Summary of the Collation with the Donatists 3.33–3.43

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.