書信與論戰集（CSEL） 第 20 章

Why are you still, O Donatists, seduced by your bishops, whose deceitful darkness has been dispelled by clear light, whose error has come to light, whose obstinacy has been overcome? Why do they still boast to you their empty lies? Why do you still believe men who have been vanquished? When they tell you that the judge was corrupted by a bribe, what novelty do they perform? What else have all the vanquished been accustomed to do — those who are unwilling to consent to the truth — except to lie about the iniquity of the judge? Ask of them, and let them first answer you this, if they can: why they dared to come to Carthage and to assemble with us in one place for the sake of a conference.

Already some years before, we had met with them publicly, that by our conferring the truth might appear, and the dissension which divides us be taken out of the way; but, fleeing from that very truth, they answered in the acts: 'It is not fitting that the sons of martyrs and the offspring of traitors should assemble in one place.' Why then did they now wish to meet with us? I suppose they would not do what seemed to them unfitting, unless they recognized that we are not the offspring of traitors. Or else let them themselves answer us: why did they say, 'It is unfitting that the sons of martyrs and the offspring of traitors should assemble in one place,' and afterwards assembled with us in one place? What thing compelled them to do what is unfitting? For they were not brought in bound, but assembled altogether freely.

If they say 'because the emperor had commanded it,' then they do what is unfitting whenever the emperor commands it. Why then are they angry at certain traitors who do not pertain to our cause? For to hand over the Lord's books to persecutors is assuredly unfitting; yet when a traitor did this, he has no crime, 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 in the acts. Not just anyone unknown, but their own Carthaginian bishop Primianus said this; Primianus gave this in writing to the magistrate of Carthage, and charged that it be said by his deacon in the acts:

'It is unfitting that the sons of martyrs and the offspring of traitors should assemble in one place.' Behold, we have assembled 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 only will they be able to assert both that they did not do what is unfitting and that they were not lying in those words of Primianus — if they say: 'It is indeed unfitting that the sons of martyrs and the offspring of traitors should assemble in one place, but we assembled with you in one place for this reason, that we recognized you are not the offspring of traitors.'

But if that is so, why then, when we were now assembling in one place, did they cast these very calumnies 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 were found to be false witnesses, who cast the charges of surrender — even the charges of others — upon others, and could not even prove them. Why do you still attend to human lies, and not attend to divine testimonies? Why do you still believe vanquished men, and not believe the Truth, which has never been vanquished? For the Truth of God, as we have proved even in the conference itself, bore witness to His Church through many documents of the holy Scriptures, through the prophetic and evangelic writings;

and the place was designated whence the Church of Christ was to begin, and the ends of the earth to which it was to reach. The Lord says His Church would be through all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. The divine lesson is recited, how it began from Jerusalem, where, when the faithful were first gathered together, the Holy Spirit was sent from heaven. The divine lessons are recited, how it spread from Jerusalem through neighbouring and distant lands. The names of the places are set forth, the names of the cities are made manifest, in which the Church of Christ was founded by apostolic labour — which places and cities even merited to receive letters from the apostles;

which letters they too read in your congregations, and yet they do not commune with the churches of those places and cities which merited to receive those very letters, objecting against them I know not what crimes of Africans — that they have perished by contagion of these — although they themselves said, in this very conference which we lately held at Carthage, that neither does a cause prejudice a cause nor a person a person. Now they said this then, when we said to them: 'The council which you produce against Caecilian is no more prejudicial to the absent Caecilian than the council which was held in the case of Maximianus, where Primianus was condemned, is prejudicial to the absent Primianus.'

For they produced the record where seventy bishops and more had condemned Caecilian in his absence, while there are produced more or less a hundred bishops of their own party, who had condemned Primianus in his absence. Since therefore we said to them that this is no more prejudicial to Caecilian than that is to Primianus, seeing that both councils were held against absent men, straightway, finding nothing to answer and suffering dreadful straits, they said that neither does a cause prejudice a cause nor a person a person; which the Catholic Church has ready in her mouth against all human calumnies — but now much more strongly and much more freely, since that which the Truth has always held has been confirmed even by the confession of her enemies.

Who then, without grievous sorrow, could bear this? Who could restrain his groan? Who would not break forth into tears and into a voice of grief, if he weighs this worthily? Behold: that Primianus, condemned by bishops of Donatus's party, should not lose his episcopate, or that Primianus condemned should not disturb Donatus's party — neither does a cause prejudice a cause nor a person a person; but that Caecilian, whom his enemies likewise condemned in his absence, should not be reckoned a bishop and should contaminate all the Christian nations even to the ends of the earth — there both a cause prejudices a cause and a person a person. If with the voice of unity itself the churches of Pontus, Bithynia, Asia, Cappadocia, and the rest of the eastern regions should cry out — to whom the blessed apostle Peter writes:

'O party of Donatus, we know not what you say. Why do you not commune with us? If Caecilian did some evil — which has not been proved nor demonstrated to us — yet if he did some evil, why does he prejudice us? If you will not hear us, hear yourselves saying: neither does a cause prejudice a cause nor a person a person. Or can your perversity go so far that these words hold good, that Primianus may not prejudice us, and these words do not hold good, that Caecilian may prejudice us?' Let the seven eastern churches likewise cry out, to whom the apostle John writes — Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, Pergamum — and say:

'What have we done to you, brethren, you who chose rather to be of Donatus's communion than of ours? If Caecilian sinned — although you could not even show his crime, since, like your own Primianus, he too was condemned in his absence — nevertheless, whatever manner of man he was, what have we ourselves done to you? Why will you not have peace with Christians, being Christians yourselves? Why do you rend among us the common sacraments? What have we done? Why does the cause of Primianus not prejudice Donatus's party, except because it is true, as you have said: neither does a cause prejudice a cause nor a person a person? Why then does the cause of Caecilian prejudice the inheritance of Christ, in which we have been planted by the labour of the apostles?

To one of us the apostle John writes that it has a few names in Sardis of those who have not defiled their garments; nor yet were the garments of those few polluted by those who were unclean in that same church, since it is true, as you have said, that neither does a cause prejudice a cause nor a person a person. How then can the cause and person of Caecilian prejudice us? Or if it does not prejudice, why are you separated from us?' Let those churches also speak to whom the apostle Paul writes — the Romans, Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians — for of Galatia and Ephesus it has already been said above — let these also therefore say:

'Brethren, you who still wish to be of Donatus's party, daily read the letters sent to us. In those very epistles the apostle greeted us in the name of peace, saying: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Why, having learned peace by reading it in our epistles, were you unwilling to hold it with us? In lands so far off, set across the sea, you cast at us the African Caecilian. Surely it is true, as you have said: neither does a cause prejudice a cause nor a person a person:

what is this private and peculiar sanctification, by which it is permitted to you that the cause of the African Primianus should not prejudice the African party of Donatus, nor the person of the Mustitanian Felicianus prejudice the person of the Carthaginian Primianus, and yet that African prejudices should be sent to us so far away, or that the cause of Caecilian should prejudice us?' Let the Catholic Church, too, established in Africa itself and joined by communion to all those others through the peace and unity of Christ — let her also say:

'Neither does the cause of Caecilian prejudice me — against whom, in his absence, a sentence of seventy bishops was pronounced — because it does not prejudice the Church which is spread throughout the whole world, in whose communion I remain; or else let the cause of Primianus prejudice Donatus's party, whom his own colleagues likewise condemned in his absence by a more numerous council. But if for this reason it does not prejudice — because neither does a cause prejudice a cause nor a person a person — much more must this justice be observed toward the Catholic unity of Christ, if Donatus's party demands that it be observed toward itself.' This the Catholic Church established in Africa proclaims: 'O party of Donatus, you spoke these words, you acknowledged these your own words, you even subscribed to these words:

neither does a cause prejudice a cause nor a person a person. I, among the spirits of those long since at rest, recite Caecilian; you still behold and have with you in the body Felicianus, by whom Primianus was condemned. In Primianus's own case you condemned Felicianus, and afterwards, just as he was, you associated him as bishop with Primianus and with yourself. If it avails so much, that neither does a cause prejudice a cause nor a person a person, that the communion of Felicianus living with you today does not prejudice you — how does the memory of Caecilian, long since dead, prejudice me?' What do they answer to this, who still boast to you empty things and lies that will harm your salvation if you do not correct yourselves? What do they still say — that we corrupted the judge, that a sentence might be pronounced in our favour?

Did we then corrupt a bishop of such great merit among you, a most illustrious defender, that he should speak such things on our behalf? For this is what we were doing with all our strength, this we were pressing, that the cause and person of Caecilian, whatever manner of man he was, should be shown not to pertain to the cause and person of the Church, which God has strengthened by His holy testimonies. This too we were doing by the similitudes of the Gospel, that the cause and person of the tares should not prejudice the cause and person of the wheat, although in the same field, under the same rain, they grow together until the harvest, when they must be separated;

that the cause and person of the chaff should not prejudice the cause and person of the grain, although in the same threshing-floor they are threshed together, until by the final winnowing they are separated; that the cause and person of the goats should not prejudice the cause and person of the sheep, although both flocks are kept mingled in common pastures, until by the chief Shepherd, in the last judgment, some are set apart to the left, others to the right; that the cause and person of the bad fish should not prejudice the cause 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 world.

By which parables and figures the Church was foretold to be, until the end of the world, a Church having both good and bad together, in such wise 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 be not fitting that they be exposed or accused, or if they could not be demonstrated to other good men; yet so indeed that the vigilance of correction does not rest — by reproving, degrading, excommunicating, and the other lawful and permitted coercions, which are practiced daily in the Church while the peace of unity is preserved, according to the apostolic precept, charity being kept — he who said: 'But if any man obey not our word by an epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.'

And do not regard him as an enemy, but reprove him as a brother. For in this way discipline preserves patience, and patience tempers discipline, and both are referred back to charity, lest perchance either undisciplined patience should foster iniquity, or impatient discipline should shatter unity. When these things are done by the good, they are not defiled by the evil, because the good neither share in the sins of the wicked by consenting to them, and they depart from them — if not bodily by physical separation, yet by the spiritual unlikeness of their life and the diversity of their conduct — obeying in this manner the Lord's precept, wherein He says: Depart from thence, and touch not the unclean thing.

For those who think that this is not to be observed spiritually fall, through the arrogance of vanity, into that which the Lord detests through the same prophet, saying: These who say, 'Touch me not, for I am clean' — this is the smoke of my indignation. This is what your bishops thought they must do, when, though a seat had been offered to both of us by the judge, they refused to sit with us, saying that it was written to them that they should not sit with such men — understanding, to be sure, not spiritually but carnally, that which is set down in the Psalm: And I will not sit with the ungodly; and yet they did that which in the very same passage of the Psalm is equally forbidden. For there the prophet says: And I will not enter in with those who work iniquity.

If, then, because they either knew us to be wicked or supposed us to be so, they for that reason refused to sit with us, why did they — that which is likewise forbidden — enter in with us, being partly holy and partly polluted, except because, by not understanding the holy Scriptures and by being carnally minded, they even shattered that very unity? The evil, therefore, do not pollute the good who are placed in the same field, on the same threshing-floor, in the same pastures, in the same nets, because the good have no communion with them, but with the altar and the sacraments of God. But those have communion with the evil who consent to the deeds of the evil; for it is written: Not only those who do them, but also those who consent to those who do them.

But when the evil are tolerated out of the necessity of preserving peace, they are not sought after by any fellowship of sharing in iniquity — so that, just as the wheat drinks the sweet rain together with the tares, yet keeps its own fruitfulness and is not turned into the barrenness of the tares, but both grow together until the harvest, lest perchance, when the tares are gathered, the wheat also be rooted up together with them — the evil have no sharing of salvation or of perdition together with the good (for what fellowship has righteousness with iniquity?), the evil have no partnership with the good in the kingdom or in the eternal fire (for what partnership has light with darkness?);

the evil have no harmony of life and will with the good (for what harmony has Christ with Belial?); the good have no share with the evil either in the punishment of guilt or in the reward of piety (for what part has the faithful with the unbeliever?). And while, within the same nets, until they come to the shore, they alike receive the divine sacraments, the one are associated and the other dissociated, these are in harmony and those in discord, these have their part with mercy, those with judgment — since the Church sings to the Lord of mercy and of judgment, and he who eats unworthily eats judgment not to another but to himself. For of the same bread and from the same Lord's hand both Judas received a portion and Peter;

and yet what fellowship, what harmony, what part had Peter with Judas — since neither does one cause prejudge another cause, nor one person another person? Whether, then, they go out, of whom it is written: They went out from us, but they were not of us; or whether they seem to be within, of whom the blessed Cyprian speaks most openly, saying: For even though tares appear to be in the Church, yet our faith or our charity ought not on that account to be hindered, so that, because we perceive tares to be in the Church, we ourselves should withdraw from the Church — to which words your bishops dared to make no answer at all, though for a long time they contended in vain that the aforesaid tares were not figured as being in the Church, because the Lord said: The field is this world, and did not say, 'The field is the Church.'

but we were saying that 'world' was set down to signify the Church, just as Cyprian also understood, because throughout the whole world the future Church was being prefigured. Whereupon they were saying that 'world' is always set down in a bad signification, and they brought testimonies from the Scriptures, since it is written: If anyone loves the world, the charity of the Father is not in him, and other such things; but we replied that 'world' is set down in the Scriptures not only in a bad but also in a good signification, and we recalled, among other things, also that which is written:

God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself — who certainly reconciles nothing to himself except the Church. Whether, then, the evil go out, or whether within they be either unknown or seen, this is what the mercy and justice of God brings about: that the evil should not harm the good who do not consent with them unto evil, but that each should bear his own burden, and that neither the son should take upon himself the sins of the father, unless he has imitated him in his evils, but the soul that sins, that same soul shall die. When, therefore, anyone consents with the evil unto evil, he now has one cause with them, and becomes one person of the whole fellowship of the evil; and by this, when they perish together and are damned together, each man's own cause and own person prejudges him, not another's;

but when the good and the evil hear the same word of God together and receive the sacraments of God together, and yet have unlike causes of their deeds and, by the diversity of their will, bear unlike persons — the same holy food being eaten by some worthily and by others unworthily — neither does one cause prejudge another cause, nor one person another person. And accordingly, 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, it was foretold by those testimonies not as it now is, but such as it will be after this mortal state, in life eternal;

and whatever testimonies of the Scriptures they set down concerning children who, through the desert of their parents by imitating their malice, they wished to have one cause with them — not understanding these things, they forced the divine testimonies to fight with one another, and, not distinguishing both utterances of God according to the diversity of times, causes, and persons, they did not bring them back into concord; but just as they set the divine documents against us, so also they wished them to fight among themselves. And no wonder if they did not understand the peace of the Scriptures of God, who had no peace with His Church. But we, receiving both testimonies, demonstrated the concord of both. For we also received that which they recalled in their writings, namely that it was said to the Church:

He shall no more add that the uncircumcised and unclean should pass through thee; and that also which is written: Let both grow until the harvest — but that this is in the field, that other is to be in the barn. Finally, even they themselves, who long contended, saying that the tares which were permitted to grow together with the wheat until the harvest are not in the Church but in the world — against the understanding of the martyr Cyprian, who said: Even though tares appear to be in the Church, yet our faith or our charity ought not on that account to be hindered, so that, because we perceive tares to be in the Church, we ourselves should withdraw from the Church — and being unwilling to consent that the Church could be signified by the name of 'world,' against the words of the Apostle, who said:

God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and against the very words of the Lord, who said: The Son of Man came not to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him — for indeed the world cannot be reconciled to God and saved through him, unless by the name of 'world' the Church be understood, which alone, reconciled to God through him, is saved — yet in that similitude which we recalled from the Gospel, namely that both good and evil fishes, until on the shore, that is, at the end of the age, they are separated, are held mixed within the same nets, they were overcome by the evidence of the truth that the evil are mixed in the Church until the end of the age.

They confessed it, but they said that these were hidden, since they are thus unknown by the priests, just as the fishes within the nets, while they are still in the sea, are not seen by the fishermen. How, then, is the prophetic testimony which they set down in their response — where it was said to the Church: He shall no more add that the uncircumcised and unclean should pass through thee — understood to pertain to this time, when the Church is compared to nets, in which, while they are still placed in the sea, they confessed that evil fishes are mixed with the good or hidden? Whence it is manifest that not until the future age, after the judgment, shall no uncircumcised and unclean pass through the Church. O the violence of the truth,

which tortures its enemies not in the flesh but in the heart, so that they confess it against their will! Behold, it has been made manifest what was being 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 evil mixed in, but then it will not have them at all; that those divine testimonies, by which God foretold it to be utterly free from all admixture of the evil, pertain to that purity of it, not to the admixture of this present time. Behold, even they themselves, compelled by the evangelical truth, were forced to confess nothing other, who said that the evil are now mixed in it, though hidden. Behold, now the unclean, though hidden, passes through it. It is not, therefore, the time which was foretold when the prophet said:

He shall no more add that the uncircumcised and unclean should pass through thee. Now, therefore, they pass through, even though hidden. For this very thing, that he says 'shall no more add,' shows that they were formerly wont to pass through, but that beyond this they shall not pass through. And they were invidiously demanding of us how the devil could have sown tares in the Church of Christ, when they themselves confessed that the evil, at least hidden ones, are mixed in the Church, and yet were unwilling to attend to the fact that these were undoubtedly sown by the devil. This very thing too, which they thought they had cleverly discovered, they were rather bringing forward against themselves.

For if the Lord for this reason compared the Church to nets that gather good and evil fishes alike, because he wished the evil in the Church to be understood as not manifest but latent — such as the priests do not know, just as the fishermen do not know what they have caught beneath the waves — then for this reason it was also compared to a threshing-floor, so that even manifest evil men, mixed with the good in it, should be foretold as future. For the chaff which is mixed with the grain on the threshing-floor does not itself also lie hidden beneath the waves, but is so conspicuous to the eyes of all that rather the grains are hidden in it, since it itself is manifest.

But concerning this similitude of the threshing-floor, since we had set it down also among the others from the Gospel, they were able to write nothing in their letters against us except that the prophet Jeremiah had said: What has the chaff to do with the wheat? — which he said for this reason, because they are not alike, not because they cannot be mixed together; because they will not be together in the barn, not because they are not threshed together alike on the threshing-floor.

Although Jeremiah, when he said this, was not treating of the people of God, but of the dreams of men and the visions of the prophets, since these two are to be compared by no similitude, just as the emptiness of chaff cannot be compared to the fullness of wheat. Your bishops indeed tried to deny that it was written in the Gospel that the Church is compared to a threshing-floor; but soon, convicted by the recollection of the evangelical words, they turned to this, that there too they should say that hidden, not manifest, evil men were signified — concerning whom it is written: He shall come bearing a winnowing-fan in his hand, and shall cleanse his threshing-floor, and shall gather the grain into the barn, but the chaff he shall burn with unquenchable fire. Do you, therefore, judge; open your eyes; direct your ears to the truth.

If, as they themselves said, the Lord for this reason compared the Church to nets, because he wished the evil in it to be understood as not manifest but latent — such as the priests do not see, just as the fishermen do not see the fishes within the nets beneath the waves — is a threshing-floor threshed under water or under the earth, or surely at nocturnal hours, and is it not trodden out in the sun, or does a blind rustic work upon it? How much better, therefore, would 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 similitude of the fishes too was set down by the Lord not on account of the hidden, but only on account of the mixed evil in the Church; or surely to each thing its own proper similitudes were given — concerning the fishes, on account of the hidden evil; concerning the threshing-floor, on account of the manifest evil — because, just as those before the shore, so these before the winnowing-fan, are mingled with the good in the Church. For they themselves admonish us to understand by the chaff on the threshing-floor the manifest evil in the Church, who wish the reprobate fishes within the swimming nets to be understood as hidden evil for this reason, that, just as the fishermen do not know those, so the priests do not know these. For why should we not say: 'So then the chaff too are the manifest evil, since the threshers see it in the open'?

But just as those cannot be separated before the exit to the shore, so neither can that be winnowed before the due end. But God guards the innocence of his saints and faithful, like the good fishes, like the fat grains, so that within these nets the reprobate kinds mixed with them may not harm them, and on this threshing-floor the mixed chaff to be winnowed may not harm them; because, as they themselves said, re-read, and subscribed, neither will cause be able to prejudge cause, nor person person. They would perhaps deny that they said these words, were they not able to be convicted by their own subscription. Behold how diligently it was acted for your salvation, that they should subscribe to our words, which they were altogether unwilling to do, and to which at length, at some point, they were compelled by shame to do.

For their words are extant where they refused to do this, and again other words where they consented to do that which at first they had denied; all things are written, all have been subscribed. For they seemed to be unwilling to subscribe for this reason, that they might be able to deny that they had said what they had said, and to slander the judge over the corrupted records. And because now they cannot do this, they say that that man himself is corrupt who judged against them — a thing which none but they themselves brought about, who against their very own selves said so many things in our favor, which, that they might not be able to deny them, even though compelled and unwilling, they nevertheless subscribed by their own prosecutions. For this reason, therefore, they were unwilling to subscribe:

that it might be permitted them, through the slander of corrupted records, to deny what they had said; and therefore afterward, at the judge's insistence, they consented, because they perceived it was evident to all that by being unwilling to subscribe they were indicating nothing else than that they feared their own words lest they be read to them. For they preferred to defend their prosecutions afterward with whatever fogs, rather than to condemn them so quickly. But see, we beg you, how by their very own defense they entangle themselves the worse, and plead our cause, and utterly destroy their own. For after the conference, after, being defeated, they wished to appeal, these words were objected to them, and they try to defend them with a worse entanglement of their own, when you ask of them what they have done.

For they think you have no heart, so that you should not understand that they have been overcome in every way, when they say to you those things which they would by no means say, if they could find anything useful to say. For who would endure defeated men complaining that sentence was pronounced against them by night? As if the necessity of hearing does not often hold judges, so that they are compelled to sit even until a great part of the night; or as if what is said is for that reason not true, because it is said during the night. Nor do they hear the Scripture crying out: By day the Lord commanded his mercy, and by night he declared it; and again: To announce thy mercy in the morning, and thy truth by night.

Or as for their saying that the persecutors came by night to seize the Lord, they did not attend to the fact that at those very nocturnal hours the Lord also preached the truth to his disciples. Nor were they willing to notice what is written, that the Apostle Paul prolonged his sermon until the middle of the night. If they had anything true to say, the night could not hinder them. But they were assuredly suffering a most dark night in their own minds, when against their very own selves they brought forward so many things, and did not correct their perverse mind to the light of the truth.

And it was still assuredly day when they were prescribing to us concerning the time in forensic fashion, saying that the case had lapsed and could now by no means be pursued — not understanding that they had shown men nothing except how much they feared lest it should be pursued, where their perversity and the Catholic truth would be shown forth. It was still day when, wishing to overturn the judgment of Miltiades the Roman bishop, by which Caecilianus was purged and absolved, they even said that Miltiades himself had been a traditor. And when proof of this accusation had been exacted from them, they recited most lengthy records, in which the name of Miltiades — that he had handed over anything — was not present.

And they also recited other records, 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, in order that they might recover the places which had been taken from the Christians in the time of persecution. And when no crime of Miltiades whatever appeared there, they said that in the earlier records of the surrender a traditor named Strato had been recited — because one also of the deacons whom Miltiades had sent to recover the places was so called — contending that this was the very same man, but not showing it. For they did not even show that Strato who had handed over had at least been a deacon. And even if that were so, we answered them that a short time before there had been in the same clergy of the Roman church two deacons named Peter.

Thus, blind in mind, they were weaving dark slanders, adding also a most manifest falsehood, namely that not only the name, but also the places and regions and persons agreed, by which it was shown that it was no other, but this very Strato — whereas in those records absolutely nothing agreeing was read except the similarity of the name, of which the custom of the human race is full, so that not only two, but even more men are called by one name.

For they themselves also cried out that their own Donatus of Carthage — lest he should be thought to have been condemned in the judgment of Miltiades, since they hold him in high esteem — must be distinguished from Donatus of Casae Nigrae, because it was not Donatus of Carthage who had been sent against Caecilianus to the episcopal judgment of Miltiades; bearing so gross a night in their heart that they were unwilling for their Donatus to be defamed by the similarity of his own name, yet wished Miltiades to be stained by the similarity of another's name. But now they are said even to add the name Cassianus to Strato — a thing which they were silent about in the conference — as if Strato alone could have a namesake, and Cassianus could not.

Nor, hindered by their inner night, could they attend to the fact that there were not only two Johns — one the Baptist, the other the Evangelist — but also two Simons — one Peter, the other the Magus — and, finally, in that so small number of the apostles, not only two Jameses — one of Alphaeus, the other of Zebedee — but also two Judases — one holy, the other a devil; yet whoever, similarly blind in mind, should slander that holy apostle Jude concerning the crime of Judas the traitor, would be doing nothing but imitating these men. For it is no wonder if the reputation of Miltiades, after so long a time, endures such slanderers as these concerning two Cassiani or two Stratos, such as the evangelical truth endures concerning two Herods.

For because it is not expressed which Herod died immediately after the infants were slain for Christ, and which Herod together with Pilate persecuted the Lord, some — thinking there was but one — object to the Gospel the charge of falsehood, just as these men — thinking there was but one Strato or Cassianus — object to Miltiades the stain of surrender. And yet those err more tolerably, because not only the name but also the dignity is consonant — for each is read to be King Herod — whereas these have lied that the dignity is consonant, since they could in no way read that both had been deacons.

It was still day when, concerning 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 of them had been traditors, who together with Secundus of Tigisis brought forth sentences against Caecilianus, they, wishing to show it false, said that in the time of persecution those eleven or twelve bishops could not have gathered together in any house; and in order to prove that it was a time of persecution, they brought forth the records of the martyrs, so that, the days and consuls being considered, what time it was might appear. And they were convicted of having brought forth these records of the martyrs against themselves; for in those very records it was made manifest that at that time of persecution Christian congregations were accustomed to gather.

Whence it was established that it was not incredible that those bishops too were read to have likewise assembled in a private house, so that — as the people who were able (just as was contained in the records of the martyrs) were accustomed to gather even in the time of persecution — a bishop might be secretly ordained, who himself might also secretly ordain clergy for himself in so great a necessity, where the former bishop with his clergy was shown, by the letter of Secundus himself which was alleged by them, to have lapsed.

From these records of the martyrs, which they themselves brought forth, we were admonished to look also into other records of the martyrs; and we found and said that, in the fervent time of persecution, even a private house — which they had denied could have happened — was granted to a congregation of Christians, and that in prison martyrs were baptized, so that they might see how it was not incredible that in the time of persecution a few bishops should gather in a private house, when even in the very prison the sacraments of Christ were celebrated, in which men were held shut up for the faith of Christ. How much, therefore, they have helped you by bringing forth the records of the martyrs, who does not see, who does not have a night in his heart such as those had who did not see these things?

They also slandered on this ground the very records of Cirta, because there the days and consuls were read, and they demanded of us that we should bring forth some ecclesiastical councils where days and consuls might be recited. For they themselves brought forth a Council of Carthage made without day and consul. For they said that even the council of Cyprian did not have consuls — where, however, the day is read — but in that Carthaginian one of their own, not even the day. But we demonstrated that the Roman Council of Miltiades, which was at hand, just like that of Cirta, both had a day and had consuls. For it was not necessary for us then, on the spot, to sift through the ancient ecclesiastical archives, from which it might be taught that this custom had belonged even to the ancients.

Nor, however, did we wish to move even vain slanders against them, as to why in Cyprian's council a day was found, but in their own it was not found — because they wanted to weave in idle delays, which we were trying to avert. For they even demanded this, that we should show from the holy Scriptures somewhere that days and consuls had been written down; as if the councils of bishops had ever been compared to the canonical Scriptures, or as if they themselves could bring forth 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 commended their books to preassigned and defined times — in what year of what king, in what month of the year, on what day of the month the word of the Lord had come upon them — in order that we might show how vainly and slanderously they were stirring up most idle questions concerning the days and consuls of episcopal councils. For it can happen that in the codices there is such variety, while some describe even the days and consuls with greater diligence, others pass them over as superfluous;

just as also the codex from which we first read the judgment of Constantine — by which, between the parties, he pronounced Caecilianus innocent, but those men most slanderous — did not have day and consul, while another, which we afterward brought forth against their slanders, did have them. They too had there most invidiously proclaimed that we recited the emperor's letter without day and consul; and yet they themselves too recited other letters of the same emperor, in the case of Felix the ordainer of Caecilianus — which, with wonderful blindness, they brought forth against their own selves — without day and consul. Nor did we object anything to them on that account, lest, like them, we should occupy the necessary time with superfluous words;

but we say these things now only in order that you at least may open your eyes and be freed from the dark night which your bishops bore in their heart — they who objected a nocturnal sentence to the cognizance of the judge, and themselves, wrapped in interior darkness by day, with wonderful blindness said so many things against their very own selves. There are read, in the acts before the magistrate of Carthage, the express words of Primianus, where he says that our elders harassed their parents with various exiles; and in the conference they try to prove that, their elders being the accusers, Caecilianus was condemned to exile by the emperor. They say in their letters that their communion is the church of truth, which suffers persecution,

not the one that inflicts it; and they try to show that Caecilianus was condemned by the emperor's judgment, their elders being the persecutors, and they say that this was done not through Donatus of Casae Nigrae, but through him whom they proclaim above the rest, Donatus of Carthage. For they are now said to boast of this in their writings, where, being defeated, they accuse the judge, because the nocturnal truth confuted the night of their own 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 cognizance of the emperor Constantine, he himself both accused Caecilianus as a defendant and convicted him.

That man, then, of martyr's glory, before the emperor's tribunal charged and maintained Caecilian to be guilty, and upon that hearing Caecilian's condemnation followed; with that man of martyr's glory accusing and pressing the case, Caecilian was condemned by the emperor. This indeed we have proved to be false. For we produced from the public archive and read aloud the emperor's own letters, in which he testifies that he heard and judged between the parties, and in which, when Caecilian had been acquitted and cleared, he denounced their slanders. Against these they were utterly unable to find anything to reply, and in trying to confirm those letters they brought forward other things against their own selves.

Accordingly it was established that Caecilian was accused before the emperor by their forebears, but it was not established that he was condemned; nay, it was rather established that he was acquitted. Yet, at any rate, see for yourselves how greatly your bishops have aided our cause, who wished to boast even of that falsehood. For if that Donatus, the man of martyr's glory, maintained Caecilian to be guilty before the emperor's tribunal, and if, with that man of martyr's glory accusing and pressing the case, Caecilian was condemned by the emperor, let them answer you: when these things were being done, who was the martyr—was it Donatus, who was persecuting a man before the emperor, or Caecilian, who while that man persecuted him was being condemned by the emperor?

Where now is that decisive rule of theirs, that the communion of Donatus is the Church of truth, which suffers persecution and does not inflict it? Behold, Caecilian suffers, Donatus inflicts: which of them is the man of martyr's glory? Attend, take heed, do not let yourselves be led astray into pernicious error any longer. God has deigned to open up the truth that was being hidden from you; the falsehood that was being poured over you, God has deigned to refute. Why then are you still ungrateful for so great a benefit of his? This, surely, is what they often used to tell you, whereby their crafty deceit darkened the eyes of your heart; and even now, though refuted, on this ground they vaunt themselves and on this ground they tear us to pieces—because we, they say, inflict persecution, while they suffer it.

This is what remained to them, though defeated on every side, whereby they might still spread mists before the untrained—here parading themselves as though they were the Church of truth, because it suffers persecution and does not inflict it. Let them therefore no longer deceive you: we do to them the very thing which they boast that their forebears, and the very man whom they proclaim as a man of martyr's glory, did to Caecilian. He did this before the emperor: that Caecilian, once convicted, should be condemned by his judgment; and this we too have done, that these men, once convicted, should suffer the like. If he did wrong, why was Donatus doing this to him? But if he did rightly, why should not the Catholic Church do this to the party of Donatus? Nay, they too do not doubt that it is rightly done.

We do not doubt that those forebears of theirs, whom they much praise, did this; nor do we, who cannot deny that this must be done to them—namely, that, without the shedding of blood, those restless men who are not corrected by words should be restrained by some very mild penalty of the laws. And if perchance the emperor, provoked, has determined that the obstinacy of a sacrilegious mind must be chastised with a heavier punishment, let the judges act more mildly, to whom it has always been permitted to soften and mitigate the sentence. In the meantime, therefore, although it cannot be shown that Caecilian was condemned by the emperor Constantine, nevertheless that error of yours has been removed, whereby you supposed that Church to be the true one which suffers persecution and does not inflict it; for Donatus inflicted it, and Caecilian suffered it.

And if the party of Donatus suffers persecution, along with it the party of Maximian also suffers it—the party which they themselves affirm is not the Church of Christ. And by this it follows that to inflict persecution is not a mark of iniquity, since the good also do it to the evil and the evil to the good; and to suffer persecution is not a proof of justice, since not only the good suffer it for piety's sake, but also the evil for iniquity's sake. It remains therefore for you, once the error is banished, to see and hold fast the Catholic Church of Christ—not that you should choose it on this ground, that it suffers persecution. For when the Lord had said, 'Blessed are they who suffer persecution,' lest the heretics vaunt themselves on that account, he added, 'for justice's sake.'

For how great evils the most frenzied clerics and Circumcellions of the party of Donatus have done to our people, you yourselves also know. Churches have been set ablaze, the holy codices cast into the flames, private houses too burned; men have been dragged from their own dwellings, and, after all that was within had been carried off or destroyed, they themselves were beaten, torn, blinded. Nor could they even refrain from murder—although it is a milder thing to take a man dying from this light than to take this light from a man living. It came to this with certain men: not that, being seized, they should be led off somewhere, but only that they should suffer these things. And yet we do not on that account justify our own people because they suffered these things, but because they suffered them for Christian truth, for the peace of Christ, for the unity of the Church. But those men, under so many...

...under such severe laws, and under so great a power of the Catholic Church which the Lord has bestowed upon her—what such thing do they suffer? For if ever they are punished with death, either they kill themselves, or, while resistance is offered, they are slain in their bloody violence—not for the communion of the party of Donatus, nor for the error of a sacrilegious schism, but for their own most manifest crimes and wickednesses, which after the manner of brigands they commit with monstrous fury and cruelty. But for the party of Donatus they scarcely suffer any such thing as they said Caecilian suffered at Donatus' instigation. 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, since he was proved innocent and acquitted. This indeed they denied, and said rather that he was condemned by the emperor; and therefore they confessed that their forebears—and above all Donatus, so highly extolled by them with such preaching—inflicted persecution on Caecilian. But that he was convicted and condemned they were quite unable to prove; nay, even that which we were saying, that he was acquitted and cleared, they too, by reading many things against their own selves, confirmed. And yet they boast that free choice was granted to them by the emperor.

Vanquished and confounded, they even now demanded that there ought to be granted to themselves that very thing which their forebears would not grant to Caecilian—whom they thus accused before the emperor, and whom, at their accusing, having been condemned by the emperor, these men were even willing to lie about. If free will is to be granted to each one, it should first have been granted to Caecilian; if these matters are not to be entrusted to a human judge, but rather left to God, then Caecilian would first not have been accused before the emperor. Wake up at last; let not a hellish sleep bind you, let not an impious habit any longer plunge you into the depth of sacrilegious error; now be in harmony with peace, cleave to unity, acquiesce in charity, yield to truth.

Recognize that the Catholic Church, beginning from Jerusalem, is spread abroad in every direction—the Church with which the party of Donatus does not have communion, and against which the case of Caecilian raises no prejudice. For, having been so often cleared, so often acquitted, even were he not innocent, neither does one case prejudice another, nor one person another. These words the whole Church resounds throughout the world; her member in Africa also cries out: 'I know the testimony of God; the affair of Caecilian I do not know. I believe him innocent, harassed by your forebears, whom I read to have been so often acquitted; but whatever his case may be, it in no way prejudices my case; whatever his person may be, it in no way prejudices my person. You yourselves have said this, you yourselves have subscribed to this:

'neither case to case nor person to person.' Behold, the Lord says: 'through all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.' Let us hold the divine truth in the one Church, and let us at last put an end to human quarrels.' For could they in any way, after that very conference, defend those words in which they said that neither does case prejudice case nor person person—or did they not rather entangle themselves far more perplexingly? For thus they spoke in certain of their writings: 'That case does not prejudice case, nor person person, was said by us—this has been faithfully recalled from memory; but it applies to the place: that we are not prejudiced by those who have been either rejected or condemned by us.'

But these men, who descend from the ordination of Caecilian, whom their origin reckons to guilt through their predecessor—how could they not be bound by the crimes of their ordainer, when the rope of sins, stretched out through a succession, must needs make whomsoever it has bound with the bond of communion partakers of the sin? O wondrous defense! So thick and close is the mire where their feet have stuck fast, that, while trying to wrench themselves out, in vain they plant both hands and head, and, floundering in the same mire, are more tightly enfolded. For of those whom they record having either rejected or condemned—that is, of the Maximianists—they have with them Felician, both the condemner of Primian and one condemned by them in the case of Primian.

What is this, that they strive to entangle so long a rope, from Caecilian right down to these times, around the Catholic Church, and yet do not notice their own chain so near at hand? For splendid indeed is that Bagai sentence concerning Maximian and his associates: 'The chain of sacrilege,' it says, 'drags very many into fellowship of the crime.' Felician therefore was being dragged by that chain: if Felician raises no prejudice against them, why does Caecilian against us? Or does it perhaps raise prejudice where they wish, but where they do not wish, one case does not prejudice another case—and, at their own caprice, is the old rope stronger than the new chain?

Maximian raises no prejudice against Felician, by whom he was condemned; Maximian and Felician raise no prejudice against Primian, by whom they were condemned; Maximian raises no prejudice against those who received a reprieve, with whom he was associated in one schism; Felician raises no prejudice against the party of Donatus, by which he was received back into the same rank, nor was the baptism which he gave in a sacrilegious schism thereby destroyed—and yet Caecilian raises prejudice against so many Christian nations! He who was once condemned in absence, as Primian was, and thrice acquitted while present, as Primian was not. There raises prejudice against us a man long dead and unknown; and against these there raises no prejudice a living man, who is read to have been condemned by them a little before, and is seen to be now associated with them.

For us the rope of Caecilian entangles us, by whom he is unknown; while for them the chain of Felician does not entangle them, in whose midst the sentence against him is read out, where that very chain is condemned. To them it is permitted to say: 'We received back those whom we condemned, for the sake of the peace of Donatus, because neither does case prejudice case nor person person'; and to us it is not permitted to say: 'Because of those whom you have condemned, we do not forsake the peace of Christ, because neither does case prejudice case nor person person.' O brazen brow, O darkness of madness, casting a nocturnal sentence in the judge's teeth, and groping in the night of their own heart, stumbling and falling, raving in dispute against us and yet saying so much on our behalf!

Moreover, even now they still dare to bring forward prophetic and apostolic testimonies, to which we replied comprehensively in that conference, showing that the holy prophets themselves lived among the unjust in one temple, under the same priests, amid the same sacraments, and yet were not polluted by the wicked, because they knew how to distinguish between the holy and the unclean—not, as these men think, by dividing the people bodily, but by judging well and living well. And this they did without cease, so that in that great house where they were—as the Apostle says—some vessels being unto honor, others unto dishonor, they might cleanse themselves from such by diversity of conduct, and be vessels unto honor, useful to the Lord, always prepared for every good work.

But it is well that they themselves, out of the many testimonies which, not understanding them, they inserted into their writings—which they brought forward and read in the conference—now, after the conference, being defeated, have recalled as though the chief the testimony from the prophet Haggai. In this prophet, then, we demonstrate far more evidently what we intend: that it is not bodily contact, but spiritual contact, which comes about through consent, that itself pollutes men, whose cause that very consent makes one.

For when the Lord willed 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; as Lot from those whom he was about to consume by fire; as his own people from the assembly of Abiram, whom he was soon about to extinguish. Therefore also that man who did not have the wedding garment—it was not those who had invited him, but the Lord himself, whose the banquet was, who commanded him to be bound and cast out. For neither was he himself, like a fish, beneath the waves, and so unable to be seen by the inviters, as a fish cannot be seen by the fishermen.

Accordingly, lest it be supposed—as these men suppose—that he had, as it were, one man in a crowd, crept in secretly while others were unaware, the Lord straightway, in that same one man whom he commanded to be cast, bound hand and foot, into the outer darkness from that banquet, did not delay to signify that a great fellowship of the wicked is to be understood, among whom the fewer good ones live at the Lord's banquet. For after he had said, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth,' he straightway subjoined, 'For many are called, but few are chosen.'

How is this true, since rather one man out of many had been cast into the outer darkness—unless because in that one man was figured the great body of all the wicked mingled at the Lord's banquet before the Lord's judgment? From these the good separate themselves for the time being in heart and in conduct, while eating and drinking together the body and blood of the Lord, but with a great distinction: because these, in honor of the bridegroom, are clothed with the wedding garment, not seeking their own things but those of Jesus Christ, while those do not have the wedding garment—that is, the most faithful charity of the bridegroom—seeking their own things, not those of Jesus Christ.

And by this, although at one and the same banquet these eat mercy, those judgment—because the song of the banquet itself is that which I have also recalled above: 'Mercy and judgment I will sing unto thee, O Lord'—yet not on that account does ecclesiastical discipline sleep, so as to correct the unruly. For neither do we separate from the people of God those whom, by either degrading or excommunicating, we reduce to a lowlier place of penitence. And where we are not permitted to do this, for the sake of the peace and tranquility of the Church, not on that account do we repudiate the Church's discipline, but we tolerate what we do not wish, in order to arrive where we do wish, using the caution of the Lord's precept, lest, when we wish to gather up the tares before the time, we uproot the wheat along with them.

Using also the example and precept of blessed Cyprian, who out of regard for peace bore with his colleagues who were usurers, defrauders, and plunderers, such men, and was not himself by their contagion made such. Whence we too, if we are wheat, most confidently say the words of that same blessed martyr: that, even if tares seem to be in the Church, nevertheless neither our faith nor our charity ought to be hindered, so that, because we discern tares in the Church, we ourselves should withdraw from the Church. These words our forebears would have said most justly and most piously, even if they had seen Caecilian and some of his fellow bishops to be evil—men whom nevertheless they could not separate from the Church on account of those to whom the evil ones could not be shown, and whom they thought to be good and innocent.

These words they would altogether have said, this they would altogether have felt: lest, when they rashly wished to separate the tares, they should uproot the wheat along with them. As therefore a certain prophet was commanded neither to eat bread nor drink water in Samaria, whither he had been sent to rebuke those who had set up calves to be adored after the manner of the idols of the Egyptians—he ought altogether to have done that which the Lord had commanded, whom it then pleased in that manner to rebuke them, so that the prophet whom he had sent should touch none of the food there. For neither does it fail to happen daily in the Church that, when we more sharply rebuke those men, even if we are in their possession, we touch none of their food, so that they may perceive how much we grieve over their sins.

Is a division of the people, then, to be made on that account, so that, as though they were tender grass, the weak should be indiscriminately uprooted—those who cannot judge concerning the hearts of men and concerning unknown deeds, even if these be known to us? For in Samaria itself both Elijah and Elisha were present, and although they themselves were in solitude, yet they were not deviating on account of the sacraments, but because they were suffering persecution from impious kings. For there were present—not indeed in a separated solitude, which Elijah himself did not know of—seven thousand men who had not bowed their knees before Baal.

Finally, Samuel, held among the foremost of the saints, both gravely rebuked Saul and yet went with him, without excuse, to offer sacrifice to the Lord; nor was he polluted by the contagion of Saul's sins, but remained wholly clean by the preservation of his own merits. But let Haggai resolve this question of ours yet more evidently—though it has been evidently resolved both in the conference and just now—Haggai, whose testimony above the rest they read, so that they now vaunt it alone in place of all. The Lord, through the prophet Haggai, reproved the people that remained from Babylonia, where it had been held captive, because they neglected the house of the Lord and cultivated their own houses; and he says that on this account he had smitten the region with a plague of barrenness.

Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Josedech the high priest, and all that people, divinely inspired, began to labor in the house of the Lord their God. For thus the same Scripture says: 'And the Lord stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel of the tribe of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Josedech the high priest, and the spirit of the remnant of all the people; and they came in and did the works in the house of the Lord Almighty their God, on the four-and-twentieth day of the sixth month, in the second year under king Darius.' Behold, the day too is fixed on which they entered to labor in the house of God. I believe that those men and that laboring people in the house of God were not unclean, especially because the Lord had said to them: