How much must we have bought it, that they, disturbed by the great number of our signatures which were shown in that same mandate, should demand the presence of our whole council — from which council, according to the edict of the examiner, we were present only eighteen — and should bring a charge of forgery, on the ground that some men could have signed in place of others being substituted for them?
For it came to this, that their number too was reviewed, and they themselves were caught in that very forgery whose suspicion they had wished to direct upon us; so that not only were certain men found in their mandate to have signed for absent persons who had not even come to Carthage, but also a certain man was read out who did not respond — and 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 of their inconsistent and varied answer, they asserted that he had not come, but that after he signed, while returning to his own home, he had died on the journey.
Then, when questioned under divine attestation whether it was established that he had been at Carthage, being more vehemently disturbed, they said: 'What if someone else put himself forward in his place?' — and so by their own words they confirmed that the forgery which they had charged against us had appeared and been convicted in their own mandate. How much must we have bought it, that when they wished to boast of their number, they should betray their lies in this very matter also? For when a somewhat larger number of our men 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 many 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 set down in their own notarial record — namely, that they had all come to Carthage to such a degree that, with the sole exception of those whom bodily illness detained either in their own sees or on the journey, not even the very aged had been prevented by old age and the toil of a long journey. And in their mandate there were read out the signatures — as the office reported when the reckoning was made — two hundred and seventy-nine, counting also those in whom the forgery was detected and those who had signed for absent persons on the ground that, detained by illness, 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 — and even for some of these others signed — not to say that this was done on behalf of all who were sick? Or had a plague perhaps so invaded them as to lay low a third of them all at once? But they had been summoned by their primate through a circular letter to hasten, leaving all else aside, to assemble at Carthage — so that whoever had been unwilling to come might know that they had cheated themselves of what they had best in their case.
For this, of course, was the best thing in their case — that a huge number of them should appear, as though it profits so much the more toward finding something the more easily, the greater is the multitude of blind seekers. How much must we have bought it, that — with both parties consenting, and the hearing deferred to the day after next — they should on the day before request through a notarial petition that our mandate be issued to them by the office, so that being thus instructed they might be able to attend, alleging that the office could not, in so narrow a time, cope with drawing up the record of proceedings?
For so it came about that on the following day of the hearing, although they requested and received a just deferral — they who, on considering the case which was wholly contained in our mandate, were suffering great straits — they were nevertheless convicted of going against their own consents. For what is more just than to seek a deferral for those disturbed by so great a firmness of the truth? Would that this had profited them — that, having considered our mandate, to which they were quite unable to reply, they had preferred to correct their depravity rather than to increase it for the worse.
And so they were justly seeking a deferral; but on the day before they ought not to have said in their notarial petition that our mandate should be issued to them for this reason — that they might come prepared on the appointed day, because the recording clerks could not cope with the transcription of the proceedings — and then, on the very day of the action, again to wish to make a complaint about those same clerks, because they had not been ready. What compelled them to this but a vehement disturbance, when they saw that the case had been so conducted by us in the composition of the mandate that they could find no reply? For at what price was that to be bought, that they should request that very deferral and receive one of six days, so that no one could say they had been hindered by the narrowness of time from being able to reply to our mandate?
But on that very third day of our conference, at what price was it to be bought, that by the most empty and superfluous interpositions of delays they showed that they were in every way unwilling to come to the case, and by their very fear cried out how bad a case they had — although their fear even broke forth into the testimony of a most manifest utterance, when they said: 'We are being gradually drawn into the case,' and in another place they say: 'Your authority perceives that we are being gradually led into the interior of the case'? O violence of truth, stronger than any rack, than any hooks, to wring forth confession!
So many bishops gather together from all Africa, they enter Carthage with such 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 worthy of so great a matter is procured in the middle of the city; both parties assemble, the judge is at hand, the tablets lie open, the hearts of all in suspense await the outcome of so great a conference. Then by the most select and most eloquent of men, with as great forces as any matter ought to be conducted, it is conducted that nothing be done. They seek to examine the persons after the forensic manner — a question in which litigants have been wont to wear away even years and years of time.
For by this very proceeding the catholics confessed that they had composed 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 assistance God willed that, while they sought the person of the petitioner so as not to come to the case, that very inquiry into the petitioner should suddenly cast the case into the midst, those illustrious men — who seemed to have been chosen for pleading, and who testify rather that they were chosen for not pleading — cry out and invidiously complain to the judge that they are being gradually led into the interior of the case, as though something else ought to have been done, all else being set aside, than that very thing which so long after, or too late, they were unwilling to be done, because they never at all wished it to be done where they feared to be conquered.
Who could have struck out this most open utterance of their fear from their closed breast — I do not say if we should enrich them with the most lavish gifts, but if we should torture them with the most cruel punishments?
For when they were seeking the person of the petitioners by forensic threshing, and, wishing to show that we were the petitioners so that they might be permitted by law to examine our persons and to invent age-long delays, they read out a petition of ours once given to the proconsul, by which we had asked that they be summoned, so that the very conference between us might then take place — the one which we have now obtained from the emperor that it should take place — and by that petition they tried to show that we were as it were the petitioners: it was answered by us that we had always wished the conference to take place, not where we might bring charges against them, but where we might clear those things which they are accustomed to bring as charges; for on this account they are heretics and separated from the unity of the church, because they bring charges which they cannot prove.
Then, because the examiner seemed to be following the order of times, so that of the records which we had produced — where they too had before the prefects requested a conference — he should therefore give precedence to our petition brought forward by them, because it preceded in time those prefectorial records, we most easily and most justly obtained from the examiner, by this occasion offered, that if he was to give precedence to those things which were established to be prior in time, he should rather order that to be read out where they themselves, before the emperor Constantine through the proconsul Anullinus, had accused Caecilian, whose crimes they charge against our communion, and which we wished to clear in that conference. Accordingly, after it began to be read, since there they were most openly being conquered in all points, they began to cry out:
'We are being gradually drawn into the case,' and again: 'Your authority perceives that we are being gradually led into the interior of the case.' O great, but not surprising, confusion! For when did a demon so fear the exorcist, as they feared lest those things be read out where it appeared that Caecilian had both been accused by their predecessors before the emperor, and had been acquitted by so many judgments — not only episcopal, but even imperial? When, or at what price, could we have bought it, that, disturbed by that very fear, they should dare to return even to that time-bar of former days, where they had said that the case had already lapsed and that, four months having rolled by, it could now no longer be conducted at all? What is this?
What index so fit can be found of their mind as this fear, so expressed, so open, that — since fear is wont to take away liberty — these men feared so freely that they neither covered with silence their own testimony concerning their bad case, but betrayed it in the most open words? O vehement trembling to extort confession! So strong a fear leaped forth from their mouth, that by its onset shame fled from their brow.
If those things were not read out by which it was shown that Caecilian had been accused and cleared, then the petitioners were being inquired into for the sake of pleading the case, the persons were being examined; and although the little snares of delays were being woven evasively, lest one should come to the case itself, yet for the sake of pleading the case even these things seemed to be demanded as though by right. But after the excellent case of Caecilian was brought forward to be read out, the exploded and convicted time-bar is recalled, and it is cried out that the day for pleading the case has already passed. What do you still wait for the examiner to pronounce on our behalf, when you see what the fear of your bishops pronounced against themselves?
The examiner himself had certainly given them power to appoint, together with himself, another judge whom they wished; which they refused, since if they had chosen someone, they could not lie to you that he too had been corrupted by us. But they did what they refused: they most certainly appointed, together with him, another judge — not any outsider, but their own innermost one. Behold, their very fear was another judge. Certainly he received nothing from us and judged freely for us: he did not gratify the person of those to whom he clung inwardly. From their secret chamber he came forth, and before the case was pleaded he judged first, because he first knew it in their own heart. Finally that one came forth to learn the case, this one came forth who already knew it;
that one judged by standing, hearing, speaking; this one only by coming forth into the midst. I think they spoke better in saying that the case should no longer be pleaded; for how much more quickly did the litigants' fear finish it than the examiner's labor! That one sought what should be read out from their little papers; this one indicated what was going on in their hearts.
But since they had come to this — being terrified by those things which had been brought forward to be read out — that they should say the case had already lapsed by the passing of time and could not be pleaded, they proposed to us what had already been transacted before: that if we should plead from the holy Scriptures, those things should by no means be read; but if we should choose those things to be read out, they had a valid time-bar, so that they would not at all allow a case lapsed by time to be pleaded — although they themselves had not kept what they had before promised, that they would likewise answer to our mandate (where they confessed that we had pleaded the church's case by the testimonies of the Scriptures) by the testimonies of the Scriptures — men who contended that the persons of the petitioners must be examined, not after the manner of those disputing, but after the manner of those litigating:
we therefore answered them that, if they preferred nothing else to be done than that it be inquired which or where the catholic church is, we would plead its case by none but the divine testimonies by which it was foretold; but if they should charge any crimes against men, since not even they could show those things by divine testimonies, but by certain other such documents, we too would clear those things by such documents. So, while they persistently repeated their empty things, these things were most perseveringly repeated by us; so the truth conquered them and, confuted and overcome, bound them fast to hearing those things which we had brought forward.
For they saw that, if they alleged no crimes of Caecilian against our communion, nothing would be left to them by which they might in any way excuse their separation from unity; but if they did allege crimes of Caecilian, these could neither be asserted by them except by such documents, nor be otherwise refuted by us. Now indeed, amid those most contentious clamours of theirs, at how great a price ought this to have been purchased: that, when we declared that we proposed this — namely, that they should prove, if they could, the crimes which they are wont to lay against our communion, which is spread abroad among all nations — so that from this point.
it might be known whether their separation had been just, they replied that we wished to plead a cause not our own — that is, of the churches beyond the sea, against whom they lay no such charges, since this dispute was among the Africans; and that those churches ought rather to wait, so as to unite to themselves those who should prevail in this conference, and to hold the Catholic name together with them. Why then do you still seek, or why do you doubt, which Church you ought to hold? Behold, you have that Church against which your own bishops confessed they had no cause, to which our communion is joined, and from which their communion is separated.
For if they said that this Church ought merely to wait, so that those of us who should prevail might be united to it and hold the Catholic name together with it, then surely our forefathers had already prevailed over their forefathers before; and therefore, being united to that Church, they held the Catholic name in its unity. But if these men were already vanquished, in the persons of their forefathers, by our forefathers, why do they still contend with us to this day? And if they were not vanquished, why do they not commune with that Church which, being unable to deny that it is Catholic, they confessed they had no cause against?
Behold the Catholic Church beyond the sea, spread abroad among so many nations, which they said ought to wait so as to unite to itself those who should prevail: how ought it to wait to unite to itself those who prevail, unless it be free of those very crimes about which the dispute is between us? For if it be not free of them, then, being itself guilty and vanquished, how shall it unite the victors to itself along with the vanquished? On the other hand, if — as they confess — it is free of these crimes, then we too are free of them, who cleave to that same Church in communion. For if the crime of another defiles us on account of this communion, then our crime defiles that Church also, with which we commune. But they have confessed that it is not polluted by the crime of the Africans, although it is joined to them in the communion of the sacraments.
There, then, they were convicted; and neither could we have been polluted by the crime of those with whom we are joined in the communion of the sacraments, since we are involved in no bond of consent. And yet the victorious cause of Caecilian himself is most easily demonstrated by these very words of theirs. For if, while we are in conflict, the Church beyond the sea, free of these crimes, ought to wait, so as to join to itself and to the Catholic name those who should prevail — then it was waiting at the time when their forefathers were fiercely contending with Caecilian. He therefore prevailed at that time, whom, after the conflict, that Church which had thus waited united to itself.
Or if it could both join to itself in the communion of the sacraments even one who was polluted, and yet — as they have now confessed — remain unpolluted by these crimes, then all the more do we prevail, showing from this that each one bears his own burden, and that neither does one cause prejudge another, nor one person another. And now, when they thought that a reply must be made to our written statement — in which we had embraced the whole cause — and that not in extempore words but in a composed document: at how great a price ought this to have been purchased? For it was thus established that they could not reply to all those things which were set down in our statement, and which they were altogether unwilling even to touch upon in their document.
For no one can say that they were unable to retain our discourse in memory, and that on that account they were unwilling to reply to all the necessary points. Our statement was made available to them by written record, at their own request and their own express plea, so that, being thus instructed, they might be able to reply to everything. And although seven had already been chosen out of the rest, to conduct the whole business on behalf of all, yet those very letters, by which they attempted to reply to our statement, they put forward in the name of their whole council, as though it were an epistle given by all of them to the judge. And had we been unwilling to admit it, we should have acted with the fullest right. For it was not in order that, after the cause had been enjoined upon seven men, anything should be transacted except through those who had been chosen.
But lest we should seem to have feared their letters with our own, we admitted them without any hesitation to be read and put on record. For it was to be wished — and, as I said, to be purchased — that, after so many days' delay as we had granted them at their request, they should bring forward a laboured composition, in which it would sufficiently appear, to those reading both documents, that they had not replied to our statement, and it would be established that we, without any delay, had at once replied to those very letters of theirs. For if men are of so dull a wit as to think that they said something in those places where they were unwilling to be silent about our statement, I suppose no one is so stupid as to think that they replied anything even in those places where they were altogether silent.
For these are not small matters, nor to be as it were despised, since in these rather does the whole cause consist. For the testimonies of the Scriptures, by which we asserted that the Church with which we commune, having begun from Jerusalem, is diffused throughout the whole world, they passed over as though they had not been quoted at all, being crushed by the great weight of divine authority.
Likewise that which was set down in our statement concerning the blessed Cyprian — who both by precept admonished, and by his own example confirmed, that the wicked ought rather to be tolerated in the Church than that the Church should be forsaken on their account — they dared not touch upon at all; believing, I suppose, that they understood this: that if they attempted to undermine Cyprian's authority in any writing of his, they would thereby confess that we too rightly do not yield to his authority in that matter wherein they are wont to bring forward his opinions or decrees concerning the repetition of baptism. And yet they were unwilling openly to mention even that opinion of Cyprian concerning baptism, knowing that there too, if they did so, they would meet with shipwreck, since Cyprian did not forsake unity, but remained in it together with those who thought differently on this matter.
Whence either the Church must be said to have perished then, and to have no longer existed — the Church from which their own Donatus should be born — or, if (as is the truth) the Church remained, then within it the wicked do not defile the good, even as Cyprian too judged, who remained in the same universal body together with those who thought differently. And by this these men clothed themselves in the detestable sacrilege of schism, who, on account of the crimes — unproven, and even had they been true — of I know not whom, 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 mentioned in our statement.
That likewise which, in the case of the Maximianists, they themselves also by their own judgment declared — namely, that unity is not to be forsaken on account of the wicked — inasmuch as they said that the associates of Maximian had not been polluted by Maximian, and received back into unimpaired honour those very men whom they had condemned, and showed that the baptism of Christ, though given outside the Church, was rather to be acknowledged than destroyed, since they did not dare to rebaptize those baptized by Felician in schism and afterwards received back along with him — this too, therefore, when they read it in our statement, they judged ought rather to be kept silent and passed over than reopened by any contradiction.
The cause of Caecilian, too, which in our statement was distinguished from the cause of the Church — and yet even it was defended on every side — they utterly failed to touch upon in their reply. Who, then, would judge that they replied to that statement of ours, when against all these things they attempted to make no word, nor even the faintest shadow of any reply whatsoever? But as for what they seemed to reply, let whoever wishes read and judge, comparing their letters with that same statement of ours, over and above the reply which we at once returned, by which all the contrivances of their vanity were overthrown.
Now that other point — for which, even had we given mountains of gold, when could we have purchased it? — namely, that when the case of Maximian was cast up against them, so that they might understand that the council in no way harmed Caecilian, by which seventy bishops pronounced against him in his absence whatever they wished, just as it did not harm Primian, when nearly a hundred bishops likewise condemned him in his absence on Maximian's behalf: being most vehemently disturbed and thrust into dreadful straits, they replied that neither does one cause prejudge another, nor one person another — by these very few words confirming that our whole cause, over which we had been contending with them above, was altogether unconquered!
For what else were we doing, when by so many testimonies of the sacred oracles, by so great an authority of prophets, apostles, bishops, and even of their own adversaries, we were demonstrating that the good are not polluted by the wicked in the communion of the sacraments, provided that in heart, will, morals, and works they have different causes and bear different persons? For what else were we labouring at, save that it might appear that neither does one cause prejudge another, nor one person another? This they themselves, briefly compelled by utmost necessity, said — because, when it had long been said by us, they were unwilling to yield to the truth.
That, too — with what treasures, with what riches, with what heaps of precious stones ought it to have been purchased? — that they did not in the least hesitate not only to confess, but even to profess and glory in the fact that their forefathers had persecuted Caecilian before the Emperor Constantine, and even attempted, by lying, to assert that he had been condemned by the Emperor. Where is that voice by which they have been accustomed to deceive you, stirring up ill-will against us, alleging that we plead the cause of the Church before the Emperor? Where are the words of Primian, recorded in the acts of the magistrate of Carthage: 'They carry the sacred rescripts of many emperors; we offer the Gospels alone'?
Where is that splendid boast by which they extol their separation, saying that it is the Church of truth, which suffers persecution, not the one which inflicts it? Surely it has been shattered, surely it has been laid low. Their prosecutions are read; they cannot deny them, because their signatures too are read. We hold them confessing, professing, glorying that their forefathers gravely persecuted Caecilian before the Emperor; we hold also that Caecilian, while they were persecuting him, was condemned by the Emperor. Let them therefore no longer cry out that their sect is the Church of truth because it does not inflict but suffers persecution — or else let them confess that it was not the Church of truth when Caecilian was suffering at the hands of their forefathers.
For if those who suffer persecution are forthwith good, then Caecilian was good when he was suffering; but if it can indeed happen that even the wicked suffer persecution, while those who inflict it cannot be good, then their forefathers were not good when they were persecuting Caecilian. Further, if it can happen that both the good inflict and the wicked suffer, then we are not on that account to be blamed, nor are these to be praised, merely because they suffer something of the same sort as they boast that Caecilian suffered at the hands of their forefathers. And yet it was by no means established that Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor; rather, in his acquittal and vindication, which had been established by the reading of the episcopal and imperial judgment, nothing afterwards could be proved to have been altered.
Thus it came about that, the condemnation of Caecilian being removed — that condemnation about which they themselves lied — there remained the persecution which they confessed their forefathers had inflicted. It was too little that they should dare both to glory, by lying, that Caecilian was condemned by the Emperor, and yet by asserting be unable to prove it. Moreover, they even proved, and more strongly assisted our own documents in this matter, that the acquittal of Caecilian remained most firm — not, as they had lied, altered into its contrary by a later judgment of the Emperor. For at first they requested that Optatus, the Catholic bishop of the church of Mileum, be read, promising that they would prove therefrom that Caecilian had been condemned by the Emperor. And when that passage was read rather against them, no one could restrain his laughter.
Yet that laughter certainly could not have been added to the written record of the proceedings, and would have escaped notice altogether, had they not themselves prevented it from escaping notice, saying: 'Let those who laughed give ear.' This indeed was written down and subscribed. For that which they wished to be read on their behalf was ambiguous. Whence, when the judge had most rightly ordered that a passage a little above be read, so that from it, if possible, those words might become clear, this was read out which they did not want — namely, that Caecilian had been vindicated, whom they had first given to be read of not, as they vaunted, as condemned, but as detained at Brixia for the good of peace.
Here, when they had said that by those words Optatus wished to make light of the condemnation of Caecilian, it was said to them that they should read from some other source a manifest condemnation of Caecilian, so that it might be shown to have been made light of by Optatus, who had most plainly written that Caecilian had been vindicated. When they were utterly unable to do this, then — after the superfluous windings of all their delays had been interjected and brought to an end — they began most plainly to assist us.