CONSTANTINE AND THE DONATISTS
If Constantine hoped that by the Edict of Milan he had stilled the voice
of religious controversy, he was speedily disillusioned. He was now to
find the peace of the Church violently disturbed by those belonging to
her communions, and the hatreds of Christians against one another almost
as menacing to the tranquillity of the imperial rule as had been the
bitter strife of pagan and Christian. In the same year (313) he received
an appeal from certain African bishops imploring him to appoint a
commission of Gallican bishops to settle certain difficulties which had
arisen in Africa. The Donatist schism, which was destined to last for
more than a century, had begun.
Its rise may be traced in a few words. Northern Africa had long been the
home of a perfervid religious fanaticism. Montanism and Novatianism had
found there their most violent adherents, to whom there was something
peculiarly attractive in extravagant protest against the laxity or the
liberalism of the Church elsewhere, and in emphatic insistence on the
narrowness of the way which leads to salvation. Those who set up the
most impossible standard of attainment; those who demanded from the
Christian the most absolute spotlessness of life; those who insisted
most strenuously on the enormity of sin and made fewest allowances for
the weakness of humanity—these were surest of being heard most gladly in
northern Africa. During the persecution of Diocletian and Maximian many
of the African Christians had ostentatiously courted martyrdom.
According to Catholic authors, such martyrdom had been sought not only
by saints, but by men of immoral and dissolute life, who thought to
purge the stains of a sinful career by dying in the odour of sanctity.
Others, again, while not prepared to die for the faith, were not
unwilling to suffer imprisonment for it, inasmuch as their
fellow-Christians looked well after the creature comforts of those who
languished in gaol. Mensurius, Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa,
strongly disapproved of these proceedings. He discountenanced the
fanaticism, which he knew to be the besetting weakness of his people;
refused to recognise as martyrs those who had provoked death; and
checked, as far as possible, the indiscriminate charity of his flock. If
his critics are to be believed, Mensurius had resort to a trick in order
to save the Holy Books of his own cathedral and thus escape the choice
of being a _traditor_ or of suffering for conscience’ sake. It was said
that when the officers of the civil power demanded the Holy Books in his
keeping, he handed over to them a number of heretical volumes, which
were at once burnt, while the Sacred Scriptures were carefully
concealed. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Mensurius was
charged with actual persecution of those Christians who had a sterner
sense of duty than himself.
It is manifest, however, from what took place at a synod of bishops held
in Cirta in 305 that many of the natural leaders of the African Church
had quailed before the persecution of Diocletian. They had assembled,
under the presidency of Secundus, Bishop of Tigisis and Primate of
Numidia, in order to fill the vacant see of Cirta. Secundus opened the
proceedings by inviting all present to clear themselves of the charge of
having surrendered their Holy Books, and began to put the question
directly to each in turn. Donatus of Mascula returned an evasive answer,
and said that he was responsible only to God. Many pleaded that they had
substituted other books for the Scriptures; Victor of Russicas alone
confessed that he had handed over the Four Gospels. “Valentinianus, the
Curator, himself compelled me to send them,” he said; “pardon me this
fault, even as God pardons me.” Then came the turn of Purpurius, Bishop
of Limata. Secundus accused him not of being a _traditor_, but of the
murder of two of his nephews. Purpurius stormed with rage. He vowed that
he would not be browbeaten, and declared that Secundus was no better
than his fellows and had purchased his own immunity, like the rest of
them, by surrendering the Scriptures. As for murdering his nephews, the
charge was true. “I did kill them,” he said, “and I kill all who stand
in my way.” This candid avowal seems to have occasioned no surprise
among the members of this extraordinary synod; they were all too
indignant with Secundus for raising inconvenient questions and
pretending to a sanctity beyond his colleagues. Eventually, another
nephew of Secundus threatened that they would all withdraw from his
communion and make a schism (_recedere et schisma facere_), unless he
let the matter drop. “What business is it of yours what each has done?”
asked the outspoken nephew. “It is to God that each must tender his
account.” The president thereupon drew in his horns, pronounced the
acquittal of the accused, and with a general murmur of “_Deo gratias_,”
they proceeded to the election of a bishop. Their choice fell upon
Sylvanus, himself a _traditor_, much, it is said, to the indignation of
the people of Cirta, who raised cries of, “He is a _traditor_: let
another be elected. We want our bishop to be pure and upright.” Sylvanus
had surrendered, without even a show of compulsion, one of the sacred
silver lamps from the altar of his church. It is more than possible that
the report of the proceedings at this synod, which is found only in
works written specifically—but by episcopal hands—against the Donatists,
is highly exaggerated. Among the bishops present at Cirta were those
who, a few years later, were the principal leaders of the Donatist
schism. But, even when all allowances are made for party colouring, the
picture it gives of the Numidian Church is far from flattering.
During the life of Mensurius overt schism was avoided, though the Church
of Carthage was by no means untroubled. For even before the persecution
broke out, a certain lady named Lucilla had fallen under the censure of
the ecclesiastical authorities, and had left the fold in high dudgeon.
She became the lady patroness of the malcontent Christians of Carthage
and the prime mover in any ecclesiastical intrigue that was afoot. She
had been wont, before taking the Eucharist, to kiss the doubtful relic
of a martyr, and she had set greater store on the efficacy of this
unregistered bone than on the virtues of the sacred chalice. It was not,
of course, for relic worship that Cæcilianus, the Archdeacon, rebuked
her, for the early Church everywhere acknowledged its intercessional
value, and it was the usual practice for an officiating priest, before
celebrating, to kiss the relics that were placed on the high altar.
Lucilla was reproved because her relic was not recognised by the
Church.[79] It was doubtful whether it had belonged to a martyr at all,
and, in any case, its identity had not been duly authenticated. But
before Mensurius could deal with this revolted daughter the tempest of
persecution broke over Africa. The angry and insulting epithets with
which the Catholic historians have loaded Lucilla are perhaps the best
testimony to her ability and influence. She was very rich and a born
intriguante (_pecuniosissima et factiosissima_), and as she had what she
considered to be a personal insult to avenge, she was as willing as she
was competent to cause trouble and mischief.
-----
Footnote 79:
_Os nescio cujus hominis mortui, et si martyris, sed necdum
vindicati._
-----
Shortly before the overthrow of Maxentius, one of Mensurius’s deacons
issued a defamatory libel against the Emperor and then took sanctuary at
Carthage. The Bishop refused to surrender him and was peremptorily
summoned to Rome. Evidently expecting that the Emperor would condemn him
and order the confiscation of the holy vessels of his church, Mensurius
secretly handed them over to the custody of certain elders in whose
honesty he thought he could place implicit reliance. But he took the
precaution—a wise one, as it subsequently proved—to make an inventory,
which he gave to an old woman, with instructions that if he did not
return she was to hand it to his lawfully appointed successor. Mensurius
then went to Rome, succeeded in convincing Maxentius of his innocence,
but died on the way home, in 311 A.D. As soon as the news of his death
reached Carthage, the round of intrigue began. According to Optatus, two
deacons named Botrus and Celestius, each hoping to secure his own
elevation, hurried on the election, in which the Numidian bishops were
not invited to take part. The passage is obscure, for Optatus goes on to
say that the choice fell upon Cæcilianus, who was elected “by the
suffrages of the whole people,” and was consecrated in due form by
Felix, Bishop of Aptunga. When Cæcilianus called upon the elders to
restore the Church ornaments, they quitted the Church—the suggestion of
the Catholic historian is that they had hoped to steal them—and attached
themselves to the faction of Lucilla, together with Botrus and
Celestius, whom St. Augustine roundly denounces as “impious and
sacrilegious thieves.” The schism was now complete. It had its origin,
says Optatus,[80] in the fury of a headstrong woman; it was nurtured by
intrigue and drew its strength from jealous greed.
-----
Footnote 80:
_Schisma igitur illo tempore confusæ mulieris iracundia peperit,
ambitus nutrivit, avaritia roboravit._
-----
Cæcilianus’ position was speedily challenged. The malcontents appealed
to the Numidian bishops, urging them to declare in synod whether the
election was valid. Accordingly, the Numidian Primate, Secundus of
Tigisis, came with seventy other bishops to the capital, where they were
received with open arms by the opposition party. Cæcilianus seated
himself on his throne in the cathedral and waited for the bishops to
appear. When they did not come he sent a message saying, “If any one has
any accusation to bring against me, let him come to make good the
charge.”, But the Numidian bishops preferred to meet elsewhere within
closed doors and finally declared the election of Cæcilianus invalid on
the ground that he had been consecrated by a _traditor_. To this
Cæcilianus replied that, if they thought Felix of Aptunga had been a
_traditor_, they had better consecrate him themselves, as though he were
still a simple deacon—a sarcasm which roused the violent Purpurius to
exclaim: “Let him come here to receive the laying on of hands, and we
will strike off his head by way of penance.” They then elected
Majorinus, who had been one of Cæcilianus’ readers and was now a member
of Lucilla’s household. There were thus two rival bishops of Carthage.
Those who supported Cæcilianus called themselves the Catholic party;
their rivals, until the death of Majorinus in 315, were known as the
party of Majorinus, though their moving spirit seems to have been,
first, Donatus, the Bishop of Casæ Nigræ, and, afterwards, Donatus,
surnamed Magnus, who gave his name to the schism.
Though Africa was thus split into two camps, there is no evidence that
Majorinus was recognised by any of the churches of Europe, Egypt, or
Asia. These all looked to Cæcilianus as the rightful bishop, and so,
when Constantine, fresh from his victory over Maxentius, wrote to the
African churches in 312 to announce his intention of making a handsome
present of money to their clergy, it was to Cæcilianus that the letter
was addressed, and the schismatics were rebuked in the sharpest terms.
The letter ran as follows:
“CONSTANTINE AUGUSTUS TO CÆCILIANUS, BISHOP OF
CARTHAGE.
“Inasmuch as it has pleased us to contribute something towards the
necessary expenses of certain ministers of the lawful and most holy
Catholic religion throughout all the provinces of Africa, Numidia, and
both Mauretanias, I have sent letters to Ursus, the most noble
governor of Africa, and have instructed him to see that three thousand
purses are paid over to your Reverence. When, therefore, you have
received the above mentioned sum, you will take care that the money is
divided among the clergy already spoken of according to the
instructions sent to you by Hosius.
“If you consider this amount insufficient for the purpose of
testifying my regard for all of you in Africa, you are to ask without
delay Heraclidas, the procurator of the imperial domains, for whatever
you may think necessary. For I have personally instructed him that
whatever sum your Reverence asks for is to be paid without hesitation.
“And since I have heard that certain persons of ill-balanced mind
(_quosdam non satis compositæ mentis_) are acting in such a manner as
to corrupt the people of the most holy and Catholic Church with wicked
and adulterous falsehoods (_improba et adulterina falsitate_), I would
have you know that I have given verbal instructions to Anulinus, the
proconsul, and to Patricius, the vicar of the præfects, to include
among their other duties a sharp lookout in this matter, and, if this
movement continues, not to neglect or ignore it.
“Consequently, if you find persons of this character persevering in
their mad folly (_in hac amentia perseverare_) you will at once
approach the above mentioned judges and lay the matter before them,
that they may punish the culprits (_in eos animadvertant_) in
accordance with my personal instructions.
“May the divinity of the Supreme God (_Divinitas summi Dei_) preserve
you for many years.”
In conjunction with this must be taken the letter addressed by
Constantine to Anulinus, the proconsul of Africa:
“Greetings to our best beloved Anulinus! Inasmuch as it is abundantly
proven that the neglect of the religion which preserves the greatest
reverence for divine majesty has reduced the State to the direst
peril, while its careful and due observance has brought the most
splendid prosperity to the Roman name and unspeakable felicity to all
things mortal, thanks to divine goodness, we have resolved, best
beloved Anulinus, that those, who with due righteousness of life and
continual observance of the law, perform their ministry in this divine
religion shall reap the reward of their labours.
“Wherefore, it is our wish that all who, in the province under your
care and in the Catholic Church over which Cæcilianus presides,
minister to this most holy religion—those, viz., whom people are wont
to call the clergy—shall be absolved[81] from all public duties of any
kind, lest, by some slip or grave mischance, they may be distracted
from the duties they owe to the Supreme Divinity, and that they may do
the better service to their own ritual without any disturbing
influences.
“Inasmuch as these people display the deepest reverence for the Divine
Will, it seems to me that they ought to receive the greatest reward
the State can bestow.”
-----
Footnote 81:
_Ab omnibus omnino publicis functionibus immunes volumus conservari._
-----
[Illustration:
THE AMPHITHEATRE AT ARLES.
EXTERIOR VIEW. PRESENT DAY.
]
These are two remarkable letters. They clearly prove that the schism in
the African Church was making a stir outside Africa, and that the
Emperor had been instructed in the main points at issue. The new convert
had cast his all-powerful influence upon the Catholic side—an Emperor
would naturally be biassed against schism—and he was prepared to utilise
the civil power in order to compel the return of the schismatics to
obedience. So little observant was he of his own edict of toleration
that he was prepared to use force to secure uniformity within the
Church! Constantine, indeed, reveals himself not merely as a Christian,
but as a Catholic Christian; his bounty is reserved for the Catholic
clergy, and the immunity from public duties involving heavy expense is
reserved similarly for them alone. Nevertheless, the party of Majorinus
petitioned the Emperor to appoint a commission of Gallican bishops to
enquire into and report upon their quarrel with the Bishop of Carthage.
“We appeal to you, Constantine, best of Emperors, since you come of a
just stock, for your father was alone among his colleagues in not
putting the persecution into force, and Gaul was thus spared that
frightful crime. Strife has arisen between us and other African
bishops, and we pray that your piety may lead you to grant us judges
from Gaul.”
(Signed by Lucianus, Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Fidentius, and other
bishops of the party of Majorinus.)
This petition was forwarded by Anulinus, the proconsul, whose covering
letter, dated April, 313, describes the opponents of Cæcilianus as being
resolute in refusing obedience. The Emperor, who was in Gaul when the
petition reached him, granted the desired commission and instructed the
bishops of Cologne, Autun, and Arles to repair to Rome. Cæcilianus was
instructed to attend with the bishops belonging to his party; ten of the
rival bishops attached to Majorinus were to appear in the character of
accusers, and for judges there were to be Miltiades, Bishop of Rome, the
three Gallican bishops, and fifteen other Italian bishops selected by
Miltiades from all parts of the peninsula. They met in October in the
palace of the Empress Fausta, on the Lateran. Constantine had already
written a letter to Miltiades, in which he deplored the existence of
such serious schism in the populous African provinces, which, he said,
had spontaneously surrendered to him, under the influence of divine
Providence, as a reward for his devotion to religion. He, therefore,
looked to the bishops to find a reasonable solution.
At the first sitting the credentials of the accusers of Cæcilianus were
examined, and some were disqualified on the score of bad character.
Then, when the witnesses were called, those who had been brought to Rome
by Majorinus and Donatus avowed that they had nothing to say against
Cæcilianus. The case of the petitioners practically collapsed, for the
judges refused to listen to unsubstantiated gossip and scandal, and
Donatus in the end declined to attend the enquiry, fearing lest he
should be condemned on his own admissions. Later on, a second list of
charges was handed in, but was not supported by a single witness, and
then finally the commission passed on to enquire into the proceedings of
the Council of the seventy bishops who had declared the election of
Cæcilianus invalid. They had no difficulty in reaching a general
decision.
The accusations against Cæcilianus had clearly broken down and the
verdict of Miltiades began in the following terms: “Inasmuch as it is
shewn that Cæcilianus is not accused by those who came with Donatus, as
they had promised to do, and Donatus has in no particular established
his charges against him, I find that Cæcilianus should be maintained in
the communion of his church with all his privileges intact.” St.
Augustine warmly eulogises the admirable moderation displayed by
Miltiades, who, in the hope of restoring unity, offered to send letters
of communion to all who had been consecrated by Majorinus, proposing
that where there were two rival bishops, the senior in time of
consecration should be confirmed in the appointment, while another see
should be found for the other. But the Donatists would listen to no
compromise. They appealed again to the Emperor, who, with a very
pardonable outburst of wrath, denounced the rabid and implacable hatreds
of these turbulent Africans.
Knowing that the quarrel would be resumed in full blast if Cæcilianus
and Donatus returned to Africa, Constantine detained them both in Italy.
Two Italian bishops, Eunomius and Olympius, were meanwhile sent to
Carthage to act as peacemakers and explain to the African congregations
which was the true Catholic Church. It was none other, they said, than
the Church which was diffused throughout the whole world, and they
insisted that the judgment of the nineteen bishops was one from which
there could be no appeal. The Donatists, however, retorted that if the
verdict of nineteen bishops was sacred, a verdict of seventy must be
even more so. They resisted the overtures of their visitors, and thus,
when Donatus and Cæcilianus in turn reappeared on the scene, the fires
of partisanship did not lack for fuel. It was no longer possible for the
Donatists to press for a rehearing on the ground of the personal
character of Cæcilianus. They had had their chance in Rome to impugn the
Primate’s character, and had failed. They now shifted their ground and
based their claim upon the fact that Felix of Aptunga, who had
consecrated Cæcilianus, was a _traditor_, and the consecration was,
therefore, invalid.
But was Felix a _traditor_? This was a plain, straightforward question,
involving no disputed point of doctrine. Constantine, therefore, wrote
to Ælianus, Anulinus’s successor as proconsul of Africa, instructing him
to hold a public enquiry into the life and character of Felix of
Aptunga. Part of the official report has come down to us. Among the
witnesses were those who had been the chief magistrates of Aptunga at
the time of the persecution. These must all have been acutely conscious
of the curiously anomalous position in which they stood. If they found
that Felix had delivered up the Holy Books and utensils of the church,
their verdict would acquit him of having broken the law of Diocletian,
but would convict him of being a _traditor_, and would, therefore, be
most unwelcome to the reigning sovereign. If they decided that Felix was
not a _traditor_, they would convict him of having broken the law of
Diocletian and convict themselves of having been lax administrators. The
favour of a living Prince, however, outweighed consideration for the
edicts of the dead, and the finding of the court was that “no volumes of
Holy Scripture had been discovered at Aptunga, or had been defiled, or
burnt.” It went on to say that Felix was not present in the city at the
time and that he had not temporised with his conscience (_neque
conscientiam accommodaverit_). He had been, in short, a godly bishop
(_religiosum episcopum_). The character of Felix was, therefore,
entirely rehabilitated and the validity of the consecration of
Cæcilianus was unimpaired.
[Illustration:
THE AMPHITHEATRE AT ARLES AS IT APPEARED IN 1686.
FROM AN OLD PRINT.
]
Then follows the Council of Arles in 314. With a forbearance rarely
displayed by a Roman emperor to inveterate and unreasoning opposition,
Constantine yielded to the clamour of the Donatists for a new council on
a broader and more authoritative scale than the commission of Italian
and Gallic bishops. But his disappointment and disgust are plainly to be
seen in his letter to the proconsul of Africa. Constantine began by
saying that he had fully expected that the decision of a commission of
bishops “of the very highest probity and competence” would have
commanded universal respect. He found, however, that the enemies of
Cæcilianus were as dogged and obstinate as ever, for they declared that
the bishops had simply shut themselves up in a room and judged the case
according to their personal predilections. They clamoured for another
council: he would grant them one which was to meet at Arles. Ælianus,
therefore, was to see that the public posting service throughout Africa
and Mauretania was placed at the disposal of Cæcilianus and his party
and of Donatus and his party, that they might travel with despatch and
cross into Spain by the quickest passage. Then the letter continued:
“You will provide each separate Bishop with imperial letters entitling
him to necessaries _en route_ (_tractorias litteras_) that he may
arrive at Arles by the first of August, and you will also give all the
bishops to understand that, before they leave their dioceses, they
must make arrangements whereby, during their absence, reasonable
discipline may be preserved and no chance revolt against authority or
private altercations arise, for these bring the Church into great
disgrace.
“On the other matters at issue, I wish the enquiry to be full and
complete, and an end to be reached,[82] as I hope it may be, when all
those who are known to be at variance meet together in person. The
quarrel may thus come to its natural and timely conclusion.
“For as I am well assured that you are a worshipper of the supreme
God, I confess to your Excellency that I consider it by no means
lawful for me to ignore disputes and quarrels of such a nature as may
excite the supreme Divinity to wrath, not only against the human race
but against myself personally, into whose charge the Divinity by its
Divine will has committed the governance of all that is on earth. In
its just indignation, it might decree some ill against me.
“And then only can I feel really and absolutely secure, and hope for
an unfailing supply of all the richest blessings that flow from the
instant goodness of Almighty God, when I shall see all mankind
reverencing most Holy God in brotherly singleness of worship and in
the lawful rites of our Catholic religion.”[83]
-----
Footnote 82:
_De cætero plena cognitione suscepta finis adhibeatur._
Footnote 83:
_Tunc enim revera et plenissime securus potero esse, cum universos
sensero debito cultu catholicæ religionis sanctissimum Deum concordi
observantiæ fraternitate venerari._
-----
Not only did Constantine write in this evidently sincere strain to the
proconsul of Africa; he also sent personal letters to the bishops whose
presence he desired. Eusebius has preserved the text of one of these,
which was addressed to Chrestus, Bishop of Syracuse, in which the
Emperor instructs him not to fail to reach Arles by August 1st, and bids
him secure a public vehicle from Latronianus, the Governor of Sicily,
and bring with him two presbyters of the second rank and three personal
servants. In obedience to Constantine’s wishes the bishops assembled at
Arles by the appointed day. It is not known how many were present. On
the fullest list of those who signed the canons there agreed to are
found the names of thirty-three bishops, thirteen presbyters,
twenty-three deacons, two readers, seven exorcists, and four
representatives of the Bishop of Rome. But from the extreme importance
attached to the council in later times it is certain that many more
attended, and the numbers have been variously estimated at from two to
six hundred. Not a single Eastern bishop was present. It was a council
of the West, representing the various provinces of Africa and Gaul,
Spain, Britain, Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia. From Britain came Eborius
of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelfius, the Bishop of a diocese
which has been variously interpreted as that of Colchester, Lincoln, and
Caerleon on Usk, with a presbyter named Sacerdos and a deacon called
Arminius. The Bishop of Rome, Sylvester, sent two presbyters and two
deacons.
The Council investigated with great minuteness the points raised by the
Donatists, but it is clear from the report sent to Sylvester that the
Donatists were no better supplied with evidence than they had been at
Rome. They simply repeated the old, unsubstantiated charge against
Cæcilianus that, as deacon, he had forcibly prevented the members of the
Church of Carthage from succouring their brethren in prison during the
persecution of Diocletian, and the disproved accusation against the
bishop who consecrated him that he had been a _traditor_. In a word,
they had absolutely no case and the Council of Arles endorsed the
verdict of the Council of Rome. The synodal letter to Sylvester began as
follows:
“We, assembled in the city of Arles at the bidding of our most pious
Emperor, in the common bonds of charity and unity, and knitted
together by the ties of the mother Catholic Church, salute you, most
holy Pope, with all due reverence. We have endured to listen to the
accusations of desperate men, who have wrought grave injury to our law
and tradition, men whom the present authority of our God and the rule
of truth have so utterly disowned that there was no reason in their
speeches, no bounds to the charges they brought, and no evidence or
proof. And so, in the judgment of God and the Mother Church, which has
known and attests them, they stand either condemned or rejected. Would
that you, dearest brother, had found it possible to take part in such
a gathering. We verily believe that in that case a more severe
sentence would have been passed upon them, while if your judgment had
coincided with ours, the joy of our assembly would have been
intensified. But since you found it impossible to leave the chosen
place where the Apostles make their daily home, and where their blood
testifies ceaselessly to the glory of God, we thought, dearest
brother, that we ought not simply to take in hand the subject for the
discussion of which we had been called together, but also to consider
other matters on our own account, and, as we have come from diverse
provinces, diverse are the topics on which it seemed good to us to
take counsel.”
The letter then enumerates the canons to which the signatories had
agreed and transmits them with the remark that as the Bishop of Rome’s
dioceses were wider than those of any other bishop, he was the most
suitable person to press the acceptance of these canons upon the Church.
It does not fall within the province of this book to discuss these
twenty-two canons; it will suffice to indicate the more important in the
briefest outline. The first suggested that Easter should be celebrated
on the same day throughout the whole world; the second insisted on the
clergy residing in the places to which they were ordained; the third
threatened with excommunication deserters from the army in times of
peace (_qui arma projiciunt in pace_). Of special importance in
connection with the questions raised by the Donatists were the canons
which prohibited the rebaptism of heretics if they had been baptised in
the name of the Holy Trinity; which recognised the validity of baptism
conferred by heretics, if conferred in the proper form; which ordered
that a new bishop should be consecrated by seven, or at least three,
bishops and never by a single one; which removed from the ministry all
those who were clearly proved to have been _traditores_ or to have
denounced their brother clergy, though, if these had ordained any others
to the ministry, the validity of the ordination was not to be
challenged. Worthy also of note is the canon removing from the communion
of the faithful all those engaged in any calling connected with the
arena or the stage, such as charioteers, jockeys, actors, pantomimists,
and the like, as long as they continue in professions which, in the eyes
of the Church, tend to the subversion of public morals; the canon which
excommunicated those of the clergy who practised usury, and the canon
exhorting those whose wives had been unfaithful not to marry again, as
they were legally entitled to do, during the lifetime of their guilty
partners.
If the Council of Arles was exceptionally fruitful in respect of new
rules passed for the improvement of ecclesiastical discipline, it proved
an entire failure in its primary object, that of putting an end to the
Donatist schism. The African malcontents still refused to acknowledge
Cæcilianus and had the effrontery to appeal to Constantine for yet
another investigation. As the bishops of the West were obstinately
prejudiced against them, they desired the Emperor to be gracious enough
to take charge of the enquiry himself. Constantine did not conceal his
anger in the important letter which he addressed to the bishops at
Arles, thanking them for their labours and giving them leave to return
to their homes. He wrote:
“Certainly I cannot describe or enumerate the blessings which God in
His heavenly bounty has bestowed upon me, His servant. I rejoice
exceedingly, therefore, that after this most just enquiry you have
recalled to better hope and future those whom the malignity of the
Devil seemed to have seduced away by his miserable persuasion from the
clearest light of the Catholic law. O truly conquering Providence of
Christ, our Saviour, solicitous even for these who have deserted and
turned their weapons against the truth, and joined themselves to the
heathen. Yet even now, if they will truly believe and obey His most
holy law, they will be able to see what forethought has been taken in
their behalf by the will of God.
“And I hoped, most holy brethren, to find such a disposition even in
the stubbornest breasts. For not without just cause will the clemency
of Christ depart from those, in whom it shines with a light so clear
that we may perceive they are regarded with loathing by the Divine
Providence. Such men must be bereft of reason, since with incredible
arrogance they persuade themselves of the truth of things, of which it
is neither meet to speak nor hear others speak, abandoning the
righteous decisions which have been laid down. So persistent and
ineradicable is their malignity. How often already have they
shamelessly approached me, only to be crushed with the fitting
response! Now they clamour for a judgment from me, who myself await
the judgment of Christ. For I say that, as far as the truth is
concerned, a judgment delivered by priests ought to be considered as
valid as though Christ Himself were present and delivering
judgment.[84] For priests can form no thought or judgment, unless what
they are taught to utter by the admonitory voice of Christ.
“What, then, can these malignant creatures be thinking of, creatures
of the Devil, as I have truly said? They seek the things of this
world, abandoning the things of Heaven. What sheer, rabid madness
possesses them, that they have entered an appeal, as is wont to be
done in mundane lawsuits?... What do these detractors of the law think
of Christ their Saviour, if they refuse to acknowledge the judgment of
Heaven and demand judgment from me? They are proven traitors; they
have themselves convicted themselves of their crimes, without need of
closer enquiry into them.... Do you, however, dearest brothers, return
to your own homes, and be ye mindful of me that our Saviour may ever
have mercy upon me.”
-----
Footnote 84:
_Meum judicium postulant qui judicium Christi expecto. Dico enim, ut
se veritas habet, sacerdotum judicium ita debet haberi ac si ipse
Dominus residens judicet._
-----
It is not a little difficult to understand why an Emperor who wrote such
a letter as the above should have again acceded to the Donatist demand
for a rehearing. Possibly the Donatists had powerful friends at court of
whom we know nothing, some member, it may be, of the Imperial Family, or
perhaps the case against them was not so one-sided as the Catholic
authorities agree in representing. At any rate, Constantine summoned
Cæcilianus to appear before him in Rome. Here is the letter which he
wrote to the Donatist bishops to apprise them of his determination:
“A few days ago I had decided to accede to your request and permit you
to return to Africa, that the case which you think you have
established against Cæcilianus might be fully investigated and brought
to a proper conclusion. But, after long and careful consideration, I
have deemed the following arrangement best. Knowing, as I do, that
certain of you are of a decidedly turbulent nature and obstinately
reject a right verdict and the reasoning of absolute truth, it might
conceivably happen, if the case were heard in Africa, that the
conclusion reached would not be a fitting one, or in accordance with
the dictates of truth. In that event, owing to your exceeding
obstinacy, something might occur which would greatly displease the
Heavenly Divinity and do serious injury to my reputation, which I
desire ever to maintain unimpaired. I have decided therefore, as I
have said, that it is better for Cæcilianus to come here and I think
he will speedily arrive.
“But I pledge you my word that if, in his presence, you shall succeed
in proving a single one of the crimes and misdeeds which you lay to
his charge, it shall have as much weight with me as if you had proved
every accusation you bring forward. May God Almighty keep you safe for
ever.”
At the same time Constantine wrote to Probianus, the successor of
Ælianus in the governorship of Africa, instructing him to send under
guard to Italy certain witnesses who had been imprisoned for forging
documents purporting to shew that Felix of Aptunga was a _traditor_.
Cæcilianus failed to appear at the appointed time, for some reason which
is unknown to St. Augustine, who gives a brief account of the sequence
of events.[85] The Donatists demanded that judgment should be given
against the absent bishop by default, but Constantine refused and
ordered them to follow him to Milan, where affairs of state necessitated
his presence. If Augustine is to be trusted, the Emperor secured the
attendance of the Donatists by clapping them under guard (_ab
officialibus custoditos_). This time Cæcilianus did not fail his patron.
Constantine, who was strongly averse from taking upon himself to revise,
as it were, the judgments passed by so many bishops in council,
deprecated their possible resentment by assuring them that his sole
desire was to close the mouths of the Donatists.
-----
Footnote 85:
_Epist._, 43.
-----
After hearing the case all over again, Constantine pronounced judgment
on Nov. 16, 316. St. Augustine says that the Emperor’s letters prove his
diligence, caution, and forethought. The praise may be deserved, but it
is evident that he had made up his mind beforehand. He re-affirmed the
absolute innocence of Cæcilianus and the shamelessness of his accusers.
In an interesting fragment of a letter written by the Emperor to
Eumalius, one of his vicars, occurs this sentence: “I saw in Cæcilianus
a man of spotless innocence, one who observed the proper duties of
religion and served it as he ought, nor did it appear that guilt could
be found in him, as had been charged against him in his absence by the
malice of his enemies.” The publication of the Emperor’s verdict was
followed by an edict prescribing penalties against the schismatics. St.
Augustine speaks of a “most severe law against the party of
Donatus,”[86] and, from other scattered references, we learn that their
churches were confiscated and that they were fined for non-obedience.
The author of the Edict of Milan, who had promised absolute freedom of
conscience to all, was so soon obliged to invoke the arm of the temporal
authority for the correction of religious disunion!
-----
Footnote 86:
_Epist._, 105.
-----
But the Donatists, whose only _raison d’être_ was their passionate
insistence upon the obligation of the Christian to make no compromise
with conscience, however sharp the edge of the persecutor’s sword, were
obviously not the kind of people to be overawed by so mild a punishment
as confiscation of property. The Emperor’s edicts were fruitless, and in
320, only four years later, we find Constantine trying a change of
policy and recommending the African bishops to see once more what
toleration would do. Active repression only made martyrs, and martyrdom
was the goal of the fanatical Donatist’s ambition. Hence the terms in
which the Emperor addresses the Catholic Church of Africa. After
enumerating the repeated efforts he has made in order to restore unity,
and dwelling upon the deliberate and abandoned wickedness of those who
have rendered his intervention nugatory, he continues:
“We must hope, therefore, that Almighty God may shew pity and
gentleness to his people, as this schism is the work of a few. For it
is to God that we should look for a remedy, since all good vows and
deeds are requited. But until the healing comes from above, it behoves
us to moderate our councils, to practise patience, and to bear with
the virtue of calmness any assault or attack which the depravity of
these people prompts them to deliver.
“Let there be no paying back injury with injury: for it is only the
fool who takes into his usurping hands the vengeance which he ought to
reserve for God.[87] Our faith should be strong enough to feel full
confidence that, whatever we have to endure from the fury of men like
these, will avail with God with all the grace of martyrdom. For what
is it in this world to conquer in the name of God, unless it be to
bear with fortitude the disordered attack of men who trouble the
peaceful followers of the law!
“If you observe my will, you will speedily find that, thanks to the
supreme power, the designs of the presumptuous standard-bearers of
this wretched faction will languish, and all men will recognise that
they ought not to listen to the persuasion of a few and perish
everlastingly, when, by the grace of penitence, they may correct their
errors and be restored to eternal life.”
-----
Footnote 87:
_Nihil ex reciproco reponatur injuriæ: Vindictam enim, quam Deo
servare debemus, insipientis est manibus usurpare._
-----
Patience, leniency, and toleration, however, were as futile as force in
dealing with the Donatists, who bluntly told the Emperor that his
protégé, Cæcilianus, was a “worthless rascal” (_antistiti ejus
nebuloni_), and refused to obey his injunctions. Donatus, surnamed the
Great in order to distinguish him from the other Donatus, who had been
Bishop of Casæ Nigræ, had by this time succeeded to the leadership of
the schism on the death of Majorinus, and the extraordinary ascendency
which he obtained over his followers, in spite of the powerful Imperial
influence which was always at the support of Cæcilianus, warrants the
belief that he was a man of marked ability. Learned, eloquent, and
irreproachable in private life, he is said to have ruled his party with
an imperious hand, and to have treated his bishops like lackeys. Yet his
authority was so unbounded and unquestioned that his followers swore by
his name and grey hairs, and, at his death, ascribed to him the honours
paid only to martyrs.
Under his leadership the Donatists rapidly increased in numbers. They
were schismatics rather than heretics. They had no great distinctive
tenet; what they seem to have insisted upon chiefly was absolute purity
within the Church and freedom from worldly taint. That was their ideal,
as it has been the ideal of many other wild sectaries since their day.
They claimed special revelations of the Divine Will; they insisted upon
rebaptising their converts, compelling even holy virgins to take fresh
vows on joining their communion, which they boasted was that of the one
true Church. Such a sect naturally attracted to itself all the fanatical
extremists of Africa and all those who had any grievance against the
Catholic authorities. It became the refuge of the revolutionary, the
bankrupt, and the criminal, and thus, inside the Donatist movement
proper, there grew up a kind of anarchist movement against property,
which had little or no connection with religious principles.
Constantine, during the remainder of his reign, practically ignored the
African Church. He had done what he could and he wiped his hands of it.
There soon arose an extravagant sect which took the name of
Circumcelliones, from their practice of begging food from cell to cell,
or cottage to cottage. They renounced the ordinary routine of daily
life. Forming themselves into bands, and styling themselves the
Champions of the Lord (ἀγωνιστικόι), they roamed through the
countryside, which they kept in a state of abject terror. St. Augustine,
in a well-known passage, declares that when their shout of “Praise be to
God!” was heard, it was more dreaded than the roar of a lion. They were
armed with wooden clubs, which they named “Israels,” and these they did
not scruple to use upon the Catholics, whose churches they entered and
plundered, committing the most violent excesses, though they were
pledged to celibacy. Gibbon justly compares them to the Camisards of
Languedoc at the commencement of the 18th century, and others have
likened them to the Syrian Assassins at the time of the Crusades and the
Jewish Sicarii of Palestine during the first century of the Christian
era. They formed, it seems, a sort of Christian Jacquerie, possessed in
their wilder moments with a frantic passion for martyrdom and imploring
those whom they met to kill them. The best of them were fit only for a
madhouse; the worst were fit only for a gaol. Probably they had little
connection with the respectable Donatists in the cities, whose
organisation was precisely the same as that of the Catholics, and their
operations were mainly restricted to the thinly populated districts on
the borders of the desert.
On one occasion, however, Constantine was obliged to interfere. The
Donatists in Cirta,—the capital of Numidia,—which had been renamed
Constantina in honour of the Emperor, had forcibly seized the church of
the Catholics, that had been built at Constantine’s command. The
Catholics, therefore, appealed to the Emperor, and knowing that he was
pledged to a policy of non-interference, they did not ask for punishment
against the Donatists, or even for the restoration of the church in
question, but simply that a new site might be given them out of public
moneys. The Emperor granted their request, ordering that the building as
well as the site should be paid for by the State, and granting immunity
from all public offices to the Catholic clergy of the town. In his
letter Constantine does not mince his language with respect to the
Donatists.
“They are adherents,” he says, “of the Devil, who is their father;
they are insane, traitors, irreligious, profane, ranged against God
and enemies of the Holy Church. Would to Heaven!” he concludes, “that
these heretics or schismatics might have regard even now for their own
salvation, and, brushing aside the darkness, turn their eyes to see
the true light, leaving the Devil, and flying for refuge, late though
it be, to the one and true God, who is the judge of all! But since
they are set upon remaining in their wickedness and wish to die in
their iniquities, our warning and our previous long continued
exhortations must suffice. For if they had been willing to obey our
commandments, they would now be free from all evil.”
Evidently the Emperor was thoroughly weary of the whole controversy, and
disgusted at such unreasoning contumacy. The same feelings find powerful
expression in the letters and manifestoes of St. Augustine, a century
later, when the great Bishop of Hippo constituted himself the champion
of the Catholic Church and played the foremost part in the stormy
debates which preceded the final disappearance of the Donatist schism,
after the Council of Carthage in 410. Then the momentous decision was
reached that all bishops who, after three appeals to them to return to
the Church, still refused submission, should be brought back to the
Catholic fold by force. The point in dispute was still just what it had
been in the days of Constantine, whether a Christian Church could be
considered worthy of the name if it had admitted faithless and unworthy
members, or if the ministers had been ordained by bishops who had
temporised with their consciences and fallen short of the loftiest ideal
of duty. That was the great underlying principle at stake in the
Donatist controversy, though, as in all such controversies, the personal
element was paramount when the schism began, and was still the cause of
the bitterness and fury with which the quarrel was conducted long after
the intrigues of Lucilla and the personal animosities between Cæcilianus
and the Numidian bishops had ceased to be of interest or moment to the
living Church. And it is interesting to note that while it was the
Donatists themselves who had made the first appeal unto Cæsar by asking
Constantine to judge between them and Cæcilianus, in St. Augustine’s day
the Donatists hotly denied the capacity of the State to take cognisance
of spiritual things. What, they asked, has an Emperor to do with the
Church? _Quid est Imperatori cum Ecclesia?_
[Illustration: STATUE OF CONSTANTINE FROM THE PORCH OF SAN GIOVANNI IN
LATERAN, AT ROME.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration]