The Chapters of the Acts of the Conference of Carthage

Concerning the entry of the bishops.

An interlocution concerning the nature of the business, wherein the examiner orders the imperial rescript to be read aloud to him.

The reading of the imperial rescript concerning the holding of the conference.

The reading of the edict by which he orders the bishops to be assembled.

An interlocution concerning the choosing of another judge.

The response of the Donatists, concerning a judge not having been requested.

An interlocution that a conference had been requested, not a judge.

The response of the Donatists, that those who had sought the conference should set forth their case.

The reading of the edict, wherein he states what manner and place is suitable for the conference, and how many from each party ought to conduct the case.

A pleading of the Donatists similar to the preceding.

An interlocution that all things ought to be conducted in their proper order, and he orders to be read aloud what he had said.

The reading of the notarial document of the Donatists, in which they assert that the edict displeases them.

An interlocution that the letter of the Catholics should be read.

The reading of the letter of the Catholics, in which they consent to the edict and set forth conditions to the Donatists.

The reading of the edict in which the examiner promises that he will make all things public to the people.

Wherein is read the rescript of the Catholics responding to the notarial document of the Donatists.

An interlocution concerning the consent of the Catholics, wherein they also are asked whether they consent.

A pleading of the Donatists concerning the time and the persons.

A pleading of the Donatists concerning the time having elapsed, so that nothing further of the pending matters should be transacted.

An interlocution by which the Donatists are excluded from the matter of the established time and of fixing a definite number.

Wherein the Donatists inquire concerning the time or the day of the conference.

An interlocution excluding the above-mentioned pleading.

Again a pleading of the Donatists concerning the day of the conference having elapsed.

An interlocution that the staff should respond to the questions put, and the response as to when the fourth month was completed.

An interlocution concerning the arrival of each party at Carthage.

A pleading of the Donatists concerning their arrival at Carthage, and that since the day had already passed the conference itself ought not to be held, but judgment ought to be pronounced against those who were contumacious.

An interlocution refuting the preceding pleading.

A pleading of the Donatists that the case be treated by divine testimonies alone.

An interlocution that a number be established, and so the case be pleaded.

The response of the Donatists, that all their bishops be present at the trial.

The ruling that a multitude does not constitute a legal person.

The response of the Donatists, that the proceeding should not be conducted by rule of law.

The ruling that not the law, but the contention, ought to cease.

Where the Donatists praise the integrity of the judge.

Where they present the mandate of the Catholics.

Where they ask in what place they should proceed.

The ruling that the Catholics declare whether they wish to proceed by divine testimonies alone.

The response of the Catholics, that their intention is to be understood from the mandate.

The ruling of the judge as to what the mandate contained.

The response of the Catholics, that it could be understood from the reading of it.

Where the Donatists say: He who is uncertain what he ought to declare repudiates the law of God.

The ruling in response to the above.

The response of the Catholics to the above.

Where the Donatists say that there ought to be no mandate, but that one must choose either public law or the law of God.

The continuation of the Catholics, that they demonstrate the Church through divine sayings, and that the crimes of men are purged through public writings.

The ruling approving the words of the Catholics.

The continuation of the Catholics, that all things are made known through the mandate.

The ruling approving the above.

Where, when the Catholics wish to read the mandate, the judge says that the office should recite it.

The continuation of the Donatists, permitting the mandate to be recited, while accusing the nature of the accusation.

The ruling that he cannot hear otherwise what has been established by imperial laws.

Where the mandate of the Catholics is recited, in which they have encompassed the entire case.

The ruling approving that the mandate of the Catholics is established by divine testimonies.

The recitation of the subscriptions of the Catholic Primates.

The ruling inquiring into the number of those subscribing, and the office makes its report.

Where the Donatists demand the Catholics who subscribed.

Where the Catholics respond that they should send those who would identify them.

The ruling against this continuation.

Where the Donatists ask that they be permitted to identify all the Catholic bishops one by one.

Where the judge inquires whether there can be two bishops in each place.

Where the Donatists praise the judge for that inquiry, and complain of the incongruous great number of Catholics.

Where the Catholics rebuke the excessive talking.

Where the Donatists say: You have written more than I said.

The continuation of the Catholics, that persons be appointed for the acts.

The ruling of the judge, that he has no mandate concerning those incompetently ordained.

Where the Donatists again continue that judgment ought to be made concerning the number of each party.

The ruling that a multitude is not necessary.

The response of the Catholics, where they excuse the absence of their own.

The ruling that all should come.

Where the Catholics again respond that crowds are not necessary.

The ruling of the judge, whether the Catholic bishops who were said to be absent were in one place.

The response of the Catholics, that they do not know where they are, and that none ought to come to the place of the conference except those concerning whom there is doubt.

Where the Donatists say that the action of the Catholics works against them, and they press that all Catholics who subscribed should come.

Where the Catholics guard against tumult or uproar.

The ruling confirming what was said above.

Where the Donatists say that the Catholics complain in vain about the tumult.

The response of the Catholics, that the case will be concluded quickly if the Donatists are willing to respond.

Where the Donatists say that they confess those will come with tumult.

Where it is answered by the Catholics why they fear tumult.

Where the Donatists say: If tumult cannot be made against a few, how can it be made against many? And the Catholics respond: Judge.

The ruling that a multitude of priests can maintain silence.

Where the Donatists again say that all ought to come.

The ruling that he concerning whom there is doubt should come.

Where the cause of the tumult is stated by the Donatists: where and in what manner the bishops who have been called out should depart.

Where the Catholics consent to what was requested, that all should come.

Where the Donatists wish to have the mandate of the Catholics shown to them.

The ruling that what they requested be done.

Where the Donatists say: Let all be present, or let the case be deferred.

Where it is answered by the Catholics that it is not deferred, and they ask that the mandate be presented to the acts.

Where the Donatists respond to this.

The ruling on this matter.

Where the Donatists say that they want the presence of those persons, not the mandate.

Where the Catholics say that those who have been found should be admitted, and it is ordered to be done.

The ruling that satisfaction has been given to the petitions of the Donatists.

Where the individual Catholic bishops begin to be called out one by one, and it is ordered that he who has not undertaken the business should depart.

Where it is said by the Catholics that their bishops also should come forward.

Where the judge inquires whether the Donatists also consent.

Where the judge inquires whether, once they have given their mandate, they are to withdraw and give place to those who are to act.

Where the Donatists consent to this.

An interlocution concerning the subscriptions of the Donatists' judge also to be made known.

Where the Donatists respond that they wish to give their mandate in the acts.

Where the judge asks in which acts.

Where the Donatists respond that they wish to give their mandate before him, but leave to him the decision of what he shall order.

Where the Donatists are asked what they choose concerning the mandate of the Catholics.

Where the Donatists respond that the mandators rather should be examined.

Where it is ordered that this be done.

A reading and interlocution concerning them.

A continuation concerning them.

An interlocution and response concerning the bishop of Zumma.

Where it is said by the Catholics that both those present and those absent should be examined; and the order of the judge that this be done.

An interlocution concerning those present, and a reading concerning those who mutually acknowledge one another.

The response of the Donatists concerning the dioceses.

And that of the Catholics on the same matter.

Again the Donatists on the same.

An interlocution that this does not pertain to the present action.

Concerning a bishop converted to the Catholic Church, and a reading of the names that follow.

Where the Catholics inquire concerning Felicianus of Mustia.

The response of the Donatists on the same.

Again the Catholics on the same.

Again the Donatists on the same.

An interlocution that the order already begun be maintained; and it is read.

The response of the Catholics concerning Habetdeus, deacon of Primianus.

An interlocution concerning him.

The response of the Donatists concerning the bishop of Cufruta, when he was absent.

Concerning another bishop of the Donatists, condemned for adultery.

An interlocution as to whether there was a Catholic church there; and the Donatists respond, No.

Concerning the replacement of the shorthand writers and the appointment of custodians.

An interlocution of the judge that the tablets be sealed by the custodians; and a reading of the bishops.

Concerning the bishop and the church of Ceramussa.

A reading of the names that follow.

The response of the Catholics concerning the unity of the church of Tagaste.

And the response of the Donatists to these things.

A reading of the subscriptions of the acts.

Objections of the Donatists and responses of the Catholics, when the Catholic actors were being read out.

The objection of the Donatists that the actors and the mandators are the same persons.

An interlocution on this matter, and a reading of the subscriptions against the objection of the Donatists.

An interlocution on this matter.

An interlocution against the objections of Victor, bishop of the Hippo of the Diarrhytans.

Where the judge will offer a seat to the bishops.

Where the Donatists, refusing the seat, praise the judge.

An interlocution that the actors alone should remain.

Where the Donatists present their mandate.

An interlocution that it be read. And the office reads it.

An interlocution that the office read the subscriptions.

Where the Catholics request the presence of the Donatists.

The petition of the Catholics that the Donatists also should come forward one by one.

An interlocution in response to the petition of the Catholics.

A continuation by the Catholics, that the declaration of the Donatists should be produced.

An interlocution on this matter.

And the Catholics on this matter.

A reading of the names of the Donatists.

The response of the Catholics concerning Felix, the urban bishop of the Donatists.

And the Donatists concerning the same name.

Again the Catholics on the same.

An interlocution that he had received no instruction concerning those from overseas.

Likewise the Catholics on the same.

The response of the Donatists concerning those from overseas, and a reading of the names that follow.

An interlocution that ten would suffice for the credibility of the subscribers.

A continuation by the Donatists that their own members also should pass forward one by one, for the purpose of commending their great number.

An interlocution that the mandate does not concern their number.

The response of the Donatists on the matter mentioned above.

Where the Catholics treat of the great number of their fellow bishops, declaring the prejudice of the Donatists to be vain.

Where the Donatists say: You do injury vainly.

Where the Catholics complete the continuation which the Donatists had interrupted, asserting that they have never been lacking in the conduct of the cause.

An interlocution that the cause be treated.

A continuation by the Catholics that the multitude of bishops should withdraw.

An interlocution that those who had been read out should pass forward one by one.

Where the Catholics seek the declaration of the Donatists.

The response of the Donatists concerning the subscribers.

An interlocution that the Donatists also be read out one by one.

Concerning the bishop of Vaga, about whom there was doubt.

The interrogation of the judge concerning him.

The response of the Donatists concerning him.

An interlocution approving the matters inquired into; and a reading of names follows.

A suggestion by the Catholics that those who had been read out were bishops of estates, not of cities.

And the response of the Donatists on the same.

Where the matter is treated of a bishop on whose behalf a presbyter had subscribed, since he himself had not come to Carthage because he was blind.

The response of the Catholics on the same and that of the Donatists.

The response of the Donatists to these things.

An interlocution on the same.

And the response of the Catholics thereupon: and the recitation of names follows.

Concerning a Catholic bishop and one who had been rebaptized, and the recitation of names.

Where many evils against the Catholics are recalled, and the response of the Donatists to these.

An interlocution, that this had not been entrusted to them.

The response of the Catholics against the denial of the Donatists.

Where the Donatists say that an injury is being done to them.

An interlocution against the aforesaid.

The inquiry of the Catholics concerning an absent person on whose behalf another had subscribed.

The response of the Donatists concerning him.

An interlocution thereupon.

The response of the Catholics on the matter mentioned above, and the recitation of names follows.

The response of the Donatists concerning a bishop who had been rebaptized. The recitation of names follows.

Where the cognitor inquires concerning the absent Felix of Summa on account of the falsity of the subscription.

The response of the Donatists concerning one who had been rebaptized and caught in adultery, and the recitation of names.

Concerning a Catholic presbyter acting as intermediary where the Donatists had a bishop, and the recitation of names.

Concerning a Catholic deacon who had been rebaptized and made a bishop by the Donatists.

Where the Catholics say that there is no Donatist bishop in that place from which he was said to come; who, when read out, responded, and the response of the Donatists to this, and the interlocution of the cognitor.

Where the Donatists wish their mandate to stand firm.

An interlocution concerning the aforesaid, and the recitation of names.

The pleadings of both parties and interlocutions concerning a deceased person whom the Donatists said had died on the journey.

An interlocution concerning one whom the Catholics said had been ordained on the road.

Concerning the subscriptions of absent persons, where the cognitor grants this to them, even though in their mandate those present had given mandate to those present.

The attestation of the Catholics that the number of the Donatists does not equal that of the Catholics, even though they were producing many subscriptions of absent persons.

The inquiry of the cognitor concerning the number of bishops on each side.

Concerning the Catholic bishops who had arrived subsequently.

An inquiry concerning the number of the Donatists, and the response of the office.

An inquiry concerning the number of Catholic bishops.

The mandate of the Catholics who had arrived subsequently and had not subscribed.

An interlocution that the advocates should remain and the rest should withdraw.

Concerning those who had not come, or concerning the congregations left without a bishop, which was brought forward by both sides.

The question of the cognitor, whether those who would plead the cause had remained.

The question of the cognitor concerning the hour of the day and the response of the office.

The interlocution of the cognitor concerning the day now nearly spent, and whether by common consent the matter should be deferred. By both sides it was answered that this was agreeable.

Where it was answered by both sides that the cause ought to be concluded with one day's interval.

An interlocution that guards be assigned to the notaries and the record-books.

Where the Catholics offer guards, and likewise the Donatists.

Concerning the office in attendance.

Concerning the entry of the parties.

Concerning the seating offered.

Where the seating is refused by the party of Donatus.

An interlocution, that he would hear the case while standing.

The response of the Donatists thereupon.

An interlocution thereupon.

The report of the office concerning the notary of the Donatists, where they request that the mandate of the Catholics be published to them.

The order that it be read aloud.

The pleading of the Donatists against what the office said belonged to the party of Donatus.

The response of the Catholics to these matters.

An interlocution that the notarial record be read aloud: and the office reads it.

An interlocution concerning the subscriptions of the proceedings.

The response of the Catholics concerning that same agreement.

The interlocution of the cognitor concerning that same agreement.

Where the Catholics say that they do not consent to the edict.

And the Donatists respond concerning the basilicas not restored.

The question of the cognitor, whether they were satisfied with the authenticity of the proceedings.

Where the Donatists request that the proceedings be published to them, and that the cause be deferred on this account.

The response of the Catholics to this.

An interlocution concerning this.

A repeated petition of the Donatists concerning this.

An interlocution that the office read aloud their agreement.

Likewise, where the Donatists request that the proceedings be read by themselves.

The response of the Catholics to that matter.

An interlocution that the agreement of the parties be read.

Where the Donatists seek a postponement.

The response of the Catholics in which they accuse them of excessive talking.

Where the Donatists excuse their excessive talking.

The response of the Catholics to this.

The reading aloud of the proceedings concerning the agreement of the parties.

Again where the Donatists seek a postponement.

An interlocution resisting the petition for a postponement.

Again the Donatists thereupon, that the proceedings had not been published to them.

An interlocution against these things.

Where the Donatists offer an excuse through the notaries.

An interlocution in which the notaries are questioned concerning the writing up of the proceedings, and their response.

The complaint of the Donatists that a portion of the proceedings is held in the record-books.

Prosecution by the Catholics that the case not be deferred.

Interlocution, that the agreement of the parties be read again. Objection of the Donatists.

Interlocution again on the same matter.

Response of the Donatists on the same matter.

Reading again of the agreement of the parties.

Interlocution that it is not permitted to act against one's own agreements; and that the notaries of the Church read aloud if they doubt the faithfulness of the records.

Prosecution of the Donatists, wherein they wish the records to be published to them first.

Interlocution, that the agreement of the parties be read aloud by the ecclesiastical notaries, just as by the shorthand-writers.

Prosecution of the Donatists concerning the receiving of a postponement.

Interlocution, that in the prior hearing they ought to have sought what they now demand.

Prosecution of the Catholics, wherein it is shown on which day each party came to the conference.

Interlocution confirming what was previously decided.

Prosecution of the Donatists, wherein they contest what was recently transacted concerning the day.

Declaration of the parties concerning the received documents; they acknowledge their own seals.

Wherein the Donatists say that testaments are customarily opened in this manner.

Interlocution restraining one's own declarations from being called into question.

Prosecution of the Catholics, wherein they permit the judge, at the request of the Donatists, to extend the adjournment.

Interlocution inquiring of the shorthand-writers to what point the hearing was adjourned, although the consent of both parties was given to the postponement.

Response of the Donatists, wherein they say the hearing is not prolonged through any fault of their own.

Interlocution of the judge, wherein he orders what was recently recorded to be read aloud: and it is read aloud.

After the reading, an interlocution whereby it becomes clear that the hearing had been adjourned to the present day by the consent of the parties.

Wherein the Donatists promise that they will subscribe to the records.

Concerning the postponement granted to the shorthand-writers.

Response of the records concerning the publication of the proceedings.

Interlocution concerning the marking of day by day.

Response on this matter.

Prosecution of the Donatists, wherein (l. They promise that) it is requested that certain persons will come to the hearing.

Indication of the judge whereby the day of the forthcoming examination is fixed, once the publication of the records has been received.

Prosecution of the Catholics wherein this condition is set forth, that once the records are published, security be given by the parties concerning their receipt and the time.

Prosecution of the Donatists, wherein they promise that they will do this.

Interlocution of the judge, wherein the office is also ordered to publish the present records together with the earlier ones.

Prosecution of the Catholics wherein they demand that an edict be posted by the judge, so that it may be known that the Donatists had sought a postponement.

Concerning the office in attendance.

Concerning the bishops who entered.

Interlocution concerning the appointed day of examination, which day is also noted by the response of the office.

Reading of the security, wherein the Catholics received the records.

Reading of a similar security of the other party.

Interlocution, whereby it is established that the principal cause be pleaded.

Prosecution of the Catholics, wherein they declare that they have long wished to plead the principal matter.

Wherein the Donatists demand of the Catholics that they set forth their case.

Wherein it is answered that their proposition can be known from their own mandate.

Prosecution of the Catholics, wherein they forewarn that obstacles of delay not be contrived.

Prosecution, that what is intended be set forth.

Response of the Catholics, wherein they say that the proposition of the Donatists can be gathered from their own mandate.

Interlocution, whereby it is required that the principal cause be pleaded.

Prosecution of the Catholics, wherein they urge that the principal matter of the Church be carried through.

Prosecution of the Donatists, that the persons must be examined.

Response of the Catholics, that the persons have already been confirmed.

Interlocution, that the Catholics did not attend carefully to the prosecution of the Donatists.

Response of the Catholics, wherein they say that both mandates must be read aloud.

Interlocution whereby the prosecution of the Donatists is declared to the Catholics.

Prosecution of the Catholics, what they sought from the Emperor through an embassy sent by themselves, on the basis of which they demand that the cause now be pleaded.

Interlocution that the Imperial precept be read aloud.

Prosecution of the Donatists concerning the question of the Catholic name, and the dispute arising therefrom.

Interlocution on the same matter.

Reading of the Imperial decision.

Interruption of the Donatists, wherein they interpret the Imperial precept.

Response of the Catholics to these things.

Wherein the Donatists say that they have been praised by the Catholics.

Response of the Catholics to these things.

Prosecution of the Donatists concerning the account of their own name and that of their father.

Response of the Catholics to these things.

Declaration of the Donatists, that Donatus was their founder.

Wherein they are challenged by the Catholics to condemn the name of Donatus.

Wherein the same argument concerning the name of Mensurius is turned back against the Catholics by the Donatists.

Response of the Catholics to these things.

Interlocution concerning the law that was read, and the origin of the whole error to be examined.

Where the Donatists demand that the prayers of the Catholics be read to them.

An interlocution concerning the pragmatic rescript.

A prosecution by the Donatists concerning the examination of the persons of the legates.

Where the Catholics protest that the Donatists, by doing many things, wish to do nothing.

Likewise a prosecution by the Catholics concerning those things which the Donatists had prosecuted regarding the persons of the legates.

An interlocution concerning the removal of superfluous matters and the setting forth of the business.

A prosecution by the Donatists concerning the Imperial rescript and the mandate of the Catholics, to be compared with each other equally.

Where the Catholics assert that the Donatists have not at all responded to their prosecution.

An interlocution concerning the law by which the cognitor was appointed, in which part the superstition is established.

Where the Donatists assert that delays are being caused rather by the Catholics.

The contention of the Catholics against these things.

An interlocution as to what is being sought by the parties.

A prosecution by the Donatists that the Catholics ought to suffer the loss either of their mandate or of the Imperial precept.

A response by the Catholics, that their mandate contains everything.

An interlocution by which the form of the pragmatic is set forth by the Donatists, and the profession of the Catholics is judged acceptable.

Where the Donatists say that the Catholics have lied to the Emperor.

Where the Catholics respond to these things from the law itself.

Where the Donatists say that they are not deferring the action.

A prosecution by the Catholics concerning the Imperial rescript itself, and concerning their conference, and concerning the testimonies of the scriptures by which the Church is confirmed.

A prosecution by the Donatists from the same point as above, that is, concerning the receiving of the persons of the legates.

A response by the Catholics, that something else is being sought for this reason, so that the cause may be evaded; and a contention arising therefrom.

An interlocution that the examination of the persons of the legates is not necessarily required.

A prosecution by the Catholics as to what was sought from the Emperor and what was granted.

A prosecution by the Donatists again concerning the persons of the legates.

The response of the Catholics to these things.

Again a contention by the Donatists concerning the examination of the persons of the legates.

A protest by the Donatists, that delays are being contrived by the Catholics who refuse to produce the persons of the legates.

An interlocution, that the Emperor did not wish anything to be inquired concerning these persons.

Again a contention by the Donatists concerning the legates.

An interlocution, that the Donatists should say whether, from among the Catholics present, they can identify those whom they say are the legates; or if they are absent, that they ought to be produced.

A prosecution by the Donatists, where they say that the legates ought to be produced.

Again the Donatists contend concerning the examination of the legates.

An interlocution, that with the contention concerning the persons of the legates set aside, the parties should come to the substance of the business.

Again the Donatists contend concerning the persons of the legates.

Where the Catholics demand that the Donatists ought to show the cause of their own separation.

Again a contention by the Donatists concerning the legates.

Where the Catholics respond that nothing was commanded by the Emperor concerning the examination of the persons of the legates, but concerning the investigation of the origin of the error.

A prosecution by the Donatists that the Catholic Church is rather with them; and again a contention concerning the examination of the legates.

A prosecution by the Catholics, by which they demand that it be proved to them by testimonies that the Donatists said the Catholic Church was with them.

An interlocution that the names of the legates are being demanded superfluously, and that with these set aside, the parties must now come to the statement of the business.

Again a contention by the Donatists concerning the legates.

An interlocution similar to the preceding.

A prosecution by the Catholics, by which they testify that they have come to the conference as the Emperor wished.

An interlocution, that the persons of the legates ought to have been examined when the legation had performed its office.

Where the Catholics demand that the cause of their own separation be made public by the Donatists.

Again the Donatists demand that the legates ought to be produced to them.

An interlocution where the cognitor says that he cannot deviate from the form of the law, and that all must cease from the inquiry into the legates, but that the cause must be pleaded.

A prosecution by the Donatists concerning the production of what the Catholics sought from the Emperor, and through whom they sought it.

An interlocution, that it was not commanded to inquire what the Catholics sought from the Emperor, but that with the persons of both sides confirmed, the business ought to be set forth.

Again a contention by the Donatists on the same matter.

A response by the Catholics to these things, by which they also protest that the Donatists wish to make the proceedings lengthy.

A prosecution by the Donatists, where they say that delays are being caused by the Catholics, and where they demand that what they sought from the Emperor be produced to them; and where they ask whether the Catholics wish to proceed by public law or by divine laws.

An interlocution that the Catholics sought only a conference from the Emperor.

An intervention by the Donatists, by which they testify that they rather ought to be called Catholics.

An interlocution that those are to be called Catholics whom the Emperor wished to be so called.

A prosecution by the Donatists, that the name Catholic is to be preserved for him whom victory shall declare to be a Christian.

An interlocution assenting to these things, and observing the form of the preceding precept.

Where the Donatists wish that this very interlocution of the judge be made without prejudice to themselves.

An interlocution, that the beginning of the case should now be set forth, if the Donatists wish to show that the name Catholic does not belong to their adversaries.

A continuation by the Donatists, that the Catholics, since they are unwilling to satisfy the judgments rendered, should at least answer this: whether they assume the name of petitioner.

The response of the Catholics to these matters, and concerning the Church spread everywhere.

A continuation by the Donatists, that they have nothing to do with foreign Churches; but that the Catholic name is to be reserved for the victor; and that the Catholics ought to declare whether they assume the role of petitioner.

Likewise a continuation by the Catholics, that the Church is to be sought where the Bridegroom of the Church, that is, Christ, is acknowledged; and a clear expression of the Catholic name.

A continuation by the Donatists, wherein they attempt to interpret the Catholic name differently, and endeavor again to revert to what had already been transacted concerning the names of the delegates.

An interlocution by the judge, that, setting aside what has already been transacted, the promised account of the Catholic name be demonstrated.

A contention by the Donatists, that the Catholics be compelled to set forth their case.

Likewise a petition by the Donatists, that the judge ought to pronounce on each matter individually.

Likewise where the Donatists demand that the Catholics declare whether they wish to claim for themselves the role of petitioners or of respondents.

An interlocution confirming this.

Where the Catholics declare that they entered into the proceedings for this purpose: to respond to the charges and accusations brought against them.

A continuation by the Donatists, in which they inquire by whom they were summoned to judgment.

A continuation by the Catholics, in which they assert that they came together for the conference with the Donatists for this reason: to refute their charges; and in which they attest that those same Donatists had sought a hearing at the imperial court.

An interlocution that the Donatists should now set forth the charges they are accustomed to bring against the Catholics.

A continuation by the Donatists, that the judge pronounce whether what those same Donatists demand is right.

An interlocution in which he pronounces both that they petitioned rightly and that the Catholics responded rightly.

A continuation by the Donatists in which they attempt to make the Catholics the petitioners.

An interlocution by the judge, whether the Catholics bring any charge against the Donatists.

A continuation by the Catholics, in which they say they bring no charge, but wish to refute the charges brought against them; and that the Donatists have repeatedly brought charges, as can be shown both by the tenor of their own mandate and by the words of bishop Primianus.

An interlocution that the Donatists support with proofs the charge of traditio which they had included in their mandate against the Catholics.

A demand by the Donatists, that the judge first pronounce on the question of standing, and that the case then proceed.

The contention of the Catholics in response to these matters.

An interlocution, that the one who brings a charge is the petitioner.

A petition by the Donatists, that the Catholics demonstrate that the conference was requested by both parties.

The response of the Catholics to these matters.

An interruption by the Donatists, through which they claim the Catholic name for themselves; and a dispute on both sides concerning the names of their forebears.

Where the Catholics submit to the court the proceedings held before the Prefecture, by which they prove what had been promised.

Where the Donatists refer back to what has already been transacted, lest the proceedings be read aloud, and they desire that a pronouncement be made concerning standing.

An interlocution, that the Catholics sought only the conference, and that judgment is to be rendered on this matter alone.

Where the Donatists contend that the judge should first pronounce on their petition.

A continuation by the Catholics, that the Donatists produce whatever they have by which their falsehood may be refuted; and where they submit the proceedings of the Prefecture.

Where the Donatists have recourse to what has already been transacted, lest the proceedings held before the Prefecture be read aloud.

An interlocution, in which, having rejected all objections, he pronounces that those same proceedings must be read aloud.

A continuation by the Donatists concerning the standing of the respondents, and the pronouncement to be delivered by the judge.

An interruption by the Donatists, lest the proceedings be read aloud.

An interlocution, that the standing of the petitioner can become clear from this, if the proceedings are read aloud.

A contention by the Donatists, that the judge pronounce on the matters petitioned.

A petition by the Catholics, that the proceedings be read aloud.

An interlocution, that the judge ought not to be compelled to a pronouncement, when a volume of proof was being offered by the other party.

A continuation by the Donatists, where, to prevent the proceedings from being read aloud, they pursue another line; and they desire that the judge pronounce concerning the party.

An interlocution, that those same proceedings be read aloud.

Where by many continuations the Donatists do not permit the proceedings to be read aloud, and by contending against many pronouncements of the judge, they flee the role of petitioner.

Where those same proceedings begin to be read aloud, and the Donatists, wishing to interrupt, submit the proconsular or vicarial proceedings, through which they show that the Catholics had brought very many charges.

A protest by the Catholics concerning the tumultuous conduct of the Donatists.

A petition by the Donatists, that the volumes of each party be read aloud in chronological order.

The response of the Catholics to these matters.

An interlocution, whether the proceedings which the Donatists desire to have read are the earlier ones.

The response of the Donatists to the questions put to them.

An interlocution, that the proceedings which are older are to be read first.

Where the Catholics submit those proceedings which are earlier than all the others.

A proceeding of the Donatists, by which, lest any records be read out, they say the Catholics have returned to forensic practice, when by divine laws they had chosen that all things be settled.

An interlocution that those records which are older be read out.

Where the Donatists wonder that they are being drawn into the case.

Where the Catholics reply that they had offered the records to be read out in order, just as the Donatists themselves had requested.

A proceeding of the Donatists, where they reply that they had sought something other than what is offered by the Catholics, and they challenge them either to dispute by divine testimonies alone, or by public law.

An interlocution that the dates of the records be compared with one another by the office.

A proceeding of the Catholics, on when a cause ought to be handled by divine laws, and when by public laws.

An interlocution by which the proceeding of the Catholics is judged probable.

A proceeding of the Donatists in which they return to earlier matters, that the mandate given to them and the legation be made public.

An interlocution against the proceeding of the Donatists.

A proceeding of the Donatists concerning the mandate assigned to the defenders now present, and concerning another mandate imposed upon the earlier legates.

The response of the Catholics to these things, by which it is said that the mandate imposed upon the legates contains also extraneous matters which ought not to be inquired into by these persons.

A proceeding of the Donatists, by which they make a charge of the very thing the Catholics said, namely that the mandate of the legates ought not to be disclosed.

The response of the Catholics to these things, which sets forth the meaning of the preceding proceeding.

A proceeding of the Donatists similar to the preceding.

A proceeding of the Donatists, that the role of petitioner is mockingly imposed upon them.

An interlocution that the petitioner will be able to be shown by the reading of the records; and the Donatists reply that the order is to be observed in the reading of them.

An interlocution where the office is ordered to compare with one another the dates of the Proconsular records or those of the Prefecture.

Where records older than those are offered by the Catholics.

Where the cognitor orders that what is to be read be recited by the office rather than by the Donatists who wish to read.

Where the Catholics reply that the records they themselves offer are older.

Where the cognitor inquires of the office which records are earlier.

Where the office replies that the records which the Donatists offered from their codex are older.

Where the Catholics reply that they are bringing forward older ones.

Where the cognitor orders the records of the Donatists to be read out as the older ones; and the office reads out the petition given by the Catholics to the proconsul Septiminus.

Where the Donatists wish the Catholics to be the petitioners.

A proceeding of the Catholics, where they request that the older records be read out instead, those which were conducted before the proconsul Anulinus, with the Donatists acting.

An interlocution which orders the Catholics to prove the crime of schism which they allege against the Donatists.

The response of the Catholics to these things.

An interlocution which orders all things to be read out in order.

While the parties contend over the name of petitioner, the judge rules by interlocution that the petitioner will be able to be made clearer once all things have been read out.

A proceeding of the Donatists, that the Catholics choose whether they wish to proceed by public laws or by divine laws.

In response to these things, an interlocution of the cognitor, that the records be read out in order, by which the petitioner may be identified.

Where the Donatists endeavor to introduce a prescription based on lapse of time, so that the records conducted before the proconsul Anulinus may not be read out.

Where, while the Donatists are contending over this, the judge rules by interlocution that the prescription based on lapse of time is to be set aside, since the parties had by common consent deferred the examination to this day.

Where the Donatists say that they had introduced the prescription of time for this reason, because the Catholics had wished to proceed in the forensic manner by submitting documents.

An interlocution that the Catholics reply to the objections.

The response of the Catholics to these things, by which they declare that they will proceed according to the divine Scriptures, if departure be made from the crimes of persons and from the reading of documents.

A proceeding of the Donatists by which they say the Catholics have chosen nothing definite from the two options; and that they themselves are not the petitioners, having come to the judgment when summoned, but that the Catholics rather ought to set forth their case.

Where the Catholics say that he against whom a crime is alleged does not stand in the place of petitioner.

An interlocution approving the aforesaid.

Where the Donatists say that no answer has been given by the Catholics concerning the offered condition of forensic and divine treatment.

The response of the Catholics to these things.

Where the Donatists say that they are being gradually drawn into the case, and that it was mandated to them by their fathers that they stand in the name of the respondent.

An interlocution where it is said that to one proposition of the Donatists the judge himself replied, and to the other the Catholics replied.

An interlocution by which they reply that they have pronounced what the Donatists had wished.

A proceeding of the Catholics by which they reply that they too have chosen by what law they will dispute, and that the judge has acted not on his own behalf but on behalf of the parties.

A proceeding of the Donatists, that it was not in their power that they came together for the judgment.

Where the Catholics ask the Donatists whether they will desist from the accusation of persons.

The continuation of the Donatists, in which they say they cannot respond to this question of the Catholics, but that the Catholics ought to stand in the place of the petitioner.

The continuation of the Catholics, by which they testify that they have responded to the conditions proposed by the Donatists.

An interlocution approving that the Catholics have responded, stating that the earlier proceedings are to be read out so that the petitioner may be identified.

A continuation in which the Donatists, denying that the Catholics have chosen one definite person, return to the plea of prescription based on lapse of time.

The response of the Catholics, that those Donatists who afterwards gave mandates did not appear at the final session.

The contention of the Donatists on this matter.

The continuation of the Catholics concerning the profession of bishop Primianus, and where they offer a reading by which they prove that the Donatists are revisiting past matters.

The response of the Donatists as to why they return to past proceedings.

The continuation of the Catholics, that the Donatists are acting dilatorily, and that the proceedings which will reveal the petitioner must be read out.

Where the Donatists wish to enter a plea of prescription so that the proceedings may not be read.

An interlocution, that the Donatists wish to act against their own agreements, and that the proceedings must be read out.

The defense of the Donatists as to why they are unwilling to preserve the Catholics' own agreement for them.

An interlocution, that the proceedings be read out, preserving intact for the Donatists those things which can be properly claimed by reason.

Where the Donatists say that the Catholics, who have promised to act according to divine laws, ought to keep their own agreements.

The response of the Catholics to these things, that they promised to conduct according to divine laws not the cause of Caecilianus, but the cause of the Church.

An interlocution, that the proceedings be read out by which the petitioner may be identified.

Where, after the title of the report has been read, the Donatists ask why the title was read; and the cognitor orders that neither title be inserted into the acts.

Where, while the shorthand writer is reading, the Donatists ask from where the documents were produced.

Where the Catholics say that, once the proceedings have been read out, the validity of the reading itself ought to be required of them.

An interlocution ordering that, before the reading, it be answered from where the proceedings were produced.

Where the Catholics respond that these were produced from the Archive of the Proconsul, and they are read out in order.

Where, with the reading of the proceedings interrupted, the Donatists ask whether he who now acts is a son of Caecilianus.

The response of the Catholics to these things, that it is written that a Christian should not claim a portion for himself on earth; and that they place their hope not in Caecilianus if he was innocent, nor, if he was guilty, is the Church to be abandoned.

Where, with the cognitor ruling by interlocution that everything must be read out, the Donatists request that they be ordered to continue.

Where the Catholics say that from the reading of the proceedings the person of the petitioner can be found.

The response of the Catholics, that they brought the person of Caecilianus into the midst for this reason, because it has always been objected against the Catholic Church itself; and if the Donatists are now silent about it, there is no longer any cause why the separation should be maintained.

Where the Donatists ask whether those who are acting are sons of Caecilianus.

The response of the Catholics to these things.

Again a question from the Donatists on the same matter.

The response of the Catholics, that Caecilianus was not their father or mother, but their brother; where also they profess that Christ is the foundation of their faith.

Again the Donatists ask whether Caecilianus was their father.

The response of the Catholics to these things, and the contention arising therefrom.

An interlocution which declares that the Catholics have responded to the questions put to them.

Where the Donatists, swearing oaths, object to the judge that he himself sufficiently defends the Catholics.

The continuation of the Catholics containing a repetition of the name of father and brother; where also it is said that the cause of Caecilianus does not pertain to the Church at all, but that he ought to be defended as an innocent brother.

The continuation of the Donatists, that Caecilianus was the root or head of the Catholics, and that it is necessary that if Caecilianus was guilty, the guilt of him who was at the head should also infect his offspring.

Where the Catholics respond that their head is Christ.

Where Petilianus interrupts and asks who ordained Augustine.

Likewise a question introduced by the Donatists, concerning the Apostle in whom it is said, I have begotten you through the Gospel.

The protest of the Catholics concerning the tumult of the opposing party.

An interlocution which orders the Catholics to respond to the question proposed from the Apostle.

The response of the Catholics to the questions put, with testimonies from the Scriptures, that God is the one father unto salvation, while others are called father by way of honor, not of salvation.

Where the Donatists ask what is the name of him who ordained Augustine.

The continuation of the Catholics, that it does not pertain to the cause at all that his ordainer be inquired into.

Where, with the Donatists pressing the matter of Augustine's ordainer, it is answered that they are asking the Catholics; that they have not undertaken to defend the cause of Augustine, whatever it may be.

An interlocution by which it is ordered that Augustine respond to the questions put concerning his ordainer.

Where Augustine, with the cause of the Church first established in safety, responds plainly concerning his own ordainer, and challenges the Donatists to object whatever they may think fit.

An interlocution which orders the Donatists to answer what is fitting in response to what they ask; although the question of persons does not defer the cause.

The continuation of the Donatists in which they say that the Church is stained by the vices of priests, and they offer a volume to be read aloud with divine testimonies: against those things which were found placed in the mandate read out by the Catholics at the first hearing.

An interlocution which says that what is offered by the Donatists can only then be read aloud, if they wish the cognitor to depart from the examination of the public documents.

Where the Donatists request that what they offer be read aloud in the meantime, and it is read aloud by the office.

An interlocution which says that that document ought not to have been drawn up at all by those from whom, once the mandate had been executed, the entire matter had passed.

Where the Donatists assert that they wish to refute by legal testimonies those legal testimonies put forward by the Catholics in their mandate, and they ask that their Letter be heard.

An interlocution which grants that what was not rightly drawn up according to public law be read aloud, and enumerates this very concession it grants, lest the law appear to have been omitted by the judge.

While the exceptor is reading aloud, the Donatists will say that the sense of the letter is not being well distinguished.

Where the Catholics concede that the Donatists themselves read it, although the Catholics themselves had previously refused to read it.

An interlocution which says it makes no difference who reads.

Where a Letter is read aloud by a Donatist Bishop, which the Donatists sent to the judge, a letter filled with legal testimonies, striving to exclude by means of contrary testimonies all those testimonies which the Catholics had placed in their mandate.

An interlocution which, once the entire Letter has been read aloud, declares that patience has been shown by the Catholics, and orders the Catholics to respond against its text.

The continuation of the Donatists in which they request that their testimonies be refuted by testimonies.

Where the Catholics respond against the letter of the Donatists.

Where the Donatists wish to interrupt, denying that the threshing-floor is named in the scriptures.

Likewise where the Donatists assert that the Gospel has commanded that the mingling of hidden, non-manifest offenders be tolerated.

Where the Catholics request that the patience not be denied to them which they themselves showed to the read-aloud letter of the Donatists.

The continuation of the Catholics, where among other things repeated from earlier, this also is brought forward: that the Church is contained under the name of the world.

The Donatists' contention against these things, that the Church is not comprised under the name of the world.

Where the Catholics request that the Donatists be admonished to show patience, since their letter is immediately answered, with no interval of delay requested, in the manner in which they themselves requested to respond to the Catholics' mandate.

Where the Donatists respond that the very one who pursues at length is creating a disturbance for them.

Where the Catholics request that, if they wish to have a dispute over individual points, either the letter be set aside, or they show patience, or a response be given to the letter.

Where the Donatists say that they cannot show patience for this reason, that the Catholics wish to interpret the law differently.

An interlocution which says that patience must be shown, since the entire tenor of the letter was heard patiently by the Catholics.

The continuation of the Catholics in which they attest that everything is being written down so that, if anything should fall into oblivion, it may be retrieved from the records; and where they say that the world is named in the testimonies of the scriptures both in a bad and in a good sense.

An interlocution which orders it to be written down that the Donatists are making a disturbance.

Where the Donatists assert that the Church cannot be interpreted through the world, since Christ himself declared that the world is the field, not the Church.

An interlocution asking the Donatists who that world is which is said to be saved.

The Donatists' response to these things, that by that world mankind is meant.

An interlocution which inquires whether the Church consists of those same human beings.

The Donatists' contention against these things.

Where the exceptors and notaries indicate that, their codices being full, they must withdraw and others be substituted.

An interlocution ordering that this be done.

The continuation of the Donatists against the continuation of the Catholics which they brought against the Letter.

The continuation of the Catholics in which they show that evil persons were sown in the Church, which the Donatists denied could happen, and in which they defend what the Donatists said they had said concerning two Churches.

An interlocution which orders it to be read aloud from the codex whether the Catholics in their continuation had spoken of two Churches.

Where the Donatists wish to interpret that the Catholics had meant two Churches, since it was not established that they had said two Churches.

The continuation of the Catholics in which they defend what they said concerning the Church of the present time and of the future.

The continuation of the Donatists where they say that the Catholics also called the Church mortal, although immortality has been promised to the Church.

The continuation of the Catholics in which they assert, in accordance with their above-stated assertions, that that Church which now consists of mortal righteous persons on earth has been promised immortality.

An interlocution which says that, when the question has been concluded, it will state in its sentence what it thinks, and orders that the cause of the error be laid open.

A continuation of the Donatists which requests that the cognitor, once the inquiry has run its course, pronounce on each individual article: and where they say that no answer has been given to their legal testimonies.

The response of the Catholics to these things, in accordance with what was said above.

An interlocution of the judge in which he says that the laws forbid a sentence from being delivered on part of a case.

The contention of the Donatists against these things, which also does injury to the Catholics, inasmuch as it boasts that they are false priests.

A protestation of the Catholics, where they answer that they are overlooking the injury done to them.

A continuation of the Donatists, which says to the judge: if you are not Christ, why do you judge concerning priests? And which asserts that this judgment must be reserved for Christ: and which asks the Catholics whether Christ commanded them to seek a human judge.

The response of the Catholics to these things, that the first Donatists demanded human judgments in an episcopal cause, and that they themselves do not suffer persecution but inflict it.

Where the Donatists say that what the Circumcellions do pertains in no way to the priests.

A continuation of the Catholics, that the Donatists surpassed the devil by gouging out eyes.

Where the Donatists say that the devil has been defended by the Catholics.

A continuation of the Catholics, that the Maximianists are better than the Donatists, by whom they suffered persecution, if enduring persecution makes one better.

A continuation of the Donatists, where it is said that the devil did a worse thing, in that he did not take away from Job the eyes of those who witnessed his wounds.

A continuation of the Catholics, where the Donatists are said to have made use of consolarium and to have burned the Lord's books.

A continuation of the Donatists, that their churches are still filled with bloodied bodies.

An interlocution asking whether that was the cause of the schism.

The response of the Donatists to these things.

Where the Catholics say that the Maximianists could level this charge against the Donatists.

An interlocution similar to the preceding one.

Where the Catholics challenge the Donatists to confess the cause of the ancient schism.

Where the Donatists say that the traditores, that is, the evil tree, can be known from their deeds, that is, from their fruits.

The response of the Catholics to these things.

An interlocution asking when the evil tree came into existence.

A continuation of the Donatists, that not everything has been answered to them, and not on each individual point.

That the judge ought to deliver sentence, and that the fault of the first man passed by inheritance to all.

An interlocution, that sentence must be delivered on all matters together, lest the inclination of the judge be made public before the end of the case.

A continuation of the Catholics requesting that the documents which had begun to be read out be read through to the end.

An interlocution ordering them to be read out, and (the reading) of the report sent to the Emperor Constantine by the Proconsul Anulinus, by which it is noted that Majorinus had stood in the way of Caecilian and had handed over to the Proconsul documents of charges against him to be forwarded to the emperor.

Where, after the reading, the Donatists request that what is relevant against it be reserved for them.

Likewise the reading of another report sent by the same Proconsul to the same emperor, by which the same Proconsul signifies that he caused Caecilian to proceed to the city with ten of his clergy and an equal number of his adversaries, as the Emperor had commanded.

Likewise the reading of the letter of Constantine sent to Miltiades, Bishop of Rome, by which the cognition between Caecilian and his adversaries is also delegated to the other priests.

A continuation of the Catholics informing the cognitor of what has been read, and requesting that the judgment of Miltiades in the cause of Caecilian be read out.

The reading of the judgment of Miltiades.

Where the Donatists wish another document to be read out against the judgment of Miltiades.

Where the Catholics say that not all of the judgment of Miltiades has been read through, since the proceedings at that time lasted three days, and the records are threefold.

An interlocution where, to the Donatists wishing to proceed against what has been read, it is said that they should allow everything to be read out in order first.

Where the Donatists contend to proceed against what has been read.

Where the Catholics say that there still remains what ought to be read out, since the sentence of Miltiades has not been read.

A continuation of the Donatists in which they say that they returned from exile to the trial for this reason, because the cognitor had sworn by his edict.

The response of the Catholics that the Donatists were not in exile.

A continuation of the Donatists concerning the person of the petitioner, rehearsing what has been done, and saying that the exculpation of Caecilian ought not to have been read out, since he had not yet been accused by them.

An interlocution, that the documents which the Donatists offer ought to be read out, so that, when all have been read, the person of the petitioner may be able to be identified.

Where the Catholics contend that the reading of their documents ought not to be interrupted at all, but that everything must be read out in order.

Where the Donatists answer that the reading concerning the Catholic Caecilian could not have been relevant.

An interlocution where, with the Catholics contending for the continuation of the reading, the cognitor orders that those documents which the Donatists offer be read out instead.

A continuation of the Donatists recounting the beginning of the cause, what Mensurius, bishop of the Church of Carthage, did in the time of unity during the persecution, whence arose the cause of the schism.

An interlocution requiring proof if the crime of tradition is charged against Mensurius.

A prosecution by the Catholics by which, with the cause of the Church preserved, they desire the tradition to be proved against Mensurius.

Where a private letter sent by Mensurius to Bishop Secundus is read out by the Donatists, in which he makes known what was done concerning himself at the time of the persecution.

A prosecution by the Catholics, by which they wish it to be put on record that private letters are being read out whose authenticity is uncertain.

Likewise another private letter is read out, of Secundus writing back to Mensurius.

Where the Catholics demand that it be stated who this Secundus was.

Where the Donatists state who Secundus was.

A reading of the aforesaid reply, in which Secundus in turn makes known to Mensurius what was done concerning himself in Numidia at that time.

An interlocution ordering that, once their letters have been read out, the Donatists should patiently hear what the Catholics had begun to have read.

A prosecution by the Donatists, which says that there remains something concerning Caecilianus that must be read.

An interlocution ordering that what remains concerning Caecilianus also be read out.

A prosecution by the Catholics asserting that they are content for it to be read.

Where the Donatists offer the decree drawn up by their fathers concerning the condemnation of Caecilianus, and this is read out at the judge's command.

When the reading is concluded, the judge delivers an interlocution that if there is anything still remaining that ought to be read out concerning Caecilianus, it should be made known.

A prosecution by the Donatists, promising that they also have documents concerning other persons.

An interlocution that what had been submitted by the Catholics should be read through.

A prosecution by the Catholics putting on record both that nothing was conducted against Mensurius by public judicial proceedings, and that Caecilianus was condemned in his absence by those persons in a council without consul and date, who are found in another council to have pardoned one another for the crimes of tradition which they had confessed against each other.

An interlocution requiring this very thing to be read out.

Where, when the opening of the Council has been read out, the Donatists interrupt, denying that a consul and date are customarily added to ecclesiastical decrees.

The Catholics' reply to these things.

An interlocution similar to the preceding one.

Where the Catholics demand that it ought to be investigated whether Donatus, whose name has just been read out, was among those who condemned Caecilianus.

An interlocution seeking that these things be investigated, and likewise the names of each individual.

Where the Donatists testify that they have shown patience, requesting their turn when they begin to reply.

An interlocution requiring, in accordance with the wish of the Donatists, a declaration of patience from the Catholics.

Where the Catholics declare that they will show patience.

Where, when part of the codex has been read, the Donatists demand that the whole be read.

The Catholics' reply to these things.

A prosecution by the Catholics asserting that they read what was read for the purpose that the exculpation of Caecilianus might prevail.

An interlocution admonishing the Donatists to reply against those things which were read out by the Catholics, so that the remaining things which were interrupted may be read out.

A prosecution by the Donatists asserting that they produced the decree without the addition of a consul in accordance with the custom of their forebears.

An interlocution which asks whether the Catholics made any objection on this account.

A prosecution by the Catholics that the Donatists are doing these things in order to consume time.

Where the Donatists say that, if no one doubts the sentences pronounced, Caecilianus was rightly condemned.

The prosecution of the Catholics similar to the preceding.

An interlocution confirming what the Catholics said.

Where the Catholics ask the Donatists whether they deny that gatherings are customarily held in time of persecution.

The prosecution of the Donatists, which says that this decree which the Catholics produced as having been enacted by twelve Bishops is false, either because it was not made in those times, or because, with the Emperor stationed in the neighboring regions, no one would have dared to assemble a Council there.

Where the Catholics say that a small number of Bishops could easily have been gathered at that time.

The response of the Donatists to these things.

Where the Catholics protest that their men whom they had sent to read the records are not permitted to leave, those men having confessed that they had been at the assembly among the Martyrs.

Where the Donatists of their own accord offer the records of the Martyrs to be read aloud.

An interlocution ordering the same to be read aloud.

Where the Donatists demand from the reading of the records the consul and the day, so that the consul and day of the decree may also be compared with the consul and day of those same records.

An interlocution which inquires how great an interval lies between the times of the decree and of the records.

Where, with the Catholics pronouncing differently concerning the interval of time, the scribe answers how great it was.

Where the Donatists forbid that which had been reported differently by the Catholics concerning the interval of time to be removed from the records.

Where the Catholics excuse this very thing and allow it to remain in the records.

Where the Donatists charge the Catholics with falsehood on this account.

The response of the Catholics, by which they assert that that decree cannot be called false unless the Donatists shall have proved that assemblies were not customarily held during the time of persecution.

The prosecution of the Donatists, that a Council could not have been assembled at the time when the Martyrs were hanging on the rack.

An interlocution of the Catholics repeating the response to these things.

Where the Catholics respond that even during the time of persecution the diligence of Christians was so great that Martyrs baptized in prisons held assemblies of the people, and that this was done can become clear from the reading of the records.

An interlocution ordering the records to be read aloud.

Where the Donatists say that they themselves had recently offered these very records to be read aloud which are now being produced by the Catholics.

Likewise a reading of the records which contain the passions of the Martyrs.

Likewise the Catholics offer other records of the Martyrs, from which it may be shown that assemblies of the people were held at that time, and they are read aloud.

An interlocution which determines from the reading of the records that assemblies of the people were celebrated during the time of persecution.

The prosecution of the Donatists, by which they contend that the Catholics ought to suffer the loss of that same decree, because an episcopal Council could not have been assembled at that time.

An interlocution which determines that twelve Bishops could have been gathered into one house at the time when assemblies of the people were able to be held publicly.

The prosecution of the Donatists, by which they still contend concerning the falsity of the decree, and examine the sentences and words of the decree itself, and say that Caecilianus could have defended himself against his condemners by means of that decree, if it were established that this decree had been made at that time.

An interlocution against the prosecution of the Donatists, which says that twelve bishops could both have assembled at that time and have easily kept themselves hidden, but that Caecilianus was absolved not by that decree of the twelve bishops but rather by the judgment of Miltiades.

Where the Donatists again compel the Catholics to bear the loss of that same decree.

Where the Catholics wish to offer other documents of an imperial judgment concerning the absolution of Caecilianus.

An interlocution ordering that same thing to be read aloud.

Where the Donatists demand of the judge that he pronounce concerning the falsity of that decree.

An interlocution, that it has become clear from the records that a Council could have been held at that time.

The prosecution of the Catholics, by which, with the Donatists silent, they offer to be read aloud the judgment of Constantine concerning the absolution of Caecilianus.

The prosecution of the Donatists, by which they contend that a Council could not have been held at that time, and that the Catholics ought to bear the loss of that same decree.

An interlocution, that inquiry ought then to have been made more earnestly concerning that decree, if the absolution of Caecilianus rested upon it; now the Donatists must either say or produce something else against the judgment of Miltiades, by which the absolution of Caecilianus may be destroyed.

The prosecution of the Donatists, by which they promise that they will respond against the judgment of Miltiades; yet that the trustworthiness of that decree must be inquired into.

An interlocution demanding that something be made known against the judgment of Miltiades, and judging that a Council could have been held during the persecution.

The prosecution of the Catholics, that there was a necessary cause why the Bishops were assembled at that time.

An interlocution demanding that something be answered by the Donatists against the absolution of Caecilianus.

The prosecution of the Donatists, that although assemblies of the people were held at that time, nevertheless a Council of bishops could not have been convened at that time.

An interlocution demanding that the Donatists read something against the judgment of Miltiades.

The prosecution of the Donatists, that their bishops could not have condemned another for that crime if they themselves were held liable to that same crime.

The response of the Catholics to these things from the dominical scriptures.

An interlocution demanding that something be produced against the absolution of Caecilianus.

The prosecution of the Donatists, that Caecilianus ought to have been cleared in Africa where he had been condemned; and that the sentence of Miltiades in his favor is of no force, because Miltiades was also held by a similar crime.

The prosecution of the Catholics demanding that what the Donatists had said concerning the crime of Miltiades be proved.

An interlocution ordering that what is charged against Miltiades be substantiated.

The continuation of the Donatists, by which they promise to prove by the reading of the records what was done concerning the name of Miltiades.

Where the Catholics request that the matters adjudicated concerning the name of Miltiades ought to be produced.

Where the Donatists say that they will show by the writings of Optatus, the Catholic bishop, that Caecilianus was condemned at Brescia.

An interlocution, with the testimony of Optatus now set aside, that what the Donatists had promised concerning the name of Miltiades ought rather to be produced.

Where the Donatists wish the testimony of Optatus to be read aloud.

An interlocution which promises that the testimony of Optatus shall be read aloud, if first what had been promised against Miltiades be read aloud.

The continuation of the Catholics, that the testimony of the single Optatus ought not to be received against the outstanding judgments of bishops.

The continuation of the Catholics, that the writings of Optatus are not held as canonical scriptures.

A continuation, by which the Donatists demand that the Catholics either condemn Optatus, or allow his testimony to be read aloud whereby he says that Caecilianus was condemned at Brescia; and by which they admonish the judge to maintain the promised equity.

An interlocution similar to the preceding.

The continuation of the Catholics, that the Donatists ought to produce some adjudicated matter against Miltiades.

An interlocution similar to the preceding.

Where the Donatists say that what they desire to have read aloud from Optatus is not lengthy.

An interlocution defining that order must be observed, so that first something against Miltiades, and afterwards from Optatus as much as they wish, be read aloud.

Where the Donatists offer the records held in the city.

Where those same records are read aloud, by which the handing over of ecclesiastical property was perpetrated in the city of Rome by certain others and by one Straton.

An interlocution that in such lengthy records nothing was said concerning the name of Miltiades.

Where the Donatists say that they have not yet finished reading aloud everything they had promised.

The continuation of the Catholics, by which they testify that they showed patience with the lengthy records, and that nothing from those same records was brought forward against Miltiades, whence they ought also to read the judgment of the Emperor Constantine concerning the acquittal of Caecilianus.

The continuation of the Donatists, by which they testify that they read aloud the handing over in the earlier records, and that they still have something to read.

An interlocution permitting other records concerning the person of Miltiades to be read aloud, and reserving for the Catholics the right to read aloud afterwards whatever they may wish.

Here the Catholics wish it to be placed on record that the Donatists did not specify where the earlier records were drawn up.

An interlocution confirming what was said by the Catholics.

Likewise other records are read aloud by the Donatists, by which, after freedom to act had been restored to Christians, the property of the Church which had been handed over is recovered by Straton and the others whom bishop Miltiades had sent for that business.

An interlocution, that the second records also contain nothing concerning the guilt of Miltiades.

Where the Donatists assert that that same Straton, sent by Miltiades as a kind of deacon to reclaim the property of the Church, is found to have previously handed it over.

An interlocution requesting that this be demonstrated.

Where the name of Straton is read aloud from the first records.

An interlocution requesting that it be shown clearly whether Straton was named as a deacon in the first records.

Where the Donatists wish to interpret from this that a deacon was signified there, because in those same records he was named an instigator of superstition.

Where the Catholics gather from the continuation of the Donatists that it could have happened that the Straton who was the instigator of superstition was a different person.

The contention of the Donatists against these points.

An interlocution stating that both records were made at the same times, and that Straton ought to have been designated by the same name of instigator in both.

Likewise an interlocution which requires that a clear crime and manifest condemnation of Miltiades be brought forth.

The continuation of the Donatists, that that same Straton is the one who first handed over, and afterwards received the property of the Church; and that it does not harm the truth that he was there called an instigator of superstition, because the pagans were unwilling to call him a devil: that Miltiades ought then to be judged, defiled by his association with Straton.

The continuation of the Donatists, that the name of Miltiades is not found there for the reason that he had not yet been a bishop; but that Miltiades was defiled from this point, because he counted the traditor Straton among the number of his deacons.

An interlocution pronouncing that the parties ought to conduct themselves as is fitting.

The continuation of the Catholics, that there could have been two Stratons at that time, and that it is not contrary to custom for two persons to be known by one name; and that Miltiades cannot be held guilty unless it be shown that he knew of Straton's handing over.

An interlocution that among bishops nothing is to be transacted on the basis of suspicions, and that the judgment of Constantine ought to be read aloud.

The reading aloud of the judgment of Constantine, by which the Emperor signifies that Caecilianus was also cleared before him after the Council of Arles.

An interlocution which admonishes the Donatists whether they have anything to read aloud against these matters.

Where the Donatists again say that Miltiades was defiled by his association with Straton.

An interlocution similar to the preceding.

Where the Donatists say that the judgment of Constantine was conveyed to his ears falsely.

An interlocution, that the Emperor rendered judgment between the parties.

Where the Donatists desire this to be read.

An interlocution signifying this same thing, and from the rescript of the Prince read out above.

Where the Donatists wish it to be attested that in the rescript of the Prince there is neither a day nor a consul.

Where the Catholics respond, both that a day was read from the rescript, and they offer again that it be read.

A continuation by the Donatists, that although a day was read, no consul was read.

The Catholics' response to these things, and that if there is doubt about the rescript, the authority of the archives should be consulted.

An interlocution, that an imperial rescript lacking a consul and a day cannot be called into doubt.

Where the Donatists complain that an episcopal decree was previously produced by the Catholics with a consul, and now the Emperor's letter is being recited without a consul.

Where the Catholics challenge the Donatists to declare the Emperor's letter to be false.

Where the Donatists request that the reading concerning Optatus, which had been reserved for them, be produced.

An interlocution, that the Donatists must first answer whether the Emperor's letter is false, and only then let what they wish from Optatus be recited.

Where the Donatists assert that the rescript profits Caecilianus nothing, because he is found to have been condemned afterward; and they wish this to be established by the reading of Optatus once recited.

Where the Catholics attest that the error of Optatus does not prejudice them; yet they allow Optatus to be read.

Where a consul is afterward found in the Imperial letter.

Where the reading from Optatus is recited.

The condemnation of Caecilianus not being found in Optatus, but rather a detention at Brixia, the Donatists assert that Optatus spoke more temperately.

An interlocution, that the Donatists who said Optatus spoke more temperately must prove more clearly that Caecilianus was condemned by the Emperor.

A continuation by the Donatists, in which they say that the Donatus of Casis was not a different person.

The Catholics' response to these things, that in the acts of Miltiades, Donatus of Casis is clearly named.

Where Petilianus, Bishop of the party of Donatus, attests that he is unable to act on account of hoarseness.

Where the Catholics attest that Petilianus wished to withdraw from the proceedings for this reason, that Donatus of Casis had been clearly shown to him from the records.

Here end the Chapters of the Third Hearing.