1. 1. Why are you still, Donatists, led astray by your bishops, whose deceitful darkness has been scattered by the clear light, whose error has come to light, whose obstinacy has been overcome? Why do they still throw empty lies at you? Why do you still believe men who have been beaten? When they tell you that the judge was bribed by a reward, what novelty are they up to? What else have all defeated men, who refuse to assent to the truth, been accustomed to do, except to lie about the judge's injustice? Ask them, and let them answer you on this point first, if they can: why did they dare to come to Carthage and meet together with us in one place for the sake of the Conference? Some years ago we had already met them publicly, so that, by conferring with us, the truth might come to light and the dissension that divides us might be removed from our midst. But fleeing the truth itself, they responded in the record: It is unfitting that the sons of martyrs and the offspring of traitors should meet together in one place. Why, then, did they now want to meet with us? I think they would not do what seemed unfitting to them unless they recognized that we are not the offspring of traitors. Or else let them themselves answer you why they said, It is unfitting that the sons of martyrs and the offspring of traitors should meet together in one place, and afterward met together with us in one place. What thing compelled them to do what is unfitting? For they were not led in bound, but came together entirely free. If they say, "because the Emperor had commanded it," then do they do what is unfitting whenever the Emperor commands it? Why, then, are they angry at some traitors or other who have nothing to do with our case? To hand over the Lord's books to persecutors is certainly unfitting; yet when a traitor has done this, he bears no guilt, because the Emperor had commanded it. We say this not according to the truth, but according to their own perversity. For they themselves said: the public records proclaim it, they said it in the record. It was not just some unknown person, but Primian, their bishop of Carthage, who said this. Primian gave this statement in writing to the magistrate of Carthage, and ordered his deacon to say it in the record: It is unfitting that the sons of martyrs and the offspring of traitors should meet together in one place. See, we have met together in one place; what do they answer to this? If they say, "It is not unfitting," why did they lie when they said it was unfitting? If they say, "It is unfitting," why did they do what is unfitting? In one way alone will they be able to claim that they did not do what is unfitting and that they did not lie in those words of Primian: if they say, "It is indeed unfitting that the sons of martyrs and the offspring of traitors should meet together in one place, but we therefore met together with you in one place because we recognized that you are not the offspring of traitors." But if that is so, why, when we had already met together in one place, did they cast those same slanders at us, unless perhaps so that we too might recognize that they are not the sons of martyrs? For martyrs are called witnesses; and the witnesses of Christ are true witnesses. But these men have been found to be false witnesses, who cast at others charges of handing over that belonged to others, and could not even prove them.

2. 2. Why do you still attend to human lies and not attend to the divine testimonies? Why do you still believe men who have been beaten, and not believe the truth that has never been beaten? For the truth of God, as we proved even in the Conference itself, bore witness to his Church through many documents of the holy Scriptures, through the writings of the prophets and the gospels; and the place was designated from which the Church of Christ was to begin, and the ends of the earth to which it was to reach. The Lord says that his Church will be among all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem (Lk 24:47). The divine reading is recited, telling how it began from Jerusalem, where, when the faithful had first been gathered together, the Holy Spirit was sent from heaven (See Acts 2:1-4). The divine readings are recited, telling how it spread out from Jerusalem through places near and far. The names of the places are set down, the names of the cities are made plain in which the Church of Christ was founded by apostolic labor. These places and cities even merited to receive letters from the apostles, letters which they too read in their own assemblies, and yet they do not commune with the Churches of those places and cities which merited to receive those very letters, charging against them some crimes or other of the Africans, on the ground that they have perished by contagion from them; although they themselves said, in this very Conference which we have just held at Carthage, that one cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another.

3. 3. They said this, however, when we said to them: The council that you bring forward against Caecilian does not damage the absent Caecilian, just as the council that was held in the case of Maximian, in which Primian was condemned, does not damage the absent Primian. For they produced about seventy and more bishops who had condemned the absent Caecilian, while there are produced more or less a hundred bishops of their own party who had condemned the absent Primian. Because, therefore, we said to them that the former does not damage Caecilian just as the latter does not damage Primian, since both councils were held against absent men, at once, finding nothing to answer and suffering dreadful straits, they said: One cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another. This is what the catholic Church has on its lips against all human slanders, but now much more firmly and much more freely, since what the truth has always held the very confession of its enemies has confirmed. Who, then, can bear this without grief? Who can hold back a groan? Who will not burst into tears and into a cry of pain, if he considers this worthily? See: that Primian, condemned by the bishops of the party of Donatus, may not lose his bishopric, or that the condemned Primian may not trouble the party of Donatus, neither one cause prejudices another nor one person another; but that Caecilian, whom his enemies similarly condemned in his absence, may not be reckoned a bishop and may contaminate all the Christian nations to the ends of the earth, both one cause prejudices another and one person another.

4. 4. If with the very voice of unity the Churches of Pontus, Bithynia, Asia, Cappadocia, and the other eastern regions to which the blessed apostle Peter writes (See 1 Pet 1:1) should cry out: "O party of Donatus, we do not know what you are saying; why do you not commune with us? If Caecilian did something evil, which has not been proved or demonstrated to us, yet even if he did something evil, why does he prejudice us? If you will not listen to us, listen to yourselves saying: One cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another. Can your perversity go so far that these words hold good so that Primian may not prejudice you, and these words do not hold good so that Caecilian may not prejudice us?" Let the seven eastern Churches likewise cry out, to which the apostle John writes (See Rev 1:11) — Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, Pergamum — and let them say: "What have we done to you, brothers, that you have chosen to be of the communion of Donatus rather than of ours? If Caecilian sinned — although you could not even show his crime, since, like your Primian, he too was condemned in his absence — yet whatever sort of man he was, what have we done to you? Why are you Christians unwilling to have peace with Christians? Why do you tear apart in us the sacraments we share in common? What have we done to you? Why does the case of Primian not prejudice the party of Donatus, except because what you said is true: One cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another? Why, then, does the case of Caecilian prejudice the inheritance of Christ, in which we are planted by the labor of the apostles? To one of us the apostle John writes that there are a few names in Sardis of those who have not defiled their garments (See Rev 3:4); and yet the garments of those few were not polluted by those who were unclean in that same Church, since what you said is true: one cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another. How, then, can the case and person of Caecilian prejudice us? Or if it does not prejudice us, why are you separated from us?" Let the Churches also speak to which the apostle Paul writes — of the Romans, the Corinthians, the Philippians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians; for of Galatia and Ephesus enough has been said above — let these too then say: The letters sent to us, brothers, you read daily, you who still wish to belong to the party of Donatus. In those very letters the apostle greeted us by the name of peace, saying: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 1:7). Why did you learn peace by reading our letters, and yet would not hold it together with us? In lands so far away, set across the sea, you cast at us the African Caecilian. Surely what you said is true: one cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another. What is this private and peculiar sanctification of yours, by which it is allowed that the case of the African Primian does not prejudice the African party of Donatus, nor the person of Felician of Musti prejudice the person of Primian of Carthage, and yet African prejudices are sent to us so far away, or the case of Caecilian prejudices us?"

4. 5. Let the catholic Church also speak, the Church established in Africa itself and joined in communion to all those others through the peace and unity of Christ; let it too say: "Neither does the case of Caecilian prejudice me, against whom, in his absence, the sentence of seventy bishops was pronounced — because it does not prejudice the Church that is spread throughout the whole world, in whose communion I remain; or else let the case of Primian prejudice the party of Donatus, whom his own colleagues likewise condemned in his absence by a more numerous council. But if it does not prejudice them precisely because one cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another, then much more must this justice be observed toward the catholic unity of Christ, if the party of Donatus demands that it be observed toward itself." This the catholic Church established in Africa proclaims: "O party of Donatus, you said these words, you acknowledged these words as your own, you even signed your name to these words: One cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another. Among the spirits of those long at rest I count Caecilian; you still see Felician and have him with you in the body, the man by whom Primian was condemned. In the very case of Primian you condemned Felician, and afterward joined him, just as he was, a bishop, to Primian and to yourselves. If it counts for so much that one cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another, that the communion of Felician, who lives with you today, does not prejudice you, how does the memory of Caecilian, long dead, prejudice me?"

4. 6. What do they answer to this, who still throw at you empty things and lies that will harm their own salvation if they do not correct themselves? Why do they still say that we bribed the judge so that the sentence might be pronounced in our favor? Did we, perhaps, also bribe a most distinguished bishop, a defender of such great merit in your eyes, so that he would say such things in our favor? For this is what we were doing with all our strength, this is what we were pressing for: that the case and person of Caecilian, whatever sort of man he was, might be shown not to pertain to the case and person of the Church, which God strengthened by his holy testimonies. This we were doing also by the parables of the gospel: that the case and person of the weeds might not prejudice the case and person of the wheat, although in the same field, watered by the same rain, they grow together until the harvest, when they must be separated (See Mt 13:24-30); that the case and person of the chaff might not prejudice the case and person of the grain, although they are threshed together on the same floor until they are separated by the final winnowing (See Mt 3:12); that the case and person of the goats might not prejudice the case and person of the sheep, although both flocks are kept mingled in common pastures until, by the supreme shepherd, in the last judgment, some are set apart on the left and others on the right (See Mt 25:32-33); that the case and person of the bad fish might not prejudice the case and person of the good fish, although they are held within the same nets, to be separated on the farthest shore, that is, at the end of the sea, which signifies the end of the age (See Mt 13:47-50). By these parables and figures the Church was foretold as one that would have good and bad together until the end of the age, in such a way that the bad cannot harm the good, when they are either unknown or are tolerated for the peace and tranquility of the Church — if it has not been right to expose or accuse them, or if they could not be shown to other good people; yet so that the vigilance of correction does not rest, by rebuking, degrading, excommunicating, and the other lawful and permitted coercions (See 1 Tim 5:20) that take place daily in the Church, with the peace of unity preserved, according to the apostolic precept and with love preserved, who said: If anyone does not obey our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not associate with him, that he may be ashamed; and do not regard him as an enemy, but rebuke him as a brother (2 Thess 3:14-15). For in this way discipline preserves patience, and patience tempers discipline; and both are referred to love, lest perhaps either undisciplined patience foster iniquity, or impatient discipline shatter unity.

5. 7. When these things are done by the good, they are not defiled by the bad; for they neither commune with their sins by consenting to them, and they depart from them — if not bodily by separation, yet by an unlikeness of spiritual life and a diversity of conduct — obeying in this way the Lord's precept where he says: Depart from there, and touch no unclean thing (Isa 52:11). For those who think this is not to be observed spiritually fall, through the arrogance of vanity, into that which the Lord detests through the same prophet, saying: Those who say, "Do not touch me, for I am clean": this is the smoke of my wrath (Isa 65:5). Your bishops thought they had to do this when, a seat having been offered to both of us by the judge, they refused to sit with us (See Ps 26:5 (25:5)), saying that it was written for them not to sit with such men — understanding in a fleshly, not a spiritual, way what is set down in the Psalm: And I will not sit with the wicked (Ps 26:5 (25:5)). And yet they did what is equally forbidden in that same place of the Psalm. For there the Prophet says: And I will not go in with those who do iniquity (Ps 26:4 (25:4)). If, then, because they knew or supposed us to be wicked, they refused to sit with us, why did they go in with us — which is equally forbidden — partly holy and partly polluted, except because, by not understanding the holy Scriptures and tasting them in a fleshly way, they have shattered unity itself?

5. 8. The bad, then, do not pollute the good who are set in the same field, on the same floor, in the same pastures, within the same nets; for the good do not commune with them, but with the altar and the sacraments of God. But those commune with the bad who consent to the deeds of the bad. For it is written: Not only those who do them, but also those who consent to those who do them (See Rom 1:32).

6. 8. But when the bad are tolerated out of the necessity of preserving peace, and are not sought out by a fellowship that shares in iniquity — so that the wheat, like the weeds, drinks the same gentle rain and yet keeps its own fruitfulness and is not turned into the barrenness of the weeds, but both grow together until the harvest, lest perhaps, when the weeds are gathered, the wheat be uprooted along with them — the bad have no share with the good either in salvation or in perdition. For what partnership has righteousness with iniquity? (2 Cor 6:14) The bad have no fellowship with the good either in the kingdom or in eternal fire. For what fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Cor 6:14) The bad have no harmony of life and will with the good. For what accord has Christ with Belial? (2 Cor 6:15) The good have no part with the bad, either in the punishment of crime or in the reward of piety. For what part has a believer with an unbeliever? (2 Cor 6:15) And although within the same nets, until they reach the shore, they alike receive the divine sacraments, the one group is associated, the other dissociated; the one is in accord, the other in discord; the one has its part with mercy, the other with judgment — for the Church sings of mercy and judgment to the Lord (See Ps 101:1 (100:1)); and whoever eats unworthily eats judgment not upon another, but upon himself (See 1 Cor 11:29). For of the same bread and from the same hand of the Lord both Judas received his part and Peter received his; and yet what fellowship, what accord, what part has Peter with Judas? Because neither does one cause prejudice another, nor one person another.

6. 9. Whether, then, they go out, of whom it is written: They went out from us, but they were not of us (1 Jn 2:19); or whether they seem to be within, of whom the blessed Cyprian speaks most plainly, saying: "For even if weeds seem to be in the Church, yet our faith or love ought not on that account to be hindered, so that, because we see that there are weeds in the Church, we ourselves should withdraw from the Church" (See Cyprian, Ep. 54.3) — to these words your bishops dared make no answer at all, although they long contended in vain that the weeds were not foretold and figured as being in the Church, since the Lord said, The field is this world (Mt 13:38), and did not say, "The field is the Church." But we said that "world" was set down to signify the Church, just as Cyprian too understood, since throughout the whole world the future Church was prefigured. Hence they kept saying that "world" is always set down in a bad sense, and they offered testimonies from the Scriptures, since it is written: If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him (1 Jn 2:15), and other such things. But we answered that "world" is set down in the Scriptures not only in a bad but also in a good sense, recalling among other things this too which is written: God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19) — he who certainly reconciles to himself nothing but the Church. Whether, then, the bad go out, or within are either unknown or seen, this is what the mercy and justice of God brings about: that the bad do not harm the good, who do not consent with them to evil, but each bears his own burden (See Gal 6:5); and the son does not take on the sins of the father, unless he has imitated him in his evil deeds; but the soul that has sinned, it shall die (See Ezek 18:20).

7. 9. When, therefore, anyone consents with the bad unto evil, he already has one cause with them, and becomes one person with the whole fellowship of the bad; and through this, when they perish together and are condemned together, his own cause and his own person prejudice each one, not another's. But when the good and the bad together hear the same word of God, and together receive the sacraments of God, and yet have dissimilar causes for their actions, and bear dissimilar persons by the diversity of their will — the same holy food being eaten by some worthily, by others unworthily — neither does one cause prejudice another, nor one person another.

7. 10. And through this, whatever testimonies of the divine Scriptures your bishops were able to recall, by which the Church was foretold as pure from all admixture of evil men, were not foretelling by those testimonies the Church as it now is, but as it will be after this mortal life in life eternal. And whatever testimonies of the Scriptures they set down concerning sons who, by reason of their parents, chose — by not imitating their malice — to have one cause with them: not understanding these, they forced the divine testimonies to fight with one another, and, not distinguishing both voices of God according to the diversity of times, causes, and persons so as to bring them into concord, they wanted the divine documents to fight among themselves, just as they themselves fought against us. Nor is it any wonder that they did not understand the peace of God's Scripture, who had no peace with his Church.

8. 11. But we, accepting both testimonies, demonstrated the concord of both. For we accepted both that which they recalled in their writings to have been said to the Church: No more shall the uncircumcised and the unclean pass through you (Isa 52:1); and that which is written: Let both grow until the harvest (Mt 13:30) — but the latter is in the field, the former will be in the granary. Indeed, even those who long contended, saying that the weeds which were permitted to grow with the wheat until the harvest are not in the Church but in the world — against the understanding of the martyr Cyprian, who said: "And even if weeds seem to be in the Church, yet our faith or love ought not on that account to be hindered, so that, because we see that there are weeds in the Church, we ourselves should withdraw from the Church" (See Cyprian, Ep. 54.3) — and being unwilling to grant that the Church can be signified by the name "world," against the words of the Apostle who said, God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19), and against the very words of the Lord who said, The Son of man did not come to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him (See Jn 3:17) — for the world cannot be reconciled to God and saved through him unless by the name "world" the Church is understood, which alone is reconciled to God and saved through him — yet in that comparison which we recalled from the Gospel, that both the good and the bad fish are held mingled within the same nets until they are separated on the shore, that is, at the end of the age (See Mt 13:47-50), being overcome by the evidence of the truth they confessed that the bad are mingled in the Church until the end of the age; but they said that these are hidden (See Mt 13:47-50), since they are as unknown to the priests as the fish within the nets are unseen by the fishermen while they are still in the sea. How, then, is the prophetic testimony which they set down in their response, by which it was said to the Church, No more shall the uncircumcised and the unclean pass through you (Isa 52:1), understood to pertain to this present time, when the Church has been compared to the nets, within which, while they are still set in the sea, they confessed that the bad fish are mingled with the good or hidden? Hence it is clear that only in the age to come, after the judgment, will no uncircumcised and unclean person pass through the Church. O violence of truth, that tortures its enemies not in the flesh but in the heart, so that they confess it against their will!

9. 12. See, it has been made plain what was said by us: that the times of the Church must be distinguished; that it is not now such as it will be after the resurrection; that now it has the bad mingled in it, then it will not have them at all; that those divine testimonies in which God foretold it to be wholly free of all admixture of the bad pertain to that purity of hers, not to the admixture of this present time. See, even they themselves, compelled by the gospel truth, could confess nothing other, who said that the bad are now mingled in it, though hidden. See, now the unclean person passes through it, though hidden; therefore it is not the time that was foretold when the Prophet said, No more shall the uncircumcised and the unclean pass through you (Isa 52:1); now, then, they do pass through, even if hidden. For this very thing he says, No more (Isa 52:1), shows that they used to pass through before, but would pass through no more. And they were maliciously demanding of us how the devil could have sown weeds in the Church of Christ (See Mt 13:39), when they themselves confessed that the bad, at least hidden ones, are mingled in the Church, and would not attend to the fact that these were certainly sown by the devil.

10. 13. This very thing too, which they thought they had found to be clever, they were rather producing against themselves. For if the Lord compared the Church to nets gathering good and bad fish alike, because he wished the bad in the Church to be understood as not manifest but hidden, whom the priests are as ignorant of as the fishermen are ignorant of what the nets have caught beneath the waves — then for that very reason it was also compared to a threshing floor, so that even manifest bad people mingled with the good in it might be foretold as future. For the chaff that is mingled with the grain on the threshing floor does not itself lie hidden beneath the waves, but is so plain to everyone's eyes that rather the grain is hidden in it, while the chaff itself is manifest. But about this comparison of the threshing floor, since we had set it down too among the others from the Gospel, they could write nothing against us in their writings except that the prophet Jeremiah had said: What has the chaff to do with the wheat? (Jer 23:28) He said this because they are not alike, not because they cannot be mingled; because they will not be together in the granary, not because they are not threshed together on the floor. And yet, when Jeremiah said this, he was not speaking of the people of God, but of the dreams of men and the visions of the prophets; for these two are to be compared by no likeness, just as the emptiness of chaff cannot be compared to the fullness of wheat.

10. 14. Your bishops did indeed try to deny that it is written in the Gospel that the Church is compared to a threshing floor; but soon, convicted by the recollection of the gospel words, they turned to this: to say that even there hidden bad people, not manifest ones, were signified, of whom it is written: He will come bearing his winnowing fan in his hand, and he will cleanse his threshing floor; the grain he will gather into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire (Mt 3:12). You, therefore, judge; open your eyes, lend your ears to the truth. If, as they themselves said, the Lord compared the Church to nets because he wished the bad in it to be understood as not manifest but hidden, whom the priests do not see, just as the fishermen do not see the fish within the nets beneath the waves — is a threshing floor, then, also threshed beneath the water or beneath the earth? Or is it indeed pounded out in the hours of night, not in the sun, or does a blind peasant work upon it? How much better, then, do they correct themselves than pervert the holy Gospels and try to twist the Lord's words to the vain error of their own mind! For either that comparison of the fish too was set down by the Lord not on account of the hidden but only on account of the mingled bad in the Church; or else proper comparisons were given to particular things — the fish on account of the hidden, the threshing floor on account of the manifest bad — so that, as the former are mingled with the good in the Church before the shore, so the latter are mingled before the winnowing fan. For they themselves admonish us to understand the chaff on the threshing floor as the manifest bad in the Church, who want the reprobate fish within the swimming nets to be understood as hidden bad people, because, just as the fishermen do not know the former, so the priests do not know the latter. For why should we not say: "So, then, the chaff also is the manifest bad, since the threshers see it in the open"? But just as the former cannot be separated before they leave at the shore, so the latter cannot be winnowed before the appointed end. But God guards the innocence of his holy and faithful ones, like the good fish, like the plump grains, so that within these nets the reprobate kinds mingled with them may not harm them, and on this threshing floor the chaff to be winnowed, mingled with them, may not harm them; because, as they themselves said, read again, and signed: One cause will not be able to prejudice another, nor one person another.

11. 15. They would perhaps deny that they said these words, were they not able to be convicted by their own signature. See how diligently it was done for your salvation, that we should sign our names to our own words (See Mt 18:16) — which they were utterly unwilling to do, and which at last they were at length compelled by shame to do. For their words exist where they refused to do this, and again other words where they consented to do what at first they had refused. Everything is written down, everything has been signed. They appeared unwilling to sign for this reason: that they might be able to deny they had said what they had said, and slander the judge about a corrupted record. And because they now cannot do this, they say that the record itself is corrupt — a record which, that it might judge against them, none but they themselves produced, who said so many things against themselves in our favor; and these things, that they might not be able to deny them, they signed with their own depositions, even though compelled and unwilling. For this reason, then, they were unwilling to sign: that they might be allowed, by the slander of corrupted records, to deny what they had said; and for this reason they afterward consented at the judge's insistence, because they perceived that it was plain to all that, by being unwilling to sign, they were indicating nothing else than that they feared their own words being read back to them. For they preferred to defend their depositions afterward with whatever fogs they could, rather than condemn them so quickly.

12. 16. But see, we beg you, how by their very defense they entangle themselves all the worse, and plead our case, and utterly destroy their own. For after the Conference, after they wished to appeal as men defeated, these words were cast at them; and they try to defend them with a worse entanglement, when you ask them what they did. For they think you have no heart, so that you do not understand that they have been overcome in every way; since they tell you things which they would not say at all, if they could find anything useful to say. For who could endure men who, when defeated, complain that the sentence was pronounced against them at night — as if the necessity of giving a hearing did not often keep judges sitting until far into the night? Or is what is said not true because it is said by night? Nor do they hear the Scripture crying out: By day the Lord has commanded his mercy, and by night he has declared it (Ps 42:8 (41:9)); and again: To proclaim your mercy in the morning, and your truth by night (Ps 92:2 (91:3)). Or as for their saying that the persecutors came by night to seize the Lord, they do not attend to the fact that in those same nighttime hours the Lord himself preached the truth to his disciples (See Jn 13:30; 18:3); nor would they consider that it is written that the apostle Paul prolonged his discourse until midnight (See Acts 20:7). If they had truth to speak, night could not hinder them. But indeed they were suffering a most darkened night in their own minds, when they brought forth so much against themselves, and would not correct their perverse spirit toward the light of truth. And it was still day, certainly, when they were prescribing limits to us about time, after the manner of the courts (See ED on legal prescription), saying that the case had lapsed and could no longer be pleaded at all — not understanding that they showed people nothing except how much they feared its being pleaded, where their perversity and the catholic truth would be displayed.

13. 17. It was still day when, wishing to overturn the judgment of Miltiades, the bishop of Rome, by which Caecilian was cleared and absolved, they even said that Miltiades himself had been a traitor (See the records of the Roman trial under Miltiades). When proof of this charge was demanded of them, they recited very lengthy records, in which the name of Miltiades, as having handed over anything, did not appear. And they recited other records as well, where it was read that Miltiades had sent deacons with letters of the emperor Maxentius and of the praetorian prefect to the prefect of the city, to recover the places that had been taken from the Christians in the time of persecution. There, since no crime of Miltiades appeared at all, they said that in the earlier records of handing over a certain Strato had been recited as a traitor, since one of the deacons whom Miltiades had sent to recover the places was also so named, contending — but not showing — that he was the very same man. For they did not even show that the Strato who had handed over was so much as a deacon. And even if he were, we answered them that a short time before there had been two deacons named Peter in that same clergy of the Roman Church. So, blind in mind, they wove dark slanders, adding even a most manifest falsehood: that not only the name, but also the places and regions and persons agreed, by which it would be shown to be no other than this very Strato — whereas in those records nothing at all agreed except the likeness of the name, of which the custom of the human race is full, that not only two but even more people are called by one name. For they themselves cried out that their own Donatus of Carthage must be distinguished from Donatus of the Casae Nigrae, lest in the judgment of Miltiades he himself be thought to have been condemned (since many hold that man in high esteem), because it was not Donatus of Carthage who had been sent against Caecilian to the episcopal judgment of Miltiades — bearing so thick a night in their heart that they would not have their Donatus defamed by the likeness of his name, and wished Miltiades to be stained by the likeness of another's name (See the Donatist allegation about the two Donatuses). But now they are said to add the name Cassian also to Strato, which they kept silent about in the Conference, as if Strato alone could have had a namesake, and Cassian could not. Nor, hindered by their inner night, could they attend to the fact that there were not only two men named John, one the Baptist, the other the Evangelist, but also two named Simon, one Peter, the other Magus; and, finally, in that so small number of the apostles, not only two named James, one the son of Alphaeus, the other the son of Zebedee, but even two named Judas, one holy, the other a devil (See Jn 6:70-71); yet if anyone, likewise blind in mind, were to slander the holy apostle Judas with the crime of Judas the traitor, he would do nothing but imitate these men. For it is no wonder if, after so long a time, the reputation of Miltiades suffers such slanderers about two men named Cassian, or two named Strato, as the gospel truth suffers about two men named Herod. For because it is not made explicit which Herod died immediately after the slaying of the infants for Christ, and which Herod persecuted the Lord along with Pilate, those who suppose there was one cast against the Gospel the charge of falsehood; just as these men, supposing there was one Strato or Cassian, cast against Miltiades the stain of handing over. And yet those err more tolerably, because not only the name but even the rank agrees, for each is read of as king Herod; but these men have lied that the rank agrees, since they could in no way read that both men were deacons.

14. 18. It was still day when, regarding the council of Cirta — if indeed it is to be called a council, in which there were scarcely eleven or twelve bishops, from which we recited that certain men had been traitors who, together with Secundus of Tigisis, pronounced sentences against Caecilian — wishing to show this false, they said that in the time of persecution those eleven or twelve bishops could not have been gathered in any house; and to prove that it was a time of persecution, they produced the records of the martyrs, so that, the days and consuls being considered, it might appear what time it was. They were convicted of having produced these records of the martyrs against themselves. For in those records it was made plain that in that time of persecution the Christian congregations were accustomed to gather. Hence it was established that it was not incredible that those bishops too were read of as having likewise come together in a private house, so that — since, as was contained in the records of the martyrs, the people who could do so were accustomed to gather even in the time of persecution — a bishop might be secretly ordained who could himself also secretly ordain clerics in such great necessity, where the previous bishop, fallen along with his clergy, was shown by the letter of that same Secundus, which was alleged by these men. Admonished by these records of the martyrs which they themselves produced, we also turned our attention to other records of the martyrs; and we found, and we said, that in the heat of the time of persecution a private house — which they had denied could be done — was granted to a congregation of Christians, and that martyrs were baptized in prison: so that they might see how it was not incredible that in the time of persecution a few bishops gathered in a private house, when even in prison itself the sacraments of Christ were celebrated, in which men were held shut up for the faith of Christ. How much, then, the records of the martyrs helped us by being produced, who does not see, who does not have such a night in his heart as they had who did not see this?

15. 19. They also slandered those same records of Cirta on this ground, because there the days and consuls were read; and they demanded of us that we produce some ecclesiastical councils where the days and consuls were recited (See the demand at the Conference). For they themselves were producing the council of Carthage drawn up without day or consul. They said also that the council of Cyprian had no consuls — where, however, the day is read; but in their own council of Carthage, not even the day. But we demonstrated that the Roman council of Miltiades, which was in hand, had both a day and consuls, like that of Cirta. For we did not then have to examine, on the spur of the moment, the ancient ecclesiastical archives, from which it might be taught that this custom belonged to the ancients too. Nor did we wish even to stir up empty slanders against them about why the day is found in the council of Cyprian, but not in their own; for they wanted to weave vain delays, which we were trying to avert. For they demanded even this: that we should show from the holy Scriptures that anywhere days and consuls are written down — as if councils of bishops had ever been compared to the canonical Scriptures, or as if they themselves could produce from the holy Scriptures a council where the apostles sat as judges and either condemned or absolved someone accused. And yet we answered them that even the Prophets entrusted their books to noted and definite times — in what year, under which king, in what month of the year, on what day of the month the word of the Lord came upon them — so that we might show how emptily and slanderously they were stirring up most vain questions about the days and consuls of episcopal councils. For it can happen that there is such variety in the manuscripts, since some write down the days and consuls too with greater diligence, while others omit them as superfluous. Just as the manuscript from which we first read the judgment of Constantine (See Constantine's judgment between the parties) — by which, between the parties, he pronounced Caecilian innocent and them most slanderous — had no day or consul; but another, which we afterward produced against their slanders, did have it. They had even there most enviously proclaimed that we recited the emperor's letters without day or consul; and yet they themselves too recited other letters of the same emperor in the case of Felix, the ordainer of Caecilian (See the case of Felix of Aptungi), which by a marvelous blindness they produced against themselves, without day or consul; nor did we cast anything against them on that account, lest, like them, we should occupy the necessary time with superfluous words. But we say this now so that you at least may open your eyes, and be free of the dark night which your bishops bore in their heart, who cast a nighttime sentence against the judge's inquiry, and themselves, by day, wrapped in inner darkness, by a marvelous blindness said so much against themselves.

16. 20. Read in the records before the magistrate of Carthage are the express words of Primian, where he says that our forebears harassed their parents with various exiles; and in the Conference they try to prove that, when their forebears were the accusers, Caecilian was condemned to exile by the Emperor. They say in their writings that their communion is the Church of truth, which suffers persecution, not which inflicts it; and they try to show that Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor's judgment when their forebears were persecuting him. And they say this was done not by Donatus of the Casae Nigrae, but by the one whom they extol above the rest, Donatus of Carthage. For they are now said to boast of this in their writings, through their own people, where, defeated, they accuse the judge, because the nighttime truth confuted the night of their heart. That Donatus — that Donatus, I say, whom they called the ornament of the Church of Carthage and a man of martyr's glory — they wished so to commend that they said that, before the inquiry of the emperor Constantine, he himself both alleged Caecilian to be guilty and convicted him. That man, then, of martyr's glory, before the inquiry of the Emperor, established and alleged Caecilian to be guilty, and the condemnation of Caecilian followed that inquiry: with that man of martyr's glory accusing and pressing, Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor. This indeed we convicted of being false, who recited, produced from the public archive, the letters of that same emperor (See Constantine's letter of acquittal), in which he testifies that he heard and judged between the parties, where, Caecilian being absolved and cleared, he detested their slanders. Against these they could find nothing at all to answer, and to confirm them they produced other things against themselves. Accordingly, it was established that Caecilian was accused before the Emperor by their forebears; but that he was condemned was not established — indeed it was even established that he was absolved. But yet do you yourselves see how much your bishops helped our cause, who wished to glory even in that falsehood. For if that Donatus, that man of martyr's glory, alleged Caecilian to be guilty before the inquiry of the Emperor, and with that man of martyr's glory accusing and pressing Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor — let them answer you, when these things were happening, which was the martyr: was it Donatus, who was persecuting a man before the Emperor, or Caecilian, who, while the other persecuted, was being condemned by the Emperor? Where now is that definitive rule of theirs, that the communion of Donatus is the Church of truth, which suffers persecution and does not inflict it? See: Caecilian suffers, Donatus inflicts; which of them is the man of martyr's glory?

17. 21. Attend, take heed, do not let yourselves be led astray any longer into a ruinous error. The truth that was hidden from you, God has deigned to open; the falsehood that was poured over you, God has deigned to confute: why are you still ungrateful for so great a benefit of his? This is indeed what they often said to you, by which their cunning deceit clouded the eyes of your heart; and even now, convicted, they boast of it, by it they tear at us, because we inflict persecution and they suffer it. This remained to them, overcome on every side, by which they might still make fogs for the unskilled, here showing themselves, as it were, to be the Church of truth, because it suffers persecution and does not inflict it. Let them not deceive you any longer: we do to them what they glory that their forebears, and the very man whom they proclaim as a man of martyr's glory, did to Caecilian. That man did this before the Emperor, that the convicted Caecilian might be condemned by his judgment: this we too have done, that these men, convicted, might suffer the like. If he did wrong, why was Donatus doing this to him? But if he did rightly, why should the catholic Church not do it to the party of Donatus? Indeed, that it is rightly done not even they doubt, who glory that their forebears, whom they greatly praise, did it: nor do we doubt, who cannot deny that it must be done to them, that the restless, who are not corrected by words, should be checked by some most gentle penalty of the laws, without the shedding of blood; and if perhaps the Emperor, moved by the obstinacy of a sacrilegious mind, has decreed that it must be punished with a graver penalty, let the judges act more mildly, who have always been permitted to soften and temper the sentence (See on imperial law and judicial clemency). In the meantime, then, although it cannot be shown that Caecilian was condemned by the emperor Constantine, yet that error has been taken from you by which you thought that to be the true Church which suffers persecution, not which inflicts it: for Donatus inflicted it, Caecilian suffered it. And if the party of Donatus suffers persecution, the party of Maximian, which they themselves affirm is not the Church of Christ, suffers it along with them. And through this, to inflict persecution is not a mark of iniquity, since the good too inflict it on the bad, and the bad on the good; and to suffer persecution is not a proof of righteousness, since not the good alone suffer it for piety, but the bad too for iniquity.

17. 22. It remains, then, for you, the error being driven off, to see and to hold the catholic Church of Christ — not to choose it for the reason that it suffers persecution. For when the Lord had said, Blessed are those who suffer persecution, lest heretics glory in that, he added, for the sake of righteousness (Mt 5:10). For how many evils the most furious clerics and Circumcellions of the party of Donatus have done to our people, you too know. Churches have been burned, holy books cast into the flames, even private houses burned, people seized from their seats, and, when all that was within had been carried off or destroyed, the people themselves beaten, mangled, blinded; nor could there be any restraint from murder — although it is milder to take a man dying from this light than to take this light from a man living. They came upon people not to lead them off held captive somewhere, but only that they might suffer these things. Nor, however, do we therefore justify our people because they suffered these things; but because they suffered them for the Christian truth, for the peace of Christ, for the unity of the Church. But those men, under so many and so severe laws, and under so great a power of the catholic Church, which the Lord granted it, what such thing do they suffer? For if ever they are punished with death, either they kill themselves, or they are killed while their bloody violence is being resisted — not for the communion of the party of Donatus, nor for the error of a sacrilegious schism, but for their most manifest crimes and wickednesses, which after the manner of bandits they commit with monstrous fury and cruelty. But for the party of Donatus they scarcely suffer anything such as they said Caecilian suffered with Donatus pressing him.

17. 23. Either, then, not every persecution is unjust, or it is not to be called persecution when it is just. Wherefore, either the party of Donatus suffers a just persecution, or it does not suffer persecution, because it suffers justly. But Caecilian did not suffer justly, because he was proved innocent and absolved. This indeed they denied, and said rather that he was condemned by the Emperor, and therefore confessed that their forebears, and especially Donatus — praised by them with such great acclamation — inflicted persecution on Caecilian. But that he was convicted and condemned they were utterly unable to prove; indeed they too, by reading much against themselves, confirmed what we were saying, that he was absolved and cleared (See the recitation of the imperial acquittal). And yet they boast that free choice was granted to them by the Emperor. Overcome and confounded, they were demanding even now that there should be granted to them what their forebears did not grant to Caecilian, whom they so accused before the Emperor, whom, while they were accusing, these men even wished to lie was condemned by the Emperor. If free will is to be granted to each one, it should have been granted first to Caecilian. If these matters are to be entrusted not to a human judge but rather left to God, Caecilian should not first have been accused before the Emperor.

18. 24. Wake up at last; let not the sleep of hell bind you, let not impious habit any longer plunge you into the depth of a sacrilegious error: now be in harmony with peace, cleave to unity, rest in love, yield to truth. Recognize that the catholic Church, beginning from Jerusalem, is spread out everywhere — the Church with which the party of Donatus does not commune, against which the case of Caecilian does not prejudice. For one so often cleared, so often absolved, even if he were not innocent, neither does one cause prejudice another, nor one person another. These words the whole Church sounds out throughout the world; its member in Africa also cries out: "The testimony of God I know; the affair of Caecilian I do not know; I believe him innocent, hounded by your forebears, whom I read of as so often absolved: but whatever sort his case may be, it in no way prejudices my case; whatever sort his person may be, it in no way prejudices my person. You said this, you signed your name to this: One cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another. See, the Lord says: Among all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem (See Lk 24:47): let us hold the divine truth in one Church, and let us at last end human quarrels."

19. 25. For were they able in any way, after the Conference itself, to defend those words where they said that one cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another — or did they not rather entangle themselves far more perplexedly? For thus they spoke in certain of their writings: "That one cause does not prejudice another, and one person another, was, they say, faithfully recalled as having been said by us; but in the sense that we are not prejudiced as to our standing by those who have been either rejected or condemned by us; whereas those who descend from the ordination of Caecilian, whom their origin from a predecessor reckons unto guilt, how can they not be bound by the crimes of their ordainer, since, when the rope of sins, stretched out through a series, has bound whomever by the bond of communion, it must make them sharers of the sin?" O wondrous defense! So thick and tight is the mud where their feet have stuck, that, trying to pull them out, they fix in vain both hands and head, and, sticking fast in the same mud, are more tightly entangled. For of those whom they recall having either rejected or condemned — that is, of the Maximianists — they have with them Felician, both the condemner of Primian and one condemned by themselves in the case of Primian. What is it that they strive to weave so long a rope, from Caecilian to these times of the catholic Church, and do not attend to their own chain so close at hand? For there is that famous sentence of Bagai concerning Maximian and his associates: "The chain of sacrilege," it says, "drags very many to a fellowship in crime." Felician, then, was being dragged by that chain. If Felician does not prejudice them, why does Caecilian prejudice us? Or does it perhaps prejudice where they wish, but where they do not wish, one cause does not prejudice another, and according to their own caprice the old rope is stronger than the new chain? Maximian does not prejudice Felician, by whom he was condemned; Maximian and Felician do not prejudice Primian, by whom they were condemned; Maximian does not prejudice those who received a delay, with whom he was associated in one schism; Felician does not prejudice the party of Donatus, by which he was received back in his full rank, nor was the baptism which he gave in a sacrilegious schism destroyed there: and yet Caecilian prejudices so many Christian nations — he who was once condemned in his absence, as Primian was, and was thrice absolved when present, as Primian was not? A man long dead and unknown prejudices us; and a man alive, of whom we read that he was condemned a little before and is seen now to be associated with them, does not prejudice them? The rope of Caecilian is wound about us, by whom he is unknown; and the chain of Felician is not wound about them, by whom the sentence against him is recited, where the chain itself is condemned? It is allowed them to say: "We received those whom we condemned, for the peace of Donatus, because one cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another"; and it is not allowed us to say: "On account of those whom you condemned, we do not desert the peace of Christ, because one cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another"? O brazen brow! O darkness of madness, casting a nighttime sentence at the judge, and groping in the night of their own heart, stumbling, falling, raging in litigation against us, and saying so much in our favor!

20. 26. Moreover, even now they still dare to recall prophetic and apostolic testimonies, to which we replied comprehensively in that Conference (See the proceedings of the Conference of 411), showing that the holy Prophets themselves dwelt with the wicked in one temple, under the same priests, among the same sacraments, and yet were not polluted by the bad — because they knew how to discern between the holy and the unclean, not as these men suppose, by dividing the people bodily, but by judging well and living well. And this they did without intermission, so that in that great house, where they were, as the Apostle says, some vessels for honor, others for dishonor, they might cleanse themselves from such men by a diversity of conduct, and be vessels for honor, useful to the Lord, ready always for every good work (See 2 Tim 2:20-21). But it is well that they themselves, from the many testimonies which, not understanding them, they inserted into their writings, which they produced and read at the Conference, recalled now, after the Conference, as their chief testimony, the one from the prophet Haggai — defeated as they were. In this prophet, then, we demonstrate much more evidently what we want: that it is not bodily contact, but spiritual contact, which comes about through consent, that pollutes people, whose cause that very consent makes one.

20. 27. For when the Lord wished to destroy the impious even with a visible punishment, he himself separated the just from them by a warning. As Noah with his household from those whom he was about to destroy by the flood (See Gen 7); as Lot from those whom he was about to consume by fire (See Gen 19); as his people from the company of Abiram, whom he was soon to destroy (See Num 16). For this reason too, the man who had no wedding garment was ordered to be bound and cast out not by those who had invited him, but by the lord himself whose banquet it was (See Mt 22:11-13). For he too was not, like a fish, beneath the waves, and so unable to be seen by the inviters as he could not be seen by the fishermen. Accordingly, lest it be supposed, as these men suppose, that he had crept in secretly, like one in a crowd, unknown to those unaware of him, at once the lord, in that very one man whom, his hands and feet bound, he ordered to be cast out from that banquet into the outer darkness, did not delay to signify that a great fellowship of the bad is to be understood, among whom the fewer good live at the Lord's banquet. For after he had said, Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, at once he added, For many are called, but few are chosen (Mt 22:13-14). How is this true, since rather one out of many had been cast into the outer darkness, except because in that one man was figured the great body of all the bad mingled, before the Lord's judgment, at the Lord's banquet? From these the good meanwhile separate themselves in heart and conduct, eating and drinking together the body and blood of the Lord, but with great distinction: for these are clothed, in honor of the bridegroom, with the wedding garment, not seeking their own things but the things of Jesus Christ (See Phil 2:21); while those have no wedding garment, that is, the most faithful love of the bridegroom, seeking their own things, not the things of Jesus Christ. And through this, although at one and the same banquet, these eat mercy, those eat judgment (See 1 Cor 11:29): because the song of that very banquet is what I recalled above also: Mercy and judgment I will sing to you, O Lord (Ps 101:1 (100:1)).

20. 28. Nor, however, does ecclesiastical discipline therefore sleep, so as to rebuke the restless. For we do not separate from the people of God those whom, by degrading or excommunicating, we reduce to a lowlier place of penance. And where we are not permitted to do this for the sake of the peace and tranquility of the Church, we do not on that account reject the discipline of the Church; but we tolerate what we do not want, so that we may arrive where we do want, using the caution of the Lord's precept, lest, when we want to gather the weeds before the time, we uproot the wheat along with them (See Mt 13:29). We use also the example and precept of the blessed Cyprian, who out of regard for peace bore with his colleagues who were usurers, defrauders, and plunderers, such as they were (See Cyprian, De lapsis 6), and was not made such by contagion from them. Hence we too, if we are wheat, most confidently speak the words of that same blessed martyr: that "even if weeds seem to be in the Church, yet our faith or love ought not on that account to be hindered, so that, because we see weeds in the Church, we ourselves should withdraw from the Church" (See Cyprian, Ep. 54.3). These words our forebears would most justly and most piously have spoken, even if they had seen Caecilian and some of his fellow bishops to be bad, whom yet they could not separate from the Church on account of those to whom the bad could not be shown, and whom they thought to be good and innocent: these words they would utterly have spoken, this they would utterly have felt, lest, in wanting rashly to separate the weeds, they should at the same time uproot the wheat.

20. 29. As for the fact, then, that a certain prophet was ordered neither to eat bread nor drink water in Samaria, where he had been sent to rebuke those who had set up cows to be worshiped after the manner of the idols of the Egyptians (See 1 Kgs 13:8-9) — he ought wholly to do what the Lord had commanded, to whom it then pleased to rebuke them in such a way that the prophet whom he sent should touch no food there. For does it not happen daily in the Church that those whom we more sharply rebuke, even if we are on their property, we touch none of their food, so that they may feel how greatly we grieve over their sins? Yet is the people therefore to be torn apart, so that the weak, like tender grass, are uprooted without discernment — the weak, who cannot judge concerning the hearts of men and unknown deeds, even if these are known to us? For in Samaria itself were both Elijah and Elisha, and even if they were in solitude, yet they were not straying away for the sake of the sacraments, but because they were suffering persecution from impious kings (See 1 Kgs 17 and 19; 2 Kgs). For there were — certainly not in a separate solitude — the seven thousand men whom Elijah himself did not know, who had not bowed their knees before Baal (See 1 Kgs 19:18). Finally, among the chief saints, Samuel both gravely rebuked Saul and yet went on with him, without excuse, to offer sacrifice to the Lord (See 1 Sam 15); nor was he polluted by contagion from his sins, but remained wholly clean by the preservation of his own merits.

20. 30. But although this question of ours has been solved evidently both in the Conference and now, let Haggai solve it more evidently still, whose testimony they read above the rest, so that they now throw it alone at us in place of all. The Lord, through the prophet Haggai, reproves the people who remained from Babylonia, where they had been held captive, because they neglected the house of the Lord and beautified their own houses; and he says that for this reason he had struck their region with a plague of barrenness. Then Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua, the son of Jehozadak the high priest, and all that people, divinely inspired, began to work on the house of the Lord their God. For that same Scripture says thus: And the Lord stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel of the tribe of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak the high priest, and the spirit of all the rest of the people, and they came and did work on the house of the Lord almighty their God, on the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month, in the second year under King Darius (Hag 1:14-15). See, both a day is fixed when they went in to work on the house of God. I believe that those men, and that people working on the house of God, were not unclean — especially since the Lord had said to them, I am with you (Hag 1:13), and had stirred up their spirit to work well on his house. Then see what follows; for that same Scripture continues and says: In the seventh month, on the twenty-first day of the month, the Lord spoke by the hand of the prophet Haggai, saying to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel of the tribe of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak the high priest, and to all the rest of the people, saying: Who among you is there who saw this house in its former glory? And how do you see it now, as if it were not before your eyes? And now prevail, Zerubbabel, says the Lord; and prevail, Joshua son of Jehozadak the high priest; and prevail, all the people of the land, says the Almighty; and my spirit presides in your midst. Be of good courage, for thus says the Lord almighty: Yet once more I will shake heaven and earth, the sea and the dry land, and I will shake all the nations, and all the chosen things of the nations shall come, and I will fill this house, says the Lord almighty (Hag 2:1-7) — and the rest that he added, prophesying things still to come, which are rightly understood of the times of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose people is the truest and holiest temple of God, not even in those who are tolerated as mingled, but only in those who now meanwhile separate themselves spiritually from such by living well, and afterward are to be separated even bodily. Nevertheless, how that people, to whom this prophecy was foretold, and who then were working on the house of God, where also those two were, Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Joshua the son of Jehozadak — how that people was exhorted and commended by the Lord, is plain enough to see in these words of the Prophet, which we have inserted just as they were said. Can we, then, call that people unclean, to whom if anyone draws near he will be defiled — a people to whom it is said: And now prevail, Zerubbabel, says the Lord; and prevail, Joshua son of Jehozadak the high priest; and prevail, all the people of the land, says the Lord almighty; and my spirit presides in your midst (Hag 2:4-5)? Who, most mad, would say that this is the people to whom if anyone draws near, he will be defiled?

20. 31. Now, then, attend to what, after that prophecy which was announced to this people concerning the times of Christ, the Scripture goes on to relate. On the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, in the second year under King Darius, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Haggai, saying: Thus says the Lord almighty: Ask the priests the law, saying: If a man takes consecrated flesh in the fold of his garment, and touches with the fold of his garment bread, or pottage, or wine, or any food, will it be sanctified? And the priests answered and said: No. And Haggai said: If one unclean in soul touches any of these, will it be defiled? And the priests answered and said: It will be defiled. And Haggai answered and said: So is this people and this nation in my sight, says the Lord, and so are the works of their hands; and whoever draws near there will be defiled, on account of their early presumptions; they shall suffer from the face of their labors, and you hated those who reproved you in the gates (Hag 2:10-14). Who is this people so unclean that whoever draws near it is defiled? Is it the one to whom it was said: Prevail, and my spirit is in your midst (Hag 2:4-5)? Far be it that it be that one. There were, then, two: one unclean, and the other who is forbidden to draw near the unclean, who was exhorted to prevail, because the spirit of God was in their midst. If, then, there were two, let two temples also be shown, one which the one entered, the other which the other entered; let two altars also be shown, one on which the one, the other on which the other offered victims; let priests also be shown, some of the one, others of the other, who sacrificed separately, each for his own people. But if anyone tries to affirm this, he is insane: so were these two peoples in one people, under one high priest, entering one temple; just as there were also, under one Moses, some offending God, some pleasing God, of whom the Apostle says: With most of them God was not well pleased (1 Cor 10:5). For he did not say: With all of them God was not well pleased, as though all displeased God; but he said: With most of them God was not well pleased — therefore with some, not with all. And all were under the same priests in one and the same tabernacle, offering victims at one and the same altar; and yet they were distinguished by their deeds, not by places; in soul, not in temple; in conduct, not at altars. Thus the one group did not draw near to the other, lest they be defiled by them: that is, they did not consent to their evil deeds, lest they be condemned along with them. For neither did so great a prophet as Moses fail to know those bad people, whose impious murmurings and dreadful bitternesses he daily bore. But let us grant that he did not know this man: did even Samuel not know Saul, whom God had condemned by an eternal sentence through his mouth? Yet he saw both him and holy David entering the one tabernacle of God, among the same sacrifices; but he certainly saw them distinctly, because he saw them as distinct; and one of them he loved forever, the other he tolerated for a time. So Haggai too knew, in one people, two peoples entering one temple, living under one high priest; and he showed one to be unclean, and forbade the other to draw near the unclean: and yet he separated neither them nor himself from the same temple and the same altars. He forbade, then, a spiritual approach and a consent of deeds: which the very words cry out, if there be ears that furious animosity does not close, or the din of vain contention does not hinder. For the Prophet says: Everyone who draws near there will be defiled (Hag 2:14). He marked the fault by which he forbade drawing near; he did not shut off people from people by a bodily separation. But one draws near the fault of corruption by the fault of consent.

20. 32. And lest anyone say that that people, to whom it was first said, Prevail, for my spirit presides in your midst (Hag 2:4-5), was, a few days later, changed for the worse, so as to deserve to hear, So is this people and this nation; everyone who draws near there will be defiled (Hag 2:14) — for about ninety days are reckoned between those words which were spoken as good toward the people, and these by which its uncleanness is commanded to be avoided — lest, then, anyone should suppose that that good people was, in this small interval of time, made so very bad, see what follows, attend to what is said on that very day, that is, the twenty-fourth of the ninth month, the day on which it was said, So is this people and this nation; everyone who draws near there will be defiled (Hag 2:14). For when he had said this, and had recalled their evils, for whose sake they were shown to be unclean, adding also and saying, You hated those who reproved you in the gates (See Hag 2:14), at once he added: And now set it in your hearts from this day and onward, before stone was set upon stone in the temple of the Lord; when you were such that, putting twenty measures of barley into the basket, there came to be ten measures, and you went into the wine press to draw off fifty jars, and there came to be twenty. I struck you with barrenness, and with blight and hail all the works of your hands, and you were not converted to me, says the Lord. Set therefore your hearts from this day and henceforth, from the twenty-fourth of the ninth month, and from the day on which the temple of the Lord was founded, set it in your hearts: whether it shall yet be known on the threshing floor, or whether the vine, or the apple, or the fig and the pomegranate, and the olive trees that have not borne fruit; from this day I will bless (Hag 2:15-19). See, on that very day they merited even to be blessed. This blessing, then, I think, does not pertain to those to whose uncleanness he forbids drawing near, but to those good ones who are forbidden to draw near. In one people, then, they were both mingled and separated: mingled indeed by bodily contact, but separated by the withdrawal of their will. But Scripture speaks after its manner, which so reproves the bad as though all in that people were bad, and so consoles the good as though all there were such. For us, then, your bishops — even in that which they are said to have written after the Conference, defeated — set down the prophecy of Haggai, whereby they recalled to us a more evident proof of what we say: that even in one people, in one temple, under the same priests, among the same sacraments, with people living by a dissimilar will and differing in diverse conduct, neither does one cause prejudice another, nor one person another.

21. 33. That too which from the Apostle's Epistle they recall even now in their writings, where he says: Do not bear the yoke with unbelievers; for what partnership has light with darkness? (2 Cor 6:14) and the rest that we recalled above, and how it is rightly to be understood, we have shown — what else do they accomplish, except to recall to us those to whom the Apostle wrote this? For in that very people of the Corinthians we demonstrate what we say; lest perhaps they suppose that it was the manner only of the Prophets, and pertains not to the practice of the New Testament but of the Old, so to reprove the blameworthy as though all in that people were reproved, and so to address the praiseworthy as though all there were praised. See, to the Corinthians too the Apostle speaks thus: Paul, called an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, to the Church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place, theirs and ours, call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I give thanks to my God always for you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, that in everything you were made rich in him, in all speech and in all knowledge; even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, so that you lack nothing in any grace (1 Cor 1:1-7). Who, hearing these things, would believe that there were any reprobates in the Church of the Corinthians, since these words so sound as if this praise were directed to all? And yet a little after he says: But I beseech you, brothers, that you all say the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you (1 Cor 1:10). Again, as though reproving and rebuking all, as it were, in this dreadful fault, he says: Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor 1:13) But I think that those in that people who were saying, I am of Christ, did not bear the yoke with those who were saying, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas (1 Cor 1:12): and yet they all drew near to one altar, and shared the same sacraments, who did not share the same faults. For to these Corinthians this too was said: Whoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself (1 Cor 11:29). For what else did the Apostle have in mind but these empty talkers, that it did not suffice him to say, he eats and drinks judgment, unless he added, to himself, lest this should pertain also to those who, eating alike, were yet not eating judgment?

21. 34. Among those same Corinthians there were also those who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, which is the distinctive faith of Christians; about which the Apostle says to them thus: But if Christ is preached as risen from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? (1 Cor 15:12) He did not say: in this land, or in this world; but, among you, he says. For he could not lay down a rule about the resurrection of Christ except certainly to Christians, to whom he says about that very resurrection of Christ: So we preach, and so you believed (1 Cor 15:11). Now let us attend to those words by which, at the beginning of the Epistle, he so praises the Church of the Corinthians as to say: I give thanks to my God always for you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, that in everything you were made rich in him, in all speech and in all knowledge; even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, so that you lack nothing in any grace (1 Cor 1:4-7). See, they were so enriched in Christ in all speech and in all knowledge, they so lacked nothing in any grace, that among them were those who did not yet believe in the resurrection of the dead. But I think that those who lacked nothing in any grace did not bear the yoke with those who did not believe that the dead would rise. See how they do not bear the yoke with unbelievers, although they are mingled in the same people, and are steeped in the same sacraments under the same priests.

21. 35. Finally, the Apostle himself, lest those whose faith already held the resurrection of the dead should consent to this unbelief, did not command them a bodily separation: for they were many; not like that one man who had his father's wife, whom he judges worthy of a freer rebuke and of excommunication (See 1 Cor 5:1-5): far otherwise; in one way a faulty multitude is to be cured and healed, in another a single person, lest perhaps, if people be separated from people, through the wickedness of schism the wheat too be uprooted. Those, then, who already believed in the resurrection of the dead, the Apostle does not separate bodily from those who in the same people did not believe it; and yet he does not cease to separate them spiritually, saying: Do not be led astray; bad conversation corrupts good morals (1 Cor 15:33). He fears not their meeting, but their consent, lest they accommodate their faith to bad conversations, which corrupt good morals. He admonishes them, then, to be separated by conduct, not at the altars. Finally, before the Apostle wrote these things to them, there were in that same Church those who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, in which were those who lacked nothing in any grace: and the latter did not pollute the former by their unbelief, because the former did not consent to the latter unto that same unbelief. See how one does not draw near to him, lest whoever draws near be defiled; see how there is no partnership of light with darkness; see how, although fish swim within the same nets, for both alike neither does one cause prejudice another, nor one person another.

21. 36. Since this is so, what so raw stupidity, what so iron a sleep of heart will not be shaken off, and be able at last to perceive that the case of Caecilian cannot prejudice the catholic world, with which the party of Donatus does not commune, if the case of Maximian does not prejudice the party of Donatus — or rather the case of Felician and Primian, joined together now, condemned by each other a little before? It is enough, certainly, to speak according to their own terms, that the bad fish hiding beneath the waves do not pollute the unknowing fishermen. Although the question is not about the fishermen, whom perhaps in that comparison the Lord wished to be understood as the Angels. For attention must rather be paid to the fact that, within the very nets, the good fish cannot be stained by the bad. For these too do see one another swimming together, though they are not seen by the fishermen while set within the water. But, as I have said, it suffices for our cause that the bad do not pollute, whose evil deeds are not known.

22. 37. There were certain blessed peacemakers in the time of Caecilian, who, even if he were not innocent, knowingly tolerated him for the sake of catholic unity, since they saw him cleaving, through the communion of sharing the sacraments, to so many unknown nations through which that very unity is spread, and to whom such a man could not be shown to be such as they themselves knew him to be: they would defend themselves against these slanders with the words of the blessed and peaceable Cyprian, and would confidently cry out and say: "We therefore do not desert unity on account of Caecilian, because, even if weeds seem to be in the Church, yet our faith or love ought not on that account to be hindered, so that, because we see that there are weeds in the Church, we ourselves should withdraw from the Church" (See Cyprian, Ep. 54.3). To the peaceable patience of such men would belong that most distinguished praise by which the angel of the Church which is at Ephesus is praised (whom no one who rightly understands doubts bears the person of the Church herself), to whom the Spirit says in the Apocalypse: I know your works and your labor and your patience, and that you cannot bear the bad; and you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and you have found them liars; and you have patience, and you have borne them for my name's sake, and you have not failed (Rev 2:2-3). So let them be praised, who in this life were in the time of Caecilian, who for the name of the Lord — which, like ointment poured out, was already fragrant through innumerable nations throughout the whole world — would not fail, most patiently tolerating even one whom they knew to be bad: if that man were bad, who in their judgment could not be shown to others and torn away and separated from them. Our case is otherwise; we ought not to arrogate to ourselves the praise of this patience. For we cannot say that we tolerated for the sake of peace what could not at all come to our knowledge. The case of Caecilian was for us beneath the waves: our voice is such as that of the other Christian nations, against whom these men found nothing at all to say. Nevertheless, we rightly believe the unknown case of Caecilian to be good — a man whom we read of as once condemned by the faction of his enemies, but, with those same men accusing, thrice absolved. Either let these men believe the nearly hundred bishops of the party of Donatus concerning the crimes of Primian, and then let them compel us to believe their seventy forebears concerning the crimes of Caecilian. But as for their saying that Caecilian, since he was absent, confirmed by his silence the crimes cast at him in that council: Primian, then, also confirmed the crimes cast at him by a hundred bishops, which he is not even afterward shown to have refuted.

22. 38. But, you see, one cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another, lest the party of Donatus be diminished: yet it does prejudice, so that the inheritance of Christ may be divided. Or does the case of Caecilian not prejudice the catholic unity which we hold, and in whose fellowship we rejoice, when Caecilian was bishop of Carthage; and yet it is prejudiced by the case of Novellus of Tyzica, of Faustinus of Thuburbo, whom they did not even think they should accuse afterward, as they did Caecilian and Felix — whose names, indeed the very names of the cities in which they were, are not known to all Africa, or perhaps not even to the whole Proconsular province? See whose little fish — even if they were bad, hiding so deep — they want to prejudice the case of so great a fishing, whose full nets are spread throughout the whole world, fish who could scarcely be known even to the fish swimming beside them. But why should we not believe that these men too were innocent; since, as I said, they did not even afterward merit to be accused by them, and that man could be cleared whom their forebears, in the hostile conspiracy of that council, called the fount of all evils?

23. 39. But whatever sort these men were, what does it matter to us? For do they not truly grant us that the case and person of these unknown men should not prejudice the case and person of the catholic Church, if one cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another? And yet they cast at us, the better to lead you astray, that we gave gold to the judge, so that he would pronounce sentence in our favor against them. Tell, if you can, how much we should have had to give to your chosen defenders, the bishops, that they should say or produce so much against themselves in our favor, that they should so plead our case, so destroy their own. How much should we have had to pay them so that, after the words of Primian by which he had said, It is unfitting that the sons of martyrs and the offspring of traitors should meet together in one place, they should yet come, and meet together with us in one place — which they had said was unfitting? How much should we have had to pay them so that, after the manner of court advocates, they should try to prescribe limits to us about times and days, and even about persons, and so show plainly enough to all men, even to those who could not understand our disputations, how bad a cause they had, which they so feared to produce and plead before that judge whose kindness and justice toward themselves they had praised with such great proclamation, and against whom they had felt no movement as yet (See the Conference proceedings)? How much should we have had to pay them so that they should then demand that they ought not to be dealt with by the formulas of the courts, but rather by divine testimonies, and should promise that they too would likewise answer from the holy Scriptures: and when the mandate of the catholic council, which we had presented, had been recited, and in it — with even them confessing — it had become clear that we wished to plead the cause of the catholic Church by the testimonies of the holy Scriptures, they should again, as though forgetting what they had said pleased them, return to those same forensic prescriptions with perplexing and odious contentions?

23. 40. How much should we have had to pay them so that, moved by the number of our signatures, which were displayed in that same mandate, they should demand the presence of our whole council — of which council, according to the edict of the Adjudicator, only eighteen of us were present — and should bring a charge of falsehood, namely that some had been substituted to sign in place of others? For thus it came about that their number too was counted up, and they themselves were caught in that very falsehood, the suspicion of which they had wished to direct against us: so that not only were certain men read in their mandate as having signed for absent persons who had not even come to Carthage, but also a certain man was recited and, not responding, when they had said that he had died on the journey, and it was asked of them how a man who had already died on the journey could have signed at Carthage; after great straits of confusion and an inconsistent and varied response, they asserted that he died on the journey not while coming, but after he had signed and was returning home; and then, questioned under divine attestation whether it was established that he had been at Carthage, much more disturbed, they said: "What if another substituted himself for him?" — and so by their own words confirmed that the falsehood which they had cast at us had appeared, and clearly stood convicted, in their own mandate.

24. 41. How much should we have had to pay them so that, when they wanted to glory in their number, they should betray their lies in this too? For when a somewhat larger number of ours had been present, and it had been said by us that about a hundred other catholic bishops, hindered partly by old age, partly by ill health, partly by various necessities, had not come to Carthage, they, hearing this, said that far more of their own had not come. Just as even now, boasting that they are more than four hundred throughout all Africa, they have forgotten what they put in their own report: that they had all come to Carthage to such a degree that, with only those excepted whom bodily sickness held either in their own sees or on the journey, not even the gravest old men could be hindered by their years and the toil of a long journey. And there were read in their mandate the signatures — as, when the reckoning was made, the Office reported — two hundred and seventy-nine, counting in even those in whom falsehood was detected, and those who had signed for absent persons on the ground that, detained by sickness, they could not come to Carthage. How, then, is it true that they are more than four hundred, when they said that only those did not come to Carthage whom bodily ill health hindered — since even for some of these others signed; not to say that this was done for all the sick? Or had a plague perhaps so invaded them that it suddenly laid low a third part of them? And yet they had been summoned by their primate through a circular letter to hasten, leaving all things aside, to gather at Carthage, so that whoever had been unwilling to come might know they had cheated themselves of what they had as their best in the case. This, you see, was the best thing in the case: that their huge number should appear — as though it helped so much the more toward finding something more easily, the greater the multitude of blind seekers!

24. 42. How much should we have had to pay them so that, the inquiry having been postponed, with both of us consenting, to the day after next, they should the day before, through a memorial, ask that our mandate be furnished to them by the Office, so that, instructed by it, they might be able to be present — alleging that the Office could not, in so short a time, manage the drawing up of the records? For so it came about that on the following day of the inquiry, although they asked — and obtained — a just postponement: they who, the case being considered which was wholly contained in our mandate, were suffering great straits, were nevertheless convicted of going against their own agreements. For what is more just than that men disturbed by so great a firmness of truth should ask for a postponement? Would that it had profited them, so that, the mandate being considered to which they were utterly unable to respond, they had preferred to correct their depravity rather than to increase it for the worse! Justly, then, they were asking for a postponement: but the day before they ought not to have said in their memorial that our mandate ought to be furnished to them, so that, prepared, they might come on the appointed day, because the clerks could not manage with the drawing up of the records; and then, on the very day of the proceedings, again to wish to make a complaint about those same clerks, because they had not managed it. What compelled them to this, except a violent disturbance, when they saw that the case had been so pleaded by us in the drafting of the mandate that they could find no response? For how much should it have been worth buying, that they should ask for that postponement, and obtain one of six days, so that no one could say that they, hindered by the shortness of time, had been unable to respond to our mandate?

25. 43. But on the very third day of our Conference, how much should it have been worth buying, that by most empty and superfluous interpositions of delays they showed in every way that they were unwilling to come to the case, and by their very fear cried out how bad a case they had — although their fear even burst out into the testimony of a most manifest utterance, when they said: "We are being led little by little into the case"; and in another place: "Does your authority perceive," they say, "that we are being drawn little by little into the inner parts of the case?" O violence of truth, stronger than any rack, than any iron claws, to wring out confession! So many bishops are gathered from all Africa, they enter Carthage with such great pomp of a splendid procession, that they turn upon themselves the eyes and attention of so great a city. Those who are to speak for all are chosen by all. A place too, worthy of so great a matter, is procured in the middle of the city. Both parties meet, the judge is at hand, the tablets lie open, the suspended hearts of all await the outcome of so great a Conference. Then, by the choicest and most eloquent men, that something might be done with such great force, with such great force is it brought about that nothing be done. They seek to discuss persons after the manner of the courts, in which question litigants have been accustomed to wear away even years of time. For by this proceeding the Catholics confessed that they had drawn up their mandate by divine testimonies rather than by forensic formulas, and they likewise promised that they would answer from the Scriptures. And since, by a marvelous aid, God willed that, while they seek the person of the petitioner so as not to come to the case, the very inquiry into the petitioner should suddenly send the case into the midst (See the Conference proceedings); the distinguished men who seemed chosen to plead cry out, and testify that they were rather chosen not to plead, and enviously complain to the judge that they are being drawn little by little into the inner parts of the case: as though anything else, all things being set aside, ought to be done than that which, so long after, or rather, late, they were unwilling to do; because they were never at all willing to do it, where they feared to be defeated! Who could wring this most manifest utterance of fear out of their closed breast, and that not, I say, if we enriched them with most lavish gifts, but if we tortured them with the cruelest penalties?

25. 44. For when they were seeking, by forensic threshing, the person of the petitioners, and, wishing to show that we were the petitioners, so that they might be permitted by right to discuss our persons and to find delays of many years, they read a petition of ours once given to the proconsul, by which we asked that they be summoned, so that the Conference itself might then take place — which we have now obtained from the Emperor that it should take place — and by that petition they tried to show us to be, as it were, the petitioners: it was answered by us that we had always wished the Conference to take place, not where we might cast crimes at them, but where we might clear away those things which they are accustomed to cast at us (See the Conference proceedings): for it is precisely because of this that they are heretics and separated from the unity of the Church, because they cast crimes that they cannot prove. Then, since the Adjudicator seemed to be following the order of times, so that, of the records we had produced — where they too had sought a Conference before the prefects — he should therefore prefer our petition produced by them, because in time it preceded those prefectural records: most easily and most justly, on this occasion offered by the Adjudicator, we obtained that, if he preferred those things which were established to be earlier in time, he should rather order that to be recited where they themselves, before the emperor Constantine, through the proconsul Anullinus, accused Caecilian, whose crimes they cast at our communion, which we wished to clear away by that Conference. Accordingly, after it began to be read, since there they were most plainly being defeated in everything, they began to cry out: "We are being led little by little into the case"; and again: "Your authority perceives that we are being drawn little by little into the interior of the case." O great, but not surprising confusion! For when would a demon so fear the exorcist as they feared lest those things be read where it appeared that Caecilian had both been accused before the Emperor by their predecessors, and been absolved by so many judgments, not only episcopal but even imperial?

25. 45. At what price could we buy this: that, disturbed by their very fear, they dared to return even to that prescription about time, where they had said that the case had already lapsed, and that, four months having elapsed, it could no longer be pleaded at all (See the Conference proceedings)? What is this? What more fitting index of their mind can be found than this fear, so expressed, so open, that — whereas fear is wont to take away freedom — they feared so freely that they did not cover their indication of their bad case with silence, but betrayed it with most open words? O vehement trembling, to extort confession! So strong a fear leaped out of their mouth, that by its onset shame fled from their face. If those things were not read by which Caecilian was shown accused and cleared, petitioners were being sought for the sake of pleading the case, persons were being discussed; and although the snares of delay, that the case itself might not be reached, were evasively being woven, yet, for the sake of pleading the case, even these things seemed to be demanded as if by right. But after the excellent case of Caecilian was brought forward to be recited, the prescription, hissed off and convicted, is recalled, and it is cried that the day for pleading the case has already passed.

26. 46. Why do you still wait to hear what the Adjudicator pronounced in our favor, when you see what the fear of your bishops pronounced against themselves? The Adjudicator himself had certainly given them the power to appoint, together with him, another judge whom they wished — which they refused; for if they had chosen someone, they would not be able to lie to you that he too had been bribed by us. But they did what they refused: they did indeed appoint, together with him, another judge, not any outsider, but their own innermost one. See, their very fear was another judge: certainly it took nothing from us, and freely judged in our favor; it did no favor to their persons, to whom it clung within, from whose secret chamber it came forth; and before the case was stated, it judged first, because it knew it first in their own heart. Finally, the one came forth to learn the case, the other came forth who already knew it; the one judged by standing, hearing, speaking, the other only by coming forth into the midst. I think they spoke better when they said that the case should no longer be pleaded. For how much more quickly did the litigants' fear end it than the Adjudicator's labor? He sought what might be read from their little papers; it indicated what was being done in their hearts.

27. 47. But since they had come to this point, terrified of those things which had been brought forward to be recited, that they said the case had already lapsed by lapse of time, and could not be pleaded: they put to us what had already been settled before, namely that, if we dealt with the holy Scriptures, those things should by no means be read; but if we chose those things to be recited, they had a valid prescription, so that they would not at all allow a case that had lapsed by time to be pleaded — whereas they themselves had not kept what they had promised before, that they would likewise answer with the testimonies of the Scriptures to our mandate, where they confessed that we had pleaded the cause of the Church with the testimonies of the Scriptures; they who contended that the persons of the petitioners must be discussed, not after the manner of those disputing, but after the manner of those litigating. We answered them, therefore, that if they preferred nothing else to be done than that it be inquired which and where the catholic Church is, we would plead its cause only with the divine testimonies by which it was foretold; but if they cast any crimes at men, since they themselves too could show these not by divine testimonies, but by some other such documents, we too would clear them away by such documents. So, while they assiduously repeated their empty matters, these things were most persistently repeated by us: so the truth overcame them, and bound them, confuted and overcome, to hear those things which we had brought forward. For they saw that, if they cast no crimes of Caecilian at our communion, nothing remained to them by which in any way to excuse their separation from unity; but if they cast crimes of Caecilian, they could neither allege them, except by such documents, nor could we defend them otherwise.

28. 48. But indeed, amid these most contentious clamors of theirs, how much should it have been worth buying, that, when we said that we were proposing this — that they should prove, if they could, the crimes which they are accustomed to cast at our communion, which is spread among all the nations, so that from this it might be known whether their separation was just — they answered that we wished to plead another's cause, that is, the cause of the Churches across the sea, against whom they did not cast these charges, since this contention was among the Africans; but that those Churches ought rather to wait, so as to join to themselves whoever should win in this Conference, and have, together with them, the catholic name? Why, then, do you still seek, or doubt, which Church you ought to hold? See, you have it, against which your bishops confessed that they had no case, to which our communion is joined, from which their communion is separated. For if they said that it ought now to wait, so that whoever of us should win should be joined to it, and hold with it the catholic name: then surely our forebears already won, before, over their forebears; therefore they, joined to that Church, held the catholic name in its unity. But if these men were already defeated by our forebears, in their own forebears, why do they still contend with us? But if they were not defeated, why do they not commune with that Church which, being unable to deny it to be catholic, they confessed they had no case against? See, the catholic Church across the sea, spread among so many nations, which they said it ought to wait, so as to join to itself those who should win: how ought it to wait to join to itself those who should win, unless it is free of those crimes about which the dispute is between us? For if it is not free of them, how, being itself guilty and defeated along with the defeated, will it join the winners to itself? Furthermore, if it is free of these crimes, as they confess, then we too are free, who cleave to it in communion. For if, on account of this communion, another's crime contaminates us, then our crime contaminates the very Church with which we commune. But they themselves confessed that it was not polluted by the crime of the Africans, although it is associated with them in the communion of the sacraments: there, then, they were convicted that we too could not be polluted by the crime of those with whom we are associated in the communion of the sacraments, because we are entangled in no bond of consent. Moreover, the winning case of Caecilian himself too is most easily demonstrated by these same words of theirs. For if, while we strive, the Church across the sea, free of these crimes, ought to wait to join to itself and to the catholic name those who should win, then it was waiting when their forebears were striving sharply with Caecilian. That man, then, won at that time, whom, after the conflict, that Church which had waited for this joined to itself. Or, if it could both join to itself in the communion of the sacraments one who was polluted, and yet, as they have already confessed, persist unpolluted by these crimes, much more do we win, showing from this that each one bears his own burden (See Gal 6:5), and that neither does one cause prejudice another, nor one person another.

29. 49. But indeed, that they should think they must answer our mandate, in which we had embraced the whole case, not with sudden words, but with written letters (See the Conference proceedings) — how much should it have been worth buying? For so it was established that they could not answer all those things which were set down in our mandate, which they were utterly unwilling even to touch in their letters. For no one can say that they could not retain our deposition by memory, and that therefore they did not wish to answer all the necessary points. Our mandate was furnished to them through a memorial at their request, and on this very ground they alleged that, instructed, they might be able to answer everything. And although seven had already been chosen by the rest, to do everything on behalf of all, yet they produced the very letters by which they tried to answer our mandate in the name of their whole council, as though it were a letter given to the Adjudicator by all of them. If we had been unwilling to admit it, we would have done so by the best right: for it was not in order that, after the case had been enjoined on seven men, anything should now be done except through those who had been chosen. But lest we should seem to have feared their letters with our letters, without any hesitation we admitted that they be alleged so as to be read. For it was to be wished, and, as I said, to be bought, that after so many days of postponement, which we had granted at their request, they should bring forth a labor wrought by lamplight, in which it would appear plainly enough to those reading both letters that they had not answered our mandate, and it would be established that we had at once answered, without any postponement, those same letters of theirs. For if men are of so slow an intelligence that they suppose those men said something in the places of our mandate where they were unwilling to keep silence, I think no one is so stupid as to suppose that they answered anything even in those places where they kept wholly silent. For these are not small matters, or as it were to be despised, since rather in these the whole case consists.

29. 50. For the testimonies of the Scriptures by which we asserted that the Church with which we commune, begun from Jerusalem (See Lk 24:47), is spread throughout the whole world, they passed over as though they had not been spoken at all, crushed by the great mass of divine authority. Likewise, that which was set down in our mandate about the blessed Cyprian, who admonished by precept and confirmed by his own example that the bad should rather be tolerated in the Church than that the Church should be deserted on their account (See Cyprian, Ep. 54), they dared not touch at all: I believe because they understood that, if they tried to weaken the authority of Cyprian in any writing of his, they would confess that we too rightly do not yield to his authority in that which they are accustomed to bring forward of his opinions or decrees about repeating Baptism: although they did not even wish openly to recall that very opinion of Cyprian about Baptism, knowing that there too, if they did so, they would suffer shipwreck; since Cyprian did not abandon unity, and remained in it together with those who thought differently about this matter: whence either the Church must then be said to have perished, and there was now no Church from which their Donatus might be born; or, if — what is true — the Church remained, the bad do not contaminate the good in it, as Cyprian also judged, who remained in the same universal body together with those who thought differently. And through this these men clothed themselves in the detestable sacrilege of schism, who, on account of the crimes of some men or other, unproved — even if they were true — ought in no way to have separated themselves from the unity spread throughout the whole world. Foreseeing this, as far as can be understood, they passed over in total silence that testimony of Cyprian which was recalled in our mandate.

29. 51. That too which, in the case of the Maximianists, they themselves also declared by their own judgment — that unity is not to be deserted on account of the bad — they who said that the associates of Maximian were not polluted by Maximian, and received back in full honor those whom they had condemned for that reason; and showed that the Baptism of Christ, though given outside the Church, must be acknowledged rather than destroyed, since they did not dare to rebaptize those baptized by Felician in schism, and afterward received back together with him: this too, then, when they read it in our mandate, they judged should rather be kept silent and passed over than rubbed afresh by any contradiction. The case of Caecilian too, distinguished in our mandate from the case of the Church, and yet itself also defended on every side, they utterly did not touch in answering. Who, then, would think that they answered that mandate of ours, when against all these things they tried to make no word, nor even any shadow of any sort of response? But as for what they did seem to answer, let whoever wishes read and judge, comparing their letters with that same mandate of ours, besides the response which we at once gave, by which all the contrivances of their vanity were overturned.

30. 52. Then there is this, which, if we were to give mountains of gold, when could we buy it: that (the case of Maximian being cast at them, so that they might understand that the council did not damage Caecilian in the same way that it did not damage Primian — for as seventy bishops pronounced against the absent Caecilian what they wished, so about a hundred bishops similarly condemned the absent Primian on behalf of Maximian) most vehemently disturbed, and thrust into dreadful straits, they answered that one cause does not prejudice another, nor one person another; by these very few words confirming our whole case, about which we were earlier striving with them, to be wholly unconquered? For what else were we doing with so many testimonies of the holy oracles, with such great authority of the Prophets, the Apostles, the bishops, and of their very adversaries, demonstrating that the good are not polluted by the bad in the communion of the sacraments, if in heart, will, conduct, and works they have diverse causes and bear diverse persons? For what else were we laboring at, except that it might appear that neither does one cause prejudice another, nor one person another? This they themselves, briefly compelled by the utmost necessity, said, because, when it was long said by us, they were unwilling to yield to the truth.

31. 53. Then there is this too: with what treasures, with what riches, with what heaps of precious stones was it to be bought, that they did not in the least hesitate not only to confess but even to profess and to glory that their forebears persecuted Caecilian before the emperor Constantine, and tried even by lying to assert that he was condemned by the Emperor? Where is that utterance by which they were accustomed to deceive you, stirring up ill will against us, because we plead the cause of the Church before the Emperor? Where are the words of Primian, expressed in the records of the magistrate of Carthage: "They carry the rescripts of many emperors, we offer the Gospels alone"? Where is that distinguished praise by which they extol their separation, saying that it is the Church of truth which suffers persecution, not which inflicts it? It is dashed down, indeed, it is laid prostrate. Their depositions are read; they cannot deny them, because their signatures too are read. We hold them confessing, professing, glorying that their forebears gravely persecuted Caecilian before the Emperor: we hold also that Caecilian, with them persecuting, was condemned by the Emperor. Let them no longer cry, then, that their separation is therefore the Church of truth, because it does not inflict persecution but suffers it: or let them confess that it was not the Church of truth, when Caecilian was suffering at the hands of their forebears. For if those who suffer persecution are straightway good, Caecilian was good when he was suffering. But if it can indeed happen that the bad too suffer persecution, but those who inflict it cannot be good, their forebears were not good when they were persecuting Caecilian. Further, if it can happen that both the good inflict it and the bad suffer it, we are not therefore to be blamed, nor are these to be praised, because they suffer some such thing as they glory that Caecilian suffered with their forebears inflicting it. And yet it was not at all established that Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor: but in his absolution and clearing, which had been established by the recitation of episcopal and imperial judgment, nothing could afterward be proved to have been changed. So it came about that, the condemnation of Caecilian about which they themselves lied being removed, there remained the persecution which they confessed their forebears had inflicted.

31. 54. It was too little that they should dare to glory, even by lying, that Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor, and yet be unable to prove it by asserting; in addition they even proved — and helped our documents in that matter more strongly — that the absolution of Caecilian remained most firm, not, as they had lied, changed to the contrary by a later judgment of the Emperor. For first they asked that Optatus, the catholic bishop of the Church of Milevis, be recited, promising that from him they would prove Caecilian condemned by the Emperor. When this reading was recited rather against them, no one could hold back laughter. Which laughter, however, could not at all have been attached to the drawing up of the records, and would have lain wholly hidden, had they not refused to let even it lie hidden, by saying: "Let those who laughed hear" — this indeed was written down, and signed. For what they wanted read on their own behalf was ambiguous; whence, when the Adjudicator had most rightly ordered that a little earlier passage be recited, so that from it, if possible, those words might become clear, that was recited which they did not want, that is, that Caecilian had been cleared; whom they had first given to be read, not, as they boasted, condemned, but detained at Brixia for the good of peace. Here, when one of them had said that by those words Optatus had wished to weaken the condemnation of Caecilian, it was said to them that they should recite from elsewhere the evident condemnation of Caecilian, so that it could be shown to have been weakened by Optatus, who had most plainly written that Caecilian had been cleared. When they could not do this at all, after the superfluous windings of all delays had been interposed and exhausted, they began most plainly to help us. For as though instructed by us, or as though chosen along with us to defend and declare the innocence of Caecilian, when it was asked of them that they should, if they could, show what they were saying — that Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor by a later judgment, whose imperial letters we had read, which had shown him absolved — they produced a petition of their forebears given to that same emperor Constantine (See the petition to Constantine), by which they had most plainly demonstrated that, by his judgment, they themselves had rather been condemned. For it happened to them, before the imperial power, what happened to the enemies of holy Daniel, who suffered from the same lions what they had wished the innocent man to suffer (See Dan 6:24). Here, when we had briefly noted that that petition had been recited rather for us against themselves, they added something else, producing the same emperor's letters given to the vicar Verinus (See Constantine's letter to Verinus), in which, having gravely detested them, and leaving them to the judgment of the Lord, who had already begun to take vengeance on them, by a most ignominious indulgence he released them from exile. So it was most manifestly established that not only had no condemnation of Caecilian followed afterward, but even that his absolution and clearing had been confirmed both by their punishment and by a detestable indulgence. These so excellent documents, it must be confessed, we did not have in our hands; but perhaps, if we had heard that they were somewhere from which they could not be given to us free, we would have come, at whatever price, so that they might be permitted us to copy. But how much would we give, if they were offered for sale, that they might be read for us even by our adversaries themselves?

32. 55. What seems able now to be added, so that they might help us more abundantly? And yet they added. For they recalled the case of Felix of Aptungi, by whom Caecilian had been ordained, against which Felix they had leveled the crime of handing over. But when, Caecilian being absolved, unity was being pressed toward completion, they had stirred up a question about this Felix, supposing that in this way the now-cleared Caecilian could be entangled in another's crimes. This case of Felix, then, was also examined by proconsular judgment, where the innocence of Felix appeared most clearly. But since a certain Ingentius, who confessed in that same trial that he had committed forgery against Felix, neither could easily be punished where the case of a bishop was at issue, nor could easily be released by the proconsul, being guilty of so great a crime, except after consulting the Emperor, at whose insistence all those things were being done: the proconsul reported on the matter, and the Emperor wrote back that this same Ingentius should be sent to his court, wishing that their forebears, by whom he was daily being importuned, should be confuted in his presence; yet doubting nothing about the clearing, but rather confirming it by the manifestation of his own words too, as his rescript shows. All these documents of the case of Felix we had in our hands, and had arranged to hand them over to be recited. In this they themselves anticipated us, and were the first to produce and recite those same letters of the Emperor about Ingentius being sent to him; and they recited them when we would perhaps now not have recited them, because we thought it sufficed that the case of Caecilian had been so concluded that nothing further seemed to be required. But since our adversaries were intent on this, that the persecution which their forebears inflicted on our forebears before the Emperors, and their slanders that had been overcome, might appear more abundantly: what should we do, except gladly to accept what was offered, and to give thanks to the Lord in all things? The letters of Constantine, then, they themselves produced, they themselves recited. What I say seems incredible, but the records bear witness: their depositions are written down, their signatures are held. They themselves, I say, recited: "that Constantine had subscribed that the proconsul Aelianus had given a fitting hearing in the case of Felix, and that it had been established that Felix was innocent of the crime of handing over. But that he had wished Ingentius to be sent to his court for this reason, 'so that to those,' he says, 'who are now pressing the matter, and do not cease to importune from day to day, it might be shown and made known, with them present and standing by in person, that they had stirred up ill will against Caecilian in vain, and had wished violently to rise up against him.'" They themselves recited it. Who of us would dare to wish that those whom iniquity had made our accusers, truth should make our defenders? So also that Balaam, whom in ancient times iniquity had hired to curse the people of God, truth compelled to bless (See Num 22-24).

33. 56. But as the order of the consuls shows — which at that time the shortness of the period did not allow us to consider: for the documents called consular were not at hand, nor would anyone believe that they would cast at us so empty a matter as to want us to answer what had been done about Ingentius being sent, or whether Ingentius was sent at all, since both the proconsular sentence declared the innocence of Felix, and the response of the Emperor, produced and recited by them, confirmed that same sentence; and they would certainly rather have produced it, if they trusted that anything had been done in their favor about Ingentius being sent — as, then, the order of the consuls declares: first Caecilian was absolved by the episcopal judgment of Miltiades; then, not long after, Felix was established innocent by proconsular judgment; and so afterward Caecilian too was cleared by the Emperor hearing the case between the parties; then, after some years, his adversaries were released by that ignominious indulgence. For Miltiades judged when Constantine was consul for the third time and Licinius for the second, on the sixth day before the nones of October. The proconsul Aelianus heard the case of Felix when Volusianus and Annianus were consuls, on the fifteenth day before the kalends of March, that is, about four months later. Constantine wrote to the vicar Eumalius about the clearing of Caecilian when Sabinus and Rufinus were consuls, on the fourth day before the ides of November, that is, after two years and nearly eight months. And the same emperor gave letters to the vicar Valerius about the release of those men from exile, and about leaving their fury to God the avenger, when Crispus and Constantine were consuls for the second time, on the third day before the nones of May, that is, after the fourth year and nearly the sixth month. Hence, without any windings, it is most clearly established that, whether Ingentius was sent to the court or not sent, nothing was afterward judged against Caecilian; indeed, that he was afterward declared, even by imperial judgments, the victor over his adversaries and persecutors.

34. 57. Let the party of Donatus go now — so often disproved, so often slanderous, so often lying, so often confuted, so often in every way overcome and confounded: let it still boast that the judge was bribed by us; as if another voice were customary for the defeated. Doubtless the judge had to be bribed, so that his authority might invalidate what they themselves had done well. But I would not say that they did badly: rather they did most excellently, who said so much for the truth against their own errors. For if their case be considered, truly it was against themselves: but if their depositions be read, he judged rather according to them. Or could the one who was in the middle have been against us in that case in which those who stood on the opposing side said, produced, and recited so much in our favor? What should we have had to buy from the judge, when we did not buy from our adversaries those things which would compel the judge, even if he had received money from them, to pronounce sentence in our favor? Although, if we did not know him to be one who fears God, and a lover of justice, and a stranger to all such filth, we ought to direct such a suspicion against him; who, by his excessive patience — since he saw them pressed by the truth, and did not wish to seem hostile to them — too patiently bore with men wandering through empty things, and saying so many superfluous things, and so often returning to the same things already convicted; so that the records, burdened with such great volumes, nearly wearied everyone to unroll, and to learn by reading how the case was pleaded: which whether they did rather from poverty of truth or from industry of cunning, I do not know. Yet in this alone they could somehow help so very bad a case, which they ought rather to have deserted. Finally, if others should level the accusation against those who pleaded, and assert rather that they were bribed by us, so as to help our case and destroy their own by so many depositions, or readings produced by themselves, I do not know how they could defend themselves, and clear themselves of this suspicion, unless perhaps they say: "If we had been bribed, we would quickly have ended even so bad a case, convicted both through us and through them; but now believe even from this that we were present in earnest and wished to be of some use, that by speaking much we brought it about that what was done could not be easily read, and that our being defeated could not be quickly known." If this were not done by them, perhaps it would be believed, even with neither them nor us swearing, that those things which they said so abundantly for us against themselves, and read so abundantly, they furnished to us all without charge. Yet we give thanks for this not to them, but rather to God. For it was the truth that tortured them, not love that invited them, to bring out and publish all those things, whether by speaking or by reading, for our cause (See on truth compelling confession).

35. 58. Wherefore, brothers — if indeed you are not angry that we call you brothers: for when they heard this from us, they said in the record that an injury was being done to them; nor, admonished by our mandate, where this testimony from the prophet was set down, could they recollect that God had commanded: Say to those who hate you and who detest you: "You are our brothers," that the name of the Lord may be glorified, and may appear to them in gladness, but they themselves may be put to shame (Isa 66:5). Now, then, brothers, let the name of the Lord appear to you in gladness — the name that was invoked over us, and whose sacraments both of us bear, so that not without reason are we called brothers: now love peace; abandon at last a litigious and slanderous habit, now at least convicted and confounded; and do not hate them when, corrected, they cross over to us, but when, remaining in their wicked error, they still lead you astray. Nor let them seem great in their own eyes because we confer on them, within unity, an honor which they may possess for setting men free: for, having this outside unity, they are the more to be condemned for it. For military standards are held more perniciously by usurpers than if they were not held at all; and yet, when the usurpers are corrected and brought back into the Emperor's camp, those standards are not broken or abolished; but they begin now to adorn and protect those whom before they were betraying and punishing. Why do you still attend to their mad complaints and empty lies? The case was ended by night, but so that the night of error might be ended. The sentence was spoken by night, but shining with the light of truth. They complained that they had been shut up, as it were, in a prison: we were there too; either an injury was done to both, or diligence was applied to both. But how can we speak of injury, when we recall that we were in so spacious, bright, and refreshing a place? Or how was it a prison, where the judge too was? Finally, we did not know we were shut in, who were inside together: how do they know, unless perhaps they wanted to flee? But who does not see that they would not say these empty and laughable rather than refutable things about such an Adjudicator, if they could find anything valid to say for their cause? We know how many of you, and perhaps all or nearly all, are accustomed to say: "Oh, if they would meet in one place, oh, if they would at some time confer, and, with them disputing, the truth would appear!" See, it has been done; see, the falsehood has been convicted; see, the truth has appeared. Why is unity still fled? Why is love still despised? What need is there for us to be divided by the names of men? He who created us is one God; he who redeemed us is one Christ; he who ought to bring us together is one Spirit. Now let the name of the Lord be honored, and appear to you in gladness, so that you may recognize your brothers in his unity. Now, in the depositions of your bishops, the error that was dividing us has been overcome: let the devil too at last be overcome in your hearts, and may Christ, who commanded this, be favorable to his flock, gathered and at peace (See Jn 17:11, 21).