Library › St Optatus of Milevis › Against the Donatists

Against the Donatists

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

Book 3, An Account of Violent Deeds Done by Donatists Against Donatists

So, you see, my brother Parmenian, to whose charge any severity that may have occurred in the work of bringing about unity ought to be attributed. You say that an armed force was asked for by us Catholics. If so, how is it that no one at that time ever saw an armed soldier in the proconsular Province?

Paul and Macarius came in order to console the poor everywhere,¹ and exhort everyone individually² to unity. But when they drew near to the city of Bagaia, then it was that the second Donatus³ (as we have already written) who was the Bishop of that city, in his desire to oppose an obstacle to unity, and to place a check in the way of the above-mentioned legates of the Emperor, sent his heralds through the neighbourhood, and especially to all the fairs, and called upon his fighting dervishes⁴ to come in a body to a place which he had fixed for them. So it was that at that juncture those men were called together, whose madness had been deemed by these same Bishops, only a short time previously, to have been set on fire by their wickedness.

For when men of this sort were, before the attainment of unity, wandering about in every place, and in their insanity called Axido and Fasir ‘Captains of the Saints,’ no man could rest secure in his possessions. Written acknowledgments of indebtedness had lost their value. At that time no creditor was free to press his claim, and all were terrified by the letters of these fellows, who boasted that they were ‘Captains of the Saints.’ If there was any delay in obeying their commands, of a sudden a host of madmen flew to the place. A reign of terror was established. Creditors were hemmed in with perils, so that they who had a right to be supplicated on account of that which was due to them, were driven, through fear of death, to be themselves the humble suppliants. Very soon everyone lost what was owing to him----even to very large amounts, and held himself to have gained something in escaping from the violence of these men.

Even journeys could not be made with perfect safety, for masters were often thrown out of their own chariots and forced to run, in servile fashion, in front of their own slaves, seated in their lord’s place. By the judgement and command of these outlaws, the condition of masters and slaves was completely reversed.

So when the Bishops of your party were reproached [with this state of affairs], they are said to have written to Taurinus, who was at the time in possession of civil authority,⁵ saying that as men of this class could not be corrected by the Church,⁶ they requested that they should be punished⁷ by the above-mentioned officer.

In answer to this letter Taurinus ordered an armed force to go through the fairs, where these mad vagrants were accustomed to wander about.

In the district round Octavum⁸ a large number were put to death, of whom many were beheaded. Even to the present day we may count their bodies by the whitened altars or tables.⁹ When the custom was introduced of burying some in the basilicas, the priest Clarus¹⁰ in the district of Subula was required by his Bishop to undo the burial.¹¹ Through this it came to be known that what was done had been done through a command,¹² when not even burial in the House of God was permitted them.

Afterwards the numbers of these fanatics had once more increased; so Donatus of Bagaia found the means of getting together from them a furious horde with which to oppose Macarius.

Of the same class were those who, out of desire for a false martyrdom, hired men to strike and kill them to their own destruction.¹³ From amongst these also they were drawn who cast themselves down headlong from the summits of lofty mountains, throwing away their good-for-nothing lives.¹⁴

See the character of these men, from whom a Bishop, the second Donatus, provided himself with cohorts!

Alarmed, then, at this state of terror, those who had brought the treasure to distribute amongst the poor, conceived the plan, in such extreme necessity, of asking for soldiers from the Prefect¹⁵ Silvester, not to do violence to anyone, but to put an end to the violence which had been arranged by the above-mentioned Bishop Donatus.

In this way did it come to pass that soldiers were seen in arms. Now, consider to whom it is right, or possible, to attribute that which followed afterwards. The fanatics had got together an enormous horde, and it is known that they had prepared an ample commissariat.¹⁶ They had turned a basilica into a sort of public granary, where they awaited those upon whom they might expend their savagery; and they would have done whatever their madness might have urged, had not the presence of an armed force stood in their way.

For, when quartermasters¹⁷ were, as is usual, sent ahead of the soldiers, they were not received with due respect¹⁸----contrary to the command of the Apostle, who says
‘Honour to whom honour is due, custom to whom custom, tribute to whom tribute. Owe no man anything.’¹⁹

Those who had been sent on horseback were maltreated by the men whose names you have blown about with the fan of hatred.²⁰ They were the authors of their own wrongs, and. by their example, through the injuries which they inflicted upon others, brought upon themselves whatever sufferings they may have endured. The soldiers who had been thus molested went back to their quarters,²¹ and everyone resented that which two or three had endured. All were profoundly stirred up, and not even their officers could hold back these soldiers in their anger. In this way that came to pass, which you have recorded thus, to create prejudice against unity. These events, and others which you have mentioned, have their own causes, and the persons whose names I have given are responsible. We have not even seen them, though we have heard of them, just as you have done.

If to have heard of a thing makes us guilty, we hold you to be partners of our guilt, since you have heard of it likewise; if to know of a thing by hearing gives freedom from responsibility, then that which was done, in consequence of your appeal,²² by others, ought not to be ascribed to us.

You set down your complaints in due order, saying that under Leontius and under Ursacius a very large number²³ suffered wrongfully, that some were put to death under Paulus and Macarius, that under their successors unnamed individuals were proscribed for a time. What has this to do with us, or with the Catholic Church? It is you who have brought about everything of which you complain, for you refused to accept gladly the peace which had been praised by God, valuing the inheritance of schism more highly than the precepts given us by the Saviour.

You have brought accusations against the makers of unity. Blame unity itself, if you can! For I imagine that you do not deny that unity is the supreme good?²⁴

How does the character of the workmen affect us, provided it be certain that they effected a work which is good? For the grape is trodden and pressed underfoot by sinful workmen, yet thence comes the wine with which Sacrifice is offered to God.²⁵ Oil, too, is made by wretched people,²⁶ some of whom are men of evil lives and unclean tongues, yet it is used without reproach²⁷ in condiments,²⁸ in lamps, even in the holy Chrism.²⁹

Notes

qui pauperes ubique dispungerent.
singulos.
alter Donatus. This word alter used here of Donatus of Bagaia makes it absolutely certain that Optatus knew nothing of the distinction between Donatus of Black Huts and Donatus the Great (cf. note 3, p. 45).
circumcelliones agonisticos. St. Augustine (con. Cresconium, i, 28) describes the conduct of these men, and gives the etymology of the word circumcelliones: ‘Quis enim nescit hoc genus hominum in horrendis facinoribus inquietum, ab utilibus operibus otiosum, crudelissimum in mortibus alienis, vilissimum in suis, maxime in agris territans et victus sui caussa cellas circumiens rusticanas, unde et circumcellionum nomen accepit, universo mundo pene famosissimum Africani erroris opprobrium?’
tunc Comiti.
in Ecclesia corrigi non posse.
acciperent disciplinam.
A town in Numidia. Amongst the Bishops who were assembled at the Carthaginian Council under St. Cyprian we read of Victor ab Octavo.
per dealbatas aras aut mensas potuerunt numerari. That is to say, whitened tombs made in the shape of an altar. As the Donatists pretended to look upon these fanatics, who had been justly put to death for murder and other crimes, as martyrs, they raised altars over their graves. (It is well known that the first Christians used to say Mass on altars erected over the bodies of martyrs, e.g. in the Catacombs.) These altars were sometimes called Tables, as in the Catholic Church of the present day. Thus St. Augustine writes (Sermo de div. 113): ‘Denique, sicut nostis, quicunque Carthaginem nostis, in eodem loco Mensa Dei constructa est, et tamen mensa dicitur Cypriani: non quia ibi est umquam Cyprianus epulatus, sed quia ibi est immolatus, et quia ipsa immolatione sua paravit hanc mensam: non in qua pascat sive pascatur; sed in qua sacrificium Deo, cui et ipse obtains est, offeratur.’
A Donatist priest.
ut insepultam faceret sepulturam. This phrase shows that St. Optatus was acquainted with Cicero (Phil. i, 1).
unde proditum est mandatum fuisse fieri quod factum est. The command (mandatum) was, I think, that of the Donatist Bishops. At first the circumcellions erected altars over their dead, but in the open air and not in the churches. The later Donatists, when they honoured these slain circumcellions as martyrs, forgot not only that it was their own Bishops who (after the custom had been introduced of burying them in the churches) had ordered their bodies to be exhumed, but also that these same Bishops had begged Taurinus to repress them, since ecclesiastical discipline had no effect. Therefore they, not the Catholics, were responsible for the massacres (‘quod factum est’). Both Casaubon and Du Pin, however, understand mandatum to refer to a command not of Donatist, but of Catholic, Bishops, and think that St. Optatus means to say that prejudice was created against Catholics by the exhumation of the dead circumcellions, and that on this account Catholics were reproached for the alleged massacres. But they seem to forget that Optatus has just stated that this was done by the order of a Donatist Bishop. It is difficult to see how his command carried out by the Donatist priest Clarus could create prejudice against Catholics.
sibi percussores in suam perniciem conducebant. (Cf. i, 16.)
qui ex altorum montium cacuminibus viles animas proicientes se praecipites dabant. Cf. S. Augustine, Tract. ii. in Ioannem: ‘Flammis se donant, aquis se praefocant, praecipitio se collidunt, et pereunt.’
Comite.
habebant vocatorum infinitam turbam et annonam conpetentem constat fuisse praeparatam.
metatores (seu mensores castrorum).
conpetenter (ἁρμοδίως).
Rom. xiii, 7.
contusi sunt ab iis, quorum nomina flabello invidiae ventilasti. This phrase is repeated a little further on (iii, 7): quorum nomina cotidie, ut supra dixi, flabello invidiae ventilatis. Parmenian had evidently made much use of the names of two Donatists (whom Macarius had put to death), in order to stir up ill feeling against Catholics (flabello invidiae). St. Optatus here says that these men had brought their death upon themselves by the injuries that they had inflicted on the soldiers of Macarius.
numeros suos (literally the rank and file).
vobis provocantibus (to the Emperor).
quam plurimos.
nam aestimo vos non negare Unitatem summum bonum esse. Cf. ‘Scisma summum malum esse et vos negare minime poteritis ‘ (i,21).
inde Deo sacrificium offertur.
a sordidis.
simpliciter erogatur. Du Pin writes ‘id est eo innocue utuntur.’
in sapore. Apparently this refers to the use of oil in ordinary life----as we should say, in salads. If this is so, in lumine, which follows, probably does not refer to lamps in churches.
These principles may perhaps seem to contradict that which St. Optatus urged, in his first Book, against the Donatist schism, on account of the character of its originators. But even though it must be granted that, under ordinary circumstances, a man’s sin does not vitiate the character of his work, yet evil conduct and bad lives clearly discredit the founders of a new religion or sect, who, as is manifest, stand in an altogether exceptional position. Further, in the first book Optatus had argued against the Donatists from Donatist principles. They said that the Catholic Church had apostatised by communicating with Betrayers. Optatus of course denies that this was a fact, and proves not only that the Donatists themselves had communicated with Betrayers, but also that the very founders of their sect were Betrayers. It was an argumentum ad hominem, but in the passage before us, as elsewhere, he argues from the true principle that the character of a workman does no detriment to his work.