But just as those cannot be separated before the exit to the shore, so neither can that be winnowed before the due end. But God guards the innocence of his saints and faithful, like the good fishes, like the fat grains, so that within these nets the reprobate kinds mixed with them may not harm them, and on this threshing-floor the mixed chaff to be winnowed may not harm them; because, as they themselves said, re-read, and subscribed, neither will cause be able to prejudge cause, nor person person. They would perhaps deny that they said these words, were they not able to be convicted by their own subscription. Behold how diligently it was acted for your salvation, that they should subscribe to our words, which they were altogether unwilling to do, and to which at length, at some point, they were compelled by shame to do.
For their words are extant where they refused to do this, and again other words where they consented to do that which at first they had denied; all things are written, all have been subscribed. For they seemed to be unwilling to subscribe for this reason, that they might be able to deny that they had said what they had said, and to slander the judge over the corrupted records. And because now they cannot do this, they say that that man himself is corrupt who judged against them — a thing which none but they themselves brought about, who against their very own selves said so many things in our favor, which, that they might not be able to deny them, even though compelled and unwilling, they nevertheless subscribed by their own prosecutions. For this reason, therefore, they were unwilling to subscribe:
that it might be permitted them, through the slander of corrupted records, to deny what they had said; and therefore afterward, at the judge's insistence, they consented, because they perceived it was evident to all that by being unwilling to subscribe they were indicating nothing else than that they feared their own words lest they be read to them. For they preferred to defend their prosecutions afterward with whatever fogs, rather than to condemn them so quickly. But see, we beg you, how by their very own defense they entangle themselves the worse, and plead our cause, and utterly destroy their own. For after the conference, after, being defeated, they wished to appeal, these words were objected to them, and they try to defend them with a worse entanglement of their own, when you ask of them what they have done.
For they think you have no heart, so that you should not understand that they have been overcome in every way, when they say to you those things which they would by no means say, if they could find anything useful to say. For who would endure defeated men complaining that sentence was pronounced against them by night? As if the necessity of hearing does not often hold judges, so that they are compelled to sit even until a great part of the night; or as if what is said is for that reason not true, because it is said during the night. Nor do they hear the Scripture crying out: By day the Lord commanded his mercy, and by night he declared it; and again: To announce thy mercy in the morning, and thy truth by night.
Or as for their saying that the persecutors came by night to seize the Lord, they did not attend to the fact that at those very nocturnal hours the Lord also preached the truth to his disciples. Nor were they willing to notice what is written, that the Apostle Paul prolonged his sermon until the middle of the night. If they had anything true to say, the night could not hinder them. But they were assuredly suffering a most dark night in their own minds, when against their very own selves they brought forward so many things, and did not correct their perverse mind to the light of the truth.
And it was still assuredly day when they were prescribing to us concerning the time in forensic fashion, saying that the case had lapsed and could now by no means be pursued — not understanding that they had shown men nothing except how much they feared lest it should be pursued, where their perversity and the Catholic truth would be shown forth. It was still day when, wishing to overturn the judgment of Miltiades the Roman bishop, by which Caecilianus was purged and absolved, they even said that Miltiades himself had been a traditor. And when proof of this accusation had been exacted from them, they recited most lengthy records, in which the name of Miltiades — that he had handed over anything — was not present.
And they also recited other records, where it was read that Miltiades had sent deacons with letters of the emperor Maxentius and of the praetorian prefect to the prefect of the city, in order that they might recover the places which had been taken from the Christians in the time of persecution. And when no crime of Miltiades whatever appeared there, they said that in the earlier records of the surrender a traditor named Strato had been recited — because one also of the deacons whom Miltiades had sent to recover the places was so called — contending that this was the very same man, but not showing it. For they did not even show that Strato who had handed over had at least been a deacon. And even if that were so, we answered them that a short time before there had been in the same clergy of the Roman church two deacons named Peter.
Thus, blind in mind, they were weaving dark slanders, adding also a most manifest falsehood, namely that not only the name, but also the places and regions and persons agreed, by which it was shown that it was no other, but this very Strato — whereas in those records absolutely nothing agreeing was read except the similarity of the name, of which the custom of the human race is full, so that not only two, but even more men are called by one name.
For they themselves also cried out that their own Donatus of Carthage — lest he should be thought to have been condemned in the judgment of Miltiades, since they hold him in high esteem — must be distinguished from Donatus of Casae Nigrae, because it was not Donatus of Carthage who had been sent against Caecilianus to the episcopal judgment of Miltiades; bearing so gross a night in their heart that they were unwilling for their Donatus to be defamed by the similarity of his own name, yet wished Miltiades to be stained by the similarity of another's name. But now they are said even to add the name Cassianus to Strato — a thing which they were silent about in the conference — as if Strato alone could have a namesake, and Cassianus could not.
Nor, hindered by their inner night, could they attend to the fact that there were not only two Johns — one the Baptist, the other the Evangelist — but also two Simons — one Peter, the other the Magus — and, finally, in that so small number of the apostles, not only two Jameses — one of Alphaeus, the other of Zebedee — but also two Judases — one holy, the other a devil; yet whoever, similarly blind in mind, should slander that holy apostle Jude concerning the crime of Judas the traitor, would be doing nothing but imitating these men. For it is no wonder if the reputation of Miltiades, after so long a time, endures such slanderers as these concerning two Cassiani or two Stratos, such as the evangelical truth endures concerning two Herods.
For because it is not expressed which Herod died immediately after the infants were slain for Christ, and which Herod together with Pilate persecuted the Lord, some — thinking there was but one — object to the Gospel the charge of falsehood, just as these men — thinking there was but one Strato or Cassianus — object to Miltiades the stain of surrender. And yet those err more tolerably, because not only the name but also the dignity is consonant — for each is read to be King Herod — whereas these have lied that the dignity is consonant, since they could in no way read that both had been deacons.
It was still day when, concerning the Council of Cirta — if indeed it is to be called a council, in which there were scarcely eleven or twelve bishops — from which we recited that certain of them had been traditors, who together with Secundus of Tigisis brought forth sentences against Caecilianus, they, wishing to show it false, said that in the time of persecution those eleven or twelve bishops could not have gathered together in any house; and in order to prove that it was a time of persecution, they brought forth the records of the martyrs, so that, the days and consuls being considered, what time it was might appear. And they were convicted of having brought forth these records of the martyrs against themselves; for in those very records it was made manifest that at that time of persecution Christian congregations were accustomed to gather.
Whence it was established that it was not incredible that those bishops too were read to have likewise assembled in a private house, so that — as the people who were able (just as was contained in the records of the martyrs) were accustomed to gather even in the time of persecution — a bishop might be secretly ordained, who himself might also secretly ordain clergy for himself in so great a necessity, where the former bishop with his clergy was shown, by the letter of Secundus himself which was alleged by them, to have lapsed.
From these records of the martyrs, which they themselves brought forth, we were admonished to look also into other records of the martyrs; and we found and said that, in the fervent time of persecution, even a private house — which they had denied could have happened — was granted to a congregation of Christians, and that in prison martyrs were baptized, so that they might see how it was not incredible that in the time of persecution a few bishops should gather in a private house, when even in the very prison the sacraments of Christ were celebrated, in which men were held shut up for the faith of Christ. How much, therefore, they have helped you by bringing forth the records of the martyrs, who does not see, who does not have a night in his heart such as those had who did not see these things?
They also slandered on this ground the very records of Cirta, because there the days and consuls were read, and they demanded of us that we should bring forth some ecclesiastical councils where days and consuls might be recited. For they themselves brought forth a Council of Carthage made without day and consul. For they said that even the council of Cyprian did not have consuls — where, however, the day is read — but in that Carthaginian one of their own, not even the day. But we demonstrated that the Roman Council of Miltiades, which was at hand, just like that of Cirta, both had a day and had consuls. For it was not necessary for us then, on the spot, to sift through the ancient ecclesiastical archives, from which it might be taught that this custom had belonged even to the ancients.
Nor, however, did we wish to move even vain slanders against them, as to why in Cyprian's council a day was found, but in their own it was not found — because they wanted to weave in idle delays, which we were trying to avert. For they even demanded this, that we should show from the holy Scriptures somewhere that days and consuls had been written down; as if the councils of bishops had ever been compared to the canonical Scriptures, or as if they themselves could bring forth from the holy Scriptures a council where the apostles sat as judges and either condemned or absolved someone accused.
And yet we answered them that even the prophets commended their books to preassigned and defined times — in what year of what king, in what month of the year, on what day of the month the word of the Lord had come upon them — in order that we might show how vainly and slanderously they were stirring up most idle questions concerning the days and consuls of episcopal councils. For it can happen that in the codices there is such variety, while some describe even the days and consuls with greater diligence, others pass them over as superfluous;
just as also the codex from which we first read the judgment of Constantine — by which, between the parties, he pronounced Caecilianus innocent, but those men most slanderous — did not have day and consul, while another, which we afterward brought forth against their slanders, did have them. They too had there most invidiously proclaimed that we recited the emperor's letter without day and consul; and yet they themselves too recited other letters of the same emperor, in the case of Felix the ordainer of Caecilianus — which, with wonderful blindness, they brought forth against their own selves — without day and consul. Nor did we object anything to them on that account, lest, like them, we should occupy the necessary time with superfluous words;
but we say these things now only in order that you at least may open your eyes and be freed from the dark night which your bishops bore in their heart — they who objected a nocturnal sentence to the cognizance of the judge, and themselves, wrapped in interior darkness by day, with wonderful blindness said so many things against their very own selves. There are read, in the acts before the magistrate of Carthage, the express words of Primianus, where he says that our elders harassed their parents with various exiles; and in the conference they try to prove that, their elders being the accusers, Caecilianus was condemned to exile by the emperor. They say in their letters that their communion is the church of truth, which suffers persecution,
not the one that inflicts it; and they try to show that Caecilianus was condemned by the emperor's judgment, their elders being the persecutors, and they say that this was done not through Donatus of Casae Nigrae, but through him whom they proclaim above the rest, Donatus of Carthage. For they are now said to boast of this in their writings, where, being defeated, they accuse the judge, because the nocturnal truth confuted the night of their own heart. That Donatus — that Donatus, I say, whom they called the ornament of the church of Carthage and a man of martyr's glory — they wished so to commend that they said that, before the cognizance of the emperor Constantine, he himself both accused Caecilianus as a defendant and convicted him.
That man, then, of martyr's glory, before the emperor's tribunal charged and maintained Caecilian to be guilty, and upon that hearing Caecilian's condemnation followed; with that man of martyr's glory accusing and pressing the case, Caecilian was condemned by the emperor. This indeed we have proved to be false. For we produced from the public archive and read aloud the emperor's own letters, in which he testifies that he heard and judged between the parties, and in which, when Caecilian had been acquitted and cleared, he denounced their slanders. Against these they were utterly unable to find anything to reply, and in trying to confirm those letters they brought forward other things against their own selves.
Accordingly it was established that Caecilian was accused before the emperor by their forebears, but it was not established that he was condemned; nay, it was rather established that he was acquitted. Yet, at any rate, see for yourselves how greatly your bishops have aided our cause, who wished to boast even of that falsehood. For if that Donatus, the man of martyr's glory, maintained Caecilian to be guilty before the emperor's tribunal, and if, with that man of martyr's glory accusing and pressing the case, Caecilian was condemned by the emperor, let them answer you: when these things were being done, who was the martyr—was it Donatus, who was persecuting a man before the emperor, or Caecilian, who while that man persecuted him was being condemned by the emperor?
Where now is that decisive rule of theirs, that the communion of Donatus is the Church of truth, which suffers persecution and does not inflict it? Behold, Caecilian suffers, Donatus inflicts: which of them is the man of martyr's glory? Attend, take heed, do not let yourselves be led astray into pernicious error any longer. God has deigned to open up the truth that was being hidden from you; the falsehood that was being poured over you, God has deigned to refute. Why then are you still ungrateful for so great a benefit of his? This, surely, is what they often used to tell you, whereby their crafty deceit darkened the eyes of your heart; and even now, though refuted, on this ground they vaunt themselves and on this ground they tear us to pieces—because we, they say, inflict persecution, while they suffer it.
This is what remained to them, though defeated on every side, whereby they might still spread mists before the untrained—here parading themselves as though they were the Church of truth, because it suffers persecution and does not inflict it. Let them therefore no longer deceive you: we do to them the very thing which they boast that their forebears, and the very man whom they proclaim as a man of martyr's glory, did to Caecilian. He did this before the emperor: that Caecilian, once convicted, should be condemned by his judgment; and this we too have done, that these men, once convicted, should suffer the like. If he did wrong, why was Donatus doing this to him? But if he did rightly, why should not the Catholic Church do this to the party of Donatus? Nay, they too do not doubt that it is rightly done.
We do not doubt that those forebears of theirs, whom they much praise, did this; nor do we, who cannot deny that this must be done to them—namely, that, without the shedding of blood, those restless men who are not corrected by words should be restrained by some very mild penalty of the laws. And if perchance the emperor, provoked, has determined that the obstinacy of a sacrilegious mind must be chastised with a heavier punishment, let the judges act more mildly, to whom it has always been permitted to soften and mitigate the sentence. In the meantime, therefore, although it cannot be shown that Caecilian was condemned by the emperor Constantine, nevertheless that error of yours has been removed, whereby you supposed that Church to be the true one which suffers persecution and does not inflict it; for Donatus inflicted it, and Caecilian suffered it.
And if the party of Donatus suffers persecution, along with it the party of Maximian also suffers it—the party which they themselves affirm is not the Church of Christ. And by this it follows that to inflict persecution is not a mark of iniquity, since the good also do it to the evil and the evil to the good; and to suffer persecution is not a proof of justice, since not only the good suffer it for piety's sake, but also the evil for iniquity's sake. It remains therefore for you, once the error is banished, to see and hold fast the Catholic Church of Christ—not that you should choose it on this ground, that it suffers persecution. For when the Lord had said, 'Blessed are they who suffer persecution,' lest the heretics vaunt themselves on that account, he added, 'for justice's sake.'
For how great evils the most frenzied clerics and Circumcellions of the party of Donatus have done to our people, you yourselves also know. Churches have been set ablaze, the holy codices cast into the flames, private houses too burned; men have been dragged from their own dwellings, and, after all that was within had been carried off or destroyed, they themselves were beaten, torn, blinded. Nor could they even refrain from murder—although it is a milder thing to take a man dying from this light than to take this light from a man living. It came to this with certain men: not that, being seized, they should be led off somewhere, but only that they should suffer these things. And yet we do not on that account justify our own people because they suffered these things, but because they suffered them for Christian truth, for the peace of Christ, for the unity of the Church. But those men, under so many...
...under such severe laws, and under so great a power of the Catholic Church which the Lord has bestowed upon her—what such thing do they suffer? For if ever they are punished with death, either they kill themselves, or, while resistance is offered, they are slain in their bloody violence—not for the communion of the party of Donatus, nor for the error of a sacrilegious schism, but for their own most manifest crimes and wickednesses, which after the manner of brigands they commit with monstrous fury and cruelty. But for the party of Donatus they scarcely suffer any such thing as they said Caecilian suffered at Donatus' instigation. Either, then, not every persecution is unjust, or it is not to be called persecution when it is just.
Wherefore, either the party of Donatus suffers a just persecution, or it does not suffer persecution because it suffers justly. But Caecilian did not suffer justly, since he was proved innocent and acquitted. This indeed they denied, and said rather that he was condemned by the emperor; and therefore they confessed that their forebears—and above all Donatus, so highly extolled by them with such preaching—inflicted persecution on Caecilian. But that he was convicted and condemned they were quite unable to prove; nay, even that which we were saying, that he was acquitted and cleared, they too, by reading many things against their own selves, confirmed. And yet they boast that free choice was granted to them by the emperor.
Vanquished and confounded, they even now demanded that there ought to be granted to themselves that very thing which their forebears would not grant to Caecilian—whom they thus accused before the emperor, and whom, at their accusing, having been condemned by the emperor, these men were even willing to lie about. If free will is to be granted to each one, it should first have been granted to Caecilian; if these matters are not to be entrusted to a human judge, but rather left to God, then Caecilian would first not have been accused before the emperor. Wake up at last; let not a hellish sleep bind you, let not an impious habit any longer plunge you into the depth of sacrilegious error; now be in harmony with peace, cleave to unity, acquiesce in charity, yield to truth.
Recognize that the Catholic Church, beginning from Jerusalem, is spread abroad in every direction—the Church with which the party of Donatus does not have communion, and against which the case of Caecilian raises no prejudice. For, having been so often cleared, so often acquitted, even were he not innocent, neither does one case prejudice another, nor one person another. These words the whole Church resounds throughout the world; her member in Africa also cries out: 'I know the testimony of God; the affair of Caecilian I do not know. I believe him innocent, harassed by your forebears, whom I read to have been so often acquitted; but whatever his case may be, it in no way prejudices my case; whatever his person may be, it in no way prejudices my person. You yourselves have said this, you yourselves have subscribed to this:
'neither case to case nor person to person.' Behold, the Lord says: 'through all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.' Let us hold the divine truth in the one Church, and let us at last put an end to human quarrels.' For could they in any way, after that very conference, defend those words in which they said that neither does case prejudice case nor person person—or did they not rather entangle themselves far more perplexingly? For thus they spoke in certain of their writings: 'That case does not prejudice case, nor person person, was said by us—this has been faithfully recalled from memory; but it applies to the place: that we are not prejudiced by those who have been either rejected or condemned by us.'
But these men, who descend from the ordination of Caecilian, whom their origin reckons to guilt through their predecessor—how could they not be bound by the crimes of their ordainer, when the rope of sins, stretched out through a succession, must needs make whomsoever it has bound with the bond of communion partakers of the sin? O wondrous defense! So thick and close is the mire where their feet have stuck fast, that, while trying to wrench themselves out, in vain they plant both hands and head, and, floundering in the same mire, are more tightly enfolded. For of those whom they record having either rejected or condemned—that is, of the Maximianists—they have with them Felician, both the condemner of Primian and one condemned by them in the case of Primian.
What is this, that they strive to entangle so long a rope, from Caecilian right down to these times, around the Catholic Church, and yet do not notice their own chain so near at hand? For splendid indeed is that Bagai sentence concerning Maximian and his associates: 'The chain of sacrilege,' it says, 'drags very many into fellowship of the crime.' Felician therefore was being dragged by that chain: if Felician raises no prejudice against them, why does Caecilian against us? Or does it perhaps raise prejudice where they wish, but where they do not wish, one case does not prejudice another case—and, at their own caprice, is the old rope stronger than the new chain?
Maximian raises no prejudice against Felician, by whom he was condemned; Maximian and Felician raise no prejudice against Primian, by whom they were condemned; Maximian raises no prejudice against those who received a reprieve, with whom he was associated in one schism; Felician raises no prejudice against the party of Donatus, by which he was received back into the same rank, nor was the baptism which he gave in a sacrilegious schism thereby destroyed—and yet Caecilian raises prejudice against so many Christian nations! He who was once condemned in absence, as Primian was, and thrice acquitted while present, as Primian was not. There raises prejudice against us a man long dead and unknown; and against these there raises no prejudice a living man, who is read to have been condemned by them a little before, and is seen to be now associated with them.
For us the rope of Caecilian entangles us, by whom he is unknown; while for them the chain of Felician does not entangle them, in whose midst the sentence against him is read out, where that very chain is condemned. To them it is permitted to say: 'We received back those whom we condemned, for the sake of the peace of Donatus, because neither does case prejudice case nor person person'; and to us it is not permitted to say: 'Because of those whom you have condemned, we do not forsake the peace of Christ, because neither does case prejudice case nor person person.' O brazen brow, O darkness of madness, casting a nocturnal sentence in the judge's teeth, and groping in the night of their own heart, stumbling and falling, raving in dispute against us and yet saying so much on our behalf!
Moreover, even now they still dare to bring forward prophetic and apostolic testimonies, to which we replied comprehensively in that conference, showing that the holy prophets themselves lived among the unjust in one temple, under the same priests, amid the same sacraments, and yet were not polluted by the wicked, because they knew how to distinguish between the holy and the unclean—not, as these men think, by dividing the people bodily, but by judging well and living well. And this they did without cease, so that in that great house where they were—as the Apostle says—some vessels being unto honor, others unto dishonor, they might cleanse themselves from such by diversity of conduct, and be vessels unto honor, useful to the Lord, always prepared for every good work.
But it is well that they themselves, out of the many testimonies which, not understanding them, they inserted into their writings—which they brought forward and read in the conference—now, after the conference, being defeated, have recalled as though the chief the testimony from the prophet Haggai. In this prophet, then, we demonstrate far more evidently what we intend: that it is not bodily contact, but spiritual contact, which comes about through consent, that itself pollutes men, whose cause that very consent makes one.
For when the Lord willed to destroy the impious even with a visible punishment, he himself separated the just from them by a warning: as Noah with his household from those whom he was about to destroy by the flood; as Lot from those whom he was about to consume by fire; as his own people from the assembly of Abiram, whom he was soon about to extinguish. Therefore also that man who did not have the wedding garment—it was not those who had invited him, but the Lord himself, whose the banquet was, who commanded him to be bound and cast out. For neither was he himself, like a fish, beneath the waves, and so unable to be seen by the inviters, as a fish cannot be seen by the fishermen.