When the Catholic bishops and those of the party of Donatus, by order of the emperor, had debated among themselves in proceedings held before the tribune and notary Marcellinus, who served as the examining judge, a very long record of those same proceedings was drawn up, although the whole matter could have been handled far more briefly. But those who knew that they did not have a good case first did everything they could to keep the meeting from taking place at all, and to keep the case itself from being tried. Yet since they were quite unable to bring this about, they accomplished it by the sheer bulk of the proceedings, so that what had been transacted would not easily be read. Hence it seemed good to gather everything into this abridgment, so that, by the numbered markers noted both in this little summary and in the proceedings themselves, anyone may without difficulty find whatever he wants.

1. 1. And so, once both parties had entered, in the first place there was read aloud the emperor's rescript, by which he ordered that the meeting between the said bishops be held, so that clear reasoning might refute their superstition.

1. 2. In the second place there was read aloud the edict of the examining judge himself, which he had sent throughout the province, that the bishops of both parties should assemble and should gather at Carthage by the first of June for the sake of the meeting. In that edict he restored to the Donatists, without the emperor's order, the basilicas of those who promised that they would come, so that in this way he might also invite them by benefits to the meeting. In the same edict he also offered to let them appoint, along with himself, any other judge they wished; and he swore that he would judge whatever the truth advised, together with the other things contained in that same edict for the encouragement of their assembling.

1. 3. In the third place there was read aloud another edict of the examining judge, which he set before the bishops of both parties now present at Carthage, stating what the place and what the manner of the coming meeting would be, the above-mentioned day being likewise recalled and fixed; and he urged that each party write back to him whether what he had laid down in the edict was acceptable.

1. 4. In the fourth place, when the bishops of the party of Donatus demanded that their opponents set forth for them the reason they had been assembled, the examining judge put this off, so that first everything that had been done before the day of the meeting might be read aloud in order. And there was read aloud the notification of the Donatists, in which they said that what he had put in his edict did not please them, namely, that only those bishops should gather at the place of the meeting whom the rest had chosen to conduct the case itself, who altogether numbered thirty-six, eighteen on one side and eighteen on the other; that is, seven who would debate among themselves, and another seven who would be brought in for counsel if there were need, and another four who would be in charge of safeguarding and recording the proceedings. But they asked that rather all of them who had come ought to be present, so that their number might appear, saying that their opponents had lied in claiming they were few. There they said that all of them had come, down to the very oldest men, so that only those were absent whom ill health of body had hindered, together with the other things that the notification itself contains.

1. 5. In the fifth place there were read aloud the letters of the Catholics, which they had written back to the examining judge, as he had directed in his edict, indicating that they consented to all that had been arranged in that edict. In the same letters they also bound themselves and promised that, if the truth of the Church were shown to them to lie in the party of Donatus, they would not there seek the honor of the episcopate, but would follow their counsel for the sake of Christian salvation; but if instead the truth of the Church were shown to lie in their own communion, they would not deny them their episcopal honors; and that they did this for the good of peace, so that those to whom this was granted might understand that the Catholics detested in them not a Christian consecration but a human error. And if the people could not bear two bishops in one church, then, both withdrawing from the midst, single bishops would be appointed, to be ordained by those bishops who were found single, each among his own people. In the same letters mention was also made of the case of the Maximianists: that, of those whom they had condemned, for the sake of the peace of the party of Donatus they had received some back in their full honors, and had not annulled the baptism given by them in a sacrilegious schism, together with the other things contained in the said letters.

1. 6. In the sixth place there was also read aloud an edict of the examining judge himself, which he had issued together with the above-mentioned notification of the Donatists and the above-mentioned letters of the Catholics, making known to the people what each party had written back to him.

1. 7. In the seventh place there were read aloud the letters given by the Catholics to the examining judge, by which they answered the notification of the Donatists, granting them what they had asked, namely, that all who had come should be present in the place where the meeting was to be held; though there only those Catholic bishops would be present whom the examining judge had specified in his edict, so that, if any disturbance should arise, which the Catholics greatly feared, it might not be charged to them who were present in very small number, but rather to those who had wished their own multitude to be present. In the same letters the whole case as well was set out, so as to show that the Catholic Church is not the party of Donatus, but rather that Church which bears fruit and grows throughout the whole world, beginning from Jerusalem (Luke 24:47) according to Sacred Scripture; but that none of the evil people who might be in it could prejudice it, since they are to be separated by the divine judgment at the end; and that their forebears could prove nothing even against Caecilian himself, who in ecclesiastical judgments, and especially that of the emperor before whom he had been accused by them, was found and declared innocent. And since they are accustomed to stir up ill will over the imperial orders that are established on behalf of the Catholic Church, mention was also made, from Sacred Scripture, that kings had decreed the gravest penalties in their kingdom for those who had blasphemed God. (See Dan 3:29) Mention was also made of the case of the Maximianists, whom they had even prosecuted with public judgments, and some of whom, after condemning them, they had received back in their full honors, and whose baptism given in schism they had not annulled; for they said that those to whom they had granted a delay, while in communion with Maximian, had not been polluted by his contagion, together with the other things contained in the same letters. Now all these things were mentioned there for this reason, lest perhaps, if the Donatists thought it over within themselves and saw how bad a case the party of Donatus had, they should for that reason be unwilling for all who had come to enter the place of the meeting, so that peace and unity might come about.

1. 8. In the eighth place, when the examining judge had inquired whether, just as he saw to be the case with the Catholics, so too the party of Donatus had now chosen those who would conduct the case they had undertaken, the answer was given by the party of Donatus that the case had already been argued by the Catholics before the persons who were to contend had been appointed, on account of those letters of the Catholics which briefly contained the whole case. Then they began to insist that there should first be a discussion of the time, the mandate, the persons, and the case, and only then should the merits of the matter be reached. And when the examining judge had ruled that nothing of the case had been cut short, and had again inquired whether his edict had been obeyed regarding the fixing of the number of those to debate, since everything that had to be done had to be done through these, the Donatists began to make an issue of the time, on the ground that the case itself could not be tried because the day had passed. For on the fourteenth day before the first of June four months had been completed from the day of the examining judge's edict which he had sent to the province, as the staff answered when questioned. And since the emperor had directed that the case be tried within four months, they said that the day had now passed, and asked that a sentence be pronounced against the Catholics as against persons in contempt of court, as if the Catholics were absent, or as if the Donatists had ever entered to try the case in their absence, or as if the Catholics, having been summoned or called, had failed to appear. So they said these things slanderously and evasively, things that would not be allowed even in a civil court of law, being unwilling for anything to be done. But to this the examining judge himself replied that both parties had agreed on the first of June, and that even if one of the parties had not yet appeared up to then, two further months still remained, which the emperor had added by his three edicts as to be observed.

1. 9. In the ninth place, since the examining judge had said above that to plead the time as a bar to trying the case was a matter not of episcopal but rather of forensic objection, the party of Donatus found an occasion to say that, accordingly, nothing ought to be transacted with them by public law, but only by the divine Scriptures. Hence, when the examining judge had asked what each party wished concerning this matter, the Catholics answered that he should order the mandate of the Catholic council to be read aloud, in which the manner of proceeding had been enjoined upon the chosen debaters; that there it could better appear that the matter was being conducted not by forensic evasions but rather by divine testimonies. And the conflict was drawn out for a while, the Catholics insisting that the mandate be read aloud, while the others refused. But afterward, all the delaying disputes being set aside, the examining judge ordered the mandate to be read aloud.

1. 10. In the tenth place the mandate of the Catholic council was read aloud, by which the defense of the Catholic Church against the accusations of the Donatists had been enjoined upon the bishops chosen to debate. By this mandate, as in the earlier letters, the whole case was again briefly set out: first, that the case of the Church, which, as was promised, is spread throughout the whole world, should be distinguished from the case of Caecilian, whatever that may have been, in such a way as to show that the evil people in the Church, who are either unknown or, for the sake of the peace of unity, tolerated by the good who do not consent to their evil deeds, cannot harm the good; and this by gospel parables and by the example of the prophets, and of the Lord Christ himself and the apostles, and of the bishops, and even by the judgment of the Donatists themselves in the matter of the Maximianists; then, that Caecilian's own case had not been a bad one was to be shown by sure documents, by which both he and his ordainer, Felix of Aptungi, whom they had accused all the more grievously in their council, would be proved to have been cleared. And the other things are contained in the same mandate, whether about baptism or about persecution, which the party of Donatus is accustomed to bring against the Catholics. For there too, as in the earlier letters, the case of the Maximianists was mentioned, by which the Donatists were shown to have dissolved by their own judgment everything they are accustomed to bring against the Catholics, whether about baptism, or about persecution, or about the contagion of communion. It was also added that, if even now they should wish to bring charges against the Catholic bishops for the sake of interposing delays, the hearing and discussion of these should be postponed until afterward, in order to finish the case that was more pressing. Now this—that is, that the whole case should be set out both in the earlier letters and in this mandate—was done by the Catholics with this design: lest perhaps, if (as rumor had it) the Donatists should try to thrust in some delaying pleas, and perhaps, not being permitted, should withdraw from the meeting itself, the case of the Catholic Church, though argued only briefly, should remain to be read in the record of proceedings—the case which they would be understood to have feared, and therefore to have been unwilling to debate.

1. 11. In the eleventh place, when the examining judge had ruled that in the mandate of the Catholics divine testimonies rather than forensic bonds had been brought forward, and had ordered the signatures of all to be read aloud as well, a conflict arose and was drawn out for a while, the Donatists demanding the presence of those who had signed the mandate, objecting that, by substituting men who had not been bishops, the Catholics might have deceived the examining judge, in whose presence they were read as having signed, and that they had added other bishops to ancient sees so that the number might be increased. The Catholics, however, resisted having their own people produced, fearing that the others might be preparing some disturbance through which the meeting itself would be wholly broken off—a meeting the Donatists seemed altogether unwilling to have held, especially when they tried to plead the time as a bar, as though the case had already lapsed and could not be heard. They were thought not yet to have made such a disturbance for this reason: that if it were made, they saw it could not be charged to the Catholics, who were present in very small number, but rather to themselves, whose multitude was present. But when the Catholics yielded to their wish, so that all who had signed should enter, it afterward appeared that the Donatists had wished this because they supposed that as many Catholics had not gathered at Carthage as the signatures showed. And they were thought to have believed this because the Catholics had not entered Carthage with the pomp with which the others had, and on this account suspected that they had come few in number.

1. 12. In the twelfth place, when the Catholic bishops whose presence was being demanded had entered, all were read aloud one by one, and as they came forward into the midst, they were recognized by the Donatists, either as their neighbors or as men with whom they had been in one place; and whatever Catholic bishops were read aloud from those places where the party of Donatus did not exist, it was well enough known even to the Donatists themselves that they had no colleagues or communion of their own there, and that there were Catholics there, men whom they either knew or had heard of in the neighborhood of their region. So it came about that not one Catholic's signature was read aloud about whose presence they were in doubt. Indeed, when they came to the name of Victorianus, the Catholic bishop of Mustis, and he, coming forward into the midst, had answered that he had two rivals, Felicianus in the city of Mustis and Donatus in the locality of Turris, the Catholics demanded that it be established in the record that Felicianus was in the communion of Primian; for they themselves had condemned him, among others, together with Maximian, as a condemner of Primian and the ordainer of Maximian himself, whom they had afterward received back in full honor, and they had not annulled the baptism given to those whom he had baptized in the schism of Maximian. But they were unwilling to answer the Catholics' question, saying that this ought not to be demanded of them. And when it was demanded again more pressingly, they said that this now belonged to internal proceedings; and the examining judge ruled in accordance with them, that what had been begun should be transacted, and that the other matter, if there were need, should be inquired into afterward. Now in the very diocese of Mustis it also appeared that they themselves had added another bishop to an ancient see, a thing they had charged against the Catholics out of empty ill will; and that they had done this in other places too was afterward declared.

1. 13. In the thirteenth place, after the Catholics present who had signed had been reviewed and recognized, the examining judge offered them seats, asking that they conduct the proceedings seated rather than standing. The Donatists, however, refused, while giving thanks that he had offered seats to such old men, and in that refusal saying many things in their own praise and in praise of the examining judge himself—which let anyone read who wishes in the record of proceedings; for it is to the point how they so praised a man as to call him honorable, just, respectful, kind, and yet were unwilling for the case, for the trying of which so many had gathered, to be tried before him.

1. 14. In the fourteenth place the mandate of the Donatists too was produced and read aloud, drawn up briefly, so that those whom they had chosen should act, as it were, against traitors and their persecutors. Their names were also read aloud, since the Catholics had asked that this be done, so that it might be established whether they had signed while present at Carthage. But the Donatists much more insistently wrested this from the examining judge, so that their number too might appear, which they showed they wished with great earnestness. In that reading aloud, indeed, certain men were found for whom, being absent, others had signed. One man too was found who, when his name was read aloud, did not answer; they said he had died on the journey. And when the Catholics asked how one who had died on the journey could have signed at Carthage, they wavered for a long time, confused and not knowing what to answer. For at first they said that the suggestion had been made not about him but about another. And when the Catholics supposed they meant another—that is, a cleric—who could have signed for the dead man, it was asked whether the cleric had signed in his own name or in that of the dead man. But afterward they answered that the man had indeed signed while present, when the mandate was drawn up on the eighth day before the first of June, but that, since he had signed while ill, he had died on the journey while returning home. On hearing this the Catholics asked that their earlier words be read aloud, so that the very inconsistency, once caught, might become clear. And when this had been done, and it appeared so, the examining judge asked whether they would at least affirm under the witness of God that the man had been at Carthage when, being present, they enjoined those present to sign. At this, more violently confused, they answered: "What if someone else put himself forward in his place?" Leaving this falsehood of theirs, now caught, to the judgment of God, he ordered the remaining names to be read aloud. When these had been read, he asked about the number of bishops on each side. The staff answered that the names of the Donatist bishops were two hundred and seventy-nine, counting also those for whom, being absent, others had signed, and reckoning in the dead man as well. But it was established that the names of all the Catholics present were two hundred and eighty-six. For twenty had not signed, who nevertheless, presenting their own presence and coming forward into the midst—except for those whom infirmity of body kept there at Carthage—professed that they committed themselves and consented to the present proceedings. In the place of the meeting, then—that is, in the Baths of Gargilius, since that place had afterward been agreed upon—of those Catholics who had signed the mandate and who, being present, had committed themselves to the proceedings, only those were absent who were kept there at Carthage by ill health. But of those whose names the Donatists' signing contained, not only were those absent whom they had answered to be sick at Carthage, but also those for whom, being absent—that is, not present at Carthage—others had signed. Since, therefore, the Donatists boasted of their numbers, apart from the fact that it was established that more Catholics had come to Carthage, it was said by the Catholics that another one hundred and twenty bishops had not come to Carthage, because some of them had been hindered by old age, some by infirmity, some by various necessities. When the Donatists heard this, they answered that many more of their own too had not come to Carthage, and that there were among them many sees widowed of bishops—although in their own notification, which they had given to the examining judge, they had said most plainly that they had all come to Carthage to such a degree that not even age and toil could deter the very oldest men, and that those alone had not come whom ill health had kept in their own seats or on the journey. Indeed, concerning the sees which they said were empty of bishops among them, the Catholics too answered that there were sixty-four for which successor bishops had not yet been ordained. And so, in these signings of both parties, it was established both that falsehoods had been caught among the Donatists and that the number of their bishops was the smaller; since only the sick had not come to Carthage—though even for those who were sick on the journey others had signed—and the signing contained the names of all, including those for whom others had signed, two hundred and seventy-nine; nor is it in any way credible that far more than one hundred and twenty, that is, a third part of them all, could have been sick in their own seats and therefore not have come to Carthage.

1. 15. In the fifteenth place, after all who were now superfluously present had gone out, and those remained whom each side had chosen as necessary, the meeting was put off, by the consent of both, to the day after the next, since the present day already seemed to have run out.

2. 1. In the first place, when, after a day's interval, they gathered at the said place, as had been agreed and fixed, the examining judge again offered seats, begging that it be done. And the Catholics at once sat down; the Donatists, however, refused. In that refusal, among other things, they also said this: that it was written for them not to sit with such men. (See Ps 26 (25):4-5) To this the Catholics, lest delays arise, made no answer then, but at a more fitting point in the meeting of the third day. Then the examining judge too answered that he would conduct the inquiry standing.

2. 2. In the second place there was read aloud the notification which they had given the day before, asking that the mandate of the Catholics be issued to them, so that, having considered it, they might be present, prepared, on the appointed day, since the recorders could not keep up with the record of proceedings; and there was read the examining judge's reply on the same notification, by which he ordered done what they asked.

2. 3. In the third place, when the examining judge had asked what they answered concerning the signatures as well—that is, whether it pleased them, as he had laid down in his edict, that each man should sign his own pleadings—and the Catholics had answered that they had already expressed their consent to this in writing, the others said that they were much troubled, because custom did not allow this. And when the examining judge had asked whether it was enough for them that custodians of the record of proceedings had been appointed from each side, they began to ask for a delay, so that the recorded proceedings might be issued to them, and then they would answer. Here there arose a long-lasting conflict with them, since their consent, by which it had been agreed that the matter should be tried on that day, was often read aloud from the records. And when they said that they did not understand the shorthand, asking that the recorded proceedings be issued to them first, the examining judge ordered that what their notaries had taken down be read aloud to them, the codices being brought forth which were kept sealed, lest they go against their own consent. And when they themselves often made an issue of the issuing of the proceedings, on the ground that the recorders had not kept up in recording the proceedings, this too was answered them: that for this very reason they had said in their notification that they asked the mandate of the Catholics to be issued to them, so that they might appear prepared on the present day, since the recorders could not keep up with the issuing of the proceedings. Then, finding nothing to say, they wished again to rub raw the plea about the day, concerning which they had been answered more than enough, and which had already been gotten past on the first day. But then the Catholics also answered them on this point: that not only in the examining judge's edict was the first of June read as the appointed day, but also that they themselves had drawn up their own mandate on the eighth day before the first of June, when the day on which they said the case ought to have been tried had already passed—that is, the fourteenth day before the first of June. It was also said that Primian himself had promised to appear by the first of June. All these things were said by the Catholics because they had heard that the Donatists had spoken about this matter invidiously even among their own people; and yet, amid all this, the others persisted most violently in asking for a delay. When the Catholics saw that they were trifling at length for this end, that the proceedings might be loaded with many words, they asked the examining judge to grant them the delay they sought. And a delay of six days was granted, the recorders answering when the issuing of the proceedings could be ready, and the others promising that, when the proceedings had been issued, they would sign their own pleadings.

3. 1. 1. On the third day of the meeting, that is, the sixth day before the ides of June, when the parties had entered, in the first place the examining judge inquired whether the proceedings had been issued to them. The staff answered that it had issued them before the day it had promised, which was proved from the receipts of both parties. And the receipts were read aloud, by which it was established that the Catholics had received the proceedings on the eighth day before the ides of June at the fifth hour of the day, but the Donatists on the same day at the third.

3. 2. 2. In the second place, when the examining judge had ordered the principal business now to be set forth, it was said by the Catholics that they had long wished to argue the principal business, and that it was this: that they should prove, if they could, the charges the Donatists are accustomed to make against the Church spread throughout the whole world. It was answered by the Donatists that first there should be an inquiry as to who they were who would conduct the case, so that delays might arise from the examination of persons. Lest there be a long conflict over this matter, the Catholics refusing and insisting most vehemently that, the evasions of superfluous delays being set aside, the case be reached, the Donatists, on the contrary, contended most stubbornly that the persons be examined, and demanded that it be stated who had asked the emperor for this meeting to be held. For they wished it to be established that the Catholics were the petitioners, so that by forensic law they might examine the persons of the petitioners—although in the first session there had already been read aloud the mandate of the Catholics, in which they showed themselves to be not petitioners but defenders against the charges those people are accustomed to bring against their communion; and although the Donatists themselves had earlier demanded that the case of the Church be conducted not by forensic formulas but rather by the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, and, when the mandate of the Catholics had been read, had confessed that the Catholics had wished to establish the case of the Church by the holy Scriptures, and had promised that they in turn would act from the same authority of the divine law. Then, therefore, as though forgetting what they had demanded and what they themselves had also promised, when the Catholics had proposed that there ought to be a trial concerning the accusation and the clearing of the Church, they began to seek the persons of the petitioners, so that they might examine them by forensic law. Against this, then, the Catholics resisted, and, in order to cut short the delays which they had heard them prepare and now saw them weaving, persistently insisted that the case of the Church rather be tried. In the conflict it came to this, that the emperor's order by which he had directed the meeting to be held was read, so that in this way the persons of the petitioners might be established. For it seemed even to the examining judge that, lest anything be denied to the Donatists even regarding forensic law itself, as though they were demanding what was just, the persons of the petitioners ought first to be established. When, therefore, the imperial order had been read aloud, it was declared that the Catholics had asked for the meeting, and that it had been granted. Then the Donatists began to demand the petition by which that meeting had been asked of them. Here, when the examining judge answered them that petitions are not usually inserted in a pragmatic rescript, they turned to this: that the Catholics should issue and produce for them the mandate by which they had directed the meeting to be asked of the emperor, and the very legates whom they had sent to obtain this, asserting that they ought to examine what had been mandated, and that there they could find what had been said to the emperor about them. When the Catholics understood that this was being inquired into for this end, that occasions might be found by which delays and postponements of very long duration might be thrust in, they asserted that what the others sought did not pertain to the case at all, since the emperor himself most plainly showed that the meeting had been asked by them—he who had appointed the examining judge so that clear reasoning might refute their superstition. And they urged vehemently that, all interposings of delays and inquiries into others to be interposed being set aside, that should rather be done which it had been ordered by the emperor be done at that meeting—the meeting which it was established had both been asked of him and granted.

3. 3. 3. Meanwhile a few things were said and objected back and forth by each party concerning the Catholic name—with whom it rather belonged—and it was ordered to be reserved rather for the principal case. And after some matters, again, when, mention being made of the Catholic name, the Donatists said that the Catholic Church was rather among them, the examining judge ruled that for the time being, without prejudice to anyone, he could not call the Catholics by any other name than that by which the emperor had called them, by whom the examining judge had been appointed; but that the more they said they were Catholics, the more they ought now, the interposings of delays being set aside, to try the case itself, in which they could prove that they were rather the Catholics. Here the Donatists, after so many delays and so many rulings of the examining judge brought against them, demanding that the case rather be tried, and testifying that neither did anything about the persons of the legates, or about the mandate enjoined on them, pertain to the case, nor had anything been ordered him to inquire into on this point, said that if the Catholics had been unwilling to obey his rulings in disclosing the legates or the mandate given to them, they should at least answer this: whether they stood in the place of petitioners—the Catholics much wondering why the Donatists said that, in issuing the mandate of the legates, they were not obeying his rulings, when rather the examining judge had pronounced against them in so many rulings. The Catholics therefore asked which rulings they had not obeyed. And the Donatists not answering this, the examining judge ruled that the Catholics should answer the question the Donatists had asked about the place of the petitioner. And they answered that they proposed this: that the charges the Donatists are accustomed to bring against their communion be either proved or refuted, so that the separation of the Donatists might be either defended or corrected. Then, when the examining judge demanded an answer from the Donatists, they answered: that the Africans who called themselves Catholics wished to defend another's case, that is, that of the Church of the whole world, concerning which nothing ought to be prejudged against them, since this business was being aired among Africans; and that the Church across the sea should rather be awaited, so that those who won might be seen to belong to it, and might themselves have the Catholic name; but at the end of their pleading they again demanded that an answer be given them about the person of the petitioner. Here the Catholics briefly answered both points: both that the question of persons had already been settled by a first and a second judgment, and that they, not the Donatists, are in communion with the Church spread throughout the whole world, to which the divine Scripture bears witness, whence they both are and are rightly called Catholics. The Donatists, however, answered that the Catholic name was instituted not from the universality of nations but from the fullness of the sacraments; and they asked that the Catholics prove that all nations were in communion with them. When the Catholics most gladly accepted this and asked to be permitted to prove it, the others again began to rub raw the question about that mandate which had been enjoined on the legates and which they had asked to be issued to them, and to recoil again from the case of the Church, which had now come forward into the midst to be examined—now by demanding the above-mentioned mandate, now by insisting that the person of the petitioner be established, now by demanding that the examining judge give judgment about these very things they had asked, concerning which he had already so often ruled and had pronounced that they were asking for them in vain.

3. 4. 4. But the examining judge, although they seemed not to be right in asking that the mandate enjoined on the legates be issued to them—since what was enough for the case, that the meeting had been asked and granted, was established—did not, however, think it unjust of them to ask that the person of the petitioner be established. The Catholics, however, seeing what had already been announced to them beforehand (and they understood this well enough from the others' aim)—that the Donatists were seeking the persons of the petitioners for no other reason than that, by the examination of persons, they might be allowed to thrust in the longest delays of time and postponements, since they vehemently did not want the case to be reached, in which they most fully knew they had nothing to say, as the very thing afterward, though late, made plain—the Catholics, seeing this, were unwilling to take up the person of petitioners, asserting that they were not bringing charges but defending against charges brought; and that, when they had defended them and shown them to be false, it would consequently appear who these people were, and with how great iniquity they had divided themselves from unity. Here the Donatists asserted that, in whatever way the Catholics, even concerning the very charges they wished to refute, of their own accord compelled their opponents to answer them, they held the person of petitioners. But the Catholics answered that they had asked for the meeting for this end: not where they might bring charges to be refuted, but where they might refute charges brought; since both the mandate of the Donatists had been drawn up against traitors and persecutors, and the words of Primian—when he was first approached by the Catholics about the meeting—testified that he was bringing a charge against them, where he had said: It is unworthy that the sons of martyrs and the offspring of traitors should come together in one place; and although he had then been unwilling to confer, he had nevertheless afterward said that he wished to be heard and examined in the judgment of the prefects. Holding to this consent of theirs about a meeting, the Catholics had asked the emperor that it be done.

3. 4. 5. Then the examining judge ordered them now to prove the charges they had brought, and not, regarding the meeting that had been asked, to demand that the person of the petitioner be shown, even if both parties were proved to have asked for it. Here the Donatists began repeatedly to ask that he give judgment about the person. And the examining judge gave judgment, saying that, if both parties had asked for the meeting, the petitioner was the one who brought the charges. And the Donatists demanded that it be proved by the Catholics whether both parties had asked for the meeting. When the examining judge had said, "The Catholics will have to prove this," there again arose a delaying conflict about the Catholic name, of both the Donatists and the followers of Caecilian. Then the Catholics produced proceedings held in the judgment of the prefecture, by which they might prove that the Donatists too had asked for the meeting. When the examining judge had ordered these to be read aloud, the others again returned to the past, and began to demand that the examining judge give judgment on those matters about which he had so often given judgment—that is, about the person and about the mandate of the legates, which they had so often, superfluously, demanded be issued to them. Now they were doing this, as far as could be understood, fearing lest the prefectural proceedings be read, in which they had wounded their own case by certain inconsiderate and rash answers. So a conflict was waged by them for a long time, especially with the examining judge himself, since they asked that the mandate enjoined on the legates be issued to them, or that he pronounce that they had asked this superfluously; while he both said that he had pronounced, and pronounced that this did not pertain at all to the present judgment, in which it was declared by the imperial letters what had been asked and what granted. And at last, at his order, the prefectural proceedings had begun to be read aloud. When the date and consuls of these proceedings had been read aloud, the Donatists at once again interrupted and began to demand those same past matters. But when the examining judge ruled that the proceedings ought to be read, so that the person of the petitioner might be established, they, on the contrary, began from the beginning to say that there were earlier proceedings, which ought rather to be read. Against this it was said by the Catholics that the others were unwilling for the prefectural proceedings to be read, because in them they dreaded their own pleadings.

3. 5. 6. The Donatists therefore produced the proconsular proceedings, and those of the vicarial prefecture, where the Catholics had asked that they be summoned by municipal records, so that, a meeting of both parties being held, error might be removed from the midst—long before they had asked the emperor for the meeting itself; and by these proceedings they wished to show that the Catholics stood in the place of petitioners, because there they had called them "heretics, committing many things against the divine and human laws." Against this the Catholics said that they had then too demanded a meeting, in order to answer on behalf of the Church against their charges. And so they asked repeatedly that, if those proceedings were to be read which it was established were earlier, those rather be read where the Donatists first sent the case of Caecilian to the emperor Constantine, accusing him through the proconsul Anulinus; and when the proceedings they themselves brought forward had been read aloud, those which had begun to be read, held before the prefects, were not read aloud. And a conflict began: that if, for this reason, the proceedings which the Donatists had produced were preferred to the proceedings which the Catholics had produced—because they were found to be earlier—so that these rather should be read aloud, then at least after their reading aloud those far earlier ones should also be read aloud, where it would appear that, in this whole case which was being tried, the Donatists had first stood forth as accusers, through the proconsul, before the emperor. That these, then, should not be read aloud, the Donatists struggled vehemently, resisting with many and manifold pleadings, just as they had struggled and had wrested it that the prefectural proceedings not be read. Now in this struggle they often repeated that already worn-out thing, repulsed by so many of the examining judge's rulings, about the mandate of the legates being issued to them. They also repeated a question that had already been settled before: whether the Catholics preferred to act by the testimonies of the Law or by public proceedings. And they said that if they chose the testimonies of the divine Law, they would forfeit all the public laws and proceedings; but if they preferred rather to act by public laws and proceedings, they would let go the divine documents. And yet, if the Catholics chose this, to act rather by the documents of public proceedings, the Donatists said that they would not even permit this—that the proceedings offered by the Catholics be read—on the ground that they had a strong plea of the time, namely, that one about which they had been sufficiently answered both by the Catholics and by the examining judge himself, because they said that the case itself had lapsed and could no longer be tried, since the day had passed on which the four months would be completed. For it plainly appeared that they greatly feared lest the proceedings be read, by which it would be taught that Caecilian had been first accused before the emperor by their forebears, and then absolved and cleared by both ecclesiastical and imperial judgments—that is, lest the very case for which they had come be tried at all, where they perceived that they could most evidently be defeated. And they were so unwilling and so afraid that they were even compelled to confess it, saying that they were being drawn into the case little by little—that is, gradually—and led to the inner parts of the case: which they surely ought to have desired, if they were confident not of empty and delaying pleas, but of the truth of the case itself.

3. 6. 7. Against this, then, when the Catholics were striving vehemently that the case be reached—to which they perceived the others were altogether unwilling to come—they nevertheless answered again and again those same things which the others so often repeated as already settled. And since there were two matters that had come forward into the midst, one about the issuing of the mandate enjoined on the legates, the other about whether the Catholics preferred to act by divine testimonies or by public proceedings, concerning the issuing of that mandate the Catholics too answered that it did not pertain to them, nor to the present case at all; and the examining judge himself, what he had rather often pronounced, again pronounced: that he could not at all examine the person of the legates and the mandate they had undertaken, and that he ought not to depart from what had been enjoined on him, since it appeared well enough from the imperial letters, by which the judge had been appointed for this case, that the meeting had been granted by the emperor. But concerning that other matter, where they asked what the Catholics chose, whether divine documents or public proceedings, the Catholics rather often answered that if the Donatists did not bring charges of men's crimes, such as they are accustomed to bring against traitors, but only inquired what or where the Church was, they would do nothing by public proceedings, but only by the testimonies of the divine Scriptures; but if they persisted in that accusation and charge against men, then—since they themselves could not demonstrate such things except by such proceedings—without doubt the Catholics too would defend against charges of this kind by public proceedings; for otherwise these things could neither be accused nor defended. These things were rather often repeated and impressed on them both by the Catholics and by the examining judge himself, while the others, by many and various ways of many pleadings, returned to the same things and repeated the same things, so that the case might not be tried, and the proceedings might not be read which they perceived were already in hand. But at last the examining judge overcame such long obstinacies, and ordered to be read aloud what had been submitted by the Catholics; and at last the case began to be tried, for which so many bishops of each party had gathered. This came about in a wonderful way: that, whereas the Donatists were seeking the person of the petitioner in order that the case might not be reached, the very inquiry about the petitioner suddenly brought the case into the midst.

3. 7. 8. In the third place, then, these things were done. The report of the proconsul Anulinus to the emperor Constantine was read; and when the Donatists asked where it had been produced from, the Catholics answered that, if they doubted, it was to be sought in the proconsul's archive. In this report it is most evidently contained that they themselves had first sent to the emperor Constantine, through the said proconsul, the charges they brought against Caecilian, by way of accusation. When this had been read aloud, the Donatists began to ask whom the Catholics said was their father. When the answer was given them according to the Gospel, where it is written: Call no one your father on earth, for one is your Father, God (See Matt 23:9)—even on hearing this, they nonetheless began to ask whether Caecilian was their father or their mother. When it had already been said by the Catholics that he was neither father to them nor mother, but a brother, whether good, if he was good, or evil, if he was evil—because even an evil man is a brother on account of the common sacraments—on this point they contended somewhat longer, the Donatists repeating the same things, and the Catholics answering the same things. For the Donatists also objected this: how the Apostle could say, For though you have many guides in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begot you through the Gospel (1 Cor 4:15). And it was answered by the Catholics that this had been said for the sake of honor, on account of the gospel mystery which the Apostle was dispensing; for there is no father unto faith and eternal salvation except God. For the Apostle could not say anything contrary to Christ, so that, when the latter said, Call no one your father on earth, for one is your Father, God, the Apostle, on the contrary, as though resisting the words of Christ, should call himself the father of those to whom he had announced the Gospel—unless a distinction were certainly to be made between what is said for the sake of divine grace and what for the sake of human honor.

3. 7. 9. They also asked who had ordained Augustine, preparing, as was boasted, I know not what slanders. When he answered them fearlessly that he had been ordained by Megalius, who was then the primate of the bishops of the Catholic Church in Numidia, and pressed them insistently to bring forward now what they had prepared, so that there too they might be shown to be slanderers, they twisted their attention to something else, returning to the person of Caecilian, who, they said, did not harm the Catholic Church even if his crimes were shown to be true; and yet that these too could not be shown to be true.

3. 8. 10. Then, accordingly, the Donatists produced letters which they said they had received from their whole council, by which an answer was made to the mandate of the Catholics that had been adduced on the first day of the session; and on the following day, before they came to the second session on the third day, the Donatists, having given a notification, had asked that it be issued to them, so that, prepared, they might come to the hearing. And perhaps it was on account of these letters, to be written with care, that even in the second session they asked for the delay which was granted them, of six days. And so, in the fourth place, these things were done: the above-mentioned letters of the Donatists were read aloud, by which they tried to answer the mandate of the Catholics, which had been inserted in the proceedings of the first session. That they could not answer this mandate, anyone will find who is willing to read and consider both: first, because the testimonies drawn from the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms and the apostolic and gospel writings, by which it is shown that the Catholic Church is spread throughout the whole world, beginning from Jerusalem (Luke 24:47)—whence, by growing into nearby and distant places, it came also into Africa, and into other places and cities through which it was first spread, in which many churches belonging to that one and only Church were founded by apostolic labor, with which it is manifest that the Donatists are not in communion—not only did they not discuss these, but they were altogether unwilling even to touch them; nor did they dare to bring forward, in their so long letter, any testimony from the holy Scriptures by which they might assert that the Church of the party of Donatus had been foretold and predicted, as the Catholics brought forward so many on behalf of the Church with which they are in communion, which, beginning from Jerusalem, is spread throughout the whole world. Since, then, they had not touched these portions of so many testimonies at all, but had passed them over as though, in that mandate of the Catholics to which they seemed to be answering, the things had not been said, they tried to show, by bringing forward many testimonies of the divine Scriptures, that the Church of God had been foretold as one that would not be a mixture with evil men. And yet afterward, when they had come to the gospel parable which the Catholics had set down in their mandate, about the nets cast into the sea, by which the Lord said all kinds of fish were gathered together, and the good separated from the bad on the shore (See Matt 13:47-48)—that is, at the end of the age—they too confessed that in the Church at least secret evil men were mixed in. The weeds among the wheat, however, they said were mixed in not in the Church but in the world itself, since the Lord says: The field is this world (Matt 13:38). As for the threshing floor, to which the Catholics had said the chaff was mixed until the time of winnowing, they did not even try to expound this parable, as though no such thing at all were written in the Gospel; but, as though the Catholics had said this on their own, they only found fault with it, as if from the testimony of the prophet Jeremiah, who says: What has the chaff to do with the wheat? (Jer 23:28)—not attending to the reason why he had said this. For he was not speaking about the Church, but about the divine visions of the prophets and human dreams, that they should in no way be compared. That parable too about the sheep and the goats which are pastured together, and will be separated at the end of the age (See Matt 25:32), which the Catholics had set down among others from the Gospel, they were altogether unwilling to touch. For they could not there say that the goats too are unknown to the shepherds in common pastures, as they had said that the bad fish in the sea are not seen by the fishermen among the nets.

3. 8. 11. Again, when the Catholics in their mandate, wishing to show that evil men are tolerated by the good in the Church, and that the good are not polluted by the contagion of the evil, had mentioned the examples of the prophets and of the Lord Christ himself and of the apostles, and after these also of good bishops, and the judgment even of the Donatists themselves, who denied that certain of their own placed in the schism of Maximian were polluted by the contagion of Maximian—the Donatists, trying to answer these things in their letters, said whatever they said about the prophets and about the Lord Christ and the apostles, but about the bishops and the Maximianists they were silent. For in the matter of the bishops they were hard pressed by the authority of Cyprian, whose words, brought forward from his letter, the Catholics had set down in their mandate; by which it was most manifestly shown both that he had taught that evil men should be tolerated in the Church for the sake of unity, and that the Church should not be forsaken on their account; and that he himself had tolerated in the Church certain of his colleagues, from whose evil ways he was far removed, and about whose most wicked deeds he did not keep silent. Oppressed, therefore, by his authority, the Donatists, when they had said something about the prophets and the Lord Christ and the apostles, nevertheless to this point—that evil men mixed in should not be tolerated in the Church—were altogether unwilling to say anything about the bishops. And yet even about Judas the traitor, and about those whom Paul tolerated, who announced Christ out of envy, Cyprian himself so understood, so wrote, just as the Catholics had set these things down in their mandate: that the Lord too bore with Judas as an example of the evil to be tolerated in the Church; and that Paul endured those of whom he said such things not outside but within the Church. But as for the Maximianists, what could they answer, since the men were still alive about whom they could most plainly and most easily be convicted? Accordingly, to what the Catholics had said in their mandate, that the same Maximianists had been driven from their basilicas by the Donatists through public judgments, they tried, after a fashion, to answer that they had not accused them criminally, nor compelled anyone unwilling into their communion, but had civilly reclaimed their own property or that of their people—forgetting what Primian had once directed to be said in the Acts: "They take away what belongs to others; we resume what was taken away." But to those things which were said about the Maximianists in the mandate of the Catholics—that they had received back in full honor men condemned by themselves, that they had denied that the associates of Maximian were polluted by him, that they had preferred to approve rather than annul and repeat the baptism given by them in schism—they did not even try to answer lightly, but all those things they passed over in a strange silence, as though they had not been said.

3. 8. 12. Concerning baptism itself, too, as for what was said by the Catholics in that mandate—that the Apostle said of certain men, They hold the truth in iniquity (See Rom 1:18), in order to show that it can happen that the truth not to be destroyed is held within the iniquity to be destroyed—either they did not understand it, or what they themselves had understood they wished to obscure with their own words, lest it be understood by others, saying that the Apostle had said this about the error of the Gentiles: as though it pertained to the matter about whose error he had said it, since he had nevertheless shown that the truth can be held in iniquity; so that, when these two are found in one man, the truth may be approved and the iniquity corrected—just as the Catholic Church does, when it recognizes and embraces in the Donatists the truth of the sacrament, but detests and corrects in them the heretical iniquity. And as for what was said by the Catholics in the mandate—that the baptism of Christ is not to be destroyed because heretics too administer it, just as Christ is not to be denied because demons too confess him—likewise they either did not understand it, or wished to obscure it, saying that the Catholics had spoken against the martyrs, yet without expressing which martyrs they meant. Saying also that the Catholics wished to be in communion with demons: as though communion were had with heretics when their iniquity is anathematized, although the baptism found in their consecration is not destroyed—just as the iniquity of demons is anathematized, although the name of the Lord heard in their confession is not denied.

3. 8. 13. Concerning the persecutions, too, which they complain of suffering, they set down many things in their letters; yet they did not dare to answer that point made in the mandate of the Catholics, that they themselves had first accused Caecilian before the emperor Constantine—they who complain of the emperors' laws, exaggerating, to the discredit of the Catholics, either the deaths which their Circumcellions inflict on themselves, or all the things they suffer through the public laws and disciplines, not on behalf of the communion of Donatus, but for the crimes by which they rage violently and live wickedly: as they even dared to make mention of the town of Bagai, where it was made manifest how great were the evils they had committed, and how much less they had suffered.

3. 8. 14. To that point too in the Catholics' mandate, where it was said about the clearing and absolution of Caecilian and Felix of Aptungi—about whose crimes they were accustomed to stir up great ill will among the unskilled against the Catholics—since the whole case for which they had come was bound up there, they were unwilling in such long letters to make any answer at all: because, even in what they were saying, and as it were building up by divine testimonies—that evil men are not to be tolerated in the Church, but that one must withdraw from them on account of the contagion of sins—they so demonstrated their own meaning that nevertheless they confessed that no one could be defiled by another's sins that are unknown. For they had said this even about the bad fish, that just as the fishermen do not see those lying hidden in the waves, though already within the nets, so the priests do not know the evil men lying hidden in the Church, and are therefore in no way polluted by them. Nor yet, even lightly or slightly, in letters so long and written with so long a delay granted, did they try to prove what was especially mentioned in the Catholics' mandate—namely, that they should prove not only that the crimes of Caecilian were true (for that is too little), but also that they could have been proved and become known to the Church, which is spread among all nations to the ends of the earth, so that consequently, at least according to them, it could be defiled by the contagion of known sins.

3. 9. 15. And so, when the letters of the Donatists had been read aloud, the examining judge wished that what the Catholics had submitted to be read aloud should also be read. But the Donatists began to demand that an answer be made to what they had written. This the Catholics too rather wished, lest those letters should stand as though no answer could be made to them. As the Catholics, therefore, were beginning to answer, the Donatists began to interrupt and to make an uproar, lest the continuous discourse of the one answering should run on, as their own letters had been read aloud with no one interrupting. Since, then, the Catholics wished to show how the divine testimonies which they themselves had set down, and those which the others had mentioned, were to be received, lest they be caught being contrary to one another—since, both being divine, they ought certainly to be consonant, not dissonant—they began first to speak about the parable of the threshing floor. Then the Donatists, interrupting, said that nothing was read written about the threshing floor in the Gospel. And when the Catholics mentioned the passage of the Gospel more expressly, the others again, by interrupting, said that the secret evil men had been called the chaff to be winnowed afterward. Thence, amid their uproar and interruptions, a dispute arose about the weeds and the wheat, on account of the word "world," by which the Donatists were unwilling for the Church to be understood, because it is written: The field is this world (Matt 13:38). And they brought forward many testimonies in which holy Scripture had mentioned the world as nothing but the evil; as for instance: If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15); and other such things: as though by this they might show that by the name "world" the Church could in no way be signified. Against this the Catholics brought forward other testimonies, by which it might be shown that the name "world" is used in a good sense; as for instance: God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19): and other things of this kind, where the Church was shown, since it is certainly reconciled to God through Christ. And these things were transacted while the Catholics tried to carry on their discourse without interruption, but the others made an uproar lest this should be done; for they did not reserve their own answer, as the Catholics had done when their letter was read, but, by interposing frequent contradictions, hindered the Catholics' pleading from running on undisturbed.

3. 9. 16. And so, the Catholics demanding their patience, and scarcely obtaining it through many rulings of the examining judge, they answered their letters, showing by many testimonies and examples of the holy Scriptures that evil men are now so mixed in the Church that, although ecclesiastical discipline ought to be vigilant in correcting them, not only by words but also by excommunications and depositions, nevertheless not only do they lie hidden in it unknown, but very often, for the sake of the peace of unity, even when known they are tolerated: thus showing that the divine testimonies are consonant, so that those by which the Church is commended as having a mixture of evil men signify this present time of hers, such as she is in the present age; and those testimonies by which she is commended as not having evil men mixed in signify that time of hers such as she is to be forever in the age to come. Just as now she is mortal—that is, consists of mortal men—but then will be immortal, when no one in her will die: just as Christ himself in this time was mortal for her sake, but after the resurrection dies no more, and death no longer has dominion over him (Rom 6:9); which he will also grant to his Church at the end of the age. These two times of the Church—what she now is, and what she will then be—were signified also by the two catches of fish: one before the resurrection of Christ, when he ordered the nets to be cast, naming neither the left nor the right side (See Luke 5:4-6), in order to teach that within the nets of his sacraments there would be neither the evil alone nor the good alone, but the evil mixed with the good; but after the resurrection, when he ordered the nets to be cast on the right side (See John 21:6), so that we might understand that after our resurrection there would be in the Church the good alone, where there will no longer be the heresies and schisms by which now the nets are torn. For the Gospel did not keep silent about the nets being torn in the first catch; and in the last it is said: And though the fish were so great, the nets were not torn (See John 21:11). Of such a Church it was said that through it there would pass no uncircumcised and unclean person (See Isa 35:8; 52:1). For the schismatic separations, which will not then exist, belong to the unclean, because the nets are not torn. This was also signified by the raven, an unclean bird, going out from the ark and not returning (See Gen 8:7). Yet that ark, when the raven went out, was certainly not free of all unclean animals, but in it there were both clean and unclean until the flood (See Gen 7:8-9), just as in the Church there are good and evil until the end of the age. But just as Noah offered sacrifice not of the unclean but of the clean animals (See Gen 8:20), so it is not those who are evil in the Church, but those who are good, that come to God.

3. 9. 17. Concerning the prophets too—because the Donatists had said in their letters that the prophets had not been in communion with those against whom they spoke such great evils—the Catholics answered that there had been one temple which all used in common, and that none of the prophets who said such great things against the evil had established for himself another temple, sacrifices, or priests. And as for the testimonies of the Scriptures which the Donatists had set down in their letters, by which they tried to show that the sins of parents pertain even to their children—since this surely has never been rightly understood except of those children who imitate the iniquities of their parents—the Catholics answered that, although such great and such bitter things were said by the divine words against that people, which they themselves had also mentioned in their letters, so that it seemed as though no good man had remained there, nevertheless not only had the same holy prophets been there, but there had also arisen from that very people those whom the Lord himself, at the coming of his flesh, found praiseworthy, such as were Zechariah and Elizabeth, and John their son, and Simeon the old man and Anna the widow (See Luke 1:5-6; 2:25-38). Hence it appears how impiously, how slanderously, the crimes of Caecilian were brought against the Catholics spread throughout the whole world; since the crimes of that people, in which they had been born, could not be brought against Simeon and Anna and others such, consecrated by the sacraments of that same people—the crimes which not human opinion but the divine word had brought against that same people. There was also mentioned a prophetic testimony, where those were marked, lest they perish with the evil, who groaned over the wicked deeds done in their midst (See Ezek 9:4); nor yet were they bodily separated.

3. 9. 18. Then, when it had been mentioned what kind of separation of the good from the impious and evil ought to take place in this time, lest one share in another's sins—namely, in heart and in unlikeness of life and conduct—and that what is written ought not to be understood otherwise: Go out from their midst, withdraw from there, and touch no unclean thing (See 2 Cor 6:17; Isa 52:11); that is, be set apart by living differently, and do not consent to uncleanness—there too, in a most fitting place, an answer was made to the Donatists about what they had said, when the examining judge asked them to sit, that it was written for them not to sit with such men. (See Ps 26:4-5) For it was said by the Catholics, when they answered their letters, that the separation from the evil in this time is not to be understood as those men had understood it, who did not sit with them as with the impious, because it is written: I have not sat in the council of the impious (Ps 26 (25):4). Whereas surely, if they thought them impious, neither ought they to have done what is consequently forbidden in the same psalm. For there it follows: And I will not go in with those who do iniquity (Ps 26 (25):4). Since, then, those men had gone in with those whom they thought impious, why did they not also sit, so that in both they might be seen to have shunned not a bodily but a spiritual sitting and entering? There too was mentioned the case of the Maximianists, already so often brought against them, where they said that both they themselves and those to whom they had granted a delay, placed in the schism of Maximian, associates of his in the condemnation of Primian, had nevertheless not been polluted by his contagion: they who contended that the Christian world, to the ends of the earth, had perished by the crimes of Caecilian.

3. 10. 19. To these things the Donatists, since they could not answer with the strongest documents of the Scriptures and with their own example concerning the Maximianists, returned to what had already been settled, saying that the world is not rightly understood to be the Church, in which both the wheat and the weeds were ordered to grow together: although the Catholics had already mentioned so many divine testimonies, by which it was shown that the world is set down even in a good signification, and that in it nothing but the Church can be understood; and that, however the world be taken, since both seeds grow throughout the world, the wheat of the whole world ought not to be forsaken on account of the weeds. Since, then, these things had already been said, and the question itself now seemed settled, they returned to it again out of the greatest poverty, repeating the same things by the same things, asking how the devil could have sown weeds in the Church. Then, by way of slander, they said that the Catholics had spoken of two Churches: one which now has evil men mixed in, another which after the resurrection would not have them—as though those who now, for the sake of his name, while living justly tolerate the evil, would not be the same saints who are to reign with Christ.

3. 10. 20. To these things the Catholics answered that the Donatists themselves had already confessed that there were in the Church at least secret evil men; and in turn they asked how the devil had sown them in the Church—which the others, as though it could not happen, kept inquiring about the weeds. The Catholics also repeated the testimony of Cyprian, who understood the same gospel parable in no other way than to say that there were weeds in the Church, and that they did not lie hidden, but were discerned (See Cyprian, Ep. 54). Against this testimony they had dared to answer nothing at all; although they hold the authority of Cyprian in such esteem that through it they try to defend their evil belief and practice about repeating baptism. Concerning the two Churches, too, the Catholics refuted their slander, showing repeatedly and more expressly what they had said—that is, that they had not said that the Church which now has evil men mixed in was foreign to the kingdom of God, where there will be no evil mixed in; but that the very same one and holy Church now is in one way, but then will be in another way: now has the evil mixed in, then will not have them: just as now she is mortal, because she consists of mortal men, but then will be immortal, because in her no one will die even in body: just as there are not two Christs because the one who first died will afterward not die. It was also said about the outer and inner man, that, though these are diverse, two men are nevertheless not spoken of: how much less are two Churches spoken of, when the very same persons who are now good, and who tolerate the evil mixed in, and who, being about to rise again, die, will then have neither the evil mixed in nor die at all? Concerning the number too: since the Donatists, by the testimony of the Scriptures, had commended one Church, as though against the two which they boasted the Catholics had affirmed, it was answered by the Catholics that even many Churches are found called such in the Scriptures, and the seven to which John writes (See Rev 1:4, 11), which nevertheless were understood to be members of that one and only Church: so that from this it might appear how much less two ought to be brought against them, since they said that the very same one Church is not now such as she would be in the resurrection, seeing that the many Churches, of which that one consists, are not brought against them by the apostolic writings. To these things the Donatists again did not cease to repeat the same things, adding moreover and boasting invidiously that the Catholics had said the Church was mortal; and therefore denying that she is mortal, because the Trinity is immortal, by whose grace the Church is consecrated; and because Christ died for her, in order to make her immortal: as though the Catholics had said that she is not made immortal by the grace of God and by the blood of the Savior poured out for her; whereas they had said that the times are to be distinguished, namely, the present, in which all the saints die, just as Christ himself died, and the future, in which they will rise again, and, with no one to die, will live with him who has already risen.

3. 11. 21. While these things were being transacted among them, and superfluous things were being repeated by the Donatists, who kept contending about matters manifest and clear, the examining judge promised that he would judge in his final sentence about those things he had heard enough of, and ordered that to be tried rather from which the first cause of the division had arisen. Then the Donatists began to urge that he judge first about those things he had heard. When the Catholics too demanded this, and he remained in what he had said, and ordered that to be tried rather, so that the cause of the first division might be shown, the Catholics asked that what they were offering be read aloud. When he had ordered this to be done, the Donatists began to resist more stubbornly, and to force that he now judge about the things examined, repeating the same things that had been settled; and adding that he ought not to judge at all about that case which he wished to be tried by the reading aloud of the things the Catholics had offered to be read: saying that Christ ought to be the judge of this case; and casting ill will on the Catholics for having asked for a man as judge; saying also the usual things about the persecutions they seemed to suffer. To this the Catholics answered that the others ought not to cast ill will over a man having been requested as judge, men who had both judged in the case of the Maximianists, and had not reserved it for Christ as judge; and who had first sent the very case of Caecilian to a man—that is, to the emperor Constantine—by way of accusation: nor over the persecutions, as though the Catholics were asking anything from the emperors on behalf of the Church, when their Circumcellions, led by clerics, were committing such horrible evils. Here they answered in vain that this did not pertain to the priests, when those men were asserted to have done such things led by clerics.

3. 11. 22. There too, when it had been said that they had attacked human eyes with lime and vinegar—a crime in which they outdid the devil in cruelty, who did not do this to the flesh of the holy man whom he had received into his power to afflict (See Job 2:6-7)—here the Donatists asked whether those who do such things, or those who suffer them, were sons of the devil: as though the Catholics had said anything other than that they had suffered their own most monstrous sufferings from the others' clerics and Circumcellions. Yet here too the Catholics did not let slip the occasion offered to bring the Maximianists against them; and they said that, according to the others' own opinion, the Maximianists were the better, whom they had persecuted before three or more proconsuls. For if the latter suffered persecution, the former inflicted it. And the Catholics urged them to answer whether they had not received Felicianus from among those very men whom they had condemned and persecuted, and whether they did not have him in their college. To which charge, falling, as always, altogether silent, they went off to something else, charging the Catholics with having defended the devil; because they had said that he had spared the eyes of holy Job, whence these men had outdone him in cruelty. And they undertook to accuse the devil, as though defended by the Catholics, saying that he had rather spared Job's eyes in his flesh out of cruelty, so that they might remain for the spectacle of the wound which he had inflicted on his whole body. Which is very strange—why they wished to say this as something great—unless perhaps so that those might be understood to have acted piously who attacked the eyes in men, lest they be tortured by seeing their own wounds, which they had received from them over their whole body.

3. 11. 23. But when the Donatists, again exaggerating the persecutions they suffer, mentioned certain deaths of their own people in the town of Bagai, it was answered by the Catholics that they had suffered this while their violence was being resisted—violence which they had even tried to inflict on the judge. In that town the Catholics mentioned that horrible things had been committed by them, so that a basilica had even been burned, and the holy codices cast into the fire. But their deaths were rather from the custom they have of throwing themselves down headlong. And when the Donatists, answering these things, again exaggerated, as it were, the persecutions they were suffering, boasting again and again that, from these fruits, their opponents were an evil tree, and demanding again and again that judgment be given about the field and the weeds and about the one and immortal Church; while the Catholics, on the contrary, mentioned as their fruits the schisms and rebaptisms, and that they themselves had first accused their forebears before the emperor, and while in mutual charges of this kind the conflict was long drawn out: the examining judge preferred to restrain all these things, promising judgment about them in a later sentence. And he ordered to be read aloud what had been offered by the Catholics, which had already begun to be read and had been interrupted. Thus was the case of the Church concluded, which the Catholics had taken great care to distinguish from the case of Caecilian; since it could not be prejudiced by anyone's crimes, having merited, against all human accusations, so many divine testimonies. From this point the case of Caecilian too now began to be tried.

3. 12. 24. In the fifth place, then, these things were done. Two reports of the proconsul Anulinus to the emperor Constantine were read aloud: one which had already been read above (See 3.7.8), by which he showed that the forebears of the Donatists—that is, of the party of Majorinus—had given him the charge-documents against Caecilian, and had asked that they be sent to Constantine, and that he had sent them to the said emperor; the other, by which he showed that, by the order of the same emperor, he had met with them so that they should send ten from each party to conduct the case, and that they had promised they would do so. Then there were also read the letters of the above-mentioned emperor given to the bishops, where he enjoined on them the case of Caecilian to be heard. And from there there began to be read, in order, the episcopal judgment of Miltiades, bishop of Rome, and of other bishops of the Gauls and the Italians with him, held in the same city of Rome. When the first part of that judgment—that is, the proceedings of the first day—had been read aloud, where the accusers of Caecilian who had been sent denied that they had anything to say against him; where also Donatus of Casae Nigrae was on the spot convicted of having made a schism at Carthage while Caecilian was still a deacon (for from the schism at Carthage the party of Donatus arose against the Catholic Church); where also the same opponents of Caecilian promised that on another day they would produce those whom they were charged with having withdrawn as necessary to the case; and, having lied about this, were unwilling to come to the judgment any further—when, then, this part of the judgment had been read aloud, and there began to be read what was done on the other day, the Donatists interrupted and began most insistently to demand that what they were offering be read aloud first, asserting that it was not in order that the absolution of Caecilian, whom they had not yet accused, be read first; and over this they contended somewhat longer: while the Catholics said that what had already begun to be read ought not to be interrupted until all the proceedings of that same judgment were finished, but the others, on the contrary, asserted that the things being interrupted ought not even to have been begun to be read, since it was not fitting for a man to be defended before being accused. To this the Catholics answered that, when the cause of the schism was being sought by the examining judge, they had asked that those things be read which had been offered for reading when the case was being tried about the person of the petitioner. And so they had wished those things to be read aloud for two reasons: that it might appear that those who cast ill will on the Catholics—because in this meeting a man examining judge presided—had themselves first asked for a man as judge in this case; and that the person of the petitioner might be established: and since it had begun to be read, it ought not to be interrupted, but be carried through by reading to the end. Meanwhile the examining judge, although he had at first wished what the Catholics asked, that what had begun to be read be finished, nevertheless the Donatists afterward wrested from him that what they themselves were offering be permitted to be read, those things being postponed.

3. 13. 25. Then the Donatists made something of a preface, that Mensurius, who had been bishop of the Church of Carthage before Caecilian, had at the time of the persecution handed over the holy Scriptures to the persecutors. And to prove this they read his letter given to Secundus of Tigisis, who then held the primacy of the bishops of Numidia. In which letter Mensurius seemed, as it were, to confess his own crime: yet he had not written that he had handed over the holy codices, but rather that he had taken them away and kept them, lest they be found by the persecutors; and that he had left in the basilica of Nova whatever reprobate writings of heretics there were, which, when the persecutors had found and taken them away, they demanded nothing further from him. Nevertheless, certain men of the order of Carthage had afterward suggested to the proconsul that those who had been sent to take away and burn the Scriptures of the Christians had been deceived, because they had found nothing but some things, I know not what, not belonging to them; but that the Scriptures themselves were kept in the bishop's house, whence they ought to be brought forth and burned: the proconsul, however, had been unwilling to consent to them in this. In the same letter it was also read that those who, not being arrested, offered themselves to the persecutions, and of their own accord said that they had Scriptures which they would not hand over, of whom no one had asked this, had displeased Mensurius, and that he had forbidden the Christians to honor them. Certain criminals too and debtors to the treasury were censured in the same letter, who, on the occasion of the persecution, either wished to be rid of a life burdened with many debts, or thought to clear themselves and, as it were, wash away their crimes, or at any rate to acquire money and enjoy delicacies in custody from the attendance of the Christians. Yet the Donatists brought no charge against Mensurius except about the codices handed over: for they said that he had lied, that those had not been holy codices, and that he had wished to cover up his sin; although they charged the very pretense as a crime too. They also read aloud the rescript of Secundus of Tigisis to the same Mensurius, peaceably given, where he too narrated what the persecutors had done in Numidia; and that those who had been arrested and were unwilling to hand over the holy Scriptures had suffered many evils and had been tortured with the gravest torments and killed: and he commended them as to be honored for the merit of their martyrdom, praising them for not having handed over the holy Scriptures, after the example of that woman who was unwilling to hand over to the persecutors the two spies in Jericho, in whom the two Testaments, the Old and the New, were figured (See Josh 2:1-6). Which example, indeed, if it is to be understood under this figure, rather helped Mensurius. For in his letter Mensurius reproved those who, though they did not hand over the holy Scriptures, nevertheless confessed that they had them; which that woman did not do. For she did not confess that the spies who were being sought were with her, but denied it. Secundus also wrote that there had been sent to him by the curator and the order a centurion and a beneficiary, who asked for the divine codices to be burned, and that he had answered them: "I am a Christian and a bishop, not a traitor." And when they wished to receive from him some ecbola, or anything whatever, he had not given them even this, after the example of Eleazar the Maccabee, who would not even pretend to eat swine's flesh, lest he should set an example of prevarication to others (See 2 Macc 6:18-28). These letters of Mensurius and Secundus the Catholics patiently heard until they were finished by reading; although they testified that they were private letters, and did not pertain to the case of the Church.

3. 14. 26. The examining judge, therefore, reminding the Donatists to render patience in turn, ordered to be read through what had been offered by the Catholics and already in part read aloud. Here the Donatists demanded that first what they were offering about the case of Caecilian be read too. When the Catholics permitted this also without any difficulty, and pointed out how patiently they were permitting it, so that the others might repay them in kind, the examining judge ordered what was being offered to be read aloud. And there was read aloud by the Donatists a council of about seventy bishops held against Caecilian at Carthage, where they condemned him in his absence, because he had been unwilling to come to them; as having been ordained by traitors, and because, when he was a deacon, he was said to have forbidden food to be brought to the martyrs in custody. Certain colleagues of Caecilian too were named who were asserted to be traitors by public proceedings—which proceedings, however, were not read. Among these, moreover, Felix of Aptungi was most bitterly accused, so that he was even called "the source of all evils." Then sentences were pronounced by each one, first by Secundus of Tigisis, who was their head, then by the rest: by which they expressed that they were not in communion with Caecilian and his colleagues. And so, this council having been read aloud, the Catholics answered that those letters of Mensurius and Secundus, given to each other, had sufficiently shown them to be at peace; that afterward no crime concerning the deed of Mensurius had been either accused or judged; but that the council which they had read as held against Caecilian had indeed no consul and date, yet that they brought no charge from this, since it could be a matter of negligence rather than of fraud.

3. 15. 27. But the same Catholics produced another council, held under the same Secundus of Tigisis in the city of Cirta, whose consul and date, when they were read, the Donatists said that such decrees were not accustomed to have a consul or a date. Here the Catholics answered that this was perhaps the custom of those who were unwilling for their councils to be convicted of any falsehood; but that the councils of the Catholics had always had consuls and dates. Then the council which the Catholics had brought forward began to be read aloud, where Secundus questioned, one by one, certain men of whose handing-over he had heard, and removed those who confessed from the assembly. This was read aloud in such a way that, when the confession of a traitor had been read from the council of Cirta, there was also read from the council of Carthage his name, as of one condemning Caecilian, as it were, as a traitor in his case. Then it came to the crime brought against Secundus of Tigisis himself by Purpurius of Limata; against which Purpurius the same Secundus had brought the charge that he had killed in prison at Mileve the sons of his sister: where Purpurius in turn brought against him the charge of handing-over, saying that he had been detained by the curator and the order to give up the Scriptures, and that he could not have been released unless he had handed over something. Now this which Purpurius brought against him—that he had been detained by the curator and the order to give up the Scriptures—the same Secundus, in the letters he had written back to Mensurius, almost confessed, where he says that a centurion and a beneficiary had been sent to him by the curator and the order, and that the Scriptures, or any ecbola, had been demanded of him; which indeed he said he had not handed over: but since he himself mentioned there so many martyrs who, when they had been unwilling to hand over, were tortured and killed, how he himself, detained and convicted and unwilling to hand over anything, could have suffered nothing and been released, he neither wrote to Mensurius nor answered Purpurius. For he did not say to the centurion and the beneficiary that he did not have the Scriptures, but answered that he would by no means hand them over. How they, hearing this, could report him released without his own destruction does not appear; especially since the same Secundus said that not just any lowly men, but even heads of households, when they had given this same answer to the persecutors, were killed by the cruelest deaths. But about this matter the Catholics brought no charge against Secundus: they wished only that what Purpurius brought against him, and on account of which—dismissing all those things to God, lest a schism arise—he made peace with traitors, be read aloud, so that it might appear what sort of men had pronounced sentences against the absent Caecilian.

3. 16. 28. Now when this had been read aloud, the Catholics asked that those things too which had been postponed be read, asserting that from them it could be shown what had been done about Caecilian and what was to be thought about the council of Carthage, in which it had been read that the absent Caecilian had been condemned by many bishops. The Donatists, on the contrary, urged the Catholics to confess that that council was true, because the Catholics had read aloud the reports of the proconsul Anulinus, by which it appeared that the charge-documents against Caecilian had been transmitted to the emperor Constantine: in doing which they certainly confirmed that Caecilian had been accused by their forebears before the emperor. It was answered, however, by the Catholics that that council of Carthage no more prejudiced the absent Caecilian than the council of those by whom Primian was condemned in the case of Maximian prejudiced the absent Primian; since the party of Donatus held rather to what was done afterward on behalf of Primian than to the authority of that council by which he had earlier been condemned: so, therefore, in the case of Caecilian too, what was done afterward ought to be attended to. Here the Donatists, hard pressed by the case of Maximian, said, "Neither does a case prejudice a case, nor a person a person." Which saying all the Catholics are accustomed to have on their lips, when the Donatists, bringing the crimes of some against others, defend their separation, and accuse the Christian world of I know not what crimes of Africans. For even in this meeting all that the Catholics had done—to distinguish the case of the Church from the case of Caecilian, asserting that the evil mixed in the Church do not harm the good, nor stain them with their sins—they had done precisely this: that neither should a case prejudice a case, nor a person a person. Which, while the opposite thing was being done by their opponents, was confirmed by a most open voice. But when the examining judge had asked what the Catholics answered about the council of Carthage, they again answered that the likeness of the case of Primian was not to be despised, because the Lord Christ too, convicting the Jews from their own deeds, led them on to the truth.

3. 16. 29. Then the Donatists, in a long pleading, argued that from the authority of that council of Carthage the condemnation of Caecilian should be confirmed, because he had been unwilling to come to so many priests: as though Primian too had not, with a like will, refused to come to those by whom he was condemned, when he recognized their faction; and because Caecilian had not waited to be ordained, as a primate by a primate; whereas the custom of the Catholic Church is otherwise—that not the bishops of Numidia, but the nearer bishops, ordain the bishop of the Church of Carthage: just as no metropolitan bishop ordains the bishop of the Church of Rome, but the bishop of Ostia from nearby. But in saying this about their own custom, which I know not when they instituted, they were trying to prejudice the Catholic Church: for if this custom were ancient, they would have brought this very thing against Caecilian when they condemned him in his absence. They also said that Optatus had written that Caecilian had said: "If those who ordained me are traitors, let them come and ordain me." (See Optatus, Against the Donatists 1.19) Which, indeed, if it was said, could be said in order to mock those to whom he is reported to have sent this message, since he was certain that his ordainers were not traitors. For he did not say "because they are traitors," but "if they are traitors": so that the proving of their innocence remained, where it could rightly have been proved.

3. 16. 30. To these, and to whatever else they said in a long pleading, the Catholics answered briefly that the council of Carthage was not enough for the case of Caecilian, since those very men who had condemned him had also sent the case to the emperor by way of accusation; and so they showed that this rather was to be regarded—what the matter came to, namely, the sentence of the emperor, to whom they had thought the same case should be sent. For this the Catholics insisted upon: that, all the shades of delay being cut away, those things rather be read, by which, once read, the case would long since be finished and the innocence of Caecilian appear clearer than light. That these be read the Donatists, being altogether unwilling, hindered by interposing anything else whatever. For when the examining judge had asked whether the council of Carthage had been held first, and the case of Caecilian afterward sent to the emperor, the Catholics said that, since that council had no consul and date, they answered to both: because, if the case was first sent to the emperor, the outcome by which it was settled ought to be regarded; but if afterward, nonetheless not their judgment, but his, was to be sought, to whom, after their own judgment, they thought it should be sent. But when the Donatists kept inserting many things about the consul and date—why it was not read in the council of their forebears, lest they be convicted of falsehood from this—and asserted that this was the ecclesiastical custom, that dates and consuls should not be written in the decrees of bishops, wishing the council of Cyprian too to be read, in order to prove this, because nothing else but delays was being sought (for neither had the Catholics rested their case on this, when they answered to both, whether that council which they had held against Caecilian at Carthage was earlier or later); the examining judge, at the Catholics' insistence, ordered that those things rather which had been postponed be read.

3. 17. 31. Then the Donatists interposed another question, most full of delays, but in which they truly wished to labor on their own behalf, if they could show what they wished: namely, that the council of Cirta was false, where the confessions of traitors mutually forgiving one another, lest a schism arise, had been read; because they themselves were read among the rest as having pronounced sentences against the absent Caecilian. Trying, then, to demonstrate this to be false, they said many things; but, judging the others to be of little weight, they especially commended two points in that question, and lingered much over them: one, that the council of Cirta itself had a date and consul against the ecclesiastical custom; the other, that a council could not be gathered in the time of persecution. The Donatists therefore demanded of the Catholics that they either produce other ancient councils of bishops, where they might show that consuls and dates too had been written, or that they read out something of the kind from the holy Scriptures themselves. Here, when the Catholics saw that, over a most empty matter, wonderful and inexplicable delays were being interposed—(for who would believe that they would bring a charge of falsehood from this, where, for the sake of greater diligence, an attestation of the times was noted in advance and read, unless perhaps through this an investigation of the truth might at some point be necessary? who, then, would believe that they would bring this charge, so that one should prepare ancient councils by which to demonstrate this custom? or who would then go and turn over the old ecclesiastical archives?)—when the Catholics saw this, they both pointed out the date and consul in the council of Miltiades, and mentioned, from the holy Scriptures themselves, that the prophets had noted in advance in their writings the marks of the most ancient times, in what year of which king, in what month of the year, on what day of the month, the word had come upon them. The examining judge, however, thinking that objection about the date and consul to be despised and removed, ordered the rest of the proceedings held before Miltiades to be read aloud: and they were read aloud. By which it appeared, from the sentences of all the bishops who had then sat together, and of Miltiades himself, that Caecilian had been absolved and cleared, but Donatus condemned, who, being present, had been convicted in the first session—that Donatus, namely, of Casae Nigrae, who, it was established, had then been present.

3. 17. 32. But when this had been read aloud, and the Donatists were asked what they answered about that council of Cirta, they returned to trying to show it false. Then they said that a council could not have been gathered in the time of persecution. This the examining judge did not despise, and, thinking it weighty, demanded an answer from the Catholics; and meanwhile he asked how it was proved that it had been a time of persecution. Then the Donatists produced the proceedings of the martyrs, where they were heard and suffered for their confession. The examining judge also ordered the staff to compute and report, both consuls and dates being considered, both those read from the council of Cirta and those read from the proceedings of the martyrs: because it had been said by the Catholics that, after the passion of those martyrs, from which the time of persecution was proved, nearly a year had elapsed up to the consul and date of the council of Cirta. But the answer of the computing staff suggested that a month had intervened. The Catholics therefore wished to have removed from the records what they had said, so that the proceedings should retain only what the staff had reported; for they had believed this to be the truer. But the Donatists were unwilling for what had been said by the Catholics to be removed from the records: hence the Catholics did not contend, so that the others' slanderous mind might appear in this. Now what the Catholics had said was the truer; but the staff, erring in computing, had reported a falsehood, as the proceedings, once written down and considered more diligently, afterward showed, as anyone can prove who is pleased to read and not loath to compute. For the proceedings of the martyrs, by which the time of persecution was shown, were done in the ninth consulship of Diocletian and the eighth of Maximian, on the day before the ides of February; but the episcopal proceedings of the decree of Cirta after their consulship, on the third day before the nones of March: and thus thirteen months are found to intervene—more, certainly, than the eleven which the Catholics had earlier answered, computing less diligently: but, so that the staff was deceived and reported that a month intervened, it took the consulship to be the same, but did not notice the "after the consulship," where another year was already being reckoned. Accordingly, the Catholics, as though from the staff's true answer, were forced to show that in the time of persecution those eleven or twelve bishops could have gathered in a private house, the Donatists insisting that they show this from other councils, if they could find that councils of bishops had been held at any time of persecution. Since the Catholics could not then inquire and at that hour examine the old documents in the ecclesiastical archives, they answered that twelve men could much more easily have gathered in a house at a time when even the assemblies of the people were accustomed to be held, though the persecution was raging, as was shown in the very proceedings of the martyrs, who confessed in their passions that they had held an assembly and the Lord's service. Now this the Catholics had said before the staff computed and reported. It was also said by the Catholics that those Cirtensian episcopal proceedings, which by the diligence of their forebears could have been preserved and found down to these times, were to be regarded just as those letters of Mensurius and Secundus which the Donatists had read aloud. For the council of Carthage, where seventy condemned the absent Caecilian, was mentioned also in the judgment held before Miltiades, where Caecilian was absolved. But those letters of Mensurius and Secundus were said to be mentioned nowhere else, whence their truth was supported by no other testimony; nor yet did the Catholics for this reason say they were false. This too was said by the Catholics, that the Donatists should prove, if they could, that in the time of persecution bishops had written to one another as they alleged Mensurius and Secundus had written. Which the Catholics did not say in order to show from this that those letters of Mensurius and Secundus were false—letters which, whether true or false, would do no harm to the case—but so that from this the Donatists might understand by what an empty evasion they were forcing the Catholics to produce other councils gathered in the time of persecution: because, if it were said to them with like obstinacy, "Produce you too other letters written and sent in this fashion in the time of persecution, which, if they could in any way be found, both the hidden codices could be demanded, and the order and curator and centurion and beneficiary would come into peril of their lives, who were exposed as having let Secundus go unpunished when he was unwilling to hand over," they would in no way at that hour find other letters given likewise in the time of persecution by bishops to bishops in lands so far apart.

3. 17. 33. When, therefore, a long-lasting conflict was arising from this, the Donatists often repeating that a council could not have been gathered in the time of persecution to ordain a bishop, because the world was in apostasy, and there were none by whom one could be ordained, and other such things; while the Catholics answered that bishops, so few that it ought not even to be called a council, were easily gathered, when the people were gathered, as the proceedings of the martyrs testified; and that there were without doubt those by whom bishops could be ordained, namely, those very peoples whom the proceedings of the martyrs declared to have been then accustomed to gather: these things, as they were assiduously said in many and various ways, and answered—for it was also established that a private house had been furnished for the gathering of Christians in the time of persecution, as was read in certain proceedings of the martyrs (since the Donatists had said that it could not have happened that anyone furnished his house at that time)—and it was mentioned that, so far is it from incredible that those few bishops gathered in a private house in the time of persecution, that, the persecution raging, even in prison martyrs are taught to have been baptized, and there sacraments were celebrated by Christians, in the very place where Christians were held shut up on account of those same sacraments.

3. 18. 33. Amid these things, then, at long last, the examining judge too often ruling that that gathering by bishops could have taken place, since the peoples too were proved to have been gathered, he compelled the Donatists, if they had anything to say against the council and judgment of Miltiades, by which Caecilian was read as cleared and absolved, to say it, since the case rested there rather than in that council of Cirta.

3. 18. 34. Then the Donatists began to charge Miltiades himself with the crime of handing-over, and to say that their forebears had on that account avoided his judgment, because he had been a traitor: as though they had not even attended his judgment, where they had answered that they had nothing to say against Caecilian. But nevertheless, the judge being intent on whether any judgment, public or ecclesiastical, was produced concerning the crime of handing-over by Miltiades, and the Catholics themselves awaiting and demanding that this be proved, the Donatists read aloud certain very long proceedings held before a prefect, where neither did it appear what sort of prefect he was, nor was the place read where these things were transacted. But those proceedings, in a very long reading aloud, resounded with many men handing over many ecclesiastical things, where the name of Miltiades did not sound at all. When these had been gone through, and the examining judge wondered that one thing had been promised and another read aloud, the Donatists, still demanding his patience, read aloud other proceedings, in which it was read that Miltiades had sent deacons with letters of the emperor Maxentius and letters of the praetorian prefect to the prefect of the city, so that they might receive back those things which the said emperor had ordered to be restored to the Christians, taken away in the time of persecution. And when, in these proceedings too, no crime of Miltiades appeared either to the examining judge or to the Catholic defenders, the Donatists said that Strato the deacon, whom along with others Miltiades had sent to receive back the ecclesiastical places, had been read in the earlier proceedings as a traitor; and therefore they wished to spatter Miltiades too with the crime of handing-over, because he used that deacon without having deposed him. In their pleading, moreover, they said that Miltiades had been the third bishop from the one who was then in office when that handing-over was done. Here the examining judge inquired whether at least in those proceedings of the handing-over it was expressed that Strato had been a deacon. And it was read aloud that he had been called "an exhorter of a most empty superstition": which not only he himself, but also the others who handed over, were called. But the Donatists answered that by the Gentile persecutors both deacons and presbyters were so named in contempt of religion.

3. 18. 35. The Catholics therefore answered that, since it was not strange, and was most usual in human affairs, that not only two, but even more men should be called by one name, it could indeed have happened that that traitor Strato had been a presbyter, but this other Strato a deacon: since the Donatists had said that both deacons and presbyters were called "exhorters of a most empty superstition" by the Gentiles—although the Gentiles could have called all clerics by that contemptuous name, and it was much more uncertain of what grade that traitor cleric had been: nevertheless, even if it could be shown that he was a deacon (which was not shown at all), this too was neither incredible nor strange, since a short time before, in the city of Rome itself, there had been two deacons named Peter. This too was added by the Catholics: that, even if it were demonstrated—which was not demonstrated at all—that the same Strato the deacon had handed over, whom Miltiades afterward sent with other deacons to receive back the ecclesiastical places, Miltiades was not for that reason at once spattered with this crime, whom the persecution could have made far absent, so that he knew nothing of it at all, and thought that man innocent whom no one showed to be guilty by accusing him. Against these things the Donatists in vain shouted the same things by the same things for a very long time.

3. 18. 36. After the meeting, indeed, they also slandered Miltiades about a certain Cassianus, because this name too is found both among the deacons whom Miltiades sent to the prefect, and in those proceedings where the handing-over was read. But if they had said this in the meeting, it could easily have been answered by the Catholics that, in so great a throng of Roman clerics, it was no wonder if two or more were found, not only Stratos, but even Cassiani; since among the twelve apostles there were read not only two named Judas, but even two named James: unless perhaps they were allowed to distinguish the Donatus of Casae from Donatus of Carthage—since they feared lest the greater founder of their party, Donatus of Carthage, should be thought condemned in the judgment of Miltiades—and the Catholics were not allowed, in so great a multitude of Roman clerics, to have several called by similar names. For it was false, what the Donatists had said, that the persons agreed, that the places agreed, that the regions agreed: when neither the places, nor the regions, nor the very expressed dignities of the persons from the two sets of proceedings, but only the agreement of names, was read—which the custom of the human race does not cease to repeat frequently in different persons.

3. 19. 37. Despising, therefore, these most uncertain suspicions, the examining judge ordered that something manifest be brought forward against those proceedings, or at any rate that the judgment of Constantine, of which mention had already been made, be read aloud. And there was read aloud the judgment of Constantine—how he had written to Eumalius, vicar of Africa, that he had examined the case of Caecilian between the parties; by which he testified that, all arbiters being removed, he had found Caecilian innocent and the others most slanderous; mentioning also that an episcopal judgment had been held on behalf of Caecilian in the town of Arles, to which judgment very many had already consented out of the dissension, while the rest still recoiled and disagreed; whence he himself was compelled to judge the whole matter between the parties. After the reading aloud of these imperial letters, the examining judge asked the Donatists what they said against them. There the Donatists again tried to return to the slanderous accusation of Miltiades: whence, when they had been driven off by the examining judge's ruling, and it had been demanded of them that they read aloud something, if they had anything, against the judgment of Miltiades or the imperial sentence, they answered that even the emperor's ears had been puffed up by depraved suggestions. There the examining judge answered them that, as he had most attentively noted, it had been judged between the parties. But they began to demand that this be read—whether the emperor had judged between the parties. When this had been read aloud at the examining judge's order, finding nothing to say, they began to slander the said imperial letters about the consul, because they had been read aloud without a consul. Hence, a conflict having arisen, when the Donatists invidiously said that the episcopal council had been read aloud with a consul, and the emperor's letters had no consul, and the Catholics answered that the case did not rest there, the examining judge too ruled that it had been defined by the clearest laws that imperial constitutions, even if no consuls were read, could not be called into doubt. Then the Catholics urged that they say openly that what had been read was false; for the archives could be searched.

3. 20. 38. But, driven off from this, as though about to produce something most strong, they asked that Optatus be read, which they had asked before too; whence they said they would prove that Caecilian had been condemned by the emperor: and it had been promised them, but postponed. First, then, the examining judge wished them to express whether they dared to charge the imperial letters with falsehood. Which indeed they by no means dared; yet they nonetheless most invidiously pleaded that a consul was lacking: but they demanded much more insistently that Optatus be read. While these things were being transacted at some length, in another sheet of those imperial letters the consul was found. When this was suggested, the Donatists said: "Certainly it ought not to have had a consul": as though it had ever been said that it ought not to have one; and as though, even if a consul were lacking, the truth of an imperial constitution were not unhindered. When the examining judge had answered them this again and again, Optatus too was read aloud. The Donatists reading aloud the place where he says: "At the same time the same Donatus asked that he be allowed to return and to come to Carthage; then it was suggested to the emperor by Philumenus, his supporter, that, for the good of peace, Caecilian should be kept at Brescia; and it was done." (See Optatus, Against the Donatists 1.26) In which words of Optatus, when no condemnation of Caecilian at all—such as they had promised they would produce—could be found, the examining judge ordered the whole page to be read aloud, so that from the words above and below the intention of the one who had written might be known. And it was read aloud by the staff: "Caecilian was pronounced innocent by the sentences of all the above-mentioned." When this was read aloud, the Donatists said that they had not asked this to be read aloud, being vexed against those who could not hold their laughter when they heard how open a page against themselves they had produced. Then, when they said that by those words which they themselves had read aloud Optatus had extenuated the condemnation of Caecilian, and had been unwilling to express it, it was demanded of them that they read aloud from elsewhere something manifest, which they said had been extenuated by him. When they could by no means do this, even from there, after some perplexities of empty delays—when they had also contended about the name of Donatus, that not Donatus of Carthage, but Donatus of Casae, had stood against Caecilian in the judgment of Miltiades, which the Catholics also granted—it was at length passed beyond.

3. 21. 39. Then, since the examining judge was compelling them to answer, if they had anything, against the letters of Constantine, by which it was established that he had examined the matter between the parties and had judged on behalf of Caecilian against them, they asked that their own petition be read aloud, which they said had been given to Constantine by their forebears. In which petition they showed plainly enough how false they had said it was about the condemnation of Caecilian at Brescia: for the same petition shows how Constantine had decided against them. For there they say that they would in no way be in communion with "his bishop, that scoundrel," and that they were prepared to suffer whatever he wished to do to them. By "Constantine's bishop, that scoundrel," they certainly wished Caecilian to be understood. How, then, did they call him "Constantine's bishop," with whom, speaking against Constantine, they affirmed they would not be in communion, if they had defeated him before Constantine, so that they knew he had been condemned by him at Brescia?

3. 22. 40. When, therefore, the Catholics had said that the Donatists had read this aloud against themselves, and the examining judge himself had likewise ruled this, the latter added even another great support to the convicting of their own falsehood, reading aloud the letters of Constantine himself, writing to Verinus the vicar, that he should dismiss them to their free choice, indicating that he had ordered them to return from exile. In which letters Constantine so detests them that nothing more disgraceful than that indulgence can be found. Whom he certainly would not so have blamed, but rather praised, if Caecilian had been defeated before him by them and by him condemned to be banished to Brescia. And by this, bringing forward and reading aloud these things against themselves, they most manifestly showed, by the judgment of the said emperor, that they had been defeated by Caecilian; and they most openly convicted their own falsehood, by which they said he had been condemned: and those who boasted that the Catholics made persecution, but they themselves suffered it, nevertheless wished to boast, even falsely, that Caecilian, through their accusations, had been condemned by the emperor. When, therefore, these things had been read aloud, and the Catholics said, and briefly reminded the examining judge—which he too perceived—that those things had been read aloud on their behalf, that is, on behalf of the innocence of Caecilian, against the others, and the examining judge himself had likewise ruled this, the Donatists answered, saying: "Your authority says nothing about free choice": for, thinking that according to Constantine's letters this could be granted to them by the present examining judge, they reckoned that these too were to be read aloud, even against themselves, on behalf of Caecilian's case. Here, when the examining judge had answered them that something else had been enjoined on him by the emperor of the present time, they went off to something else which they brought forward against themselves, again, much more wonderfully.

3. 23. 41. For they read aloud other letters of the same emperor Constantine given to the proconsul Probianus, which indeed had no consuls; but the Catholics were unwilling to make anything of it, as of a mutual objection: although from this too the Donatists convicted themselves of how slanderously they had brought this against the Catholics—namely, that the earlier little sheet from which the judgment of Constantine, by which Caecilian was absolved, had been read aloud, had no consuls, who nevertheless were soon found in another little sheet. These letters, then, given to the proconsul Probianus, contain the emperor's order, by which he commanded that Ingentius be sent to him, by whose confession, in the judgment of the proconsul Aelianus, Felix of Aptungi, the ordainer of Caecilian, had been absolved of the crime of handing-over. Now this imperial order the Donatists said they read aloud for this reason: that they might, as it were, show that the case of Caecilian had still been pending, even after that judgment by which Constantine had already written that he had settled everything between the parties: although even in those very letters which they read aloud as given to the proconsul Probianus—by which they would, as it were, show that the judgment was still hanging, since the emperor had ordered Ingentius to be sent to him—they read so much against themselves that it is altogether a wonder with what eyes they could look upon those things, or with what mouth pronounce them. For there Constantine said that a fitting hearing had been granted by the proconsul Aelianus, and that Felix had been established innocent of the burning of the divine codices; but that those were now to be refuted who did not cease day after day to importune him; so that it might appear clearly to them that they had wished, in vain, to procure ill will against Caecilian, and to rise up violently against him. Here, then, through those letters, they taught that not only Caecilian, but Felix too, had been cleared, and that they had stood forth before the emperor as persecutors of the innocent.

3. 24. 42. Seizing this opportunity, the Catholics produced for reading aloud the report of Aelianus, then proconsul, given on this matter to Constantine, where he mentions that he had heard and finished the case of Felix; and the very proconsular proceedings, by which Felix was absolved, and by the testimony of all the necessary persons proved innocent of the crime of handing-over. When these had been read aloud, the examining judge inquired what could be said against them. Then the Donatists repeated again what they had begun to say before, asking whether Ingentius had been sent to the court by the emperor's order, and demanding of the Catholics that it be shown what had been done afterward: and trying, by what words they could, to refute the proconsular proceedings by which Felix was absolved, objecting the favor of the judge, or that persons had been substituted, and the other things that men are accustomed to fling out, in suspicious complaint, against proceedings by which they are defeated. They also said that Felix had not rightly been absolved in his absence. To these things it was answered by the Catholics that all that had been read pertained most openly to the absolution of Caecilian and Felix; but if the Donatists supposed that, after Ingentius had been sent to the court, anything had been judged in their favor, and that the judgment had been changed by which Constantine, examining the matter between the parties, had cleared Caecilian and judged them most slanderous, they themselves ought to produce it. But when the Catholics said this, in that brevity of time the consuls could not be considered: whose order anyone who is willing to consider in the proceedings themselves will find that Caecilian was absolved by the emperor Constantine later than the case of Felix was examined and cleared by the proconsul Aelianus; and that, some years afterward, Constantine wrote to Verinus the vicar—the letters which they themselves read aloud, where they asserted that free choice had been granted them by that emperor—in which letters he shows them to be, as it were, most wicked and enemies of Christian peace. Which he certainly would not have done, if he had judged anything in their favor against Caecilian, when Ingentius had been sent to the court. The examining judge therefore ruled that proceedings which so great an antiquity had strengthened could not be removed, unless other, later proceedings were read aloud to the contrary. It was also said by the Catholics that it had been more to the declaring of Felix's innocence that he had been absolved in his absence, because a suspicion of favor, if he were present, would rather arise.

3. 25. 43. Then the examining judge began to urge that, if the Donatists had any later proceedings against the absolution of Caecilian or Felix, they produce them then and there. Here they tried again, as though from the beginning, to return to and repeat those things which they had already so often said, and which had already been settled, the Catholics so often answering everything. When the examining judge had ruled, admonishing that they should now be loath to repeat the same things, which had already been done and settled, and was compelling them again and again to produce, if they had anything to read aloud against the so most evident absolutions of Caecilian and Felix: and they, producing nothing at all against those things, did not cease to repeat the same things, that judgment might be given about what they had said; and the examining judge, on the contrary, rather demanded that they read, if they had anything that could be read, against the imperial and proconsular judgment, so that judgment could be pronounced about everything, since by the laws it is forbidden to pronounce a half-full sentence: while the Catholics too urged that, all things having been made manifest to the examining judge, and the Donatists not finding anything to answer, but repeating the same things, the case might at long last be finished. At the last the examining judge said: "If there is nothing to the contrary that you may read, deign to go out, so that a full sentence about everything may be written." And, both parties going out, he wrote the sentence, which again, the parties being brought back in, he read aloud, by which he embraced everything that he could recall of the long proceedings of the three days. In which he mentioned certain things not in the order in which they were done, yet set them all down truthfully, pronouncing that the Donatists had been refuted by the Catholics by the manifestation of all the documents.