Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 20 part 5/5

For as though they had been instructed by us, or as though they had been chosen along with us to defend and declare the innocence of Caecilian: when it was demanded of them that they should show, if they could, what they were saying — namely, that by a later judgment Caecilian had been condemned by the Emperor, whose letters we had read which had shown him to be acquitted — they brought forward a petition of their forefathers, addressed to the same Emperor Constantine, in which they had most plainly demonstrated that it was rather themselves who had been condemned by his judgment. For there befell them, in the presence of the imperial power, what befell the enemies of the holy Daniel, who suffered from those same lions what they had wished the innocent man to suffer.

Here, when we had briefly pointed out that that petition had rather been read for us against themselves, they added yet another thing, bringing forward letters of the same Emperor addressed to Verinus the vicar, wherein, gravely detesting them and leaving them to the judgment of the Lord, who had already begun to take vengeance upon them, he released them from exile by a most ignominious act of clemency. Thus it was most manifestly established that not only had no condemnation of Caecilian afterwards ensued, but that his very acquittal and vindication had been confirmed both by their punishment and by that detestable clemency.

These so excellent documents — it must be confessed — we did not have in our hands; but perhaps, if we had heard that they existed somewhere, whence they could not be given to us free of charge, we would have come to obtain them at whatever price, that we might be permitted to have them transcribed for ourselves. And how much would we have given, had they been offered for sale, that they might be read on our behalf even by our very adversaries? What can now seem capable of being added, to help us more abundantly? And yet they added it. For they made mention of the case of Felix of Aptunga, by whom Caecilian had been ordained, upon which Felix they had fastened the charge of surrendering the Scriptures.

But when Caecilian had been acquitted, and effort was being pressed for the completion of unity, they had stirred up a question concerning this Felix, thinking that in this way Caecilian, though already vindicated, could be ensnared by the crimes of others. This cause of Felix, therefore, was likewise examined by proconsular judgment, in which the innocence of Felix appeared most clearly.

But since a certain Ingentius, who in that same trial confessed that he had committed a forgery against Felix, ought not easily to be punished where a bishop's cause was at stake, nor could a man guilty of so great a crime easily be dismissed by the proconsul without the Emperor being consulted — at whose urging all those proceedings were being conducted — the proconsul thereupon made a report, and the Emperor rescribed that this same Ingentius should be sent to his court, wishing that the forefathers of these men, by whom he was daily importuned, should be confuted in his presence; yet in no way doubting concerning the vindication, but rather confirming it even by the express declaration of his own words, as his rescript shows. All these documents of the case of Felix we had in our hands, and had arranged to hand over to be read.

In this the men themselves forestalled us, and brought forward and read first those very letters of the Emperor concerning the sending of Ingentius to himself — we perhaps not being about to read them, since we thought it sufficient that the cause of Caecilian too had been so concluded that nothing further seemed to need to be required. But since our adversaries were acting so that the persecution which their forefathers inflicted upon our forefathers before the emperors, and their own calumnies overcome, might appear the more abundantly, what were we to do but gladly accept what was offered, and give thanks to the Lord in all things? The letters of Constantine, therefore, they themselves brought forward, they themselves read. What I say seems incredible, but the records bear witness: their prosecutions are written down, their signatures are held fast.

They themselves, I say, read out that Constantine had subscribed that Aelianus the proconsul had afforded a competent hearing in the case of Felix, and that it had been established that Felix was innocent of the charge of surrendering the Scriptures, but that he had wished Ingentius to be sent to his court for this reason — 'that,' he says, 'to these men, who are acting at present and cease not to importune day after day, it might, in their presence and while they stood by face to face, appear and be brought home to them that they had in vain stirred up ill-will against Caecilian and had wished violently to rise up against him.' They themselves read it out. Which of us would have dared to wish this — that those whom iniquity had made our accusers, truth should make our defenders?

So too that Balaam, whom in ancient times iniquity hired to curse the people of God, truth compelled to bless.

But as the order of the consuls shows — which the shortness of time did not then permit us to consider (for the records called consular were not at hand, nor would anyone believe that they would object so idle a matter, wishing us to reply as to what had been done when Ingentius was sent, or whether Ingentius was sent at all, seeing that both the proconsular sentence declared the innocence of Felix, and the reply of the Emperor, brought forward and read by themselves, confirmed that same sentence; and surely they would rather have brought it forward, had they had confidence that anything had been transacted in their favour when Ingentius was sent) — as, then, the order of the consuls declares: first Caecilian was acquitted by the episcopal judgment of Miltiades; then, not long after, Felix was established innocent by the proconsular judgment; and thus afterwards Caecilian too was vindicated by the Emperor sitting in judgment between the parties; then, after some years, his adversaries were released by that ignominious act of clemency.

For Miltiades gave judgment when Constantine was consul for the third time and Licinius for the second, on the sixth day before the Nones of October. Aelianus the proconsul heard the case of Felix when Volusianus and Annianus were consuls, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of March — that is, after about four months. Constantine wrote to Eumalius the vicar concerning the vindication of Caecilian when Sabinus and Rufinus were consuls, on the fourth day before the Ides of November — that is, after two years and nearly eight months. And the same Emperor gave letters to Valerius the vicar concerning the release of those men from exile and the leaving of their fury to God the Avenger, when Crispus and Constantine were consuls for the second time, on the third day before the Nones of May — that is, after the fourth year and about the sixth month.

Whence, without any windings, it most clearly stands established that, whether Ingentius was sent to the court or not sent, nothing was afterwards adjudged against Caecilian; nay rather, he was afterwards declared, even by the imperial judgments, victor over his adversaries and persecutors. Let the party of Donatus now go forth — so often disproved, so often calumnious, so often lying, so often refuted, so often in every way overcome and confounded: let it still boast that the judge was corrupted by us. As if any other voice were wont to belong to the vanquished! No doubt the judge had to be corrupted, so that his authority might invalidate what they themselves had done well. But I would not say that they acted ill; nay rather, they acted excellently, who against their own errors said so many things on behalf of the truth.

For if their cause be considered, he judged in truth against them; but if their prosecutions be read, he judged rather according to them. Or would he who was in the middle be adverse to us in that cause in which those who stood on the opposing side said, brought forward, and read out so much on our behalf? What should we have needed to purchase from the judge, when we did not purchase from our adversaries those things which would have compelled the judge — even had he received money from them — to bear sentence on our behalf?

Although, even had we not known him to be one who feared God and loved justice and was estranged from all sordid dealings of this kind, we ought to direct against such a man this suspicion: that he, when he saw them pressed by the truth and yet did not wish to seem adverse to them, endured all too patiently men wandering through vain things, saying so many superfluous things, and returning so often to the same points already convicted — so that the records, burdened with so many volumes, would weary almost everyone to unroll and to learn by reading how the case was conducted. Whether they did this rather from poverty of truth or from the diligence of craftiness, I know not. Yet by this alone could they in some way assist so wretched a cause, which they ought rather to have forsaken.

Finally, if the rest should direct their accusation against those who conducted the case, and should assert rather that these had been corrupted by us — so that by so many prosecutions, and by readings brought forward even by themselves, they thus assisted our cause and thus destroyed their own — I know not how they can defend themselves and clear themselves of this suspicion, unless perhaps they say: 'If we had been corrupted, we would have quickly brought to an end a cause so bad and convicted both through us and through them. But as it is, believe even from this that we were present in earnest and wished to be of some use, in that by much speaking we contrived that what was done should not easily be read, and that our being vanquished should not quickly become known.'

If this were not done by them, then perhaps — even though neither they nor we swore an oath — it might be believed that those many things which they said against themselves on our behalf, and those many things which they read, they had rendered us all gratis. Yet we give thanks for this not to them, but rather to God. For that they should bring forth and publish, whether by speaking or by reading, all those things on behalf of our cause — it was truth that tormented them, not charity that invited them. Wherefore, brethren — if indeed you are not angry that we call you brethren (for they, when they heard this from us, said in the records that an injury was being done to them, nor, though admonished by our statement, where this testimony from the prophet was set down, could they recall that God had commanded:

Say, 'You are our brethren,' to those who hate you and who detest you, that the name of the Lord may be glorified and may appear to them in gladness, but they themselves shall be put to shame — therefore now, brethren, let the name of the Lord appear to you in gladness, that name which has been invoked over us, and whose sacraments we both bear, so that not without cause are we called brethren. Now love peace; abandon at last your litigious and calumnious habit, now that it has at least been convicted and confounded; and do not hate them when, being corrected, they come over to us, but when, remaining in nefarious error, they still to this day seduce you. Nor let them seem great in their own eyes because we confer upon them, within unity, an honour which they may possess as men to be set free;

for having this outside unity, they are on that account the more to be condemned. Military standards, indeed, are held more perniciously by usurpers than if they were not held at all; and yet, when these men are corrected and brought back into the emperor's camp, those standards are not broken or abolished, but they begin now to adorn and defend those whom before they betrayed and punished. Why do you still attend to their insane complaints and empty lies? The case was concluded by night, but so that the night of error might be concluded; the sentence was spoken by night, but shining with the light of truth. They complained that they had been shut up as though in a prison; there we too were: either an injury was done to both, or diligence was applied to both.

But how can we call it an injury, when we recall that we were in a place so spacious and full of light and refreshing? Or how was it a prison, where the judge also was? Finally, we did not know that we had been shut in, we who were within together. Whence do they know it, unless perhaps because they wished to flee? But who does not see that they would not say these idle and laughable things — rather to be laughed at than refuted — concerning such a judge, if they could find anything valid to say on behalf of their cause? We know how many of you, and perhaps all or almost all, are wont to say: 'Oh, if only they would meet together in one place! Oh, if only they would at some time confer, and, as they disputed, the truth might appear!' Behold, it has been done; behold, falsehood has been convicted; behold, truth has appeared.

Why is unity still fled from? Why is charity still despised? What need have we to be divided by the names of men? He who created us is one God; He who redeemed us is one Christ; He who ought to unite us is one Spirit. Now let the name of the Lord be honoured, and appear to you in gladness, that you may acknowledge your brethren in His unity. Now, in the prosecutions of your own bishops, the error that separated us has been vanquished: let it at last be vanquished also in your hearts, and let the devil too be vanquished; and let Him be gracious to His flock, gathered and pacified — Christ, who commanded this. (After the Conference against the Donatists, One Book.)

I also wrote a book, sufficiently large in my judgement, carefully addressed to the Donatists themselves after the conference we held with their bishops, so that they should not be led astray by them any further. In it I answered also certain vanities of theirs which were able to reach us, empty boasts which, once defeated, they flung about wherever and however they could, apart from those things I said about the acts of the conference, from which what was transacted might be briefly known. But I dealt with this far more briefly in a certain letter addressed once again to those same men; yet because it was decided by all of us who were present at the council of Numidia that this should be done, it is not among my letters. It begins thus:

Silvanus the elder, Valentinus, Innocentius, Maximinus, Optatus, Augustinus, Donatus, and the rest of the bishops from the council of Zerta, to the Donatists. This book begins thus: Why, O Donatists, are you still being led astray?