But God emptied out this wisdom of his, when He says: 'Are you wiser than Daniel?' How rightly and well was his wisdom humbled, by which he thought himself wiser than Daniel in rejecting the king's gifts, since he would not receive what seemed to have been sent by a Christian emperor! And he seemed to himself either a new Daniel or one set above Daniel in wisdom, because Daniel too, when once he was urged by King Belshazzar to receive gifts — that is, a ring, a chain, and the rest — is read to have said: 'Let your gifts be with yourself, O king.'
And he answered wisely, and did not hurl insults at the king, and did not condemn what was offered but deferred it — not in the manner of Donatus, who both spoke as many insults against Constans as he could and rejected what had been sent by him for the poor. But Daniel, holy and wise, was found such that he did not accept the gifts offered on that day. For that which was asked of him was still in heaven, and it would have been the part of a fool to accept as it were the reward of this matter which he did not yet have in his power; for this reason he was unwilling to accept the gifts offered on that day for the time being. Finally, when God showed him what he should declare to the aforesaid king, he reported it to Belshazzar, and what he seemed long since to have rejected, he afterward willingly accepted.
Rightly does God rebuke the prince of Tyre, namely Donatus, when He says: 'Are you wiser than Daniel?' But oh, how far is the presumption of Donatus from the character of Daniel! For what Belshazzar offered, he offered to Daniel, not to the poor; whereas what Constans, the Christian emperor, had then sent, he had dispatched for the poor, not for Donatus. And so it says: 'The wise have not taught you their wisdom,' because you refused to learn that lesson from Solomon. Who says: 'Hide bread in the heart of the poor man, and it shall plead for you.' Because that too he refused to learn from Daniel himself, who gave counsel to Nebuchadnezzar how he might make satisfaction, since he had offended God. 'And you, O king,' he says, 'hear my counsel, and let it please you:
redeem your sins with alms, and your injustices with mercies to the poor.' Daniel urges that alms be done by a sinful and sacrilegious king; Donatus, who deserved to be rebuked, stood in the way of Constans, the Christian emperor, that he might not be merciful. Therefore he is rebuked, because the wise did not teach him their wisdom—he who would not allow what had been sent by the king to be distributed through himself. Hence it is clear that Donatus was the fountain of evil causes. And so, whatever could have been done harshly in bringing about unity, you see, brother Parmenian, to whom it ought to be imputed. You say that soldiers were requested by us Catholics; if that is so, why did no one then see an armed soldier in the proconsular province?
Paul and Macarius were coming, to distribute relief to the poor everywhere and to exhort each person to unity; and when they were drawing near to the city of Bagai, then another Donatus, as we said above, the bishop of that same city, desiring to set an obstacle and barrier to unity against those coming as aforesaid, sent heralds through the neighbouring places and through all the market-fairs, summoning the Circumcellions, calling them 'agonistici' (champions), and invited them to gather at the aforesaid place; and at that time the gathering of those very men was demanded, whose madness a little before had impiously been kindled, it seemed, by the bishops themselves.
For when this kind of men, before the unity, was wandering through the various places, and Axido and Fasir were called by these madmen 'leaders of the saints,' no one was permitted to be secure in his own possessions; the bonds of debtors lost their force, no creditor at that time had freedom of exacting payment, all were terrified by the letters of those who boasted that they had been leaders of the saints; and if there were any delay in obeying their commands, suddenly an insane multitude would come flying, and with terror going before, the creditors were beset with perils, so that those who had deserved to be petitioned for their loans were, through fear of death, humbled and driven to entreaties.
Everyone hastened to lose even the largest debts, and it was reckoned as gain to have escaped from their wrongs; even journeys could not be most safe, because masters, flung down from their own carriages, ran in servile fashion before their own slaves who sat in the masters' places. By their judgment and command the condition between masters and slaves was reversed. Hence, when ill-will was then aroused against the bishops of your party, such men are said to have written to Taurinus, then count, that they could not be corrected in the Church; they directed that they should receive discipline from the aforesaid count. Then Taurinus, in response to their letters, ordered armed soldiers to go through the market-fairs, where the fury of the Circumcellions had been wont to roam.
At the place called Octavum many were slain and many were maimed, whose bodies down to this present day could be counted by the whitewashed altars or tables. And when some of their number had begun to be buried in the basilicas, Clarus, a presbyter at the place called Subbula, was compelled by his own bishop to make the burial an unburial. Hence it was disclosed that an order had been given for what was done, when not even burial was allowed to be displayed in the house of God. Afterwards their multitude grew strong again. Thus Donatus of Bagai found from where he might lead a furious mob against Macarius. From that very breed were those who, under the desire of a false martyrdom, hired assassins against themselves for their own destruction.
Hence also those who, from the summits of high mountains, casting away their worthless lives, hurled themselves down headlong. Behold, from what a number the other Donatus, a bishop, had made cohorts for himself! Deterred by this fear, those who were carrying treasures to distribute to the poor, found, in such great necessity, this counsel: to ask armed soldiers from the count Silvester—not that they might do violence to anyone through them, but that they might prevent the violence arranged by the aforesaid bishop Donatus. By this reasoning it came about that an armed soldier was seen. Now whatever followed, see to whom it ought or can be ascribed. They had there an infinite mob of those summoned, and it is established that a fitting supply of provisions had been prepared;
from the basilica, as though it were a public granary, they had made storehouses, waiting for them to come, upon whom they might exercise their fury; and they would have done whatever their madness dictated to them, had not the presence of the armed soldier stood in the way. For when, before the coming of the soldiers, billeting-officers (metatores) were sent ahead, as is customary, they were not fittingly received, contrary to the precepts of the Apostle, who says: 'To whom honour, honour; to whom toll, toll; to whom tribute, tribute; owe no man anything.' Those who had been sent were beaten along with their horses—sent by those whose names you have fanned about with the fan of ill-will. They were themselves the masters of their own injury, and what they could suffer they themselves taught by the injuries they first inflicted.
The harassed soldiers returned to their units, and what two or three had suffered, all grieved over. All were stirred up; not even their officers were able to restrain the angry soldiers. Thus was committed what you have recorded as having been done to the discredit of unity; these and the rest have their own causes and yours, and the persons I have shown to be liable. We did not even see this, but heard it together with you. If hearing makes men guilty, we hold you as accomplices, because you likewise heard it; if hearing is innocent of the deed, then what was done by others, you provoking it, ought not to be imputed to us.
You lay down your complaint in order: that under Leontius, under Ursacius very many were wronged, that under Paul and Macarius some were killed, that by their followers I-know-not-whom were proscribed for a time. What does this have to do with us, what does it pertain to the Catholic Church? Whatever you have alleged, you yourselves did, you who were unwilling gladly to receive the peace commended by God, esteeming the inheritance of schism dearer than the precepts set forth by the Saviour. You have accused the workmen of unity: condemn unity itself, if you can! For I suppose you do not deny that unity is the highest good. What is it to us, of what sort the workmen were, provided that what was worked is established to be good?
For wine too is both trodden and pressed by sinful workmen, and from it a sacrifice is thus offered to God; oil also is made by filthy men and by some who live wickedly and speak unclean things, and yet it is freely dispensed for taste, for light, even in the holy chrism. You say that the workmen of unity were evil; perhaps with the will of God, to whom it is sometimes pleasing even that which could have been prevented by Him. For some evils are done evilly, some evils are done well. The robber does evil evilly; the judge does evil well, when he avenges what the robber sinned. For this is the voice of God: 'You shall not kill,' and it is His voice: 'If a man be found sleeping with a woman who has a husband, you shall kill both.' One God, and two diverse voices.
Finally, when Phinehas, the son of the priest, found the adulterer with the adulteress, he lifted his hand with the sword and stood doubtful between the two voices of God. From here sounded to him: 'You shall not kill'; from there sounded: 'You shall kill both.' If he struck, he would sin; if he did not strike, he would offend. He chose the better sin, that he might strike. And perhaps there were not lacking those who would have wished to brand the avenger of this matter as a murderer. But that God might show that some evils are done well, He spoke, saying: 'Phinehas appeased My wrath.' And the homicide pleased God, because the adultery was avenged. What then? If now too it pleased God, what you say you have suffered, you who refused to have the unity with the whole world and with the memorials of the apostles, which is pleasing to God?
Unwillingly am I compelled in this place to make mention even of those men of whom I do not wish, whom you place among the martyrs, by whom, as though by the sole religion of your communion, men swear. These indeed I would gladly pass over in silence, but the cause of truth does not allow itself to be silenced, and from these very names a rabid ill-will barks inconsiderately against unity, and some who spurn it judge that unity is to be accused or fled, because Marculus and Donatus are said to have been slain and to have died—as if no one whatsoever could deserve to be killed in the vengeance of God! No one ought to have been harmed by the workmen of unity, but neither ought the divine commands to have been despised by the bishops, to whom it is commanded: 'Seek peace, and you shall obtain it,' and again:
'How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity,' and again: 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.' Those who neither willingly wished to hear this nor devoutly wished to do it—whatever they could suffer, if to be killed is an evil, are themselves the cause of their own evil. But, as you say, Macarius seems to you to be one who ought to be accused, because you reckon that he could have done this without the will of God. You have men of this kind as ancient defendants: accuse first Moses himself, the lawgiver, who, when he was coming down from Mount Sinai, almost before the tables of the law had yet been set forth, in which it was written 'You shall not kill,' ordered three thousand men to be killed in a single moment.
Defer Macarius a little while; first summon into judgment Phinehas, the son of the priest, whom I mentioned a little before—if indeed you can find any judge besides God. For what you accuse in his person was praised by God, because it was done in zeal for God. Suppress meanwhile the voices which ill-will dictates against Macarius. Run back first to Elijah the prophet, who at the brook Kishon, when he was obeying the will of God, killed four hundred and fifty. But perhaps you may say that those were rightly killed, these unworthily: never does vengeance follow unless its cause has gone before. Moses avenged, as we said; Elijah avenged; Phinehas avenged; and you are unwilling that Macarius should have avenged.
If those who are said to have been killed had done no offense, let Macarius be guilty in this, that he alone did it without our knowledge, but with your provoking: why is the discredit cast on us, when the deeds are another's? And the cause is in you, because it is said to have happened on account of you, who were outside (though even now you seem to be outside), not on account of us, who dwell within and have never withdrawn from the root. But since we have spoken of the persons of the aforementioned in order, let us see why Moses ordered three thousand men to be killed, why Phinehas two, why Elijah four hundred and fifty, why Macarius two—whose names, as I said above, you daily fan about with the fan of ill-will.
It is established that vengeance was taken upon those by whom the divine command was despised. For 'You shall not make for yourself a graven image' is the voice of God, and 'You shall not commit adultery' is the voice of the same God; 'You shall not sacrifice to idols' the same God spoke, and 'You shall not make schism,' and 'Seek peace and you shall obtain it' is the precept of the same God. In the times of Moses the people of Israel worshipped the head of a calf, which a sacrilegious flame had cast for them; therefore three thousand men deserved to be killed, because the voice of God seemed to be despised. Phinehas struck the adulterers with one blow: he deserved to be praised by God, because he killed the despisers of the divine precepts.
And the four hundred and fifty whom Elijah is read to have killed were killed for this reason, that against the command of God—in that they were false prophets—they had despised the precepts of God. And those by whose names you charge Macarius are not far from false prophets either; for God said you would be false prophets, which we shall prove in the next place; and while they were unwilling to regard peace, lest they should dwell in one accord with their brethren, they obstinately resisted against the precepts and against the will of God. Therefore you see that by Moses and Phinehas and Elijah and Macarius like deeds were done, because by all of them the precepts of the one God were avenged. But I see you in this place separating the times: that there were some times before the Gospel, others after the Gospel;
in which you can say that it is written that the sword should now be put up by Peter, with which he had cut off the ear of the priest's servant, whom servant Peter, as one devoted, could have killed. But Christ had come to suffer, not to be defended; and if Peter had fulfilled his intention, in the passion of Christ the servant would have seemed to be avenged, not the people freed. For Macarius too did not draw the sword put up by Peter into its sheath—this God proves, when He speaks to the valley of Zion, saying: 'The wounded in you, not wounded by the sword'—or prove that anyone at that time was struck by the sword. Then it says: 'The dead in you, not dead in war.' Wherefore you ought to take heed, lest it be rash to call them martyrs who felt no Christians' war.
For nothing of such a kind was done or heard of as is wont to be said or done in a war of Christians—which war is called persecution, which was carried out under two of those four beasts which Daniel saw ascending from the sea. The first was like a lion: this was the persecution under Decius and Valerian; the second like a bear: another persecution, which was under Diocletian and Maximian, at which time there were also impious judges making war upon the Christian name, of whom in the proconsular province, some sixty years ago and more, had been Anulinus, and in Numidia, Florus. It is known to all what their artful cruelty wrought:
War declared against Christians raged; in the temples of demons the devil triumphed; the altars smoked with unclean reeking, and because they could not come to sacrilegious sacrifices, wherever they were they were compelled to lay on incense. Every place was a temple for the crime; old men near to dying were defiled, ignorant infancy was polluted, little ones were carried by their mothers to the abomination, parents were compelled to commit bloodless parricides; some were compelled to overthrow the temples of the living God, others to deny Christ, others to burn the divine laws, others to lay on incense. That any of these things was done by Macarius not even you yourselves can fabricate. Under the persecutor Florus Christians were compelled to the temples of idols; under Macarius the sluggish were driven to the basilica.
Under Florus it was said that Christ should be denied and the idols entreated; on the contrary, under Macarius all were admonished that the one God should be equally entreated in the Church by all. Therefore, since you see that there was no Christians' war—and that some died without war God recalls, when He says: 'And the dead in you, not dead in war'—and that those can be doubtful martyrs who were not even summoned to sacrilegious sacrifices, nor to unclean incense, nor to the denial of the name of God, and since there is no passage to martyrdom except through confession: how do you call them martyrs who were not confessors? Or which of them was compelled to deny and confessed Christ?
If therefore there can be no martyrdom without the confession of the name of Christ, and no one confessed, and what you say was done was done in the vengeance of God's precepts, and you do not prove that anything was done by us—since that which was done both God foretold would so come to pass, and His precepts were avenged: see lest it be not only vain but even superstitious to place men dead without war where those are who, having confessed Christ, could die for the name of God. Or if you wish them to be martyrs, prove that they loved peace, in which are the first foundations of martyrdom, or that they cherished the unity pleasing to God, or that they had charity with their brethren.
For that all Christians are brethren we both proved in the first book and shall doubtless prove in the fourth. Those whom you say ought to be called martyrs were unwilling to acknowledge their brethren, they had no charity. Nor let it be said in excuse that they were unwilling to commune with traditors, since it has been most manifestly proved that those very men were the sons of traditors. There is therefore no excuse, because it is most manifestly established that they did not have charity, without which no martyrdom can either be named or exist, without which the greatest and most commanding virtue is void of effect, without which the knowledge of all tongues avails nothing, without which not even the fellowship of angels avails anything, the Apostle Paul saying:
'If I have in me the power of commanding the mountains to remove themselves from place to place, and speak with the tongues of all nations, even of angels, and deliver my body to the flames, and have not charity in me, I am nothing; but I shall be a tinkling brass in the desert, so that the work of the voice perishes where no hearing meets it.' If so great a matter, if blessed Paul, if the vessel of election, although in commanding virtue and in the fellowship of angels, pronounces himself to be nothing unless he have charity, see whether those should not be called martyrs but deserve to be called something [else], who, being deserters of charity, were able to suffer something for that very desertion.
The whole world rejoices over the Catholic unity, except the part of Africa, in which a conflagration has been kindled from a spark. You complain that I-know-not-what things were committed by the workmen of unity. This Italy does not complain of, nor Gaul, nor Spain, nor Pannonia, nor Galatia, nor Greece, nor Asia with so many of its provinces. Because there was nothing there to be amended, no amender was sent thither; because there was nothing there torn, no one was sent thither—so to speak—as a mender. And here in Africa, while the people had long been remaining in unity, the garment had been whole, but it was torn by the rival hand of the enemy. The patches hung, as it were, from one origin of one garment, and the branches coming from one root were divided from one another. Why does part set itself before part?
Why does one patch exalt itself over another patch, when it cannot prove itself better? For what then? If the despised patch should say: 'Why do you so exalt yourself? Did we not grow up as equals, were we not together in the hands of those who made us, were we not alike cleansed at the fuller's? The enemy wished to cut us apart from one another, the adversary wished to deform our beauty.' In part we are still one garment, but we hang in different places. For what is torn is divided in part, not in whole, since it is rightly established that for us and for you there is one ecclesiastical way of life, and if the minds of men are at strife, the sacraments are not at strife. Finally, we too can say:
'We believe as equals and are sealed with one seal, nor are we baptized otherwise than you; we read the divine testament alike, we pray to one God alike, the Lord's Prayer is one among us and among you. But the part having been torn, as we said above, with the pieces hanging on this side and on that, a mending was necessary.' And yet the craftsman or workman of this matter, while he wishes to recall the garment to its former appearance, pricks the neighbouring threads. The mender displeases you, who, while he heals the tear, wounds it; let him rather displease you who caused that the mender could sin. And the things you say were committed against you by the workmen of unity either pertain to your fathers, on whose account they were done, or descend from the will of God;
but we are strangers to it. What then? If, although harsh, yet, as we said, they seem to have been committed with the will of God? For we read in the prophet Ezekiel of a whitewashed wall, against which God threatened a storm, rain, and battering stones, and accusations: 'There shall be,' He says, 'false prophets, who build a ruinous wall, saying: Peace, peace; and where is peace?' Remember how the members of mother Church have long been torn asunder from one another by you. For you could not seduce each single household at once. Either the wife went away and the husband stayed behind, or the parents were seduced and the children refused to follow, or the brother stood firm while the sister departed.
By your persuasions both bodies and the names of piety were divided, and you could not pass over what is customary. Surely you said: 'Peace be with you,' while God said on the contrary: 'Peace—and where is peace?' That is to say: Why do you greet with that which you do not have? Why do you name what you have destroyed? You greet with peace, who do not love peace. 'These,' He says, 'build a ruinous wall.' The house of God is one; those who, going outside, wished to make a part, made a wall, not a house, because there is no other God to inhabit another house. Therefore the false prophets are said to have made a wall, in which, if a door has been placed, whoever enters is outside.
Nor can one wall have a cornerstone, which stone is Christ, who receives into Himself two peoples, one from the Gentiles, another from the Jews, who joins both walls with the knot of peace. For as many advantages as a house has, so many disadvantages has a wall: an enclosed house guards, beats back the storm, sheds off the rain, admits neither robber nor thief nor beast; so also the Catholic Church embraces all the sons of peace in her bosom and lap; whereas a wall which is built ruinous neither sustains a cornerstone and has a door without cause, nor, being unenclosed, guards; it is wetted by rain, beaten by storms, nor can it ward off the robber nor prevent the thief who comes. The wall is of the house, but is not the house;
and your part is as it were a church, but is not Catholic. 'And they whitewash it,' He says—that is, that you esteem yourselves alone to be holy. You complain that you suffered certain things without us; therefore it is established that you alone suffered certain things, because one is the time of peace, another the time of persecution. If you think it persecution, tell me, what did all the provinces, in which the Catholic Church is established, suffer along with you? But because it was vengeance, not persecution, the wall alone suffered, against which God threatened a storm, rain, and battering stones, and accusations. For thus He spoke: 'Why have you built a ruin? Why have you whitewashed it? Why have you plastered it? This is against My will, says the Lord.'
The times of some Leontius, Ursacius, Macarius, and the rest displease you. Amend the will of God, if you can, who said: 'I will rise up against the wall in My wrath, and I will send an exceeding great storm and rain, floods, and battering stones, and I will strike the ruinous wall, and its joints shall be dissolved.' But lest any of you say: If unity is a good thing, why, having been made so often, could it not endure?—the reason is this: because the matter itself was so ordained by God, who threatened a storm, rain, stones, and accusations; and these four things could not happen at one time. First there was a storm under Ursacius: the wall was shaken, but it did not fall, so that the rain might have where to work. The rain followed under Gregorius:
the wall was wetted, but it was not soaked through, so that the stones might have where to work. After the rain the stones followed under the workmen of unity: the wall was scattered, but it repaired itself again from its foundations. Now three things have been carried out: the accusations are owed to you, but how and when, He knows to whom it pleased to announce these things concerning us. And lest anyone should doubt about this meaning, God added, saying: 'The things I speak are not of mud or of brick or of a wall, but of the false prophets, who seduce My people.' This word 'seduce,' see to which part it fits. All were with us; in our absence you rushed in;
but in order to have those whom you desired to have, you could do nothing but seduce, and what the words of your seduction are, is known to all. It is your part to say: 'Look behind you'; it is your part to say: 'Redeem your souls'; it is your part to say to faithful men and clerics: 'Be Christians.' But when you say: 'Look behind you,' you act against the Gospel, where it is said: 'No one holding the handle of the plough and looking back behind himself shall enter the kingdom of heaven.' And do you wish to know what he deserved who looked behind himself, and he who looked before himself? Remember the fugitives from Sodom, Lot and his wife: she who looked behind herself was changed into a pillar of salt; he who looked before himself escaped. What then is this that you say: