Summary of the Collation with the Donatists 1.1–3.4

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.