{"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.1":{"o":"Ingressis itaque utrisque partibus primo loco recitatum est rescriptum imperatoris, quo iussit collationem inter memoratos episcopos fieri, ut superstitionem manifesta ratio confutaret.","t":"When both parties had come in, first there was read the emperor’s rescript, by which he ordered that a conference be held between the bishops mentioned, so that clear reasoning might refute superstition.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.1 (CSEL 53:39; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-1)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.10":{"o":"Decimo loco mandatum catholici concilii recitatum est, quo electis ad disputandum episcopis catholicae ecclesiae est iniuncta defensio aduersus criminationes Donatistarum. hoc mandato iterum, sicut in superioribus litteris, breuiter tota causa comprehensa est, prius ut causa ecclesiae, quae toto sicut promissa est terrarum orbe diffunditur, a causa Caeciliani, qualiscumque illa fuisset, sic distingueretur, ut ostenderetur malos in ecclesia, qui uel ignorantur uel pro unitate pacis tolerantur a bonis, non eis ad mala consentientibus obesse non posse similitudinibus euangelicis et exemplo prophetarum et ipsius domini Christi et apostolorum et episcoporum et iudicio ipsorum etiam Donatistarum propter Maximianistas, deinde ipsius Caeciliani causa non mala fuisse certis documentis demonstraretur, quibus et ipse et ordinator eius Felix Aptugnensis, quem in concilio suo criminosius accusauerunt, probaretur esse purgatus, et cetera quae mandato eodem continentur siue de baptismo siue de persecutione, quae solet catholicis obicere pars Donati. nam commemorata ibi est iterum, sicut in superioribus litteris, causa Maximianistarum, qua demonstrarentur Donatistae suo iudicio cuncta diluisse, quae obicere catholicis uel de baptismo uel de persecutione uel de communionis contagione consueuerunt. adiectum est etiam, ut, si qua etiam nunc episcopis catholicis morarum interponendarum gratia uoluissent crimina obicere, propter finiendam quae prius urgeret causam audienda et discutienda postea differrentur. hoc autem, id est ut tota causa et superioribus litteris et isto mandato comprehenderetur, eo consilio a catholicis factum est, ne forte, si, ut fama iactabat, aliquas moratorias praescriptiones Donatistae ingerere conarentur et forsitan non permissi ab ipsa collatione resilirent, (non) acta licet breuiter ecclesiae catholicae causa in conscriptione gestorum legenda remaneret, quam timuisse intellegerentur et ideo noluisse conferre.","t":"Tenth, the mandate of the Catholic council was read, by which the defense of the Catholic Church against the accusations of the Donatists was entrusted to the bishops chosen to debate. In this mandate, as in the letter above, the whole case was again set out briefly. First, the case of the church, which is spread over the whole world as was promised, was to be distinguished from the case of Caecilian, whatever that had been, so as to show that bad people in the church, who are either unknown or tolerated by the good for the sake of the unity of peace, cannot harm those who do not consent to their evil deeds: by the Gospel likenesses, by the example of the prophets and of the Lord Christ himself and of the apostles and of bishops, and by the judgment of the Donatists themselves in the case of the Maximianists. Then it was to be shown by sure documents that the case of Caecilian himself had not been bad, documents by which both he and his ordainer, Felix of Abthugni, whom they accused most criminally in their council, were proved to have been cleared; and the other things contained in that mandate, whether about baptism or about the persecution with which the party of Donatus is accustomed to reproach the Catholics. For the case of the Maximianists was again recalled there, as in the letter above, to show that the Donatists by their own judgment had washed away all the charges they are accustomed to bring against the Catholics, whether about baptism, or about persecution, or about the contagion of communion. It was also added that, if they wished even now to bring any charges against Catholic bishops for the sake of causing delays, these should be put off to be heard and examined later, in order to finish the case that pressed first. This, namely that the whole case be set out both in the letter above and in this mandate, was done by the Catholics with this purpose: in case, as rumor spread, the Donatists should try to introduce some delaying pleas and, perhaps not allowed to, should withdraw from the conference itself; then the case of the Catholic Church, though not argued, but stated briefly, would remain to be read in the written minutes, a case they would be understood to have feared and therefore to have refused to debate.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.10 (CSEL 53:43–44; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-10)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.11":{"o":"Undecimo loco, cum cognitor interlocutus esset in mandato catholicorum magis diuina testimonia quam forensia uincula esse prolata, et iussisset etiam subscriptiones omnium recitari, conflictus exortus [est] et aliquamdiu productus est, cum Donatistae exigerent eorum praesentiam, qui mandato subscripserant, obicientes, quod eis suppositis qui episcopi non fuerint potuissent fallere cognitorem, quo praesente subscripsisse legebantur, et quod antiquis cathedris alios episcopos addiderint, ut numerus augeretur. catholici autem ne sui praesentarentur resistebant, uerentes ne illi tumultum aliquem praepararent, per quem prorsus abrumperetur ipsa collatio, quam fieri Donatistae nolle omnino uidebantur, maxime quando de tempore, quasi iam causa lapsa esset et audiri non posset, praescribere uoluerunt. quem tumultum ideo putabantur nondum fecisse, quia, si fieret, uidebant non posse imputari catholicis, qui paucissimi aderant, sed sibi potius, quorum praesens fuerat multitudo. sed uoluntati eorum cedentibus catholicis, ut omnes qui subscripserant ingrederentur, apparuit postea hoc ideo uoluisse Donatistas, quia existimabant non conuenisse Carthaginem tot catholicos quot subscriptiones ostendebantur. hoc autem propterea credidisse putati sunt, quia catholici non ea pompa qua illi Carthaginem fuerant ingressi et ob hoc eos paucos uenisse suspicabantur.","t":"Eleventh, when the commissioner had ruled that in the Catholics’ mandate divine testimonies rather than forensic constraints had been put forward, and had ordered that the signatures of all be read as well, a conflict arose and went on for some time, the Donatists demanding the presence of those who had signed the mandate. They objected that by substituting persons who were not bishops the Catholics could have deceived the commissioner, in whose presence they were recorded as having signed, and that they had added further bishops to ancient sees to increase their number. The Catholics, on their side, resisted having their men brought in, fearing that the Donatists were preparing some disturbance by which the conference itself might be broken off altogether, since the Donatists seemed not to want it held at all, especially when they tried to plead the time limit, as if the case had already lapsed and could not be heard. They were thought not to have caused that disturbance yet only because they saw that, if it happened, it could not be laid to the account of the Catholics, who were present in very small numbers, but rather to themselves, whose multitude was present. But when the Catholics yielded to their wish that all who had signed should come in, it appeared afterward that the Donatists had wanted this because they thought that not as many Catholics had gathered at Carthage as the signatures showed. They were thought to have believed this because the Catholics had not entered Carthage with the pomp with which they had, and for this reason they suspected that few had come.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.11 (CSEL 53:44–45; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-11)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.12":{"o":"Duodecimo loco ingressis episcopis catholicis, quorum praesentia petebatur, omnes singillatim recitati et in medium procedentes a Donatistis recogniti sunt uel uicinis suis uel cum quibus in uno loco erant, et quicumque recitabantur catholici episcopi ex his locis, ubi non erat pars Donati, satis et ipsis Donatistis notum erat se ibi non habere collegas uel communionem suam et esse illic catholicos uel quos nouerant uel de quibus audierant in suae uicinitate regionis. ita factum est, ut omnino nullius catholici recitaretur subscriptio, de cuius praesentia dubitarent. sane cum uentum esset ad nomen Uictoriani Mustitani catholici episcopi et in medium procedens respondisset se habere contrarios duos, Felicianum in ciuitate Mustitana et Donatum in loco Turrensi, exegerunt catholici, ut actis constaret Felicianum in communione esse Primiani; ipsum enim inter alios cum Maximiano damnauerant damnatorem Primiani et ordinatorem ipsius Maximiani, quem postea in integro honore receperant nec destruxerant baptismum in eis, quos in Maximiani schismate baptizauerat. sed ad interrogationem catholicorum respondere noluerunt, dicentes non debere hoc ab eis exigi, et cum iterum pressius exigeretur, dixerunt iam internae actionis hoc esse. et secundum eos interlocutus est cognitor, ut hoc quod coeptum fuerat ageretur et illud, si opus esset, postea quaereretur. in ipsa autem diocesi Mustitana apparuit et ipsos episcopum alium antiquae cathedrae addidisse, quod inani inuidia catholicis obiecerant; hoc et in aliis locis eos fecisse postea declaratum est.","t":"Twelfth, when the Catholic bishops whose presence was requested had come in, they were all called by name one by one, and coming forward into the middle they were recognized by the Donatists, either by their neighbors or by those with whom they shared a town. And whenever Catholic bishops were called from places where the party of Donatus did not exist, it was well enough known even to the Donatists that they had no colleagues or communion of their own there, and that there were Catholics there whom they either knew or had heard of in the region near them. So it came about that not a single Catholic’s signature was read about whose presence they had doubts. When the name of Victorian, Catholic bishop of Mustis, was reached, and coming forward he answered that he had two rivals, Felician in the city of Mustis and Donatus at the place called Turris, the Catholics demanded that it be put on record that Felician was in the communion of Primian. For they had condemned him, among others, with Maximian, as a condemner of Primian and an ordainer of Maximian himself, and afterward had received him back with his honor intact, and had not destroyed baptism in those whom he had baptized in the schism of Maximian. But they refused to answer the Catholics’ question, saying that this should not be demanded of them; and when it was demanded again more pressingly, they said that this belonged to the business of the inner session. And the commissioner ruled as they wished, that what had been begun should be carried through and that the other question, if necessary, be inquired into later. Moreover, in the diocese of Mustis itself it appeared that they too had added another bishop to an ancient see, the very thing they had charged against the Catholics with empty spite; and it was made clear later that they had done this in other places as well.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.12 (CSEL 53:45–46; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-12)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.13":{"o":"Tertio decimo loco recensitis et recognitis praesentibus catholicis qui subscripserant cognitor obtulit petens, ut considentes potius agerent quam stantes. Donatistae autem recusauerunt, gratias tamen agentes, quod talibus senibus obtulisset consessum, et in ea recusatione multa dicentes in laudem suam et in laudem ipsius cognitoris, quae legat qui uoluerit in conscriptione gestorum. pertinet enim ad rem, quomodo quem sic laudauerunt, ut dicerent honorificum iustum reuerentem benignum, causam tamen, propter cuius actionem tam multi conuenerant, apud eum agi nolebant.","t":"Thirteenth, when the Catholics present who had signed had been reviewed and recognized, the commissioner made an offer, asking that they plead seated rather than standing. The Donatists refused, though giving thanks that he had offered a seat to such old men; and in that refusal they said many things in praise of themselves and in praise of the commissioner himself, which anyone who wishes may read in the written minutes. For it is to the point how they so praised him, calling him honorable, just, reverent, and kind, and yet did not want the case, for whose hearing so many had gathered, to be heard before him.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.13 (CSEL 53:46; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-13)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.14":{"o":"Quarto decimo loco mandatum etiam Donatistarum prolatum et recitatum est breuiter factum, ut hi quos elegerant agerent uelut aduersus traditores et persecutores suos. recitata sunt etiam eorum nomina, cum hoc catholici fieri petissent, ut constaret, utrum apud Carthaginem praesentes subscripserint. sed Donatistae multo instantius hoc ut fieret cognitori extorserunt, ut eorum quoque numerus appareret, quod se magna intentione uelle monstrabant. in ea sane recitatione inuenti sunt quidam, pro quibus absentibus alii subscripserunt. inuentus est etiam unus, qui cum suo nomine recitato non responderet, dixerunt eum in itinere esse defunctum. et cum quaererent catholici, quomodo potuerit apud Carthaginem subscribere qui fuerat in itinere defunctus, illi diu fluctuauerunt perturbati et nescientes quid responderent. nam primo dixerunt non de ipso, sed de alio fuisse suggestum. et cum catholici putassent de alio, id est de clerico, eos dicere, qui pro mortuo subscribere potuit, quaesitum est, utrum clericus suo nomine an illius pro mortuo subscripserit. sed postea responderunt ipsum quidem subscripsisse praesentem, cum octauo Calendas Iunias mandatum fieret, sed quoniam aeger subscripserat, remeantem ad propria in itinere defecisse. quo audito catholici petierunt superiora eorum uerba recitari, ut ipsa uarietas deprehensa claresceret. quod cum factum fuisset et appareret, quaesiuit cognitor, utrum saltem sub dei testificatione firmarent eum fuisse Carthagini, quando praesentes praesentibus mandauerunt ut subscriberent. ubi uehementius perturbati responderunt: quid, si se alius pro eodem opposuit? hanc eorum falsitatem deprehensam iudicio dei relinquens iussit cetera nomina recitari, quibus recitatis quaesiuit de numero episcoporum partis utriusque. respondit officium nomina Donatistarum episcoporum esse ducenta septuaginta nouem annumeratis etiam illis, pro quibus absentibus alii subscripserant, computato et illo defuncto. catholicorum autem omnium praesentium nomina esse constitit ducenta octoginta sex. uiginti enim non subscripserant, qui tamen suam exhibentes praesentiam et in medium procedentes, nisi quos infirmitas corporis illic apud Carthaginem tenuit, praesentibus gestis se mandare et consentire professi sunt. in loco ergo collationis, hoc est in thermis Gargilianis, quia ipse postea locus placuerat, ex his catholicis, qui mandato subscripserant et qui praesentes gestis mandauerant, hi soli defuerunt, qui illic apud Carthaginem incommoda ualetudine tenebantur. ex his autem, quorum nomina Donatistarum subscriptio continebat, non solum illi deerant, quos apud Carthaginem aegrotare responderant, sed etiam illi, pro quibus absentibus, id est apud Carthaginem non constitutis, alii subscripserant. quoniam itaque se Donatistae de numerositate iactabant, excepto eo, quod catholicos plures uenisse Carthaginem constitit, dictum est a catholicis alios episcopos centum uiginti non uenisse Carthaginem, quod quidam eorum senectute, quidam infirmitate, quidam diuersis necessitatibus (sint) impediti. quod cum audissent Donatistae, responderunt etiam suos multo plures non uenisse Carthaginem et multas esse apud se cathedras uiduatas episcopis, cum in sua notoria, quam cognitori dederant, apertissime dixerint usque adeo se omnes uenisse Carthaginem, ut nec grauissimos senes aetas et labor potuerit deterrere, eosque solos non uenisse, quos aduersa ualetudo in suis sedibus uel in itinere tenuisset. sane propter cathedras, quas episcopis uacuas apud se esse dixerunt, responsum est etiam a catholicis sexaginta esse, quibus successores episcopi nondum fuerant ordinati. ac per hoc in istis utriusque partis subscriptionibus et falsitates in Donatistis constitit fuisse deprehensas et eorum numerum episcoporum minorem, quandoquidem soli aegroti non uenerant Carthaginem, pro quibus tamen in itinere aegrotantibus alii subscripserant. et omnium nomina cum ipsis etiam, pro quibus alii subscripserant, ducenta septuaginta nouem subscriptio continebat, neque ullo modo credibile fit multo plures quam centum uiginti, hoc est tertiam partem omnium eorum in suis sedibus aegrotasse potuisse et ideo non uenisse Carthaginem.","t":"Fourteenth, the mandate of the Donatists too was produced and read; it was brief, to the effect that those they had chosen should plead as against their betrayers and persecutors. Their names were also read, since the Catholics had asked for this, so that it might be established whether they had signed while present at Carthage. But the Donatists pressed the commissioner much more insistently to have this done, so that their number too might be seen, and they showed that they wanted this very much. In that reading some were found for whom, though absent, others had signed. One was also found who, when his name was read and he did not answer, they said 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 for a long time, confused and not knowing what to answer. For first they said that it had been suggested not about him but about someone else. And when the Catholics thought they meant someone else, namely a cleric who could have signed for the dead man, it was asked whether the cleric had signed in his own name or in the other’s for the dead man. But afterward they answered that he had indeed signed in person when the mandate was made on the eighth day before the Kalends of June, but since he had signed while ill, he had died on the way home. Hearing this, the Catholics asked that their earlier words be read, so that the inconsistency itself might be detected and made clear. When this had been done and it was plain, the commissioner asked whether they would at least affirm, calling God to witness, that he had been at Carthage when they, present, charged those present to sign. Then, more violently confused, they answered: “What if someone else put himself forward in his place?” Leaving this detected falsehood of theirs to the judgment of God, he ordered the other names to be read; and when they had been read, he asked about the number of bishops of both parties. The staff answered that the names of the Donatist bishops were two hundred seventy-nine, counting also those for whom others had signed in their absence, and including the dead man. The names of all the Catholics present were established as two hundred eighty-six. For twenty had not signed, who nevertheless showed themselves present and, coming forward into the middle (except those whom bodily illness kept elsewhere in Carthage), declared before the minutes that they gave their mandate and consent. So at the place of the conference, that is, in the Baths of Gargilius, since that place had afterward been agreed upon, of the Catholics who had signed the mandate and who had given their mandate in person before the minutes, only those were absent who were kept by ill health elsewhere in Carthage. But of those whose names the Donatist signatures contained, not only those were absent who, they had answered, were ill at Carthage, but also those for whom, being absent, that is, not at Carthage at all, others had signed. Since the Donatists boasted of their numbers, the Catholics said, besides the fact that it was established that more Catholics had come to Carthage, that another one hundred twenty of their bishops had not come to Carthage, because some were hindered by old age, some by illness, and some by various necessities. When the Donatists heard this, they answered that many more of their own had not come to Carthage, and that they had many sees widowed of bishops; though in their notice, which they had given the commissioner, they had said quite plainly that they had all come to Carthage, so much so that neither age nor toil could deter even the most aged, and that only those had not come whom ill health kept in their sees or on the journey. As for the sees which they said were vacant on their side, the Catholics answered that they had sixty for which successor bishops had not yet been ordained. And so in these signatures of both parties it was established both that falsehoods had been detected among the Donatists and that their number of bishops was smaller, since only the sick had not come to Carthage, and yet others had signed for them though they were sick on the journey. And their signature list contained the names of all, including those for whom others had signed, two hundred seventy-nine; nor is it in any way credible that many more than one hundred twenty, that is, a third of them all, could have been sick in their sees and therefore not have come to Carthage.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.14 (CSEL 53:46–48; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-14)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.15":{"o":"Quinto decimo loco egressis omnibus, qui iam superfluo praesentes erant, et remanentibus eis, quos necessarios utrique delegerant, in perendinum diem collatio dilata est utrorumque consensu, quoniam dies praesens iam uidebatur emensus.","t":"Fifteenth, when all who were by now present to no purpose had gone out, and those remained whom both sides had chosen as necessary, the conference was adjourned to the day after next by the consent of both, since the present day seemed already spent.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.15 (CSEL 53:48; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-15)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.2":{"o":"Secundo loco recitatum est edictum ipsius cognitoris, quod per prouinciam misit, ut conuenirentur utriusque partis episcopi et intra diem Calendarum Iuniarum conferendi causa congregarentur Carthagine. in eo edicto basilicas sine iussione imperatoris reddidit Donatistis, qui se pollicerentur esse uenturos, ut eo modo eos ad conferendum etiam beneficiis inuitaret. in eodem etiam edicto obtulit eis, ut alium quem uellent cum illo iudicem constituerent, iurauitque se hoc iudicaturum quod ueritas suasisset, et cetera quae ad exhortationem congregationis illorum eodem continentur edicto.","t":"Second, there was read the commissioner’s own edict, which he sent through the province, that the bishops of both parties should be summoned and should gather at Carthage for the conference by the day of the Kalends of June. In that edict he returned their basilicas to the Donatists who promised to come, without the emperor’s order, so as to invite them to the conference even by favors. In the same edict he also offered them that they might appoint whomever they wished as judge alongside himself; and he swore that he would judge as the truth persuaded him; and the other things contained in the same edict to urge their assembly.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.2 (CSEL 53:39; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-2)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.3":{"o":"Tertio loco recitatum est alterum cognitoris edictum, quod proposuit iam praesentibus apud Carthaginem utriusque partis episcopis, qui locus et qui modus collationis futurus esset, supradicto die itidem commemorato et constituto, et admonuit ut ei pars utraque rescriberet, utrum placerent quae comprehendit edicto.","t":"Third, there was read another edict of the commissioner, which he posted when the bishops of both parties were already present at Carthage, stating what the place and manner of the conference would be, with the day mentioned above likewise named and fixed; and he advised both parties to reply to him whether they approved what the edict contained.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.3 (CSEL 53:39–40; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-3)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.4":{"o":"Quarto loco, cum partis Donati episcopi exigerent proponi sibi ab aduersariis, qua causa fuissent congregati, cognitor distulit, ut ex ordine prius omnia recitarentur, quae ante diem collationis acta fuerant. et recitata est notoria Donatistarum, in qua dixerunt non sibi placere quod in edicto suo posuit, ut hi soli ex episcopis conuenirent ad collationis locum, quos ad ipsam causam peragendam ceteri delegissent, qui omnes triginta sex complebantur, decem et octo hinc et decem et octo inde, id est septeni, qui inter se disputarent, et alii septeni, qui concilio, si opus esset, adhiberentur, et alii quaterni, qui gestis custodiendis et conscribendis praeessent; sed petiuerunt se omnes potius qui uenerant adesse debere, ut eorum numerus appareret, dicentes quod eos aduersarii paucos esse mentiti sint. ibi dixerunt ita se omnes uenisse usque ad grauissimos senes, ut hi soli deessent, quos aduersa ualetudo corporis impedisset, et cetera quae ipsa notoria continentur.","t":"Fourth, when the bishops of the party of Donatus demanded that their opponents set out for them the reason why they had been assembled, the commissioner postponed this, so that everything done before the day of the conference might first be read in order. And there was read the notice of the Donatists, in which they said they did not approve what he had laid down in his edict: that only those bishops should come to the place of the conference whom the rest had chosen to conduct the case, who made thirty-six in all, eighteen on this side and eighteen on that, namely seven on each side to debate with each other, seven more to be called in for counsel if needed, and four more to supervise the keeping and writing of the minutes. Instead they asked that all who had come should be present, so that their number might be seen, saying that their opponents had falsely claimed they were few. There they said that they had all come, down to the most aged, so that only those were missing whom ill health of body had prevented; and the other things that the notice itself contains.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.4 (CSEL 53:40; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-4)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.5":{"o":"Quinto loco recitatae sunt litterae catholicorum quas rescripserunt cognitori, sicut edicto commonuerat, insinuantes consentire se ad omnia, quae illo edicto fuerant ordinata. in eisdem litteris etiam se obstrinxerunt et polliciti sunt, si in parte Donati ueritas eis demonstraretur ecclesiae, non se illic episcopalem honorem quaesituros, sed consilium eorum secuturos pro salute christiana; si autem in sua communione potius ueritas ostenderetur ecclesiae, honores episcopales eis non se negaturos, et hoc a se fieri bono pacis, ut intellegerent hi quibus hoc praestaretur, quod in eis catholici non christianam consecrationem, sed humanum detestarentur errorem. quodsi plebes duos in una ecclesia episcopos ferre non possent, utrisque de medio recedentibus singuli constituerentur episcopi ab eis episcopis ordinandi, qui in suis plebibus singuli inuenirentur. in eisdem litteris commemorata est etiam causa Maximianistarum, ex quibus a se damnatis propter pacem partis Donati quosdam in honoribus integris susceperunt et ab eis datum in sacrilego schismate baptismum non resciderunt, et cetera quae in memoratis litteris continentur.","t":"Fifth, there was read the letter of the Catholics which they wrote back to the commissioner, as his edict had advised, stating that they agreed to everything ordained in that edict. In the same letter they also bound themselves and promised that, if the truth of the church were shown them to be in the party of Donatus, they would not seek episcopal honor there but would follow their counsel for the sake of Christian salvation; but if the truth of the church were shown rather to be in their own communion, they would not deny them episcopal honors; and that they would do this for the good of peace, so that those to whom this was granted might understand that what the Catholics detested in them was not Christian consecration but human error. And if the congregations could not bear two bishops in one church, both would withdraw, and single bishops would be appointed, to be ordained by those bishops who were found alone in their own congregations. In the same letter the case of the Maximianists was also mentioned: some of those whom they had themselves condemned, they had received back with their honors intact for the sake of peace within the party of Donatus, and they had not annulled the baptism given by them in a sacrilegious schism; and the other things that the said letter contains.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.5 (CSEL 53:40–41; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-5)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.6":{"o":"Sexto loco recitatum est etiam edictum ipsius cognitoris, quod proposuerat cum supradicta notoria Donatistarum et supradictis litteris catholicorum, insinuans populo, quae illi pars utraque rescripserit.","t":"Sixth, there was also read the commissioner’s own edict, which he had posted together with the Donatists’ notice and the Catholics’ letter mentioned above, informing the people what both parties had written back to him.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.6 (CSEL 53:41; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-6)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.7":{"o":"Septimo loco recitatae sunt litterae catholicorum ad cognitorem datae, quibus Donatistarum notoriae responderunt, concedentes eis quod petierant, ut uniuersi qui uenerant praesentes essent in eo loco ubi erat futura collatio, cum tamen illic ex catholicis episcopis illi soli adessent, quos edicto suo cognitor definierat, ut, si aliquis tumultus existeret, quod catholici ualde metuebant, non illis imputaretur qui paucissimi adessent, sed eis potius qui multitudinem suam praesentem esse uoluissent. in eisdem litteris etiam tota ipsa causa comprehensa est, ut ostenderetur ecclesia catholica non esse pars Donati, sed illa potius, quae per totum mundum fructificaret et cresceret incipiens ab Hierusalem secundum sacram scripturam, et quia nihil ei praeiudicarent, quicumque in ea mali fuissent diuino in fine iudicio separandi, et quia nec in ipsum Caecilianum maiores eorum aliquid probare potuerunt, qui iudiciis ecclesiasticis et maxime imperatoris, apud quem ab eis fuerat accusatus, innocens inuentus et pronuntiatus est. et quia de iussionibus imperatorum, quae pro catholica constituuntur, solent facere inuidiam, commemoratum est etiam de sancta scriptura reges decreuisse in regno suo grauissimas poenas eis, qui blasphemassent deum; commemorata etiam causa Maximianistarum, quos et iudiciis ipsi publicis insectati sunt et ex quibus damnatis quosdam in honoribus integris susceperunt nec ab eis in schismate datum baptismum destruxerunt, quod eos, quibus dilationem dederunt Maximiano communicantibus, dixerunt illius contagio non fuisse pollutos, et cetera quae eisdem litteris continentur. haec autem omnia ideo ibi commemorata sunt, ne forte, si secum cogitassent Donatistae et uiderent, quam malam causam haberet pars Donati, ad hoc noluissent omnes qui uenerant ingredi locum collationis, ut pax atque unitas fieret.","t":"Seventh, there was read the letter of the Catholics to the commissioner, in which they answered the Donatists’ notice. They granted what the Donatists had asked, that all who had come should be present at the place where the conference was to be held, while of the Catholic bishops only those would be there whom the commissioner had specified in his edict; so that, if any disturbance arose, which the Catholics greatly feared, it would not be laid to the account of those present in very small numbers, but rather of those who had wanted their multitude present. In the same letter the whole case itself was also set out: to show that the Catholic Church is not the party of Donatus, but rather the church that bears fruit and grows throughout the whole world, beginning from Jerusalem according to holy Scripture; that whoever had been bad within it did not prejudice it, since they are to be separated by divine judgment at the end; and that their forebears could prove nothing even against Caecilian himself, who was found and declared innocent in ecclesiastical judgments and above all in the judgment of the emperor, before whom he had been accused by them. And because they are accustomed to stir up ill will about the emperors’ orders made in favor of the Catholic Church, it was also recalled from holy Scripture that kings decreed in their kingdom the heaviest penalties for those who blasphemed God. The case of the Maximianists was also recalled: they had pursued them in the public courts, and yet received back some of those condemned with their honors intact, and did not destroy the baptism given by them in schism; and of those to whom they granted a period of grace while they were in communion with Maximian, they said they had not been polluted by his contagion; and the other things that the same letter contains. All these things were recalled there for this reason: in case the Donatists, if they had thought it over and seen what a bad case the party of Donatus had, should refuse for that reason to have all who had come enter the place of the conference, so that peace and unity might come about.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.7 (CSEL 53:41–42; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-7)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.8":{"o":"Octauo loco cum cognitor inquisisset, utrum, sicut a catholicis uidebat, ita etiam a parte Donati electi iam essent qui susceptam causam peragerent, responsum est a parte Donati, quod iam esset acta a catholicis causa, antequam esset confligentium statuta persona, propter illas catholicorum litteras quae totam causam breuiter continebant. deinde instare coeperunt, ut prius ageretur de tempore de mandato de persona de causa, tunc ad negotii merita ueniretur. et cum cognitor interlocutus esset nihil de causa esse mutilatum et rursus inquisisset, utrum de constituendo numero disputantium edicto eius paritum fuerit, quia per hos oporteret agi omnia quae agenda essent, coeperunt Donatistae agere de tempore, quoniam causa ipsa agi non posset, quia dies praeterisset. quarto decimo enim Calendarum Iuniarum die completi fuerant quattuor menses ex die edicti cognitoris, quod ad prouinciam miserat, sicut interrogatum respondit officium. et quoniam inter quattuor menses agi causam praeceperat imperator, ideo diem iam transisse dicebant et petebant, ut tamquam in contumaces catholicos sententia proferretur, quasi catholici absentes essent aut Donatistae aliquando ad agendam causam illis absentibus intrauissent aut admoniti catholici uel euocati defuissent. ista ergo calumniose et tergiuersatorie, quae nec in foro iure agerentur, dicebant, nolentes ut aliquid ageretur. sed ad hoc eis respondit ipse cognitor, quod in Calendas Iunias pars utraque consenserit, quamuis etiamsi quaelibet pars adhuc usque non occurrisset, duos alios menses superesse potuisse, quos imperator adiunxit trinis edictis fuisse seruandos.","t":"Eighth, when the commissioner asked whether, as he saw done by the Catholics, so by the party of Donatus too those had already been chosen who were to conduct the case undertaken, the party of Donatus answered that the case had already been argued by the Catholics before the persons of the disputants had been fixed, because of that letter of the Catholics which briefly set out the whole case. Then they began to insist that the matters of time, of mandate, of person, and of the case be dealt with first, and only then should they come to the merits of the matter. And when the commissioner had ruled that nothing of the case had been curtailed, and asked again whether his edict about fixing the number of disputants had been obeyed, since everything to be done ought to be done through them, the Donatists began to argue about the time limit: that the case itself could not be heard, 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 edict which the commissioner had sent to the province, as the court staff answered when asked. And since the emperor had ordered that the case be heard within four months, they said the day had already passed, and asked that sentence be pronounced against the Catholics as if they were in contempt of court; as though the Catholics were absent, or the Donatists had ever come in to plead the case in their absence, or the Catholics had failed to appear when warned or summoned. These things, then, they said quibblingly and evasively, things that would not be accepted even in a law court, because they did not want anything to be done. But the commissioner himself answered them that both parties had agreed to the Kalends of June; and that even if one party had not yet arrived, there could still remain two further months, which the emperor had added, to be observed by means of three edicts.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.8 (CSEL 53:42–43; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-8)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/1.9":{"o":"Nono loco, quoniam cognitor superius dixerat de tempore praescribere, ut causa non ageretur, non episcopalis, sed forensis potius esse obiectionis, inuenit occasionem pars Donati, qua diceret nihil ergo secum agi publico iure debere, sed tantum diuinis scripturis. unde cum quaesisset cognitor, quid utrique parti de hac re placeret, responsum est a catholicis, ut iuberet mandatum catholici concilii recitari, ubi electis disputatoribus agendi modus iniunctus est: ibi posse melius apparere, quod non forensibus tergiuersationibus, sed magis diuinis testimoniis ageretur. et aliquamdiu conflictio producta est, cum catholici instarent recitari mandatum, illi autem recusarent. sed postea remotis omnibus moratoriis contentionibus recitari mandatum cognitor iussit.","t":"Ninth, since the commissioner had said above that to plead the time limit so that the case would not be heard was an objection fit for the law court rather than for bishops, the party of Donatus found an opening to say that nothing therefore should be dealt with them by public law, but only by the divine Scriptures. When the commissioner asked what both parties thought on this matter, the Catholics answered that he should order the mandate of the Catholic council to be read, in which the manner of proceeding was laid on the chosen disputants: that there it could better be seen that the case was being argued not with forensic evasions but rather with divine testimonies. And the conflict dragged on for some time, the Catholics insisting that the mandate be read and the Donatists refusing. But afterward, setting aside all delaying disputes, the commissioner ordered the mandate to be read.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 1.9 (CSEL 53:43; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/1-9)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/2.1":{"o":"Primo loco, cum die intermisso ad memoratum locum, sicut placuerat et constitutum fuerat, conueniretur, obtulit consessum iterum cognitor, deprecans ut fieret. et mox catholici consederunt, Donatistae autem recusauerunt. in qua recusatione inter cetera id quoque dixerunt, quod scriptum sibi esset cum talibus non sedere. ad hoc catholici, ne morae fierent, tunc non responderunt, sed opportuniore loco in tertii diei collatione. tunc ergo etiam ipse cognitor stando se cogniturum esse respondit.","t":"First, when they met on the day after the interval at the place mentioned, as had been agreed and fixed, the commissioner again offered seats, begging that they sit. The Catholics at once sat down, but the Donatists refused. In that refusal, among other things, they said that it was written for them not to sit with such people. To this the Catholics, to avoid delays, did not answer then, but at a more fitting point, in the conference of the third day. Then the commissioner himself also answered that he would hear the case standing.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 2.1 (CSEL 53:48; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/2-1)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/2.2":{"o":"Secundo loco recitata est notoria, quam pridie dederant petentes, ut sibi mandatum catholicorum ederetur, quo considerato possent in diem constitutum instructi adesse, eo quod exceptores cum conscriptione gestorum occurrere non ualerent, et responsio cognitoris in eandem notoriam, qua iussit fieri quod petebant.","t":"Second, there was read the notice which they had given the day before, asking that the Catholics’ mandate be issued to them so that, having studied it, they could come prepared on the appointed day, because the stenographers were not able to produce the written minutes; and the commissioner’s reply to that notice, in which he ordered that what they asked be done.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 2.2 (CSEL 53:48–49; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/2-2)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/2.3":{"o":"Tertio loco cum quaesisset cognitor, quid etiam de subscriptionibus responderent, id est utrum eis placeret quod edicto proposuerat, ut prosecutionibus suis quisque subscriberet, et respondissent catholici iam se in hoc consensum suum litteris expressisse, illi se multum moueri dixerunt, quod hoc consuetudo non haberet. et cum cognitor interrogasset, utrum eis sufficerent quot dati fuerant gestorum conscribendorum ex utraque parte custodes, dilationem petere coeperunt, ut sibi conscripta gesta ederentur et tunc responderent. hic ortus est diuturnus conflictus cum eis, cum consensus eorum, quo placuerat ut illo die res ageretur, saepe recitaretur ex tabulis. et cum se notas ignorare dicerent, petentes ut prius eis ederentur gesta conscripta, cognitor iussit, ut, quod eorum notarii exceperant, perlatis codicibus, qui signati custodiebantur, eis recitaretur, ne contra suum consensum uenirent. cumque et ipsi saepe de gestorum editione causarentur, quod exceptores non occurrissent gesta conscribere, etiam hoc eis responsum est, quod notoria sua ideo se petisse dixerant edi sibi catholicorum mandatum, ut ad praesentem diem instructi occurrerent, quia exceptores occurrere cum gestorum editione non possent. ubi non inuenientes quod dicerent uoluerunt iterum praescriptionem diei refricare, de qua fuerat eis satis superque responsum et inde iam fuerat primo die transitum. sed tunc eis catholici etiam ad hoc responderunt, quod non solum in edicto cognitoris Calendarum Iuniarum dies constitutus legeretur, sed etiam ipsi octauo Calendas Iunias suum mandatum conscripsissent, cum iam transisset dies, quo dicebant agi debuisse causam, id est quarto decimo Calendas Iunias. dictum est etiam ipsum Primianum ad Calendas Iunias se pollicitum occurrere. quae omnia ideo a catholicis dicta sunt, quod audierant eos etiam in populo suo de hac re inuidiose locutos; et tamen inter haec omnia illi in petenda dilatione uehementissime perstiterunt. quod cum uidissent catholici ad hoc eos diu nugari, ut gesta multis uerbis onerarentur, petierunt cognitorem, ut eis quam petebant dilationem concederet. et concessa est sex dierum dilatio respondentibus exceptoribus, quando editio gestorum posset occurrere, et illis promittentibus, cum gesta edita fuerint, se suis prosecutionibus subscripturos.","t":"Third, when the commissioner asked what they answered also about the signatures, that is, whether they approved what he had laid down in his edict, that each should sign his own statements, and the Catholics answered that they had already expressed their consent to this in their letter, the Donatists said they were much troubled, because custom did not have this. And when the commissioner asked whether the number of guardians of the minutes given from each side was enough for them, they began to ask for a postponement, so that the written minutes might be issued to them and they could then answer. Here a long conflict arose with them, since their consent, by which they had agreed that the matter would be dealt with that day, was often read from the tablets. And when they said that they could not read the shorthand, asking that the written minutes be issued to them first, the commissioner ordered that what their own notaries had taken down be read to them from the codices that were kept under seal, so that they would not go against their own consent. And when they too often complained about the issue of the minutes, that the stenographers had not been able to write them out, this too was answered them: that in their notice they had said that they asked for the Catholics’ mandate to be issued to them so that they could come prepared to the present day, precisely because the stenographers could not produce the issue of the minutes. Finding nothing to say to this, they wanted to rub up again the plea about the day, to which a more than sufficient answer had been given them and from which they had already moved on on the first day. But then the Catholics answered them on this too: that not only was the day of the Kalends of June read as fixed in the commissioner’s edict, but they themselves had drawn up their mandate on the eighth day before the Kalends of June, when the day had already passed on which they said the case ought to have been heard, namely the fourteenth day before the Kalends of June. It was also said that Primian himself had promised to come by the Kalends of June. All these things were said by the Catholics because they had heard that the Donatists had spoken spitefully about this matter among their own people too; and yet amid all this the Donatists persisted most vehemently in asking for a postponement. When the Catholics saw that they were trifling for a long time so that the minutes would be loaded with many words, they asked the commissioner to grant them the postponement they asked for. And a postponement of six days was granted, the stenographers answering when the issue of the minutes could be ready, and the Donatists promising that, when the minutes had been issued, they would sign their statements.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 2.3 (CSEL 53:49–50; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/2-3)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.1":{"o":"Tertio die collationis, id est sexto Idus Iunias, ingressis partibus primo loco utrum edita eis gesta fuerint cognitor inquisiuit. respondit officium se ante diem quam promiserat edidisse, quod ex utriusque partis cautionibus probaretur. et recitatae sunt cautiones, quibus constitit catholicos accepisse gesta octauo Idus Iunias hora diei quinta, Donatistas autem eodem die tertia.","t":"On the third day of the conference, that is, the sixth day before the Ides of June, when the parties had come in, first the commissioner asked whether the minutes had been issued to them. The staff answered that they had issued them before the day they had promised, as the receipts of both parties would prove. And the receipts were read, by which it was established that the Catholics had received the minutes on the eighth day before the Ides of June at the fifth hour of the day, and the Donatists on the same day at the third.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.1 (CSEL 53:50; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-1)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.10":{"o":"Tunc itaque Donatistae protulerunt litteras, quas ab uniuerso concilio suo se accepisse dicebant, quibus responderetur mandato catholicorum, quod primo die actionis fuerat allegatum et die sequenti, antequam ad secundam actionem die tertio ueniretur, data notoria Donatistae edi sibi poposcerant, ut instructi possent ad cognitionem uenire. et fortasse propter has litteras diligenter scribendas etiam ipsa secunda actione dilationem petiuerunt, quae illis sex dierum concessa est. quarto itaque loco haec acta sunt. lectae sunt supradictae litterae Donatistarum, quibus conati sunt respondere mandato catholicorum, quod gestis primae actionis insertum est. cui mandato non eos potuisse respondere inueniet, qui utraque legere et considerare uoluerit: primum quia testimonia ex lege et prophetis et psalmis et apostolicis atque euangelicis litteris deprompta, quibus ostenditur ecclesia catholica per totum mundum diffundi incipiens ab Hierusalem, unde in propinqua et longinqua crescendo etiam in Africam uenit et in alia loca et ciuitates, per quas primitus dilatata est, in quibus multae ecclesiae ad ipsam unicam pertinentes apostolico labore fundatae sunt, quibus Donatistas non communicare manifestum est, non solum non pertractare, sed omnino nec attingere uoluerunt, nec aliquod testimonium in tam prolixa epistula sua proferre ausi sunt de scripturis sanctis, quo assererent ecclesiam partis Donati esse praedictam et praenuntiatam, sicut tam multa catholici protulerunt pro ecclesia cui communicant, quae incipiens ab Hierusalem toto orbe diffunditur. has ergo partes testimoniorum tantorum cum omnino non attigissent, sed tamquam in illo mandato catholicorum, cui respondere uidebantur, dicta non fuerint praeterissent, illud ostendere temptauerunt prolatis multis testimoniis diuinarum scripturarum, quod ecclesia dei non cum malorum hominum commixtione futura praedicta sit. et tamen postea cum ad euangelicam similitudinem uenissent, quam catholici in mandato suo posuerant de retibus in mare missis, quibus congregari dixit dominus omnia genera piscium et bonos a malis in litore, hoc est in fine saeculi separari, etiam ipsi fassi sunt in ecclesia esse permixtos saltem occultos malos, zizania uero inter triticum non in ecclesia, sed in ipso mundo permixta dixerunt, quoniam dominus ait: ager est hic mundus. de area sane, cui paleam catholici dixerant usque ad tempus uentilationis admixtam, tamquam omnino in euangelio nihil tale scriptum sit, exponere similitudinem istam ne conati quidem sunt, sed quasi hoc a se ipsis catholici dixerint, eam tantummodo reprehenderunt uelut ex testimonio Hieremiae prophetae, qui ait: quid paleis ad triticum?, non attendentes unde hoc ille dixisset. non enim aiebat de ecclesia, sed de diuinis prophetarum uisionibus et humanis somniis, ne ullo modo compararentur. illam quoque similitudinem de ouibus et haedis, qui simul pascuntur et in saeculi fine segregabuntur, quam inter alias catholici ex euangelio posuerant, omnino attingere noluerunt. neque enim poterant illic dicere etiam haedos a pastoribus in communibus pascuis ignorari, sicut dixerant inter retia pisces malos in mari a piscatoribus non uideri.","t":"Then the Donatists brought out a letter which they said they had received from their whole council, answering the Catholics’ mandate, which had been entered on the first day of the proceedings and which the Donatists, on the next day, before the second session on the third day, had asked by a notice to be issued to them so that they could come prepared to the hearing. And perhaps it was in order to write this letter carefully that they asked for a postponement in the second session as well, and were granted six days. Fourth, then, these things were done. The said letter of the Donatists was read, in which they tried to answer the Catholics’ mandate, which was inserted in the minutes of the first session. Whoever is willing to read and consider both will find that they could not answer that mandate. First, the testimonies drawn from the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the apostolic and Gospel writings, which show that the Catholic Church is spread through the whole world beginning from Jerusalem, from where, growing into places near and far, it came also into Africa and into the other places and cities through which it first spread, in which many churches belonging to the one church were founded by apostolic labor, with which it is plain that the Donatists are not in communion: these testimonies they were unwilling not only to discuss but even to touch at all. Nor did they dare to bring forward in so long a letter any testimony from the holy Scriptures by which to assert that the church of the party of Donatus was foretold and announced beforehand, as the Catholics brought forward so many for the church with which they are in communion, which, beginning from Jerusalem, is spread over the whole world. So, having not touched these parts consisting of so many testimonies at all, but passed them over as if they had not been said in the Catholics’ mandate which they appeared to answer, they tried to show, by bringing forward many testimonies of the divine Scriptures, that the church of God was foretold as one that would not be mixed with bad people. And yet afterward, when they came to the Gospel likeness which the Catholics had put in their mandate, of the nets cast into the sea, in which the Lord said all kinds of fish are gathered and the good separated from the bad on the shore, that is, at the end of the age, they too admitted that at least hidden bad people are mixed in the church; but the weeds among the wheat they said were mixed not in the church but in the world itself, since the Lord says, “The field is this world.” As for the threshing floor, to which the Catholics had said chaff was mixed until the time of winnowing, they did not even try to explain this likeness, as though nothing of the kind were written in the Gospel at all; but as though the Catholics had said it of themselves, they merely found fault with it, as if from the testimony of the prophet Jeremiah, who says, “What has chaff to do with wheat?”, not attending to the context in which he said it. For he was speaking not of the church but of the divine visions of the prophets and human dreams, that they are in no way to be compared. That likeness 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 put among others from the Gospel, they were wholly unwilling to touch. For they could not say there that the goats too go unnoticed by the shepherds in the common pastures, as they had said that the bad fish within the nets in the sea are not seen by the fishermen.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.10 (CSEL 53:59–61; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-10)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.11":{"o":"Item cum catholici in mandato suo, uolentes ostendere toleratos a bonis in ecclesia malos nec bonos malorum contagione pollutos, commemorassent exempla prophetarum et ipsius domini Christi et apostolorum et post haec etiam bonorum episcoporum et iudicium ipsorum quoque Donatistarum, qui quosdam suorum in Maximiani schismate positos negauerunt Maximiani contagione pollutos, illi in suis litteris ad haec respondere conati de prophetis et de domino Christo et apostolis quodcumque dixerunt, de episcopis autem et Maximianistis siluerunt. in episcopis enim premebantur auctoritate Cypriani, cuius uerba ex epistula eius prolata catholici in suo mandato posuerunt, quibus manifestissime ostendebatur et praecepisse, ut pro unitate in ecclesia mali tolerarentur nec propter ipsos ecclesia relinqueretur, et quosdam collegas suos etiam ipsum, a quorum malis moribus longe abhorrebat et de quorum factis pessimis non tacebat, in ecclesia tolerasse. huius ergo auctoritate oppressi Donatistae cum de prophetis et domino Christo et apostolis aliquid dixissent ad hoc tamen, non tolerandos in ecclesia permixtos malos, de episcopis omnino nihil dicere uoluerunt. et tamen etiam de Iuda traditore et de his, quos Paulus tolerauit per inuidiam Christum annuntiantes, ipse Cyprianus sic intellexit, sic scripsit, quemadmodum ea catholici in suo mandato posuerunt, quod et dominus Iudam ad exemplum malorum in ecclesia tolerandorum pertulerit et Paulus eos, de quibus talia dixit, non extra, sed intra ecclesiam sustinuerit. de Maximianistis autem quid responderent, cum adhuc homines uiuerent, de quibus possent apertissime facillimeque conuinci? proinde ad illud, quod in mandato suo catholici dixerant, eosdem Maximianistas a Donatistis per iudicia publica basilicis pulsos, utcumque respondere conati sunt non se criminaliter accusasse aut ad communionem suam inuitum aliquem coegisse, sed res suas uel suorum ciuiliter repetisse, obliti quod Primianus aliquando dicendum apud acta mandauit: illi auferunt aliena, nos intermittimus ablata. ad illa uero, quae de Maximianistis in catholicorum mandato dicta sunt, quod a se damnatos in integro honore susceperint, quod Maximiani socios ab illo pollutos esse negauerint, quod baptismum ab eis in schismate datum approbare potius quam rescindere atque iterare maluerint, nec leuiter respondere temptauerunt, sed illa omnia miro quodam silentio, tamquam dicta non fuerint, transierunt.","t":"Likewise, the Catholics in their mandate, wishing to show that bad people were tolerated by the good in the church and the good were not polluted by the contagion of the bad, had recalled the examples of the prophets, of the Lord Christ himself, of the apostles, and after them also of good bishops, and the judgment of the Donatists themselves, who denied that some of their own who were in the schism of Maximian had been polluted by Maximian’s contagion. In their letter the Donatists, trying to answer this, said something or other about the prophets and the Lord Christ and the apostles, but about the bishops and the Maximianists they were silent. For on the bishops they were pressed by the authority of Cyprian, whose words, brought out from his letter, the Catholics had placed in their mandate, by which it was most clearly shown both that he had taught that bad people should be tolerated in the church for the sake of unity and that the church should not be abandoned because of them, and that he himself had tolerated in the church certain colleagues of his, from whose bad conduct he was far removed and about whose very bad deeds he did not keep silent. So, overpowered by his authority, the Donatists, though they said something about the prophets and the Lord Christ and the apostles to the effect that bad people mixed in the church are not to be tolerated, wished to say nothing at all about the bishops. And yet, about Judas the betrayer and about those whom Paul tolerated as they proclaimed Christ out of envy, Cyprian himself understood and wrote just as the Catholics put it in their mandate: that the Lord bore with Judas as an example of tolerating bad people in the church, and that Paul bore with those of whom he said such things not outside but inside the church. And what were they to answer about the Maximianists, while men were still alive by whom they could be convicted most openly and easily? Accordingly, to what the Catholics had said in their mandate, that the same Maximianists had been driven from their basilicas by the Donatists through the public courts, they tried to answer somehow that they had not accused anyone criminally nor compelled anyone against his will into their communion, but had reclaimed their own property or that of their people by civil suit; forgetting that Primian once instructed his advocates to say on record, “They take away what is others’; we let go what has been taken.” But to what was said about the Maximianists in the Catholics’ mandate, that they received back with their honor intact those they had condemned, that they denied that Maximian’s associates were polluted by him, and that they preferred to approve the baptism given by them in schism rather than annul and repeat it, they did not even try to answer lightly, but passed over all of it with a strange silence, as if it had not been said.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.11 (CSEL 53:61–62; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-11)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.12":{"o":"De ipso etiam baptismo, quod in illo mandato a catholicis dictum est apostolum de quibusdam dixisse: ueritatem in iniquitate detinent, ut ostenderetur fieri posse, ut non destruenda ueritas in destruenda iniquitate teneatur, aut non intellexerunt aut id, quod ipsi intellexerant, ne ab aliis intellegeretur, uerbis suis obscurare uoluerunt, dicentes hoc apostolum de gentilium errore dixisse, quasi ad rem pertineat de quorum errore dixerit, cum tamen ostenderit posse ueritatem in iniquitate detineri, ut, haec duo cum in uno homine inuenta fuerint, et approbetur ueritas et iniquitas corrigatur, sicut catholica facit, cum agnoscit in Donatistis et amplectitur sacramenti ueritatem, detestatur autem in eis et corrigit haereticam iniquitatem. et illud, quod a catholicis in mandato dictum est, non ideo destruendum baptismum Christi, quia eum etiam haeretici tradunt, sicut non ideo negandus est Christus, quia eum etiam daemones confitentur, similiter aut non intellexerunt aut obscurare uoluerunt, dicentes catholicos contra martyres locutos, non tamen exprimentes quos martyres dicerent, dicentes etiam eos daemoniis uelle communicate haereticis communicetur quando eorum anathematur iniquitas, quamuis in eorum consecratione inuentus baptismus non destruatur, sicut anathematur iniquitas daemonum, quamuis in eorum confessione auditum nomen domini non negetur.","t":"On baptism too: the Catholics had said in that mandate that the apostle said of certain people, “They hold the truth in unrighteousness,” to show that it is possible for a truth that is not to be destroyed to be held in an unrighteousness that is to be destroyed. This the Donatists either did not understand, or what they had understood they wished to obscure with their words so that others would not understand it, saying that the apostle said this of the error of the Gentiles; as if it mattered whose error he spoke of, when he showed that truth can be held in unrighteousness, so that, when these two are found in one man, the truth is approved and the unrighteousness corrected; as the Catholic Church does when it recognizes and embraces the truth of the sacrament in the Donatists, but detests and corrects in them the heretical unrighteousness. And what the Catholics said in the mandate, that the baptism of Christ is not to be destroyed because heretics too hand it on, just as Christ is not to be denied because demons too confess him, they likewise either did not understand or wished to obscure, saying that the Catholics had spoken against the martyrs, though without stating which martyrs they meant, and saying too that the Catholics wished to be in communion with demons. But there is no communion with heretics when their unrighteousness is anathematized, even though the baptism found in their consecration is not destroyed; just as the unrighteousness of demons is anathematized, even though the name of the Lord heard in their confession is not denied.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.12 (CSEL 53:62–63; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-12)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.13":{"o":"De persecutionibus etiam, quas perpeti se queruntur, multa in suis litteris posuerunt nec tamen respondere ausi sunt ad illud, quod in mandato catholicorum dictum est, quod ipsi primitus apud Constantinum imperatorem accusauerunt Caecilianum, qui de imperatorum legibus conqueruntur, (in) inuidiam catholicorum exaggerantes siue mortes, quas eorum circumcelliones sibimet ipsis inferunt, siue omnia, quae non pro communione Donati, sed pro sceleribus, quibus uiolenter saeuiunt nefarieque uiuunt, per leges publicas disciplinasque patiuntur, sicut etiam de oppido Bagaitano commemorasse ausi sunt, ubi manifestatum est, quanta mala commiserint et quam minora perpessi sunt.","t":"On the persecutions too, which they complain they suffer, they put much in their letter, and yet they did not dare to answer what was said in the Catholics’ mandate: that it was they who first accused Caecilian before the emperor Constantine, they who complain about the laws of the emperors, magnifying, to stir ill will against the Catholics, either the deaths which their circumcellions inflict on themselves, or everything they suffer through public laws and penalties, not for the communion of Donatus, but for the crimes with which they rage violently and live wickedly; as they even dared to recall about the town of Bagai, where it was made plain how great the evils were that they committed and how much less they suffered.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.13 (CSEL 53:63; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-13)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.14":{"o":"Ad illud quoque in catholicorum mandato, quod dictum est de purgatione et absolutione Caeciliani et Felicis Aptugnensis, de quorum criminibus apud imperitos solebant catholicis magnam inuidiam concitare, cum illic tota causa propter quam uenerant uersaretur, nihil omnino respondere in tam prolixis litteris uoluerunt, quia et in eo quod dicebant et diuinis testimoniis uelut astruebant, non esse malos in ecclesia tolerandos, sed ab eis recedendum propter contagium peccatorum, ita se dicere demonstrabant, ut tamen ignoratis peccatis alienis neminem maculari posse faterentur. hoc enim et de malis piscibus dixerant, quod, sicut illos latentes in fluctibus quamuis iam inter retia non uident piscatores, sic latentes malos in ecclesia nesciunt sacerdotes et ab eis ideo minime polluuntur. nec tamen uel leuiter uel tenuiter in tam prolixis et tanta dilatione accepta conscriptis litteris probare conati sunt, quod maxime in mandato catholicorum commemoratum est, ut probarent non solum uera esse crimina Caeciliani, nam hoc parum est, sed etiam ecclesiae, quae per omnes gentes usque ad terrae terminos dilatatur, ea probari et innotescere potuisse, ut consequenter saltem secundum ipsos posset cognitorum peccatorum contagione maculari.","t":"To what was said in the Catholics’ mandate about the clearing and acquittal of Caecilian and of Felix of Abthugni, about whose crimes they used to stir up great ill will against the Catholics among the unlearned, though the whole case for which they had come turned on this, they wished to answer nothing at all in so long a letter. For in saying, and as it were supporting with divine testimonies, that bad people are not to be tolerated in the church but are to be withdrawn from because of the contagion of sins, they showed that they spoke in such a way as nevertheless to admit that no one can be stained by others’ sins that are unknown. For they had said this about the bad fish: just as the fishermen do not see them hiding in the waves, though already within the nets, so priests do not know the bad people hiding in the church and are therefore by no means polluted by them. And yet in a letter so long, and written after so long a postponement had been received, they did not try even lightly or faintly to prove what was most of all brought up in the Catholics’ mandate: that they should prove not only that Caecilian’s crimes were real, for this is too little, but also that they could have been proved and made known to the church which is spread through all nations to the ends of the earth, so that, consequently, at least according to their own view, it could be stained by the contagion of known sins.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.14 (CSEL 53:63–64; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-14)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.15":{"o":"Cum itaque litterae Donatistarum recitatae fuissent, uoluit cognitor, ut etiam quae catholici recitanda dederant legerentur. sed Donatistae ad ea quae scripserant ut responderetur flagitare coeperunt, quod et catholici magis uolebant, ne illae litterae sic manerent, quasi eis non potuerit responderi. incipientibus ergo catholicis respondere Donatistae interrumpere et obstrepere coeperunt, ne perpetuus respondentis sermo decurreret, sicut eorum litterae nullo interpellante fuerant recitatae. uolentibus ergo catholicis diuina testimonia, quae ipsi posuerant, et ea, quae illi commemorauerant, ostendere quemadmodum essent accipienda, ne inter se deprehenderentur esse contraria, cum essent utraque diuina et utique consona, non dissona esse deberent, primitus de areae similitudine coeperunt dicere. tunc Donatistae interrumpentes dixerunt, quod de area non legeretur in euangelio scriptum. cumque expressius a catholicis locus euangelii commemoraretur, rursus interrumpendo dixerunt occultos malos dictos esse paleam postea uentilandam. inde inter strepitus et interruptiones eorum de zizaniis et tritico dissensio nata est propter mundi nomen, quod Donatistae nolebant intellegi ecclesiam, quia scriptum est: ager est hic mundus, et multa testimonia protulerunt. quibus sancta scriptura mundum non nisi malos commemorasset, sicuti est: qui dilexerit mundum, non est caritas patris in illo et cetera talia, ut quasi ex hoc ostenderent mundi nomine ecclesiam significari minime potuisse. contra catholici alia testimonia proferebant, quibus in bono mundi nomen esse positum ostenderetur, sicuti est: deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi et cetera huiusmodi, ubi ostenderetur ecclesia quoniam ipsa utique per Christum reconciliatur deo. et haec agebantur catholicis sermonem suum prosequendo perpetuare conantibus, illis autem ne id fieret perstrepentibus, cum suam responsionem non reseruarent, sicut catholici fecerant, cum eorum epistula legeretur, sed crebras contradictiones interponendo, ne catholicorum prosecutio imperturbata procurreret, impedirent.","t":"So when the Donatists’ letter had been read, the commissioner wished the documents that the Catholics had given to be read as well. But the Donatists began to demand an answer to what they had written; and the Catholics wanted this more, so that their letter would not remain as if it could not be answered. So when the Catholics began to answer, the Donatists began to interrupt and make noise, so that the speech of the one answering would not run on continuously, as their letter had been read with no one interrupting. When the Catholics wished to show how the divine testimonies which they had put forward, and those which the Donatists had recalled, were to be understood, so that they would not be found contrary to each other, since both were divine and so must be in harmony, not discord, they began first to speak of the likeness of the threshing floor. Then the Donatists, interrupting, said that nothing was read in the Gospel about a threshing floor. And when the Catholics cited the place in the Gospel more precisely, they said, interrupting again, that the hidden bad were called the chaff to be winnowed later. From there, amid their noise and interruptions, a disagreement arose about the weeds and the wheat because of the word “world,” which the Donatists would not have understood as the church, since it is written, “The field is this world”; and they brought forward many testimonies in which holy Scripture had spoken of the world as meaning only the bad, such as, “Whoever loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him,” and others like it, so as to show from this, as it were, that the church could by no means be signified by the name “world.” Against this the Catholics brought forward other testimonies showing the word “world” used in a good sense, such as, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,” and others of this kind, in which the church is shown, since it is precisely the church that is reconciled to God through Christ. And this went on while the Catholics tried to keep their speech going continuously, and the Donatists made noise so that it would not happen; since they did not hold back their reply, as the Catholics had done when their letter was read, but by inserting frequent contradictions they hindered the Catholics’ statement from proceeding undisturbed.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.15 (CSEL 53:64–65; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-15)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.16":{"o":"Flagitantibus itaque patientiam eorum catholicis et per multas cognitoris interlocutiones uix impetrantibus responderunt litteris eorum, ostendentes multis sanctarum scripturarum testimoniis et exemplis malos in ecclesia nunc sic esse permixtos, ut, quamuis debeat uigilare ecclesiastica disciplina ad eos non solum uerbis, sed etiam excommunicationibus et degradationibus corripiendos, tamen non solum in ea latentes nesciantur, sed plerumque propter pacem unitatis etiam cogniti tolerentur, sic ostendentes diuina testimonia consonare, ut et illa, quibus commendaretur ecclesia cum malorum commixtione, hoc tempus eius significarent, qualis est in praesenti saeculo, et illa testimonia, quibus commendatur non habere commixtos malos, illud eius tempus significarent, qualis uenturo saeculo in aeternum futura est; sicut nunc mortalis est, id est ex mortalibus hominibus constat, tunc autem immortalis erit, quando in ea nemo morietur; sicut ipse Christus isto tempore fuit pro illa mortalis, post resurrectionem autem iam non moritur et mors illi ultra non dominabitur, quod etiam ecclesiae suae in fine saeculi praestiturus est. haec duo tempora ecclesiae, quae nunc est et qualis tunc erit, significata esse etiam duabus piscationibus, una ante resurrectionem Christi, quando mitti iussit retia nec sinistram nec dexteram nominans partem, ut nec solos malos nec solos bonos, sed commixtos bonis malos intra retia suorum sacramentorum futuros doceret, post resurrectionem autem, quando iussit retia mitti in dexteram partem; ut post resurrectionem nostram bonos solos in ecclesia futuros intellegeremus, ubi ulterius haereses et schismata non erunt, quibus modo retia disrumpuntur. nam et euangelium non tacuit in prima piscatione commemorare retia esse disrupta et in nouissima dictum est: et cum tam magni essent pisces, retia non sunt disrupta. de tali ecclesia dictum esse quod per illam non erit transiturus incircumcisus et immundus; ad immundos enim pertinere schismaticas separationes, quae tunc non erunt, quia retia non sunt disrupta. hoc etiam significasse, quod coruus auis immunda exierit de arca et non redierit; quae tamen arca exeunte coruo non utique omnibus immundis animalibus caruit, sed in ea fuerunt et munda et immunda usque ad diluuium, sicut in ecclesia boni et mali usque ad saeculi finem. sed sicut non de immundis, sed de mundis animalibus Noe obtulit sacrificium, ita non ii qui mali sunt in ecclesia, sed ii qui boni sunt perueniunt ad deum.","t":"So the Catholics, asking for the Donatists’ patience and barely obtaining it through many rulings of the commissioner, answered their letter. They showed by many testimonies and examples of the holy Scriptures that the bad are now so mixed in the church that, although church discipline must be watchful to correct them not only by words but also by excommunications and degradations, yet not only are those hidden in it unknown, but often even those known are tolerated for the sake of the peace of unity. They showed that the divine testimonies agree in this way: those in which the church is presented with the bad mixed in signify this time of hers, such as she is in the present age; and those testimonies in which she is presented as having no bad mixed in signify that time of hers, such as she will be forever in the age to come. Just as she is now mortal, that is, made up of mortal people, but will then be immortal, when no one in her will die; just as Christ himself was mortal for her in this time, but after the resurrection he no longer dies, and death will 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, as she is now and as she will be then, were also signified, they said, by two catches of fish: one before Christ’s resurrection, when he ordered the nets to be let down without naming either the left or the right side, to teach that within the nets of his sacraments there would be neither the bad alone nor the good alone, but the bad mixed with the good; the other after the resurrection, when he ordered the nets to be cast on the right side, so that we might understand that after our resurrection there will be only the good in the church, where there will no longer be heresies and schisms, by which the nets are now torn. For the Gospel did not fail to mention that in the first catch the nets were torn, and in the last it is said, “And though the fish were so large, the nets were not torn.” Of such a church it is said that the uncircumcised and unclean will not pass through her; for schismatic separations belong to the unclean, and these will not exist then, since the nets were not torn. They said that this was also signified by the raven, an unclean bird, going out of the ark and not returning; yet the ark, when the raven went out, was certainly not without all unclean animals, but in it were both clean and unclean until the flood, as in the church there are good and bad 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 in the church who are bad, but those who are good, who come to God.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.16 (CSEL 53:65–66; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-16)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.17":{"o":"De prophetis etiam, quia dixerant Donatistae in litteris suis non eos communicasse illis, in quos mala tanta dixerunt, responderunt catholici, quod unum templum fuerit quo uniuersi utebantur, nec quemquam prophetarum, qui tanta dixerunt in malos, constituisse sibi aliud templum sacrificia sacerdotes. et quod Donatistae in litteris suis posuerant testimonia scripturarum, quibus ostenderent ad peccata parentum etiam filios pertinere, cum hoc utique numquam recte intellectum sit nisi de iis filiis, qui parentum iniquitates imitarentur, responderunt catholici: cum tanta in illum populum et (tam) acerba dicta sint diuinis eloquiis, quae etiam ipsi in suis litteris commemorauerunt, ut quasi nullus illic remansisse uideretur bonus, non solum ibi fuerunt idem ipsi prophetae sancti, uerum etiam ex ipso populo exorti erant, quos ipse dominus in suae carnis aduentu laudabiles reperit, sicut fuerunt Zacharias et Helizabet et sicut Iohannes filius eorum, sicut Simeon senex et Anna uidua. unde apparet quam impie, quam calumniose obicerentur catholicis toto orbe diffusis crimina Caeciliani, cum Simeoni et Annae et ceteris talibus obici non possent crimina illius populi, in quo nati fuerant sacramentis eiusdem populi consecrati, quae crimina eidem populo non humana opinio, sed sermo diuinus obiecerat. commemoratum est etiam testimonium propheticum, ubi signati sunt, ne cum malis perirent, qui gemebant facinora quae fiebant in medio eorum, nec tamen corporaliter separati sunt.","t":"About the prophets too, since the Donatists had said in their letter that they were not in communion with those against whom they spoke such evils, the Catholics answered that there was one temple which all used, and that none of the prophets who spoke such things against the wicked set up for himself another temple, other sacrifices, other priests. And since the Donatists had put in their letter testimonies of the Scriptures to show that the sins of parents extend to the children too, though this has never been rightly understood except of those children who imitate their parents’ iniquities, the Catholics answered: although such great and such bitter things were said against that people by the divine oracles, which the Donatists themselves recalled in their letter, so that it might seem as if no good person had remained there, yet not only were those same holy prophets there, but from that very people arose those whom the Lord himself found praiseworthy at the coming of his flesh, such as Zechariah and Elizabeth, and John their son, and the old man Simeon and the widow Anna. From this it is plain how impiously and slanderously the crimes of Caecilian were charged against the Catholics spread over the whole world, when the crimes of that people could not be charged against Simeon and Anna and others like them, who were born among that people and consecrated with that same people’s sacraments, crimes which not human opinion but the divine word had charged against that same people. The prophetic testimony was also recalled in which those who groaned over the evil deeds done in their midst were marked so as not to perish with the wicked, and yet they were not separated bodily.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.17 (CSEL 53:66–67; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-17)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.18":{"o":"Deinde ibi commemoratum est, qualis separatio bonis hoc tempore ab impiis et malis fieri debeat, ne communicetur peccatis alienis, corde uidelicet et uitae morumque dissimilitudine, nec aliter intellegi debere quod scriptum est: exite de medio eorum, recedite inde, et immundum ne tetigeritis, id est: discernimini aliter uiuendo et immunditiae non consenseritis. ibi etiam opportunissimo loco responsum est Donatistis ad illud quod dixerant, cum eos peteret cognitor ut sederent, scriptum sibi esse ut cum talibus non sederent. dictum est enim a catholicis, cum eorum litteris responderent, non sic intellegendam esse separationem a malis hoc tempore, quemadmodum illi intellexerant, qui secum tamquam cum impiis non sederunt, quia scriptum est: non sedi in concilio impiorum, cum utique, si impios putarent, nec illud, quod in eodem psalmo consequenter prohibetur, tacere debuerunt. nam ibi sequitur: et cum iniqua gerentibus non introibo. cum ergo illi intrassent cum eis quos impios putarent, quare non etiam sederunt, ut in utroque non corporalem, sed spiritalem consessum et ingressum deuitasse uiderentur? ibi commemorata est etiam causa Maximianistarum totiens iam illis obiecta, ubi et se et illos quibus dilationem dederunt in Maximiani schismate positos, eiusdem in damnatione Primiani socios, tamen illius contagio dixerunt non esse pollutos, qui Caeciliani criminibus orbem christianum usque ad terminos terrae perisse contenderent.","t":"Then it was recalled there what kind of separation from the impious and wicked the good ought to make in this time so as not to share in others’ sins: namely, by the heart and by unlikeness of life and conduct; and that what is written, “Go out from their midst, depart from there, and touch no unclean thing,” should not be understood otherwise, that is: be distinguished by living differently, and do not consent to uncleanness. There too, at a most fitting point, the Donatists were answered on what they had said when the commissioner asked them to sit, that it was written for them not to sit with such people. For the Catholics said, when answering their letter, that separation from the wicked in this time is not to be understood as they had understood it, who did not sit with them as with the impious because it is written, “I have not sat in the council of the impious”; since surely, if they thought them impious, they ought not to have passed over what is forbidden next in the same psalm. For there follows: “And I will not go in with those who do wicked things.” Since, then, they had gone in with those whom they thought impious, why did they not also sit, so that in both they would be seen to have avoided not a bodily but a spiritual sitting together and going in? There was also recalled the case of the Maximianists, so often already charged against them, in which they said that they themselves, and those to whom they granted a period of grace while they were in Maximian’s schism and his partners in condemning Primian, had nevertheless not been polluted by his contagion; they who contended that the Christian world, to the ends of the earth, had perished through the crimes of Caecilian.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.18 (CSEL 53:67–68; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-18)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.19":{"o":"Ad haec Donatistae, cum ualidissimis scripturarum documentis et exemplo suo de Maximianistis respondere non possent, ad illud quod iam peractum fuerat redierunt, dicentes mundum non bene intellegi ecclesiam, in qua simul et triticum et zizania iussa sunt crescere, cum catholici et tot testimonia diuina iam commemorassent, quibus ostenderetur mundus etiam in bona significatione positus et in ea non nisi ecclesia posse intellegi et, quomodolibet acciperetur mundus, quando utrumque semen per mundum cresceret, non debere propter zizania totius mundi triticum deseri. cum ergo haec iam dicta fuissent et quaestio ipsa iam terminata uideretur, ad eam rursus summa inopia redierunt eadem per eadem replicantes, quaerentes quomodo potuerit diabolus in ecclesia seminare zizania, deinde calumniantes, quod duas ecclesias catholici dixerint, unam quae nunc habet permixtos malos, aliam quae post resurrectionem eos non esset habitura, ueluti non idem futuri essent sancti cum Christo regnaturi, qui nunc pro eius nomine cum iuste uiuunt tolerant malos.","t":"To this the Donatists, since they could not answer the very strong proofs of the Scriptures and their own example of the Maximianists, went back to what had already been dealt with, saying that the world in which the wheat and the weeds were ordered to grow together is not rightly understood as the church; although the Catholics had already recalled so many divine testimonies showing that “world” is also used in a good sense and that in that sense it can be understood only as the church, and that, however “world” is taken, since both seeds grow throughout the world, the wheat of the whole world should not be deserted because of the weeds. So when these things had already been said and the question itself seemed settled, they went back to it again out of utter lack, unrolling the same things by the same means: asking how the devil could have sown weeds in the church; then slandering the Catholics as having spoken of two churches, one that now has the bad mixed in, another that after the resurrection would not have them; as if the saints who are to reign with Christ would not be the same who now, while living justly for his name, tolerate the bad.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.19 (CSEL 53:68; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-19)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.2":{"o":"Secundo loco cum cognitor iussisset principale negotium iam proponi, dictum est a catholicis olim se agere uelle principale negotium et hoc esse, ut crimina, quae solent Donatistae dicere in ecclesiam toto orbe diffusam, si possent, probarent. responsum est a Donatistis, ut prius quaereretur qui essent qui agerent, ut morae fierent de discussione personarum. de qua re cum diu confligeretur, catholicis recusantibus et ut remotis superfluarum morarum tergiuersationibus ad causam ueniretur uehementer instantibus, contra Donatistae obnixissime contendebant, ut personae discuterentur, et flagitabant, ut exprimerentur qui petissent ab imperatore istam fieri collationem. uolebant enim, ut constaret catholicos esse petitores, ut ex forensi iure possent discutere personas petitorum, cum iam in actione prima recitatum fuisset catholicorum mandatum, ubi se ostendebant non petitores esse, sed defensores aduersus crimina, quae illi eorum communioni obicere solent; cum ipsi prius exegerint, ut ecclesiae causa non forensibus formulis, sed magis diuinarum scripturarum testimoniis ageretur, confessique fuerint lecto catholicorum mandato scripturis sanctis eos ecclesiae causam firmare uoluisse, seque ex eadem diuinae legis auctoritate uicissim acturos esse promiserint. tunc ergo quasi obliti, quid exegerint et quid etiam ipsi polliciti fuerint, cum de ecclesiae criminatione et purgatione catholici proposuissent agi oportere, coeperunt personas quaerere petitorum, ut eas possent ex forensi iure discutere. contra ergo catholici resistebant et propter praescindendas moras, quas eos et praeparare audierant et innectere iam uidebant, perseueranter instabant, ut ecclesiae causa potius ageretur. in conflictu peruentum est, ut imperatoris praeceptum, quo collationem iussisset fieri, legeretur, ut eo modo petitorum persona constaret. uidebatur enim et cognitori, ne quid Donatistis etiam de ipso iure forensi ueluti iusta poscentibus negaretur, prius petitorum constituendas esse personas. praecepto ergo imperiali recitato collationem petisse catholicos declaratum est eamque esse concessam. tunc Donatistae etiam preces, quibus ab eis illa collatio petita est, postulare coeperunt. hic cum eis ipse cognitor responderet in pragmatico rescripto preces inseri non solere, ad id se conuerterunt, ut mandatum catholicorum, quo mandauerant peti ab imperatore collationem, eosdemque legatos, quos ad hoc impetrandum miserant, sibi ederent atque proderent, asserentes discutere se debere quae mandata sunt, atque ibi inuenire posse [mandata catholicorum] quae de illis imperatori locuti sunt. hoc cum intellegerent catholici ad hoc inquiri, ut inuenirentur occasiones, quibus prolixi temporis morae ac dilationes ingererentur, asserebant omnino quod peterent ad causam non pertinere, quandoquidem collationem ab eis petitam ipse imperator apertissime ostenderet, qui cognitorem dederat, ut superstitionem manifesta ratio confutaret, et uehementer urgebant, ut remotis omnibus morarum interpositionibus et aliarum interponendarum inquisitionibus id potius ageretur, quod ea collatione agi ab imperatore praeceptum est, quam et petitam ab illo et concessam esse constabat.","t":"Second, when the commissioner had ordered that the principal business now be put forward, the Catholics said that they had long wished to deal with the principal business, and that this was for the Donatists to prove, if they could, the charges they are accustomed to make against the church spread over the whole world. The Donatists answered that it should first be asked who the persons were who were pleading, so as to cause delays by discussing the persons. While there was long conflict on this, the Catholics refusing and urging vehemently that, setting aside the evasions of needless delays, they should come to the case, the Donatists on the other side contended most stubbornly that the persons be discussed, and demanded that it be stated who had asked the emperor for this conference to be held. For they wanted it established that the Catholics were the plaintiffs, so that under forensic law they could discuss the persons of the plaintiffs. Yet in the first session the Catholics’ mandate had already been read, in which they showed that they were not plaintiffs but defenders against the charges which the others are accustomed to bring against their communion; and the Donatists themselves had earlier demanded that the case of the church be argued not by forensic formulas but rather by the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, and, after the Catholics’ mandate was read, had admitted that the Catholics wished to establish the case of the church from the holy Scriptures, and had promised that they in turn would plead from the same authority of the divine law. Then, therefore, as if they had forgotten what they had demanded and what they themselves had promised, when the Catholics had proposed that the accusation and the clearing of the church should be dealt with, they began to inquire into the persons of the plaintiffs, so as to be able to discuss them under forensic law. Against this the Catholics resisted, and to cut off the delays which they had heard the Donatists were preparing and now saw them weaving, they insisted steadily that the case of the church be dealt with instead. In the conflict it came to this, that the emperor’s order by which he had commanded the conference to be held should be read, so that in this way the person of the plaintiffs might be established. For it seemed to the commissioner too, so that nothing should be refused the Donatists even under forensic law, as if they were asking something just, that the persons of the plaintiffs should first be determined. So when the imperial order was read, it was declared that the Catholics had asked for the conference and that it had been granted. Then the Donatists began to demand also the petition by which the Catholics had asked for the conference. Here, when the commissioner himself answered them that a petition is not usually inserted in a pragmatic rescript, they turned to demanding that the Catholics issue and disclose to them the mandate by which they had instructed that the conference be requested from the emperor, and the same envoys whom they had sent to obtain it, asserting that they ought to examine what had been instructed, and could find there what the Catholics had said to the emperor about them. When the Catholics understood that this was asked so that occasions might be found to introduce long delays and adjournments, they asserted that what was asked was wholly irrelevant to the case, since the emperor himself showed most plainly that the conference had been requested by them, having given a commissioner so that clear reasoning might refute superstition; and they urged vehemently that, all interpositions of delay and inquiries meant to cause further delay being set aside, what the emperor had ordered to be done at this conference should be done instead, a conference which was established both to have been requested from him and granted.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.2 (CSEL 53:50–52; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-2)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.20":{"o":"Ad haec catholici responderunt etiam ipsos iam fuisse confessos esse in ecclesia uel occultos malos, et uicissim quaesierunt, quomodo eos in ecclesia diabolus seminauerit, quod illi, quasi fieri non posset, de zizaniis requirebant. repetierunt etiam catholici testimonium Cypriani, qui eandem euangelicam similitudinem non aliter intellexit, quam ut in ecclesia diceret esse zizania nec latere, sed cerni. contra quod testimonium illi omnino nihil ausi fuerant respondere, cum auctoritatem Cypriani tanti habeant, ut per illam conentur defendere, quod male de iterando baptismo sentiunt et faciunt. de duabus etiam ecclesiis calumniam eorum catholici refutarunt, identidem expressius ostendentes quid dixerint, id est non eam ecclesiam, quae nunc habet permixtos malos, alienam se dixisse a regno dei ubi non erunt mali commixti, sed eandem ipsam unam et sanctam ecclesiam nunc esse aliter, tunc autem aliter futuram, nunc habere malos mixtos, tunc non habituram; sicut nunc mortalem, quod ex mortalibus constaret hominibus, tunc autem immortalem, quod in ea nullus esset uel corpore moriturus; sicut non ideo duo Christi, quia prior mortuus postea non moriturus. dictum est etiam de homine exteriore et interiore, quae cum sint diuersa, non tamen dici duos homines: quanto minus dici duas ecclesias, cum idem ipsi, qui nunc boni tolerant permixtos malos et resurrecturi moriuntur, tunc nec mixtos malos habituri sint nec omnino morituri! de ipso quoque numero, quoniam Donatistae scripturarum testimonio unam ecclesiam commendauerunt uelut contra duas, quas catholicos affirmasse iactabant, responsum est a catholicis etiam multas ecclesias in scripturis inueniri dictas et septem. ad quas Iohannes scribit, quae tamen multae illius unicae membra esse intellegerentur, ut hinc appareret multo minus sibi debere obici duas, cum eandem ipsam unam dixerint non talem nunc esse, qualis in resurrectione futura esset, quandoquidem apostolicis litteris non obiciantur multae, ex quibus ipsa una constaret. ad haec Donatistae rursus eadem replicare non destiterunt, insuper adicientes et inuidiose iactantes, quod ecclesiam mortalem catholici dixerint, et ideo negantes eam mortalem esse, quia trinitas immortalis est, cuius gratia consecratur ecclesia, et quia Christus ideo pro ea mortuus sit, ut eam faceret immortalem; quasi catholici dixerint non eam fieri immortalem gratia dei et effuso pro ea sanguine saluatoris. sed tempora esse discernenda dixerunt, praesens uidelicet, quo moriuntur omnes sancti, sicut mortuus est ipse Christus, et futurum, quo resurgent et nullo morituro uiuent cum illo qui iam resurrexit.","t":"To this the Catholics answered that the Donatists themselves had already admitted that there are at least hidden bad people in the church, and asked them in turn how the devil sowed these in the church, which the Donatists were asking about the weeds as if it could not happen. The Catholics also repeated the testimony of Cyprian, who understood the same Gospel likeness in no other way than to say that there are weeds in the church, and that they are not hidden but seen. Against this testimony the Donatists had dared to answer nothing at all, though they hold Cyprian’s authority in such esteem that they try to defend by it what they wrongly think and do about repeating baptism. The Catholics also refuted their slander about two churches, showing again more explicitly what they had said: that they had not said that the church which now has the bad mixed in is alien to the kingdom of God, where there will be no bad mixed in; but that the same one holy church is now one way, and will be another way then; now it has the bad mixed in, then it will not; just as now it is mortal, because it consists of mortal people, but then immortal, because in it no one will die even in body; just as there are not two Christs because he who first died will afterward not die. It was also said of the outer and the inner man that, though they are different, they are not called two men: how much less are there said to be two churches, when the very same people who now, being good, tolerate the bad mixed in and die to rise again, will then neither have the bad mixed in nor die at all! On the number too, since the Donatists, with the testimony of the Scriptures, had commended one church as if against the two which they boasted the Catholics had affirmed, the Catholics answered that the Scriptures speak of many churches as well, and of seven, to which John writes, which are yet understood to be members of that one church; so that it appeared that much less should two be charged against them, when they had said that the same one church is not now as it will be at the resurrection, since many churches, of which the one church consists, are not charged against the apostolic writings. To this the Donatists did not stop unrolling the same things again, adding besides and boasting spitefully that the Catholics had called the church mortal, and therefore denying that it is mortal, because the Trinity, by whose grace the church is consecrated, is immortal, and because Christ died for her in order to make her immortal; as if the Catholics had said that she is not made immortal by the grace of God and the Savior’s blood poured out for her. But the Catholics said that the times must be distinguished: the present, in which all the saints die, as Christ himself died, and the future, in which they will rise and live with him who has already risen, with no one to die.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.20 (CSEL 53:68–70; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-20)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.21":{"o":"Haec inter eos cum agerentur et quamuis manifesta atque dilucida Donatistis certantibus superflua replicarentur, promisit cognitor de his se, quae satis audisset, extrema sententia iudicaturum et iussit illud agi potius, unde extiterit prima causa discidii. tunc Donatistae urgere coeperunt, ut de his quae audisset primitus iudicaret. quod cum etiam catholici exigerent et ille in eo quod dixerat permaneret iuberetque illud agi potius, ut causa primi discidii monstraretur, petierunt catholici, ut quae offerebant recitarentur. quod cum fieri praecepisset, obnixius Donatistae resistere coeperunt et cogere, ut iam de cognitis iudicaret, eadem quae transacta fuerant repetentes et addentes, quod omnino iudicare de illa causa non deberet, quam uolebat agi recitatione eorum, quae a catholicis oblata fuerant recitanda, dicentes huius causae Christum iudicem esse debere et inuidiam facientes catholicis, quod hominem petiuerant iudicem, dicentes etiam solita de persecutionibus, quas perpeti uiderentur. ad hoc catholici responderunt nec de homine iudice postulato eos debere facere inuidiam, qui et de causa Maximianistarum iudicauerunt nec eam Christo iudici seruauerunt et ipsam Caeciliani causam primitus ad hominem, hoc est ad imperatorem Constantinum, accusantes miserunt, nec de persecutionibus, quod aliquid ab imperatoribus pro ecclesia catholici peterent, cum eorum circumcelliones ducibus clericis tam horrenda mala committerent. ubi frustra responderunt nihil hoc ad sacerdotes pertinere, cum clericis ducibus illi talia fecisse asserebantur.","t":"While these things were being argued between them, and, though plain and clear, were needlessly unrolled again by the Donatists in their contention, the commissioner promised that he would judge on these matters, which he had heard enough, in his final sentence, and ordered that the question be dealt with instead from which the first cause of the division arose. Then the Donatists began to press him to judge first on what he had heard. When the Catholics also demanded this, and he held to what he had said and ordered that the other matter be dealt with instead, so that the cause of the first division might be shown, the Catholics asked that what they were offering be read. When he had ordered this done, the Donatists began to resist more stubbornly and to press him to judge now on what he had heard, repeating the same things that had been settled and adding that he ought not to judge at all on the case which he wanted dealt with by reading what the Catholics had offered to be read, saying that Christ ought to be judge of this case, and stirring up ill will against the Catholics because they had asked for a human judge, and saying their usual things about the persecutions they appeared to suffer. To this the Catholics answered that they ought not to stir up ill will about asking for a human judge, they who both judged the case of the Maximianists and did not reserve it for Christ as judge, and who first sent the very case of Caecilian, as accusers, to a man, that is, to the emperor Constantine; nor about persecutions, because the Catholics asked something of the emperors for the church, when their circumcellions, led by clerics, were committing such horrible evils. Here they answered in vain that this had nothing to do with priests, since it was asserted that the circumcellions had done such things under the leadership of clerics.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.21 (CSEL 53:70; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-21)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.22":{"o":"Ibi etiam cum dictum esset, quod calce et aceto humanos oculos persecuti sint, in quo scelere diabolum crudelitate peruicerunt, qui hoc in sancti uiri carne non fecit quam in potestatem acceperat affligendam, hic Donatistae quaesierunt, utrum qui faciunt filii essent diaboli an qui patiuntur; quasi catholici aliud quam passiones suas dixerint immanissimas a clericis et circumcellionibus eorum. uerumtamen etiam hic non praetermiserunt catholici occasione oblata eis Maximianistas obicere et dixerunt secundum eorum sententiam meliores esse Maximianistas, quos apud tres uel eo amplius proconsules persecuti sunt; illi enim si passi sunt, isti fecerunt. et urgebant catholici ut responderent, utrum ex ipsis, quos damnauerunt et persecuti sunt, non susceperint Felicianum et utrum non eum habeant in collegio suo. ad quod illi obiectum sicut semper omnino obmutescentes in aliud ierunt obiciendo catholicis, quod diabolum defendissent, quia dixerant eum sancti Iob oculis pepercisse, unde illum isti crudelitate uicissent. et susceperunt accusare diabolum uelut defensum a catholicis, dicentes eum magis crudeliter in carne Iob oculis pepercisse, ut manerent ad spectaculum uulneris, quod uniuerso corpori inflixerat. quod multum mirum est quare hoc pro magno dicere uoluerint, nisi forte ut intellegerentur pie fecisse, qui oculos in hominibus persecuti sunt, ne cruciarentur uidendo uulnera sua, quae ab eis per totum corpus acceperant.","t":"There too, when it had been said that they had attacked people’s eyes with lime and vinegar, a crime in which they outdid the devil in cruelty, who did not do this to the flesh of a holy man which he had received power to afflict, the Donatists asked here whether those who do such things are sons of the devil or those who suffer them; as if the Catholics had spoken of anything other than their own most savage sufferings at the hands of the Donatists’ clerics and circumcellions. Nevertheless, here too the Catholics, given the opportunity, did not omit to charge the Maximianists against them, and said that by the Donatists’ own judgment the Maximianists were the better, whom they had persecuted before three or more proconsuls; for if the Maximianists suffered, the Donatists did it. And the Catholics pressed them to answer whether they had not received Felician from among those whom they had condemned and persecuted, and whether they did not have him in their college. To this charge, as always, they fell wholly silent and went on to something else, charging the Catholics with having defended the devil, because they had said that he spared holy Job’s eyes, so that in this the Donatists had outdone him in cruelty. And they undertook to accuse the devil as though defended by the Catholics, saying that he spared Job’s eyes in his flesh all the more cruelly, so that they might remain to look at the wound he had inflicted on his whole body. It is very strange why they wished to say this as something great, unless perhaps to be understood to have acted piously, those who attacked men’s eyes, so that they would not be tormented by seeing the wounds they had received from them all over their bodies.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.22 (CSEL 53:70–71; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-22)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.23":{"o":"Sed cum iterum Donatistae persecutiones quas patiuntur exaggerantes suorum quasdam mortes commemorarent in oppido Bagaiensi, responsum est a catholicis eos hoc passos esse, dum eorum uiolentiae resisteretur, quam et iudici inferre conati sunt. in illo oppido commemorauerunt catholici ab eis horrenda esse commissa, ita ut etiam basilica esset incensa et in ignem missi codices sancti, mortes autem illorum magis esse ex consuetudine quam habent, ut se ipsi praecipitent. cumque his Donatistae respondentes exaggerarent identidem uelut persecutiones quas paterentur, tamquam ex his fructibus suos aduersarios malam esse arborem iactitantes et petentes identidem, ut de agro et zizaniis et de una et immortali ecclesia iudicaretur, contra autem catholici fructus eorum commemorarent schismata et rebaptizationes et quod ipsi primitus maiores suos apud imperatorem accusassent, atque in huiusmodi mutuis obiectis diu conflictio uersaretur, maluit cognitor haec omnia cohibere, promittens de his iudicium posteriore sententia, et recitari iussit, quod a catholicis oblatum iam legi coeperat et fuerat interruptum. sic peracta est causa ecclesiae, quam magnopere catholici curauerant a Caeciliani causa distinguere, quoniam ei non posset cuiuslibet praeiudicari criminibus, quae contra omnes humanas criminationes tot testimonia diuina meruisset. ex hoc iam coepit agi etiam causa Caeciliani.","t":"But when the Donatists, again magnifying the persecutions they suffer, recalled certain deaths of their own people in the town of Bagai, the Catholics answered that they had suffered this while their violence was being resisted, violence they had even tried to inflict on the judge. In that town, the Catholics recalled, horrible things had been committed by them, so that even a basilica was burned and the holy books thrown into the fire; and their deaths came rather from their habit of throwing themselves down headlong. And when the Donatists, answering this, again magnified the persecutions they suffered, boasting that by these fruits their opponents were a bad tree, and asking again and again that judgment be given about the field and the weeds and the one and immortal church, while the Catholics on the other hand recalled their fruits, schisms and rebaptisms, and that it was they who first accused their forebears before the emperor; and when the conflict turned for a long time on mutual charges of this kind, the commissioner preferred to check all these things, promising judgment on them in his later sentence, and ordered that what the Catholics had offered, which had already begun to be read and had been interrupted, be read. So the case of the church was concluded, which the Catholics had taken great care to distinguish from the case of Caecilian, since it could not be prejudiced by anyone’s crimes, having earned so many divine testimonies against all human accusations. From this point the case of Caecilian also began to be argued.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.23 (CSEL 53:71–72; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-23)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.24":{"o":"Quinto ergo loco haec acta sunt. recitatae sunt duae relationes Anullini proconsulis ad Constantinum imperatorem, una quae iam superius erat recitata, qua ostendit maiores Donatistarum, id est de parte Maiorini, dedisse sibi chartas criminum Caeciliani et postulasse Constantino mittendas seque illas memorato imperatori misisse, altera autem, qua ostendit ex eiusdem imperatoris iussione denos ex utraque parte ad agendam causam ut mitterent eos se conuenisse atque illos promisisse facturos. tum deinde lectae sunt etiam litterae supradicti imperatoris ad episcopos datae, ubi eis causam Caeciliani iniunxit audiendam. atque inde ex ordine legi coepit etiam episcopale iudicium Miltiadis Romani episcopi et aliorum cum illo Gallorum et Italorum episcoporum in eadem urbe Romae factum, cuius iudicii prima parte, id est gestis primi diei recitatis, ubi accusatores Caeciliani qui missi fuerant negauerunt se habere quod in eum dicerent, ubi etiam Donatus a Casis Nigris in praesenti conuictus est adhuc diacono Caeciliano schisma fecisse Carthagine — de Carthaginis enim schismate exorta est aduersus ecclesiam catholicam pars Donati —, ubi etiam promiserunt idem aduersarii Caeciliani alio die se praesentaturos, quos causae necessarios subtraxisse arguebantur, et hoc mentiti ulterius ad iudicium accedere noluerunt: hac ergo iudicii parte recitata cum coepisset recitari, quid alio die gestum sit, interruperunt Donatistae et petere instantissime coeperunt, ut prius ea quae offerebant recitarentur, asserentes non esse ordinis, ut prius absolutio Caeciliani quem nondum accusauerant legeretur, et de hoc aliquanto diutius conflixerunt, cum catholici dicerent non debere interrumpi quod legi iam coeperat, donec eiusdem iudicii omnia gesta terminarentur, illi autem e diuerso assererent ea quae interrumpebantur nec incipi debuisse ut legerentur, quoniam non competeret prius defendi hominem quam accusari. ad hoc catholici respondebant, cum causa schismatis a cognitore quaereretur, petisse ut illa legerentur quae oblata fuerant ad legendum, cum ageretur de persona petitoris. duas itaque ob res illa uoluisse recitari, ut appareret eos primitus in hac causa hominem iudicem postulasse, qui faciebant catholicis inuidiam, quod in hac collatione homo cognitor residebat, et ut petitoris persona constaret, et quoniam legi coepta fuerant, non debere interrumpi, sed usque ad finem recitando perduci. inter haec cognitor cum hoc primo uoluisset quod a catholicis petebatur, ut ea quae recitari coeperant finirentur, postea tamen ei Donatistae extorserunt, ut ea quae ipsi offerebant dilatis illis legi permitterentur.","t":"Fifth, then, these things were done. Two reports of the proconsul Anullinus to the emperor Constantine were read: one which had already been read above, in which he showed that the forebears of the Donatists, that is, those of the party of Majorinus, had given him documents of charges against Caecilian and asked that they be sent to Constantine, and that he had sent them to the said emperor; the other, in which he showed that, by order of the same emperor, he had met them so that each side might send ten men to plead the case, and that they had promised to do so. Then there was also read the letter of the said emperor to the bishops, in which he entrusted to them the hearing of Caecilian’s case. And then the episcopal judgment of Miltiades, bishop of Rome, and of the bishops of Gaul and Italy with him, held in the same city of Rome, began to be read in order. Its first part was read, that is, the minutes of the first day: in which the accusers of Caecilian who had been sent said they had nothing to say against him; in which Donatus of Casae Nigrae, in person, was also convicted of having made a schism at Carthage while Caecilian was still a deacon (for it was from the schism of Carthage that the party of Donatus arose against the Catholic Church); in which the same opponents of Caecilian also promised to produce on another day those necessary to the case whom they were charged with having withdrawn, and, having lied in this, refused to come to the judgment any further. When, then, this part of the judgment had been read and the reading began of what was done on another day, the Donatists interrupted and began to ask most insistently that what they were offering be read first, asserting that it was not in order that the acquittal of Caecilian be read first, when they had not yet accused him. On this they fought for a somewhat longer time, the Catholics saying that what had already begun to be read should not be interrupted until all the minutes of that judgment had been finished, and the Donatists on the contrary asserting that what was being interrupted ought not even to have begun to be read, since it was not proper for a man to be defended before he was accused. To this the Catholics answered that, when the cause of the schism was being asked by the commissioner, they had asked that the documents be read which had been offered for reading when the person of the plaintiff was being discussed. They had wanted them read, then, for two reasons: so that it would appear that the Donatists, who were stirring up ill will against the Catholics because a man sat as commissioner at this conference, had themselves first asked for a human judge in this case; and so that the person of the plaintiff might be established; and since they had begun to be read, they ought not to be interrupted but carried through to the end. Meanwhile the commissioner, though at first he had wanted what the Catholics asked, that what had begun to be read be finished, afterward the Donatists wrung it from him that those documents be put off and what they were offering be allowed to be read.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.24 (CSEL 53:72–73; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-24)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.25":{"o":"Tunc Donatistae aliquantum praelocuti sunt, quod Mensurius, qui fuerat ante Caecilianum ecclesiae Carthaginiensis episcopus, tempore persecutionis tradiderit persecutoribus sanctas scripturas, et hoc ut probarent, legerunt eius epistulam ad Secundum Tigisitanum datam, qui tunc habebat primatum episcoporum Numidiae. in qua epistula uidebatur Mensurius uelut de suo crimine confiteri, qui tamen non scripserat se sanctos codices tradidisse, sed potius ne a persecutoribus inuenirentur abstulisse atque seruasse, dimisisse autem in basilica Nouorum quaecumque reproba scripta haereticorum, quae cum inuenissent persecutores et abstulissent, nihil ab illo amplius postulasse. uerumtamen quosdam Carthaginiensis ordinis uiros postea suggessisse proconsuli, quod illusi fuerant qui missi erant ad christianorum scripturas auferendas et incendendas, quia non inuenerant nisi nescio quae ad eas non pertinentia, ipsas autem in domo episcopi custodiri, unde deberent proferri et incendi; proconsulem uero ad hoc eis consentire noluisse. in eisdem etiam litteris lectum est eos, qui se offerrent persecutionibus non comprehensi et ultro dicerent se habere scripturas quas non traderent, a quibus hoc nemo quaesierat, displicuisse Mensurio et ab eis honorandis eum prohibuisse christianos. quidam etiam in eadem epistula facinorosi arguebantur et fisci debitores, qui occasione persecutionis uel carere uellent onerosa multis debitis uita uel purgare se putarent et quasi abluere facinora sua uel certe adquirere pecuniam et in custodia deliciis perfrui de obsequio christianorum. crimen tamen Donatistae non ingerebant Mensurio nisi de codicibus traditis; mentitum eum quippe dicebant, quod illi non fuerint codices sancti, et peccatum suum tegere uoluisse, quamuis et ipsam fictionem criminarentur. recitarunt etiam rescripta Secundi Tigisitani ad eundem Mensurium pacifice data, ubi et ipse narrauit in Numidia persecutores quae egerint et qui comprehensi et scripturas sanctas tradere nolentes et multa mala passi et grauissimis suppliciis excruciati et occisi sunt, eosque honorandos pro martyrii sui merito commendauit, laudans eos non tradidisse scripturas sanctas illius mulieris exemplo, quae duos exploratores in Hiericho, in quibus figurarentur duo testamenta, uetus et nouum, tradere persecutoribus noluit. quod quidem exemplum si sub hac figura est intellegendum, Mensurium potius adiuuabat. in suis enim litteris Mensurius reprehendebat eos qui scripturas sanctas, quamuis eas non traderent, se tamen habere faterentur, quod mulier illa non fecit; neque enim eos exploratores qui quaerebantur apud se esse confessa est, sed negauit. scripsit etiam Secundus et ad se ipsum missos a curatore et ordine centurionem et beneficiarium, qui peterent diuinos codices exurendos, eisque respondisse: christianus sum et episcopus, non traditor, et cum ab eo uellent aliqua ecbola aut quodcumque accipere, neque hoc eis dedisse exemplo Eleazari Macchabaei, qui nec fingere uoluit suillam carnem se manducare, ne aliis praeberet praeuaricationis exemplum. hae litterae Mensurii et Secundi donec legendo terminarentur, catholici patienter audierunt, quamuis testati fuerint eas esse familiares nec ad causam ecclesiae pertinere.","t":"Then the Donatists made a somewhat long preface, that Mensurius, who had been bishop of the church of Carthage before Caecilian, had handed over the holy Scriptures to the persecutors in the time of persecution; and to prove this they read his letter to Secundus of Tigisi, who then held the primacy of the bishops of Numidia. In that letter Mensurius seemed as it were to confess his crime; yet he had not written that he had handed over the holy books, but rather that he had taken them away and kept them so that the persecutors would not find them, and had left in the basilica of the Novae whatever rejected writings of the heretics there were; and when the persecutors found and took these away, they asked nothing more of him. Nevertheless, some men of the council of Carthage afterward suggested to the proconsul that those sent to take away and burn the Christians’ Scriptures had been tricked, because they had found only some things or other that had nothing to do with them, while the Scriptures themselves were kept in the bishop’s house, from where they ought to be brought out and burned; but the proconsul refused to agree to this. In the same letter it was also read that those who offered themselves to persecutions without being arrested, and declared of their own accord that they had Scriptures which they would not hand over, though no one had asked them for this, displeased Mensurius, and that he forbade Christians to honor them. Some in the same letter were also charged with being criminals and debtors to the treasury, who on the occasion of persecution wished either to be rid of a life burdened with many debts, or thought to purge themselves and as it were wash away their crimes, or at any rate to gain money and enjoy luxuries in prison from the attentions of Christians. Yet the Donatists brought no charge against Mensurius except about handing over the books; they said he had lied, that those were not holy books, and had wanted to cover his sin, though they also accused the pretense itself. They also read the peaceable reply of Secundus of Tigisi to the same Mensurius, in which he too related what the persecutors had done in Numidia, and who had been arrested and, refusing to hand over the holy Scriptures, had suffered many evils, been tortured with the heaviest punishments, and been killed; and he commended them as to be honored for the merit of their martyrdom, praising them for not handing over the holy Scriptures, after the example of that woman who refused to hand over to the persecutors the two spies in Jericho, in whom were figured the two testaments, the old and the new. If that example is to be understood under this figure, it rather helped Mensurius. For in his letter Mensurius found fault with those who, though they did not hand over the holy Scriptures, yet admitted that they had them, which that woman did not do; for she did not confess that the spies who were being sought were with her, but denied it. Secundus also wrote that a centurion and a police officer had been sent to him too by the curator and the town council, to ask for the divine books to be burned, and that he had answered them, “I am a Christian and a bishop, not a betrayer”; and when they wanted to receive from him some castoffs or anything at all, he did not give them even this, after the example of Eleazar of the Maccabees, who would not even pretend to eat pork, so as not to give others an example of transgression. Until these letters of Mensurius and Secundus were finished being read, the Catholics listened patiently, though they declared that they were private letters and had nothing to do with the case of the church.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.25 (CSEL 53:73–75; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-25)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.26":{"o":"Cognitor ergo commonens Donatistas, ut patientiae uicem redderent, iussit perlegi quae oblata a catholicis iam ex parte fuerant recitata. hic Donatistae poposcerunt, ut prius etiam legeretur quod de causa Caeciliani offerebant. hoc quoque sine ulla difficultate catholicis permittentibus et commendantibus, quam patienter hoc permitterent, ut hoc eis et illi rependerent, iussit quod offerebatur cognitor recitari. et recitatum est a Donatistis concilium ferme septuaginta episcoporum contra Caecilianum apud Carthaginem factum, ubi eum absentem damnauerunt, quod ad eos uenire noluerit tamquam a traditoribus ordinatus, et quia, cum esset diaconus, uictum afferri martyribus in custodia constitutis prohibuisse dicebatur. nominati sunt etiam quidam collegae Caeciliani, qui traditores asserebantur publicis gestis, quae tamen gesta non legebantur. inter hos autem maxime Felix Aptugnensis acerbius accusatus est, ita ut fons malorum omnium diceretur. deinde sententiae a singulis dictae sunt, primitus a Secundo Tigisitano, qui eorum princeps fuit, deinde a ceteris, quibus expresserunt se Caeciliano et collegis eius non communicare. hoc itaque concilio recitato catholici responderunt illas litteras Mensurii et Secundi ad inuicem datas satis demonstrare pacatos, nihil postea criminis de facto Mensurii uel accusatum uel iudicatum; concilium uero, quod contra Caecilianum factum legerant, non quidem habere consulem et diem, sed hinc se nullum crimen obicere, quod magis neglegentiae quam fraudis esse potuerit.","t":"So the commissioner, urging the Donatists to repay the Catholics’ patience in kind, ordered that the documents offered by the Catholics, which had already been partly read, be read through. Here the Donatists demanded that what they were offering about the case of Caecilian also be read first. When the Catholics allowed this too without any difficulty and pointed out how patiently they allowed it, so that the Donatists might repay them in kind, the commissioner ordered what was being offered to be read. And the Donatists read the council of about seventy bishops held at Carthage against Caecilian, in which they condemned him in his absence, because he would not come to them, as one ordained by betrayers, and because, when he was a deacon, he was said to have forbidden food to be brought to the martyrs held in prison. Certain colleagues of Caecilian were also named, who were asserted to be betrayers on the basis of public records, though these records were not read. Among them Felix of Abthugni was accused most bitterly, so that he was called the source of all evils. Then the judgments were pronounced one by one, first by Secundus of Tigisi, who was their leader, then by the rest, in which they declared that they were not in communion with Caecilian and his colleagues. When this council had been read, the Catholics answered that the letters of Mensurius and Secundus exchanged with each other showed well enough that they were at peace, and that nothing criminal about Mensurius’s conduct was afterward either charged or judged; but that the council they had read, held against Caecilian, did indeed have no consul and day, though they did not make a crime of this, since it could have come from negligence rather than fraud.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.26 (CSEL 53:75–76; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-26)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.27":{"o":"Sed obtulerunt idem catholici aliud concilium sub eodem (Secundo) Tigisitano habitum in ciuitate Cirtensi, cuius consul et dies cum legeretur, Donatistae dixerunt nec consulem nec diem talia solere habere decreta. hic catholici responderunt illorum esse istum forsitan morem, qui concilia sua nollent in aliqua falsitate conuinci, catholicorum autem concilia consules et dies semper habuisse. deinde coepit identidem concilium quod catholici attulerant recitari, ubi Secundus quosdam, de quorum traditione audierat, et singillatim interrogabat et eos confessos a consessu remouebat. quod eo modo recitabatur, ut, cum ex Cirtensi concilio lecta esset confessio traditorum, legeretur etiam de concilio Carthaginiensi nomen eius uelut traditores in Caeciliani causa damnantis. deinde uentum est ad ipsius Secundi Tigisitani a Purpurio Liniatensi crimen obiectum, cui Purpurio idem Secundus occisos ab eo in carcere Milei filios sororis eius obiecerat; ubi ille uicissim ei crimen traditionis obiecit, dicens detentum eum fuisse a curatore et ordine, ut scripturas daret, nec eum potuisse dimitti nisi aliquid tradidisset. hoc autem quod ei obiecit Purpurius, detentum eum fuisse a curatore et ordine, ut scripturas daret, idem Secundus in litteris, quas Mensurio rescripserat, paene confessus est, ubi ait missum ad se fuisse a curatore et ordine centurionem et beneficiarium et a se scripturas petitas uel quaelibet ecbola, quae quidem se non tradidisse dixit; sed cum ipse illic commemorauerit tot martyres, qui cum tradere noluissent excruciati et occisi sunt, quomodo ipse detentus et conuictus et nolens aliquid tradere nihil pati et dimitti potuerit, nec Mensurio scripsit nec Purpurio respondit. non enim centurioni et beneficiario dixit se scripturas non habere, sed respondit se omnino non tradere. quod illi auditum quomodo illo dimisso renuntiare potuerint sine suo exitio, non apparet, praesertim quia idem Secundus non quoslibet infimos, sed etiam patres familias, cum hoc idem persecutoribus respondissent, crudelissimis mortibus dixit occisos. sed de hac re catholici nullum Secundo crimen obiecerunt, sed tantummodo quod ei Purpurius obiecit et propter quod pacem, ne schisma fieret, omnia illa deo dimittens cum traditoribus fecit, recitari uoluerunt, ut quales homines in absentem Caecilianum sententias dixerint appareret.","t":"But the same Catholics offered another council held under the same Secundus of Tigisi in the city of Cirta. When its consul and day were read, the Donatists said that such decrees do not usually have either consul or day. Here the Catholics answered that this was perhaps the custom of those who did not want their councils convicted of any falsehood, but that the councils of the Catholics had always had consuls and days. Then the council that the Catholics had brought began to be read in its turn, in which Secundus questioned one by one certain men of whose betrayal he had heard, and removed from the assembly those who confessed. It was read in such a way that, when the confession of the betrayers had been read from the council of Cirta, the name of the same man was also read from the council of Carthage, as condemning betrayers in the case of Caecilian. Then they came to the charge brought against Secundus of Tigisi himself by Purpurius of Liniata. Secundus had charged this Purpurius with having killed his sister’s sons in prison at Milevis; and Purpurius in turn charged him with the crime of betrayal, saying that he had been detained by the curator and the council to hand over the Scriptures, and could not have been let go unless he had handed something over. Now what Purpurius charged him with, that he had been detained by the curator and the council to hand over the Scriptures, the same Secundus almost confessed in the letter he wrote back to Mensurius, where he says that a centurion and a police officer had been sent to him by the curator and the council and that Scriptures or any castoffs had been asked of him, which indeed he said he did not hand over. But since he himself recalled there so many martyrs who, refusing to hand over, were tortured and killed, how he himself, detained and convicted and unwilling to hand over anything, could suffer nothing and be let go, he neither wrote to Mensurius nor answered Purpurius. For he did not tell the centurion and the police officer that he had no Scriptures, but answered that he would not hand them over at all. How they, having heard this, could report it after letting him go without ruin to themselves does not appear, especially since the same Secundus said that not just any of the lowest people, but even heads of families, when they had given the persecutors this same answer, were killed by the cruelest deaths. But on this matter the Catholics brought no charge against Secundus; they only wished to have read what Purpurius charged against him, and why he made peace with the betrayers to prevent a schism, leaving all that to God, so that it might appear what kind of men they were who pronounced sentences against the absent Caecilian.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.27 (CSEL 53:76–77; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-27)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.28":{"o":"Hoc autem recitato petierunt catholici, ut etiam illa quae dilata fuerant legerentur, (inde asserentes posse monstrari, quid de Caeciliano gestum sit quidue sentiendum) de concilio Carthaginiensi, in quo lectum fuerat absentem Caecilianum a multis episcopis fuisse damnatum. (contra Donatistae catholicos urgebant, ut uerum esse faterentur) [hoc] illud concilium, quia catholici recitauerant relationes Anullini proconsulis, quibus appareret chartas criminum Caeciliani Constantino imperatori esse transmissas, quod utique agentes confirmauerunt a maioribus suis Caecilianum apud imperatorem accusatum. responsum est autem a catholicis illud Carthaginiense concilium sic non praeiudicare absenti Caeciliano, quemadmodum non praeiudicauit absenti Primiano concilium eorum, a quibus in Maximiani causa damnatus est, quoniam magis tenuit pars Donati, quod actum est postea pro Primiano, quam illius concilii auctoritatem, quo fuerat ante damnatus; sic ergo et in Caeciliani causa debere attendi quod postea gestum est. hic Donatistae de Maximiani causa coartati dixerunt nec causam causae nec personam praeiudicare personae. quam sententiam in ore habere solent omnes catholici, cum Donatistae aliorum crimina aliis obicientes suam separationem defenderent et orbem christianum nescio quibus Afrorum criminibus accusarent. nam et ista collatione totum quod egerant catholici, ut ecclesiae causam a causa Caeciliani distinguerent, asserentes in ecclesia permixtos malos non obesse bonis nec eos suis maculare peccatis, hoc utique egerant, ut nec causa causae praeiudicaret nec persona personae. quod ab aduersariis, dum aliud ageretur, uoce apertissima confirmatum est. sed cognitor cum quaesisset, quid de Carthaginiensi concilio catholici responderent, iterum responderunt non esse contemnendam similitudinem causae Primiani, quia et dominus Christus Iudaeos de factis eorum conuincens perducebat ad uerum.","t":"When this had been read, the Catholics asked that the documents that had been put off also be read, asserting that from them it could be shown what was done about Caecilian and what ought to be thought of him, in connection with the council of Carthage, in which it had been read that Caecilian in his absence had been condemned by many bishops. Against this the Donatists pressed the Catholics to admit that that council was genuine, since the Catholics had read the reports of the proconsul Anullinus, by which it appeared that documents of charges against Caecilian had been sent to the emperor Constantine; by pleading this, the Catholics had certainly confirmed that Caecilian had been accused before the emperor by the Donatists’ forebears. The Catholics answered that that council of Carthage no more prejudiced the absent Caecilian than the council of those by whom Primian was condemned in the case of Maximian prejudiced the absent Primian; since the party of Donatus held rather to what was done afterward for Primian than to the authority of the council by which he had earlier been condemned; so in the case of Caecilian too, attention ought to be paid to what was done afterward. Here the Donatists, hemmed in by the case of Maximian, said that neither does one case prejudice another case nor one person another person. This is the very maxim that all Catholics are accustomed to have on their lips, when the Donatists, charging the crimes of some against others, defended their separation and accused the Christian world of some African crimes or other. For in this conference too, everything the Catholics had done to distinguish the case of the church from the case of Caecilian, asserting that the bad mixed in the church do not harm the good nor stain them with their sins, they had done precisely so that neither one case should prejudice another case nor one person another person. And this was confirmed by their opponents, while dealing with something else, in the plainest words. But when the commissioner asked what the Catholics answered about the council of Carthage, they answered again that the parallel of Primian’s case should not be despised, since the Lord Christ too, convicting the Jews from their own deeds, led them to the truth.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.28 (CSEL 53:77–78; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-28)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.29":{"o":"Deinde Donatistae longa prosecutione agebant, ut ex illius auctoritate Carthaginiensis concilii confirmaretur Caeciliani damnatio, quod ad tot sacerdotes uenire noluerit — quasi non et Primianus ad eos, a quibus damnatus est, cum eorum factionem cognosceret, simili uoluntate non uenerit —, et quod non expectauerit Caecilianus, ut princeps a principe ordinaretur, cum aliud habeat ecclesiae catholicae consuetudo, ut non Numidiae, sed propinquiores episcopi episcopum ecclesiae Carthaginis ordinent, sicut nec Romanae ecclesiae <episcopum) ordinat aliquis episcopus metropolitanus, sed de proximo Ostiensis episcopus. hoc autem dicentes de sua consuetudine, quam nescio quando instituerunt, ecclesiae catholicae praeiudicare conabantur; quae consuetudo si antiqua esset, hoc ipsum obiecissent Caeciliano, quando eum absentem damnauerunt. dixerunt etiam scripsisse Optatum, quod Caecilianus dixerit: (si traditores sunt qui me ordinauerunt, ipsi ueniant et ordinent me. quod quidem si dictum est, ideo dici potuit ad illos irridendos quibus hoc mandasse perhibetur, quoniam certus erat ordinatores suos non esse traditores. non enim ait: (quia traditores sunt, sed: (si traditores sunt, ut innocentia eorum probanda restaret ubi probari recte potuisset.","t":"Then the Donatists argued in a long statement that Caecilian’s condemnation was confirmed by the authority of that council of Carthage, because he refused to come to so many priests (as if Primian too, with a similar will, had not refused to come to those by whom he was condemned, when he knew their faction), and because Caecilian did not wait for the primate to be ordained by a primate; although the custom of the Catholic Church is otherwise, that not the bishops of Numidia but nearer bishops ordain the bishop of the church of Carthage, just as no metropolitan bishop ordains the bishop of the Roman church either, but the neighboring bishop of Ostia. In saying this about their own custom, which they instituted I know not when, they tried to prejudice the Catholic Church; but if that custom were ancient, they would have charged this very thing against Caecilian when they condemned him in his absence. They also said that Optatus had written that Caecilian said, “If those who ordained me are betrayers, let them come and ordain me themselves.” If this was said, it could have been said to mock those to whom he is reported to have sent this message, since he was sure that his ordainers were not betrayers. For he does not say “since they are betrayers” but “if they are betrayers,” so that their innocence remained to be proved where it could rightly be proved.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.29 (CSEL 53:78–79; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-29)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.3":{"o":"Inter haec etiam de catholico nomine, apud quos potius esset, pauca ab utraque parte inuicem dicta et obiecta sunt, et iussum est principali causae potius reseruari. et post aliquanta identidem cum catholici nominis facta mentione dicerent Donatistae apud se potius esse catholicam, interlocutus est cognitor se interim sine cuiusquam praeiudicio non posse aliter appellare catholicos, quam eos appellauit imperator a quo cognitor datus est, illos autem, quanto magis se esse catholicos dicerent, tanto magis iam causam ipsam remotis morarum interpositionibus agere debere, in qua probare possent se potius esse catholicos. hic Donatistae post tantas moras et tot interlocutiones cognitoris contra eos prolatas, exigentis ut causa potius ageretur atque testantis de legatorum personis uel mandato, quod eis iniunctum est, nec ad causam aliquid pertinere nec sibi aliquid ut hinc requireret fuisse praeceptum, dixerunt, ut, si in legatis uel mandato quod eis datum est manifestando noluissent catholici obtemperare iudicatis, saltem hoc responderent, utrum loco petitorum consisterent, multum mirantibus catholicis, cur eos Donatistae dixerunt in edendo legatorum mandato non parere iudicatis, cum potius contra ipsos tam multis interlocutionibus cognitor pronuntiauerat. interrogauerunt ergo catholici, quibus iudicatis non paruerint, et Donatistis ad hoc non respondentibus interlocutus est cognitor, ad illud, quod de loco petitoris Donatistae quaesierant, catholici responderent. et responderunt se hoc proponere, ut crimina, quae solent Donatistae communioni eorum obicere, uel probentur uel diluantur, ut possit Donatistarum separatio uel defendi uel corrigi. tunc cognitor cum responsionem a Donatistis exigeret, responderunt Afros, qui se catholicos dicerent, alienam causam uelle defendere, hoc est totius orbis ecclesiam, de qua sibi nihil debere praeiudicari, cum inter Afros hoc negotium uentiletur, et expectare potius ecclesiam transmarinam, ut qui uicerint ipsi ad eam pertinere uideantur et ipsi habeant catholicum nomen; sed in fine prosecutionis suae rursus de persona petitoris ut sibi responderetur postulauerunt. hic catholici ad utrumque breuiter responderunt, et quia de personis iam primo et secundo iudicio quaestio fuerit terminata, et quia ecclesiae toto orbe diffusae, cui testimonium perhibet scriptura diuina, ipsi, non Donatistae communicant, unde catholici merito et sunt et uocantur. Donatistae autem responderunt non catholicum nomen ex uniuersitate gentium, sed ex plenitudine sacramentorum institutum, et petiuerunt, ut probarent catholici sibi communicare omnes gentes. quod catholici cum gratissime acciperent et peterent, ut hoc probare permitterentur, rursus illi de mandato illo, quod legatis iniunctum edi sibi petiuerant, quaestionem refricare coeperunt et a causa ecclesiae, quae iam in medium discutienda peruenerat, iterum resilire, modo mandatum supradictum petendo, modo de petitoris persona ut constaret instando, modo ut de his ipsis quae petierant iudicaret cognitor exigendo, de quibus iam totiens fuerat interlocutus et eos illa frustra petere pronuntiauerat.","t":"Meanwhile, a few things were also said and objected by both sides about the Catholic name, with which party it more properly belonged, and it was ordered that this be reserved for the principal case. And some time later, when mention of the Catholic name was again made and the Donatists said that the Catholic Church was rather with them, the commissioner ruled that for the present, without prejudice to anyone, he could not call the Catholics anything other than what the emperor who had appointed him had called them; but that the more the Donatists said they were Catholics, the more they should now argue the case itself, setting aside interpositions of delay, in which they could prove that they were rather the Catholics. Here the Donatists, after so many delays and so many rulings of the commissioner pronounced against them, demanding that the case be argued instead and testifying that the persons of the envoys and the mandate given them had nothing to do with the case and that he had not been ordered to inquire into this, said that, if the Catholics would not obey the rulings by disclosing the envoys and the mandate given them, they should at least answer whether they stood in the place of plaintiffs. The Catholics were much surprised that the Donatists said they did not obey the rulings in issuing the envoys’ mandate, when the commissioner had pronounced so many rulings rather against the Donatists. So the Catholics asked which rulings they had not obeyed; and when the Donatists did not answer this, the commissioner ruled that the Catholics should answer the question the Donatists had asked about the place of the plaintiff. And they answered that what they proposed was this: that the charges which the Donatists are accustomed to bring against their communion be either proved or washed away, so that the separation of the Donatists might be either defended or corrected. Then, when the commissioner demanded an answer from the Donatists, they answered that Africans who called themselves Catholics wished to defend another’s case, namely that of the church of the whole world, which ought not to be prejudiced in their regard, since this business was being argued among Africans; and that they should rather await the church overseas, so that those who won would be seen to belong to it and would themselves have the Catholic name. But at the end of their statement they again demanded an answer about the person of the plaintiff. Here the Catholics answered both points briefly: that the question of the persons had already been settled by the first and second rulings, and that it was they, not the Donatists, who were in communion with the church spread over the whole world, to which divine Scripture bears witness, and therefore they rightly both are and are called Catholics. The Donatists answered that the Catholic name was established not from the universality of the nations but from the fullness of the sacraments, and asked that the Catholics prove that all nations were in communion with them. The Catholics received this most gladly and asked to be allowed to prove it; but the Donatists began again to rub up the question about the mandate given to the envoys which they had asked to be issued to them, and once more to spring back from the case of the church, which had now come into the open for discussion: now asking for the mandate mentioned, now insisting that the person of the plaintiff be established, now demanding that the commissioner rule on those very things they had asked for, on which he had already ruled so many times and pronounced that they asked for them in vain.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.3 (CSEL 53:52–53; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-3)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.30":{"o":"Ad haec et si qua alia prolixa prosecutione dixerunt, breuiter responderunt catholici non sufficere ad causam Caeciliani Carthaginiense concilium ipsos etiam iudicasse, qui eam ad imperatorem accusando miserunt, et sic demonstrarunt hoc potius esse spectandum, quod res peruenerit usque ad imperatoris sententiam, cui eandem causam mittendam duxerunt. hoc enim catholici instabant, ut omnibus morarum umbraculis amputatis illa potius legerentur, quibus lectis olim causa finita et Caeciliani innocentia manifestata luce clarius appareret. quae Donatistae ut legerentur omnino nolentes quidlibet aliud interponendo impediebant. nam cum cognitor quaesisset, utrum prius esset factum Carthaginiense concilium et postea missa fuerit ad imperatorem causa Caeciliani, dixerunt catholici, quoniam consulem et diem illud concilium non haberet, ad utrumque se respondere: quia, si prius causa ad imperatorem missa est, quo exitu terminata sit spectari oportere, si autem postea, nihilominus non istorum, sed illius iudicium esse quaerendum, quo eam post iudicium suum mittendam putarunt. sed cum multa Donatistae insererent de consule et die, cur in suorum maiorum concilio non legeretur, ne hinc falsitatis arguerentur, et assererent hanc esse ecclesiasticam consuetudinem, ne dies et consules decretis episcoporum conscriberentur, legi uolentes etiam concilium Cypriani, ut hoc probarent, quia nihil aliud nisi morae quaerebantur — neque enim catholici in eo causam suam constituerant quando ad utrumque responderant, siue prius siue posterius esset illud concilium, quod contra Caecilianum apud Carthaginem fecerant —, iussit cognitor catholicis instantibus, ut ista potius quae dilata fuerant legerentur.","t":"To this and whatever else they said in a long statement, the Catholics answered briefly that the council of Carthage was not enough for Caecilian’s case even in the judgment of the Donatists themselves, who sent the case to the emperor as accusers; and so they showed that the thing to look at was rather that the matter came all the way to the sentence of the emperor, to whom they thought fit to send the same case. For this is what the Catholics were urging: that, all shady devices of delay being cut away, those documents should rather be read, by whose reading the case long ago finished and Caecilian’s innocence would appear clearer than daylight. The Donatists, wholly unwilling that these be read, hindered it by interposing anything else at all. For when the commissioner asked whether the council of Carthage had been held first and the case of Caecilian sent to the emperor afterward, the Catholics said that, since that council had no consul and day, they would answer for both possibilities: if the case was sent to the emperor first, one should look at its outcome; but if afterward, then nonetheless it was not the Donatists’ judgment but the emperor’s that was to be sought, to whom they thought it should be sent after their own judgment. But when the Donatists put in much about the consul and day, why they were not read in their forebears’ council, so as not to be charged with falsehood on this ground, and asserted that it was the custom of the church that days and consuls were not written on the decrees of bishops, wishing even the council of Cyprian to be read to prove this, since nothing but delays was being sought (for the Catholics had not rested their case on this when they had answered for both possibilities, whether that council which the Donatists had held against Caecilian at Carthage was earlier or later), the commissioner, at the Catholics’ urging, ordered that the documents that had been put off be read instead.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.30 (CSEL 53:79–80; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-30)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.31":{"o":"Tunc Donatistae aliam quaestionem interposuerunt morarum plenissimam, sed re uera in qua pro se laborare uoluerunt, si possent ostendere quod uolebant, illud scilicet Cirtense concilium falsum esse, ubi lectae fuerant confessiones traditorum inuicem sibi ignoscentium, ne schisma fieret, quia ipsi legebantur inter ceteros contra Caecilianum absentem sententias protulisse. hoc ergo falsum demonstrare conantes multa dixerunt, sed alia leuia esse ipsi iudicantes duo quaedam in ea quaestione multum commendauerunt et in eis multum immorati sunt: unum, quia contra ecclesiasticam consuetudinem ipsum Cirtense concilium diem et consulem haberet, alterum autem, quod persecutionis tempore non posset concilium congregari. exigebant ergo Donatistae a catholicis, ut uel alia concilia proferrent antiqua episcoporum, ubi ostenderent consules et dies etiam conscriptos, uel de ipsis sanctis scripturis tale aliquid recitarent. ubi catholici cum uiderent de re inanissima moras mirabiles et inexplicabiles interponi — quis enim eos hinc falsitatem crederet obiecturos, ubi ad maiorem diligentiam temporum attestatio praenotata legeretur, ne forte per hanc esset aliquando necessaria indagatio ueritatis? quis ergo eos crederet hoc obiecturos, ut praepararet antiqua concilia, quibus hanc consuetudinem demonstraret? aut quis tunc iret et uetusta ecclesiastica archiua reuolueret? —, cum hoc uiderent catholici, et in Miltiadis concilio diem et consulem demonstrabant et de ipsis sanctis scripturis commemorauerunt prophetas indicia antiquissimorum temporum suis litteris praenotasse, quoto anno cuius regis, quoto mense anni, quoto die mensis factum esset super eos uerbum domini. cognitor autem illud de die et consule obiectum contemnendum et remouendum existimans iussit gesta apud Miltiadem habita cetera recitari, et recitata sunt. quibus apparuit omnium qui tunc consederant episcoporum sententiis et ipsius Miltiadis Caecilianum absolutum atque purgatum, Donatum uero damnatum, qui praesens in prima fuerat actione conuictus, ille ille a Casis Nigris, quem praesentem fuisse tunc constitit.","t":"Then the Donatists brought in another question, full of delays, but one in which they really wished to labor on their own behalf, if they could show what they wanted: namely, that the council of Cirta was false, in which had been read the confessions of betrayers pardoning one another so that there would be no schism, because they were read as being among those who had pronounced sentences against the absent Caecilian. Trying to show it false, then, they said many things; but judging the others light themselves, they pressed two points especially in this question and dwelt on them at length: one, that the council of Cirta had a day and consul, contrary to the custom of the church; the other, that a council could not be assembled in time of persecution. So the Donatists demanded of the Catholics that they either produce other ancient councils of bishops in which they could show consuls and days written down as well, or read something of the kind from the holy Scriptures themselves. Here the Catholics saw that amazing and endless delays were being introduced about a most empty matter. For who would believe that they would charge falsehood on this ground, where a dating of the time was read, written at the head for greater care, in case an inquiry into the truth should some day need it? Who, then, would believe they would charge this, so that one should prepare ancient councils by which to demonstrate this custom? Or who would go then and turn over the old archives of the church? Seeing this, the Catholics both showed the day and consul in the council of Miltiades and recalled from the holy Scriptures themselves that the prophets wrote at the head of their writings indications of the most ancient times: in what year of what king, in what month of the year, on what day of the month the word of the Lord came upon them. The commissioner, judging that objection about the day and consul to be disregarded and set aside, ordered the rest of the minutes held before Miltiades to be read, and they were read. From them it appeared that by the sentences of all the bishops then sitting, and of Miltiades himself, Caecilian was acquitted and cleared, and Donatus condemned, who had been convicted in person in the first session, that Donatus, the one of Casae Nigrae, who was established to have been present then.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.31 (CSEL 53:80–81; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-31)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.32":{"o":"Sed hoc recitato cum quaereretur a Donatistis, quid responderent ad illud Cirtense concilium, eo redierunt conantes falsum esse monstrare, cum dixerunt tempore persecutionis congregari non potuisse concilium. quod cognitor non contempsit et ualidum existimans a catholicis responsionem poposcit atque inter haec quaesiuit, unde probaretur tempus fuisse persecutionis. tunc Donatistae protulerunt martyrum gesta, ubi auditi et pro confessione passi sunt. iussit etiam cognitor computare officium et renuntiare consideratis utrisque consulibus et diebus, et qui de concilio Cirtensi et qui de gestis martyrum legebantur, quia dictum fuerat a catholicis post illorum martyrum passionem, unde persecutionis tempus probabatur, prope annum consecutum fuisse usque ad consulem et diem concilii Cirtensis. responsio autem computantis officii mensem interfuisse suggesserat. uoluerunt ergo catholici de tabulis tolli quod dixerant, ut hoc solum gesta retinerent quod officium responderat — hoc enim uerius esse crediderant —, sed Donatistae quod a catholicis dictum erat noluerunt de tabulis tolli, unde catholici non contenderunt, ut eorum in hoc calumniosus animus appareret. porro autem illud erat uerius quod catholici dixerant, officium autem in computando errans falsum renuntiauerat, quod postea conscripta et diligentius considerata gesta docuerunt, sicut potest probare quem libuerit legere et non piguerit computare. nam gesta martyrum, quibus ostendebatur tempus persecutionis, consulibus facta sunt Diocletiano nouies et Maximiano octies pridie Idus Februarias, gesta autem episcopalia decreti Cirtensis post eorundem consulatum tertio Nonas Martias, ac per hoc tredecim menses interesse inueniuntur, plures utique quam undecim, quos prius catholici minus diligenter computando responderant; sed officium ut falleretur et mensem interesse responderet, eundem consulatum putauit, post consulatum autem non aduertit, ubi annus iam alius agebatur. proinde catholici tamquam ex uera officii responsione cogebantur ostendere tempore persecutionis illos undecim uel duodecim episcopos in domum priuatam conuenire potuisse, Donatistis instantibus, ut hoc ex aliis conciliis ostenderent, si aliquo tempore persecutionis facta episcoporum concilia reperire potuissent. quod catholici quoniam tunc inquirere et ad horam ueteres chartas in archiuis ecclesiasticis discutere non poterant, respondebant multo facilius duodecim homines in domum conuenire potuisse eo tempore, quo etiam congregationes plebium fieri solebant quamuis persecutione feruente, sicut ipsis gestis martyrum monstrabatur, qui confitebantur in passionibus suis se collectam et dominicum egisse. hoc autem catholici dixerant et antequam supputaret et responderet officium. dictum est etiam a catholicis episcopalia gesta illa Cirtensia, quae diligentia maiorum usque ad haec tempora seruari et inueniri potuerint, sic habenda, quemadmodum illae epistulae Mensurii et Secundi quas Donatistae recitauerunt. concilium quippe Carthaginiense, ubi absentem Caecilianum septuaginta damnauerunt, commemoratum est etiam a Miltiade habitum, ubi Caecilianus est absolutus. litterae uero illae Mensurii et Secundi nusquam alibi commemoratae dicebantur, unde nullo alio testimonio ueritas earum asserebatur, nec tamen ideo dicebant catholici falsas esse. dictum est etiam hoc a catholicis, ut probarent Donatistae, si possent, tempore persecutionis sic ad se inuicem scripsisse episcopos, quemadmodum Mensurium et Secundum scripsisse proferebant. quod non ideo dicebant catholici, ut hinc illas Mensurii et Secundi litteras falsas esse monstrarent, quae seu uerae seu falsae essent causae nihil officerent, sed ut hinc intellegerent Donatistae, quam uana tergiuersatione catholicos cogerent alia proferre concilia persecutionis tempore congregata, quia, si eis simili obstinatione diceretur: proferte et uos alias epistulas persecutionis tempore sic scriptas et missas, quae si aliquo modo deprehenderentur et codices occultati exigi possent, et ordo et curator et centurio et beneficiarius ad discrimen capitis peruenirent, qui Secundum tradere nolentem impunitum dimisisse prodebantur, nullo modo ad horam reperirent alias epistulas tempore persecutionis ab episcopis ad episcopos in tam longinqua terrarum similiter datas.","t":"But when this had been read and the Donatists were asked what they answered about the council of Cirta, they went back to trying to show it false, saying that a council could not have been assembled in time of persecution. The commissioner did not disregard this, but, thinking it weighty, demanded an answer from the Catholics, and meanwhile asked how it was proved that it was a time of persecution. Then the Donatists produced acts of martyrs in which they were heard and suffered for their confession. The commissioner also ordered the staff to calculate and report, considering both consuls and days, those read in the council of Cirta and those in the acts of the martyrs; because the Catholics had said that after the suffering of those martyrs, by which the time of persecution was proved, nearly a year followed until the consul and day of the council of Cirta. But the reply of the staff who calculated had suggested that a month lay between. So the Catholics wanted what they had said removed from the tablets, so that the minutes would keep only what the staff had answered (for they believed this was more accurate); but the Donatists would not have what the Catholics had said removed from the tablets, and the Catholics did not contend, so that the Donatists’ slanderous spirit in this might appear. In fact, what the Catholics had said was the more accurate, and the staff, erring in their calculation, had reported falsely, as the minutes, written out and more carefully considered afterward, showed, as anyone can prove who cares to read and does not mind calculating. For the acts of the martyrs by which the time of persecution was shown were made when Diocletian was consul for the ninth time and Maximian for the eighth, on the day before the Ides of February; but the episcopal minutes of the decree of Cirta after their consulship, on the third day before the Nones of March; and so thirteen months are found to lie between, more indeed than the eleven which the Catholics had first answered by calculating less carefully. But the staff, in order to be deceived and answer that a month lay between, took it as the same consulship, and did not notice “after the consulship,” when another year was already running. So the Catholics, as if from a true answer of the staff, were forced to show that in time of persecution those eleven or twelve bishops could have met in a private house, the Donatists pressing them to show this from other councils, if they could find councils of bishops held at any time of persecution. Since the Catholics could not then search for these and examine old papers in the church archives on the spot, they answered that twelve men could much more easily have met in a house at a time when even assemblies of the congregations were customarily held, though persecution was raging, as was shown by the very acts of the martyrs, who confessed in their sufferings that they had held the assembly and the Lord’s supper. The Catholics had said this even before the staff calculated and answered. The Catholics also said that those episcopal minutes of Cirta, which the care of their forebears had been able to preserve and find down to these times, should be treated just like those letters of Mensurius and Secundus which the Donatists had read. For the council of Carthage, in which seventy condemned the absent Caecilian, was recalled even in the council held by Miltiades, in which Caecilian was acquitted. But those letters of Mensurius and Secundus were said to be mentioned nowhere else, so that their truth was asserted by no other testimony; and yet the Catholics did not therefore say they were false. The Catholics also said this, that the Donatists should prove, if they could, that in time of persecution bishops wrote to each other as they alleged Mensurius and Secundus had written. The Catholics said this not to show from it that those letters of Mensurius and Secundus were false, which, true or false, did the case no harm, but so that the Donatists might understand from it with what empty evasion they were forcing the Catholics to produce other councils assembled in time of persecution. For if it were said to them with similar obstinacy, “You too produce other letters written and sent in this way in time of persecution” (letters which, if somehow detected, would allow the hidden books to be demanded, and would bring to peril of their lives the council, the curator, the centurion, and the police officer who were reported to have let Secundus go unpunished when he refused to hand them over), they would in no way find on the spot other letters given in a similar way in time of persecution by bishops to bishops in lands so far apart.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.32 (CSEL 53:81–83; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-32)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.33":{"o":"Cum ergo hinc diuturna conflictatio fieret, saepe repetentibus Donatistis non potuisse tempore persecutionis concilium congregari ad episcopum ordinandum, quia in apostasia erat mundus nec erant quibus ordinaretur et cetera talia, catholicis autem respondentibus, quod et episcopi facile congregarentur tam pauci, ut nec concilium dici debeat, quando plebes congregabantur, sicut gesta martyrum testarentur, et erant sine dubio quibus ordinarentur episcopi, ipsae utique plebes quas tunc solitas congregari gesta martyrum loquebantur: haec cum assidue multis et uariis modis dicerentur et responderentur — nam et domum priuatam christianis congregandis praestitam constitit tempore persecutionis, sicut in quibusdam gestis martyrum legebatur, quia Donatistae dixerunt fieri non potuisse, ut illo tempore domum suam quisquam praeberet, et commemoratum est usque adeo non esse incredibile, quod in priuatam domum pauci illi episcopi persecutionis tempore conuenerunt, ut feruente persecutione etiam in carcere doceantur baptizati martyres et illic a christianis celebrata sacramenta, ubi christiani propter eadem sacramenta tenebantur inclusi —, inter haec ergo tandem aliquando saepe etiam cognitor interlocutus fieri potuisse illum conuentum ab episcopis, quando et plebes congregatae probabantur, compulit Donatistas, ut contra concilium iudiciumque Miltiadis, quo Caecilianus purgatus atque absolutus legebatur, si haberent aliquid dicerent, quoniam illic potius quam in illo Cirtensi concilio causa consisteret.","t":"So when there was long conflict on this, the Donatists often repeating that a council could not have been assembled in time of persecution to ordain a bishop, because the world was in apostasy and there were none by whom one could be ordained, and other such things; and the Catholics answering that bishops so few, too few even to be called a council, could easily assemble when congregations were assembling, as the acts of the martyrs testified, and that there were without doubt people for whom bishops might be ordained, namely the very congregations which the acts of the martyrs said were then accustomed to assemble; when these things were constantly said and answered in many and various ways (for it was also established that in time of persecution a private house was provided for assembling Christians, as was read in certain acts of martyrs, since the Donatists said it could not have happened that anyone would offer his house at that time; and it was recalled that it was so far from incredible that those few bishops met in a private house in time of persecution, that while persecution was raging martyrs are shown to have been baptized even in prison, and the sacraments celebrated there by Christians, where Christians were held shut in because of those same sacraments): amid all this, then, at length the commissioner, after often ruling that the meeting could have been held by the bishops when congregations too were proved to have assembled, compelled the Donatists to say whatever they had against the council and judgment of Miltiades, by which Caecilian was read to have been cleared and acquitted, since the case rested there rather than in that council of Cirta.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.33 (CSEL 53:83; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-33)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.34":{"o":"Tunc Donatistae ipsum Miltiadem coeperunt crimine traditionis arguere et dicere maiores suos propterea illius iudicium refugisse, quod traditor fuisset, quasi non etiam iudicio eius assisterent et responderent se in Caecilianum non habere quod dicerent. sed tamen facto iudice intento, utrum de traditionis crimine Miltiadis aliquod iudicium uel publicum uel ecclesiasticum proferretur, ipsisque catholicis id ut probaretur expectantibus et exigentibus legerunt Donatistae gesta quaedam prolixissima apud praefectum, ubi nec praefectus ipse cuiusmodi esset apparebat nec locus legebatur ubi haec agebantur. sed gesta ipsa multos multa ecclesiastica tradentes longissima recitatione sonuerunt, ubi nomen Miltiadis omnino non sonuit. quibus peractis cum cognitor miraretur aliud promissum et aliud recitatum, illi adhuc eius patientiam deposcentes gesta alia recitarunt, in quibus legebatur Miltiades misisse diaconos cum litteris Maxentii imperatoris et litteris praefecti praetorio ad praefectum urbis, ut ea reciperent, quae tempore persecutionis ablata memoratus imperator christianis iusserat reddi. et cum his quoque gestis nullum Miltiadis crimen et cognitori et catholicis defensoribus appareret, dixerunt Donatistae Stratonem diaconum, quem cum aliis Miltiades ad recipienda loca ecclesiastica miserat, superioribus gestis recitatum esse traditorem, et ideo uolebant etiam Miltiadem crimine traditionis aspergere, quod diacono illo non degradato uteretur. in prosecutione autem sua dixerunt Miltiadem tertium episcopum fuisse ab illo qui tunc erat, cum traditio illa facta esset. hic cognitor requisiuit, utrum saltem in illis traditionis gestis esset expressum, quod Straton diaconus fuerit, et recitatum est eum hortatorem uanissimae superstitionis appellatum, quod non solum ipse, sed etiam ceteri qui tradebant appellabantur. sed Donatistae responderunt a gentilibus persecutoribus in contumeliam religionis et diaconos et presbyteros ita uocitatos.","t":"Then the Donatists began to charge Miltiades himself with the crime of betrayal, and to say that their forebears had fled his judgment because he had been a betrayer; as if they had not also attended his judgment and answered that they had nothing to say against Caecilian. But when the judge was attentive to whether any judgment, public or ecclesiastical, would be produced about Miltiades’ crime of betrayal, and the Catholics themselves were waiting and demanding that it be proved, the Donatists read some very long minutes before a prefect, in which it did not appear what kind of prefect he was, nor was the place read where these things were done. The minutes themselves resounded, in a very long reading, with many people handing over many things of the church, where the name of Miltiades did not sound at all. When this was done and the commissioner was surprised that one thing had been promised and another read, they, still begging his patience, read other minutes in which it was read that Miltiades had sent deacons with letters of the emperor Maxentius and letters of the praetorian prefect to the city prefect, to recover what the said emperor had ordered returned to the Christians, having been taken away in time of persecution. And when in these minutes too no crime of Miltiades appeared to the commissioner or to the Catholic defenders, the Donatists said that the deacon Strato, whom Miltiades had sent with others to recover the church properties, had been read in the earlier minutes as a betrayer; and so they wanted to spatter Miltiades too with the crime of betrayal, because he used that deacon without degrading him. In their statement, however, they said that Miltiades was the third bishop after the one who was bishop at the time that betrayal took place. Here the commissioner asked whether at least in those minutes of the betrayal it was stated that Strato had been a deacon; and it was read that he was called a promoter of a most vain superstition, which was what not only he but also the others who handed things over were called. But the Donatists answered that both deacons and presbyters were so called by the pagan persecutors as an insult to the religion.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.34 (CSEL 53:83–84; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-34)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.35":{"o":"Ergo catholici responderunt, cum mirum non esset essetque in rebus humanis usitatissimum, ut non duo tantum, uerum etiam plures homines uno nomine uocarentur, fieri quidem potuisse, ut ille traditor Straton presbyter fuerit, iste autem alius Straton diaconus, quoniam Donatistae dixerant et diaconos et presbyteros hortatores uanissimae superstitionis a gentilibus appellari; quamquam omnes clericos isto contumelioso nomine gentiles appellare potuerint et multo esset incertius, cuius gradus clericus ille traditor fuerit; uerumtamen etiamsi eum diaconum fuisse posset ostendi, neque hoc esse incredibile aut mirum, cum ante paruum tempus in ipsa urbe Roma duo Petri diaconi fuerint. illud quoque additum est a catholicis, quia, etsi demonstraretur, quod omnino non demonstrabatur, eundem Stratonem diaconum tradidisse, quem postea Miltiades ad recipienda loca ecclesiastica cum aliis diaconis misit, non continuo Miltiadem isto crimine aspergi, quem potuit persecutio longe facere absentem, ut hoc omnino nesciret eumque innocentem putaret, quem nemo reum accusando monstraret. contra haec frustra Donatistae eadem per eadem diutissime clamauerunt.","t":"So the Catholics answered that, since it was not strange but most common in human affairs for not just two but even more people to be called by one name, it was quite possible that the betrayer Strato was a presbyter and this other Strato a deacon, since the Donatists had said that both deacons and presbyters were called promoters of a most vain superstition by the pagans; although the pagans could have called all clerics by that insulting name, and it was much more uncertain of what rank that betraying cleric had been. Yet even if he could be shown to have been a deacon, this would not be incredible or strange either, since a short time ago in the very city of Rome there had been two deacons named Peter. The Catholics also added that even if it were shown, which it by no means was, that the same deacon Strato had handed things over whom Miltiades later sent with other deacons to recover the church properties, Miltiades would not at once be spattered with that crime, since persecution could have kept him far away, so that he knew nothing of it at all and thought innocent one whom no one showed guilty by accusing him. Against this the Donatists shouted the same things by the same means, in vain, for a very long time.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.35 (CSEL 53:84–85; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-35)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.36":{"o":"Post collationem sane etiam de Cassiano Miltiadi calumniati sunt, quia etiam hoc nomen et in diaconis inuenitur, quos ad praefectum misit Miltiades, et in illis gestis, ubi facta traditio recitata est. quod si in collatione dicerent, facile potuit a catholicis responderi in tanta turba Romanorum clericorum nihil mirum fuisse, si duo uel plures non solum Stratones, sed etiam Cassiani reperirentur, cum in duodecim apostolis non solum duo Iudae, sed etiam duo Iacobi legerentur; nisi forte ipsis licuisset Casensem a Donato Carthaginiensi distinguere, cum timerent, ne maior auctor ipsorum Donatus Carthaginiensis damnatus in Miltiadis iudicio putaretur, et catholicis non liceret in tanta multitudine clericorum Romanorum habere plures similibus nominibus appellatos. falsum enim erat quod Donatistae dixerant, conuenire personas, conuenire loca, conuenire regiones, quando nec loca nec regiones nec ipsae expressae personarum dignitates de utrisque gestis, sed sola nominum conuenientia legebatur, quam in diuersis personis generis humani consuetudo frequentare non cessat.","t":"After the conference, indeed, they also slandered Miltiades about a Cassian, since this name too is found both among the deacons whom Miltiades sent to the prefect and in those minutes where the betrayal was read. If they had said this at the conference, the Catholics could easily have answered that in so great a crowd of Roman clerics it was no wonder if two or more not only Stratos but also Cassians were found, since among the twelve apostles not only two named Judas but also two named James are read; unless perhaps they were allowed to distinguish Donatus of Casae from Donatus of Carthage, when they feared that their greater founder, Donatus of Carthage, might be thought condemned in Miltiades’ judgment, while the Catholics were not allowed, in so great a multitude of Roman clerics, to have several called by similar names. For what the Donatists had said was false, that the persons agreed, the places agreed, the regions agreed; since neither places nor regions nor even the ranks of the persons were stated in both sets of minutes, but only the agreement of names was read, which the habit of the human race never ceases to repeat among different persons.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.36 (CSEL 53:85–86; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-36)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.37":{"o":"Spernens itaque cognitor incertissimas suspiciones iussit aliquid manifestum contra illa gesta proferri aut certe Constantini iudicium, cuius mentio iam facta fuerat, recitari. et recitatum est iudicium Constantini, quemadmodum se inter partes causam Caeciliani cognouisse ad Eumalium uicarium Africae scripsisset, quo remotis omnibus arbitris Caecilianum innocentem, illos calumniosissimos cognouisse testatus est, commemorans etiam in Arelatensi oppido pro Caeciliano factum episcopale iudicium, cui iudicio iam plurimi ex dissensione consenserant reliquis adhuc resilientibus et discordantibus, unde ipse de re tota inter partes coactus est iudicare. post harum imperialium litterarum recitationem quaesiuit cognitor a Donatistis, quid contra dicerent. ibi Donatistae rursus ad Miltiadis calumniosam criminationem redire conati sunt; unde cum essent cognitoris interlocutione depulsi et ab eis esset flagitatum, ut contra iudicium Miltiadis uel imperialem sententiam si haberent aliquid recitarent, responderunt etiam imperatorias aures prauis suggestionibus inflatas. ibi eis cognitor respondit, quod attentissime aduerterat inter partes fuisse iudicatum. at illi exigere coeperunt, ut hoc legeretur, utrum inter partes iudicauerit imperator. quod cum fuisset cognitore iubente recitatum, nihil inuenientes quod dicerent coeperunt de consule memoratis imperialibus litteris calumniari, quod sine consule fuerant recitatae. hinc exorto conflictu cum Donatistae inuidiose dicerent episcopale concilium cum consule fuisse recitatum et imperatoris litteras consulem non habere, et catholici responderent non ibi causam consistere, cognitor etiam interlocutus est euidentissimis legibus definitum imperialia constituta, etiamsi consules non legerentur, in dubium non uocari. deinde catholici urgebant, ut aperte dicerent falsum esse quod lectum est; posse enim archiua inquiri.","t":"So the commissioner, spurning most uncertain suspicions, ordered that something clear be produced against those minutes, or else that the judgment of Constantine, which had already been mentioned, be read. And the judgment of Constantine was read, as he had written to Eumalius, deputy prefect of Africa, that he had heard the case of Caecilian between the parties, in which, all bystanders having been sent away, he testified that he had found Caecilian innocent and them most slanderous; mentioning also the episcopal judgment held for Caecilian at the town of Arles, to which judgment very many from the dissenting side had already agreed, while the rest still sprang back and disagreed, for which reason he himself was compelled to judge the whole matter between the parties. After the reading of this imperial letter, the commissioner asked the Donatists what they said against it. There the Donatists tried to go back again to their slanderous accusation of Miltiades; and when they had been driven from it by the commissioner’s ruling and it had been demanded of them that they read whatever they had against the judgment of Miltiades or the emperor’s sentence, they answered that even the emperor’s ears had been puffed up by wicked suggestions. There the commissioner answered them that he had noted most attentively that the case had been judged between the parties. But they began to demand that it be read whether the emperor had judged between the parties. When this had been read at the commissioner’s order, finding nothing to say, they began to quibble about the consul of the said imperial letter, because it had been read without a consul. When a conflict arose from this, the Donatists saying spitefully that the episcopal council had been read with a consul and the emperor’s letter had no consul, and the Catholics answering that the case did not rest there, the commissioner also ruled that it was fixed by the plainest laws that imperial enactments are not called into doubt even if consuls are not read. Then the Catholics pressed them to say openly that what had been read was false, since the archives could be searched.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.37 (CSEL 53:86–87; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-37)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.38":{"o":"Sed hinc repulsi uelut aliquid ualidissimum prolaturi petierunt Optatum legi, quod et ante petiuerant, unde se probaturos dicebant Caecilianum ab imperatore damnatum; et promissum eis fuerat, sed dilatum. prius ergo uolebat cognitor ut exprimerent, utrum litteras imperatorias arguere falsitatis auderent. quod quidem illi minime audebant; tamen nihilominus consulem deesse inuidiosissime causabantur. Optatum uero legi multo instantius flagitabant. haec cum diutius agerentur, in alia charta illarum imperialium litterarum inuentus est consul. quod cum esset suggestum, Donatistae dixerunt: certe consulem habere non debuit; quasi hoc aliquando dictum esset, quod habere non debuerit, ac non, etiamsi consul defuisset, non impediri imperialis constituti ueritatem. quod cum eis cognitor identidem respondisset, recitatus est et Optatus recitantibus Donatistis, ubi ait: eodem tempore idem Donatus petiit, ut ei reuerti licuisset et ad Carthaginem accedere; tunc a Philomeno suggestore eius imperatori suggestum est, ut bono pacis Caecilianus Brixae teneretur, et factum est. in quibus uerbis Optati cum omnino nulla Caeciliani damnatio, sicut illi demonstraturos se esse promiserant, reperiri potuisset, iussit cognitor totam paginam recitari, ut de superioribus et inferioribus uerbis uoluntas eius qui scripserat nosceretur. et ex officio recitatum est: Caecilianus omnium supra memoratorum sententiis innocens est pronuntiatus. quod cum recitaretur, Donatistae dixerunt hoc se non petisse recitari, stomachantes aduersus eos, qui risum tenere non poterant, cum audissent, quam apertam contra semet ipsos paginam protulissent. deinde cum illis uerbis, quae ipsi recitauerant, extenuasse dicerent Optatum damnationem Caeciliani et exprimere noluisse, flagitatum est ab eis, ut aliunde manifestum legerent, quod ab illo dicerent extenuatum. quod cum minime potuissent, etiam inde post aliquantas morarum inanium perplexitates, cum et de Donati nomine contendissent quod non Carthaginiensis, sed Casensis Donatus in iudicio Miltiadis aduersus Caecilianum adstitisset, quod et catholici concedebant, aliquando transitum est.","t":"But driven back from this, as if they were about to bring forward something very strong, they asked that Optatus be read, which they had asked before, saying they would prove from him that Caecilian had been condemned by the emperor; and it had been promised them, but put off. So the commissioner first wanted them to state whether they dared to charge the imperial letter with falsehood. This they did not dare at all; yet nonetheless they complained most spitefully that the consul was missing. But they demanded much more insistently that Optatus be read. While this went on for some time, the consul was found in another copy of that imperial letter. When this was pointed out, the Donatists said, “Certainly it ought not to have had a consul”; as if it had ever been said that it ought not to have one, rather than that, even if the consul were missing, the truth of the imperial enactment was not hindered. When the commissioner had again answered them this, Optatus too was read, the Donatists reading, where he says: “At the same time the same Donatus asked that he be allowed to return and go to Carthage; then it was suggested to the emperor by Philomenus, his supporter, that for the good of peace Caecilian be held at Brescia, and it was done.” Since in these words of Optatus no condemnation of Caecilian at all could be found, as they had promised they would show, the commissioner ordered the whole page to be read, so that from the words before and after the intention of the writer might be known. And the staff read: “Caecilian was pronounced innocent by the sentences of all those mentioned above.” When this was read, the Donatists said that they had not asked for this to be read, losing their temper with those who could not keep from laughing when they heard how plain a page against themselves they had brought out. Then, when they said that by those words which they had read Optatus had played down Caecilian’s condemnation and refused to state it, they were asked to read something clear from elsewhere that they said he had played down. When they could not do this at all, from this too, after some tangles of empty delays, when they had also disputed about the name of Donatus, that it was not Donatus of Carthage but Donatus of Casae who had stood against Caecilian in the judgment of Miltiades, which the Catholics also conceded, at last they moved on.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.38 (CSEL 53:87–88; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-38)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.39":{"o":"Deinde quia Constantini litteris, quibus eum inter partes cognouisse et pro Caeciliano contra illos iudicasse constabat, cognitor eos si quid haberent respondere cogebat, petiuerunt suum libellum esse recitandum, quem dicebant datum Constantino a maioribus suis. in quo libello satis aperteque monstrarunt, quam falsum dixerint de damnatione Caeciliani apud Brixam; idem quippe libellus ostendit, quemadmodum contra eos senserit Constantinus. nam ibi dicunt nullo modo se communicaturos antistiti ipsius nebuloni paratosque esse perpeti quidquid eis facere uoluisset; quem Constantini antistitem nebulonem utique Caecilianum intellegi uolebant. quomodo ergo eum Constantini antistitem dicebant, cui se contra Constantinum loquentes non communicare confirmabant, si eum apud Constantinum superauerant, ita ut ab illo Brixae scirent esse damnatum?","t":"Then, since the commissioner was compelling them to answer, if they had anything, Constantine’s letter, by which it was established that he had heard the case between the parties and judged for Caecilian against them, they asked that their own petition be read, which they said their forebears had given to Constantine. In that petition they showed quite plainly how falsely they had spoken about Caecilian’s condemnation at Brescia; for the same petition shows how Constantine judged against them. For there they say that they will by no means be in communion with his prelate, a worthless fellow, and that they are ready to suffer whatever he wished to do to them; and by this prelate of Constantine, a worthless fellow, they certainly meant Caecilian to be understood. How, then, could they call him Constantine’s prelate, with whom they declared, speaking against Constantine, that they would not be in communion, if they had defeated him before Constantine, so that they knew he had been condemned by him at Brescia?","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.39 (CSEL 53:88; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-39)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.4":{"o":"Sed cognitor, quamquam uiderentur non recte petere edi sibi mandatum, quod legatis iniunctum est, quia, id quod sufficiebat ad causam, collationem petitam concessamque constabat, non ei tamen uidebatur iniuste illos petere, ut petitoris persona constaret. catholici autem uidentes, quod iam sibi fuerat antea nuntiatum et hoc eorum intentione satis intellegebant, non ob aliud Donatistas personas quaerere petitorum, nisi ut liceret eis personarum discussione longissimas temporum et dilationum moras ingerere, quoniam uehementer nolebant, ut perueniretur ad causam, in qua se nihil habere quod dicerent, sicut res ipsa uel sero postea patefecit, plenissime sciebant: hoc ergo uidentes catholici noluerunt personam suscipere petitorum, asserentes non se obicere crimina sed obiecta defendere, quae cum defendissent et falsa esse demonstrassent, consequenter eos apparere qui sint et quanta iniquitate se ab unitate diuiserint. hic Donatistae asserebant, quocumque modo etiam de ipsis criminibus quae uellent diluere ultro catholici cogerent sibi aduersarios respondere, petitorum eos habere personam. sed catholici respondebant ad hoc se petisse collationem, non ubi obicerent diluenda sed ubi obiecta diluerent, quoniam et mandatum Donatistarum aduersus traditores et persecutores factum erat et uerba Primiani, quando prius a catholicis de collatione conuentus est, crimen eis eum obicere testabantur, ubi dixerat: indignum est ut in unum conueniant filii martyrum et progenies traditorum, et quamuis tunc conferre noluisset, postea tamen in iudicio praefectorum se audiri et discuti uelle dixerat. quem eorum de collatione consensum tenentes catholici hoc ut fieret ab imperatore petiuerant.","t":"But the commissioner, although they seemed not to be right in asking for the mandate given to the envoys to be issued to them, since what sufficed for the case was established, that the conference had been requested and granted, nevertheless did not think it unjust for them to ask that the person of the plaintiff be established. The Catholics, however, saw what had already been reported to them before and what they understood well enough from the Donatists’ own aim: that the Donatists were inquiring into the persons of the plaintiffs for no other reason than to be allowed, through discussing the persons, to introduce very long delays of time and adjournments, because they very much did not want to reach the case, in which they knew full well that they had nothing to say, as the event itself made plain later, though late. Seeing this, then, the Catholics refused to take on the person of plaintiffs, asserting that they were not bringing charges but defending against charges brought; and that once they had defended against them and shown them to be false, it would follow that it would appear who the Donatists are and with what great wickedness they had divided themselves from unity. Here the Donatists asserted that, in whatever way the Catholics, of their own accord, compelled their opponents to answer even about the charges they wished to wash away, they had the person of plaintiffs. But the Catholics answered that they had asked for a conference not in order to bring charges to be washed away but in order to wash away charges brought; since both the Donatists’ mandate was made against betrayers and persecutors, and the words of Primian, when he was first approached by the Catholics about a conference, testified that he brought this charge against them, when he said: “It is unworthy that the sons of the martyrs and the offspring of betrayers should come together in one place”; and although he had then refused to confer, afterward he had said that he wished to be heard and to argue in the court of the prefects. Holding the Donatists to this consent of theirs to a conference, the Catholics had asked the emperor that it be held.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.4 (CSEL 53:53–54; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-4)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.40":{"o":"Cum ergo catholici dixissent hoc eos contra se ipsos recitasse, hoc idem ipse etiam cognitor esset interlocutus, addiderunt etiam illi suae falsitati conuincendae magnum aliud firmamentum, recitantes ipsius Constantini litteras scribentis ad Uerinum uicarium, ut libero eos dimittat arbitrio, se iussisse insinuans ut de exilio remearent. in quibus litteris Constantinus sic eos detestatur, ut nihil illa indulgentia possit deformius inueniri. quos utique non ita culpasset, sed magis laudasset, si ab eis Caecilianus apud illum uictus ab eoque damnatus Brixae relegaretur. ac per hoc ista contra se ipsos proferentes atque recitantes et a Caeciliano se superatos memorati imperatoris iudicio manifestissime monstrauerunt et suam falsitatem, qua eum dicebant esse damnatum, apertissime conuicerunt, et qui catholicos persecutionem facere, se autem pati gloriabantur, Caecilianum tamen per suas accusationes ab imperatore damnatum etiam falso gloriari uoluerunt. his itaque recitatis cum catholici dicerent et cognitorem breuiter admonerent, quod etiam ipse cernebat, pro se illa, hoc est pro innocentia Caeciliani contra illos fuisse recitata et hoc idem etiam ipse fuisset interlocutus, Donatistae responderunt dicentes: de libero arbitrio nihil dicit potestas tua; hoc enim putantes secundum Constantini litteras sibi posse a praesente cognitore concedi eas etiam contra se pro Caeciliani causa recitandas existimauerunt. hic cum eis cognitor respondisset aliud sibi esse a praesentis temporis imperatore praeceptum, ierunt in aliud, quod contra se identidem multo mirabilius protulerunt.","t":"So when the Catholics had said that they had read this against themselves, and the commissioner himself had ruled the same, the Donatists added another great support for convicting their own falsehood: they read a letter of Constantine himself writing to Verinus, deputy prefect, to let them go free to their own choice, indicating that he had ordered them to return from exile. In that letter Constantine so detests them that nothing could be found more unsightly than that indulgence. He certainly would not have blamed them so, but would rather have praised them, if Caecilian, defeated by them before him and condemned by him, had been banished to Brescia. And so, by bringing out and reading these things against themselves, they showed most clearly that they had been defeated by Caecilian in the judgment of the said emperor, and convicted most openly their own falsehood in saying that he had been condemned; and those who boasted that the Catholics persecute and they suffer, nevertheless wished to boast, falsely too, that Caecilian had been condemned by the emperor through their accusations. When these things had been read and the Catholics said, briefly reminding the commissioner of what he himself saw, that they had been read for the Catholics, that is, for the innocence of Caecilian, against the Donatists, and the commissioner himself had ruled the same, the Donatists answered, saying, “Your Excellency says nothing about free choice”; for thinking that this could be granted them by the present commissioner according to Constantine’s letter, they judged that it should be read even against themselves in Caecilian’s case. Here, when the commissioner had answered them that he had been ordered otherwise by the emperor of the present time, they went on to something else which they brought out against themselves, again much more amazingly.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.40 (CSEL 53:88–89; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-40)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.41":{"o":"Recitauerunt enim alias litteras eiusdem Constantini imperatoris ad Probianum proconsulem datas, quae quidem consules non habebant; sed nihil quasi de obiectione mutua catholici agere uoluerunt, quamuis et hinc se ipsos Donatistae conuincerent quam calumniose catholicis id obiecerint, cum prior chartula, ex qua recitatum est iudicium Constantini, quo absolutus est Caecilianus, consules non haberet, qui tamen mox in alia chartula inuenti sunt. istae itaque litterae ad Probianum proconsulem datae continent imperatoris iussionem, qua praecepit ut ad se Ingentius mitteretur, cuius confessione in proconsulis Aeliani iudicio Felix Aptugnensis ordinator Caeciliani a crimine traditionis fuerat absolutus. hoc autem imperiale praeceptum ideo Donatistae se recitare dicebant, ut quasi ostenderent Caeciliani causam adhuc fuisse suspensam etiam post illud iudicium, quo se Constantinus inter partes omnia terminasse iam scripserat, cum et in ipsis litteris, quas ad Probianum proconsulem datas recitauerunt, quibus quasi ostenderent adhuc pendere iudicium, quoniam ad se mitti iusserat imperator Ingentium, tanta contra se legerint, ut omnino mirum sit quibus illa oculis aspicere uel quo ore pronuntiare potuerint. ibi enim Constantinus dixit ab Aeliano proconsule audientiam praestitam competentem Felicemque innocentem ab exustione codicum diuinorum constitisse, illos autem esse in praesentia confutandos, qui diurnis diebus eum interpellare non quiescerent, ut eis liquido appareret frustra eos Caeciliano inuidiam comparare et aduersus eum uiolenter insurgere uoluisse. hic ergo per illas litteras non solum Caecilianum, sed etiam Felicem purgatum seque innocentium persecutores apud imperatorem extitisse docuerunt.","t":"For they read another letter of the same emperor Constantine, given to the proconsul Probianus, which indeed had no consuls; but the Catholics did not wish to do anything by way of mutual objection, although the Donatists convicted themselves here too of how slanderously they had charged the Catholics with this, when the first copy, from which Constantine’s judgment acquitting Caecilian was read, had no consuls, which were soon found in another copy. This letter given to the proconsul Probianus contains the emperor’s order commanding that Ingentius be sent to him, by whose confession in the judgment of the proconsul Aelianus, Felix of Abthugni, Caecilian’s ordainer, had been acquitted of the crime of betrayal. The Donatists said they read this imperial order to show, as it were, that the case of Caecilian was still in suspense even after that judgment in which Constantine had already written that he had settled everything between the parties; when, in that very letter given to the proconsul Probianus which they read to show that the judgment was still pending, because the emperor had ordered Ingentius to be sent to him, they read things so strongly against themselves that it is wholly astonishing with what eyes they could look at them or with what mouth pronounce them. For there Constantine said that a competent hearing had been given by the proconsul Aelianus and that Felix had been established innocent of burning the divine books; but that those had to be refuted in person who did not stop pestering him day after day, so that it might appear clearly to them that they had wished in vain to stir up ill will against Caecilian and rise up violently against him. Here, then, by that letter they showed that not only Caecilian but Felix too had been cleared, and that they themselves had stood before the emperor as persecutors of the innocent.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.41 (CSEL 53:89–90; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-41)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.42":{"o":"Hac autem accepta opportunitate catholici recitandam protulerunt et ipsius Aeliani tunc proconsulis relationem de hac re ad Constantinum datam, ubi se causam Felicis audisse et finisse commemorat, et ipsa gesta proconsularia, quibus absolutus est Felix et omnium necessariarum personarum testimonio a traditionis crimine innocens comprobatus. quibus recitatis quid contradici posset cognitor inquisiuit. tunc Donatistae, quod et ante dicere coeperant, identidem repetierunt quaerentes, utrum ex praecepto imperatoris directus ad comitatum fuisset Ingentius, et quid postea gestum esset ut ostenderetur a catholicis exigentes, et gesta proconsularia quibus possent uerbis refellere conantes quibus absolutus est Felix, obicientes gratiam iudicis uel suppositas fuisse personas et cetera, quae solent homines contra gesta quibus uincuntur suspiciosa querimonia iactitare; dicebant etiam non recte Felicem absentem fuisse absolutum. ad ista responsum est a catholicis omnia quae lecta sunt ad absolutionem Caeciliani et Felicis apertissime pertinere, si quid autem Donatistae arbitrarentur misso ad comitatum Ingentio pro se fuisse iudicatum et mutatum esse iudicium, quo Constantinus inter partes cognoscens purgato Caeciliano illos calumniosissimos iudicauerat, ipsos debere proferre. quando autem hoc catholici dicebant, in illa temporis breuitate non poterant considerari consules; quorum ordinem in ipsis gestis qui uoluerit considerans inueniet posterius ab imperatore Constantino absolutum esse Caecilianum quam Felicis causam ab Aeliano proconsule discussam atque purgatam, post aliquot etiam annos Constantinum scripsisse ad Uerinum uicarium quas litteras ipsi recitauerunt, ubi sibi asserebant liberum arbitrium ab illo imperatore concessum, in quibus litteris eos tamquam pessimos et christianae pacis inimicos ostendit. quod utique non fecisset, si aliquid pro illis contra Caecilianum iudicasset, cum ad comitatum missus esset Ingentius. cognitor ergo interlocutus est non posse gesta quae tanta roborauit antiquitas remoueri nisi aliis posterioribus gestis e contrario recitatis. dictum est etiam a catholicis magis ad declarandam Felicis innocentiam profuisse quod absens fuerat absolutus, quia gratiae suspicio, si praesens esset, potius oriretur.","t":"Taking this opportunity, the Catholics brought forward for reading the report of Aelianus himself, then proconsul, given to Constantine on this matter, in which he records that he heard and finished Felix’s case, and the proconsular minutes themselves, by which Felix was acquitted and proved innocent of the crime of betrayal by the testimony of all the necessary persons. When these had been read, the commissioner asked what could be said against them. Then the Donatists repeated again what they had already begun to say before, asking whether Ingentius had been sent to the court by the emperor’s order and demanding that the Catholics show what was done afterward; and trying, by whatever words they could, to refute the proconsular minutes by which Felix was acquitted, objecting partiality of the judge or substituted persons and the other things people are accustomed to throw out in suspicious complaint against minutes by which they are defeated; they also said that Felix had not rightly been acquitted in his absence. To this the Catholics answered that everything that had been read pertained most plainly to the acquittal of Caecilian and Felix; but if the Donatists thought that something had been judged in their favor after Ingentius was sent to the court, and that the judgment had been changed by which Constantine, hearing between the parties, had cleared Caecilian and judged them most slanderous, they themselves ought to produce it. When the Catholics said this, the consuls could not be considered in that shortness of time; but anyone who considers their order in the minutes themselves will find that Caecilian was acquitted by the emperor Constantine later than Felix’s case was examined and cleared by the proconsul Aelianus, and that some years later still Constantine wrote to the deputy prefect Verinus the letter which they themselves read, in which they asserted that free choice had been granted them by that emperor, in which letter he shows them to be the worst of men and enemies of Christian peace. He would surely not have done this if he had judged anything for them against Caecilian when Ingentius was sent to the court. So the commissioner ruled that minutes confirmed by such great antiquity could not be set aside unless other, later minutes to the contrary were read. The Catholics also said that it had done more to declare Felix’s innocence that he was acquitted in his absence, since suspicion of partiality would rather have arisen if he had been present.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.42 (CSEL 53:90–91; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-42)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.43":{"o":"Urgere deinde cognitor coepit, ut, si qua posteriora gesta Donatistae haberent contra absolutionem Caeciliani uel Felicis, iam iamque proferrent. hic illi ad ea, quae iam totiens dixerant et catholicis totiens ad omnia respondentibus transacta iam fuerant, rursus quasi a capite redire et ea replicare conati sunt. ubi cum interlocutus esset cognitor, admonens ut eos iam pigeret eadem repetere, quae peracta et transacta iam fuerant, et identidem proferre compelleret, si quid recitandum haberent aduersus Caeciliani et Felicis sic euidentissimas absolutiones, et illi nihil omnino aduersus illa proferentes eadem repetere non cessarent, ut de illis quae dixerant iudicaretur, et contra cognitor illud potius flagitaret, ut legerent, si haberent quod legi posset aduersus imperiale et proconsulare iudicium, ut posset de omnibus pronuntiari. quoniam legibus prohibetur semiplenam proferre sententiam, instarent etiam catholici, ut rebus omnibus cognitori manifestatis et Donatistis quid respondeant non inuenientibus eadem repetentibus tandem aliquando causa finiretur, in ultimo cognitor dixit: (si contra nihil est quod legatis, exire dignamini, ut possit plena de omnibus scribi sententia. et utrisque exeuntibus sententiam scripsit, quam rursus intromissis partibus recitauit, qua complexus est omnia, quae de prolixa trium dierum actione potuit recordari. in quibus quaedam non eo ordine quo gesta sunt commemorauit, omnia tamen ueraciter posuit, confutatos a catholicis Donatistas omnium documentorum manifestatione pronuntians.","t":"Then the commissioner began to press the Donatists, if they had any later minutes against the acquittal of Caecilian or Felix, to produce them at once. Here they tried again to go back, as if from the beginning, to the things they had already said so many times and which had been settled, the Catholics answering everything so many times, and to unroll them again. When the commissioner ruled, admonishing them to be ashamed by now of repeating the same things which had been finished and settled, and compelled them again to produce anything they had to read against such evident acquittals of Caecilian and Felix; and they, producing nothing at all against them, did not stop repeating the same things, asking for judgment on what they had said; and the commissioner on the contrary demanded rather that they read, if they had anything that could be read, against the imperial and proconsular judgment, so that judgment could be pronounced on everything, since the laws forbid giving a half-complete sentence; and the Catholics too pressed that, since everything had been made plain to the commissioner and the Donatists, finding nothing to answer, were repeating the same things, the case should at long last be ended: at the last the commissioner said, “If there is nothing you can read against it, please go out, so that a complete sentence on everything can be written.” And when both had gone out he wrote the sentence, which he read when the parties had been brought in again, in which he covered everything he could remember from the long proceedings of three days. In it he recorded some things not in the order in which they were done, but he set everything down truthfully, pronouncing that the Donatists had been refuted by the Catholics by the plain showing of all the documents.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.43 (CSEL 53:91–92; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-43)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.5":{"o":"Tunc iussit eos cognitor obiecta a se crimina iam probare nec de petita collatione personam petitoris ostendi, si etiam utrique petisse probarentur. hic Donatistae identidem petere coeperunt, ut de persona pronuntiaret. et pronuntiauit cognitor dicens, si collationem pars utraque petiuisset, eum esse petitorem qui crimina obiceret. et exegerunt Donatistae, ut probaretur a catholicis, utrum collationem utrique petiuerint. ubi cognitor cum dixisset: hoc catholici probare debebunt, ortus est iterum moratorius conflictus de catholico nomine et Donatistarum et Caecilianistarum. deinde obtulerunt catholici gesta habita in iudicio praefecturae, quibus probarent etiam Donatistas collationem petisse. quae cum iussisset cognitor recitari, rursus illi ad praeterita redierunt et de his ut pronuntiaret cognitor flagitare coeperunt, de quibus totiens pronuntiauerat, id est de persona et de mandato legatorum, quod sibi ut ederetur totiens superfluo postulauerant. hoc autem agebant, quantum intellegebatur, timentes, ne gesta praefectoria legerentur, ubi suam causam quibusdam inconsideratis et temerariis responsionibus uulnerauerant. diu itaque conflictatum est ab eis et maxime cum ipso cognitore, cum ipsi peterent edi sibi mandatum legatis iniunctum aut pronuntiaret eos hoc superfluo petiuisse, ille autem et pronuntiasse se diceret et pronuntiaret hoc omnino ad praesens non pertinere iudicium, ubi declararetur imperialibus litteris, quid petitum esset quidue concessum. et tandem aliquando ad iussum eius coeperant gesta praefectoria recitari. quorum gestorum cum dies et consules fuissent recitati, continuo rursus Donatistae interruperunt et eadem illa praeterita poscere coeperunt. sed cum cognitor interloqueretur debere gesta recitari, ut de petitoris persona constaret, illi contra ab initio coeperunt dicere esse gesta priora, quae deberent potius recitari. contra a catholicis dictum est ideo illos nolle, ut gesta praefectoria legerentur, quod in eis prosecutiones proprias formidarent.","t":"Then the commissioner ordered them now to prove the charges they had brought, and said that the person of the plaintiff was not to be shown from the requesting of the conference, if both parties were proved to have requested it. Here the Donatists again began to ask that he pronounce on the person. And the commissioner pronounced, saying that if both parties had asked for the conference, the plaintiff was the one who brought charges. And the Donatists demanded that the Catholics prove whether both had asked for the conference. When the commissioner said, “The Catholics will have to prove this,” there arose again a delaying conflict about the Catholic name and about “Donatists” and “Caecilianists.” Then the Catholics offered the minutes of a hearing in the prefect’s court, by which they would prove that the Donatists too had asked for a conference. When the commissioner had ordered these to be read, the Donatists again went back to past matters and began to demand that the commissioner pronounce on those things on which he had pronounced so many times, namely the person and the envoys’ mandate, which they had so often needlessly asked to have issued to them. They did this, as was understood, fearing that the prefect’s minutes would be read, in which they had wounded their own case by some thoughtless and rash answers. So there was long conflict on their part, above all with the commissioner himself, since they asked that the mandate given to the envoys be issued to them or that he pronounce that they had asked for it needlessly; while he said that he had pronounced, and pronounced that this had nothing at all to do with the present hearing, in which it was declared by imperial letters what had been asked and what had been granted. And at length, at his order, the prefect’s minutes began to be read. When the day and the consuls of those minutes had been read, the Donatists at once interrupted again and began to demand those same past matters. But when the commissioner ruled that the minutes should be read, so that the person of the plaintiff might be established, they on their side began to say that there were earlier minutes which ought rather to be read. Against this the Catholics said that the Donatists did not want the prefect’s minutes read because they dreaded their own statements in them.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.5 (CSEL 53:54–55; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-5)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.6":{"o":"Obtulerunt ergo Donatistae gesta proconsularia et uicariae praefecturae, ubi catholici petierant eos actis municipalibus conueniri, ut collatione utrorumque facta error de medio tolleretur, longe antequam ipsam collationem ab imperatore petiuissent, et his gestis catholicos uolebant ostendere loco assistere petitorum, quia illic eos dixerant haereticos multa contra diuinas leges humanasque committere. contra hoc catholici dicebant ideo se etiam tunc flagitasse collationem, ut contra eorum crimina pro ecclesia responderent. itaque petiuerunt saepius ut, si ea gesta recitanda essent, quae priora esse constaret, illa potius legerentur, ubi Donatistae primitus causam Caeciliani ad imperatorem Constantinum per Anullinum proconsulem accusando miserunt, recitatisque gestis, quae ipsi proferebant, non sunt recitata illa, quae apud praefectos habita iam coeperant recitari. et coepit esse conflictus, ut, si propterea gesta quae Donatistae protulerant praelata sunt gestis quae a catholicis prolata fuerant, quia priora reperta sunt, ut ipsa potius recitarentur, saltem post ipsorum recitationem recitarentur etiam illa longe priora, ubi eos appareret in hac tota causa quae agebatur primitus accusatores extitisse per proconsulem apud imperatorem. ista ergo ne recitarentur uehementer Donatistae obluctabantur multis et multiplicibus prosecutionibus resistentes, sicut ebluctati fuerant et extorserant, ne illa praefectoria legerentur. in hac autem obluctatione saepe repetebant illud iam detritum et tot interlocutionibus cognitoris repulsum de mandato legatorum sibi edendo. repetebant etiam quaestionem, quae fuerat iam ante transacta, utrum testimoniis legis an publicis gestis catholici agere mallent, et dicebant, ut, si testimonia diuinae legis eligerent, facerent omnium legum publicarum gestorumque iacturam, si autem publicis legibus et gestis agere potius uellent, omitterent diuina documenta. et tamen, si hoc eligerent catholici, ut publicorum gestorum documentis potius agerent, dicebant se Donatistae nec hoc permissuros, ut ea quae a catholicis offerebantur gesta legerentur, eo quod haberent ualidam temporis praescriptionem, illam scilicet de qua eis fuerat sufficienter et a catholicis et ab ipso cognitore responsum, quia ipsam causam lapsam et agi iam non posse dicebant, quia dies transierat, quo menses quattuor complerentur. uehementer enim eos timere apparebat, ne gesta legerentur, quibus doceretur a maioribus eorum Caecilianum apud imperatorem primitus accusatum et deinde iudiciis et ecclesiasticis et imperialibus absolutum atque purgatum, hoc est ne ipsa causa omnino propter quam uentum fuerat ageretur, ubi se euidentissime superari posse sentiebant. sic autem nolebant et timebant, ut hoc etiam confiteri cogerentur, dicentes quod sensim, id est paulatim inducerentur in causam et ad causae interna deducerentur, quod utique optare deberent, si non de inanibus et moratoriis praescriptionibus, sed de ipsius causae ueritate confiderent.","t":"So the Donatists offered the minutes of the proconsul and of the deputy prefecture, in which the Catholics had asked that the Donatists be summoned by municipal records, so that, by a conference of both, error might be removed from their midst, long before the Catholics asked the emperor for the conference itself. And by these minutes they wished to show that the Catholics stood in the place of plaintiffs, because there they had said that the Donatists, as heretics, committed many things against divine and human laws. Against this the Catholics said that even then they had demanded a conference in order to answer for the church against the Donatists’ charges. And so they asked repeatedly that, if those minutes were to be read which were established as earlier, then rather those should be read in which the Donatists had first sent the case of Caecilian to the emperor Constantine, accusing him through the proconsul Anullinus. And after the minutes that the Donatists produced had been read, those that had been held before the prefects, whose reading had already begun, were not read. And a conflict began: if the minutes produced by the Donatists had been preferred to those produced by the Catholics because they were found to be earlier, so that they should rather be read, then at least after their reading those far earlier ones should also be read, in which the Donatists would be seen to have been the first accusers in this whole case being argued, before the emperor through the proconsul. The Donatists struggled vehemently against these being read, resisting with many and manifold statements, just as they had struggled and wrung it out that the prefect’s minutes should not be read. In this struggle they often repeated that worn-out demand, rejected by so many rulings of the commissioner, about having the envoys’ mandate issued to them. They also repeated the question that had already been settled earlier, whether the Catholics preferred to plead from the testimonies of the law or from public records; and they said that if the Catholics chose the testimonies of the divine law, they should give up all public laws and records; but if they preferred to plead from public laws and records, they should leave aside the divine documents. And yet, if the Catholics chose to plead rather from the documents of public records, the Donatists said they would not allow even this, that the records offered by the Catholics be read, because they had a valid plea of prescription by time: namely the one to which both the Catholics and the commissioner himself had answered them sufficiently, since they said the case itself had lapsed and could no longer be heard, because the day had passed on which the four months were completed. For it was plain that they greatly feared the reading of records showing that Caecilian had first been accused before the emperor by their forebears and then acquitted and cleared by both ecclesiastical and imperial judgments; that is, they feared that the very case for which they had come would be argued at all, in which they felt they could most evidently be defeated. So much did they not want it, and fear it, that they were even forced to admit it, saying that they were being drawn into the case gradually, that is, little by little, and being led down into the inner parts of the case: which they certainly ought to have wished for, if they had trusted not in empty and delaying pleas but in the truth of the case itself.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.6 (CSEL 53:55–57; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-6)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.7":{"o":"Contra ergo catholici cum uehementer conarentur, ut ad causam perueniretur, quo eos prorsus nolle peruenire cernebant, respondebant tamen iterum atque iterum eisdem ipsis, quae illi totiens iam transacta repetebant. et quoniam duo erant quae in medium uenerant, unum de editione mandati, quod legatis iniunctum est, alterum, utrum diuinis testimoniis an gestis publicis catholici agere mallent, de mandati illius editione et catholici responderunt non ad eos neque ad praesentem causam omnino pertinere, et ipse cognitor quod saepius pronuntiauerat iterum pronuntiauit, legatorum personam et mandatum quod susceperunt omnino se non posse discutere et ab eo quod sibi iniunctum est non debere discedere, quandoquidem satis apparebat imperialibus litteris, quibus iudex huic causae fuerat constitutus, collationem ab imperatore concessam. de illo autem altero, ubi quaerebant quid eligerent catholici, utrum diuina documenta an gesta publica, saepius catholici responderunt, si Donatistae hominum crimina non obicerent, quae uelut traditoribus obicere consueuerunt, sed tantummodo id quaereretur, quae uel ubi esset ecclesia, nihil se acturos publicis gestis, sed scripturarum diuinarum tantummodo testimoniis, si autem in illa hominum accusatione et criminatione persisterent, quia et ipsi ista nisi talibus gestis demonstrare non possent, sine dubio et catholicos huiusmodi crimina gestis publicis defensuros; aliter enim ista nec accusari poterant nec defendi. haec eis saepius et a catholicis et ab ipso cognitore repetita et inculcata sunt, multis et uariis modis multarum prosecutionum illis ad eadem redeuntibus et eadem repetentibus, ne ageretur causa et ne gesta legerentur, quae iam in manibus esse cernebant. sed aliquando uicit cognitor tam longas obstinationes et iussit recitari, quae a catholicis data sunt, et coepit tandem agi causa, propter quam tot episcopi partis utriusque conuenerant. quod mirabiliter factum est, ut, cum Donatistae propterea quaererent petitoris personam, ne perueniretur ad causam, ipsa inquisitio petitoris subito in medium mitteret causam.","t":"Against this, then, the Catholics, while striving vehemently to reach the case, which they saw the Donatists absolutely did not want to reach, still answered again and again the very points that the Donatists kept repeating though they had been settled so many times. Since there were two matters that had come up, one about issuing the mandate given to the envoys, the other whether the Catholics preferred to plead from divine testimonies or public records: about issuing the mandate, the Catholics answered that it had nothing at all to do with them or with the present case, and the commissioner himself pronounced again what he had pronounced many times, that he could by no means examine the person of the envoys and the mandate they had received, and must not depart from what had been entrusted to him, since it was plain enough from the imperial letters by which he had been appointed judge in this case that the conference had been granted by the emperor. About the other matter, where they asked which the Catholics chose, divine documents or public records, the Catholics answered repeatedly: if the Donatists did not bring the charges against men which they are accustomed to bring against them as betrayers, but only the question were asked what or where the church is, they would deal with nothing from public records, but only from the testimonies of the divine Scriptures; but if they persisted in that accusation and charge against men, then, since they themselves could not demonstrate such things except by such records, the Catholics too would without doubt defend against charges of this kind from public records, since otherwise such things could be neither accused nor defended. These things were repeated and pressed on them many times, both by the Catholics and by the commissioner himself, while they returned to the same things and repeated the same things in many and various ways in many statements, so that the case would not be argued and the records that they saw already in hand would not be read. But at length the commissioner overcame such long obstinacy and ordered the documents given by the Catholics to be read, and the case at last began to be argued for which so many bishops of both parties had gathered. And it happened wonderfully that, while the Donatists were inquiring into the person of the plaintiff so that the case would not be reached, that very inquiry into the plaintiff suddenly put the case into the open.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.7 (CSEL 53:57–58; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-7)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.8":{"o":"Tertio ergo loco haec acta sunt. lecta est relatio Anullini proconsulis ad imperatorem Constantinum; quam quaerentibus Donatistis unde prolata sit, catholici responderunt in archiuo proconsulis, si dubitarent, esse quaerendum. in qua relatione euidentissime continetur ipsos primitus ad imperatorem Constantinum per memoratum proconsulem ea quae Caeciliano crimina obiciebant accusando misisse. qua perlecta Donatistae quaerere coeperunt, quem sibi catholici dicerent patrem. quibus cum ab eis esset responsum secundum euangelium, ubi scriptum est: ne uobis dicatis patrem in terra; unus est enim pater uester deus, etiam hoc audito nihilominus quaerere coeperunt, utrum eis Caecilianus pater esset an mater. cum iam dictum fuisset a catholicis nec patrem sibi eum esse nec matrem, sed fratrem siue bonum si bonus esset, siue malum si malus esset, quia et malus propter sacramenta communia frater esset, hinc aliquanto diutius conflixerunt Donatistis eadem repetentibus et catholicis eadem respondentibus. nam et hoc obiecerunt Donatistae, quomodo diceret apostolus: et si multos paedagogos habetis in Christo, sed non multos patres; in Christo enim Iesu per euangelium ego uos genui, et responsum est a catholicis hoc honorificentiae causa dictum propter euangelicum mysterium, quod dispensabat apostolus; nam patrem ad fidem salutemque aeternam non esse nisi deum. neque enim posset contrarium Christo apostolus loqui, ut, cum ille diceret: ne uobis dicatis patrem in terra; unus enim pater uester deus, contra apostolus tamquam resistens uerbis Christi patrem se diceret eorum, quibus annuntiauerat euangelium, nisi esset utique distinguendum, quid diuinae gratiae, quid humanae honorificentiae causa diceretur.","t":"Third, then, these things were done. The report of the proconsul Anullinus to the emperor Constantine was read. When the Donatists asked where it had been brought from, 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 had first sent to the emperor Constantine, through the proconsul mentioned, the charges they were bringing against Caecilian, as accusers. When it had been read, the Donatists began to ask whom the Catholics called their father. When the Catholics answered them according to the Gospel, where it is written, “Do not call anyone on earth your father, for one is your Father, God,” even having heard this they nonetheless began to ask whether Caecilian was their father or their mother. When the Catholics had already said that he was neither father nor mother to them, but a brother, either good if he was good, or bad if he was bad, since even a bad man is a brother because of the sacraments held in common, there was then a somewhat longer conflict, the Donatists repeating the same things and the Catholics giving the same answers. For the Donatists also objected how, then, the apostle said, “Even if you have many tutors in Christ, yet not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begot you through the gospel.” And the Catholics answered that this was said as a mark of honor because of the mystery of the gospel which the apostle was administering; for there is no Father to faith and eternal salvation except God. Nor could the apostle speak contrary to Christ, so that, when Christ said, “Do not call anyone on earth your father, for one is your Father, God,” the apostle, as though resisting the words of Christ, would on the contrary call himself the father of those to whom he had proclaimed the gospel, unless indeed one must distinguish what is said on account of divine grace and what on account of human honor.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.8 (CSEL 53:58–59; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-8)."},"augustine-breviculus-collationis/3.9":{"o":"Quaesierunt etiam quis ordinauerit Augustinum, nescio quas, sicut iactabatur, calumnias praeparantes. ubi cum eis intrepide responderet a Megalio se ordinatum, qui tunc fuerit primas episcoporum in Numidia ecclesiae catholicae, et urgeret instanter, ut iam proferrent quae praeparauerunt, ut ibi etiam calumniosi demonstrarentur, illi intentionem in aliud detorserunt, redeuntes ad Caeciliani personam, quam dicebant catholici ecclesiae non obesse, etiamsi uera eius crimina monstrarentur, et tamen etiam ipsa non posse uera monstrari.","t":"They also asked who had ordained Augustine, preparing some slanders or other, as was being bragged about. When he answered them fearlessly that he had been ordained by Megalius, who was then primate of the bishops of the Catholic Church in Numidia, and pressed them urgently to bring out at once what they had prepared, so that they might be shown slanderers there too, they turned their aim elsewhere, returning to the person of Caecilian, which the Catholics said did not harm the church even if his crimes were shown to be real, though even these could not be shown to be real.","f":"Augustine, <i>Brev. coll.</i> 3.9 (CSEL 53:59; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/augustine-breviculus-collationis/3-9)."}}