書信與論戰集（CSEL） 第 6 章

The Conference of the First Day. When, by the emperor's command, the catholic bishops and those of the party of Donatus had, in the records made before the tribune and notary Marcellinus the appointed judge, conferred with one another by disputation, a very lengthy record of those same proceedings was made, although the whole matter could have been transacted much more briefly. But those who knew that they did not have a good case, did this first, as far as they could: that the conference itself should not take place, and that the case itself should not be tried at all. But since they were quite unable to obtain this, they brought it about, by the multiplicity of the proceedings, that what had been done should not easily be read.

Whence it seemed good to embrace everything in this abridgment, so that, by means of the reference-numbers which are noted both in this little summary and in the proceedings themselves, anyone might without difficulty find what he wished. Accordingly, when both parties had entered, in the first place there was recited the rescript of the emperor, by which he ordered a conference to take place between the aforesaid bishops, that manifest reason might refute superstition. In the second place there was recited the edict of the judge himself, which he sent throughout the province, that the bishops of both parties should assemble, and within the day of the Kalends of June should be gathered at Carthage for the purpose of conferring.

In that edict, without the emperor's command, he restored the basilicas to the Donatists who should promise that they would come, so that in this way he might invite them to confer even by benefits. In the same edict also he offered them that they might appoint, along with him, any other judge whom they wished, and he swore that he would give this judgment which the truth should recommend, and the other things which are contained in the same edict for the encouragement of their assembling.

In the third place there was recited another edict of the judge, which he set forth when the bishops of both parties were now present at Carthage—what should be the place and the manner of the coming conference, the aforesaid day being likewise mentioned and fixed; and he admonished that each party should write back to him whether the things comprised in the edict pleased them. In the fourth place, when the bishops of the party of Donatus demanded that it be set forth to them by their adversaries for what cause they had been assembled, the judge deferred it, so that first all things should be recited in order which had been done before the day of the conference.

And there was recited the memorandum of the Donatists, in which they said that it did not please them what he had put in his edict—that only those of the bishops should assemble at the place of conference whom the rest should have chosen to conduct the case itself, who all together made up thirty-six, eighteen on this side and eighteen on that, that is, seven who should dispute among themselves, and another seven who should be brought in for counsel if there were need, and another four who should preside over the keeping and recording of the proceedings; but they requested that rather all who had come ought to be present, so that their number might appear, saying that the adversaries had falsely alleged them to be few.

There they said that they had all come, down to the gravest old men, so that only those were absent whom adverse bodily health had hindered, and the other things which that same memorandum contains. In the fifth place there were recited the letters of the catholics which they wrote back to the judge, as he had advised in his edict, intimating that they consented to all things which had been ordained in that edict. In the same letters they also bound themselves and promised that, if the truth of the Church were shown to them on the side of Donatus, they would not there seek the episcopal honour, but would follow their counsel for the sake of Christian salvation;

but if rather the truth of the Church were shown to be in their own communion, they would not deny to them the episcopal honours, and that this was done by them for the good of peace, so that those to whom this should be granted might understand that in them the catholics detested not the Christian consecration, but the human error. And that if the congregations could not bear two bishops in one church, then, both withdrawing from the midst, single bishops should be appointed, to be ordained by those bishops who should be found single in their own congregations.

In the same letters there was also mentioned the case of the Maximianists, some of whom, condemned by themselves, they nevertheless received back into their unimpaired honours for the sake of the peace of the party of Donatus, and they did not rescind the baptism given by them in a sacrilegious schism, and the other things which are contained in the aforesaid letters. In the sixth place there was recited also the edict of the judge himself, which he had set forth together with the aforesaid memorandum of the Donatists and the aforesaid letters of the catholics, intimating to the people what each party had written back to him.

In the seventh place there were recited the letters of the catholics given to the judge, by which they replied to the memorandum of the Donatists, granting them what they had asked—that all who had come should be present in that place where the conference was to be—while, however, of the catholic bishops only those should there be present whom the judge had defined in his edict, so that, if any tumult should arise (which the catholics greatly feared), it might not be imputed to them who were present in very small number, but rather to those who had willed their own multitude to be present.

In the same letters also the whole case itself was comprised, so that it might be shown that the catholic Church is not the party of Donatus, but rather that Church which throughout the whole world bears fruit and grows, beginning from Jerusalem according to Holy Scripture; and that nothing prejudices it, whatsoever evil men there may have been in it, to be separated at the end by the divine judgment; and that not even against Caecilianus himself could their forebears prove anything—who by ecclesiastical judgments, and especially by that of the emperor before whom he had been accused by them, was found and pronounced innocent.

And since concerning the ordinances of the emperors, which are established in favour of the catholic Church, they are wont to stir up ill-will, mention was also made of it from Holy Scripture—that kings had decreed in their kingdom the gravest penalties for those who had blasphemed God;

there was also mentioned the case of the Maximianists, whom they themselves both prosecuted in public trials, and out of whom, though condemned, they received some back into their unimpaired honours, nor did they destroy the baptism given by them in schism—since they said that those to whom they granted a delay, though communicating with Maximianus, were not polluted by his contagion; and the other things which are contained in the same letters. But all these things were therefore mentioned there, lest perchance, if the Donatists had thought within themselves and seen how bad a case the party of Donatus had, on this account all who had come should have been unwilling to enter the place of the conference, so that peace and unity might not come about.

In the eighth place, when the judge had inquired whether, as he saw with the catholics, so also on the part of Donatus there had already been chosen those who should conduct the case undertaken, it was answered by the party of Donatus that the case had already been transacted by the catholics before the persons of the disputants had been appointed, on account of those letters of the catholics which briefly contained the whole case. Then they began to insist that first there should be dealt with the question of the time, of the mandate, of the person, of the cause, and then one should come to the merits of the business.

And when the judge had interposed his ruling that nothing had been curtailed from the case, and had again inquired whether his edict concerning the establishing of the number of the disputants had been complied with (since through these all things ought to be transacted which were to be transacted), the Donatists began to argue about the time, since the case itself could not be argued, because the day had passed. For on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of June four months had been completed from the day of the judge's edict, which he had sent to the province, as the officium answered when questioned.

And since the emperor had commanded that the case be transacted within four months, they therefore said that the day had already passed, and asked that sentence be pronounced against the catholics as against contumacious persons—as though the catholics were absent, or as though the Donatists had at some time entered to conduct the case in their absence, or as though the catholics, admonished or summoned, had been wanting. These things, then, they said calumniously and evasively—things which would not even be transacted lawfully in the forum—being unwilling that anything should be transacted. But to this the judge himself replied that both parties had consented to the Kalends of June, although even if either party had not yet up to that time appeared, two other months could still remain, which the emperor had added, to be observed by three edicts.

In the ninth place, since the judge had said above concerning the time that to prescribe that the case should not be tried was a matter not of episcopal, but rather of forensic objection, the party of Donatus found an occasion whereby to say that therefore nothing ought to be transacted with them by public law, but only by the divine scriptures. Whence, when the judge had asked what pleased both parties concerning this matter, it was answered by the catholics that he should order the mandate of the catholic council to be recited, where, the disputants having been chosen, the manner of proceeding was enjoined: there it could better appear that it was to be transacted not by forensic evasions, but rather by divine testimonies. And for some while the conflict was prolonged, the catholics insisting that the mandate be recited, while they refused.

But afterwards, all delaying contentions being set aside, the judge ordered the mandate to be recited. In the tenth place the mandate of the catholic council was recited, by which, to the bishops chosen for disputing, was enjoined the defence of the catholic Church against the accusations of the Donatists.

In this mandate again, as in the earlier letters, the whole case was briefly comprised: first, that the case of the Church—which, as was promised, is spread throughout the whole globe of the lands—should be so distinguished from the case of Caecilianus, whatever it might have been, that it should be shown that the wicked in the Church, who are either unknown or tolerated by the good for the sake of the unity of peace, the good not consenting to their evils, cannot harm them—by evangelical similitudes, and by the example of the prophets and of the Lord Christ himself and of the apostles and of bishops, and by the very judgment of the Donatists themselves on account of the Maximianists; then, that the case of Caecilianus himself had not been bad should be demonstrated by sure documents, by which both he himself and his ordainer Felix of Aptunga (whom in their own council they had accused all the more criminally) should be proved to have been cleared; and the other things which are contained in the same mandate, whether concerning baptism or concerning persecution, which the party of Donatus is wont to cast against the catholics.

For there again was mentioned, as in the earlier letters, the case of the Maximianists, by which the Donatists were shown by their own judgment to have dissolved all the things which they are accustomed to cast against the catholics, whether concerning baptism, or persecution, or the contagion of communion. It was also added that, if even now they should wish, for the sake of interposing delays, to cast crimes against the catholic bishops, then, for the sake of finishing the case which pressed first, these should be deferred to be heard and discussed afterward.

But this—namely, that the whole case should be comprised both in the earlier letters and in this mandate—was done by the catholics with this counsel: lest perchance, if, as rumour boasted, the Donatists should attempt to bring in some delaying prescriptions, and perhaps, not being permitted, should recoil from the conference itself, the case of the catholic Church, though set forth briefly, should nevertheless remain to be read in the record of the proceedings—which they would be understood to have feared, and therefore to have been unwilling to confer.

In the eleventh place, when the judge had interposed his ruling that in the mandate of the catholics divine testimonies rather than forensic bonds had been put forward, and had ordered also that the subscriptions of all be recited, a conflict arose and was for some while prolonged, the Donatists demanding the presence of those who had subscribed to the mandate, objecting that, with persons substituted who had not been bishops, they could have deceived the judge, in whose presence they were read as having subscribed, and that they had added other bishops to ancient sees, that the number might be increased.

But the catholics resisted lest their own should be produced, fearing lest those men should prepare some tumult, by which the conference itself should be utterly broken off—which the Donatists seemed to be altogether unwilling to have take place, especially when, as to the time (as though the case had already lapsed and could not be heard), they wished to raise a prescription. And they were thought not yet to have made this tumult for this reason: because, if it were made, they saw that it could not be imputed to the catholics, who were present in very small number, but rather to themselves, whose multitude was present. But the catholics yielding to their will, that all who had subscribed should enter, it afterward appeared that the Donatists had wished this for this reason: because they supposed that not so many catholics had assembled at Carthage as the subscriptions showed.

But they were supposed to have believed this for this reason: because the catholics had not entered Carthage with that pomp with which those men had entered, and on this account they suspected that they had come few in number. In the twelfth place, when the catholic bishops whose presence was demanded had entered, all were recited one by one, and, coming forward into the midst, were recognized by the Donatists either by their neighbours or by those with whom they were in one place; and whatever catholic bishops were recited from those places where the party of Donatus did not exist, it was well enough known even to the Donatists themselves that they had there no colleagues or communion of their own, and that there were catholics there whom they either knew or of whom they had heard in the region of their own vicinity.

Thus it came about that no subscription of any catholic at all was recited about whose presence they doubted. Indeed, when it had come to the name of Victorianus of Mustis, a catholic bishop, and he, coming forward into the midst, had answered that he had two opponents—Felicianus in the city of Mustis and Donatus in the place of Turres—the catholics demanded that it be established by the acts that Felicianus was in the communion of Primianus; for they had condemned this very man, among others, together with Maximianus, as a condemner of Primianus and the ordainer of Maximianus himself, whom afterward they had received in unimpaired honour, and had not destroyed the baptism in those whom he had baptized in the schism of Maximianus.

But they refused to answer the question of the Catholics, saying that this ought not to be demanded of them; and when the demand was pressed more urgently, they said that this now belonged to an internal deliberation. And in accordance with them the presiding judge ruled that what had been begun should be carried on, and that the other matter, if it were needful, should be inquired into afterward. In the diocese of Musti itself, moreover, it appeared that they too had added another bishop to an ancient see — the very thing which in empty spite they had cast up against the Catholics; and it was later shown that they had done this in other places as well. In the thirteenth place, after the present Catholics who had signed had been reviewed and identified, the judge, having the authority, proposed that they should conduct the proceedings seated rather than standing.

The Donatists, however, declined, though they gave thanks that he had offered a seat to such aged men; and in that refusal they said many things in praise of themselves and in praise of the judge himself, which anyone who wishes may read in the record of the proceedings. For it is pertinent to the matter how they, who praised him in such terms as to call him honorable, just, reverent, and kindly, nevertheless were unwilling that the cause for whose transaction so many had assembled should be pleaded before him. In the fourteenth place the Donatists' mandate too was brought forward and read aloud, drawn up briefly, that those whom they had chosen should conduct the proceedings as against traitors and their own persecutors.

Their names too were read out, since the Catholics had requested that this be done, so that it might be established whether they had signed while present at Carthage. But the Donatists wrung this from the judge with much greater insistence, that their number also should appear — a thing which they showed themselves eager to have done with great earnestness. In that reading, indeed, certain men were found for whom, in their absence, others had signed. One man too was found who, when his name was read out, made no response, and they said that he had died on the journey. And when the Catholics asked how a man who had died on the journey could have signed at Carthage, they wavered long, troubled and not knowing what to answer.

For at first they said that the matter had been suggested not about this man but about another. And when the Catholics supposed they were speaking of another — that is, of a cleric who might have signed on behalf of the dead man — it was asked whether the cleric had signed in his own name or in the name of that man on behalf of the deceased. But afterward they answered that the man himself had indeed signed while present, when the mandate was drawn up on the eighth day before the Kalends of June, but that, since he had signed while ill, he had perished on the journey as he was returning home. When this was heard, the Catholics requested that their earlier words be read out, so that the very inconsistency, once caught, might come to light.

When this had been done and it became evident, the judge asked whether they would at least affirm under the testimony of God that the man had been at Carthage, when those present enjoined those present to sign. Whereupon, more violently disturbed, they answered: 'What if another put himself forward in his place?' Leaving this falsehood of theirs, once detected, to the judgment of God, the judge ordered the remaining names to be read out; and when they had been read, he inquired about the number of bishops on each side. The office replied that the names of the Donatist bishops were two hundred and seventy-nine, counting also those for whom, in their absence, others had signed, and reckoning in the deceased man as well. But it was established that the names of all the Catholics present were two hundred and eighty-six.

For twenty had not signed who nevertheless, presenting their own presence and coming forward into the midst — except those whom bodily infirmity there at Carthage kept back — professed that they committed themselves to and consented to the recorded proceedings. Therefore in the place of conference — that is, in the Baths of Gargilius, since that place had afterward been agreed upon — of those Catholics who had signed the mandate and who present had committed themselves to the proceedings, these alone were absent who were detained there at Carthage by ill health.

But of those whose names the Donatists' signatures contained, not only were those absent whom they had answered to be sick at Carthage, but also those for whom, in their absence — that is, when they were not present at Carthage — others had signed. Since therefore the Donatists boasted of their great numbers, apart from the fact that it was established that more Catholics had come to Carthage, it was said by the Catholics that a further one hundred and twenty bishops had not come to Carthage, because some of them were hindered by old age, some by infirmity, and some by various necessities.

When the Donatists heard this, they replied that many more of their own also had not come to Carthage, and that among them there were many sees widowed of bishops — although in their own written statement, which they had given to the judge, they had said most plainly that all of them had come to Carthage to such a degree that not even age and toil had been able to deter the most burdened old men, and that those alone had not come whom adverse health had detained in their own sees or on the journey. As for the sees which they said were vacant of bishops among them, it was answered by the Catholics too that there were sixty for which successor bishops had not yet been ordained.

And thus, in these signatures of both sides, it was established both that falsehoods had been detected among the Donatists, and that the number of their bishops was smaller — inasmuch as only the sick had not come to Carthage, and yet for these, sick on the journey, others had signed. And the signatures contained the names of all, including even those for whom others had signed, as two hundred and seventy-nine; nor is it in any way credible that far more than one hundred and twenty — that is, a third part of them all — could have been sick in their own sees and therefore not come to Carthage.

In the fifteenth place, after all had withdrawn who were now present to no purpose, and those remaining whom each side had chosen as necessary, the conference was deferred by the consent of both parties to the day after next, since the present day now seemed spent. THE CONFERENCE OF THE SECOND DAY. In the first place, when — after a day's interval — assembly was made at the aforementioned place, as had been agreed and appointed, the judge again offered a session, entreating that it be done. And presently the Catholics sat down, but the Donatists refused. In that refusal they said, among other things, that it had been written to them not to sit with such men. To this the Catholics, lest delays arise, at that time made no answer, but in a more suitable place in the conference of the third day.

Then therefore the judge himself too answered that he would conduct the hearing standing. In the second place there was read the written statement which they had given the day before, requesting that the Catholics' mandate be issued to them, so that, having considered it, they might be present duly prepared on the appointed day — since the recorders could not keep pace with the transcription of the proceedings — together with the judge's reply upon that same statement, in which he had ordered that what they requested be done.

In the third place, when the judge had asked what they would also answer concerning the signatures — that is, whether what he had proposed in his edict pleased them, namely that each should sign his own pleadings — and the Catholics had answered that they had already expressed their consent to this in writing, the Donatists said that they were much disturbed, because custom did not admit this. And when the judge had asked whether the number of guardians appointed from both sides for the recording of the proceedings sufficed them, they began to request a postponement, so that the transcribed proceedings might be issued to them and then they would answer. Hence arose a prolonged dispute with them, while their own consent — by which it had been agreed that the matter be transacted on that day — was often read out from the records.

And when they said that they were ignorant of the shorthand notes, requesting that the transcribed proceedings first be issued to them, the judge ordered that what their own notaries had taken down be read to them from the codices brought forth — which were kept sealed — lest they act contrary to their own consent. And when they too often made pretext about the issuing of the proceedings, saying that the recorders had not kept pace in transcribing the proceedings, this too was answered them: that in their own written statement they had said they requested the Catholics' mandate to be issued to them precisely so that they might come duly prepared on the present day, since the recorders could not keep pace with the issuing of the proceedings.

There, finding nothing to say, they wished once more to rub up the objection of the day-limit, concerning which they had been answered more than enough, and past which they had already moved on the first day. But then the Catholics answered them to this as well: that not only was the day set at the Kalends of June to be read in the judge's edict, but they themselves had drawn up their own mandate on the eighth day before the Kalends of June, when the day on which they said the cause ought to have been pleaded — that is, the fourteenth day before the Kalends of June — had already passed. It was said too that Primianus himself had promised to appear at the Kalends of June. All of which was said by the Catholics because they had heard that these men had spoken invidiously about this matter even among their own people;

and yet, amid all this, they persisted most vehemently in demanding a postponement. When the Catholics saw that they were trifling at length toward this end, that the record might be burdened with many words, they asked the judge to grant them the postponement they were requesting. And a postponement of six days was granted, the recorders answering when the issuing of the proceedings could be accomplished, and those men promising that, once the proceedings had been issued, they would sign their own pleadings. On the third day of the conference — that is, the sixth day before the Ides of June — the parties having entered, in the first place the judge inquired whether the proceedings had been issued to them. The office answered that it had issued them before the day it had promised, which was proved by the receipts of both parties.

And the receipts were read, by which it was established that the Catholics had received the proceedings on the eighth day before the Ides of June at the fifth hour of the day, but the Donatists on the same day at the third hour. In the second place, when the judge had ordered that the principal business now be set forth, it was said by the Catholics that they had long wished to plead the principal business, and that this was it: that the crimes which the Donatists are wont to allege against the Church spread throughout the whole world, they should prove, if they could. It was answered by the Donatists that first it should be inquired who they were that would conduct the case, so that delays might arise from the examination of persons.

Concerning this matter, when there had long been strife — the Catholics refusing, and vehemently insisting that, with the evasions of superfluous delays removed, they come to the cause; the Donatists, on the contrary, contending most obstinately that the persons be examined, and demanding that it be declared who had petitioned the emperor that this conference should be held. For they wished it to be established that the Catholics were the petitioners, so that by forensic law they might be able to examine the persons of the petitioners — although in the first session the Catholics' mandate had already been read out, wherein they showed themselves to be not petitioners but defenders against the crimes which those men are wont to cast at their communion;

since these men themselves had first demanded that the Church's cause be pleaded not by forensic formulas but rather by the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, and had confessed, when the Catholics' mandate was read, that they had wished to establish the Church's cause by the holy Scriptures, and had promised that they in turn would proceed from the same authority of the divine law. Then therefore, as though forgetful of what they had demanded and of what they themselves had also promised, when the Catholics had proposed that the matter of the accusation and clearing of the Church ought to be dealt with, they began to inquire after the persons of the petitioners, so that they might examine them by forensic law.

The Catholics therefore resisted on the contrary, and, in order to cut off the delays which they had heard these men were preparing and now saw them weaving in, they persistently insisted that the Church's cause be pleaded rather. In the strife it came to this: that the emperor's command, by which he had ordered the conference to be held, should be read, so that in that way the person of the petitioner might be established. For it seemed even to the judge — lest anything be denied to the Donatists as though demanding what was just, even concerning forensic law itself — that the persons of the petitioners should first be established. When therefore the imperial command had been read out, it was declared that the Catholics had petitioned for the conference and that it had been granted. Then the Donatists began to demand also the petition by which that conference had been requested by them.

Here, when the judge himself answered them that it was not customary for petitions to be inserted into a formal rescript, they turned to this: that the Catholics' mandate, by which they had mandated the conference to be petitioned from the emperor, and the same legates whom they had sent to obtain this, should be issued and produced to them, asserting that they ought to examine what had been mandated, and could there find what the Catholics had spoken to the emperor about them.

When the Catholics understood that this was being inquired into precisely so that occasions might be found by which delays and postponements of protracted time might be introduced, they asserted that what they were requesting had nothing at all to do with the cause, inasmuch as the emperor himself — who had appointed the judge, so that manifest reason might confute the superstition — most plainly showed that the conference had been petitioned by them; and they vehemently urged that, with all interpositions of delays and inquiries into interposing further ones removed, that rather be done which the emperor had ordered to be done by that conference — which it was established had been both petitioned from him and granted.

Amid these things a few words were also exchanged and cast back and forth between the two parties concerning the name 'Catholic,' with whom it rather belonged; and it was ordered to be reserved rather for the principal cause. And after some interval, when again, mention having been made of the Catholic name, the Donatists said that the Catholic Church was rather among themselves, the judge ruled that for the time being, without prejudice to anyone, he could not call the Catholics otherwise than the emperor called them — by whom the judge had been appointed — but that those men, the more they said they were Catholics, the more they now ought, with the interpositions of delays removed, to plead the cause itself, in which they might be able to prove that they were rather the Catholics.

Here the Donatists, after so many delays and so many rulings of the judge brought forth against them — the judge demanding that the cause rather be pleaded and testifying that concerning the persons of the legates or the mandate enjoined upon them, nothing pertained to the cause and nothing had been enjoined upon himself that he should inquire into this — said that, if the Catholics had been unwilling to obey the rulings in making manifest the legates or the mandate given to them, they should at least answer this: whether they stood in the place of petitioners — the Catholics greatly wondering why the Donatists said that they were not obeying the rulings in issuing the mandate of the legates, when rather the judge had pronounced against them themselves in so many rulings.

The Catholics therefore asked what rulings they had not obeyed; and when the Donatists made no answer to this, the judge ruled that to that which the Donatists had asked concerning the place of the petitioner, the Catholics should answer. And they answered that they proposed this: that the crimes which the Donatists are wont to cast at their communion be either proved or dispelled, so that the Donatists' separation might be either defended or corrected.

Then, when the judge demanded a response from the Donatists, they answered that the Africans who called themselves Catholics wished to defend another's cause — that is, the Church of the whole world — concerning which nothing ought to be prejudged for them, since this business was being ventilated among Africans; and that they should rather await the Church across the sea, so that those who had won might appear to belong to it and might themselves possess the Catholic name. But at the end of their pleading they again demanded that an answer be given them concerning the person of the petitioner.

Here the Catholics answered briefly to both points: both that the question concerning persons had already been settled in the first and second judgments, and that it is with the Church spread throughout the whole world — to which the divine Scripture bears witness — that they themselves, not the Donatists, hold communion, whence the Catholics both are and are called Catholics with good reason. The Donatists, however, answered that the Catholic name was instituted not from the universality of nations but from the fullness of the sacraments, and they demanded that the Catholics prove that all nations held communion with them.

When the Catholics received this most gladly and requested that they be permitted to prove it, those men again began to rub up the question concerning that mandate which had been enjoined upon the legates and which they had requested to be issued to them, and to recoil once more from the cause of the Church, which had already come into the midst to be examined — now demanding the aforesaid mandate, now insisting that the person of the petitioner be established, now demanding that the judge rule on those very things they had requested, concerning which he had already so often given his ruling and had pronounced that they were requesting those things in vain.

But the judge, although they seemed not rightly to request that the mandate enjoined upon the legates be issued to them — since that which sufficed for the cause, namely that the conference had been petitioned and granted, was established — nevertheless did not seem to him that they were unjustly requesting that the person of the petitioner be established. The Catholics, however, seeing what had already been announced to them beforehand, and understanding it well enough from the very aim of these men — that the Donatists were seeking the persons of the petitioners for no other reason than that it might be permitted them, by the examination of persons, to introduce the longest delays of time and postponements, since they were vehemently unwilling that the cause be reached, in which they had nothing to say, as the matter itself even at last afterward laid bare — knew this most fully:

Seeing this, therefore, the Catholics were unwilling to undertake the person of petitioners, asserting that they were not casting up crimes but defending against those cast up, which, when they had defended them and shown them to be false, it would consequently appear who those men were and with how great iniquity they had divided themselves from unity. Here the Donatists asserted that, in whatever way the Catholics of their own accord compelled their adversaries to answer even concerning those crimes which they wished to dispel, the Catholics held the person of petitioners.

But the Catholics answered to this that they had petitioned for the conference not where they might cast up things to be dispelled, but where they might dispel things cast up — since both the Donatists' mandate had been made against 'traitors and persecutors,' and the words of Primianus, when he was first approached by the Catholics about a conference, testified that he was casting a crime at them, where he had said: 'It is unworthy that the sons of martyrs and the offspring of traitors should come together into one'; and although he had then been unwilling to confer, yet afterward he had said, in the tribunal of the prefects, that he wished to be heard and examined. Holding fast to that consent of theirs concerning a conference, the Catholics had petitioned the emperor that this be done.

Then the judge ordered them now to prove the crimes cast up by them, and that the person of the petitioner not be pointed out concerning the petitioned conference, even if both were proved to have petitioned. Here the Donatists repeatedly began to request that he rule on the person. And the judge pronounced, saying that, if both parties had petitioned the conference, he was the petitioner who cast up the crimes. And the Donatists demanded that it be proved by the Catholics whether both had petitioned the conference. When the judge had said, 'This the Catholics will have to prove,' there arose again a dilatory strife concerning the name 'Catholic,' both of the Donatists and of the Caecilianists. Then the Catholics produced the proceedings held in the tribunal of the prefecture, by which they might prove that the Donatists too had petitioned the conference.

When the judge had ordered these to be read, they again returned to things past and began to clamor that the judge rule on those matters concerning which he had so often ruled — that is, concerning the person and concerning the mandate of the legates, which they had so often superfluously demanded to be issued to them. This, moreover, they did, as far as could be understood, fearing lest the prefectorial proceedings be read, in which they had wounded their own cause by certain ill-considered and rash answers.

Long therefore was the strife carried on by them, and especially with the judge himself, while they requested that the mandate enjoined upon the legates be issued to them, or that he rule that they had superfluously requested this; but he both said that he had ruled and ruled that this pertained not at all to the present judgment, wherein it was being declared by the imperial letters what had been petitioned and what granted. And at length at some point, at his order, the prefectorial proceedings had begun to be read. When the day and consuls of these proceedings had been read, immediately the Donatists again interrupted and began to demand those same past matters.

But when the judge ruled that the proceedings ought to be read, so that the person of the petitioner might be established, they on the contrary began from the outset to say that there were earlier proceedings which ought rather to be read. On the contrary it was said by the Catholics that these men were unwilling for this reason that the prefectorial proceedings be read: because in them they dreaded their own pleadings.

The Donatists therefore produced the proconsular proceedings and those of the vicarial prefecture, wherein the Catholics had petitioned that these men be summoned by the municipal records, so that, a comparison of both being made, error might be removed from their midst — long before they had petitioned the conference itself from the emperor; and by these proceedings they wished to show the Catholics to stand in the place of petitioners, because there they had called these men heretics committing many things against the divine and human laws. Against this the Catholics said that they had demanded the conference even then for this reason: that they might answer on behalf of the Church against these men's crimes. And so they had petitioned it repeatedly,

that, if those proceedings were to be read which it was established were earlier, rather those should be read wherein the Donatists had first sent the cause of Caecilian to the emperor Constantine, accusing him through the proconsul Anullinus; and when the proceedings which they themselves brought forward had been read, those were not read which, held before the prefects, had already begun to be read. And a strife arose: that, if for this reason the proceedings which the Donatists had produced were preferred to the proceedings which had been produced by the Catholics — because they were found to be earlier, so that these rather should be read — at least after the reading of these there should also be read those far earlier ones, wherein it would appear that they, in this whole cause which was being pleaded, had first stood forth as accusers, through the proconsul, before the emperor.

Lest these therefore be read, the Donatists vehemently struggled, resisting with many and manifold pleadings, just as they had struggled out and wrested that those prefectorial proceedings not be read. In this struggle, moreover, they often repeated that now worn-out point, repelled by so many rulings of the judge, about the mandate of the legates being issued to them. They repeated too the question, which had already before been settled, whether the Catholics preferred to proceed by the testimonies of the law or by the public proceedings; and they said that, if the Catholics chose the testimonies of the divine law, they would make forfeit of all the public laws and proceedings, but if they preferred rather to proceed by the public laws and proceedings, they would give up the divine documents.

And yet, if the Catholics chose this — to proceed rather by the documents of the public proceedings — the Donatists said that they would not permit even this, that the proceedings which were offered by the Catholics be read, on the ground that they had a valid prescription of time — that one, namely, concerning which they had been sufficiently answered both by the Catholics and by the judge himself — because they said that the very cause had lapsed and could no longer be pleaded, since the day had passed on which the four months would be completed.

For it plainly appeared that they vehemently feared lest the proceedings be read by which it might be shown that Caecilian had first been accused before the emperor by their own elders, and then, by both ecclesiastical and imperial judgments, acquitted and cleared — that is, lest the very cause for which they had come be pleaded at all, wherein they perceived that they could most evidently be overcome. And so unwilling and afraid were they that they were even compelled to confess it, saying that little by little — that is, gradually — they were being led into the cause and being brought to the inner matters of the cause; which surely they ought to have desired, if they trusted not in empty and dilatory prescriptions but in the truth of the cause itself.

On the contrary, therefore, the Catholics, while they vehemently strove that the cause be reached — to which they perceived these men were utterly unwilling to come — nevertheless answered again and again to those very same things which those men so often kept repeating, though already settled.

And since there were two matters that had been brought forward — one concerning the production of the mandate that had been enjoined upon the delegates, the other, whether the Catholics preferred to proceed by divine testimonies or by public records — regarding the production of that mandate the Catholics too replied that it did not pertain to them at all, nor to the present cause; and the presiding judge himself, repeating what he had already pronounced more than once, pronounced again that he could by no means examine the persons of the delegates or the mandate they had received, and that he ought not to depart from what had been enjoined upon him, since it was sufficiently apparent from the imperial letters — by which he had been appointed judge of this cause — that the conference had been granted by the emperor.

But concerning that other matter, in which they were asking what the Catholics would choose — whether divine documents or public records — the Catholics repeatedly answered that, if the Donatists did not bring against them the crimes of individual men, such as they were accustomed to allege against 「traditores」, but only inquired what the Church was, or where it was, they would do nothing by public records, but by the testimonies of the divine Scriptures alone; if, however, they persisted in that accusation and incrimination of men — since even they themselves could not demonstrate such things except by such records — then without doubt the Catholics too would defend themselves against crimes of this kind by public records; for otherwise such things could neither be alleged nor answered.

These things were repeatedly urged upon them and pressed home both by the Catholics and by the presiding judge, while, in many and various ways of prolonged proceedings, they kept returning to the same points and repeating the same things, so that the cause might not be tried and the records might not be read, which they saw were already in hand. But at length the judge overcame such lengthy obstinacy and ordered to be read aloud the documents which the Catholics had presented, and the cause at last began to be tried, on account of which so many bishops of both sides had assembled. And this happened in a wonderful way: that whereas the Donatists were demanding the identity of the petitioner precisely so that the cause might not be reached, the very inquiry into the petitioner suddenly brought the cause itself into the open. In the third place, therefore, these things were transacted.

The report of the proconsul Anullinus to the emperor Constantine was read. When the Donatists asked whence it had been produced, the Catholics answered that, if they doubted, it was to be sought in the proconsul's archive. In that report it is most evidently contained that they themselves were the first to send to the emperor Constantine, through the aforesaid proconsul, an accusation setting forth the crimes they charged against Caecilian. When this had been read through, the Donatists began to ask whom the Catholics called their father. And when they were answered, according to the Gospel, where it is written: 「Call no man your father upon earth; for one is your Father, even God」 — even after hearing this, they nonetheless began to ask whether Caecilian was their father or their mother.

When the Catholics had already said that he was neither their father nor their mother, but a brother — a good one, if he were good; an evil one, if he were evil, since even an evil man, on account of the sacraments held in common, would be a brother — from this point they contended somewhat longer, the Donatists repeating the same things and the Catholics answering the same. For the Donatists also objected: how was it that the Apostle said, 「For though you have many pedagogues in Christ, yet not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel」? And the Catholics answered that this was said for the sake of honor, on account of the evangelical mystery which the Apostle dispensed; for as to faith and eternal salvation, there is no father but God.

For the Apostle could not speak contrary to Christ — that, whereas Christ said, 「Call no man your father upon earth; for one is your Father, even God」, the Apostle, as though resisting Christ's words, should on the contrary call himself the father of those to whom he had announced the Gospel — unless a distinction were surely to be made as to what was said for the sake of divine grace and what for the sake of human honor. They also asked who had ordained Augustine, preparing (as was boasted) I know not what slanders.

When Augustine fearlessly answered them that he had been ordained by Megalius, who was then primate of the bishops of the Catholic Church in Numidia, and when he pressed them insistently to bring forth at once what they had prepared, so that there too they might be shown to be slanderers, they twisted their aim to something else, returning to the person of Caecilian — who, the Catholics said, was no hindrance to the Church even if his true crimes were shown, and yet those crimes could not even be shown to be true.

Then, accordingly, the Donatists produced a letter which they said they had received from their whole council, by which a reply was to be made to the mandate of the Catholics — that mandate which had been put forward on the first day of proceedings; and on the following day, before they came to the second session on the third day, the Donatists, upon a formal notice being given, had demanded that it be produced to them, so that being instructed they might come to the hearing. And perhaps it was on account of this letter, which had to be carefully composed, that at the second session itself they sought a delay, which was granted them for six days. In the fourth place, therefore, these things were transacted: the aforesaid letter of the Donatists was read, by which they attempted to reply to the mandate of the Catholics, which had been inserted into the records of the first session.

That they were unable to reply to that mandate will be found by anyone who is willing to read and consider both documents:

First, because the testimonies drawn from the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms and the apostolic and evangelical writings — by which it is shown that the Catholic Church, beginning from Jerusalem, is spread throughout the whole world, whence, growing into places near and far, it came even into Africa and into other places and cities through which it was first extended, in which many churches belonging to that one Church were founded by apostolic labor, with which it is manifest that the Donatists do not hold communion — these testimonies they not only refused to discuss, but refused even to touch at all; nor did they dare to bring forward in their so lengthy letter any testimony from the Holy Scriptures whereby they might assert that the Church of Donatus' party had been foretold and pre-announced, as the Catholics brought forward so many on behalf of the Church with which they hold communion, which, beginning from Jerusalem, is spread throughout the whole world.

These portions, then, of such weighty testimonies, since they did not touch them at all, but passed them over as though what had been said in that mandate of the Catholics — to which they seemed to be replying — had not been said, they attempted to demonstrate this: by bringing forward many testimonies of the divine Scriptures, that the Church of God had been foretold as one that would not exist with a mingling of evil men.

And yet afterward, when they came to the evangelical parable which the Catholics had set forth in their mandate — concerning the nets cast into the sea, in which the Lord said that all kinds of fish are gathered together, and the good separated from the bad on the shore, that is, at the end of the age — even they themselves confessed that in the Church there are mingled at least hidden evil men; but the tares among the wheat, they said, are mingled not in the Church but in the world itself, since the Lord says: 「The field is this world.」

As for the threshing-floor, on which the Catholics had said the chaff is mingled with the wheat until the time of winnowing, they did not even attempt to expound that similitude — as though nothing of the sort were written in the Gospel at all — but, as if the Catholics had said this on their own account, they merely reproached it, as if from the testimony of the prophet Jeremiah, who says: 「What has the chaff to do with the wheat?」 — not attending to the occasion on which he had said this. For he was not speaking of the Church, but of the divine visions of the prophets and human dreams, that they should by no means be compared. That other similitude too, of the sheep and the goats, which are pastured together and will be separated at the end of the age — which the Catholics had set forth among others from the Gospel — they were entirely unwilling to touch.

For they could not there say that even the goats are unrecognized by the shepherds in the common pastures, as they had said that the bad fish among the nets are not seen by the fishermen in the sea.

Likewise, when the Catholics in their mandate — wishing to show that the evil are tolerated by the good in the Church, and that the good are not defiled by contact with the evil — had recalled examples of the prophets, and of the Lord Christ himself, and of the apostles, and after these also of good bishops, and even the judgment of the Donatists themselves, who denied that certain of their own number, placed within the schism of Maximian, had been defiled by contact with Maximian: they, attempting in their letter to respond to these things, said whatever they said concerning the prophets and concerning the Lord Christ and the apostles, but concerning the bishops and the Maximianists they kept silent.

For in the matter of the bishops they were hard pressed by the authority of Cyprian, whose words, produced from his epistle, the Catholics had set in their mandate — words by which it was most manifestly shown both that he had prescribed that for the sake of unity the evil should be tolerated in the Church and that the Church should not be forsaken on their account, and that he himself had tolerated in the Church certain of his colleagues, from whose evil morals he shrank far off and whose most wicked deeds he did not pass over in silence. Oppressed, therefore, by his authority, the Donatists, although they had said something concerning the prophets and the Lord Christ and the apostles to the effect that the evil ought not to be tolerated mingled in the Church, were entirely unwilling to say anything concerning the bishops.

And yet even concerning Judas the traitor, and concerning those whom Paul tolerated preaching Christ out of envy, Cyprian himself so understood and so wrote just as the Catholics set these things in their mandate: that the Lord bore with Judas as an example of the evil to be tolerated in the Church, and that Paul endured those of whom he said such things not outside but within the Church. But concerning the Maximianists, what could they reply, when men were still alive concerning whom they could be most openly and most easily convicted?

Accordingly, to that which the Catholics had said in their mandate — that these same Maximianists had been driven from their basilicas by the Donatists through public judgments — they attempted somehow to reply that they had not brought criminal accusations, nor coerced anyone unwilling into their communion, but had civilly reclaimed their own property or that of their people; forgetting that Primian had once given as a directive to be entered into the records: 「They take away what belongs to others; we take back what has been carried off.」

But to those things which were said concerning the Maximianists in the mandate of the Catholics — that they received back in undiminished honor men condemned by themselves; that they denied the associates of Maximian to have been defiled by him; that they chose rather to approve the baptism given by them in schism than to rescind it and repeat it — to these they did not even lightly attempt to reply, but passed over all those things with a certain wondrous silence, as though they had not been said. Concerning baptism itself also, since it was said by the Catholics in that mandate that the Apostle had said of certain persons:

「They hold the truth in unrighteousness」 — so that it might be shown that it can happen that the truth, not to be destroyed, is held in the unrighteousness that is to be destroyed — they either did not understand this, or, that others might not understand what they themselves had understood, they wished to obscure it with their own words, saying that the Apostle had said this concerning the error of the Gentiles; as though it mattered concerning whose error he had spoken, when nevertheless he had shown that truth can be held in unrighteousness, so that, when these two are found in one man, both the truth may be approved and the unrighteousness corrected — just as the Catholic Church does, when it recognizes in the Donatists and embraces the truth of the sacrament, but detests in them and corrects the heretical unrighteousness.

And that which was said by the Catholics in the mandate — that the baptism of Christ is not therefore to be destroyed because even heretics administer it, just as Christ is not therefore to be denied because even demons confess him — this likewise they either did not understand or wished to obscure, saying that the Catholics had spoken against the martyrs (yet without specifying which martyrs they meant), and saying also that the Catholics wished to hold communion with demons — that communion may be held with heretics when their unrighteousness is anathematized, although the baptism found in their consecration is not destroyed; just as the unrighteousness of demons is anathematized, although the name of the Lord heard in their confession is not denied.

Concerning the persecutions also, which they complain of suffering, they set down much in their letters; yet they did not dare to reply to that which was said in the mandate of the Catholics — that they themselves were the first, before the emperor Constantine, to accuse Caecilian — they who complain of the laws of the emperors, magnifying, to bring odium upon the Catholics, either the deaths which their Circumcellions inflict upon themselves, or all the things which they suffer through the public laws and disciplines, not for the communion of Donatus, but for the crimes by which they violently rage and wickedly live; just as they even dared to make mention of the town of Bagai, where it was made manifest how great were the evils they committed and how much less they suffered.

To that also in the mandate of the Catholics which was said concerning the clearing and acquittal of Caecilian and Felix of Aptunga — from whose alleged crimes they were accustomed to stir up great odium against the Catholics among the unlearned, seeing that the whole cause for which they had come turned upon that very matter — in so lengthy a letter they were entirely unwilling to make any reply; because even in that which they said, and as it were established by divine testimonies — that the evil are not to be tolerated in the Church, but that one must withdraw from them on account of the contagion of sins — they showed that they said it in such a way that nevertheless they confessed that no one can be defiled by the sins of others while those sins remain unknown.

For this they had said also concerning the bad fish: that, just as the fishermen do not see those hidden in the waves although already within the nets, so the priests do not know the evil hidden in the Church, and are therefore in no way defiled by them. And yet not even lightly or thinly, in letters composed with so long a delay granted them, did they attempt to prove what was chiefly recalled in the mandate of the Catholics — namely, to prove not only that the crimes of Caecilian were true (for that is a small thing), but also that they could have been proved and made known to the Church, which is spread through all nations even to the ends of the earth, so that consequently — at least according to their own reasoning — it could be defiled by the contagion of known sins.

When, therefore, the letters of the Donatists had been read aloud, the judge wished that the documents which the Catholics had given to be recited should also be read. But the Donatists began to insist that a reply be made to what they had written — which the Catholics rather preferred, lest those letters should so remain as though no reply could be made to them. When, therefore, the Catholics began to reply, the Donatists began to interrupt and clamor, so that the continuous discourse of the one replying might not run on, as their letters had been recited with no one interrupting.

The Catholics, therefore, wishing to show how the divine testimonies which they themselves had set forth, and those which the Donatists had recalled, ought to be received — lest they should be caught being contrary to one another, since, being both divine and certainly harmonious, they ought not to be discordant — began first to speak of the similitude of the threshing-floor. Then the Donatists, interrupting, said that nothing was read as written in the Gospel concerning the threshing-floor. And when the passage of the Gospel was more expressly recalled by the Catholics, again by interrupting they said that hidden evil men were called the chaff that was afterward to be winnowed.

Thence, amid their uproars and interruptions, a dispute arose concerning the tares and the wheat, on account of the word 「world」, which the Donatists were unwilling to have understood as the Church, because it is written: 「The field is this world」; and they brought forward many testimonies by which Holy Scripture makes mention of the world as none but the evil — such as: 「If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him」, and other such things — so that from this they might, as it were, show that by the word 「world」 the Church could by no means be signified. Against this the Catholics brought forward other testimonies, by which it might be shown that the word 「world」 is set down in a good sense, such as:

「God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself」, and other things of this kind, where the Church is shown, since it is certainly reconciled to God through Christ. And these things were transacted while the Catholics were trying to continue and complete their discourse, but the Donatists were making an uproar to prevent this being done; since they did not reserve their response, as the Catholics had done when the Donatists' letter was being read, but by interposing frequent contradictions they hindered the exposition of the Catholics from running its course undisturbed.

And so, when the Catholics were demanding their patience and scarcely obtaining it through many interlocutions of the judge, they replied to their letters, showing by many testimonies and examples of the Holy Scriptures that the evil are now so mingled in the Church that, although ecclesiastical discipline ought to be vigilant to correct them not only by words but also by excommunications and degradations, yet they are not only unknown while hidden in it, but for the most part, for the sake of the peace of unity, they are tolerated even when known; thus showing that the divine testimonies agree — that those by which the Church is commended as having a mingling of the evil signify this present time of hers, such as she is in the present age, and those testimonies by which she is commended as not having the evil mingled signify that time of hers, such as she will be forever in the age to come;

just as now she is mortal, that is, she consists of mortal men, but then she will be immortal, when no one will die in her; just as Christ himself in this present time was mortal for her sake, but after the resurrection dies no more, and death shall no longer have dominion over him — which he will also grant to his Church at the end of the age. These two times of the Church — such as she now is, and such as she will then be — were signified also by the two catches of fish: one before the resurrection of Christ, when he bade the nets be cast, naming neither the left nor the right side, that he might teach that not the evil alone, nor the good alone, but the evil mingled with the good,

would be within the nets of his sacraments; but after the resurrection, when he bade the nets be cast on the right side; that we might understand that after our resurrection there will be in the Church the good alone, where there will no longer be heresies and schisms, by which the nets are now torn asunder. For the Gospel too did not keep silent that in the first catch the nets were mentioned as torn, and in the last it was said: 「And though the fishes were so great, the nets were not torn.」 Of such a Church it was said that through her 「the uncircumcised and the unclean shall not pass」; for schismatic separations pertain to the unclean, which then will not exist, because the nets are not torn.

This too was signified by the fact that the raven, an unclean bird, went forth from the ark and did not return; yet that ark, when the raven went forth, was by no means empty of all unclean animals, but in it there were both clean and unclean until the flood, just as in the Church there are good and evil until the end of the age. But just as Noah offered sacrifice not from the unclean but from the clean animals, so it is not those who are evil in the Church, but those who are good, who come to God.

Concerning the prophets also — since the Donatists had said in their letters that these prophets did not hold communion with those against whom they uttered such great reproaches — the Catholics replied that there was one temple which all used, and that none of the prophets who said such great things against the evil had set up for himself another temple, sacrifices, priests. And as to the fact that the Donatists had set down in their letters testimonies of the Scriptures by which they showed that the sins of parents pertain even to their children — since this can never rightly be understood except of those children who imitate the iniquities of their parents — the Catholics replied:

although such great and bitter things were said against that people by the divine oracles — things which they themselves also recalled in their letters, so that it might seem that no good person remained there at all — not only were those same holy prophets there, but there had also arisen from that very people those whom the Lord himself, at the coming of his flesh, found praiseworthy, such as were Zacharias and Elizabeth, and such as John their son, and such as the aged Simeon and Anna the widow.

Whence it appears how impiously, how slanderously, the crimes of Caecilian were objected against Catholics spread throughout the whole world, since the crimes of that people — in which they had been born and consecrated by the sacraments of that same people — could not be objected against Simeon and Anna and others such; which crimes not human opinion, but the divine word had objected against that same people. There was also recalled a prophetic testimony, where those who groaned over the wicked deeds that were done in their midst were sealed, lest they should perish with the evil — and yet they were not bodily separated.