Letters 44.1–46.1

Fortunius, whom you have as bishop at Thubursicum, we found, as we passed through that city in great haste on our way to the church of Cirta, to be exactly as you are accustomed to describe him so kindly. For when we reported to him that very conversation of yours about him, wishing to see him, he did not refuse. So we came to him, because it seemed that out of respect for his age we ought to pay him this courtesy rather than demand that he come to us first. We went, then, accompanied by not a few who happened to have joined us at the time. When we had sat down with him, as the rumour spread, a considerable crowd besides flocked together. But in that whole multitude very few appeared who wished the case to be handled usefully and wholesomely, and so great a question on so great a matter to be discussed prudently and piously. The rest had come together more for the spectacle of a kind of contest between us, almost as at a theatre, than for instruction in salvation with Christian devotion. So they could neither give us silence nor talk with us attentively, or even with moderation and order, except, as I said, a few, whose intention appeared religious and sincere. And so everything was thrown into confusion by the din of people talking freely and immoderately as each one's feeling moved him; nor could either we or he, by asking and sometimes even scolding, prevail on them to give us a decent silence.

Nevertheless the matter was begun somehow, and we prolonged it for some hours in alternate speech, as far as the pauses in the voices of those variously raising a tumult allowed us. But at the very beginning of the debate, seeing that what was said slipped repeatedly from the memory either of ourselves or of those whose salvation we chiefly cared about, and so that our handling might be more careful and moderate, and at the same time you and the other brothers who were absent might learn by reading what had passed between us, we asked that our words be taken down by stenographers. For a long time he, or those who agreed with him, resisted; afterwards, however, he himself consented. But the stenographers who were present and could do this efficiently refused, for some reason I do not know, to take them down. We arranged at least that the brothers who were with us should take them down, though they were slower at this, promising that we would leave the tablets there. It was agreed. Our words began to be taken down, and some things were said by each side for the record. Afterwards, the stenographers, unable to keep up with the disorderly interruptions of the noisy crowd and our discussion, which had therefore also become more turbulent, gave up; but we did not stop, and said much as each had opportunity. From all these words of ours I did not wish to cheat your Affection of an account of the whole proceedings, as far as I could remember them. For you can read him my letter, so that he may either confirm that I have written the truth or, if he recalls anything better, tell you without hesitation.

First, then, he was good enough to praise our life, which he said he had learned of from you, who described it perhaps more kindly than truly, adding that he had told you that we could have done well all the things you had reported of us if we did them in the church. Then we began to ask which church that was in which one ought to live so: whether it was the one which, as holy Scripture had foretold so long before, spread itself through the whole world, or the one which a small part of the Africans, or of Africa, contained. Here he first tried to assert that his communion was everywhere on earth. I asked whether he could give letters of communion, which we call 'formed letters', to any place I wished, and I affirmed, what was plain to all, that in this way that question could be settled most easily. I was ready, if he agreed, for such letters to be sent by us to those churches which we read alike in the apostolic writings to have been founded already at that time.

But because the claim was plainly false, we quickly moved away from it amid confused talk. In the course of this he quoted that warning of the Lord in the gospel, where he said: 'Beware of false prophets; many will come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves; by their fruits you will know them.' When we said that we could quote the same words of the Lord about them, we came next to an exaggerated account of the persecution which he said his party had often suffered, wishing to show from this that his people were Christians because they suffered persecution. As I was preparing to answer from the gospel, he quoted first the chapter where the Lord says: 'Blessed are those who suffer persecution for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.' At this point I welcomed it and added at once that this, then, was what had to be inquired into: whether they had suffered persecution for righteousness' sake. In this question I wished to discuss what was indeed clear to all: whether the times of Macarius found them established in the unity of the church or already divided by schism; so that those who wished to see whether they had suffered persecution for righteousness' sake should rather consider whether they had rightly cut themselves off from the unity of the whole world; and if they were found to have done so unjustly, it would be plain that they had suffered persecution for unrighteousness rather than for righteousness, and therefore could not be added to the number of the blessed of whom it was said: 'Blessed are those who suffer persecution for righteousness' sake.' Then that handing over of the books was mentioned, more notorious than certain. But it was answered from our side that it was rather their founders who were the traitors; and that if in this matter they would not believe the documents of our side, we ought not to be forced to believe theirs.

But setting aside that doubtful question, I asked how these men had justly separated themselves from the innocence of the rest of the Christians, who throughout the world, keeping the order of succession in the most ancient churches, were wholly ignorant of who had been traitors in Africa, and certainly could communicate only with those whom they heard to be sitting in the episcopal sees. He answered that the churches overseas had remained innocent until they consented to the shedding of the blood of those who he said had suffered the persecution of Macarius. Here I could indeed have said that the innocence of the churches overseas could not be stained even by the odium of the time of Macarius, since it was in no way proved that he did what he did on their authority; but I preferred to ask for the sake of brevity: if, through the cruelty of Macarius, the churches overseas had lost their innocence from the time when they were said to have consented to it, could it at least be proved that up to that time the Donatists had remained in unity with the Eastern churches and the other parts of the world?

Then he produced a certain volume, in which he wished to show that the Council of Serdica had sent a letter to the African bishops who were of Donatus's communion. When it was read, we heard the name of Donatus among the other bishops to whom they had written. So we began to demand that it be shown whether this was the Donatus from whom their party takes its name; for it could have happened that they wrote to some Donatus, a bishop of another heresy, especially since in those names no mention was made of Africa. How then could he prove that by that name Donatus, bishop of Donatus's party, was to be understood, when he could not even prove that the letter had been sent specifically to bishops of the African churches? For although Donatus is usually an African name, it would not be unlikely that someone of those regions was called by an African name, or that some African was made bishop in those regions. Nor did we find in it either day or consul, so that at least by considering the dates something certain might appear. Indeed, since we had heard at some time that the Arians, when they had broken from Catholic communion, had tried to ally the Donatists in Africa with themselves, brother Alypius suggested this very thing in my ear. Then, taking the volume itself and considering the decrees of that council, I read that Athanasius, the Catholic bishop of Alexandria, whose conflict in most vigorous debates especially against the Arians was outstanding, and Julius, bishop of the Roman church, no less Catholic, had been condemned by that Council of Serdica. From this it was clear to us that it was a council of the Arians, whom these Catholic bishops most vehemently resisted. So we wished to take the volume and carry it away with us, to examine the dates more carefully too. He would not give it, saying that we would have it there whenever we wished to examine anything in it. I asked him also to let me mark it with my own hand, fearing, I confess, that when the case required it and it had to be asked for, something else might be produced in its place. He would not allow this either.

Then he began to press me to answer his question briefly, asking me whom I thought righteous, the one who persecuted or the one who suffered persecution. I answered that the question was not rightly put; for it could happen that both were wicked, and it could also happen that a more righteous man persecuted a more wicked one; so it did not follow that anyone was more righteous because he suffered persecution, though this is often the case. Then, seeing that he dwelt much on this, wishing the righteousness of his party to be taken as certain from the fact that it had suffered persecution, I asked him whether he thought Ambrose, bishop of the church of Milan, a righteous man and a Christian. He was of course compelled to deny that that man was a Christian and righteous, because, if he admitted it, we would at once object that he held that Ambrose must be rebaptized. So, when he was forced to say things by which Ambrose was not to be held a Christian and righteous, I reminded him how great a persecution Ambrose had endured, when his church was even surrounded by armed soldiers. I also asked whether he thought Maximian, who had made a schism from them at Carthage, both righteous and a Christian. He could only deny it. So I reminded him that Maximian too had suffered such persecution that his church was torn down to its foundations. By these examples, then, I tried, if I could, to persuade him to stop saying that suffering persecution is the surest proof of Christian righteousness.

He also related that at the very beginning of the schism his predecessors, considering the fault of Caecilian and wishing somehow to settle it so that a schism might not arise, had given a certain interventor to the people of their communion at Carthage before Majorinus was ordained against Caecilian; and he said that this interventor was killed by our people in his meeting-place. This, I confess, I had never heard at all before, although so many crimes they alleged had been refuted and disproved by our people, and more and greater ones charged against them. Yet after he told this, he began again to ask me insistently whom I thought righteous, the one who killed or the one who had been killed, as though he had already proved to me that it was done as he had related. I said, then, that first it must be asked whether it was true, for not everything that is said should be rashly believed; and yet it could have happened that both were equally bad, or even that a bad man killed a worse one. For indeed it can be that a rebaptizer of the whole man is more criminal than a slayer of the body alone.

Hence what he asked me afterwards no longer needed to be asked. For he said that even a bad man ought not to be killed by Christians and righteous men; as if we called righteous those who do such things in the Catholic Church. Such things, however, are more easily said against us by them than proved, since many of them, bishops, presbyters, and clergy of every kind, gathering crowds of most furious men, do not cease to inflict so many most violent murders and massacres, where they can, not only on Catholics but sometimes even on their own people. This being so, he nevertheless, ignoring the most criminal deeds of his own people, which he knows better than we, pressed me to say which of the righteous had killed anyone, even a bad man. Although this no longer concerned the case (for we admitted that such things, wherever they are done under the Christian name, are not done by the good), yet, to remind him of what should be inquired into, we answered by asking whether he thought Elijah had been righteous, which he could not deny. Then we added how many false prophets he had slain with his own hand. Here indeed he saw what had to be seen, that other things were permitted to the righteous then; for they did these things by the prophetic spirit, by the authority of God, who no doubt knows for whom it is even beneficial to be killed. So he demanded that I show who among the righteous, in the times of the New Testament, had killed anyone, even a criminal and ungodly man.

Then we returned to the earlier discussion, since we wished to show that neither ought we to charge them with the crimes of their people nor they us, if any such deeds of our people were found. For from the New Testament, indeed, it could not be shown that any righteous man had killed anyone; but it could be proved, by the very example of the Lord, that criminals were tolerated by the innocent. For he bore with his betrayer, who had already received his price, among the innocent with him, up to the final kiss of peace. He did not keep silent from them that a man of such great crime was among them, and yet he gave the first sacrament of his body and blood to all in common, without excluding him. When almost everyone was moved by this example, he tried to say that before the Lord's passion that communion with a criminal did not harm the apostles, because they did not yet have the baptism of Christ but the baptism of John. After he had said this, I began to ask him how, then, it was written that Jesus baptized more than John, though he himself did not baptize but his disciples, that is, he baptized through his disciples. How then did they give what they had not received, which is what these men are most accustomed to say? Or did Christ perhaps baptize with John's baptism? Then I was going to ask many things on this point: how John himself was then asked about the Lord's baptism and answered that he had the bride and was the bridegroom. Was it right, then, for the bridegroom to baptize with John's baptism, that is, the baptism of the friend or servant? Then, how could they receive the Eucharist if they were not yet baptized? Or how did he answer Peter, when he wished to be washed all over: 'He who has once been washed need not be washed again, but is wholly clean'? For perfect cleansing is baptism not in John's name but in the Lord's, if the one who receives it shows himself worthy of it; but if unworthy, the sacraments will nevertheless remain in him, not for salvation but for destruction. When I was about to ask these things, he too saw that he should not have raised the question of the baptism of the Lord's disciples.

From there we passed to another subject, with many speaking on both sides as they could. Among other things it was said that our people would yet persecute them; and he said to us that he wished to see how we would conduct ourselves in that persecution, whether we would consent to such cruelty or give no consent at all. We said that God saw our hearts, which they could not; that they were rashly still afraid of such things, which, if they happened, would happen through bad men, worse than whom they themselves have among them; and yet that we ought not for that reason to separate ourselves from Catholic communion, if anything should happen against our will, or even against our protest if we were able to make it, since we have learned peaceable toleration from the apostle, who says: 'Bearing with one another in love, eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.' We said that those who made the schism did not keep this peace and toleration, so that now the gentler among them tolerate graver things among their own people, lest what has been torn be torn again, whereas they would not tolerate lighter things for the sake of unity itself. We also said that in the times of the ancients the peace of unity and toleration had not yet been preached with such commendation as by the Lord's example and the love of the New Testament; and yet those prophets and holy men used to denounce the people's crimes to them, though they did not try to tear themselves away from the unity of that people and from sharing in the sacraments of that time.

From there, somehow, we came to mention Genethlius, a bishop of blessed memory, who had suppressed some decree issued against them and had not allowed it to take effect. All praised him and spoke of him most kindly. Amid these praises we added that even Genethlius himself, had he fallen into their hands, would have been judged to need rebaptism. We were saying this standing, since the time to leave was pressing. Then that old man said plainly that a rule had now been made that any of the faithful who came over to them from us should be baptized; and it was evident that he said this unwillingly and with grief, as far as he could. Indeed, since he himself also lamented very openly many evils of his own people and showed, as the testimony of his whole city confirmed, how far removed he was from such deeds, and related with modest complaint what he was accustomed to say to his own people; and since we mentioned that passage of the prophet Ezekiel where it is plainly written that the son's guilt is not to be charged to the father nor the father's to the son, where it is said: 'For as the soul of the father is mine, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sins, it alone shall die,' all agreed that in such debates the violent deeds of bad men should not be charged by each side against the other. There remained, then, the question of the schism. So we urged him again and again to strive with us, with a calm and peaceable mind, so that so great an inquiry might come to an end by careful examination. When he said kindly that we alone sought this, but our people did not wish it, we left with the promise that we would bring him several of our colleagues, at least ten, who would wish it to be inquired into with as much goodwill, gentleness, and pious zeal as we felt he had already seen and approved in us. He too promised this concerning an equal number of his own.

Therefore I urge and adjure you by the blood of the Lord to remind him of his promise and to press him diligently that the matter begun may be carried through, which you see has almost come to its end. For, as far as I can judge, you could hardly find among your bishops so helpful a mind and will as we have seen in this old man. The next day he came to us himself, and we had begun to inquire into these things again. But because the necessity of ordaining a bishop was hurrying us away at any moment, we could not stay longer with him. For we had already sent to the Major of the Caelicolae, who we had heard had established a new baptism among them and had led many astray by that sacrilege, so that we might speak with him as far as the shortness of the time allowed. When Fortunius learned that he was coming, seeing that we had taken up other business, and since some necessity of travel was pressing him too, he left us kindly and peaceably.

It seems to me, however, that, in order wholly to avoid turbulent crowds who bring hindrance rather than help, and to carry through, with the Lord's help, so great an undertaking begun in a truly friendly and tranquil spirit, we ought to meet at some small country estate where none of us has a church, but which is owned jointly by people of our communion and of his, such as the estate of Titiana. Whether such a place is found in the territory of Thubursicum or of Thagaste, either the one I mentioned or some other, let us have the canonical books at hand and whatever documents can be produced on both sides, so that, setting everything else aside, with no trouble interrupting us, if it please the Lord, giving ourselves to this for as many days as we can, and each of us praying to the Lord at the house of his host, we may, with the help of him to whom Christian peace is most pleasing, bring so great a matter, begun with goodwill, to the end of the inquiry. Do write back what you or he think of this.

Your silence, whatever its cause, by which, for two whole years now, since our dearest brothers Romanus and Agilis returned to you, we have received no letter from you, has by no means made us slow to write. For while in other matters the more anyone is loved, the more worthy of imitation he seems, in this matter it is the opposite. The more ardently we love you, the less we bear your not writing to us, and we do not wish to imitate you in it. So we greet you, if not answering your letters, since none come to us, at least remonstrating, and with no small grief; though perhaps your Charity too complains in the same way, if indeed you know that letters were sent by you which have not reached us, and that, in turn, those sent by us were not delivered to you. If that is so, let us turn our complaints into prayers to the Lord, that he may not deny us such great comforts.

We had heard that you were writing against the pagans. If it is finished, we ask you not to delay sending it by the bearer of this letter. He is dear to us, and we can without rashness bear good witness to his reputation in our regions. He asks your Holiness through us to be good enough to commend him to those with whom he has business and before whom he fears that his good case may be overborne. What the matter is he will himself tell more conveniently, and he can be questioned on any particular points that may concern you. We will count it a very great favour, and will thank your most sincere kindness before the Lord our God, if by your efforts we may rejoice in the security of a Christian brother.

It is written: 'Ask your father, and he will tell you; your elders, and they will say to you.' Therefore I too have judged that I should seek the law from the mouth of the priest in a case of this kind, which I set out by letter, and at the same time that I may be instructed in various cases. I have had the individual and different questions marked off by headings; please answer them one by one. I. In Arzugis, as I have heard, the barbarians are accustomed to swear to the decurion who commands the frontier, or to the tribune, swearing by their demons. Those who have contracted to escort baggage-trains, or some to guard the crops themselves, are received by the individual landowners or tenants to guard the crops, as already trustworthy, when the decurion sends a letter; or by individual travellers who must pass through their territory. A debate has arisen in my heart whether the landowner who has received a barbarian whose good faith seemed confirmed by an oath by demons is not defiled, either he himself or the things he guards, or the traveller who is escorted by the barbarian guide. But you should know this, that the barbarian who swears receives gold from the landowner for guarding the crops, or the guide from the traveller; yet along with this as it were payment, which is usually given by the landowner or the traveller, there is also in between that deadly oath given to the decurion or the tribune. This troubles me, lest it pollute the one who has accepted the barbarian's oath, or the things the barbarian guards. For on whatever terms, even when gold has been given and hostages given, as I have heard, still the wicked oath has come in between. Please write back to me definitely and not doubtfully, for if you yourself write hesitantly, I may fall into greater doubts than before I asked. II. I have also heard that the tenants themselves who manage my property accept an oath from barbarians swearing by their demons to guard the crops. If, then, when they swear by their demons to guard the crops, they do not pollute the crops themselves, so that a Christian who knowingly eats of them or uses the price of those goods is defiled, please let me know. III. Again, I have heard from one man that no oath is sworn to the tenant by the barbarian, and another said that an oath is sworn to the tenant. If the man who said an oath is sworn to the tenant told me a falsehood, ought I not, merely because of what I have heard, to use those crops or their price, because it is said, 'But if anyone says, This has been sacrificed to idols, do not eat, for his sake'? If, indeed, this case is like the case of things sacrificed? If so, what ought I to do with the crops themselves or their price? IV. Ought I to make inquiry of both, the one who told me no oath is sworn to the tenant and the one who said an oath is sworn, and prove by witnesses the statement of each, which of the two told the truth, and not touch the crops or their price until it has been proved to me that the one who said no oath is sworn to the tenant told the truth? V. If the barbarian, who swears an evil oath by his own oath, has made the Christian tenant, or the tribune who commands the frontier, swear to him, to keep faith with him in guarding the crops, by the same deadly oath by which he himself swears, is the Christian alone defiled, and not also the things for whose sake he swears? Or if a pagan who commands the frontier has sworn to the barbarian by a deadly oath to keep faith with him, does he not defile the things for which he swears? If I send someone to Arzugis, may he accept that deadly oath from the barbarian, and is a Christian not defiled if he accepts such an oath? VI. From a threshing floor of wheat or of any other crop, or from a wine-press, from which an offering has been made to a demon, may a Christian knowingly eat? VII. May a Christian knowingly take wood from a sacred grove for some use of his own? VIII. If someone going to the market buys meat which has not been sacrificed, and has two thoughts in his heart, that it has been sacrificed and that it has not, and holds to the thought by which he thinks it not sacrificed, does he sin if he eats it? IX. If someone does a good thing about which he doubts whether it is good or bad, when he thinks it good, though he had also thought it bad, is sin imputed to him? X. If someone says, lying, that something has been sacrificed, and afterwards says again that he lied, and truly did lie, may a Christian eat of it or sell it and use the price, after what he has heard? XI. If some Christian on a journey, suffering want, overcome by hunger for one day or two or many days, so that he can no longer endure, comes upon food placed in an idol's temple, where no one is present, in the very extremity of hunger, when he sees death approaching, and can find no other food, ought he to die or to eat of it? XII. If a Christian sees that a barbarian or a Roman wishes to kill him, ought the Christian himself to kill them so as not to be killed by them? Or may he fight them off or repel them without killing, since it is said, 'Do not resist evil'? XIII. Ought a Christian to build a wall for a property because of the enemy; and is the Christian who has built the wall not a cause of homicide, when some begin to fight from it and kill enemies? XIV. May one drink from a spring or a well into which something from a sacrifice has been put? If from a well that is in a temple which has become deserted, ought a Christian to drink from it? If in a temple where worship is carried on there is an idol's well or spring, and nothing has been done in that well or spring, ought a Christian to draw water from it and drink? XV. Ought a Christian to wash in baths or hot baths in which sacrifice is offered to images? Ought a Christian to wash in baths in which pagans have washed on their festival day, whether with them or without them? XVI. If, in a bathing-tub into which pagans coming from their idols on their festival day have gone down and performed some act of their sacrilege there in the tub, and a Christian knows it, ought he to go down into the same tub? XVII. If a Christian, invited by someone, has had meat set before him to eat, of which he has been told that it was sacrificed, and has not eaten it; but afterwards, the same meat having passed to someone else, he by some chance finds it on sale and buys it, or has it set before him when invited by someone else and does not recognize it and eats it, does he sin? XVIII. Ought a Christian knowingly to buy vegetables or any fruit from a garden or estate belonging to idols or their priests, and eat of it? Indeed, concerning oaths and idols, so that you may not have the labour of searching, I have wished to set before your eyes what the Lord has granted us to find; but if you find anything else clearer or better in the Scriptures, please let me know. What we found, then, is this: where Laban said to Jacob, 'The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor'; but which god, Scripture did not indicate; and again when Abimelech came to Isaac, where he or those with him swore, but what kind of oath Scripture did not indicate; again concerning idols, where the Lord told Gideon in the book of Judges to make a burnt offering of the calf he had killed; and in Joshua son of Nun concerning Jericho, that all the gold, silver, and bronze should be brought into the treasuries of the Lord, and it was called holy, from a city which was under the ban; and what is that which is written in Deuteronomy: 'You shall not bring an abomination into your house, and you will be under the ban, as it is'? The Lord keep you; I greet you; pray for me.