying: If a man takes consecrated flesh in the hem of his garment, and touches the hem of his garment with bread, or stew, or wine, or any food, shall it be sanctified? And the priests answered and said, No. And Haggai said: If one who is unclean in soul touches any of these things, shall it be defiled? And the priests answered and said, It shall be defiled. And Haggai answered and said: So is this people and this nation before me, says the Lord, and so are the works of their hands; and whoever comes near to them shall be defiled, because of their early presumptions before the face of their labors, and you hated those who rebuked in the gates. Who is this people so unclean that whoever comes near to them is defiled? Is it not that one to whom it was said, Prevail, and my Spirit is in the midst of you? Far be it that he should be that one. There were therefore two: one unclean, and the other who is forbidden to approach the unclean, who was exhorted to prevail, because the Spirit of God was in the midst of them.

If, then, there were two, let there be shown to be two temples as well—one into which the former entered, the other into which the latter entered; let there be shown to be two altars as well—one on which the former, the other on which the latter was offering victims; let there be shown to be priests as well—some belonging to the former, others to the latter, each offering sacrifice separately for his own people. But if anyone attempts to affirm this, he is mad. These two peoples were thus within one people, under one high priest, entering one temple; just as they were walking on one way under one Moses, some offending God, some pleasing God, of whom the Apostle says, "Not in all of them was God well pleased" (1 Cor 10:5). For he did not say, "In all of them God was not well pleased," as though all had displeased God; but he said, "Not in all of them was God well pleased"—therefore in some, not in all. And all were under the same priests in one and the same tabernacle, they were offering victims on one and the same altar; and yet they were distinguished by deeds, not by places; by mind, not by temple; by conduct, not by altars. Thus the one did not approach the others, lest they be defiled by them—that is, they did not consent to their evil deeds, lest they be condemned together with them. For Moses, so great a prophet, was not unaware of those evil men, whose impious murmurings and dreadful bitterness he was enduring daily. But let us suppose he did not know: was Samuel also unaware of Saul, whom God had condemned by his mouth with an eternal sentence?

Nevertheless, both he and holy David, entering the one tabernacle of God, were seeing among the same sacrifices; but they were certainly seeing distinctly, because they were seeing distinct things; and one of them he loved in the other, the other he tolerated for the time being. So too Haggai had known, within one people, two peoples entering one temple, living under one great priest; and he was showing the one to be unclean, and was forbidding the other to approach the unclean one: and yet he separated neither them nor himself from that same temple and from those same altars. Therefore he was forbidding spiritual access and consent in deeds: which the very words also proclaim, if ears be present, which a furious temper does not close or the din of various contention does not hinder. For the Prophet says, Everyone who approaches there shall be defiled. He marked out the fault by which he forbade approach; he did not shut men off from men by bodily separation. But approach is made to the fault of corruption by the fault of consent.

And lest anyone should say that that people, to whom it was first said, Prevail, for my spirit is in the midst of you, was after a few intervening days changed for the worse, so as to deserve to hear, So this people and this nation, everyone who comes near to it, shall be defiled; for nearly ninety days are counted between those words which were spoken as good concerning the people, and these by which its uncleanness is commanded to be avoided: therefore, lest anyone should think that that good people, though in so short an interval of time, was made so very wicked, see what follows, attend to what is said on that very day, that is, the twenty-fourth of the ninth month, on which day it was said, So this people and that nation, everyone who comes near to it, shall be defiled. For when he had said this, and had recalled their evils, by whose merit they were shown to be unclean, adding also and saying, You hated those who rebuke at the gates: he immediately subjoined, And now set it in your hearts from this day and upward, before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the Lord; when you were, you cast it into the basket twenty measures of barley, and there became ten measures, and you went into the winepress to draw out fifty amphorae, and there became twenty. I struck you with barrenness, and with blight of wind and hail all the works of your hands, and you did not turn to me, says the Lord.

Set your hearts therefore from this day and onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, and from the day when the temple of the Lord was founded, lay it upon your hearts, whether there is still anything recognized on the threshing floor, or whether it is worthless, or blighted, or figs, or pomegranates, and the olive trees have not borne fruit; from this day I will bless you (Haggai 1 and 2). Behold, on that very day they also merited to be blessed. Therefore I think this blessing does not pertain to those to whose uncleanness it forbids approach, but to those good people who are forbidden to approach. They were therefore both mixed together and separated: mixed by bodily contact, but separated by the withdrawal of the will. But Scripture speaks in its own manner, which so reproves the wicked as though all in that people were wicked, and so consoles the good as though all there were such. Therefore on our behalf your bishops, even in what after the Collation they are said to have written as defeated, have set forth the prophecy of Haggai, from which they might remind us more clearly to prove what we say: that even in one people, in one temple, under the same priests, among the same sacraments, among men living with dissimilar will and diverse and discrepant customs, neither can a case prejudice a case, nor can a person prejudice persons.

CHAPTER XXI. — 33. As for that passage also from the Apostle's Epistle which they even now cite in their writings, where he says, "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath light with darkness?" and the rest which we have mentioned above, and have shown how they are rightly to be understood—what else do they accomplish but remind us of those to whom the Apostle wrote this? For we demonstrate what we say in that very same people of the Corinthians; lest perhaps they think it was only the custom of the Prophets, and belongs not to the New Testament but to the usage of the Old, to rebuke the blameworthy in such a way as if all in that people were being rebuked, and to address the praiseworthy in such a way as if all there were being praised. Behold, the Apostle speaks thus even to the Corinthians: "Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, both theirs and ours: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you in Christ Jesus; that in all things ye are enriched in him, in all utterance and in all knowledge; even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, so that ye come behind in no gift.

Who, hearing this, would believe that there are some reprobate persons in the church of the Corinthians, since these words sound as though that praise were directed to all? And yet a little later he says, "I beseech you, brethren, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you." Again, as if accusing and rebuking all, as it were, in this horrendous vice, he says, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" But I think that those among that people who said, "I am of Christ," did not bear the yoke with those who said, "I am of Paul," "I however of Apollos," "I indeed of Cephas" (1 Cor. 1:1-13); and yet all approached the one altar and communicated in the same sacraments, though they did not communicate in the same vices. For to these same Corinthians that also was said: "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself" (1 Cor. 11:29). For what else was the Apostle thinking of but these vain talkers, so that it did not suffice for him to say, "he eateth and drinketh judgment," unless he added, "to himself"—lest this also pertain to those who indeed ate in like manner, but did not eat judgment?

Even among the Corinthians themselves there were those who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, which is the singular faith of Christians; and to these the Apostle says: But if Christ is preached as having risen from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? He did not say, In this land, or in this world; but, he says, among you. For he could not have prescribed concerning the resurrection of Christ except to those who were already certainly Christians, to whom he says concerning the resurrection of Christ himself: So we preach, and so you believed. Now let us attend to those words with which he praises the church of the Corinthians at the beginning of the Epistle, saying: I give thanks to my God always for you, for the grace of God which was given to you in Christ Jesus, because in everything you have been made rich in him, in all speech and in all knowledge; just as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, so that you lack nothing in any grace. Behold, they were so rich in Christ in all speech and in all knowledge, and so lacked nothing in any grace, that there were among them those who still did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. But I think that those who lacked nothing in any grace did not bear the yoke with those who did not believe that the dead would rise. Behold how they do not bear the yoke with unbelievers, although we are mingled with the same people, and are imbued with the same sacraments under the same priests.

Accordingly, the Apostle himself, lest they consent to this unbelief—those whose faith already held the resurrection of the dead—did not command them to separate bodily. For there were many such; not like that one man who had his father's wife, whom he judges worthy of a freer rebuke and of excommunication. Far differently is that one to be dealt with, and differently is a multitude of the vicious to be cured and healed, lest perhaps, if people be separated from people, even the wheat be uprooted through the crime of schism. Those, therefore, who already believed in the resurrection of the dead, the Apostle does not separate bodily from those who did not believe it among the same people; yet he does not cease to separate them spiritually, saying, Be not deceived; evil communications corrupt good manners. He limits not their meeting but their consent, lest they lend their faith to evil communications, which corrupt good manners. In manners, then, not at the altars, he admonishes them to be separated. Finally, before the Apostle wrote these things to them, there were in the same Church those who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead—in that Church which was among those who lacked nothing in any grace; and those men did not defile these by their unbelief, because these did not consent with them to that same unbelief. Behold how one does not approach them, lest whoever approaches be defiled; behold how there is no fellowship of light with darkness; behold how, although within the same nets the fish swim, neither does the cause prejudice the cause, nor the person the person—

Since this is so, what stupidity so raw, what sleep of the heart so iron-hard, is not shaken off, and could at some point perceive, that the cause of Caecilianus does not prejudice the catholic world throughout the earth, with which the party of Donatus does not communicate, if the cause of Maximianus—or rather the cause of Felicianus and Primianus, now joined together, who shortly before condemned each other—does not prejudice the party of Donatus? Surely it is enough, at least to speak according to their own view, that the bad fish lurking beneath the waves do not pollute the fishermen who are unaware of them. Although the question is not about the fishermen, whom perhaps in that similitude the Lord wished to be understood as the angels. For more attention must be paid to this: that within the nets themselves the good fish cannot be defiled by the bad. For surely even they do not see those swimming together with them, just as they are not seen by the fishermen while they are in the water. But, as I said, it is enough for our case that the bad do not pollute those who are unaware of their evil deeds.

CHAPTER XVII. 37. There were certain blessed peacemakers in the time of Caecilianus who, even if he were not innocent, would knowingly tolerate him for the sake of the catholic unity, since they saw him holding communion in the sharing of the sacraments with so many nations through which that very unity is spread abroad; and such a man as they themselves knew him to be could not be shown to them: they would defend themselves against these calumnies with the words of the blessed and peacemaking Cyprian, and would cry out confidently and say, "Therefore, on account of Caecilianus, we do not forsake unity, because even if the tares seem to be in the Church, our faith or our love ought not for that reason to be hindered; so that, since we perceive that tares are in the Church, we ourselves should not withdraw from the Church." To their peacemaking patience that most splendid praise would be fitting with which the angel of the Church that is at Ephesus is praised (which angel no one rightly understanding doubts bears the person of that Church), to whom the Spirit says in the Apocalypse: "I know your works and your labor and your patience, and that you cannot bear evil men; and you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and you have found them liars; and you have patience, and you have endured them for my name's sake, and you have not fainted.

Thus let those be praised who were in this life in the time of Caecilianus, who for the sake of the name of the Lord, which like ointment poured out was fragrant through innumerable peoples, did not fail, most patiently enduring even one whom they knew to be evil—if he was evil—who by their judgment was to be shown to others, so that he could not be torn away from them and separated. Our case is different; we ought not to arrogate to ourselves the praise of this patience. For we cannot say that we tolerated him for the sake of peace, since it could not come to our knowledge at all. The case of Caecilianus was beneath the waves for us; our voice is such as that of the rest of the Christian peoples, against whom they found absolutely nothing to say. Nevertheless we rightly believe the unknown case of Caecilianus to be good, since we read that he was condemned once by the faction of his enemies, but acquitted by the very accusers themselves a third time. Or let them believe nearly a hundred bishops of the party of Donatus concerning the crimes of Primianus, and then let them compel us to believe seventy of their predecessors concerning the crimes of Caecilianus. But what they say—that Caecilianus, when the crimes charged against him at that council were brought forward while he was absent, confirmed them by his silence—then Primianus also confirmed the crimes which were charged against him by a hundred bishops, and which he is not shown even afterward to have cleared.

But of course, neither does a cause prejudice a cause, nor a person a person, lest the party of Donatus be diminished; but it does prejudice, so that the inheritance of Christ be divided. Or does the cause of Caecilianus not prejudice the catholic unity which we hold and in whose fellowship we rejoice, when Caecilianus was bishop of Carthage; and does the cause of Novellus of Tyzica and Faustinus of Tuburbo prejudice it, whom they later thought should not be accused, just as Caecilianus and Felix; whose names, but rather the names of the very cities in which they were, are not known to all Africa, or perhaps not even to the whole Proconsular province? Behold, whose little fish—even if they were bad—lying so deep, they want their cause to prejudice the cause of so great a fishing, whose full nets are spread through the whole world, men who could scarcely be known to the fish swimming nearby. But why should we not believe that these too were innocent; when, as I said, they did not later deserve to be accused by them, and he could be cleared whom their elders called the fountain of all evils in that hostile conspiracy of the council?

CHAPTER XXIII. — 39. But whatever sort these men were, what does it have to do with us? For indeed they do not truly deny us this, that the fiction of these men, whose cause and person do not prejudice the cause and person of the catholic Church, does not prejudice us—since neither does a cause prejudice a cause, nor a person a person. And yet they object to us, in order to seduce you still, that we gave gold to the judge, so that he would pronounce sentence for us against them. Tell us, if you can, how much we ought to have given to the chosen defenders, your bishops, so that they would say or bring forward so much against themselves on our behalf, that they would thus ruin our cause and destroy their own? At what price ought we to have bought it, that after the words of Primianus, in which he had said, "It is unworthy that the sons of the martyrs and the offspring of the traditors should come together into one," they would nevertheless come and come together with us into one—which they had said was unworthy? At what price ought we to have bought it, that in the manner of forensic advocates they would attempt to prescribe concerning times and days, and even concerning persons, to us, so that by all these things they would show clearly enough even to those men who could not understand our disputations how bad a cause they had, which they were afraid to bring forward and plead before that judge whose kindness and justice toward themselves they had praised with such great acclaim, and whose displeasure against themselves they had not yet felt at all?

At what price should we have bought it, that they would then demand that the matter not be conducted with them according to forensic formulas, but rather by divine testimonies, and would promise that they would likewise answer from the Holy Scriptures? And when the mandate of the catholic council, which we had offered, had been read out, and in it—by their own confession as well—it had become clear that we wished to conduct the case of the catholic Church by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, did they, as if again forgetful of what they had said pleased them, return to those same forensic prescriptions with tangled and odious contentions?

At what price should we have bought it, that, moved by the number of our subscriptions which were shown in that same mandate, they would demand the presence of our entire council—from which council, according to the edict of the Cognitor, only eighteen of us were present—and would bring the charge of falsification, because some were able to subscribe on behalf of others? For thus it was brought about, that.

their number too would be reviewed, and they themselves would be caught in the same falsity which they wished to cast suspicion upon in us: so that not only were certain men read out in their mandate as having subscribed on behalf of absent parties who had not even come to Carthage, but also a certain man was recited who did not answer, and they said he had died on the journey; and it was asked of them how he could have subscribed at Carthage who had already died on the journey; after great straits of confusion and of their inconstant and varied answer, they asserted that he had not come, but after he subscribed, while returning to his own place, he had died on the journey; then, when interrogated under divine testimony whether it was established that he had been at Carthage, they said, more vehemently disturbed, "What if another man put himself in his place?" and thus they maintained that by their own words the falsity which they had objected against us had appeared in their mandate and had been convicted and made clear.

CHAPTER XXIV. 41. How much did we have to pay to make them betray their own lies even in their desire to boast of their numbers? For when a somewhat larger number of our bishops had assembled, and it had been said by us that about a hundred other catholic bishops had not come to Carthage, some held back by old age, some by ill health, some by various necessities, on hearing this they said that far more of their own had not come. Just as even now, boasting that there are more than four hundred of them throughout all Africa, they have forgotten what they put in their own notice, that they had all come to Carthage to such an extent that, with the sole exception of those whom bodily sickness detained either in their own seats or on the journey, neither the years of the most burdened old men nor the toil of a long journey could hold them back. And the subscriptions in their mandate were read out, and, as the count made in response showed, there were two hundred and seventy, not counting those in whom the falsehood was detected, and those who had subscribed on behalf of the absent, who, detained by illness, could not come to Carthage. How then is it true that they are more than four hundred, when they said that those alone did not come to Carthage whom bodily ill health prevented, although certain others subscribed on behalf of some of these very men, not to mention that this was done for all the sick? Or perhaps a plague had so seized them that it suddenly laid low a third of their number?

But they had been summoned by their primate by a letter of instruction, in which, all else being omitted, they were to hasten to assemble at Carthage, so that they might know that they had deceived themselves in supposing that they had any strength in the case, whoever of them had been unwilling to come. This, of course, was the best course in the pause, so that their huge number might appear—as if it helped all the more toward finding something more easily, the greater the multitude of blind seekers!

How much we had to pay to make them, on the day before, with the hearing postponed to the day after next by the consent of both sides, request by formal notice that our mandate be issued to them by the Office, so that, instructed by it, they might be present—complaining that, with the proceedings being written out, the Office could not manage to meet so narrow a time? For so it was brought about that on the following day of the hearing, although they were asking for an unjust delay, they received it; and when the case had been considered—the whole of which was contained in our mandate—they suffered great distress, yet were convicted of coming against their own agreements. For what was more just than that they should seek a delay, thrown into confusion by so great a firmness of truth? Would that it had profited them, so that, having considered our mandate, to which they were in no way able to respond, they would have preferred to correct their depravity rather than increase it for the worse.

Justly, therefore, were they seeking a delay; but on the day before they ought not to have said in their notice that our mandate ought to be issued to them so that they might come ready on the appointed day, because the clerks could not be present with the written record; and on the very day of the proceedings they wished again to make excuses about those same clerks, because they had not appeared. What compelled them to this, except a violent agitation, when they saw that the case had been conducted by us in the drafting of the mandate in such a way that they could find no answer? For how much would it have been worth to buy that they should seek that very delay and receive six days, so that no one could say that they, hindered by the shortness of time, had been unable to respond to our mandate?

CHAPTER XXV. 43. But on the very third day of our Conference, how much would it have been worth to buy, that they showed by the most empty and superfluous interpositions of delays that they in every way did not wish to come to the case, and by their very fear proclaimed how bad a case they had? Although their fear burst forth even as a testimony of the most manifest voice, when they said, "We are being led gradually into the case"; and in another place, "Your authority," they say, "can see that we are being led gradually into the inner matters of the case." O violence of truth, stronger than any rack, stronger than any claws, to extort confession! So many bishops are gathered from all Africa, they enter Carthage with so great a pomp of a splendid array, that they turn the eyes and attention of so great a city upon themselves.

Those who were to speak for all were chosen by all. A place, too, worthy of so great a matter is procured in the middle of the city. Both sides assemble, the judge is at hand, the records lie open, and the hearts of all hang suspended, awaiting the outcome of so great a Conference. Then by men most select and most eloquent, with as much force as any effort ought to have been made, so much is done that nothing be done. They seek to discuss persons in the forensic manner, in which question litigants have customarily worn out even the years of long-standing time. For by this action they confessed that the Catholics had written their mandate with divine testimonies rather than forensic formulas, and likewise they promised that they would respond from the Scriptures. And because by a wondrous assistance God willed that, when they sought the person of the petitioner, lest it come to the case, that very inquiry into the petitioner should suddenly thrust the case into the middle; those illustrious men who seemed chosen to act cry out, and testify that they were rather chosen not to act, and they complain invidiously to the judge that they are being gradually drawn into the inner matter of the case: as if, with all else passed over, anything else ought to have been done than that which, so long afterward, or at last, they were unwilling to do; because they never at all wished it to be done, where they were striving to be conquered! Who could strike from their closed breast the most open voice of this fear—I do not say if we should enrich them with most lavish gifts, but if we should torture them with the most cruel punishments?

For when they were seeking out the role of plaintiffs with forensic threshing, and wishing to show that we were the plaintiffs, so that our persons might be permitted to be examined by law, and to find delays of many years, they read our petition once given to the proconsul, by which we asked that they be summoned, so that the very Collation might then take place between us, which we have now obtained from the Emperor to be held, so that by that petition they might show that we were, as it were, the plaintiffs. It was answered by us that we had always wished the Collation to be held, not where we would charge them with crimes, but where we would clear ourselves of the things they are accustomed to charge: for it is on this account that they are heretics and separated from the unity of the Church, because they charge crimes which they cannot prove. Then, because the Cognitor seemed to have followed the order of times, so that among the records which we had produced—where they themselves had also sought a Collation before the prefects—he preferred our petition produced by them, because those prefectural records preceded it in time, we most easily and most justly obtained from the Cognitor, on this occasion offered, that if he preferred those things which were established to be earlier in time, he should rather order to be recited that document in which they themselves accused Caecilian before the Emperor Constantine through Anulinus the proconsul, whose crimes they charge against our communion, which we wished to be cleared in that Collation.

Therefore, after it began to be read, since they were being most openly defeated in every point, they began to cry out, "We are being gradually led into the case"; and again, "Your power sees through it—we are being gradually drawn into the inner parts of the case." Great, but not to be wondered at, is the confusion! For when would the devil so fear an exorcist, as they feared that those things be read in which it appeared that Caecilianus had been accused by their predecessors before the Emperor, and absolved by so many judgments, not only episcopal but even imperial?

At what price, or for how much, could we buy what, disturbed by that very fear, they dared to return even to the prescription of that time, when they had said that the case had lapsed, and that after four months had passed it could no longer be conducted at all? What is this? What judge of their minds so fit can be found as this fear, so expressed, so open—so that, whereas fear is wont to take away freedom, these men feared so freely that they did not cover their judgment concerning their own bad case even with silence, but betrayed it in the most open words? A vehement trembling, to extort confession! So strong a fear leaped from their mouth that by its impulse shame fled from their brow.

If those documents were not read aloud, in which Caecilianus was shown to have been accused and cleared, the petitioners were being examined for the purpose of conducting the case, and the persons involved were being scrutinized; and although the snares of delays, to prevent the case itself from being reached, were being woven in evasive fashion, nevertheless even these demands seemed to be made, as it were, by right, for the sake of conducting the case. After the most excellent case of Caecilianus was brought forward to be read out, the prescription is recalled, refuted and convicted, and it is cried out that the day for conducting the case has already passed.

CHAPTER XXVI. — 46. What do you still expect the Cognitor to have pronounced on our behalf, when you see what your own bishops' fear pronounced against themselves? Certainly the Cognitor himself had given the power that they might appoint another judge together with the one they wished; which they refused; because if they had appointed someone, they could not lie to you that he too had been corrupted by us. But they did what they refused: they straightway appointed another judge together with him, not some outsider, but one of their own. Behold, their very fear was the other judge: certainly it received nothing from us, and it judged freely on our behalf: it did not show favor to their persons, to whom it clung inwardly, from whose secret chamber it proceeded; and before the case was spoken, it judged beforehand, because it knew it beforehand in their heart. Finally, the former came forward to know the case, the latter came forward because he already knew it: the former judged by standing, hearing, speaking; the latter only by coming forward into the midst.

I think they would say it better if the case were no longer argued. For how much more quickly did the fear of the litigants end it than the labor of the Cognitor? He was asking what was read from their documents; the other declared what was being done in their hearts.

CHAPTER XXVII. — 47. But how had they come to this, terrified by the things that had been produced and were to be read aloud, so as to say that the case had already lapsed by lapse of time and could not be argued? They proposed to us what had already been transacted beforehand: that if we argued from the Holy Scriptures, those documents should not be read at all; but if we read those documents aloud, they had a valid prescription, so that they would not allow a case lapsed by lapse of time to be argued at all—although they themselves had not kept what they had promised beforehand, that when we confessed that we had argued the Church's case by the testimonies of the Scriptures, they would likewise respond by the testimonies of the Scriptures; they who contended that the persons of the petitioners should be examined, not in the manner of disputants but in the manner of litigants. We therefore answered them that, if they preferred nothing else to be argued except that it be inquired which or where the catholic Church is, we would argue its case only by the divine testimonies by which it was foretold; but if they brought any charges against men, since they themselves could not show them by divine testimonies but by certain other such documents, we too would clear them by such documents.

With them constantly repeating their empty claims, these points were pressed by us most persistently; thus the truth conquered them and constrained them, confuted and overcome, to hear what we had brought forward. For they saw that if they raised no charges of Caecilianus against our communion, nothing remained to them by which they might in any way excuse their separation from unity; but if they did raise charges of Caecilianus, they could be asserted by them only by such documents, and could be defended by us in no other way.

CHAPTER XXVIII. — 48. Now truly, amid these most contentious clamors of theirs, at what price had that to be bought, that when we said we proposed this: that they should prove, if they could, the charges which they are accustomed to bring against our communion, which is spread throughout all nations, so that from this it might be known whether their separation was just—they answered that we wished to plead an alien cause, that is, that of the transmarine Churches, against which these charges were not brought, since this dispute was among Africans; but that those Churches ought rather to wait for those who had won in this Conference to be joined to them, and that they themselves should have the catholic name with them? What then do you still seek, or why do you doubt, which Church you ought to hold? Behold, you have it—the one against which your bishops confessed they had no case, the one to which our communion is joined, from which their communion is separated.

For if they have said that she ought now to wait, so that those of our party who have conquered may be joined to her, and together with her hold the catholic name, then our forebears already conquered their forebears; and therefore those men, joined to that Church, held the catholic name in her unity. But if these men were already conquered by our forebears in their own forebears, why do they still contend with us even now? If, however, they were not conquered, why do they not communicate with that Church which, unable to deny that she is catholic, they have confessed they have no case against? Behold the catholic Church overseas, spread abroad among so many nations—the one they said ought to wait, so that she might join to herself those who have conquered. How ought she to wait to join to herself those who have conquered, unless she is free from the crimes about which the dispute between us is concerned? For if she is not free from them, how will she herself, guilty and conquered together with the conquered, join the conquerors to herself? Moreover, if she is free from these crimes, as they admit, then we too are free, who cleave to her in communion. For if on account of this communion another's crime contaminates us, then our crime contaminates her also, with whom we communicate. But they have confessed that she is not polluted by the crime of the Africans, although they are associated with her in the communion of the sacraments. There, then, they have been convicted that we too could not have been polluted by the crime of those with whom we are associated in the communion of the sacraments, since we are entangled by no bond of consent.

Although the victorious cause of Caecilianus himself is most easily demonstrated by these same words of theirs. For if, when we are in conflict, the overseas Church, alien to their crimes, ought to wait, and join to herself and to the catholic name those who have conquered, then she was waiting when the forebears of these men were sharply contending with Caecilianus. Therefore he then conquered, whom after the conflict that Church which had been waiting for this joined to herself. Or if she could join even a polluted man to herself in the communion of the Sacraments, and, as they have now confessed, remain unpolluted by these crimes, much more have we conquered here, showing that each bears his own burden, and that neither a cause prejudges a cause, nor a person a person.

CHAPTER XXIX. — 49. But now, when by our mandate, in which we had embraced the whole case, they thought they must respond not with hasty words but with written letters, at how great a price was it to be purchased? For it was thus established that they could not respond to all the points that were set down in our mandate, nor did they wish to touch upon them at all in their letters. For no one can say that they could not retain our prosecution by memory, and for that reason wished not to respond to all the necessary matters. Our mandate was published to them through a notice, at their request and their own alleging of this very thing, so that, being instructed, they might be able to respond to everything. And when already seven had been chosen by the rest.

who would act in all things on behalf of all, nevertheless brought forth those very letters, by which they attempted to respond to our commission, in the name of their whole council, as though it were an epistle given by all of them to the Cogaitor. If we had been unwilling to admit it, we would have been acting by the best of rights; for it was not in accordance with order that, after the case had been assigned to seven men, anything should be done except through those who had been chosen. But lest we should seem to have feared their letters because of our own letters, we admitted them to be read without any hesitation. For it was to be desired, and, as I said, to be purchased, that after so many days' delay, which we had granted at their request, they should bring forth the labor wrought out by study, in which it would appear clearly enough to those reading both letters that they had not responded to our commission, and it would be established that we had straightway responded without any delay to those same letters of theirs. For if men are of such slow wit as to think that they have said something in those places in which they were unwilling to be silent concerning our commission, I think no one is so dull as to suppose that they have responded to anything even in those places in which they were altogether silent. For they are not small or, as it were, contemptible matters, since in these rather the whole case consists.

For they passed over in silence, as though they had not been spoken at all, the testimonies of the Scriptures by which we established that the Church with which we are in communion, having begun from Jerusalem, is spread throughout the whole world, overwhelmed by the great weight of divine authority. Likewise, regarding what was set down in our commission concerning the blessed Cyprian—who both by precept admonished and by his own example confirmed that the wicked are rather to be tolerated in the Church than that the Church should be abandoned because of them—they did not dare to touch it at all: I believe they did not understand that if they attempted to undermine Cyprian's authority in any of his writings, they would admit that we too rightly do not yield to his authority in that matter in which they are accustomed to cite his judgments or decrees concerning the repetition of Baptism. And they were unwilling openly to mention that very opinion of Cyprian concerning Baptism, knowing that even there, if they did so, they would suffer shipwreck; because Cyprian did not abandon unity, and remained in it with those who held a different view on this matter. Whence either the Church must be said to have perished at that time, and there was no longer a Church from which their Donatus could be born; or, if—as is true—the Church remained, the wicked do not contaminate the good within it, just as Cyprian also judged, who remained in the same diversity with those who held a different view. And by this very fact these men have clothed themselves in the detestable sacrilege of schism, who on account of the unproven crimes of certain persons—even if they were true—ought in no way to have separated themselves from the unity spread throughout the whole world.

Foreseeing this, as far as can be understood, they passed over in complete silence that testimony of Cyprian which was mentioned in our mandate. Also, that point which they themselves declared by their own judgment in the case of the Maximianists—that unity is not to be abandoned because of evil men, since they said that the associates of Maximian were not polluted by Maximian, and they received back in full honor those whom they had condemned; and they showed that the baptism of Christ, even if given outside the Church, is to be acknowledged rather than destroyed, since they did not dare to rebaptize those who had been baptized by Felicianus in schism and later received with him—therefore, when they read this also in our mandate, they judged that it should be silenced and passed over rather than stirred up by any contradiction. The case of Caecilian, also distinguished in our mandate from the case of the Church, and yet itself defended in every respect, they did not touch at all in their reply. Who, then, would think that they replied to that mandate of ours, when against all these points they attempted to say not a single word, not even by the shadow of any kind of response? But what they seemed to reply, let whoever wishes read and judge, comparing their letter with that same mandate of ours, apart from the response which we immediately gave, by which all their contrivances of vanity were overturned.

CHAPTER XXX. 52. Now that point—if we were to give mountains of gold, when can we buy it?—when, with the case of Maximianus having been raised against them, so that they might understand that the council did not harm Caecilianus in the same way that seventy bishops, in his absence, pronounced against him whatever they wished, how did it not harm Primianus when, in a similar way, nearly a hundred bishops condemned him in his absence on behalf of Maximianus?—when they, most violently disturbed and driven into dreadful straits, answered that neither a case should prejudice a case nor a person a person, by these very few words they affirmed that our whole case, about which we were contending with them above, is altogether invincible. For what else were we doing through so many testimonies of the holy Scriptures, through the great authority of the Prophets, the Apostles, the bishops, and even their own adversaries, in demonstrating that good people are not polluted by the communion of the sacraments of evil people, if in heart, will, habits, and works they have different cases and bear different persons? For what else were we laboring at, except that it might appear that neither a case prejudices a case nor a person a person? They themselves, compelled by extreme necessity, said this briefly, because when it was said by us for a long time, they were unwilling to yield to the truth.

CHAPTER XXXI. 53. With what treasures, with what resources, with what heaps of precious stones would that have had to be bought, which they did not at all hesitate to confess, indeed even to profess and boast, that their forebears persecuted Caecilianus before the Emperor Constantine—and they even attempted to assert by lying that he was condemned by the Emperor? Where is that utterance by which they were accustomed to deceive you, stirring up ill will against us, saying that we plead the cause of the Church before the Emperor? Where are the words of Primianus expressed in the records of the Carthaginian magistrate: "They carry the sacred letters of many emperors; we offer only the Gospels"? Where is that celebrated praise by which they extol their separation, saying that the Church of truth is the one that suffers persecution, not the one that inflicts it? Surely it has been crushed, surely it has been laid low. Their persecutions are read out; they cannot deny them, because their signatures are read out as well. We hold them confessing, professing, and boasting that their forebears gravely persecuted Caecilianus before the Emperor; we hold also that Caecilianus was condemned by the Emperor while they were persecuting him. Therefore let them no longer cry out that their separation is the Church of truth for the reason that it does not inflict persecution but suffers it; or else let them admit that the Church of truth did not fall when Caecilianus was suffering persecution at the hands of their forebears. For if those who suffer persecution are immediately good, then Caecilianus was good when he was suffering persecution.

But if it can indeed happen that both the wicked suffer persecution, yet the good cannot be those who inflict it, then the forebears of these men were not good when they persecuted Caecilian. Further, if it can happen that both the good inflict it and the wicked suffer it, then we are not for that reason to be blamed, nor are these men for that reason to be praised, because they suffer something of the kind which they boast that Caecilian suffered at the hands of their forebears, who did such things. And yet it was not established at all that Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor; but in his acquittal and clearing, which had been established by the recitation of the episcopal and imperial judgment, nothing could afterward be proven to have been changed. Thus it came about that, with the condemnation of Caecilian—about which they themselves lied—set aside, there remained the persecution which they confessed their forebears had carried out.

It was a small thing that they should dare to boast, by lying, that Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor, and could not prove it by asserting it; moreover they even proved it, and strengthened our documents on that matter the more strongly, that Caecilian's acquittal remained most firm, not—as they had lied—reversed by a later judgment of the Emperor into the contrary. For first they thought fit that Optatus, the catholic bishop of the church of Milevis, should be read out, promising that from this they would prove that Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor. When that reading was recited rather against them, no one could contain his laughter.

Yet that laughter could certainly not have been added to the written record of the proceedings, and would have remained entirely hidden, had they not themselves prevented it from being hidden by saying, "Let those who laughed hear: this was indeed written and subscribed." For what they wanted read on their own behalf was ambiguous; hence, when the Cognitor had most rightly ordered that the passage a little earlier be read aloud, so that from it those words might become clear if they could, what was read was what they did not want—namely, that Caecilian had been cleared; whom they had first put forward to be read, not as they boasted, condemned, but, as Brixix put it, retained for the good of peace. When they had said this, [claiming] that by those words Optatus wished to lessen the condemnation of Caecilian, they were told to read out from elsewhere the evident condemnation of Caecilian, so that it could be shown to have been lessened by Optatus, who had most openly written that Caecilian had been cleared. When they were entirely unable to do this, after interposing and exhausting all the superfluous roundabouts of every delay, they began most openly to assist us. For as if they had been instructed by us, or as if chosen along with us to defend and declare the innocence of Caecilian, when it was demanded of them that, if they could, they show what they were saying—that by a later judgment Caecilian had been condemned by the Emperor, whose letters we had read, which had shown him absolved—they brought forward a petition of their own leaders given to the same Emperor Constantine, by which they most openly demonstrated that by his judgment they themselves had rather been condemned.

For what happened to them before the imperial authority was just what happened to the enemies of the holy Daniel, who suffered from those same lions what they had wished to be inflicted on the innocent man (Dan. 6:24). Here, when we had briefly pointed out that that document had rather been read aloud on our behalf against themselves, they added something else, producing letters of the same emperor given to the vicar Verinus, in which he strongly detests them, and, leaving them to the judgment of the Lord, who had already begun to avenge them, he released them from exile by a most ignominious indulgence. Thus it was most manifestly established that not only did no condemnation of Caecilianus follow afterward, but even his absolution and clearing, and their punishment, were confirmed by that detestable indulgence. These documents, so excellent—as must be admitted—we did not have in hand; but perhaps, if we heard that they were somewhere, since they could not be given to us for free, we would have arrived at any price whatever so that they might be permitted to be copied for us. But how much would we give if it were offered for sale, so that they might even be read by our adversaries on our behalf?

CHAPTER XXXII. — 55. What does it seem could now be added so that they might assist us more abundantly? And yet they did add more. For they brought up the case of Felix of Aptunga, by whom Caecilian had been ordained, against whom they had directed a charge of traditio. But when Caecilian had been acquitted, and the work of completing unity was pressing, they raised a question concerning this Felix, thinking that in this way Caecilian, already purified, could be entangled in the crimes of another. Therefore this case of Felix was also discussed before the proconsular court, where the innocence of Felix appeared most clearly. But since a certain Ingentius, who confessed in that same trial that he had made a false accusation against Felix, could not easily be punished where the case of a bishop was at issue, nor could he easily be dismissed by the proconsul as a defendant of so great a crime, unless the Emperor had been consulted, at whose insistence all those proceedings were being conducted, the proconsul referred the matter and the Emperor wrote back that the same Ingentius should be sent to his comitatus, wishing the leaders of these men, by whom he was being petitioned daily, to be confuted in his presence; yet he had no doubt at all about the exoneration, indeed he confirmed it even by the plain statement of his own words, as his rescript shows. We had all these documents of the case of Felix in our hands, and we had arranged to have them read out.

In this matter they actually anticipated us, and they were the first to produce the same letters of the Emperor concerning Ingentius, sent to them; and they read them aloud—letters which perhaps we would not have read, since I thought it was sufficient that the case of Caecilian had been conducted in such a way that nothing further seemed to be required. But since our adversaries were acting in this way, so that the persecution which their forebears brought against our forebears before the Emperors, and their calumnies, might appear more abundantly overcome, what were we to do but gladly accept what was offered and give thanks to the Lord in all things? Therefore they themselves produced the letters of Constantine, they themselves read them aloud. What I say seems incredible, but the official records bear witness: their prosecutions were written down, their signatures are held. They themselves, I say, read aloud that Constantine had written that Aetianus the proconsul had granted a competent hearing in the case of Felix, and that it had been established that Felix was innocent of the charge of traditio. But Ingentius, he said, had for this reason wished to be sent to his comitatus, so that it might be able to appear and be made known, in the presence of those who are now acting and who do not cease to make appeals over many days, and with them standing before them, that they had in vain contrived odium against Caecilian, and had wished to rise up violently against him. They themselves read this aloud. Because would our side have dared to wish for this, that those whom iniquity had made our accusers, truth would make our defenders?

Thus also that Balaam, whom iniquity brought in ancient times to curse the people of God, truth compelled to bless (Num. 23).

CHAPTER XXXIII. — 56. But as the order of the consuls shows, which the shortness of time then did not allow to be considered; for neither were the books at hand which are called consular, nor would anyone believe that they would object to so trifling a matter as to wish us to answer what was done when Ingentius was sent, or whether Ingentius was sent at all, since both the sentence of the proconsul Felix declared his innocence, and the reply of the Emperor, produced and read aloud by them, confirmed that same sentence; and they would certainly have produced it themselves all the more, if they had trusted that anything had been done on their behalf when Ingentius was sent. As, therefore, the order of the consuls declares, Caecilianus was first absolved by the episcopal judgment of Melchiades; then, not long afterward, Felix was established as innocent by the proconsular judgment; and so afterward Caecilianus was also cleared even before the Emperor, who heard the case between the parties; then, after four years, his adversaries were released by that shameful indulgence. For Melchiades judged in the consulship of Constantine for the third time and Licinius for the second, on the sixth day before the Nones of October. Aetianus the proconsul heard the case of Felix, in the consulship of Volusianus and Annianus, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of March, that is, after nearly four months.

Constantine wrote to Eumalius the vicar concerning the purgation of Caecilian, in the consulship of Sabinus and Ruffinus, on the fourth day before the ides of November, that is, after two years and nearly eight months. And the same emperor also sent letters to Valerius the vicar concerning the release of those men from exile and the committing of their fury to God the avenger, in the consulship of Crispus and Constantine for the second time, on the third day before the nones of May, that is, after the fourth year and almost the sixth month. From this it is most clearly established, without any ambiguity, that whether Ingentius was sent to the court or not, nothing was afterward judged against Caecilian; indeed, even by imperial judgments he was afterward declared the victor over his adversaries and persecutors.

CHAPTER XXXIV. — 57. Let the party of Donatus now go—so often disproved, so often slanderous, so often lying, so often refuted, so often overcome and confounded in every way—and still boast that the judge was corrupted by us; as if that were the usual cry of the defeated. Indeed, the judge had to be corrupted so that the authority of that man might invalidate what they themselves had done well. But I would not say that they acted badly; on the contrary, they acted very well who said so much for the truth against their own errors. For if their case is considered, he truly judged against them; but if their pleadings are read, he judged more in accordance with them. Or was that man, who was in the middle, opposed to us in that case in which those who stood on the opposing side said, produced, and read aloud so much in our favor?

What would we have had to buy from the judge, when we did not even buy from our adversaries those things which would force the judge—even if he had received money from them—to give sentence in our favor? Although if we had not known him to be a man fearing God, a lover of justice, and estranged from all such filth, we ought to direct such a suspicion against him; who with excessive patience, when he saw them pressed by the truth, and did not wish to appear against them, bore with excessive patience men wandering among empty things, and saying so many superfluous things, and returning so many times to the same points already so often refuted; so that the proceedings, burdened with such great volumes, would make almost everyone reluctant to unroll them, and to learn by reading how the case was conducted: whether they did this more from poverty of truth or from the industry of cunning, I do not know. From this, however, they were able in some way to help only a cause so very bad, which they ought rather to have abandoned.

Finally, if the rest direct their accusation against those who acted, and rather assert that they were corrupted by us, so that by so many prosecutions, or by the readings they produced, they thus aided our cause and destroyed their own, I do not know how they can defend themselves and clear themselves of this suspicion—unless perhaps they say: If we had been corrupted, we would have quickly ended a cause so bad and convicted both by us and by them. But as it is, believe from this very fact that we were present in earnest and wished to do some good, because we accomplished much by speaking, so that what was done would not be easily read and it would not be quickly recognized that we were defeated. If this were not done by them, perhaps neither they nor we, even under oath, would be believed—that those things which they said and read, so many and so great, for us against themselves, they provided all things to us for free. And yet we give thanks for this not to them but rather to God. For in order that they might bring forth and make plain all those things for our cause, whether by speaking or by reading, the truth tormented them, not charity invited them.

CHAPTER XXXV. — 58. Therefore, brothers — if only you are not angry that we call you brothers; for when they heard this from us, they said in the official records that an injury was being done to them; nor, when admonished by our command, where this testimony from the prophet is set down, could they recall that God had commanded: Say, You are our brothers, to those who hate you and who detest you, so that the name of the Lord may be honored, and may appear to them in gladness, but let them be ashamed (Isa. 66:5, according to the LXX). Therefore now, brothers, let the name of the Lord appear to you in gladness, which has been invoked upon us, and bearing the sacraments of which both sides are not undeservedly called brothers. Now love peace; now at last leave behind the slanderous and quarrelsome custom, now at any rate convicted and confounded; and do not hate those very men when, corrected, they cross over to us, but when, persisting in their abominable error, they still to this day lead you astray. Nor let them think themselves great because we defer to them in unity the honor that they may possess for being set free; for having this outside unity, they are all the more to be condemned on that account. Indeed, military standards are held more perniciously by usurpers than if they were not held at all; and yet, when those men are corrected and brought back into the Emperor's camp, those standards are not broken or abolished; but those whom they previously betrayed and punished, they now begin to adorn and protect. Why do you still pay attention to their insane complaints and empty lies? By night the case has been finished — but so that the night of error might be ended.

By night the verdict was given, but it shone with the light of truth. They complained that they had been shut in as if in a prison; we too were there. Either an injury was done to both sides, or diligence was shown to both sides. But how can we speak of an injury, when we recall that we were in so spacious, bright, and refreshing a place? Or how could it be a prison, where the judge also was? Finally, we did not know that we had been shut in—we who were inside together. How do they know, except that perhaps they wished to flee? But who does not see that they would not say these empty and ridiculous things—things rather to be laughed at than refuted—about such a Judge, if they could find anything strong to say on behalf of their cause? We know how many of you—and perhaps all, or nearly all—are accustomed to say, "If only they would come together in one place! Oh, if only they would confer at some time, and the truth would appear as they dispute!" Behold, it has been done; behold, falsehood has been convicted; behold, the truth has appeared. Why then is unity still fled? Why is charity still despised? What reason have we to be divided by the names of men? The God who created us is one; the Christ who redeemed us is one; the Spirit who ought to unite us is one. Now let the name of the Lord be honored, and let it appear to you in gladness, so that you may recognize your brothers in his unity.

Already in the prosecutions of your bishops, the error that separated us has been defeated; at some point may the devil also be defeated in your hearts, and may he who commands this, Christ, be propitious to his gathered and pacified flock.