What is Donatism?

The Donatist Schism.

Donatism must be distinguished from the heresies in the church, inasmuch as the Donatists held the same doctrines as Christians generally, but deemed it right to separate on account of the corruptions in the church; but whether the corruptions were really their chief reasons for separation, is now a doubtful question.

During the Diocletian persecution (A.D. 303) one thing especially demanded by the pagans was that the sacred books should be given up to be destroyed. Mensurius was bishop of Carthage, and, on his books being demanded, he hid the sacred books, and gave up some heretical books instead. This was deception, and not to be commended; but he said he was disgusted with the professed faithfulness of many would-be martyrs whose conduct did not correspond. Thus it is recorded: "The cells were full of debtors unable to meet their creditors, of fanatics, idlers, who were fed by injudicious devotees;" and he discountenanced in every way such so-called martyrs. Whether he went too far, so as to discredit every honest effort to obey God rather than man, cannot now be ascertained. At any rate, he made a great many enemies in the church, and a paper was afterwards issued denouncing his apparent slight upon the virtues and the sufferings of the martyrs.

Caecilian succeeded Mensurius at Carthage (A.D. 311). He had worked with Mensurius and had the same judgment in these matters, and now things came to an issue. His ordination was called in question, principally because he had been ordained by Felix who was a "traditor."*

As to their doctrines it is not easy to obtain a clear account. In general they held the same doctrines as other Christians, as even their opponents confess; nor were their morals in any way inferior — excepting the Circumcelliones, who were not really Donatists, and whose actions were detested by the best of the Donatists. Their great crime was being separatists. They contended that this was needful because of the corruptions in the church generally; they re-baptised those coming to their communion, and re-ordained the ministers, because they could not own anything done by the church which they now judged to be corrupt, and, because of evil men being allowed within, they declared it had ceased to be the true church.

In A.D. 395, Augustine was consecrated bishop of Hippo. Here he found the Donatists very strong, and he at once took up the question warmly. He lamented that there was such division, exclaiming, "What has Christ done to us, that we rend His members asunder? Consider how sad a division reigns in christian households and families. Husband and wife, who, in their married state, know no division, separate themselves at the altar of Christ." An evil, alas! that has increased a hundred-fold in this our day!

Donatus died in exile, and Parmenian succeeded him. Between the latter and Augustine a long controversy followed, and several writings were issued for and against. The Donatists quoted 1 Corinthians 5 as their authority for putting evil out of the church. Augustine admitted this in the main, but said it could not be done entirely, as was shewn by the parables, such as that of the Wheat and the Tares. The Donatists replied that this was what would be in the world, and was not to be in the church.

Surely in this the Donatists were right; but, if the historians are to be relied on, it was party spirit that ruled the Donatists and not a real desire for a holy assembly. It is said that they received with open arms those who had been, on account of the laxity of their lives, dealt with in discipline by the orthodox church.

The schism of the Donatists also engaged the attention, and excited the opposition, of this devoted man, and drew from him the sternest denunciations. The Donatists took their name from their leader Donatus, who was a schismatic of the most extreme kind, though sound in doctrine and of unimpeachable morality. So far back as the year 311, he had opposed the election of one Caecilian to the bishopric of Carthage, on the plea that a bishop named Felix, who had taken a prominent part in the consecration, was a Traditor; that is, a person who had delivered up copies of the sacred books during the persecution under Diocletian: but other motives seem to have been at the root of the matter. The clergy and people of Carthage had elected their bishop, and proceeded to his consecration without consulting the bishops of Numidia, a contiguous and subordinate province, and the troubles which followed were really due to the jealousies of the latter, and nothing else.

At first the opposing parties had been content to carry their differences to the emperor (Constantine); but when the synods of inquiry which he had instituted at Rome and Arles had decided in favour of Caecilian and his party, and Constantine himself had placed his seal to their decision, the Donatists (who had been the first to invite his interference) had revolted against his authority, and compelled him to more rigorous measures.

The reader may gather hence how little either the Donatists or the Plymouth Brethren so-called are understood, classed as they are here together. "They are attempting what the Donatists attempted in the first century." (p. 904.) This at least is a discovery! I had been content to know with less pretentious students of ecclesiastical history, that the squabble about the election of Caecilianus (A.D. 311) is the earliest point to which we could look as giving occasion for that famous rent in Africa. From the works of Optatus and Augustine I had learnt nearly all that can be ascertained about that turbulent faction. It seemed to be far more a question of discipline than of doctrine if not of party opposition, the Numidian bishops being piqued that they had no part as usual in the election. Felix, bishop of Apthunga, who ordained the new bishop of Carthage, was said to be a traditor during the persecution of Dioclesian, and Caecilianus himself also was accused of ill conduct at that time. The elder Donatus who took part in the election of Majorinus, the bishop of the seceders, was the bishop of Casae Nigrae of that day; the greater one, who seems to have given the name of Donatists to the party, was successor of Majorinus. Spite of a fierce persecution, which Augustine palliated in the hope that it would be good for their souls, they appear to have gone on sometimes flourishing, and sometimes depressed, till Mohammedanism extinguished both them and the Catholics. Insisting on the rebaptism of all whom they received from their adversaries and refusing all communion save to such as absolutely broke off spiritual connection with others, they differed essentially from the so-called Plymouth Brethren. For we believe, that no ecclesiastical mistake, however grave in itself, calls for such stringent measures, and that extremities ought to be reserved for those who bring not the doctrine of Christ or connive at Antichrist.

54 Augustine will give us another phase. Yet his views of personal religion and election involve him in the greatest contradiction and difficulty. They are, however, important; for if Cyprian has formed hierarchical views short of Romanism, Augustine has in a great measure been the source of reformed doctrines, save in the point of justification by faith, on which certainly the Reformation was somewhat clearer. But his difficulties, if they were not to be wept over for the sake of the Church, would really amuse from the way he is perplexed. Like all the rest, though searching scripture for himself as a godly man, he is occupied in his reasonings with the circumstances of the moment. In his case it was the Donatists. A quarrel having arisen in Africa as to the episcopacy of Donatus's predecessor, a very large party indeed was formed with a very considerable part of the episcopacy. It was alleged, that Cecilianus was ordained by one who had been unfaithful in Diocletian's persecution, having given up the sacred books - a traditor. They chose Majorinus, to whom succeeded Donatus. The others complained of a fanatical love of martyrdom. The Donatists appealed to Constantine; and, after two appeals from the first sentence, they were condemned and violently persecuted, which they returned by violence and, as is alleged, by assassination; so bright is the history of the primitive Church! But another circumstance must be mentioned here. Cyprian and most of the Eastern bishops had re-baptized those baptized by heretics. Rome, and those under its influence, had opposed this. Cyprian and the East, however, held good; but, in the course of time, the Roman opinion prevailed in the West, and it was orthodox to receive heretical baptism. In the East it was generally rejected for a long while after this.

I refer to this, because it was a great source of Augustine's perplexity; he received the Western view. But then he had to acknowledge, that by Donatist baptism those who were not in the catholic Church received forgiveness of sins and the Holy Ghost. This, of course, was a terrible difficulty. I will now give his statements, in which the conflict of his views will easily appear. They gave formal rise to the thought of an invisible Church. He is very fond of insisting on one text, and citing it repeatedly everywhere; thus Ephesians 5, as to the unity of the body and Head, spouse and Husband.

A sad picture surely of a number of bishops, and yet these were the men who now opposed Caecilian because he had been, as they said, ordained by a traditor, and they proceeded to consecrate another bishop, Majorinus, in his place. This completed the schism, which eventually wrought much mischief and no little bloodshed.

The point insisted on was, that any sacred act done by an excommunicated person was invalid; and a traditor was held to be in the same position as an excommunicate.

The question whether Felix was a traditor was thoroughly investigated afterwards, and he was cleared of the charge; yet the Donatists, as they were afterwards called, would not credit it, nor cease their opposition.

There were two bishops of the name of Donatus: the first was of Casae Nigrae: he agreed with Secundus. The other succeeded Majorinus as bishop of Carthage (A.D. 315), and was called Donatus the Great. He became the vigorous leader of the separatists.

The bishop of Rome was asked to investigate the question at issue in A.D. 313. He, in association with a few others, condemned the Donatists.

As we have said, the Donatists were more consistent in their doctrine, however they may have failed in practice, and however blinded by party spirit, and joining with evildoers to gain their ends. In these things they were surely guilty. As the Spirit of God is a Holy Spirit, the unity of the Spirit we are exhorted to keep, must be in separation from evil.

Another point that was discussed in the above council was whether persecution for differences in the church was right. The Donatists contended that it could not be justified; Augustine — perhaps because of his connection with the church called orthodox — contended that it was at times needful.

Persecution again followed this council, under Honorius the emperor. It has been judged that though the Donatists seem not to be mentioned after Gregory the Great (A.D. 590-604), they continued to exist until Africa was overrun by the Saracens in the seventh century, when they are lost sight of.

remains to claim a few words. With this the Donatist controversy has been mixed up for party purposes. Now I have not the smallest sympathy with either of the combatants. They were both violent, they both resorted to finesse as well is force, they both invoked the civil authority to judge of an ecclesiastical question; and blood was shed intentionally on one side as well as the other. The "Brethren," therefore, as to the main, are entirely apart from the Catholics and the Donatists alike; and so, I doubt not, would every intelligent godly Christian be, who may now talk about one or other without knowing the state of the case. But if it were allowed, which would be far from the truth, that the Catholics were thoroughly right and the Donatists thoroughly wrong as to all else, I must maintain, as the truth of God, that the application of the wheat-and-tare-field to the Church, and not to the kingdom, is false, and even an express departure from the Lord's plain words. Had the Catholics admitted the true and divinely given sense of the parable, they would have been all the stronger spiritually, and might have been saved from much which disgraced their side of the quarrel. Nothing is more common in controversy than for a bad cause to derive a show of strength from an assertion of truth which the good cause has misunderstood. This would be true if none but Donatists had rightly discerned the parable. But the case is stronger. I had already stated that the greatest of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, (who had not the smallest sympathy with Donatists, any more than the "Brethren,") not only explains the parable as we do, but, what is better, gives the strongest scriptural reason for that meaning and no other. Was Chillingworth too a Donatist? Really I can hardly conceive a more petty artifice of controversy.

The Donatistic and Arian Controversies

Two great controversies — the Donatistic and the Arian had their beginning in this reign: the former, arising in the West, from a disputed appointment to the episcopal dignity at Carthage: the latter, of Eastern origin, and involving the very foundations of Christianity. The latter was a question of doctrine, the former of practice. Both were now corrupted in their very springs and essence, and may have been represented by the false prophet and the Nicolaitanes; but more as to this afterwards. We will now briefly notice the two schisms, as they throw light on the nature and results of the union of church and State. The Emperor took part in the councils of the bishops as head of the church.

The Emperor was again entreated to take up their cause, and on this occasion to take the matter entirely into his own hands, to which he agreed, though offended by their obstinacy. He heard the case at Milan in the year 316; where he gave sentence in accordance with the councils of Rome and Arles. He also issued edicts against them, which he afterwards repealed, from seeing the dangerous consequences of violent measures. But Donatism soon became a fierce, widespread, and intolerant schism in the church. As early as 330 they had so increased that a synod was attended by two hundred and seventy bishops, in some periods of their history they numbered about four hundred. They proved a great affliction to the provinces of Africa for above three hundred years — indeed down to the time of the Mahometan invasion.