Chapter IX: 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._

-----

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.

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?_

------------------------------------------------------------------------