The Donatists' own persecution of Caecilian proves the righteous can persecute
Augustine is addressing the congregation, recalling the public debate at Carthage and turning the Donatists' own account of their forebears' persecution of Caecilian into an argument that persecution itself is not the question, but the cause.
They themselves know—they were at the conference we held at Carthage—how they admitted that their parents persecuted Bishop Caecilian. It was then that they broke away from the Catholic Church and made the schism. Their parents persecuted him—the first ones who formed the Donatist party persecuted Caecilian. They pursued him all the way to the emperor's court. They sent charges against him to the emperor, charges that were not true. The emperor ordered the case to be heard. It was heard before bishops, the false charges were found to be false, and Caecilian was acquitted. But they did not stop pursuing him. They kept appealing to the emperor again and again, until the emperor appointed a judge for the case and himself heard both parties and examined it. The emperor examined it and judged Caecilian innocent. And when we brought this up, they argued with us and said that the emperor condemned Caecilian to exile. That is false. But still, notice what they said: that Caecilian was brought before the emperor by their persecuting ancestors and sent into exile. We have read the records. Those are their own prosecutions; their own hand is preserved, subscribing with their own words. Pay attention, I beg you, and judge our case now. Certainly their ancestors persecuted Caecilian; certainly they brought him before the emperor; certainly they worked to have him condemned. I do not want to say that he was not condemned; I do not want to say that he was declared innocent. Let it be as they say. When they were persecuting him, when they got him condemned—what was Caecilian then? When he was suffering persecution at the hands of their ancestors, what was he? Tell me: what was he? Was he a Christian? Was he a Catholic? Or what was he? They do not say he was not a Catholic, but that he was a criminal. So criminals can suffer persecution at the hands of holy people. Let us accept that outright: Caecilian, who suffered persecution, was a criminal. I do not say they were lying; let us say they were deceived, so that we agree with them: he was a criminal. And those who did it—what were they? Choose whichever you like. If they were unjust, then abandon the unjust and come to us. But if they were holy, then it is possible for holy people to persecute an unjust man. Do not be angry with us if we persecute. Do not say, 'You are unjust because you persecute.' You have already shown that it is possible for the just to persecute the unjust. Is it possible or not? Tell me one of the two. If it is not possible, why did your people persecute Caecilian? But if it is possible, why are you surprised? Why do you praise the punishment and not show the cause? 'Blessed are those who suffer persecution,' says the Lord. Add: 'for the sake of righteousness,' and you have separated the robbers, separated the evildoers, separated the adulterers, separated the impious, separated the sacrilegious, separated the heretics. Such people suffer persecution, but not for the sake of righteousness.
Latin
Ipsi nouerunt, quando in collatione nostra fuerunt quam Carthagine habuimus, quomodo confessi sunt, quia parentes eorum fecerunt persecutionem Caeciliano episcopo. tunc a catholica discordantes schisma fecerunt. persecuti sunt illum parentes ipsorum, id est primi qui fecerunt partem Donati persecuti sunt Caecilianum. perduxerunt illum persequendo usque ad iudicium imperatoris, miserunt crimina ipsius imperatori, quae uera non existebant. iussit audiri causam imperator. audita est apud episcopos, falsa illa crimina inuenta sunt, absolutus est Caecilianus. nec illi a persequendo destiterunt, sed imperatorem saepe interpellauerunt, ubi postea iudicem causae constituerunt et ipse inter partes audiuit et cognouit. cognouit imperator, innocentem Caecilianum iudicauit. et cum hoc obiceremus, contenderunt nobiscum et dixerunt, quia Caecilianum damnarit imperator in exilium. quod falsum est. sed tamen uidete quid dixerunt, quia persequentibus maioribus suis adductus est ad imperatorem Caecilianus et missus in exilium. gesta legimus, prosecutiones ipsius sunt, manus ipsius tenentur subscribentis uerbis suis. intendite, obsecro uos, diiudicate modo causam nostram. certe persecuti sunt maiores sui Caecilianum, certe ad imperatorem perduxerunt, certe ut damnaretur fecerunt. nolo dicere quia non est damnatus, nolo dicere quia innocens est pronuntiatus, sed hoc sit quod dicunt. quando eum persequebantur, quando damnari fecerunt, tunc quid erat Caecilianus? quando persecutionem patiebatur a maioribus istorum, quid erat? dicatur mihi: quid erat? christianus erat? catholicus erat? aut quid erat? non dicunt non erat catholicus', sed 'criminosus'. possunt ergo pati persecutionem a sanctis homines criminosi. prorsus hoc accipiamus: criminosus erat Caecilianus qui persecutionem patiebatur. sic enim non dico (mentiebantur>, sed 'fallebantur', ut et nos illis consentiamus: 'criminosus erat'. qui faciebant quid erant? quod uis elige. si iniqui erant, desere iniquos, ueni ad nos; si autem sancti erant, potest ergo fieri ut sancti persequantur iniustum. noli nobis irasci, si persequimur, noli dicere: iniusti estis qui persequimini. iam enim ostendistis, quia fieri potest ut et iusti persequantur iniustum. fieri potest aut non potest? unum de duobus dicatur mihi. si fieri non potest, quare uestri persecuti sunt Caecilianum? si autem fieri potest, quid miraris? quid laudas poenam et non ostendis causam? beati, ait dominus, qui persecutionem patiuntur. adde: propter iustitiam, et separasti latrones, separasti maleficos, separasti adulteros, separasti impios, separasti sacrilegos, separasti haereticos. tales persecutionem patiuntur, sed non propter iustitiam.