One Faith, most honoured brethren, commends us all, who are Christians, to the keeping of Almighty God. To this Faith it appertains to believe that the Son of God, the Lord, shall come to judge the world that He, who has already come, has been born, according to His Human Nature, through Mary a Virgin, that He has suffered, died, and (after having been buried) has risen from the grave.

Also, before ascending to Heaven, whence He had descended, He left behind, through His Apostles, as His parting gift, to all Christians, Peace. And, lest it should seem that to His Apostles only He had left this Peace, He said:

And He also said:

Thus we see that Peace has been given to all Christians.

That it is God's Peace, we know, inasmuch as He says 'My Peace.' But when He says 'I give to you,' we know that He willed that it should belong not only to Himself, but to all those as well who should believe in Him,

If this Peace had remained whole and inviolate as it was given, and had not been disturbed by the authors of the schism, there would not be any disagreement to-day between us and our brethren, nor would they be causing God inconsolable tears (as Isaiah the prophet bears witness), nor would they deserve the name, and do the deeds, of false prophets; nor would they have built a crumbling and whitened wall; nor would they overturn simple but too credulous minds; nor would they, by wickedly imposing hands upon the heads of all, place upon them the veils of destruction; nor would they speak evil things to God; nor would they rebaptise the Faithful; nor should we now be grieving for the souls which they have either destroyed or slain, souls of the innocent, for whom God was the first to grieve, saying by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet:

Lest any one should say, that without thought I call them brethren, I would reply that such they are, for we cannot escape from the words of the prophet Isaiah; and, although they would not deny (as all men know well) that they hold us in abhorrence, and ban us utterly and are unwilling to be called our brethren, still we may not depart from the fear of God, for the Holy Spirit exhorts us by Isaiah the prophet, saying:

They all, each in his own district, make a great noise with wicked words. To some of their statements I may reply when opportunity arises. But we have found only one with whom it is possible to discuss these matters either by correspondence, or by the exchange of treatises, Parmenian our brother, if indeed he will allow us to call him brother. Since they are unwilling to be in communion, as we are, with the whole body of Bishops, let it be freely granted that they are not colleagues, if they refuse so to be, but (as we have already said), brothers they are.

Now, my brother Parmenian, in order that he might not speak like the rest, in a windy and unconvincing manner, has not only given utterance to his opinions in speech, but has also set them down in writing. Since, then, love of truth compels us to answer what he has said, we may still have some sort of conference even though we cannot meet together.

By this means also the wishes of certain people will be satisfied. For many have often expressed a desire for a public discussion between champions drawn from both sides, in order to elicit the truth. And this might well have been done. At any rate, though the Donatists forbid their people to come to us, and close the way to any approach to us, and avoid a meeting, and refuse to speak with us, let there be a conference, my brother Parmenian, between us two in this way, that, as I have not thought little of, nor despised, your treatises, which you have wished to be read and quoted by many, but on the contrary have patiently listened to everything that you have brought forward, so do you, in your turn, attend to the reply which, with humility, I make to you.

For instance, amongst other things which have no reference to us (that they have no such reference I shall prove), you say that we asked for armed troops to be employed against you.

But in other parts of your treatise there are some things which tell in our favour, and against you such are the analogy of the Flood, and that of Circumcision.

Some things there are which tell both for us and for you. For example, what you have written in praise of Baptism (excepting that you have said untrue things concerning the Flesh of Christ) tells in your favour as well as in ours, because, although you are outside, still, from us you went forth.

It would also be in favour of both sides if you had not joined yourselves to those who are certainly schismatics that you have proved that heretics are strangers to Catholic Sacraments. Some things are arguments for us alone. Such is your reference to the One Church. Some things that you have mentioned tell the wrong way for you, in consequence of your ignorance, as a foreigner, [of the facts] for instance, your indictment of 'Betrayers' and schismatics. The way in which you have written concerning the Sacraments and Sacrifice, offered by one who is in sin, also goes against you.

So, when we investigate, we discover that in reality you have brought nothing against us except your mistaken charge, that we asked to have troops employed against you. That this is a calumny we shall be able to prove to absolute demonstration. Take this calumny out of your book, and you are ours.

For what can be more to our purpose than your argument from the fact that there was only one Flood the type of Baptism? And, in maintaining that the one Circumcision availed for the salvation of the people of the Jews, you have written in defence of our doctrine, as though you were one of us. For this is our argument, who defend the Unity of Baptism conferred in [the Name of] the Trinity. It is not an argument in favour of you, who dare to repeat, against the laws, that Baptism, of which the one Flood and one Circumcision are typical. And this, although you yourselves would not deny that what has been commanded to be done once only, ought not to be repeated. But whilst you have praised with acuteness that which is worthy of all praise, you have by a quibble introduced your own persons, as if since it is only lawful once [to baptise] for you it were lawful, for others unlawful.

• If it be unlawful for Betrayers to baptise, it cannot be lawful for you, for we can prove that your first fathers were Betrayers.
• If it be unlawful for schismatics to baptise, it must therefore be unlawful for you, for you originated the Schism.
• If it be unlawful for sinners to baptise, we can prove from divine testimony that you are sinners also.

Finally, since the validity of Baptism does not depend upon the character of the man who has been chosen to baptise, but upon an act which lawfully is done but once, for this reason we do not set right baptisms which have been administered by you, because both amongst us and amongst you the Sacrament is one.

The whole nature of this Sacrament we shall set forth in our fifth book.

My brother Parmenian, you have indeed treated of many things, but I see that I must not answer you point by point, in the same order as that which you have employed. For you have written in the first place of the figures and praise of Baptism. Here (with the exception of your error concerning the Flesh of Christ) you have written well. But this, however, tells in our favour, as we shall show in its proper place.

• Secondly, you have maintained that there is only One Church, from which heretics are shut out. You have, however, been unwilling to recognise where this One Church is to be found.
• Thirdly, you have denounced the 'Betrayers' without fixing names or describing persons.
• Fourthly, you have attacked the makers of Unity.
• Fifthly (to pass over matters of but trifling importance), you have written about the Sacraments and Sacrifice of a sinner.

But it seems to me that in the first place the cities, positions, and names of the Betrayers and schismatics should be pointed out. In this way the true authors of the crimes, concerning which you have written, may be convicted of their certain guilt.

• Secondly, I shall have to say which is the Church, or where is to be found the One Church which is the Church because, besides the One Church, there is no other.
• Thirdly, I shall prove that we did not ask for the troops and that what is said to have been done by the makers of Unity does not concern us.
• In the fourth place, I shall show who is the sinner whose sacrifice God repudiates, or from whose Sacraments we must flee.
• Fifthly, I shall treat of Baptism; and in the sixth place of your ill-considered assumptions and mistakes.

But before I say anything of these subjects separately, I shall show briefly that you have spoken wrongfully of the Flesh of Christ, for you have said that the Flesh which was drowned by the floods of the Jordan, and was thus cleansed from all stains, was the Flesh of Sin. You might have said this with reason if the Baptism of the Flesh of Christ had sufficed for all, so that it were not necessary for any man to be baptised for himself. Had this been so, the whole human family would have been in the Jordan, and all that which is born in the flesh would have been there. In that case there would have been no difference between the Faithful and any one of the heathen, for flesh belongs to them all; and since there is no man who is without flesh, if, according to your mode of expression, the Flesh of Christ was drowned in the waters of the Jordan, the flesh of all men would have gained this benefit. But the Flesh of Christ is one thing in Christ quite another is the flesh of each man in himself.

What came over you to call the Flesh of Christ sinful? Would that you had said 'the flesh of men in the Flesh of Christ.' But even thus, you would have spoken without reason, since each believer is baptised in the Name of Christ, not in the Flesh of Christ, which belonged to Himself exclusively. I may add that His Flesh, which was conceived by the Holy Ghost, could not be washed, amongst others, for the remission of sins, for It was without any sin. You have gone on to say that It was drowned in the floods of the Jordan. This word drowned, you have used inadvisedly enough, for it is a word which should be used only of Pharaoh and his people, who were so drowned by the weight of their offences, as to remain, like lead, beneath the waters. But the Flesh of Christ, when It went down into and came up from the Jordan, ought not to have been spoken of by you as drowned. His Flesh was found to be more holy than the very Jordan, so that rather did It cleanse the water by Its entrance, than Itself was cleansed.

Moreover, I cannot pass over a matter in which I think you have acted craftily. In order that you might lead the minds of your readers off the point, or deceive them, after you had described Circumcision and the Flood, and after you had praised Baptism, you thought fit to raise, as it were from the dead, heretics who were already dead and, together with their heresies, buried in oblivion and this although not only their errors, but even their names, were unknown throughout Africa Marcion, Praxeas, Sabellius, Valentinus, and the rest up to the Cataphrygae, all of whom were confuted in their time by Victorinus of Pettau, by Zephyrinus of Rome, by Tertullian of Carthage, and by other champions of the Catholic Church.

Why, then, do you wage a war with the dead, who have nothing to do with the affairs of our time? For no reason, excepting that you, who are a schismatic of to-day, having nothing that you can prove against Catholics, have been pleased to enumerate so many heretics and their heresies, to spin out your somewhat wordy treatise.

Now there is another question: For what purpose have you mentioned those who have not the Sacraments which you and we alike possess? Sound health does not clamour for medicine; strength which is secure in itself does not need outside help; truth has no lack of arguments; it is the mark of a sick man to seek remedies; it is the sign of a sluggard and a weakling to run in search of auxiliaries; it belongs to a liar to rake up arguments. To return to your book, you have said that the Endowments of the Church cannot be with heretics, and in this you have said rightly, for we know that the churches of each of the heretics have no lawful Sacraments, since they are adulteresses, without the rights of honest wedlock, and are rejected by Christ, who is the Bridegroom of One Church, as strangers. This He Himself makes clear in the Canticle of Canticles. When He praises One, He condemns the others because, besides the One which is the true Catholic Church, the others amongst the heretics are thought to be churches, but are not such. Thus He declares in the Canticle of Canticles (as we have already pointed out) that His Dove is One, and that she is also the chosen Spouse, and again a garden enclosed, and a fountain sealed up.

Therefore none of the heretics possess either the Keys, which Peter alone received, or the Ring, with which we read that the Fountain has been sealed; nor is any heretic one of those to whom that Garden belongs in which God plants His young trees. Concerning these men, that which you have written at length (although it has nothing to do with our present business) is abundantly sufficient.

But to my surprise you have thought good to attach yourselves to those who certainly are schismatics, for in denying the Endowments of the Church both to those who are heretics, and also to schismatics, you have denied them to yourselves.

Amongst other things you have said that schismatics have been cut off, like branches, from the Vine, and that they have been reserved, marked off for punishment, like dried wood, for the fires of Hell.

But I see that you do not yet know that the Schism at Carthage was begun by your fathers. Search out the beginning of these affairs, and you will find that in associating heretics with schismatics, you have pronounced judgement against yourselves.

For it was not Caecilian who went forth from Majorinus, your father's father, but it was Majorinus who deserted Caecilian; nor was it Caecilian who separated himself from the Chair of Peter, or from the Chair of Cyprian but Majorinus, on whose Chair you sit a Chair which had no existence before Majorinus himself. Since then there can be no possible doubt that these things have thus happened, and that you are the heirs of Betrayers and schismatics, I am, my brother Parmenian, sufficiently surprised seeing that you are yourself a schismatic that you should have thought it advisable to join schismatics to heretics. If, however, these are your principles, and you wish to do so, heap up together what you have laid down only a little before. For you have said that 'It could not be that one who was stained should wash away sins in a baptism-that-is-not-Baptism, that one who is unclean should cleanse, that one who trips men up should raise them, that one who is lost should free, that one who is guilty should give pardon, that one who has been condemned should absolve.'

All these things might well be true of heretics alone, since they have falsified the creed, for amongst them one has said that there are two Gods, though God is One; another wishes the Father to be recognised in the Person of the Son ; another robs the Son of God of His Flesh, through which the world has been reconciled to God, and there are yet others of the same kind, who admittedly are separated from Catholic Sacraments. Wherefore you should regret that you have coupled schismatics with such men as these, for, when you thought that you were attacking others, you failed to observe how wide is the gulf between schismatics and heretics, and turned the sword of judgement upon yourself.

This is the reason that you do not see which is the Holy Church, and have in this way made confusion of everything.

Catholicism is constituted by a simple and true understanding in the law, by an unique and most true mystery, and by unity of minds. But schism, after the bond of peace has been broken, is brought into existence through passion, is nourished by hatred, is strengthened by envy and dissensions, so that the Catholic Mother is abandoned, whilst her unfilial children go forth outside and separate themselves (as you have done) from the root of Mother Church cut off by the shears of their hatred and wickedly depart in rebellion. They are not able, however, to do anything new, or different from that which long ago they learned from their Mother.

But heretics, exiles from the truth, deserters of the sound and most true Creed, corrupted by their wicked opinions and led astray from the bosom of Holy Church, reckoning nothing of their noble birth, in order to deceive the ignorant and ill-informed, have been pleased to be born of themselves. And they, who for a long time had been nourished on living food which not assimilated has turned to corruption have by impious disputations vomited forth deadly poisons, to the destruction of their wretched dupes.

You see, then, my brother Parmenian, that none but heretics only who are cut off from the home of truth possess 'various kinds of false Baptisms with which he, who is stained, cannot wash, nor the unclean cleanse, nor the destroyer raise, nor he, who is lost, free, nor the guilty man give pardon, nor the condemned man absolve.'

Rightly hast thou closed the Garden to heretics; rightly hast thou claimed the Keys for Peter; rightly hast thou denied the right of cultivating the young trees to those who are certainly shut out from the garden and from the paradise of God; rightly hast thou withdrawn the Ring from those to whom it is not allowed to open the Fountain. But to you schismatics, although you are not in the Catholic Church, these things cannot be denied, since you have shared true Sacraments with us.

Wherefore, since all these things are justly denied to heretics, why did you think well to deny them to yourselves as well, who clearly are schismatics, for you have gone outside? For our part we were willing that in this matter heretics alone should be condemned, but so far as lies with you, you have chosen to strike yourselves, together with them, in one condemnation.

But now (to return to the order upon which we have determined), in the first place listen to the names of those who were Betrayers and learn more distinctly who were the originators of the schism. It is certain that two evil things have been perpetrated in Africa even the worst of all the first Betrayal, the second Schism. Both these crimes were committed, in one period of time, by the same wicked men.

You ought, therefore, my brother Parmenian, to learn that of which you are understood to be ignorant; for sixty years and more have passed since the storm of persecution spread abroad throughout the whole of Africa a persecution which made some Martyrs, others Confessors, whilst not a few it laid low in a terrible death, leaving unharmed those who lay in hiding.

Why should I make mention of laymen who at that time were supported by no ecclesiastical dignity? Why name a host of clerics ? Or deacons in the third, or priests in the second degree of the sacerdotium, when the heads and chiefs of all, some Bishops of that period, in order to purchase for themselves, at the loss of Life Eternal, some very short prolongation of this uncertain day, impiously betrayed the records of the law of God? Amongst whom were Donatus of Mascula, Victor of Rusicca, Merinus from the Baths of Tibilis, Donatus of Calama, and Purpurius of Limata, the murderer who, when he was questioned on the charge of having killed his sister's sons in the prison of Mileum, confessed it with the words: 'Yes, I did kill them, and not them alone do I kill, but whoever shall act against me.' And Menalius who pretended that he had a pain in his eyes, and trembled at the idea of meeting his own people, for fear lest it should be proved against him by his fellow-citizens that he had offered incense to idols.

After the persecution, these Bishops and others whom we shall soon show to have been the first leaders of your schism, gathered together on the thirteenth of May at the town of Cirta in the house of Urbanus Carisius for the Basilicas had not yet been restored. This is attested by the writings of Nundinarius, then a deacon, and is proved by the age of the parchments, which I can show to anyone really in doubt, for in the Appendix to these books I have subjoined the whole number of these documents to certify the truth of my statements.

These Bishops, on being questioned by Secundus of Tigisis, acknowledged that they had been Betrayers. And, as Secundus himself was taunted by Purpurius not for having escaped, but for having been set free after he had remained for a long time amongst the soldiers, they all stood up and began to mutter that he had been set free only because he betrayed the sacred books. Then Secundus, fearing their temper, received advice from his brother's son, Secundus the Less, to remit an affair of this character to God.

The others, who had not been accused, that is to say, Victor of Garba, Felix of Rotarium and Nabor of Centurio, were then consulted. They said that a case of this kind ought to be reserved to the Lord. Then said Secundus 'Sit down all.' They all replied 'Thanks be to God,' and sat down. You see, therefore, my brother Parmenian, that it is quite clear who were the Betrayers.

It was not long after this, that these very persons whom I have mentioned, of the character I have described, Betrayers, men who had offered incense to idols, and murderers, proceeded to Carthage, and there, although Caecilian was already the Bishop, made the Schism by consecrating Majorinus on whose Chair, Parmenian, you sit. And since I have shown, that men who were guilty of Betrayal were your first fathers, it follows that Betrayers were also the originators of your Schism.

In order to make this matter clear and beyond doubt to all, we shall have to prove from what root the branches of error have stretched themselves forth to the present day, and from what fountain this your rivulet of noxious water, creeping stealthily along, has flowed down even to our times. We shall have to point out whence, and where, and from whom this evil of schism has arisen; what were the causes which met together to produce it; who were the persons who effected it; who were the authors of this wicked thing; who fostered it; by whom appeal was made to the Emperor, that he should judge between the parties; who were they that sat in judgement; where the Council was held; what were its decrees.

The question is about a Division. Now in Africa, as in other parts of the world, the Church was One, before it was divided by those who consecrated Majorinus whose Chair you have inherited, and now occupy. We shall have to see who has remained in the root, with the whole world; who went forth; who sits on a second chair, which had no existence before the Schism; who has raised altar against altar; who has consecrated a Bishop when another was in undisturbed possession; who it is that lies under the judgement of John, the Apostle, when he declared that many Anti-Christs should go forth without,

Therefore, he who was unwilling to remain with his brethren in unity has followed the heretics, and gone forth without, as an Anti-Christ.

No one is unaware that the Schism, after the consecration of Caecilian, was effected at Carthage through a certain mischief-making woman named Lucilla. When the Church was still in tranquillity, before her Peace had been disturbed by the storms of persecution, this woman could not put up with the rebuke which she received from the archdeacon Caecilian. It was said that she kissed a bone of some martyr or other if he was a martyr before she received the spiritual Food and Drink. Having then been corrected for thus touching before she touched the Sacred Chalice the bone of a dead man (if he was a martyr, at least he had not yet been acknowledged as such ), she went away in confusion, full of wrath. This was the woman upon whom, whilst she was angry and afraid that she might fall under the discipline of the Church, on a sudden, the storm of persecution broke.

It was at this time also that a deacon called Felix who had been summoned before the tribunals on account of a much spoken-of letter which he had written concerning the usurping Emperor, fearing his danger, is said to have lain hidden in the house of Bishop Mensurius. When Mensurius publicly refused to give him up, an account of the matter was despatched. A rescript came back that unless Mensurius would surrender the deacon Felix, he should be himself sent to the palace. On receiving this summons he found himself in no small difficulty, for the Church possessed very many gold and silver ornaments, which he could neither hide under ground, nor take away with him. So he confided them to the care of some of the seniors, whom he believed to be worthy of trust, not, however, before he had made an inventory, which he is said to have given to a certain old woman. He charged her, that, when peace was restored to Christians, she should hand this over, if he himself did not return home, to whomsoever she found sitting on the Bishop's Chair. He went away and pleaded his cause; he was commanded to return, but was not able to reach Carthage.

The storm of persecution passed over, and subsided. By the disposition of God, Maxentius sent pardon, and liberty was restored to Christians. Botrus and Celestius so it is said wishing to be consecrated Bishops at Carthage, arranged that, without inviting the Numidians, only the neighbouring bishops should be asked to perform the ceremony at Carthage. Then, by the vote of the whole people, Caecilian was chosen, and was consecrated Bishop, Felix of Autumna laying his hand upon him. Botrus and Celestius were disappointed of their hope. The inventory of the gold and silver, as had been ordered by Mensurius, was handed over, in the presence of witnesses, to Caecilian, who was now in possession of the See. The above-mentioned seniors were summoned; but they had swallowed up in the jaws of their avarice, as booty, that which had been entrusted to their keeping. When they were commanded to make restitution, they withdrew from communion with Caecilian. The ambitious intriguers, who had failed to obtain their consecration, did likewise. Lucilla, too, that influential, mischief-making woman, who had before been unwilling to brook discipline, together with all her retainers, separated herself from her Bishop. Thus wickedness produced its effect through the meeting together of three different causes and sets of persons.

In this way it came to pass, that at that time the Schism was brought to birth by the anger of a disgraced woman, was fed by ambition, and received its strength from avarice.

It was by these three that the accusations were concocted against Caecilian, so that his Consecration might be declared void. They sent to Secundus of Tigisis to come to Carthage, whither the Betrayers, of whom we have already made mention, proceeded. They received hospitality not from Catholics, at whose request Caecilian had been consecrated but from the avaricious, from the ambitious, from those who had been unable to govern their tempers. Not one of them went to the Basilica, where all the people of Carthage had assembled with Caecilian. Then Caecilian demanded:

Nothing could at that time be got up against him by all these enemies of his; they imagined, however, that he might be blackened by his Consecrator being falsely alleged to have been a Betrayer. So Caecilian gave a second demand that, since so they thought Felix had bestowed nothing upon him, they should themselves ordain him, as if he were still a deacon.

Then Purpurius, relying upon his usual ribaldry, thus spoke, as though Caecilian had been his sister's son:

When the bearing of all this was seen, the whole Church [of Carthage] retained Caecilian, in order not to hand itself over to murderers.

The alternatives were, either that he should be expelled from his See as guilty, or that the Faithful should communicate with him as innocent.

The church was crowded with people; Caecilian was sitting in his episcopal Chair; the altar was set up in its own place that very altar upon which Bishops acknowledged by all had in past times offered sacrifice Cyprian, Carpophorius, Lucian and the rest.

In this manner they went forth, and altar was raised against altar; and there was an unlawful consecration; and Majorinus, who had been lector when Caecilian was archdeacon Majorinus, a member of the household of Lucilla at her instigation, and through her bribes was consecrated Bishop by Betrayers, who in the Numidian Council had (as we have already said) acknowledged their crimes and granted pardon to one another. It is, therefore, clear that both the Betrayers who consecrated, and Majorinus who was consecrated, went forth from the Church.

Meanwhile, out of the fountain of their own crimes, which had gushed forth amongst them in channels of many kinds of wickedness, they thought that a single one that of Betrayal might be spared with which to calumniate the consecrator of Caecilian. For, since, as they foresaw, slander would not be able to occupy herself at the same time with two charges of a similar nature, they endeavoured to blacken the life of another man, that by this means they might consign their own crimes to silence. And, through fear that they should themselves be convicted by the innocent, they strove to convict the innocent instead. To this end they distributed on all sides a letter, inspired by their hatred. (This letter we have placed, together with the other Acts, in the Appendix.)

As they were still at Carthage, they sent their letters before them, that by untruthful reports they might plant their falsehood in the ears of all. Rumour spread the lie broadcast amongst the people. Thus, whilst these calumnies were noised abroad about one man only, their own most certain crimes were hidden away in silence.

It often comes to pass that sin is blushed for, but at that period there was no one for whom to blush, since, with the exception of a few Catholics, all had sinned, so the wickedness which had been committed by many wore the cloak of innocence. The shame of Betrayal, which admittedly had been committed by Donatus of Mascula and the others whom we have mentioned, seemed but of small account. To this Betrayal they added the enormous wickedness of schism.

Therefore, my brother Parmenian, you see these two accusations so evil, so terrible of Betrayal and Schism proved against your chiefs. Acknowledge, though late, that you, in attacking others, have fallen upon your own people. And whilst it is certain that those who went before you worked this second abomination, you too strive to follow them in their sin-stained footsteps, so that you also have been doing for long, and are even now doing, that of which your Fathers were guilty in the beginning of the Schism. They in their day broke peace; you now banish unity. It can be said with reason of your Fathers as well as of yourselves, that, if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the ditch. A raging malice blinded your Fathers' eyes; envy has robbed yours of sight. Even you will not by any means be able to deny that schism is the supreme evil.

Yet, without fear, you have imitated Dathan, Abiram and Koran, your shameless teachers, and you have been unwilling to keep before your eyes the fact that God has both forbidden this wickedness, and gravely punished it when it has been committed. Moreover, remember that the way in which sins are either forgiven or punished shows that there are degrees of guilt.

Now, by the Commandments of God, three things are, amongst others, forbidden by Him. Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not go after strange gods, and summing up the commands, thou shalt not commit schism.

Let us see concerning these three, what should be punished, and what it may be lawful to pardon.

Murder of kith is the chief sin. Nevertheless, God did not strike Cain dead in his guilt, but declared that He would punish any man who might be his murderer. In the city of Nineve one hundred and twenty thousand inhabitants sacrilegiously followed after strange gods, but when, by the preaching of Jonah the prophet, God had declared His anger, a short period of fasting, together with prayer, obtained their pardon. Let us see whether any such forgiveness was granted to those who first of all ventured to divide the people of God.

God had placed over so many thousands of children of Israel, from whose necks His Divine Providence had cast away the yoke of servitude, one Priest, holy Aaron. But his ministers, coveting and lawlessly usurping a priesthood to which they had no right, and leading astray a part of the people, imitated the sacred rites, and placed more than two hundred of their followers (who were to perish with them) censers in their hands before the people whom they had led astray. God, to whom schism is displeasing, could not see this and let it pass; they had, after a certain fashion, declared war against God, as if there were a second God, who would accept a second sacrifice. Therefore God was wrathful with a mighty wrath, on account of the schism which had been made, and what He had not done in punishment of the sacrilegious and the fratricide, that He did do in punishment of schismatics. The army of ministers stood in array, and the sacrilegious host that (together with its forbidden sacrifices) was to perish in an instant. The opportunity for penance was denied them and withdrawn, for this was not the kind of sin that should deserve pardon. The earth was commanded to hunger after its food. Forthwith it opened its jaws for those who had divided the people, and with eager mouth swallowed them up that had despised the commandments of God. Within the space of one moment the earth opened to devour them, seized her victims, was shut once again, and, so that they might not appear to reap any benefit from the suddenness of their death, it was not allowed these men who were unworthy to live even to die. Of a sudden they were shut in the prison of Hell, and were buried there before they died.

And yet you wonder that something of similar severity has been done against you you who either cause or approve schism, although you see here what they, who compassed the first schism, deserved to suffer! Or is it because punishment of this kind has now ceased, that on this account you claim innocence for yourself and for your party? In each of these occurrences, God has set forth a model by examples of the punishment that will come to their imitators. The first sins He has put an end to with punishment, as an example for all time. The sins that come after He will reserve for His Judgement. What have you to say to this, you, who having usurped the name of the Church, both secretly foster and without shame defend the schism?

I hear that some of your party, in their love of disputation, produce documents. But we have to ask which of these are worthy of trust, which are in accordance with reason, which agree with the truth? It may be that your documents if indeed you have any will be found to be stained with falsehoods. Our documents are proved to be true by the rival arguments and pleadings of the parties, by the final judgements, and by the letters of Constantine.

With regard to that which you ask of us:

If it be a crime to be acquainted with kings, the whole of the odium falls upon you, for your fathers Lucianus, Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Fidentius and the rest, when the Emperor Constantine was still without any knowledge of these affairs, addressed a petition to him, of which I will transcribe a copy:

After having read this letter, Constantine replied with much anger. And in his rescript he testified to the matter of their petition in the words:

Nevertheless, he granted them judges Maternus from the city of Cologne, Reticius from the city of Autun, Marinus of Aries. These three Bishops from Gaul and fifteen others, who were Italians, arrived in Rome. They met in the House of Fausta on the Lateran, on the second of October which was a Friday, in the year when Constantine for the fourth, and Licinius for the third time, were Consuls.

There were present Miltiades, Bishop of the city of Rome, and Reticius, Maternus and Marinus, Bishops from Gaul, and Merocles of Milan, Florianus of Sinna, Zoticus of Quintianum, Stennius of Ariminum, Felix from Florence of the Tuscans, Gaudentius of Pisa, Constantius of Faenza, Proterius of Capua, Theophilus of Beneventum, Sabinus of Terracina, Secundus of Preneste, Felix of the Three Taverns, Maximus of Ostium, Evandrus of Ursinum and Donatianus of Criolo.

When these nineteen Bishops had taken their seats together, the case of Donatus and that of Caecilian were brought forward. This judgement was passed against Donatus by each of the Bishops that he acknowledged having both rebaptised, and laid his hand in Penance upon Bishops who had fallen away a thing foreign to the Church. Donatus brought forth his witnesses; they admitted that they had nothing of which they could accuse Caecilian. Caecilian was pronounced innocent by the sentence of all the above-named Bishops; also by the sentence of Miltiades, by which the matter was closed, and judgement pronounced in these words:

It is, therefore, sufficient, that Donatus was condemned by the verdict of so many Bishops, and that Caecilian was cleared by the judgement of so great an authority. Yet Donatus thought well to appeal. To this appeal the Emperor Constantine replied in these words:

At the same time Donatus also asked that he might be allowed to return, and promised that he would not go to Carthage. Then it was suggested to the Emperor by Filuminus his advocate, that, for peace' sake, Caecilian should be detained at Brescia and so it was done. Then two Bishops were sent to Africa, Eunomius and Olimpius, to do away with the dual Bishops and establish a single one. They came, and remained at Carthage forty days, that they might declare where was the Catholic Church. The seditious party of Donatus could not endure this, and every day noisy uproars were made through party spirit.

Eventually these Bishops, Eunomius and Olimpius, delivered their final decree to the effect that the Catholic Church was that which was dispersed all over the world, and that the Judgement of the nineteen Bishops which had already been delivered could not be upset. Accordingly they communicated with the clergy of Caecilian, and went their way. All this we can prove from the written Acts which any who please may read in our Appendix. When these things had taken place, Donatus was the first to return to Carthage, unasked. Caecilian, on hearing this news, hastened back to his own people. In this way the schism was planted anew. But the fact remains that so many Bishops had by their Judgement condemned Donatus, and had also pronounced the innocence of Caecilian.

But since two persons on the Catholic side had been for some time accused in this matter the consecrated and the Consecrator even after the consecrated had been acquitted at Rome, it still remained for the Consecrator to be declared guiltless. Then Constantine wrote to Aelianus, the pro-consul, to lay aside his public duties and make public inquiry into the life of Felix of Autumna.

The appointed officer took his seat. The witnesses were Claudius Saturianus, a state commissioner, who had been in the city of Felix all through the time of the persecution, and had been a commissioner when he was impeached, Callidius Gratianus and Alfius Caecilianus the magistrate; also Superius the Warder was summoned, and Ingentius the public notary, who was in constant fear of the torture with which he was threatened. By the evidence of all it was ascertained that there was nothing that could disgrace the life of Felix the Bishop.

The Volume of Acts is in existence in which are recorded the names of those who had been present at the trial, Claudius Saturianus the official, and Caecilianus the Magistrate, and Superius the Warder, and Ingentius the Notary, and Solon a public official of the time. After they had given their replies, the above-mentioned pro-consul gave his Judgement, of which this is a part:

And so he left the court, cleared of every stain upon his reputation and wonderfully praised. Up to that time men did not know what to think of him, and he had walked under a dark cloud, caused by the breath of hatred and jealousy, whilst truth lay hid. And besides, every document, mentioned either in the Acts or in the letters which we have mentioned or read, was disclosed.

You see, my brother Parmenian, that you have assaulted Catholics to no purpose falsely nicknaming them Betrayers, changing the names of those who were concerned, and transferring their deeds. You have shut your eyes, that you might not recognise the guilt of your fathers; you have opened them to cast accusations upon the innocent and blameless. You have stated everything according to what is opportune, nothing according to what is true; so that it was of you that the most Blessed Apostle Paul said:

We have just now proved that your fathers were Betrayers and schismatics; yet you, who are their heir, have not wished to spare either schismatics or Betrayers, so that by the proofs which we have alleged, all the darts which you mistakenly wished to hurl against others have glanced back warded off by the shield of truth to strike your fathers. Everything, then, which you have been able to say against Betrayers and schismatics, belongs to yourselves, for we have nothing to do with any of it, we who both remain in the Root, and are joined, with all, in the whole [Catholic] world.

Optatus opens Book II by going straight to the question the whole controversy turns on: not whether a church calling itself Catholic exists, but which of the two rival African communions actually deserves that name. He argues that the word itself settles more than Parmenian allowed, since "catholic" means spread through the whole world, and a body confined to one province of Africa cannot claim it, however sincere its members.

Optatus fixes the search for the true Church on one visible, checkable landmark: the Chair of Peter at Rome. Because Peter received a commission from Christ that the other apostles shared but did not individually hold in the same founding way, Optatus argues that visible communion with Peter's successor is not an optional courtesy but part of what makes a church Catholic at all.

To make this claim concrete rather than merely rhetorical, Optatus supplies a list of the bishops of Rome in unbroken order from Peter down to his own contemporary, Pope Siricius. He treats the sheer existence of this continuous, checkable line as evidence in itself: a schism, by definition, cannot produce a comparable list, because it has no history before its own founding quarrel.

Optatus turns the Donatists' own conduct against them, noting that they had gone so far as to install a rival bishop of their own in Rome. He reads this as a telling admission: even the Donatists seem to have sensed that a claim to Rome mattered, yet their attempt collapsed for want of any real succession standing behind it.

Returning briefly to history, Optatus argues that the men who began the Donatist movement showed themselves, by their conduct at Carthage and Cirta, to be enemies of the very peace Christ had commanded in Book I, more invested in faction than in the unity they now claimed to defend.

Optatus takes up Parmenian's own criterion of a "rightly sent" bishop and argues that only a bishop consecrated within, and remaining in communion with, the unbroken succession he has just described can meet it, a description that fits Caecilian's line rather than Majorinus's.

He argues that the Holy Spirit's activity in baptism, another of Parmenian's own marks of the true Church, cannot be claimed by a body that broke fellowship with the wider Church, since the Spirit works through the sacrament within the unity Christ established, not in separation from it.

Optatus works through the remaining images Parmenian had used to describe the true Church, the sealed fountain, the sealed garden, the altar of sacrifice, arguing that each, properly understood, points toward unity with the universal Church rather than toward any local or separatist claim to purity.

Optatus closes the book by resolving an apparent tension: Scripture calls the Church a paradise, an enclosed garden, and yet also insists she belongs to the whole world. He argues that her enclosure is doctrinal and sacramental rather than geographic, so that a Church spread through every nation can still be the single garden described in the Song of Songs.

Optatus opens his account of the Macarian affair by arguing that whatever harsh measures were later used against the Donatists in 347 were provoked by the Donatists' own conduct, not inflicted on a peaceable and innocent community.

He argues that what happened should be understood as just correction for schism rather than persecution of the innocent, drawing a sharp line between suffering for truth's sake and suffering the consequences of one's own wrongdoing.

Optatus examines the character of Donatus himself, portraying him as driven more by pride and personal ambition than by the principled convictions later Donatist tradition claimed for him.

He recounts instances in which Donatists, on his telling, turned to violence not only against Catholics but against dissenters within their own ranks, arguing this undercuts any claim to represent a uniquely pure and peaceable community.

Optatus defends the conduct of the imperial officials sent to restore unity in Africa, arguing that force was used only as a last resort, after persuasion and negotiation had repeatedly failed.

He directly disputes the Donatist claim that those killed during Macarius's campaign deserved to be honored as martyrs, arguing that true martyrdom requires suffering for a righteous cause, not for the sake of maintaining a schism Optatus regards as unjustified.

Optatus answers specific charges leveled against the imperial commissioner Macarius personally, attempting to distinguish his official mandate to restore unity from the abuses that Donatist accounts attributed to him.

He argues at length that neither label fits the facts as he understands them: not "persecutor" for Macarius, and not "martyr" for those who died resisting him, since in Optatus's judgment the cause for which they suffered was not a righteous one.

Optatus makes the broader case that some decisive intervention was needed to end decades of division in the African church, arguing that the cost of continued schism outweighed the cost of the measures eventually used to end it.

He returns to prophetic Scripture, reading passages from Ezekiel as evidence that God's own dealings with a divided and unfaithful people have sometimes included severe correction, offering this as a scriptural frame for the events of 347.

Optatus closes the book by arguing that the account of these events circulated among Donatist followers misrepresents what actually happened, and that a fair reading of the record shows their leadership to have misled their own people about it.

Optatus resumes his line-by-line engagement with Parmenian's book, taking up charges left unanswered in the earlier volumes and working through them in the order Parmenian originally raised them.

He returns to the theme first sounded in Book I, insisting that the Donatists remain brethren to Catholics whatever the depth of their disagreement, sharing the same God and the same adoption as sons even while divided over discipline and unity.

Optatus argues from the parables of the wheat and the tares, and of the net drawing in fish both good and bad, that Scripture itself pictures the Church as a mixed body, holding the righteous and the sinful together until the final judgment separates them. On this reading, the mere presence of sinners in the Church's ranks cannot by itself disprove her holiness, since her holiness rests on Christ rather than on the unbroken purity of her members.

He works through several of the specific biblical passages Parmenian had leaned on to support a stricter, purity-based picture of the Church, arguing in each case that the text does not support the conclusion Parmenian drew from it.

Optatus closes the book by returning to the bond he will not let go of: whatever divides Catholics and Donatists in practice and discipline, both sides share the same adoption as sons of God, a kinship Optatus argues neither side is free to simply declare void.

Optatus opens by turning Parmenian's own earlier praise of baptism, from Book I, against the practice of rebaptism, arguing that Parmenian's own account of baptism's dignity, tied as it is to the single Flood and the single circumcision, already commits him to the position that true baptism can only ever be given once.

He lays out the central claim of the book: baptism is effective because the Holy Trinity acts within it, in whose name it is conferred, not because the human minister performing the rite happens to be personally worthy.

Optatus draws the practical conclusion from the previous chapter: since it is God who baptizes, a baptism validly given in the name of the Trinity can never be repeated, whatever later becomes of the minister who conferred it.

He develops the same point further, arguing that the cleansing power of baptism belongs to God alone, so that a minister's later sin or unworthiness cannot retroactively strip the sacrament of its effect on the person who received it in good faith.

Optatus considers the timing and purpose of Christ's institution of Christian baptism, distinguishing it from earlier ritual washings and situating it as the beginning of the one baptism the Church has practiced ever since.

He takes on a maxim used to justify rebaptism, that an unworthy or sinful minister cannot pass on a holiness he himself lacks, and answers that the minister is not the source of the grace at all, only its instrument, so the maxim misunderstands what is actually happening in the sacrament.

Optatus restates and reinforces this instrumental view of the minister's role, comparing the minister to a channel through which a gift passes rather than to the source of the gift itself.

He turns briefly to the disposition of the person being baptized, considering what role the recipient's own faith plays alongside the objective action of God in the sacrament.

Optatus takes up Parmenian's use of the healing of Naaman, who washed in the Jordan at the prophet Elisha's direction, and argues that the episode does not support the case for rebaptism that Parmenian tried to build on it.

He examines Parmenian's use of the parable of the wedding feast and the guest without a wedding garment, arguing that Parmenian misapplied the parable's meaning to defend the practice of rebaptism.

Optatus closes the book with an argument from the Donatists' own behavior, noting that they did not rebaptize the dead who had received Catholic baptism before dying, and asking why, if that baptism were truly invalid, the same inconsistency should not trouble them regarding the living as well.

Optatus opens with a direct, documentary account of specific acts of violence against Catholic churches, describing altars scraped down or broken apart by Donatist bands, and treating these acts as a matter of public record rather than rumor.

He extends the account to the sacred vessels themselves, describing chalices broken and their metal sold off, and presses the point that these were not incidental casualties of conflict but deliberate acts against objects set apart for the Eucharist.

Optatus takes up the justification he says the Donatists offered for this destruction, that Catholic altars and vessels had been rendered impure by use in what the Donatists considered an invalid communion, and argues that this reasoning simply restates the same error about sacraments and personal worthiness that Book V had already answered regarding baptism.

He broadens the account of Donatist violence to include mistreatment of consecrated virgins and other individuals set apart for the Church's service, presenting these episodes as further evidence of a pattern rather than isolated incidents.

Optatus closes by returning to first principles, arguing that an altar's holiness comes from what is offered upon it and from Christ's own institution, not from the personal state of whoever happens to stand before it, extending to the Eucharist the same logic he applied to baptism in the previous book.

Writing decades after the first six books, Optatus opens on a pastoral note: the Donatists of his own day, he argues, can be welcomed back into Catholic communion far more readily than the original traditores ever could have been, since guilt for the founding betrayal does not simply pass down a family or a movement forever.

He returns to the image of the Church as a mixed field, drawing again on the parable of the wheat and the tares, and argues that saints and sinners are meant to be borne together within her until the Day of Judgment separates them, rather than sorted out by human hands beforehand.

Optatus appeals to the example of Peter himself, who denied Christ three times and was still restored to full apostleship afterward, holding this up as proof that failure, even grave failure, need not be the final word, and suggesting the Donatists might have sought pardon on the same grounds rather than persisting in division.

He draws on a passage from Ecclesiastes to reinforce his case for reconciliation, applying its reflections on human frailty and the passage of time to the Donatists' own situation as a movement now generations removed from the dispute that began it.

Optatus ends the whole work with a final scriptural comparison and a direct appeal: that the descendants of the men named as traditores back in Book I might now, for the sake of unity, be welcomed home, closing seven books of argument not with triumph but with an offer of peace.