Letter 43: 1. The Apostle Paul has said: A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10-11 But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devise...

The Apostle Paul said: "Avoid a heretical man after one warning, knowing that such a person is perverted and sins, being self-condemned." But those who defend their opinion, however false and perverse, without any stubborn animosity, especially when they did not produce it by the audacity of their own presumption but received it from parents who had been seduced and led into error, and who seek the truth with careful concern, ready to be corrected when they find it — such persons are by no means to be counted among heretics. Therefore, unless I believed you to be of this kind, I would perhaps not write to you at all. And yet even a heretic, however swollen with hateful pride and maddened by the stubbornness of wicked contention, though we are warned to avoid him lest he deceive the weak and the little ones, we do not refuse to correct by whatever means we can. Hence it came about that we wrote even to certain leaders among the Donatists — not letters of communion, which they have long refused to accept because of their perversity separated from Catholic unity spread throughout the whole world, but private letters of the sort we are permitted to use even with pagans. They, even if they sometimes read our letters, either did not wish to respond or, as is more likely believed, were unable to do so. In this we considered that we had sufficiently fulfilled the duty of charity, which the Holy Spirit teaches us we owe not only to our own but to all. I have said this by way of preface lest anyone think I have sent you these writings more impudently than prudently, or wished to deal with you about the business of your soul in this manner because you are not of our communion — when, if I were writing to you about a matter of property or the settlement of some monetary dispute, perhaps no one would reproach me. So dear is this world to people, and so cheap have they become to themselves! This letter, then, will be my defense as a witness in the judgment of God, who knows with what spirit I have acted, and who said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." Now, as you may recall, when we were in your city and discussed certain matters with you about the communion of Christian unity, documents were produced on your side in which it was recorded that some seventy bishops had condemned Caecilianus, once a bishop of the Carthaginian Church in our communion, along with his colleagues and consecrators. There also the case of Felix of Aptungi was examined with far more slander and accusation than the others. When all this had been read, we responded that it was not surprising if the men who made that schism, not without drawing up official records, rashly thought that those against whom they had been stirred up by rivals and worthless persons should be condemned in their absence with their case unheard. We said that we had other ecclesiastical records in which Secundus of Tigisis, who then held the primacy in Numidia, left those who were present and had confessed to being traditores to be judged by God, and allowed them to remain in their episcopal seats as they were — men whose names are numbered among the condemners of Caecilianus, even though Secundus himself presided over the very council where he condemned those absent as supposed traditores through the votes of men whom, when present and confessing, he had pardoned. We then said that some time after the ordination of Majorinus, whom they had raised up against Caecilianus in nefarious crime — erecting altar against altar and tearing apart the unity of Christ with furious discord — they had petitioned the emperor Constantine for bishops to serve as judges who might arbitrate between the parties on the questions that had arisen in Africa and were breaking the bond of peace. After this was done, with Caecilianus present and those who had sailed against him, Miltiades, then bishop of Rome, judging with his colleagues whom the emperor had sent at the Donatists' request, nothing could be proved against Caecilianus, and so he was confirmed in his episcopate while Donatus, who was then present against him, was rejected. After these proceedings, when they all persisted in the obstinacy of their most criminal schism, the emperor was asked to have the same case examined more carefully at Arles. In the Council of Arles, Caecilianus was again acquitted and the Donatists again condemned. Still they would not yield, but appealed from the episcopal judges to the emperor himself. Constantine heard the case and pronounced Caecilianus innocent and his accusers guilty. Yet even after three judgments, the Donatists did not return to peace. The devil held their hearts, and they preferred to fight against the truth rather than be conquered by it. Thus the matter was not obscure but was known to the whole world: a schism had been made by wicked men, condemned by ecclesiastical and imperial judgment, and was sustained by nothing but obstinate fury. If, however, anyone says that the Council of Seventy was legitimate, let him first show that Caecilianus was present or lawfully summoned. But he was neither present nor summoned. How then could any council justly condemn a man who was absent, whose case was unheard, who was not even called to appear? The law of God, the law of man, the natural law of nations — all forbid this. And even if those bishops believed themselves to be acting rightly, were they greater than the Roman Church, where the primacy of the apostolic chair has always flourished? Were they greater than the Council of Arles, to which so many churches sent their bishops? The case was examined, judged, and completed. Peace was offered, but pride refused it. Now regarding the violence that the Donatists inflicted through the Circumcellions — those roving bands who, under the pretense of religion, committed every sort of outrage — they attacked Catholic churches, they beat our clergy, they threw lime and vinegar into their eyes, they plundered and burned houses. And yet these same people had the audacity to complain that they were persecuted, when they themselves were the persecutors. They sought martyrdom not by enduring suffering for justice but by inflicting suffering upon the innocent and then throwing themselves off cliffs or into fires — a death they chose for themselves, not one imposed by any judge. This was not martyrdom but madness.

Letter 43 (A.D. 397) To Glorius, Eleusius, the Two Felixes, Grammaticus, and All Others to Whom This May Be Acceptable, My Lords Most Beloved and Worthy of Praise, Augustine Sends Greeting. Chapter 1 1. The Apostle Paul has said: A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10-11 But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic, however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked resistance to truth, although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction. On this ground I wrote even to some of the chief of the Donatists, not indeed letters of communion, which on account of their perversity they have long ceased to receive from the undivided Catholic Church which is spread throughout the world, but letters of a private kind, such as we may send even to pagans. These letters, however, though they have sometimes read them, they have not been willing, or perhaps it is more probable, have not been able, to answer. In these cases, it seems to me that I have discharged the obligation laid on me by that love which the Holy Spirit teaches us to render, not only to our own, but to all, saying by the apostle: The Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men. 1 Thessalonians 3:12 In another place we are warned that those who are of a different opinion from us must be corrected with meekness, if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. 2 Timothy 2:25-26 2. I have said these things by way of preface, lest any one should think, because you are not of our communion, that I have been influenced by forwardness rather than consideration in sending this letter, and in desiring thus to confer with you regarding the welfare of the soul; though I believe that, if I were writing to you about an affair of property, or the settlement of some dispute about money, no one would find fault with me. So precious is this world in the esteem of men, and so small is the value which they set upon themselves! This letter, therefore, shall be a witness in my vindication at the bar of God, who knows the spirit in which I write, and who has said: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God. Matthew 5:9 Chapter 2 3. I beg you, therefore, to call to mind that, when I was in your town, and was discussing with you a little concerning the communion of Christian unity, certain Acts were brought forward by you, from which a statement was read aloud that about seventy bishops condemned Cæcilianus, formerly our Bishop of Carthage, along with his colleagues, and those by whom he was ordained. In the same Acts was given a full account of the case of Felix of Aptunga, as one singularly odious and criminal. When all these had been read, I answered that it was not to be wondered at if the men who then caused that schism, and who did not scruple to tamper with Acts, thought that it was right to condemn those against whom they had been instigated by envious and wicked men, although the sentence was passed without deliberation, in the absence of the parties condemned, and without acquainting them with the matter laid to their charge. I added that we have other ecclesiastical Acts, according to which Secundus of Tigisis, who was for the time Primate of Numidia, left those who, being there present, confessed themselves traditors to the judgment of God, and permitted them to remain in the episcopal sees which they then occupied; and I stated that the names of these men are in the list of those who condemned Cæcilianus, and that this Secundus himself was president of the Council in which he secured the condemnation of those who, being absent, were accused as traditors, by the votes of those whom he pardoned when, being present, they confessed the same crime. 4. I then said that some time after the ordination of Majorinus, whom they with impious wickedness set up against Cæcilianus, raising one altar against another, and rending with infatuated contentiousness the unity of Christ, they applied to Constantine, who was then emperor, to appoint bishops to act as judges and arbiters concerning the questions which, having arisen in Africa, disturbed the peace of the Church. This having been done, Cæcilianus and those who had sailed from Africa to accuse him being present, and the case tried by Melchiades, who was then Bishop of Rome, along with the assessors whom at the request of the Donatists the Emperor had sent, nothing could be proved against Cæcilianus; and thus, while he was confirmed in his episcopal see, Donatus, who was present as his opponent, was condemned. After all this, when they all still persevered in the obstinacy of their most sinful schism, the Emperor being appealed to, took pains to have the matter again more carefully examined and settled at Arles. They, however, declining an ecclesiastical decision, appealed to Constantine himself to hear their cause. When this trial came on, both parties being present, Cæcilianus was pronounced innocent, and they retired vanquished; but they still persisted in the same perversity. At the same time the case of Felix of Aptunga was not forgotten, and he too was acquitted of the crimes laid to his charge, after an investigation by the proconsul at the order of the same prince. 5. Since, however, I was only saying these things, not reading from the record, I seemed to you to be doing less than my earnestness had led you to expect. Perceiving this, I sent at once for that which I had promised to read. While I went on to visit the Church at Gelizi, intending to return thence to you, all these Acts were brought to you before two days had passed, and were read to you, as you know, so far as time permitted, in one day. We read first how Secundus of Tigisis did not dare to depose his colleagues in office who confessed themselves to be traditors; but afterwards, by the help of these very men, dared to condemn, without their confessing the crime, and in their absence, Cæcilianus and others who were his colleagues. And we next read the proconsular Acts in which Felix was, after a most thorough investigation, proved innocent. These, as you will remember, were read in the forenoon. In the afternoon I read to you their petition to Constantine, and the ecclesiastical record of the proceedings in Rome of the judges whom he appointed, by which the Donatists were condemned, and Cæcilianus confirmed in his episcopal dignity. In conclusion, I read the letters of the Emperor Constantine, in which the evidence of all these things was established beyond all possibility of dispute. Chapter 3 6. What more do you ask, sirs? What more do you ask? The matter in question here is not your gold and silver; it is not your land, nor property, nor bodily health that is at stake. I appeal to your souls concerning their obtaining eternal life, and escaping eternal death. At length awake! I am not handling an obscure question, nor searching into some hidden mystery, for the investigation of which capacity is found in no human intellect, or at least in only a few: the thing is clear as day. Is anything more obvious? Could anything be more quickly seen? I affirm that parties innocent and absent were condemned by a Council, very numerous indeed, but hasty in their decisions. I prove this by the proconsular Acts, in which that man was wholly cleared from the charge of being a traditor, whom the Acts of the Council which your party brought forward proclaimed as most specially guilty. I affirm further, that the sentence against those who were said to be traditors was passed by men who had confessed themselves guilty of that very crime. I prove this by the ecclesiastical Acts in which the names of those men are set forth, to whom Secundus of Tigisis, professing a desire to preserve peace, granted pardon of a crime which he knew them to have committed, and by whose help he afterwards, notwithstanding the destruction of peace, passed sentence upon others of whose crime he had no evidence; whereby he made it manifest that in the former decision he had been moved, not by a regard for peace, but by fear for himself. For Purpurius, Bishop of Limata, had alleged against him that he himself, when he had been put in custody by a curator and his soldiers, in order to compel him to give up the Scriptures, was let go, doubtless not without paying a price, in either giving up something, or ordering others to do so for him. He, fearing that this suspicion might be easily enough confirmed, having obtained the advice of Secundus the younger, his own kinsman, and having consulted all his colleagues in the episcopal office, remitted crimes which required no proof to be judged by God, and in so doing appeared to be protecting the peace of the Church: which was false, for he was only protecting himself. 7. For if, in truth, regard for peace had any place in his heart, he would not afterwards at Carthage have joined those traditors whom he had left to the judgment of God when they were present, and confessed their fault, in passing sentence for the same crime upon others who were absent, and against whom no one had proved the charge. He was bound, moreover, to be the more afraid on that occasion of disturbing the peace, inasmuch as Carthage was a great and famous city, from which any evil originating there might extend, as from the head of the body, throughout all Africa. Carthage was also near to the countries beyond the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard even a number of enemies conspiring against him, because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished, and to all other lands from which Africa itself received the gospel, and was prepared to defend himself before these Churches if his adversaries attempted to cause an alienation of them from him. Seeing, therefore, that Cæcilianus declined to come before his colleagues, whom he perceived or suspected (or, as they affirm, pretended to suspect) to be biassed by his enemies against the real merits of his case, it was all the more the duty of Secundus, if he wished to be the guardian of true peace, to prevent the condemnation in their absence of those who had wholly declined to compear at their bar. For it was not a matter concerning presbyters or deacons or clergy of inferior order, but concerning colleagues who might refer their case wholly to the judgment of other bishops, especially of apostolic churches, in which the sentence passed against them in their absence would have no weight, since they had not deserted their tribunal after having compeared before it, but had always declined compearance because of the suspicions which they entertained. 8. This consideration ought to have weighed much with Secundus, who was at that time Primate, if his desire, as president of the Council, was to promote peace; for he might perhaps have quieted or restrained the mouths of those who were raging against men who were absent, if he had spoken thus: You see, brethren, how after so great havoc of persecution peace has been given to us, through God's mercy, by the princes of this world; surely we, being Christians and bishops, ought not to break up the Christian unity which even pagan enemies have ceased to assail. Either, therefore, let us leave to God, as Judge, all those cases which the calamity of a most troublous time has brought upon the Church; or if there be some among you who have such certain knowledge of the guilt of other parties, that they are able to bring against them a definite indictment, and prove it if they plead not guilty, and who also shrink from having communion with such persons, let them hasten to our brethren and peers, the bishops of the churches beyond the sea, and present to them in the first place a complaint concerning the conduct and contumacy of the accused, as having through consciousness of guilt declined the jurisdiction of their peers in Africa, so that by these foreign bishops they may be summoned to compear and answer before them regarding the things laid to their charge. If they disobey this summons, their criminality and obduracy will become known to those other bishops; and by a synodical letter sent in their name to all parts of the world throughout which the Church of Christ is now extended, the parties accused will be excluded from communion with all churches, in order to prevent the springing up of error in the see of the Church at Carthage. When that has been done, and these men have been separated from the whole Church, we shall without fear ordain another bishop over the community in Carthage; whereas, if now another bishop be ordained by us, communion will most probably be withheld from him by the Church beyond the sea, because they will not recognise the validity of the deposition of the bishop, whose ordination was everywhere acknowledged, and with whom letters of communion had been exchanged; and thus, through our undue eagerness to pronounce without deliberation a final sentence, the great scandal of schism within the Church, when it has rest from without, may arise, and we may be found presuming to set up another altar, not against Cæcilianus, but against the universal Church, which, uninformed of our procedure, would still hold communion with him. 9. If any one had been disposed to reject sound and equitable counsels such as these, what could he have done? Or how could he have procured the condemnation of any one of his absent peers, when he could not have any decisions with the authority of the Council, seeing that the Primate was opposed to him? And if such a serious revolt against the authority of the Primate himself arose, that some were resolved to condemn at once those whose case he desired to postpone, how much better would it have been for him to separate himself by dissent from such quarrelsome and factious men, than from the communion of the whole world! But because there were no charges which could be proved at the bar of foreign bishops against Cæcilianus and those who took part in his ordination, those who condemned them were not willing to delay passing sentence; and when they had pronounced it, were not at any pains to intimate to the Church beyond the sea the names of those in Africa with whom, as condemned traditors, she should avoid communion. For if they had attempted this, Cæcilianus and the others would have defended themselves, and would have vindicated their innocence against their false accusers by a most thorough trial before the ecclesiastical tribunal of bishops beyond the sea. 10. Our belief concerning that perverse and unjust Council is, that it was composed chiefly of traditors whom Secundus of Tigisis had pardoned on their confession of guilt; and who, when a rumour had gone abroad that some had been guilty of delivering up the sacred books, sought to turn aside suspicion from themselves by bringing a calumny upon others, and to escape the detection of their crime, through surrounding themselves with a cloud of lying rumours, when men throughout all Africa, believing their bishops, said what was false concerning innocent men, that they had been condemned at Carthage as traditors. Whence you perceive, my beloved friends, how that which some of your party affirmed to be improbable could indeed happen, viz. that the very men who had confessed their own guilt as traditors, and had obtained the remission of their case to the divine tribunal, afterwards took part in judging and condemning others who, not being present to defend themselves, were accused of the same crime. For their own guilt made them more eagerly embrace an opportunity by which they might overwhelm others with a groundless accusation, and by thus finding occupation for the tongues of men, which screen their own misdeeds from investigation. Moreover, if it were inconceivable that a man should condemn in another the wrong which he had himself done, the Apostle Paul would not have had occasion to say: Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whosoever you are that judge: for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you that judge do the same things. Romans 2:1 This is exactly what these men did, so that the words of the apostle may be fully and appropriately applied to them. 11. Secundus, therefore, was not acting in the interests of peace and unity when he remitted to the divine tribunal the crimes which these men confessed: for, if so, he would have been much more careful to prevent a schism at Carthage, when there were none present to whom he might be constrained to grant pardon of a crime which they confessed; when, on the contrary, all that the preservation of peace demanded was a refusal to condemn those who were absent. They would have acted unjustly to these innocent men, had they even resolved to pardon them, when they were not proved guilty, and had not confessed the guilt, but were actually not present at all. For the guilt of a man is established beyond question when he accepts a pardon. How much more outrageous and blind were they who thought that they had power to condemn for crimes which, as unknown, they could not even have forgiven! In the former case, crimes that were known were remitted to the divine arbitration, lest others should be inquired into; in the latter case, crimes that were not known were made ground of condemnation, that those which were known might be concealed. But it will be said, the crime of Cæcilianus and the others was known. Even if I were to admit this, the fact of their absence ought to have protected them from such a sentence. For they were not chargeable with deserting a tribunal before which they had never stood; nor was the Church so exclusively represented in these African bishops, that in refusing to appear before them they could be supposed to decline all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For there remained thousands of bishops in countries beyond the sea, before whom it was manifest that those who seemed to distrust their peers in Africa and Numidia could be tried. Have you forgotten what Scripture commands: Blame no one before you have examined him; and when you have examined him, let your correction be just? Sirach 11:7 If, then, the Holy Spirit has forbidden us to blame or correct any one before we have questioned him, how much greater is the crime of not merely blaming or correcting, but actually condemning men who, being absent, could not be examined as to the charges brought against them! 12. Moreover, as to the assertion of these judges, that though the parties accused were absent, having not fled from trial, but always avowed their distrust of that faction, and declined to appear before them, the crimes for which they condemned them were well known; I ask, my brethren, how did they know them? You reply, We cannot tell, since the evidence is not stated in the public Acts. But I will tell you how they knew them. Observe carefully the case of Felix of Aptunga, and first read how much more vehement they were against him; for they had just the same grounds for their knowledge in the case of the others as in his, who was afterwards proved most completely innocent by a thorough and severe investigation. How much greater the justice and safety and readiness with which we are warranted in believing the innocence of the others whose indictment was less serious, and their condemnation less severe, seeing that the man against whom they raged much more furiously has been proved innocent! Chapter 4 13. Some one may perhaps make an objection which, though it was disapproved by you when it was brought forward, I must not pass over, for it has been made by others, viz.: It was not meet that a bishop should be acquitted by trial before a proconsul: as if the bishop had himself procured this trial, and it had not been done by order of the Emperor, to whose care this matter, as one concerning which he was responsible to God, especially belonged. For they themselves had constituted the Emperor the arbiter and judge in this question regarding the surrender of the sacred books, and regarding the schism, by their sending petitions to him, and afterwards appealing to him; and nevertheless they refuse to acquiesce in his decision. If, therefore, he is to be blamed whom the magistrate absolved, though he had not himself applied to that tribunal, how much more worthy of blame are those who desired an earthly king to be the judge of their cause! For if it be not wrong to appeal to the Emperor, it is not wrong to be tried by the Emperor, and consequently not wrong to be tried by him to whom the Emperor refers the case. One of your friends was anxious to make out a ground of complaint on the fact that, in the case of the bishop Felix, one witness was suspended on the rack, and another tortured with pincers. But was it in the power of Felix to prevent the prosecution of the inquiry with diligence, and even severity, when the case regarding which the advocate was labouring to discover the truth was his own? For what else would such a resistance to investigation have been construed to signify, than a confession of his crime? And yet this proconsul, surrounded with the awe-inspiring voices of heralds, and the blood-stained hands of executioners at his service, would not have condemned one of his peers in absence, who declined to come before his tribunal, if there was any other place where his cause could be disposed of. Or if he had in such circumstances pronounced sentence, he would himself assuredly have suffered the due and just award prescribed by civil law. Chapter 5 14. If, however, you repudiate the Acts of a proconsul, submit yourselves to the Acts of the Church. These have all been read over to you in their order. Perhaps you will say that Melchiades, bishop of the Roman Church, along with the other bishops beyond the sea who acted as his colleagues, had no right to usurp the place of judge in a matter which had been already settled by seventy African bishops, over whom the bishop of Tigisis as Primate presided. But what will you say if he in fact did not usurp this place? For the Emperor, being appealed to, sent bishops to sit with him as judges, with authority to decide the whole matter in the way which seemed to them just. This we prove, both by the petitions of the Donatists and the words of the Emperor himself, both of which were, as you remember, read to you, and are now accessible to be studied or transcribed by you. Read and ponder all these. See with what scrupulous care for the preservation or restoration of peace and unity everything was discussed; how the legal standing of the accusers was inquired into, and what defects were proved in this matter against some of them; and how it was clearly proved by the testimony of those present that they had nothing to say against Cæcilianus, but wished to transfer the whole matter to the people belonging to the party of Majorinus, that is, to the seditious multitude who were opposed to the peace of the Church, in order, forsooth, that Cæcilianus might be accused by that crowd which they believed to be powerful enough to bend aside to their views the minds of the judges by mere turbulent clamour, without any documentary evidence or examination as to the truth; unless it was likely that true accusations should be brought against Cæcilianus by a multitude infuriated and infatuated by the cup of error and wickedness, in a place where seventy bishops had with insane precipitancy condemned, in their absence, men who were their peers, and who were innocent, as was proved in the case of Felix of Aptunga. They wished to have Cæcilianus accused by a mob such as that to which they had given way themselves, when they pronounced sentence upon parties who were absent, and who had not been examined. But assuredly they had not come to judges who could be persuaded to such madness. 15. Your own prudence may enable you to remark here both the obstinacy of these men, and the wisdom of the judges, who to the last persisted in refusing to admit accusations against Cæcilianus from the populace who were of the faction of Majorinus, who had no legal standing in the case. You will also remark how they were required to bring forward the men who had come with them from Africa as accusers or witnesses, or in some other connection with the case, and how it was said that they had been present, but had been withdrawn by Donatus. The said Donatus promised that he would produce them, and this promise he made repeatedly; yet, after all, declined to appear again in presence of that tribunal before which he had already confessed so much, that it seemed as if by his refusal to return he desired only to avoid being present to hear himself condemned; but the things for which he was to be condemned had been proved against him in his own presence, and after examination. Besides this, a libel bringing charges against Cæcilianus was handed in by some parties. How the inquiry was thereupon opened anew, what persons brought up the libel, and how nothing after all could be proved against Cæcilianus, I need not state, seeing that you have heard it all, and can read it as often as you please. 16. As to the fact that there were seventy bishops in the Council [which condemned Cæcilianus], you remember what was said in the way of pleading against him the venerable authority of so great a number. Nevertheless these most venerable men resolved to keep their judgment unembarrassed by endless questions of hopeless intricacy, and did not care to inquire either what was the number of those bishops, or whence they had been collected, when they saw them to be blinded with such reckless presumption as to pronounce rash sentence upon their peers in their absence, and without having examined them. And yet what a decision was finally pronounced by the blessed Melchiades himself; how equitable, how complete, how prudent, and how fitted to make peace! For he did not presume to depose from his own rank those peers against whom nothing had been proved; and, laying blame chiefly upon Donatus, whom he had found the cause of the whole disturbance, he gave to all the others restoration if they chose to accept it, and was prepared to send letters of communion even to those who were known to have been ordained by Majorinus; so that wherever there were two bishops, through this dissension doubling their number, he decided that the one who was prior in the date of ordination should be confirmed in his see, and a new congregation found for the other. O excellent man! O son of Christian peace, father of the Christian people! Compare now this handful, with that multitude of bishops, not counting, but weighing them: on the one side you have moderation and circumspection; on the other, precipitancy and blindness. On the one side, clemency has not wronged justice, nor has justice been at variance with clemency; on the other side, fear was hiding itself under passion, and passion was goaded to excess by fear. In the one case, they assembled to clear the innocent from false accusations by discovering where the guilt really lay; in the other, they had met to screen the guilty from true accusations by bringing false charges against the innocent. Chapter 6 17. Could Cæcilianus leave himself to be tried and judged by these men, when he had such others before whom, if his case were argued, he could most easily prove his innocence? He could not have left himself in their hands even had he been a stranger recently ordained over the Church at Carthage, and consequently not aware of the power in perverting the minds of men, either worthless or unwise, which was then possessed by a certain Lucilla, a very wealthy woman, whom he had offended when he was a deacon, by rebuking her in the exercise of church discipline; for this evil influence was also at work to bring about that iniquitous transaction. For in that Council, in which men absent and innocent were condemned by persons who had confessed themselves to be traditors, there were a few who wished, by defaming others, to hide their own crimes, that men, led astray by unfounded rumours, might be turned aside from inquiring into the truth. The number of those who were especially interested in this was not great, although the preponderating authority was on their side; because they had with them Secundus himself, who, yielding to fear, had pardoned them. But the rest are said to have been bribed and instigated specially against Cæcilianus by the money of Lucilla. There are Acts in the possession of Zenophilus, a man of consular rank, according to which one Nundinarius, a deacon who had been (as we learn from the same Acts) deposed by Sylvanus, bishop of Cirta, having failed in an attempt to recommend himself to that party by the letters of other bishops, in the heat of passion revealed many secrets, and brought them forward in open court; among which we read this on the record, that the rearing of rival altars in the Church of Carthage, the chief city of Africa, was due to the bishops being bribed by the money of Lucilla. I am aware that I did not read these Acts to you, but you remember that there was not time. Besides these influences, there was also some bitterness arising from mortified pride, because they had not themselves ordained Cæcilianus bishop of Carthage. 18. When Cæcilianus knew that these men had assembled, not as impartial judges, but hostile and perverted through all these things, was it possible that either he should consent, or the people over whom he presided should allow him, to leave the church and go into a private dwelling, where he was not to be tried fairly by his peers, but to be slain by a small faction, urged on by a woman's spite, especially when he saw that his case might have an unbiassed and equitable hearing before the Church beyond the sea, which was uninfluenced by private enmities on either side in the dispute? If his adversaries declined pleading before that tribunal, they would thereby cut themselves off from that communion with the whole world which innocence enjoys. And if they attempted there to bring a charge against him, then he would compear for himself, and defend his innocence against all their plots, as you have learned that he afterwards did, when they, already guilty of schism, and stained with the atrocious crime of having actually reared their rival altar, applied — but too late — for the decision of the Church beyond the sea. For this they would have done at first, if their cause had been supported by truth; but their policy was to come to the trial after false rumours had gained strength by lapse of time, and public report of old standing, so to speak, had prejudged the case; or, which seems more likely, having first condemned Cæcilianus as they pleased, they relied for safety upon their number, and did not dare to open the discussion of so bad a case before other judges, by whom, as they were not influenced by bribery, the truth might be discovered. Chapter 7 19. But when they actually found that the communion of the whole world with Cæcilianus continued as before, and that letters of communion from churches beyond the sea were sent to him, and not to the man whom they had flagitiously ordained, they became ashamed of being always silent; for it might be objected to them: Why did they suffer the Church in so many countries to go on in ignorance, communicating with men that were condemned; and especially why did they cut themselves off from communion with the whole world, against which they had no charge to make, by their bearing in silence the exclusion from that communion of the bishop whom they had ordained in Carthage? They chose, therefore, as it is reported, to bring their dispute with Cæcilianus before the foreign churches, in order to secure one of two things, either of which they were prepared to accept: if, on the one hand, by any amount of craft, they succeeded in making good the false accusation, they would abundantly satisfy their lust of revenge; if, however, they failed, they might remain as stubborn as before, but would now have, as it were, some excuse for it, in alleging that they had suffered at the hands of an unjust tribunal — the common outcry of all worthless litigants, though they have been defeated by the clearest light of truth — as if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them: Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed. Whether they have done this or not, let them prove: for we easily prove that it was not done, by the fact that the whole world does not communicate with them; or if it was done, they were defeated there also, of which their state of separation from the Church is a proof. 20. What they actually did afterwards, however, is sufficiently shown in the letter of the Emperor. For it was not before other bishops, but at the bar of the Emperor, that they dared to bring the charge of wrong judgment against ecclesiastical judges of so high authority as the bishops by whose sentence the innocence of Cæcilianus and their own guilt had been declared. He granted them the second trial at Aries, before other bishops; not because this was due to them, but only as a concession to their stubbornness, and from a desire by all means to restrain so great effrontery. For this Christian Emperor did not presume so to grant their unruly and groundless complaints as to make himself the judge of the decision pronounced by the bishops who had sat at Rome; but he appointed, as I have said, other bishops, from whom, however, they preferred again to appeal to the Emperor himself; and you have heard the terms in which he disapproved of this. Would that even then they had desisted from their most insane contentions, and had yielded at last to the truth, as he yielded to them when (intending afterwards to apologize for this course to the reverend prelates) he consented to try their case after the bishops, on condition that, if they did not submit to his decision, for which they had themselves appealed, they should thenceforward be silent! For he ordered that both parties should meet him at Rome to argue the case. When Cæcilianus, for some reason, failed to compear there, he, at their request, ordered all to follow him to Milan. Then some of their party began to withdraw, perhaps offended that Constantine did not follow their example, and condemn Cæcilianus in his absence at once and summarily. When the prudent Emperor was aware of this, he compelled the rest to come to Milan in charge of his guards. Cæcilianus having come there, he brought him forward in person, as he has written; and having examined the matter with the diligence, caution, and prudence which his letters on the subject indicate, he pronounced Cæcilianus perfectly innocent, and them most criminal. Chapter 8 21. And to this day they administer baptism outside of the communion of the Church, and, if they can, they rebaptize the members of the Church: they offer sacrifice in discord and schism, and salute in the name of peace communities which they pronounce beyond the bounds of the peace of salvation. The unity of Christ is rent asunder, the heritage of Christ is reproached, the baptism of Christ is treated with contempt; and they refuse to have these errors corrected by constituted human authorities, applying penalties of a temporal kind in order to prevent them from being doomed to eternal punishment for such sacrilege. We blame them for the rage which has driven them to schism, the madness which makes them rebaptize, and for the sin of separation from the heritage of Christ, which has been spread abroad through all lands. In using manuscripts which are in their hands as well as in ours, we mention churches, the names of which are now read by them also, but with which they have now no communion; and when these are pronounced in their conventicles, they say to the reader, Peace be with you; and yet they have no peace with those to whom these letters were written. They, on the other hand, blame us for crimes of men now dead, making charges which either are false, or, if true, do not concern us; not perceiving that in the things which we lay to their charge they are all involved, but in the things which they lay to our charge the blame is due to the chaff or the tares in the Lord's harvest, and the crime does not belong to the good grain; not considering, moreover, that within our unity those only have fellowship with the wicked who take pleasure in their being such, whereas those who are displeased with their wickedness yet cannot correct them — as they do not presume to root out the tares before the harvest, lest they root out the wheat also, Matthew 13:29 — have fellowship with them, not in their deeds, but in the altar of Christ; so that not only do they avoid being defiled by them, but they deserve commendation and praise according to the word of God, because, in order to prevent the name of Christ from being reproached by odious schisms, they tolerate in the interest of unity that which in the interest of righteousness they hate. 22. If they have ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. For in the Apocalypse of John we read: Unto the angel of the Church of Ephesus write: These things says He that holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know your works, and your labour, and your patience, and how you can not bear them which are evil: and you have tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: and hast borne, and hast patience, and for My name's sake hast tolerated them, and hast not fainted. Revelation 2:1-3 Now, if He wished this to be understood as addressed to a celestial angel, and not to those invested with authority in the Church, He would not go on to say: Nevertheless I have somewhat against you, because you have left your first love. Remember therefore from whence you are fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto you quickly, and will remove your candlestick out of his place, unless you repent. Revelation 2:4-5 This could not be said to the heavenly angels, who retain their love unchanged, as the only beings of their order that have departed and fallen from their love are the devil and his angels. The first love here alluded to is that which was proved in their tolerating for Christ's name's sake the false apostles. To this He commands them to return, and to do their first works. Now we are reproached with the crimes of bad men, not done by us, but by others; and some of them, moreover, not known to us. Nevertheless, even if they were actually committed, and that under our own eyes, and we bore with them for the sake of unity, letting the tares alone on account of the wheat, whosoever with open heart receives the Holy Scriptures would pronounce us not only free from blame, but worthy of no small praise. 23. Aaron bears with the multitude demanding, fashioning, and worshipping an idol. Moses bears with thousands murmuring against God, and so often offending His holy name. David bears with Saul his persecutor, even when forsaking the things that are above by his wicked life, and following after the things that are beneath by magical arts, avenges his death, and calls him the Lord's anointed, because of the venerable right by which he had been consecrated. Samuel bears with the reprobate sons of Eli, and his own perverse sons, whom the people refused to tolerate, and were therefore rebuked by the warning and punished by the severity of God. Lastly, he bears with the nation itself, though proud and despising God. Isaiah bears with those against whom he hurls so many merited denunciations. Jeremiah bears with those at whose hands he suffers so many things. Zechariah bears with the scribes and Pharisees, as to whose character in those days Scripture informs us. I know that I have omitted many examples: let those who are willing and able read the divine records for themselves: they will find that all the holy servants and friends of God have always had to bear with some among their own people, with whom, nevertheless, they partook in the sacraments of that dispensation, and in so doing not only were not defiled by them, but were to be commended for their tolerant spirit, endeavouring to keep, as the apostle says, the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Ephesians 4:3 Let them also observe what has occurred since the Lord's coming, in which time we would find many more examples of this toleration in all parts of the world, if they could all be written down and authenticated: but attend to those which are on record. The Lord Himself bears with Judas, a devil, a thief, His own betrayer; He permits him, along with the innocent disciples, to receive that which believers know as our ransom. The apostles bear with false apostles; and in the midst of men who sought their own things, and not the things of Jesus Christ, Paul, not seeking his own, but the things of Christ, lives in the practice of a most noble toleration. In fine, as I mentioned a little while ago, the person presiding under the title of Angel over a Church, is commended, because, though he hated those that were evil, he yet bore with them for the Lord's name's sake, even when they were tried and discovered. 24. In conclusion, let them ask themselves: Do they not bear with the murders and devastations by fire which are perpetrated by the Circumcelliones, who treat with honour the dead bodies of those who cast themselves down from dangerous heights? Do they not bear with the misery which has made all Africa groan for years beneath the incredible outrages of one man, Optatus [bishop of Thamugada]? I forbear from specifying the tyrannical acts of violence and public depredations in districts, towns, and properties throughout Africa; for it is better to leave you to speak of these to each other, whether in whispers or openly, as you please. For wherever you turn your eyes, you will find the things of which I speak, or, more correctly, refrain from speaking. Nor do we on this ground accuse those whom, when they do such things, you love. What we dislike in that party is not their bearing with those who are wicked, but their intolerable wickedness in the matter of schism, of raising altar against altar, and of separation from the heritage of Christ now spread, as was so long ago promised, throughout the world. We behold with grief and lamentation peace broken, unity rent asunder, baptism administered a second time, and contempt poured on the sacraments, which are holy even when ministered and received by the wicked. If they regard these things as trifles, let them observe those examples by which it has been proved how they are esteemed by God. The men who made an idol perished by a common death, being slain with the sword: Exodus 32:27-28 but when the men endeavoured to make a schism in Israel, the leaders were swallowed up by the opening earth, and the crowd of their accomplices was consumed by fire. In the difference between the punishments, the different degrees of demerit may be discerned. Chapter 9 25. These, then, are the facts: In time of persecution, the sacred books are surrendered to the persecutors. Those who were guilty of this surrender confess it, and are remitted to the divine tribunal; those who were innocent are not examined, but condemned at once by rash men. The integrity of that one who, of all the men thus condemned in their absence, was the most vehemently accused, is afterwards vindicated before unimpeachable judges. From the decision of bishops an appeal is made to the Emperor; the Emperor is chosen judge; and the sentence of the Emperor, when pronounced, is set at naught. What was then done you have read; what is now being done you have before your eyes. If, after all that you have read, you are still in doubt, be convinced by what you see. By all means let us give up arguing from ancient manuscripts, public archives, or the acts of courts, civil or ecclesiastical. We have a greater book — the world itself. In it I read the accomplishment of that of which I read the promise in the Book of God: The Lord has said to me, You are my Son, this day have I begotten You: ask of Me, and I shall give You the heathen for Your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession. He that has not communion with this inheritance may know himself to be disinherited, whatever books he may plead to the contrary. He that assails this inheritance is plainly enough declared to be an outcast from the family of God. The question is raised as to the parties guilty of surrendering the divine books in which that inheritance is promised. Let him be believed to have delivered the testament to the flames, who is resisting the intentions of the testator. O faction of Donatus, what has the Corinthian Church done against you? In speaking of this one Church, I wish to be understood as asking the same question in regard to all similar churches remote from you. What have these churches done against you, which could not know even what you had done, or the names of the men whom you branded with condemnation? Or is it so, that because Cæcilianus gave offense to Lucilla in Africa, the light of Christ is lost to the whole world? 26. Let them at last become sensible of what they have done; for in the lapse of years, by a just retribution, their work has recoiled upon themselves. Ask by what woman's instigation Maximianus (said to be a kinsman of Donatus) withdrew himself from the communion of Primianus, and how, having gathered a faction of bishops, he pronounced sentence against Primianus in his absence, and had himself ordained as a rival bishop in his place — precisely as Majorinus, under the influence of Lucilla, assembled a faction of bishops, and, having condemned Cæcilianus in his absence, was ordained bishop in opposition to him. Do you admit, as I suppose you do, that when Primianus was delivered by the other bishops of his communion in Africa from the sentence pronounced by the faction of Maximianus, this decision was valid and sufficient? And will you refuse to admit the same in the case of Cæcilianus, when he was released by the bishops of the same one Church beyond the sea from the sentence pronounced by the faction of Majorinus? Pray, my brethren, what great thing do I ask of you? What difficulty is there in comprehending what I bring before you? The African Church, if it be compared with the churches in other parts of the world, is very different from them, and is left far behind both in numbers and in influence; and even if it had retained its unity, is far smaller when compared with the universal Church in other nations, than was the faction of Maximianus when compared with that of Primianus. I ask, however, only this — and I believe it to be just — that you give no more weight to the Council of Secundus of Tigisis, which Lucilla stirred up against Cæcilianus when absent, and against an apostolic see and the whole world in communion with Cæcilianus, than you give to the Council of Maximianus, which in like manner some other woman stirred up against Primianus when absent, and against the rest of the multitude throughout Africa which was in communion with him. What case could be more transparent? What demand more just? 27. You see and know all these things, and you groan over them; and yet God at the same time sees that nothing compels you to remain in such fatal and impious schism, if you would but subdue the lust of the flesh in order to win the spiritual kingdom; and in order to escape from eternal punishment, have courage to forfeit the friendship of men, whose favour will not avail at the bar of God. Go now, and take counsel together: find what you can say in reply to that which I have written. If you bring forward manuscripts on your side, we do the same; if your party say that our documents are not to be trusted, let them not take it amiss if we retort the charge. No one can erase from heaven the divine decree, no one can efface from earth the Church of God. His decree has promised the whole world, and the Church has filled it; and it includes both bad and good. On earth it loses none but the bad, and into heaven it admits none but the good. In writing this discourse, God is my witness with what sincere love to peace and to you I have taken and used that which He has given. It shall be to you a means of correction if you be willing, and a testimony against you whether you will or not.

EPISTOLA 43 Scripta exeunte a. 396 vel ineunte a. 397. Quanta impudentia Donatistae in suo schismate persistant tot iudiciis convincti, Romano atque Arelatensi Conciliis praesertim (n. 1-4). Latius agit de impio Carthaginiensi conciliabulo, de Donatistarum obstinatione, de appellatione ad imperatorem (n. 5-14); de Melchiadis papae aequanimitate (n. 15-16), de Lucilla ac de Circuncelliorum sceleribus (n. 17-27).   Dominis dilectissimis et merito praedicandis fratribus / Glorio, Eleusio, Felicibus, Grammatico et caeteris omnibus quibus hoc gratum est, Augustinus Haereticus quisnam censendus. 1. 1. Dixit quidem apostolus Paulus: Haereticum hominem post unam correptionem devita, sciens quia subversus est eiusmodi, et peccati et est a semetipso damnatus 1. Sed qui sententiam suam, quamvis falsam atque perversam, nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, praesertim quam non audacia praesumptionis suae pepererunt, sed a seductis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt, quaerunt autem cauta sollicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati, cum invenerint; nequaquam sunt inter haereticos deputandi. Tales ergo vos nisi esse crederem, nullas fortasse vobis litteras mitterem. Quanquam et ipsum haereticum quamlibet odiosa superbia tumidum et pervicacia malae contentionis insanum, sicut vitandum monemur, ne infirmos et parvulos fallat; ita non abnuimus, quibuscumque modis possumus corrigendum. Unde factum est ut etiam ad nonnullos Donatistarum primarios scriberemus, non communicatorias litteras, quas iam olim, propter suam perversitatem ab unitate catholica quae toto orbe diffusa est, non accipiunt; sed tales privatas, qualibus nobis uti etiam ad Paganos licet, quas illi etsi aliquando legerunt, respondere tamen eis sive noluerunt, sive, ut magis creditur, nequiverunt. Ubi nobis satis visum est implevisse nos officium caritatis, quam non solum nostris, sed et omnibus nos debere Sanctus Spiritus docet, qui nobis ait per Apostolum: Vos autem Dominus multiplicet, et abundare faciat in caritate, in invicem et in omnes 2. Monet etiam alio loco, in modestia corripiendos diversa sentientes; Ne forte, inquit, det illis Deus paenitentiam ad cognoscendam veritatem, et resipiscant de diaboli laqueis, captivati ab ipso in ipsius voluntatem 3. Pacis studio flagrat A. 1. 2. Haec praelocutus sum, ne quis me existimet impudentius vobis quam prudentius scripta misisse, et hoc modo vobiscum de negotio animae vestrae aliquid agere voluisse, quia nostrae communionis non estis: cum tamen si de negotio fundi, aut alicuius pecuniariae litis dirimendae vobis aliquid scriberem, nemo fortasse reprehenderet. Usque adeo carus est hic mundus hominibus, et sibimet ipsi viluerunt! Erit ergo mihi ad defensionem testis haec epistola in iudicio Dei, qui novit quo animo fecerim, et qui dixit: Beati pacifici, quia ipsi filii Dei vocabuntur 4. Quomodo Donatistarum schisma ortum sit. 2. 3. Ergo ut meminisse dignamini, cum essemus in vestra civitate, et nonnulla vobiscum de communione christianae unitatis ageremus, prolata sunt a partibus vestris Gesta quaedam, quibus recitatum est quod septuaginta ferme episcopi Caecilianum quondam nostrae communionis episcopum Carthaginensis Ecclesiae cum suis collegis et ordinatoribus damnaverunt. Ubi etiam Felicis Aptungitani causa multo prae caeteris invidiosius et criminosius ventilata est. Quae cum essent cuncta perlecta, respondimus non esse mirandum, si homines qui tunc illud schisma fecerunt, non sine confectione Gestorum, eos in quos fuerant ab aemulis et perditis concitati, absentes causa incognita, temere damnandos esse putaverunt. Nos autem alia habere Gesta ecclesiastica, in quibus Secundus Tigisitanus, qui tunc agebat in Numidia primatum, praesentes et confessos traditores reliquit Deo iudicandos, et eos in episcopalibus sedibus, sicuti erant, manere permisit, quorum nomina inter damnatores Caeciliani numerantur; cum etiam Secundus ipse concilii eiusdem principatum teneret, ubi absentes quasi traditores per eorum sententias damnavit, quibus praesentibus et confessis ignovit. Donatistae a Conciliis Romano atque Arelatensi damnati. 2. 4. Deinde diximus, aliquando post Maiorini ordinationem, quem contra Caecilianum nefario scelere levaverunt, erigentes altare contra altare, et unitatem Christi discordiis furialibus dissipantes, eos petiisse a Constantino tunc imperatore iudices episcopos, qui de suis quaestionibus quae in Africa exortae pacis vinculum dirimebant, arbitro medio iudicarent. Quod posteaquam factum est, praesente Caeciliano et illis qui adversus eum navigaverant, iudicante Melchiade tunc Romanae urbis episcopo, cum collegis suis quos ad preces Donatistarum miserat Imperator, in Caecilianum nihil probari potuisse, ac per hoc, illo in episcopatu confirmato, Donatum qui adversus eum tunc aderat improbatum. Quibus peractis rebus, cum illi omnes in pertinacia scelestissimi schismatis permanerent, post apud Arelatum memoratum imperatorem eamdem causam diligentius examinandam terminandamque curasse. Illos vero ab ecclesiastico iudicio provocasse, ut causam Constantinus audiret. Quo posteaquam ventum est, utraque parte assistente, innocentem Caecilianum fuisse iudicatum, atque illos recessisse superatos, et in eadem tamen perversitate mansisse. Nec de Felicis Aptungitani causa negligentiam consecutam, sed ad eiusdem principis iussionem proconsularibus Gestis etiam ipsum fuisse purgatum. Secundi, Tigisitani episcopi, perfidia. 2. 5. Sed quia haec omnia dicebamus tantum, non etiam legebamus, minus profecto vobis agere videbamur, quam de nostra exspectabatis instantia. Quod ubi sensimus, ad ea quae legenda promiseramus, non distulimus mittere. Quae omnia, dum excurrimus ad Ecclesiam Gelizitanam, inde ad vestrum oppidum reversuri, bidui non pleni intermissione venerunt, atque ut nostis, quantum tempus admisit, uno die recitata sunt vobis. Primo ubi Secundus Tigisitanus confessos traditores a collegio suo removere non ausus est, cum quibus postea non confessum et absentem Caecilianum aliosque suos collegas damnare ausus est: deinde Gesta proconsularia, ubi Felix diligentissimo examine probatus est innocens. Haec ante meridiem vobis lecta esse meministis. Post meridiem vero recitavimus preces eorum ad Constantinum, datisque ab eo iudicibus Gesta ecclesiastica in Romana urbe habita, quibus illi improbati sunt, Caecilianus autem in episcopali honore firmatus. Postremo Constantini imperatoris litteras, quibus omnia multo maxime testatissima claruerunt. De salute aeterna non de temporalibus bonis agi. 3. 6. Quid vultis amplius, homines; quid vultis amplius? Non de auro et argento vestro agitur; non terra, non praedia, non denique salus corporis vestri in discrimen vocatur: de adipiscenda vita aeterna et fugienda morte aeterna compellamus animas vestras. Expergiscimini aliquando: non in aliqua obscura quaestione versamur, non recondita secreta rimamur, quibus penetrandis vel nulla vel rara humana corda sufficiant; res in aperto est. Quid eminet clarius? quid cernitur citius? Dicimus temerario concilio, quamlibet numerosissimo, innocentes absentesque fuisse damnatos. Probamus hoc proconsularibus Gestis, quibus ab omni traditionis crimine alienus iudicatus est ille, quem maxime criminosum a vestris provata concilii Gesta sonuerunt. Dicimus a traditoribus confessis, in eos qui traditores dicerentur, dictas fuisse sententias. Probamus hoc ecclesiasticis Gestis, ubi nominatim declarantur, in quibus Secundus Tigisitanus ea quae cognovit, velut contuitu pacis ignovit, et cum quibus postea non cognovit, discissa pace damnavit. Unde apparuit eum etiam primo non paci consuluisse, sed sibi timuisse. Obiecerat ei namque Purpurius Limatensis quod etiam ipse, cum detentus esset a curatore et ordine ut Scripturas traderet, dimissus est, utique non frustra, nisi quia tradidit, aut tradi aliquid iussit. Hanc ille suspicionem satis probabilem metuens, accepto consilio a minore Secundo consanguineo suo, consultisque caeteris qui cum eo erant episcopis, manifestissima crimina Deo iudicanda dimisit, atque ita paci prospexisse visus est; quod falsum erat, cum sibi prospexerit. Iniqua Donatistarum iudicia. 3. 7. Nam si in eius corde cogitatio pacis habitaret, non apud Carthaginem postea cum traditoribus, quos praesentes atque confessos Deo dimiserat, damnaret crimine traditionis, quos absentes apud eum nemo convicerat. Tanto magis enim timere debuit ne pax unitatis violaretur, quanto erat Carthago civitas ampla et illustris, unde se per totum Africae corpus malum quod ibi esset exortum, tanquam a vertice effunderet. Erat etiam transmarinis vicina regionibus et fama celeberrima nobilis: unde non mediocris utique auctoritatis habebat episcopum, qui posset non curare conspirantem multitudinem inimicorum, cum se videret et Romanae Ecclesiae, in qua semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus, et caeteris terris, unde Evangelium ad ipsam Africam venit, per communicatorias litteras esse coniunctum, ubi paratus esset causam suam dicere, si adversarii eius ab eo illas Ecclesias alienare conarentur. Quia ergo venire noluit ad hospitium collegarum, quos a suis inimicis contra veritatem suae causae perversos esse sentiebat vel suspicabatur, vel, ut ipsi asserunt, simulabat, tanto magis Secundus, si verae pacis custos esse voluisset, cavere debuit ne damnarentur absentes, qui iudicio eorum omnino interesse noluerunt. Neque enim de presbyteris aut diaconis aut inferioris ordinis clericis, sed de collegis agebatur, qui possent aliorum collegarum iudicio, praesertim apostolicarum Ecclesiarum, causam suam integram reservare; ubi contra eos sententiae dictae in absentes, nullo modo aliquid valerent, quando eorum iudicium non primo aditum postea deseruerunt, sed suspectum semper habitum nunquam adire voluerunt. Cur transmarinorum episcoporum iudicium reiecerint Donatistae. 3. 8. Haec res maxime sollicitare debuit Secundum qui tunc erat primas, si propterea concilium regebat, ut paci consuleret; facile enim fortassis rabida in absentes ora placata vel frenata comprimeret, si diceret: Videtis, fratres, post tantam stragem persecutionis, misericordia Dei a principibus saeculi pacem esse concessam; non debemus nos christiani et episcopi unitatem disrumpere christianam, quam iam paganus non insequitur inimicus. Itaque aut istas omnes causas, quas clades turbulentissimi temporis inflixit Ecclesiae, Deo iudici dimittamus: aut si aliqui in vobis sunt qui certa istorum crimina ita noverint, ut ea facile valeant edocere, negantesque convincere, et talibus communicare formidant, pergant ad fratres et collegas nostros transmarinarum Ecclesiarum episcopos, et ibi prius de istorum factis et contumacia conquerantur, quod ad iudicium collegarum Afrorum male sibi conscii venire noluerunt, ut inde illis denuntietur ut veniant, ibique obiectis respondeant. Quod si non fecerint, ibi etiam eorum pravitas et perversitas innotescet, missaque tractatoria super eorum nomine per totum orbem terrarum, quacumque iam Christi Ecclesia dilatata est, ab omnibus Ecclesiis eorum communio praecidetur, ne aliquis error in Cathedra Ecclesiae Carthaginis oriatur. Tum demum securi episcopum alium plebi Carthaginis ordinabimus, cum a tota Ecclesia isti fuerint separati: ne forte cum alius modo fuerit ordinatus, non ei communicetur ab Ecclesia transmarina, quia iste ab honore depositus non videbitur, quem iam ordinatum fama celebravit, et ad eum commeare communicatorias litteras fecit; atque ita magnum scandalum schismatis in unitate Christi iam pacatis temporibus oriatur, dum praepropere nostras volumus praecipitare sententias, et non contra Caecilianum, sed contra orbem terrarum, qui ei per ignorantiam communicat, altare alterum erigere audeamus. Absurde egisse Donatistas in suo concilio. 3. 9. Huic tam sano rectoque consilio quisquis infrenis obtemperare noluisset, quid esset facturus? aut quomodo aliquem absentium collegarum esset damnaturus, cum in potestate Acta concilii non haberet, contradicente primate? Quod si tanta et adversus primam sedem seditio nasceretur, ut nonnulli damnare iam vellent quos volebat ille differri, quanto melius a talibus inquieta et impacata molientibus, quam a totius orbis communione dissentiretur? Sed quia non erant quae in Caecilianum et ordinatores eius transmarino iudicio probarentur, propterea nec priusquam in eum sententias dicerent, deferre voluerunt nec posteaquam dixerunt, perseveranter id agere ut Ecclesiae transmarinae in notitiam perferretur, quorum traditorum in Africa damnatorum communionem vitare deberet. Quia si id facere tentavissent, adessent sibi Caecilianus et caeteri, et suam causam adversus fallaces criminatores, apud transmarinos ecclesiasticos iudices diligentissima discussione purgarent. Donatistarum conciliabulum. 3. 10. Itaque concilium illud perversum atque nefarium, maxime ut creditur traditorum fuit, quibus confessis Secundus Tigisitanus ignoverat: ut quoniam de traditione fama crebruerat, infamatis aliis a se averterent suspicionem, et cum homines per Africam totam credentes episcopis, falsa de innocentibus loquerentur, quod damnati essent apud Carthaginem traditores, tanquam in nebula mendacissimi rumoris, ipsi qui vere tradiderant latitarent. Unde videtis, carissimi, fieri potuisse, quod verisimile non esse quidam vestrum dicebant, ut qui essent de sua traditione confessi, causamque suam impetravissent Deo dimitti oportere, iidem iudices damnatoresque tanquam traditorum absentium postea consedissent. Magis enim amplexi sunt occasionem, qua possent alios falsa criminatione perfundere, et conversas in eos linguas hominum ab inquisitione criminum suorum hoc modo declinare. Alioquin si fieri non posset ut quisque mala quae ipse committeret, in alio iudicaret, non diceret quibusdam Paulus apostolus: Propterea inexcusabilis es, o homo omnis qui iudicas. In quo enim alium iudicas, temetipsum condemnas; eadem enim agis, quae iudicas 5.Quod illi omnino fecerunt, ut haec verba apostolica integre in eos apteque conveniant. Parte absente iudicare nefas esse. 3. 11. Non ergo tunc Secundus, quando eorum crimina Deo dimisit, paci unitatique consuluit: alioquin magis hoc apud Carthaginem provideret, ne schisma fieret, ubi nullus aderat cui confesso crimen donare cogeretur; sed quod erat facilimum, tota conservatio pacis esset absentes nolle damnare. Itaque iniuriam facerent innocentibus, etiamsi eis non convictis, neque confessis, neque omnino praesentibus ignoscere voluissent. Ille quippe accipit veniam, cuius culpa certissima est. Quanto ergo immaniores et caeciores fuerunt, qui ea se putaverunt posse damnare, quae incognita nec donare potuissent? Sed illic cognita dimissa sunt Deo, ne alia quaererentur: hic incognita damnata sunt, ut illa tegerentur. Sed dicet aliquis: Cognoverunt. Quod etsi concedam, etiam sic absentibus utique parci oportebat. Neque enim iudicium deseruerant, ubi nunquam omnino constiterant; nec in illis solis episcopis Afris erat Ecclesia, ut omne iudicium ecclesiasticum vitasse viderentur, qui se iudicio eorum praesentare noluissent. Millia quippe collegarum transmarina restabant, ubi apparebat eos iudicari posse, qui videbantur Afros vel Numidas collegas habere suspectos. Ubi est enim quod Scriptura clamat: Antequam interroges, ne vituperes quemquam; et cum interrogaveris, corripe iuste 6. Si ergo nec vituperari, nec corripi nisi interrogatum Spiritus Sanctus voluit; quanto sceleratius non vituperati aut correpti, sed omnino damnati sunt, qui de suis criminibus nihil absentes interrogati potuerunt? Felix Aptungitanus inique damnatus. 3. 12. Sed tamen isti, qui licet absentium, et nequaquam iudicium deserentium, quia nunquam affuerunt, et semper sibi cuneum illum suspectum esse declaraverunt, tamen cognita crimina se damnasse dicunt, quaeso vos, fratres mei, quomodo cognoverunt? Respondetis: Nescimus, quandoquidem ipsa cognitio in illis Gestis esplicata non est. Sed ego vobis ostendam quomodo cognoverunt. Attendite causam Felicis Aptungitani, et primo legite quam vehementiores in eum fuerunt. Sic ergo et caeterorum causam noverant, sicut huius qui postea innocentissimus diligenti et terribili inquisitione probatus est. Quanto itaque iustius et tutius et citius innocentes eos existimare debemus, quorum crimina ab istis levius accusata sunt, et parciore reprehensione damnata, quando ille inventus est innocens, in quem multo immanius saevierunt! Saeculari iudicio ecclesiasticas causas minime subiciendas. 4. 13. An forte sicut quidam dixit, quod quidem cum vobis diceretur displicuit, sed tamen praetermittendum non est; ait enim quidam. Non debuit episcopus proconsulari iudicio purgari: quasi vero ipse sibi hoc comparaverit, ac non imperator ita quaeri iusserit, ad cuius curam, de qua rationem Deo redditurus esset, res illa maxime pertinebat. Arbitrum enim et iudicem causae traditionis et schismatis illi eum fecerant, qui ad eum etiam preces miserant, ad quem postea provocarunt; et tamen iudicio eius acquiescere noluerunt. Itaque si culpandus est quem iudex terrenus absolvit, cum ipse sibi hoc non poposcisset; quanto magis culpandi sunt, qui terrenum regem suae causae iudicem esse voluerunt? Si autem criminis non est provocare ad imperatorem, non est criminis audiri ab imperatore: ergo nec ab illo, cui causam delegaverit imperator. Quemdam etiam suspensum equuleo in causa Felicis episcopi amicus ille voluit criminari, ut quis etiam ungulis vexaretur. Numquid poterat Felix contradicere, ne tanta diligente vel severitate quaereretur, cum eius causam inveniendam cognitor agitaret? Quid enim erat aliud nolle sic quaeri, quam de crimine confiteri? Et tamen ille ipse proconsul inter praeconum terribiles voces et cruentas carnificum manus nunquam collegam damnaret absentem, qui iudicio eius se praesentare noluisset, cum haberet aliud quo posset audiri. Aut si damnaret, certe etiam ipsis securalibus legibus poenas iustas et debitas lueret. Inconstans Donatistarum agendi ratio. 5. 14. Quod si Gesta proconsularia displicent, ecclesiasticis cedite. Omnia vobis ordine recitata sunt. An forte non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades episcopus cum collegis transmarinis episcopis illud sibi usurpare iudicium, quod ab Afris septuaginta, ubi primas Tigisitanus praesedit, fuerat terminatum? Quid quod nec ipse usurpavit? Rogatus quippe imperatori iudices misit episcopos qui cum eo sederent, et de tota illa causa quod iustum videretur statuerent. Hoc probamus et Donatistarum precibus, et verbis ipsius imperatoris: utraque enim vobis lecta meministis, et inspiciendi ac describendi licentiam nunc habetis. Legite et considerate omnia. Videte quanta cura pacis atque unitatis conservandae vel restituendae cuncta discussa sint; quemadmodum accusatorum persona tractata, et quorumdam eorum quibus maculis improbata sit, praesentiumque vocibus liquido constiterit, nihil eos habuisse quod in Caecilianum dicerent, sed totam causam in plebem de parte Maiorini, hoc est seditiosam et ab Ecclesiae pace alienatam multitudinem transferre voluisse, ut ab ea videlicet turba Caecilianus accusaretur, quam solis tumultuosis clamoribus, nulla documentorum attestatione, nullo veritatis examine, ad suam voluntatem animos iudicum detorquere posse arbitrabantur; nisi forte furiosa et poculo erroris atque corruptionis ebria multitudo vera in Caecilianum crimina diceret, ubi septuaginta episcopi, sicut de Felice Aptungitano constitit, absentes et innocentes collegas, tam insana temeritate damnarunt. Quali enim turbae illi consenserant, ut adversus innocentes non interrogatos proferrent sententias; a tali turba etiam rursus accusari Caecilianum volebant. Sed plane tales invenerant iudices, quibus illam dementiam persuaderent. Donati perversitas in iudicando. 5. 15. Potestis enim pro vestra prudente, et illorum perversitatem illic attendere, et iudicum gravitatem quemadmodum ad extremum persuaderi non possent, ut a plebe partis Maiorini, quae certam personam non habebat, argueretur Caecilianus; et requisiti ab eis essent vel accusatores vel testes vel quoquomodo causae necessarii, qui simul cum eis ex Africa venerant, et eos praesentes fuisse atque a Donato subtractos esse diceretur. Promisit idem Donatus quod eos esset exhibiturus: quod cum non semel, sed saepius promisisset, amplius ad illud iudicium accedere noluit, ubi iam erat tanta confessus, ut nihil aliud deinceps non accedendo, nisi praesens damnari noluisse videretur; cum tamen ea quae damnanda essent, eo praesente atque interrogato manifestata fuerint. Accessit et aliud, ut a quibusdam adversus Caecilianum denuntiationis libellus daretur: post quod factum quemadmodum sit rursus agitata cognitio, et quae personae illum libellum dederint, quoque modo nihil in Caecilianum probari potuerit, quid dicam, cum et audieritis omnia, et quoties volueritis, legere possitis? Melchiadis iudicium innocens, integrum. 5. 16. De numero autem septuaginta episcoporum, cum quasi gravissima opponeretur auctoritas, quae fuerint dicta meministis; et tamen viri gravissimi ab infinitis quaestionibus catena quadam inexplicabili sese nectentibus suum temperare arbitrium maluerunt, nequaquam curantes quam multi essent illi episcopi, aut unde collecti, quos videbant tanta temeritate caecatos, ut in absentes et non interrogatos collegas, tam praecipites auderent proferre sententias. Et tamen qualis ipsius beati Melchiadis ultima est prolata sententia, quam innocens, quam integra, quam provida atque pacifica, qua neque collegas, in quibus nihil constiterat, de collegio suo ausus est removere, et Donato solo, quem totius mali principem invenerat, maxime culpato, sanitatis recuperandae optionem liberam caeteris fecit, paratus communicatorias litteras mittere etiam iis quos a Maiorino ordinatos esse constaret: ita ut quibuscumque locis duo essent episcopi, quos dissensio geminasset, eum confirmari vellet qui fuisset ordinatus prior, alteri autem eorum plebs alia regenda provideretur. O virum optimum! o filium christianae pacis, et patrem christianae plebis! Conferto nunc istam paucitatem cum illa moltitudine episcoporum, neque numerum numero, sed pondus ponderi comparate: hinc modestiam, inde temeritatem, hinc vigilantiam, inde caecitatem. Hic nec mansuetudo integritatem corrupit, nec integritas mansuetudini repugnavit; ibi autem et furore timor tegebatur, et timore furor incitabatur. Isti enim convenerant cognitione verorum criminum falsa respuere, illi falsorum damnatione vera celare. Donatistae Lucillae pecunia corrupti! 6. 17. Illisne se tandem Caecilianus audiendum iudicandumque committeret, cum haberet tales, apud quos si ei causa moveretur, innocentiam suam facillime ostenderet? Non se illis omnino committeret, nec si peregrinus Ecclesiae Carthaginensis subito episcopus esset ordinatus, et ignoret quid ad corrumpendos animos vel improborum vel imperitorum posset tunc pecuniosissima mulier quaedam Lucilla, quam pro disciplina ecclesiastica corripiendo idem cum esset diaconus laeserat: etiam hoc enim accesserat malum ad illam perficiendam iniquitatem. Nam in illo concilio, ubi a confessis traditoribus absentes atque innocentes damnati sunt, pauci quidam erant, qui crimina sua infamatis aliis tegere cupiebant, ut homines a veritatis inquisitione averterentur falsis rumoribus avocati. Pauci ergo erant, qui hoc negotium maxime curabant, quamvis in eis esset maior auctoritas, propter ipsius Secundi societatem, qui eis pepercerat territus. Caeteri autem Lucillae pecunia maxime adversus Caecilianum empti et instigati perhibentur. Extant Gesta apud Zenophilum consularem, ubi Nundinarius quidam diaconus a Sylvano Cirtensi episcopo, quantum ipsis Gestis intellegitur, degradatus, cum eis satisfacere per aliorum episcoporum litteras frustra conatus esset, multa patefecit iratus, et in iudicium publicum protulit: inter quae id quoque commemoratum legitur, quod Lucillae pecunia corruptis episcopis, in Carthaginensi Ecclesia, in Africae capite, altare contra altare levatum est. Scio quod haec Gesta vobis non legerimus, sed tempus non fuisse meministis. Inerat etiam nonnullus dolor animi de typho superbiae veniens, quod non ipsi ordinaverant Carthagini episcopum. Cur Caecilianus non acquieverit Donatistarum iudicio. 6. 18. Quibus omnibus rebus, cum eos non veros iudices, sed inimicos atque corruptos Caecilianus convenisse cognosceret; quando fieri posset, ut vel ipse vellet, vel populus cui praesidebat permitteret, ut relicta ecclesia iret in domum privatam, non collegarum discutiendus examine, sed factionis cuneo et odiis muliebribus trucidandus? cum sibi praesertim videret apud Ecclesiam transmarinam privatis inimicitiis et ab utraque parte dissensionis alienam, incorruptum et integrum examen suae causae remanere. Ubi si nihil adversarii agere vellent, ipsi se ab orbis terrarum innocentissima communione praeciderent. Si autem illic eum accusare tentassent, tunc sibi adesset, tunc innocentiam suam adversus eorum machinamenta defenderet, sicut postea factum esse didicistis: cum tamen illi nimis sero quaesissent iudicium transmarinum iam schismatis rei, iam levati altaris horrendo scelere maculati. Primo enim facerent si veritate niterentur; sed falsis rumoribus temporis diuturnitate firmatis, quasi vetusta fama praeiudicante ad iudicium venire voluerunt: aut quod magis credendum est, damnato prius, sicut libuit, Caeciliano, quasi securi sibi videbantur praefidentes numero suo, nec audentes alibi commovere causam tam malam, ubi nulla corruptione operante posset veritas inveniri. Cum Caeciliano Ecclesiam universam communicasse. 7. 19. Sed posteaquam ipsis rebus experti sunt cum Caeciliano permanere communionem orbis terrarum, et ad eum a transmarinis Ecclesiis communicatorias litteras mitti, non ad illum quem ipsi scelerate ordinaverant; puduit eos semper tacere, quia posset eis obiici, cur paterentur ignaram per tot gentes Ecclesiam communicare damnatis, et cur se ipsi ab innocentis orbis terrarum communione praeciderent, cum tacendo sinerent episcopo, quem Carthaginensibus ordinassent, a toto orbe non communicari. Elegerunt, sicut dicitur, ad duas agere causam cum Caeciliano apud Ecclesias transmarinas, parati ad utrumque: ut si eum potuissent quacumque versutia falsae criminationis evincere, satiarent plenissime cupiditatem suam; si autem non possent, in eadem quidem perversitate durarent, sed iam tamen quasi haberent quod dicerent, malos iudices se esse perpessos; quae vox est omnium malorum litigatorum, cum fuerint etiam manifestissima veritate superati: quasi non eis ad hoc dici posset et iustissime dici: Ecce putemus illos episcopos, qui Romae iudicarunt, non bonos iudices fuisse; restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae universae concilium, ubi etiam cum ipsis iudicibus causa posset agitari, ut si male iudicasse convicti essent, eorum sententiae solverentur. Quod utrum fecerint, probent: nos enim non factum esse facile probamus, ex eo quod totus orbis non eis communicat: aut si factum est, etiam ibi sunt victi; quod ipsa eorum separatio manifestat. Arelatense concilium. 7. 20. Sed tamen quid postea fecerint, Imperatoris litteris sufficientissime ostenditur. Iudices enim ecclesiasticos tantae auctoritatis episcopos, quorum iudicio et Caeciliani innocentia et eorum improbitas declarata est, non apud alios collegas, sed apud Imperatorem accusare ausi sunt, quod male iudicarent. Dedit ille aliud Arelatense iudicium, aliorum scilicet episcoporum: non quia iam necesse erat, sed eorum perversitatibus cedens, et omnimodo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere. Neque enim ausus est christianus Imperator sic eorum tumultuosas et fallaces querelas suscipere, ut de iudicio episcoporum qui Romae sederant ipse iudicaret; sed alios, ut dixi, episcopos dedit: a quibus tamen illi ad ipsum rursum Imperatorem provocare maluerunt; quia in re illos quemadmodum detestetur, audistis. Atque utinam saltem ipsius iudicio insanissimis animositatibus suis finem posuissent, atque ut eis ipse cessit, ut de illa causa post episcopos iudicaret, a sanctis antistitibus postea veniam petiturus, dum tamen illi quod ulterius dicerent non haberent, si eius sententiae non obtemperarent, ad quem ipsi provocaverunt, sic et illi aliquando cederent veritati. Iussit enim ille ut ei partes ad agendam causam Romam occurrerent. Quo cum Caecilianus nescio qua causa non occurrisset, interpellatus ab eis, praecepit ut Mediolanum sequerentur. Tunc se aliqui eorum subtrahere coeperunt, fortasse indignati quia non est eos imitatus Constantinus, ut iam statim atque velociter Caecilianum damnaret absentem. Quod ubi cognovit providus Imperator, reliquos ab officialibus custoditos fecit Mediolanum pervenire. Quo cum etiam Caecilianus venisset, ipsum quoque, sicut scripsit, exhibuit, cognitaque causa, qua diligentia, qua cautela, qua provisione, sicut eius indicant litterae, Caecilianum innocentissimum, illos improbissimos iudicavit. Donatistae numquam Catholicos calumniari desinunt. 8. 21. Et adhuc baptizant extra ecclesiam, et si possint rebaptizant Ecclesiam; sacrificant in dissensione et schismate, et pacis nomine populos salutant, quos a pace salutis exterminant. Conscinditur unitas Christi, blasphematur haereditas Christi, exsufflatur Baptisma Christi; et nolunt in se ista per ordinarias humanas potestates flagellis temporalibus emendari, ne in aeternas poenas pro tantis sacrilegiis destinentur. Nos eis obiicimus furorem schismatis, rebaptizationis insaniam, ab haereditate Christi quae per omnes gentes diffusa est, nefariam separationem. De codicibus non tantum nostris, sed etiam eorum, recitamus ecclesias quarum nomina hodie legunt, et quibus hodie non communicant: quae cum recitantur in conventiculis eorum, lectoribus suis dicunt: Pax tecum; et cum ipsis plebibus, quibus illae litterae scriptae sunt, pacem non habent. Et ipsi nobis obiiciunt vel falsa crimina mortuorum, vel etiamsi vera, tamen aliena; non intellegentes in iis quae nos eis obiicimus, omnes illos teneri; in iis vero quae nobis obiiciunt, paleam vel zizania messis dominicae reprehendi, ad frumenta autem crimen non pertinere: neque considerantes quia quibus mali placent in unitate, ipsi communicant malis; quibus autem displicent, et eos emendare non possunt, neque ante tempus messis audent zizania eradicare, ne simul eradicent et triticum 7, non factis eorum, sed altari Christi communicant: ita ut non solum non ab eis maculentur, sed etiam divinis verbis laudari praedicarique mereantur; quoniam ne nomen Christi per horribilia schismata blasphemetur, pro bono unitatis tolerant, quod pro bono aequitatis oderunt. Veteras culpas Donatistae Catholicis exprobrant. 8. 22. Si habent aures, audiant quid Spiritus dicat ecclesiis 8. Sic enim in Apocalypsi Ioannis legitur: Angelo, inquit, Ecclesiae Ephesi scribe: Haec dicit qui tenet septem stellas in dextera sua, qui ambulat in medio septem candelabrorum aureorum: Scio opera tua et laborem et patientiam tuam, et quia non potes sustinere malos; et tentasti eos qui se dicunt apostolos esse, et non sunt, et invenisti eos mendaces: et patientiam habes, et sustinuisti eos propter nomen meum, et non defecisti 9. Quod si de angelo superiorum coelorum, et non de praepositis Ecclesiae vellet intellegi, non consequenter diceret: Sed habeo adversum te quod caritatem tuam primam reliquisti. Memor esto itaque unde excideris, et age poenitentiam, et prima opera fac; sin autem, venio tibi et movebo candelabrum tuum de loco suo, nisi poenitentiam egeris 10. Hoc superioribus Angelis dici non potest, qui perpetuam retinent caritatem, unde qui defecerunt et lapsi sunt, diabolus est et angeli eius 11. Ergo primam caritatem dicit, quia sustinuit pseudoapostolos propter nomen Christi, quam iubet ut repetat, et faciat priora opera sua. Et obiiciuntur nobis crimina malorum hominum, non nostra, sed aliena; et ipsa partim incognita quae si etiam vera et praesentia videremus, et zizaniis propter frumenta parcentes, pro unitate toleraremus, non solum nulla reprehensione, sed etiam non parva laude nos dignos diceret, quicumque Scripturas sanctas non corde surdus audiret. Tolerandos in Ecclesia malos Scriptura docet. 8. 23. Tolerat Aaron multitudinem idolum exigentem et fabricantem et adorantem 12. Tolerat Moyses adversus Deum tot millia murmurantia, et toties offendentia sanctum nomen eius 13. Tolerat David Saulem persecutorem suum, sceleratis moribus coelestia deserentem, magicis artibus inferna quaerentem; occisum vindicat, christum etiam Domini propter sacramentum venerandae unctionis appellat 14. Tolerat Samuel nefandos filios Heli, perversosque filios suos, quos populus quia tolerare noluit, divina veritate accusatus, divina severitate correptus est. Tolerat denique ipsum populum superbum contemptorem Dei 15. Tolerat Isaias in quos tam multa vera crimina iaculatur. Tolerat Ieremias a quibus tanta perpetitur. Tolerat Zacharias Pharisaeos et Scribas, quales illo tempore fuisse Scriptura testatur. Scio me multos praetermisisse: legant qui volunt, legant qui possunt eloquia coelestia, invenient omnes sanctos Dei servos et amicos semper habuisse quos in suo populo tolerarent; cum quibus tamen illius temporis sacramenta communicantes, non solum non inquinabantur, sed etiam laudabiliter sustinebant, studentes, sicut ait Apostolus, servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis 16. Attendant etiam post Domini adventum, ubi multo plura huius tolerantiae per totum orbem inveniremus exempla, si omnia scribi et in auctoritatem redigi potuissent, tamen haec ipsa quae habemus advertite. Tolerat ipse Dominus Iudam, diabolum, furem et venditorem suum: sinit accipere inter innocentes discipulos, quod fideles noverunt pretium nostrum. Tolerant Apostoli pseudoapostolos; et inter sua quaerentes non quae Iesu Christi, Paulus non sua quaerens sed quae Iesu Christi, cum gloriosissima tolerantia conversatur. Postremo, quod paulo ante commemoravi, divina voce laudatur sub angeli nomine praepositus Ecclesiae, quod cum odisset malos, eos; tamen tentatos et inventos pro nomine Domini toleravit. Circumcellionum nefaria flagitia. 8. 24. Ad summam seipsos interrogent: Nonne tolerantur ab eis caedes et incendia Circumcellionum, veneratores praecipitatorum ultro cadaverum, et sub incredibilibus mali unius Optati per tot annos totius Africae gemitus? Parco iam dicere singularum per Africam regionum et civitatum et fundorum tyrannicas potestates, et publica latrocinia. Melius enim vobis haec vos ipsi dicitis, sive in aurem, sive palam, sicut libitum fuerit. Quocumque enim oculos verteritis, occurret quod dico, vel potius quod taceo. Neque hinc istos quos ibi diligitis, accusamus. Non enim nobis displicent, quia tolerant malos; sed quia intolerabiliter mali sunt propter schisma, propter altare contra altare, propter separationem ab haereditate Christi toto orbe diffusa, sicut tanto ante promissa est 17. Violatam pacem, conscissam unitatem, iterata baptismata, exsufflata Sacramenta, quae in sceleratis quoque hominibus sancta sunt, plangimus et lugemus. Quae si parvi pendunt, intueantur exempla quibus demonstratum est quanti haec penderit Deus. Qui fecerunt idolum, usitata gladii morte perempti sunt 18: qui vero schisma facere voluerunt, hiatu terrae principes devorati, et turba consentiens igne consumata est 19. Diversitate poenarum, diversitas agnoscitur meritorum. Extra Dei familiam esse qui Christi hereditatem expugnet. 9. 25. Traduntur in persecutione sancti Codices, confitentur traditores, et Deo dimittuntur. Non interrogantur innocentes, et ab hominibus temerariis damnantur. Probatur integer certis iudiciis, qui inter absentes damnatos multo vehementius caeteris criminatus est. Iudicium episcoporum ad Imperatorem appellatur: iudex eligitur Imperator; iudicans contemnitur Imperator. Quae tunc acta sint legistis, quae nunc agantur videtis: si de illis in aliquo dubitatis, ista iam cernite. Certe non chartis veteribus, non archivis publicis, non Gestis forensibus aut ecclesiasticis agamus. Maior liber noster orbis terrarum est; in eo lego completum quod in Libro Dei lego promissum: Dominus, inquit, dixit ad me, Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te: postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, et possessionem tuam terminos terrae 20. Huic haereditati qui non communicat, quoslibet libros teneat, exhaeredatum se esse cognoscat. Hanc haereditatem quisquis expugnat, alienum se esse a familia Dei satis indicat. Certe de traditione divinorum Librorum vertitur quaestio, ubi haereditas ista promissa est. Ille ergo credatur testamentum tradidisse flammis, qui contra voluntatem litigat testatoris. Quid tibi fecit, o pars Donati, quid tibi fecit Ecclesia Corinthiorum? Quod autem de ista dico, de omnibus talibus et tam longe positis intellegi volo. Quid vobis fecerunt, quae nec omnino quid feceritis, nec quos infamaveritis nosse potuerunt? an quia Lucillam Caecilianus in Africa laesit, lucem Christi orbis amisit? Donatistarum concilium a Lucilia conflatum. 9. 26. Tandem sentiant quod fecerunt: merito certo annorum intervallo in oculos eorum revolutum est opus ipsorum. Quaerite per quam feminam Maximianus, qui dicitur esse Donati propinquus, sese a Primiani communione praeciderit, et quemadmodum congregata episcoporum factione, Primianum damnarit absentem, et adversus eum episcopus ordinatus sit; quemadmodum Maiorinus per Lucillam congregata episcoporum factione Caecilianum damnavit absentem, et contra eum episcopus ordinatus est. An forte quod a caeteris Afris suae communionis episcopis contra factionem Maximiani Primianus purgatus est, valere vultis; et quod a transmarinis unitatis episcopis adversus factionem Maiorini Caecilianus purgatus est, valere non vultis? Rogo, fratres mei, quid magnum peto? quid difficile a vobis intellegi cupio? Multum quidem interest, et incomparabiliter distat vel auctoritate vel numero Africana Ecclesia, si cum caeteris orbis partibus conferatur: et longe minor est, etiamsi unitas hic esset, longe omnino minor est comparata caeteris christianis omnibus gentibus, quam pars Maximiani comparata parti Primiani; peto tamen, et iustum esse arbitror, ut tantum valeat concilium Secundi Tigisitani, quod Lucilla conflavit adversus absentem Caecilianum et apostolicas sedes, totumque orbem Caeciliano communicantem, quantum valet concilium Maximianensium, quod similiter femina nescio quae conflavit adversus absentem Primianum, et caeteram per Africam multitudinem Primiano communicantem. Quid apertius cernitur? quid aequius postulatur? "Nemo delet de terra Ecclesiam Dei". 9. 27. Videtis haec omnia, et nostis, et gemitis; et tamen videt et Deus quod vos in tam pestifera et sacrilega praecisione nulla res cogit remanere, si pro adipiscendo spiritali regno carnalem superetis affectum, et amicitias hominum quae in iudicio Dei nihil proderunt, pro devitandis sempiternis poenis non timeatis offendere. Ecce ite, consulite; quid contra haec nostra possint respondere cognoscite: si proferunt chartas, proferimus chartas; si falsas nostras esse dicunt, hoc nos de suis dicere non indignentur. Nemo delet de coelo constitutionem Dei, nemo delet de terra Ecclesiam Dei: ille totum orbem promisit, ista totum orbem replevit; et malos habet et bonos, sed nec in terris amittit nisi malos, nec in coelum admittit nisi bonos. Erit autem vobis hic sermo, quem de munere Dei novit ipse, quanta et pacis et vestra dilectione deprompsimus, correctio si velitis, testis vero etsi nolitis.