Library › St Optatus of Milevis › Against the Donatists

Against the Donatists

St Optatus of Milevis, tr. Vassall-Phillips, 1917

Book 3, 3. The Pride of Donatus

Secondly, Donatus of Carthage was responsible, for through his poisonous wiles¹ the question of [effecting] unity was first mooted.

I shall be able to show that the makers of unity did nothing at our instigation, nor of their own wickedness, but that everything happened through provocatory causes, which were set in motion by Donatus of Carthage, in his lightness of heart, and were due to the actions of individuals controlled by him, whilst he was struggling to be thought great. Is there anyone that can be ignorant of all this excepting yourself; for, since you were a stranger,² they have been able to get you to believe idle fables?

Again, who can deny a fact, to which the whole of Carthage is the leading witness, that the Emperor Constans did not originally send Paul and Macarius to bring about unity, but to be his almoner, in order that the poor people³ in the various churches might be afforded assistance, by means of which they might breathe anew, be clothed, fed, and rejoice?

But when they came to Donatus, your father, and told him why they had come, he, as was usual with him, fell into a rage, and burst out with these words:
‘What has the Emperor to do with the Church?’

And, from the fountain of his levity, he poured forth torrents of reproaches no less evil-sounding than those with which he had once upon a time not hesitated to assail the prefect Gregory----calling him ‘Gregory, the stain upon the Senate, the disgrace of Prefects,’ and the like. Gregory replied to him with patience worthy of a Bishop.⁴ Copies of these letters exist and are in the mouths of many chanted everywhere.⁵ Then Donatus----against the commands of the Apostle Paul----planned to do a wrong to those in high places, and to kings,⁶ on behalf of whom, if he had listened to the Apostle, he would have prayed every day, since this is the teaching of the blessed Apostle Paul:
‘Pray for kings and for powers, that with them we may lead a quiet and tranquil life.’⁷

For the State is not in the Church, but the Church is in the State, that is to say, in the Roman Empire,⁸ which Christ calls Libanus in the Canticle of Canticles, saying:
‘Come, my spouse, whom I have found,⁹ come from Libanus,’
that is to say, from the Roman Empire, where are the holy offices of the priesthood,¹⁰ and modesty and virginity, which exist not amongst foreign peoples,¹¹ and which, if they did exist, could not be safe from outrage. With reason does Paul teach us that we must pray for kings and powers, even though the Emperor be living a pagan life.¹² How much more, then, if he be a Christian----how much more if he fears God, and is pious, and full of mercy, as facts prove this one¹³ to have been?

For he had sent ornaments to the Houses of God, he had sent alms for the poor, nothing to Donatus¹⁴! Why, then, did Donatus act like a madman? Why was he full of anger? Why did he refuse the gifts which had been sent? For when the commissioners announced that they were going through the different provinces, and that they would give alms to those who were Mailing to accept them, he declared that he had sent letters everywhere in advance to forbid that anything which had been brought should be distributed anywhere amongst the poor. Oh, this is the way to console the wretched, to provide for the needs of the poor, to come to the aid of sinners! God cries out:
‘It is I who have made both the rich man and the poor man.’¹⁵

Not that He was unable to give to the poor man also. But, if He had given to the poor as well as to the rich, the sinner would not be able to discover any means of helping himself. On this account has it been written that:
‘Even as water puts out a fire, so do alms-deeds wipe out sin.’¹⁶

It is certain that both are now with God----the one who wished to give, and the other who stood in the way of his giving. Well, if God were now to say to Donatus ‘O Bishop, what do you wish to make out Constans to have been? If he was innocent, why would you not receive from an innocent giver? If he was a sinner, why did you not permit aims to be given by him, for whose sake I made the poor man?’ When questioned after this fashion, what sort of face will he show? Why in his levity and madness did he work so hard to keep good things from so many¹⁷ poor people?

He believed that he held dominion over Carthage; and since there is no one superior to the Emperor excepting God alone (who made the Emperor), Donatus, in raising himself above the Emperor, had already, as it were, passed the boundaries apportioned to humanity, so that he almost regarded himself, not as man, but as God, when he refused to revere him, who, after God, was feared by mankind.

Finally, the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, rebukes the prince of Tyre, that is to say, the prince of Carthage, with these words:
‘O Son of man, speak against the prince of Tyre, saith the Lord God, because thine heart has been puffed up, and thou hast said I am God.’¹⁸

That Tyre is Carthage is shown, in the first place, by Isaiah, when, after describing the vision of Tyre, he goes on:
‘Howl, O ye ships of Carthage.’¹⁹

In the second place this is also proved by profane literature,²⁰ and, if there be any other city called by this name, there is no other in which any of those things were done which are known to have been done at Carthage.

‘Speak,’ says the Lord, ‘against the prince of Tyre.’ He does not command the prophet to speak against any secular king,²¹ nor was he to speak to many, but to one----that is to Donatus, Bishop of Carthage. For it was not fitting for Ezekiel, whose words I have just quoted,²² to compare to any man, excepting to a prince, that Bishop who claimed for himself (as we have said) princedom over Carthage, who puffed up his heart, and thought himself to be superior to men and wished to have even all his own colleagues beneath him----from whose offerings he would never deign to accept aught. Now, his conscience, and Christ his God bear witness to this----and the complaints of many.²³ For in his very intercourse with others, he did them this wrong, that he acted in some secret way or other, alone by himself, and afterwards only in a perfunctory manner²⁴ mingled with the rest.

In this fashion was his heart puffed up, so that in the end he seemed to himself no longer to be man, but God.

Moreover, in the mouths of the people he was seldom called a Bishop, but was spoken of as ‘Donatus of Carthage.’ And deservedly was he both addressed and chided as Prince of Tyre (that is of Carthage), because he was the first of the Bishops,²⁵ as though he were something more than the rest. And whilst he wished to have nothing common to mankind,²⁶ he lifted up his heart, not like the heart of a man, but like the heart of a god,²⁷ since he desired to be something more than other men.²⁸

But God follows after Donatus with these words:
‘Thou hast said, I am God.’²⁹

For though he did not make use of this expression, still he either himself accomplished, or suffered, that which would bring about its result.³⁰ He puffed up his heart in such a way as to think that no other man ought to be compared with him, and, in the swelling of his own mind, he seemed to himself to be something higher than the others. Since whatever is above men, in a sort of way is God.³¹

Besides, whereas Bishops ought to serve God, he demanded so much for himself from his Bishops, that they all had to venerate him with no less fear than they venerated God----because to himself he seemed to be God. And though men are wont to swear by God alone, he allowed men to swear by him, as if by God. If this were done by any man in mistake, it was his duty to forbid it. As, then, he did not forbid it, to himself he seemed to be God. Again, whilst all those who believed in Christ were, before the day of his insolence, called Christians, he ventured to divide the people with God, so that those who followed him were no longer called Christians, but Donatists, and when any people visited him from any province of Africa, he did not ask those questions (which the custom of men always calls for) about the weather, about peace and war, about the harvest, but to everyone who came into his presence, he spoke thus:
‘How goes my party in your part of the world?’³²

As though he had now really divided the people with God, so that, without faltering, he dared to call it his ‘party.’ For, from his time to the present day, whenever any action is brought before the public courts on ecclesiastical affairs; all [of his sect] have, on being questioned (as we read in the records of the proceedings), spoken in such a way as to assert that they belong to the party of Donatus. Concerning Christ they kept silence. And what am I to say of their clergy, when I read the petition which (as I have stated in the first book³³) was sent to Constantine, subscribed by Bishops in this manner: ‘Given by Capito and by Nasutius, Dignus, and the other Bishops of the party of Donatus’?³⁴ They, we know, made their complaints against Bishops, who, whilst they did not belong to the party of Donatus, dwelt in the Catholic Church of Christ.³⁵

Since, then, Donatus did not live as a Bishop amongst his fellow-Bishops, and refused to be a man amongst men, it is certain that he puffed up his heart and seemed to himself to be God. And as for the Bishops by whom you were consecrated, their names, my brother Parmenian, are well known to you, and you know also where they lived, and which of them made a petition to return home----in your company. You know, too, who it was to whom they made this petition, and you know his character.³⁶ Now, all this we have learned through their having brought before the judges in Africa this same old petition in which they had written: ‘Given by the Bishops of the party of Donatus.’³⁷

What reply, I ask, will they make in the approaching Judgement of God, since they in this world acknowledged equivalently³⁸ that they belonged, not to the Church of Christ, but freely confessed that they were of the party of Donatus, though it is written in the Gospel that Christ has said:
‘He that confesses Me before men, him will I confess before My Father’?³⁹

These men confessed, not Christ, but Donatus.

That the evidence by which clearly to identify the person of Donatus might be by no means scanty there is yet another proof, with which the above-mentioned accusation was closed. God had said that Donatus⁴⁰ would not die upon the earth.⁴¹ That this is the case is known to all. He dwelt in the house of God, but lived in the heart of the sea. We read that the sea always signifies the world. It was not enough for him to be beloved by some Christian people, but, by reason of his acquaintance with worldly letters, he was also in the heart of the sea, that is, was beloved by the world,⁴² and on account of his knowledge seemed to himself to be wise. But of this wisdom of his God made little,⁴³ saying:
‘Art thou more wise than Daniel?’⁴⁴

With how great reason, and how well, has been humbled that wisdom of his, which made him think himself wiser than was Daniel (when he refused the gifts of the King), and would not accept that which had been sent by a Christian Emperor. And he seemed to himself to be a new Daniel, or to have been raised above Daniel in wisdom, for we read that Daniel, when he was once required to receive presents from King Balthassar----a ring; a chain and the rest----answered thus:
‘Thy gifts to thyself, O King.’⁴⁵

He answered with wisdom, and did not hurl abuse at the King, and did not blame him for what he offered, but put the matter off for a while.

Quite otherwise Donatus, who both spoke to Constans as abusive words as he knew how, and refused what had been destined for the poor. We can see the wisdom of holy Daniel in not accepting that day the gifts that were offered him. For the question that they asked him was still [known only] in Heaven, and it would have been the act of a fool to receive any kind of reward for that which he had not yet in his power to reveal. Therefore he was for the time unwilling to accept these presents. Afterwards, when God showed him what he should say to the King, he told it to Balthassar, and, later on, gladly accepted that which he was known formerly to have rejected.⁴⁶ Deservedly, therefore, does God rebuke the Prince of Tyre (that is Donatus), when He asks him:
‘Art thou more wise than Daniel?’⁴⁷

But oh! how far removed is the presumption of Donatus from the character of Daniel! For what Balthassar gave, he gave to Daniel, not to the poor; but that which Constans, the Christian Emperor, had sent, he had sent to the poor, not to Donatus.

So to Donatus God said:
‘The wise men have not taught thee their wisdom’⁴⁸;
for thou hast refused to learn from the words of Solomon:
‘Hide thy bread in the heart of the poor man, and he shall pray for thee.’⁴⁹

Moreover, he would not learn from Daniel himself the lesson which Daniel gave to Nebuchadnezzar, as to how one who had offended God might make satisfaction:
‘And do thou, O King,’ he said, ‘hear my advice, and may it find favour in thy sight. Redeem thy sins by alms-deeds, and the unjust things that thou hast done by having compassion upon the poor.’⁵⁰

Daniel advised a king, who was a sinner and sacrilegious, to give alms. Donatus, who has deserved to be blamed,⁵¹ hindered Constans, a Christian Emperor, from doing deeds of mercy. Therefore is he blameworthy, because wise men have not taught him their wisdom,⁵² for he did not suffer the gifts sent by this King to be distributed through his hands.

From all these things it is certain that Donatus was the fountain from which flowed the causes of the evils which ensued.⁵³

Previous · Contents · Next