David, David, Whither Goest Thou?

David Bercot is a prolific writer on the subject of the early church. He was driven to the writings of the early church in his early days when he converted from the Watchtower Society to evangelicalism. The doctrinal arguments in the evangelical wing of Christianity led him to look to the earliest documents of the Christian movement, to find out what the early Church believed.

His early works led him to conclude that the early Church was strictly pacifist, non-resistant, with respect to fighting in war, and was strictly opposed to the games and to the theater, embracing strict conventions with respect to modesty in attire, and lifestyle, including the wearing of the prayer veil for women in worship,  thus having a style of life somewhat akin, in his thinking,to the contemporary conservative Mennonites.  The Anabaptist vision was the vision his first edition of Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up, called folks to.  On the other hand he found unmistakable evidence of the centrality of Communion in worship, an Episcopal form of government, and a commitment to Apostolic Succession, along with a belief in baptismal regeneration, and adherance to the early Creeds of the Church. His second edition of Heretics called all to follow him into Anglicanism of a classical variety, Jeremy Taylor, Hooker,  Cranmer, and so forth.

As a result he and others who were under his influence, of which I was one, decided to practice our distinctive pacifistic and non-conformist Christian lives as a Society within the confines of some of the various 1928 Book of Common Prayer  Continuing Anglican Communions, thereby attaining apostolic succession of a sort, episcopal government, and liturgical worship.

This was an unstable combination, and many of the people attuned thereby to various Catholic issues that were mentioned, began to look at the claims of Roman Catholicism and of Eastern Orthodoxy, precisely because the early Church rested its understanding on a belief in the Church as a visible Institution that would preserve the Faith. The Branch Theory of Anglicanism was not early Church teaching.  Many went on to become Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox- my family did the latter.

David had earlier attempted to morph himself and his early associates into an ancient Church, but was shipwrecked at the prayers that were offered by Eastern Orthodox to the Virgin Mary. It was too much for him; he expostulated on a tape,  'why didn't they pray to the Holy Spirit or to Jesus?'

With many going in directions that David found untenable, he re-visited his viewpionts and edited his books anew, and came out with the book that now defines his position The Kingdom that Turned the World Upside Down.  David's thinking had turned away from the Church. He said the Apostles didn't envision that the Church would fall away from the truth and did not make provision for it.  Since in David's view all the historic Churches had erred in doctrine, he opted for Orthopraxy as the touchstone for choosing a Christian Assembly, as long as it somewhat loosely could be said to embrace the Apostles' Creed and the non- supplemented version of the 325 Creed of Nicaea.  And in his writing he began to side in many ways with groups that had been identified as schismatic or heretical down through the ages.  He opted for what he calls a commitment to the Kingdom in favor of a commitment to Church or a Church, a historical and visible Church.  He has embraced then an invisible Church doctrine with various groups appearing and disappearing expressing the spirit of the kingdom though varying quite wildly in doctrine and practice.  He for example includes Quakers, who neither baptize nor take communion.  He includes Waldensians who practice infant baptism.  He embraces Donatists and Novationists who believed that one could only sin once after baptism.  He mentions the Lollards who believed in women preachers and denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Constant in David's thinking has been his commitment to total pacifism and to modesty and simplicity in style of life.  He likes the word 'radical' to describe the sort of Christianity that he believes to be normative.  On the web page he has devoted to his viewpoints, www.earlychurch.com.  He states his chief aim is to promote a personal, obedient love relationship with Jesus Christ.  That is good. We ought to love Jesus, relate to Him personally and obey Him

So, David puts forth an Ecclesiology that is distinctively protestant, an invisible Church ecclesiology, a soteriology that aligns with historical pietism of a personal love relationship to Jesus, and an ethic that is pacifistic and so has an inherent antipathy to any possibility of a Christian bearing the sword or being the one who commnds others to bear the sword, that is to say, to be a politician.

In the Apostles' Creed, there is the statement that  "I believe... in the holy catholic church".

That is a heavy thing to confess, and to do so with integrity. In the early centuries when this Creed appears, as a local or regional baptismal statement of belief, the ideas of catholic and church were full of content, and that content did not include the idea of an invisible Church.  The catholic Church of that Creed, had apostolic succession by the laying on of hands; it had a hierarchical rulership and three-fold offices of Bishop, Pastor and Deacon.  It had a robust Tradition of Prayer facing the East in Assemblies, of the usage of an altar in worship, of the sign of the cross in one's prayers.  It had liturgical baptismal formulae and prayer formulae, as is evidenced in the works of Hippolytus towards the end of the Second Century, and liturgies for ordinations and for all the various aspects of worship.  The Church was viewed to be Mystically and Adminstratively One, and had a doctrinal consensus that united the entire Church as well.  The early Church had a visible Church doctrine.  So that when David says that he embraces the idea of a catholic Church, he must break ranks with what the early Church believed about Itself.

The Early Church believed that the Visible Church would persist throughout all of history and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Christ, in His teachings, said as much. Thus, when one begins to state as David has that original faith had been lost and is not fully adhered to by any group, He comes very close to undercutting the veracity of the Lord who built the Church. If the Visible Church did not persist in the fullness of doctrine, then Christ's word ceases to become reliable. David says he believes in the catholic Church but he empties it of Apostolic Content and reconfigures it into an unrecognizable neologism.

This is serious for another reason.  Ecclesiology is a subset of Christology because the Church is now the Body of Christ, and in It is continued the ministry of Jesus Christ on the earth.  Therefore deviations in Ecclesiology become and lead to and are expressive of a heretical Christiology.

In the 5th Century,  there was an assortment of teachings, that said that Jesus Christ was not fully human; it came in different forms-  his humanity was like a drop of water swallowed up in the ocean of the Divine.  He was spoken of as having a Divine Will but not a human will.  He was spoken of as having a Divine Energy but not a human Energy.  Or that the humanity and the divinity were fused so that the body of Jesus was not like ours.  The heresy obtained the name of Monophysitism at a Council of the Church in 451.

David's invisible Church doctrine expresses Christological monophysitism because he denies the full humanity of the Church as the body of Christ.  He denies it in its historical dimension, its persistence through time, and he denies it in its Institutional Dimension, the apostolic succession, the authority of the Church to bind and loose through its Bishops, the authority of the Church in the Bishops to form Councils whereby decisions are made that bind the consciences of the faithful. David's invisible Church doctrine is a Christological monophysitism.

And this leads to the second big mistake in David's reactive thinking concerning the Church. His doctrine of salvation being a personal relationship to Jesus; that is what he wants to foster.  The Early Church did not teach this.  The early Church taught us that we needed the whole of Christ to be saved; we needed not only a personal relationship in communion with the Head of the Church- Jesus Christ; but we also needed to be incorporated into His Body, his very physical human Body, the Church on Earth, through baptism, and we also needed to eat His Body and Drink His Precious Blood, In Holy Communion to be saved.  Davids soteriology, his doctrine of salvation, is also monophysite because he emphasizes the Divine and the Spiritual in salvation in his personal relationship to Jesus, but neglects to mention that we incorporation into His Body to be saved as well. We are saved by the Whole Jesus-  Head and Body, not just the head.

So, my friend David, in order to cleave to his pacifism and the outer forms of separation from the world, has been forced into the embrace of an Ecclesiology and a Soteriology that are heretical- they are monophysite, and reflect negatively on who Christ is, this Christ who IS come in the Flesh.

At the www.earlychurch.com web site the webmaster states that the essential marks of the Church were separation from the world, unconditional love, and obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ.  As David morphed away from any catholic expressions of the Church, he came to characterize the Conciliar period of the Church  from Nicaea in 325 till the 7th Council in the 9th Century as a time when the Church deviated from its mission of separation love and obedience and focused on incorrectly on right belief.  On the early church web site David does not mention right belief as an essential mark of the Kingdom.  Perhaps that is why he is no longer uncomfortable with such a range of heterodoxy in the groups he extolls. Yet Scripture is not so indifferent to doctrine, and especially the doctrine of the Incarnation.  We learn that the spirit of Antichrist is characterized essentially by unbelief- unbelief and rejection of the Incarnation.  ' We learn in I John 4:1 and following:  ¶  Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.1 ¶ 2  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:2

3  And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

It is of no small insignificance, then that the ecclesiology and soteriology that David has come to fails to be a confession of the Incarnation, but is a move away from it.  All of Christian life, worship and obedience must be an expression of the Incarnation.  To deviate from that is to allow the enemy within the gates.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Was the early Church uniformly pacifist, and openly hostile to participation in any government activity that involved the power of the sword?  David thinks so in his reading of the Eerdemans Ante-Nicene Fathers.  I would suggest he has missed a few things.  First of all, the Ante-Nicene writings are not the totality of that which has been recorded from the early Church.  There are also Hymns from the period ; there are also stories of Saints from the period.  There are a number of hagiographic references to soldiers in the ante-Nicene era who were martyred for Christ. They did not eschew their soldiery because of their Faith, though they often gave evidence of finding the work of a soldier odious.  However, the hagiographic literature often records stories of valiant soldiers who were martyred because they refused to offer incense to the Emperor or the the pagan gods.

However, even if we do not consider the hagiography of the early Church we must consider neglected evidence from the writings of the early Church that are recorded in the Eerdemans collection.  In the Syriac documents we have the history of a First Century Kingdom whose king was converted to Christ by a miraculous healing and who made his kingdom a Christian Kingdom, and yet was not in any way instructed by the apostolic witnesses that had come to him to forsake his position of King and bearer of the sword.  This is the account of the Kingdom of Edessa, and the conversion of Agbar at the hands of Thaddeus.  There is perhaps apocryphal encrustations about the account, but it reflects a historic core, that there was a first century Kingdom that was converted to Christ.

Separation from the world did not entail forsaking participation in human government nor the necessary use of the sword as a terror to evil.   Selfless love, the mark of any truly Christian life could be practiced as the head of the State, and as a soldier as well.  The Church in this instance was established and had a different pastoral challenge than when it was persecuted by the State as in the case of the first Centuries in the Roman Empire.  But from the first century, the Church had an apostolic model that separation from the world did not necessarily entail forsaking the governance  that involved the sword.  It was for this reason that there was no protest when at the time of Constantinople there was a change in the demeanor of the State towards the Church.

The Church had an apostolic deposit that knew how to both abound and to be abased.

This is not to say that the Church promulgated a doctrine of just warfare.  The doctrine of just warfare was a corruption brought about at the time of Augustine in the West. However, as the canons of St. Basil makes note, though it may be necessary to act as a soldier in the defense of the helpless, to take a life was necessarily a sin, and required a penance by excommunication for three years.

Finally, to make a case for absolute pacifism as the New Testament teaching, in obvious contrast to the place of warfare in the Old and the governance of Israel by righteous kings in the Old , is to descend into a sort of Marcionite distinction between Old and New Covenants which the Church condemned in the Second Century as heresy.  It is a descent into Marcionite ethics.

If David seriously embraced belief in the Communion of Saints, then his reversion to anabaptism may have never occurred and he might have transitioned to one of the Ancient Churches.  David was once asked what the communion of Saints was and he said he didn't know.  The catacombs give us a clue. There are prayers offered to loved ones on the walls of the catacombs.  The early Church had a vital and mystical sense of being one with the Church in heaven.  Hebrews 12 records the apostle Paul talking about believers having come to the heavenly Jerusalem to the souls of just men made perfect, to an innumerable company of angels, and to Jesus the author and finisher of the faith.  This was Paul's experience put in to words.   The mystical communion of the ancient Church was with Jesus and with His people who are members of Him.  The early Church had a sense of that closeness. That closeness was a first fruits of the restored fellowship that all with have with one another in the Resurrection on the Last Day.  The Church is a fellowship seated in heaven; some of us while seated in heaven still have our feet on earth.

Therefore, the Communion of Saints is the pious practice of asking the departed Saints for their prayers, especially of the Virgin Mary, who is a type of the Church, and through the apostle John the mother of us all.  If David had truly embraced the Communion of Saints, he would not have been shipwrecked because some Orthodox were asking for the intercessions of the Virgin Mary.

When one studies the early Church and looks to history to figure out what the Church ought to believe, one discovers that the early Church did not have such a rationalistic approach to getting at the truth.  The early Church viewed itself as the pillar and ground of the Truth, and not history , nor some individual's reading of it, whether it be a sola Scriptura inductive Bible Student or the Pope in Rome.  The Historic, Faithful, Persistent-in-History Church, the early Church believed was the place where the Truth was preserved.  One did not go dig in history to find the Truth, one went to the Church and received Its teachings.  Consequently, David's epistemology is flawed; it is not ancient Church; it is rationalistically based in philosophy, the historiographical approach to ancient documents.  It is a flawed non-apostolic approach to the Truth.  Philosophy may have its place but unless it brings us to the Church, the pillar and ground of the Truth, then it has failed to serve us.

David knows what the Early Church taught about Holy Communion.  It took Christ's words quite literally.  But for David to know that then to put forth groups such as the Quakers who deny the Body and Blood of Christ, not discerning His Body and Blood in Communion, is a very serious mis-direction.  I am also astonished that he would put forth such groups as the Donatists and Novationists- groups that taught that one could only sin once after baptism.  Does he want to put forth that sort of standard? Is that a reform that anyone can admire?  Isn't our great and pressing need that God forgive us 70 x 7 even as we are called upon to forgive others 70 x7. Is God's calling for us to forgive more generous than his willingness to forgive us?

I found the Church. The Orthodox Church preserved the doctrine of the Apostles.  It has served up millions of martyrs for 2000 years including 45 million in the last century under the Bosheviks.  The Orthodox Russians gave a haven for the persecuted Anabaptists who fled Protestant and Catholic Western Europe.  It has a strong commitment to peace as is evidenced by the Orthodox Peace Fellowship www.incommunion.org   As a Church committed to visible unity, it does not have the luxury of schism as is used by radical Christians who divide and separate from the not-as-pure. It has to practice the parable of the wheat and the tares, and that of the net with the fishes.   Bt the high standards of holiness are lifted up, the Church continues to produce Saints, and the therapeutic regimen to make Saints has been preserved in such a way that is not found in any other Christian Body.  It is a blessing to have 'mystic sweet communion with those whose rest is won', and to have Church structures, if submitted to,  that will take one forward into the depths of Christian sanctification.  The Church didn't disappear to have to be reconstructed from the bones found in historical digs.  Christ did build His Church and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it.

Denny Kenaston, Charity Christian Fellowship, and Remnant Christianity

I figured I'd weigh in on the discussion of Charity Christian Fellowship. I was very interested in the movement for a while. I attended meetings with them. Stayed in their houses. Participated in pastoral ministry. Had a house church that was a satellite of their ministry for a period of time.

I've also been away from them for quite a while, since the early 90s.  My path took me through Charity eventually into the Eastern Orthodox Church, where I have rested, at least from  ecclesiastical wanderings.  I've kept up with them only indirectly, through their web presence, and recently through YouTube preachings by Denny Kennaston. Denny has not changed much except he has gotten older.

There are burning questions out there.  Is Charity Christian Fellowship a Cult?  No, it is not, at least in the theological sense. It adheres to Traditional Christology and to a Trinitarian doctrine of the Godhead.  Is it a cult in the sociological sense?  No, because it is not a new religious movement but is a synthesis of two distinctively protestant theological movements from whom it has separated. It is a synthesis of revivalism with anabaptism.  Is it a cult in the mental health sense, that is to say, is it a group that practice physical or mental abuse?  That depends- if the group

 refuses membership to divorced and remarried people, is that mental abuse? If so, then the Catholic Church is also a cult in the mental health sense (although the Catholic Church has gotten around that hard position by being very liberal with marriage annulments, whereas Charity has not, that I know of).  I know that I was dealt with quite harshly by one of their leaders when I came to doctrinal convictions with which they did not agree.  Is that abuse?  I doubt it, though it made me glad I did not continue going their way.. Itis not good leadership. Is Charity a cult because they have strong leadership? I would say no.  This world needs good Christian leadership. Is it cultish to have empire building ambition? If so, the whole religious world lieth in cultishness.  No, Charity is not a cult. It is simply a zealous bunch of Christians with strong and directive leaders who lead as best they can as imperfect men in a terribly gone astray world.

Is Charity Christian Fellowship a sect?  Yes.  But in the Protestant world, being a sect is not a bad thing;  it is inevitable given the high priority it gives to the individual and private interpretation of Scripture.  A sect is a group of Christians that separates from another group for reasons of faith or practice.  Charity identifies itself as anabaptist, yet has separated from the myriad of other anabaptist bodies on a number of issues, most of them having to do with heart Christianity as opposed to outward religion.  Charity seeks to rescue itself and others from the problem of mere outward religion with the instruments of revivalism- chiefly protracted preaching and teaching with the induction of crisis experiences where individuals come to deepened repentance, and new inward states of subjective asssurance.  Yet, Charity retains many of the outward forms of anapbatism- conspicuous practice of dress modesty and non-conformity, and strict non-participation in most of the forms of entertainment that now engulf the modern western world.  The women persist in wearing a veil in prayer, and wear it all the time.  There is strict cultural distinctions between men's and women's roles.  Families and Church are strongly patriarchical.

Charity also continues to embrace the strict non-resistance of the Mennonites and Amish that

 extends to non-participation in the political processes of the governments of this world; it operates with a two Kingdom model, with the governments in this world held to be in antithesis to the Kingdoms of Christ.

On the other hand stylistically they embrace the fervent and emotion charged preaching. prayer,  and congregational styles of revivalism, in contrast to the somber and silent temperament of the Mennonites and the Amish.  Theologically they continue in the Arminian mode as far as the process of salvation is concerned, yet continue to advance the ideal of assurance of salvation that traditionally comes from the Calvinist end of the spectrum, but not the old Calvinism but the new light of Finney, with inner assurance flowing out of an inner experience of election.

Such was the case in the re-conversion of one of the leading ministers, tape Moses.  He was a man who joined Charity and became the heart of their tape ministry. He had pious children and a pious wife and was pious himself. Yet, several years after joining Charity, he concluded that he was not 'saved', and so had an altar call experience and finally got saved.  Tape Moses illustrates the extreme subjectivity of the revivalism that is practiced in Charity, as one can never be sure that one has enough faith to be saved.

So, this illustrates that one of the criticisms I have for Charity is a criticism that I have for revivalism in particular.  The other criticism has to do with the fixity of outward forms that Charity practices, and that is a criticism of conservative Anabaptism.  It is an odd collection of criticisms, as it posits an inordinate subjectivity on the one hand and an inordinate fixity in outward form on the other.

The fixity of outward forms-  the only sermon I ever preached at Charity Christian Fellowship was a sermon on Christian liberty from the writings of St. Paul. I was led of the Spirit to preach on that.  The general idea of the sermon is that Christian faith frees us from cultural captivity so that we may be free to present the Gospel in a multitude of cultures without outward forms being

 a stumbling block to the message of the grace of God in the person and work of Jesus Christ.  Perhaps this has changed in the fellowships, but I sort of doubt it.  A Youtube video of Denny preaching in 2008 shows him still wearing clothes that limit him to a particular cultural setting, that of Anabaptism. He was wearing a white shirt with long sleeves and without a tie, and black pants, with military short hair on his head and Moses length beard on his face.  When you look at

 his family pictures they are the same for his children.  White shirts, or pale blue, and so forth.  There is a fixity of form.  They style of dress is modest in that it covers his body, however it is a modesty that is conspicuous and calls attention to itself, so in that sense could be construed as very immodest. The idea of clothing in Scripture is clothing that neither calls attention to us or calls attention to our flesh.  Such fixity in outward form limits the out-reach of the Gospel and requires that converts not only respond in repentance to the Gospel but also adopt a particular cultural form, or so it seems to me.

There have always been Christians throughout Christian history who have practiced non-conformity in outward form, and the Lord gives them the liberty to do it. However, Scripture and the catholic practice of the faith go further and say that those who feel the need to practice such scruples for their conscience sake need to make room for those whose consciences are not weak- in the case of Charity, to make room for those who wear short sleeves without a sense of loss of Communion with God, or for ladies who do not wear a prayer veiling 24 /7 yet who likewise do not feel the loss of the presence of God to allow them to do so.  So, in the Church, as conceived by the apostles, there is the room for the weak conscience, the long sleeve wearer, and also for the strong- the catholicity of the Church requires room for both.  This is the missing of the mark of Charity, the failure to attain to catholicity in its expression of the Faith.  Such failure to achieve catholicity is called legalism, if the group that holds to such practices denies that those who do not are necesarily not of the fold of God. I know that Denny has had men who wear ties to speak at his Church, and subscribes to the teaching of others who do not hold to his particularist views. So, I would not say it is a legalism on Denny's part, but it merely that the practice of Charity is sectarian, that have narrowed for themselves the way that they wish to express the faith. I supose it would be legalism if when the attempted to take the Gospel to a very different culture, say, in Africa, and they were decking out people in a tropical climate with Mennonite coats with circumcised collars.  I do not wish to put on them a label.  I have my own failings to live in the light of Christ that occupy my sights.

But their practice does not attain to Cathlocity, and that means that they are a sect.  Now as to the subjectivity that is involved in their revivalism, I suggest that this is a misdirected mysticism. Christian faith is a mysticism; but it is a mysticism that is grounded and delivered from the inherent risks of mysticism by its existing within the life of the Church.  This balance of mysticism with Church is unique for Christianity because it is expressive of the mystery of the Incarnation.  How can this be?  Jesus Christ is the Eternal Logos who became a Man, without ceasing to be God.  In His Eternal Person, as the Second Person of the Trinity, He united The Divine and Human in Himself, the Uncreated and the Created.  Through His death and resurrection and asension, He then incorporated those who believe in Him, into the mystery of this Divine Human life.  This incorporation is accomplished through the medium of the Church. The Church is the ongoing presence on earth of the Ministry of Jesus Christ. It is His Body doing in the earth all the things that He did in the days of His flesh on earth.  While on earth He forgave sins, He sanctified souls through preaching, He gave his Body and Blood for our vivification.  In the Church Jesus Christ is doing the same Thing.  In the days of his flesh, as He moved about preaching and teaching and healing and being the world's pastor, the Spirit was mystically revealing Him to His followers. Peter was the first to be illumined and as a result this human Jesus Christ was revealed inwardly to Peter, who came to recognize Him as the Son of God.

There was a mysticism with inward revelation going on at the same time that the disciples were with Jesus in Body.  They knew Him first through His Body and as they experienced Him in the Body, the inward revelation of who He was was given to them.  In conjunction with the things He did was the revelation inwardly of who He was.

This is continued in the Church.  The Church is the bodily presence of Christ. It is Christ present in an objective way, and in the Church there are acts that are done that, in an objective way, begin the journey of being a Christian, so that we are not snared in the morass of mystical subjectivity.  In the Church our sins are forgiven. Christ gave that power to the Church through the apostles as is recorded in Matthew and also in John, both a synoptic and a johannine testimony.  How does the Church begin to forgive our sins?  Well, it preaches the Gospel of repentance, and those that hear the Gospel, present them to the Church and are baptized. Baptism is the ministry of forgiveness of sins.  It is objective. There is a time when we were not

 baptized, and had not entered into the mystery of forgiveness.  There is then a time when we have been baptized, and we cannot divest ourselves of that through subjectivity. It is an outward and bodily reality- our sins have been forgiven and the Holy Spirit has been imparted.  Such objectivity delivers us of the dangers of mystical subjectivity. We have been born again.

However, the mysticism of the Faith delivers us from the dangers inherent in the objectivity of baptism and of participation in the Church, for the impartation of grace which baptism is is to the end that we have Communion with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that is the mysticism to which we all are called, and if we do not go on and know the Lord, something is amiss in how the grace in our baptism is being invoked.

And here is my criticism of Charity as a participant in the Christian movement called revivalism-

the call to inward illumination which is the call to every Christian has attached to it things which properly ought to be attached to the outward graces that subsist within the Church, in our previous discussion, baptism; but to all the mysteries, or sacraments that were placed in the Church as a Body.  The classical denominations of Protestant were all resistant to revivalism for this very reason, the personalistic, and subjective was set at war with the corporate, and the ecclesiastical, undermining the very basis of Christian life in the Church, and morphing it into something individual and private. In fact this attack on the Church by revivalism has directly led to the lone ranger Christianity that plagues the west, not to mention the smorgaasbord approache to finding a Christian fellowship, for it has led to the process of finding a fellowship that agrees with me, who in my subjectivity and private reading of Scripture am the final arbiter of what is the depths of Christian faith, rather than finding myself confonted with the Church and finding it nessary to pray and struggle until my understanding is transformed as it is conformed to the Apostolic deposit of faith. Yet the subjectivity of Charity and all revivalist movements almsot guarantees an endless succesion of further schisms and separations, and eventual dissolution of the movement after the parting of the strong leaders that served as the condensation point that brought the movement together in the first place.  The revivalist principle has within itself the seeds of its own destruction. That is why Finney, towards the end of his life, lamented, saying, 'where is the fruit', as he looked out on the territories he had worked with revival and found nothing really of substance remaining.  Futher, he had left the Churches in a weakened state. Is it any wonder that in that spiritual wasteland, that the Mormon movement emerged?

I would like to touch briefly on another aspect of the weakness of the tradition that is revivalism- Jessie Penn-Lewis who chronicled the Welch revival at the turn of the 20th century stated that itw as destroyed by emotionalism. (the Welch revival is another example of a powerful spiritual fervor that after a generation showed no fruit: another is the West Africa revival chronicled by Norman Grubb, a generation thereafter was the grounds of the Tutsi and Hutu genocides).  I go into this with reluctance because I like Denny, and I know that he has pointed many to Christ, and has a zeal and a discipline in the Christian life he has chosen that I cannot match, but Denny's preaching is exhausting. It is full of zeal, but it lacks the peace from above, it is as if Denny himself has not yet entered into the Stillness of the Father so as to minister that Peace in the

 midst of his calls given to us to pursue a holy life.  Perhaps that is not a criticism of Denny as it is a comment about his own personal spiritual neediness, but when inordinate weight is put on preaching as is the case of revivalism, and inordinate weight is put on inward subjective responses, as is the case in revivalism, then the temptation is inevitable to marshal the forces of emotion and striving to advance the things that are considered needful.  Denny comes across as a man, not at peace, but driven by his own lack of peace and lack of resolution. I feel for him because I recognize that own sense in my own life.  But it is a slough toward which one is tended by revivalism and the only way out is through a paradigm shift.

This failure to manifest peace to the world has deep roots, that are outside of the scope of this essay to pursue. However, it might be said that, the Peace from Above, is a peace that comes from a Revelation that comes that is deeper than Scripture and of which Scripture only hints at-

the peace that comes from the Revelation of the Stillness of the Father. It was spoken of by St. Ignatius, third Bishop of Antioch, who said, "those who have acquired the word of Jesus must hear His Stillness, so as to be perfect."  The deep Stillness of the Father is something that the Western Protestant Tradition knows nothing and writes nothing about, yet it is essential to being a Father in Christ, who draws others on into the depths of fellowship in the Holy Trinity. I suggest that the reader Google 'hesychasm', or look at others posts in this blog on Stillness, to follow up on this idea.

The tragedy is that Western Christians are cut off from the depths of the Apostolic Mystical Tradition and inevitably weight their preachings and their prayings with either too much emotion or too much thinking, for they have not plumbed the depths the Stillness that is within the heart.

So, misdirected mysticism, non-catholicity in terms of the forms of the Faith, these all speak to the failure to have found the Church. It is another evidence of men, earnest men, zealous men, men who have heard the word of Christ, attempting to re-invent the wheel of Christian faith for themselves, having the Bible but being divorced from the Church that both wrote it and canonized it and held within itself the Apostolic Tradition that interpreted it.  Failure to find the Church is also a failure to fully confess the Incarnation, and to the post,  David, David, Whither Goest Thou?, do I point the reader to see something of how the evangelical, revivalist, anabaptist, Western Christian inadvertently fails to confess the Incarnation in its doctrine of the Church and in its soteriology, as we have attempted to show in this post that failure to confess the Incarnation has led to an imbalanced Christian mysticism.

Lord have mercy on us all, for we have great need of Thee. amen.

David Bercot's Vaunted Kingdom Movements- The Donatists

Donatists

The Donatist schism in Africa began in 311 and flourished just one hundred years, until the conference at Carthage in 411, after which its importance waned.

 The Donatists were not the peace-loving folk like the later Mennonites- they also were persecutors, embraced many violent in their numbers, took over Catholic cathedrals by force, and in turn spawned an almost endless succession of schisms- which is the norm when one separates from other Christians because they are not holy enough. That principle always turns schism which is a mortal sin, into a virtue.   Their chief reform was to re-baptized any Christian who did not have baptism by their bishops, and to deny communion to those who had failed to confess Christ in the persecutions, even to those who were truly repentant. Donatists

In order to trace the origin of the division we have to go back to the persecutionunder Diocletian. The first edict of that emperor against Christians (24 Feb., 303) commanded their churches to be destroyed, their Sacred Books to be delivered up and burnt, while they themselves were outlawed. Severer measures followed in 304, when the fourth edict ordered all to offer incense to the idols under pain of death. After the abdication of Maximian in 305, the persecution seems to have abated inAfrica. Until then it was terrible. In Numidia the governor, Florus, was infamous for his cruelty, and, though many officials may have been, like the proconsul Anulinus, unwilling to go further than they were obliged, yet St. Optatus is able to say of theChristians of the whole country that some were confessors, some were martyrs, some fell, only those who were hidden escaped. The exaggerations of the highly strung African character showed themselves. A hundred years earlier Tertullian had taught that flight from persecution was not permissible. Some now went beyond this, and voluntarily gave themselves up to martyrdom as Christians. Their motives were, however, not always above suspicion. Mensurius, the Bishop of Carthage, in a letter to Secundus, Bishop of Tigisi, then the senior bishop (primate) of Numidia, declares that he had forbidden any to be honoured as martyrs who had given themselves up of their own accord, or who had boasted that they possessed copies of the Scriptures which they would not relinquish; some of these, he says, were criminals and debtors to the State, who thought they might by this means rid themselves of a burdensome life, or else wipe away the remembrance of theirmisdeeds, or at least gain money and enjoy in prison the luxuries supplied by the kindness of Christians. The later excesses of the Circumcellions show that Mensurius had some ground for the severe line he took. He explains that he had himself taken the Sacred Books of the Church to his own house, and had substituted a number ofheretical writings, which the prosecutors had seized without asking for more; the proconsul, when informed of the deception refused to search the bishop's private house. Secundus, in his reply, without blaming Mensurius, somewhat pointedly praised the martyrs who in his own province had been tortured and put to death for refusing to deliver up the Scriptures; he himself had replied to the officials who came to search: "I am a Christian and a bishop, not a traditor." This word traditorbecame a technical expression to designate those who had given up the SacredBooks, and also those who had committed the worse crimes of delivering up thesacred vessels and even their own brethren.
It is certain that relations were strained between the confessors in prison atCarthage and their bishop. If we may credit the Donatist Acts of the forty-ninemartyrs of Abitene, they broke off communion with Mensurius. We are informed in these Acts that Mensurius was a traditor by his own confession, and that hisdeacon, Caecilian, raged more furiously against the martyrs than did the persecutorsthemselves; he set armed men with whips before the door of the prison to prevent their receiving any succor; the food brought by the piety of the Christians was thrown to the dogs by these ruffians, and the drink provided was spilled in the street, so that the martyrs, whose condemnation the mild proconsul had deferred, died in prison of hunger and thirst. The story is recognized by Duchesne and others as exaggerated. It would be better to say that the main point is incredible; theprisoners would not have been allowed by the Roman officials to starve; the details -- that Mensurius confessed himself a traditor, that he prevented the succoring of the imprisoned confessors -- are simply founded on the letter of Mensurius to Secundus. Thus we may safely reject all the latter part of the Acts as fictitious. The earlier part is authentic: it relates how certain of the faithful of Abitene met and celebrated their usual Sunday service, in defiance of the emperor's edict, under the leadership of the priest Saturninus, for their bishop was a traditor and they disowned him; they were sent to Carthage, made bold replies when interrogated, and were imprisoned by Anulinus, who might have condemned them to death forthwith. The whole account is characteristic of the fervid African temperament. We can well imagine how the prudent Mensurius and his lieutenant, the deaconCaecilian, were disliked by some of the more excitable among their flock.
We know in detail how the inquiries for sacred books were carried out, for the official minutes of an investigation at Cirta (afterwards Constantine) in Numidia are preserved. The bishop and his clergy showed themselves ready to give up all they had, but drew the line at betraying their brethren; even here their generosity was not remarkable, for they added that the names and addresses were well known to the officials. The examination was conducted by Munatius Felix, perpetual flamen,curator of the colony of Cirta. Having arrived with his satellites at the bishop'shouse -- in Numidia the searching was more severe than in Proconsular Africa -- thebishop was found with four priests, three deacons, four subdeacons, and severalfossores (diggers). These declared that the Scriptures were not there, but in the hands of the lectors; and in fact the bookcase was found to be empty. The clergypresent refused to give the names of the lectors, saying they were known to thenotaries; but, with the exception of the books, they gave in an inventory of allpossessions of the church: two golden chalices, six of silver, six silver cruets, a silver bowl, seven silver lamps, two candlesticks, seven short bronze lamp-stands with lamps, eleven bronze lamps with chains, eighty-two women's tunics, twenty-eight veils, sixteen men's tunics, thirteen pairs of men's boots, forty-seven pairs ofwomen's boots, nineteen countrymen's smocks. Presently the subdeacon Silvanus brought forth a silver box and another silver lamp, which he had found behind a jug. In the dining-room were four casks and seven jugs. A subdeacon produced a thick book. Then the houses of the lectors were visited: Eugenius gave up four volumes,Felix, the mosaic worker gave up five, Victorinus eight, Projectus five large volumes and two small ones, the grammarian Victor two codices and five quinions, or gatherings of five leaves; Euticius of Caesarea declared that he had no books; the wife of Coddeo produced six volumes, and said that she had no more; and a search was made without further result. It is interesting to note that the books were allcodices (in book form), not rolls, which had gone out of fashion in the course of the preceding century.
It is to be hoped that such disgraceful scenes were infrequent. A contrasting instance of heroism is found in the story of Felix, Bishop of Tibiuca, who was hauled before the magistrate on the very day, 5 June 303, when the decree was posted up in that city. He refused to give up any books, and was sent to Carthage. The proconsul Anulinus, unable by close confinement to weaken his determination, sent him on to Rome to Maximian Hercules.
In 305, the persecution had relaxed, and it was possible to unite fourteen or morebishops at Cirta in order to give a successor to Paul. Secundus presided as primate, and in his zeal he attempted to examine the conduct of his colleagues. They met in a private house, for the Church had not yet been restored to the Christians. "We must first try ourselves", said the primate, "before we can venture to ordain abishop". To Donatus of Mascula he said: "You are said to have been a traditor." "Youknow", replied the bishop, "how Florus searched for me that I might offer incense, but God did not deliver me into his hands, brother. As God forgave me, do you reserve me to His judgment." "What then", said Secundus, "shall we say of themartyrs? It is because they did not give up anything that they were crowned." "Send me to God," said Donatus, "to Him will I give an account." (In fact, a bishopwas not amenable to penance and was properly "reserved to God" in this sense.) "Stand on one side", said the president, and to Marinus of Aquae Tibilitanae he said: "You also are said to be a traditor." Marinus said: "I gave papers to Pollux; my books are safe." This was not satisfactory, and Secundus said: "Go over to that side"; then to Donatus of Calama: "You are said to be a traditor." "I gave up books onmedicine." Secundus seems to have been incredulous, or at least he thought a trial was needed, for again he said: "Stand on one side." After a gap in the Acts, we read that Secundus turned to Victor, Bishop of Russicade: "You are said to have given up the Four Gospels." Victor replied: "It was the curator, Valentinus; he forced me to throw them into the fire. Forgive me this fault, and God will also forgive it." Secundus said: "Stand on one side." Secundus (after another gap) said to Purpuriusof Limata: "You are said to have killed the two sons of your sister at Mileum" (Milevis). Purpurius answered with vehemence: "Do you think I am frightened by you as the others are? What did you do yourself when the curator and his officials tried to make you give up the Scriptures? How did you manage to get off scot-free, unless you gave them something, or ordered something to be given? They certainlydid not let you go for nothing! As for me I have killed and I kill those who are against me; do not provoke me to say anymore. You know that I do not interfere where I have no business." At this outburst, a nephew of Secundus said to theprimate: "You hear what they say of you? He is ready to withdraw and make aschism; and the same is true of all those whom you accuse; and I know they are capable of turning you out and condemning you, and you alone will then be theheretic. What is it to you what they have done? Each must give his account toGod." Secundus (as St. Augustine points out) had apparently no reply against the accusation of Purpurius, so he turned to the two or three bishops who remained unaccused: "What do you think?" These answered: "They have God to whom they must give an account." Secundus said: "You know and God knows. Sit down." And all replied: Deo gratis.
These minutes have been preserved for us by St. Augustine. The later Donatists declared them forged, but not only could St. Optatus refer to the age of the parchment on which they were written, but they are made easily credible by the testimonies given before Zenophilus in 320. Seeck, as well as Duchesne (see below), upholds their genuineness. We hear from St. Optatus of another fallen Numidianbishop, who refused to come to the council on the pretext of bad eyes, but in reality for fear his fellow-citizens should prove that he had offered incense, a crime of which the other bishops were not guilty. The bishops proceeded to ordain abishop, and they chose Silvanus, who, as a subdeacon, assisted in the search forsacred vessels. The people of Cirta rose up against him, crying that he was a traditor, and demanded the appointment of a certain Donatus. But country people and gladiators were engaged to set him in the episcopal chair, to which he was carried on the back of a man named Mutus.

Caecilian and Majorinus

A certain Donatus of Casae Nigrae is said to have caused a schism in Carthageduring the lifetime of Mensurius. In 311 Maxentius obtained dominion over Africa, and a deacon of Carthage, Felix, was accused of writing a defamatory letter against the tyrant. Mensurius was said to have concealed his deacon in his house and was summoned to Rome. He was acquitted, but died on his return journey. Before his departure from Africa, he had given the gold and silver ornaments of the church to the care of certain old men, and had also consigned an inventory of these effects to an aged woman, who was to deliver it to the next bishop. Maxentius gave liberty to the Christians, so that it was possible for an election to be held at Carthage. Thebishop of Carthage, like the pope, was commonly consecrated by a neighbouringbishop, assisted by a number of others form the vicinity. He was primate not only of the proconsular province, but of the other provinces of North Africa, including Numidian, Byzacene, Tripolitana, and the two Mauretanias, which were all governed by the vicar of prefects. In each of these provinces the local primacy was attached to no town, but was held by the senior bishop, until St. Gregory the Great made the office elective. St. Optatus implies that the bishops of Numidia, many of whom were at no great distance from Carthage, had expected that they would have a voice in the election; but two priests, Botrus and Caelestius, who each expected to beelected, had managed that only a small number of bishops should be present. Caecilian, the deacon who had been so obnoxious to the martyrs, was duly chosen by the whole people, placed in the chair of Mensurius, and consecrated by Felix,Bishop of Aptonga or Abtughi. The old men who had charge of the treasure of thechurch were obliged to give it up; they joined with Botrus and Caelestius in refusing to acknowledge the new bishop. They were assisted by a rich lady named Lucilla, who had a grudge against Caecilian because he had rebuked her habit of kissing the bone of an uncanonized (non vindicatus) martyr immediately before receiving Holy Communion. Probably we have here again a martyr whose death was due to his own ill-regulated fervour.
Secundus, as the nearest primate, came with his suffragans to Carthage to judgethe affair, and in a great council of seventy bishops declared the ordination of Caecilian to be invalid, as having been performed by a traditor. A new bishop wasconsecrated. Majorinus, who belonged to the household of Lucilla and had been alector in the deaconry of Caecilian. That lady provided the sum of 400 folles (more than 11,000 dollars), nominally for the poor; but all of it went into the pockets of the bishops, one-quarter of the sum being seized by Purpurius of Limata. Caecilian had possession of the basilica and the cathedra of Cyprian, and the people were with him, so that he refused to appear before the council. "If I am not properlyconsecrated", he said ironically, "let them treat me as a deacon, and lay hands on me afresh, and not on another." On this reply being brought, Purpurius cried: "Let him come here, and instead of laying on him, we will break his head in penance." No wonder that the action of this council, which sent letters throughout Africa, had a great influence. But at Carthage it was well known that Caecilian was the choice of the people, and it was not believed that Felix of Aptonga had given up the SacredBooks. Rome and Italy had given Caecilian their communion. The Church of the moderate Mensurius did not hold that consecration by a traditor was invalid, or even that it was illicit, if the traditor was still in lawful possession of his see. The councilof Secundus, on the contrary, declared that a traditor could not act as a bishop, and that any who were in communion with traditors were cut off from the Church. They called themselves the Church of the martyrs, and declared that all who were in communion with public sinners like Caecilian and Felix were necessarilyexcommunicate.

The condemnation by Pope Melchiades

Very soon there were many cities having two bishops, the one in communion with Caecilian, the other with Majorinus. Constantine, after defeating Maxentius (28 October, 312) and becoming master of Rome, showed himself a Christian in his acts. He wrote to Anulinus, proconsul of Africa (was he same as the mild proconsul of 303?), restoring the churches to Catholics, and exempting clerics of the "CatholicChurch of which Caecilian is president" from civil functions (Eusebius, Church HistoryX.5.15 and X.7.2). he also wrote to Caecilian (ibid., X, vi, 1) sending him an order for 3000 folles to be distributed in Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania; if more was needed, the bishop must apply for more. He added that he had heard of turbulentpersons who sought to corrupt the Church; he had ordered the proconsul Anulinus, and the vicar of prefects to restrain them, and Caecilian was to appeal to these officials if necessary. The opposing party lost no time. A few days after the publication of these letters, their delegates, accompanied by a mob, brought toAnulinus two bundles of documents, containing the complaints of their party against Caecilian, to be forwarded to the emperor. St. Optatus has preserved a few words from their petition, in which Constantine is begged to grant judges from Gaul, where under his father's rule there had been no persecution, and therefore no traditors.Constantine knew the Church's constitution too well to comply and thereby makeGallic bishops judges of the primates of Africa. He at once referred the matter to the pope, expressing his intention, laudable, if too sanguine, of allowing no schismsin the Catholic Church. That the African schismatics might have no ground of complaint, he ordered three of the chief bishops of Gaul, Reticius of Autun,Maternus of Cologne, and Marinus of Arles, to repair to Rome, to assist at the trial. He ordered Caecilian to come thither with ten bishops of his accusers and ten of his own communion. The memorials against Caecilian he sent to the pope, who wouldknow, he says, what procedure to employ in order to conclude the whole matterwith justice. (Eusebius, Church History X.5.18). Pope Melchiades summoned fifteenItalian bishops to sit with him. From this time forward we find that in all important matters the popes issue their decretal letters from a small council of bishops, and there are traces of this custom even before this. The ten Donatist bishops (for we may now give the party its eventual name) were headed by a Bishop Donatus ofCasae Nigrae. It was assumed by Optatus, Augustine, and the other Catholicapologists that this was "Donatus the Great", the successor of Majorinus asschismatic Bishop of Carthage. But the Donatists of St. Augustine's time were anxious to deny this, as they did not wish to admit that their protagonist had been condemned, and the Catholics at the conference of 411 granted them the existenceof a Donatus, Bishop of Casae Nigrae, who had distinguished himself by active hostility to Caecilian. Modern authorities agree in accepting this view. But it seems inconceivable that, if Majorinus was still alive, he should not have been obliged to go to Rome. It would be very strange, further, that a Donatus of Casae Nigraeshould appear as the leader of the party, without any explanation, unless CasaeNigrae was simply the birthplace of Donatus the Great. If we assume that Majorinus had died and had been succeeded by Donatus the Great just before the trial atRome, we shall understand why Majorinus is never again mentioned. The accusations against Caecilian in the memorial were disregarded, as being anonymous and unproved. The witnesses brought from Africa acknowledged that they had nothing against him. Donatus, on the other hand, was convicted by his ownconfession of having rebaptized and of having laid his hands in penance on bishops -- this was forbidden by ecclesiastical law. On the third day the unanimous sentencewas pronounced by Melchiades: Caecilian was to be maintained in ecclestiasticalcommunion. If Donatist bishops returned to the Church, in a place where there were two rival bishops, the junior was to retire and be provided with another see. TheDonatists were furious. A hundred years later their successor declared that Pope Melchiades was himself a traditor, and that on this account they had not accepted his decision; though there is no trace of this having been alleged at the time. But the nineteen bishops at Rome were contrasted with the seventy bishops of theCathaginian Council, and a fresh judgment was demanded.

The Council of Arles

Constantine was angry, but he saw that the party was powerful in Africa, and he summoned a council of the whole West (that is, of the whole of his actualdominions) to meet at Arles on 1 August, 314. Melchiades was dead, and hissuccessor, St. Sylvester, thought it unbecoming to leave Rome, thus setting an example which he repeated in the case of Nicaea, and which his successors followed in the cases of Sardica, Rimini, and the Eastern oecumenical councils. Between forty and fifty sees were represented at the council by bishops or proxies; the Bishops ofLondon, York, and Lincoln were there. St. Sylvester sent legates. The councilcondemned the Donatists and drew up a number of canons; it reported its proceedings in a letter to the pope, which is extant; but, as in the case of Nicaea, no detailed Acts remain, nor are any such mentioned by the ancients. The Fathersin their letter salute Sylvester, saying that he had rightly decided not to quit the spot "where the Apostles daily sit in judgment"; had he been with them, they might perhaps have dealt more severely with the heretics. Among the canons, one forbids rebaptism (which was still practised in Africa), another declares that those whofalsely accuse their brethren shall have communion only at the hour of death. On the other hand, traditors are to be refused communion, but only when their fault has been proved by public official acts; those whom they have ordained are to retain their positions. The council produced some effect in Africa, but the main body of the Donatists was immovable. They appealed from the council to the emperor.Constantine was horrified: "O insolent madness!" he wrote, "they appeal fromheaven to earth, from Jesus Christ to a man."

The policy of Constantine

The emperor retained the Donatist envoys in Gaul, after at first dismissing them. He seems to have thought of sending for Caecilian, then of granting a full examinationin Africa. The case of Felix of Aptonga was in fact examined by his order atCarthage in February, 315 (St. Augustine is probably wrong in giving 314). The minutes of the proceedings have come down to us in a mutilated state; they are referred to by St. Optatus, who appended them to his book with other documents, and they are frequently cited by St. Augustine. It was shown that the letter which the Donatists put forward as proving the crime of Felix, had been interpolated by acertain Ingentius; this was established by the confession of Ingentius, as well as by the witness of Alfius, the writer of the letter. It was proved that Felix was actually absent at the time the search for Sacred Books was made at Aptonga. Constantineeventually summoned Caecilian and his opponents to Rome; but Caecilian, for some unknown reason, did not appear. Caecilian and Donatus the Great (who was now, at all events, bishop) were called to Milan, where Constantine heard both sides with great care. He declared that Caecilian was innocent and an excellent bishop(Augustine, Contra Cresconium, III lxxi). He retained both in Italy, however, while he sent two bishops, Eunomius and Olympius, to Africa, with an idea of putting Donatusand Caecilian aside, and substituting a new bishop, to be agreed upon by all parties. It is to be presumed that Caecilian and Donatus had assented to this course; but the violence of the sectaries made it impossible to carry it out. Eunomius and Olympius declared at Carthage that the Catholic Church was that which is diffused throughout the world and that the sentence pronounced against the Donatists could not be annulled. They communicated with the clergy of Caecilian and returned toItaly. Donatus went back to Carthage, and Caecilian, seeing this, felt himself free to do the same. Finally Constantine ordered that the churches which the Donatists had taken should be given to the Catholics. Their other meeting-places were confiscated. Those who were convicted (of calumny?) lost their goods. Evictions were carried out by the military. An ancient sermon on the passion of the Donatist "martyrs", Donatus and Advocatus, describes such scenes. In one of them a regular massacre occurred, and a bishop was among the slain, if we may trust this curious document. The Donatists were proud of this "persecution of Caecilian", which "thePure" suffered at the hands of the "Church of the Traditors". The Comes Leontiusand the Dux Ursacius were the special objects of their indignation.
In 320 came revelations unpleasant to the "Pure". Nundinarius, a deacon of Cirta, had a quarrel with his bishop, Silvanus, who caused him to be stoned -- so he said in his complaint to certain Numidian bishops, in which he threatened that if they did not use their influence in his behalf with Silvanus, he would tell what he knew of them. As he got no satisfaction he brought the matter before Zenophilus, the consular of Numidia. The minutes have come to us in a fragmentary form in the appendix of Optatus, under the title of "Gesta apud Zenophilum". Nundinariusproduced letters from Purpurius and other bishops to Silvanus and to the people ofCirta, trying to have peace made with the inconvenient deacon. The minutes of the search at Cirta, which we have already cited, were read and witnesses were called to establish their accuracy, including two of the fossores then present and a lector,Victor the grammarian. It was shown no only that Silvanus was a traditor, but that he had assisted Purpurius, together with two priests and a deacon, in the theft ofcertain casks of vinegar belonging to the treasury, which were in the temple of Serapis. Silvanus had ordained a priest for the sum of 20 folles (500 to 600 dollars). It was established that none of the money given by Lucilla had reached the poor for whom it was ostensibly given. Thus Silvanus, one of the mainstays of the "Pure"Church, which declared that to communicate with any traditor was to be outside the Church, was himself proved to be a traditor. He was exiled by the consular forrobbing the treasury, for obtaining money under false pretences, and for getting himself made bishop by violence. The Donatists later preferred to say that he was banished for refusing to communicate with the "Caecilianists", and Cresconius even spoke of "the persecution of Zenophilus". But it should have been clear to all that the consecrators of Majorinus had called their opponents traditors in order to cover their own delinquencies.
The Donatist party owed its success in great part to the ability of its leaderDonatus, the successor of Majorinus. He appears to have really merited the title of "the Great" by his eloquence and force of character. His writings are lost. His influence with his party was extraordinary. St. Augustine frequently declaims against his arrogance and the impiety with which he was almost worshipped by his followers. In his lifetime he is said to have greatly enjoyed the adulation he received, and after death he was counted as a martyr and miracles were ascribed to him.
In 321 Constantine relaxed his vigorous measures, having found that they did not produce the peace he had hoped for, and he weakly begged the Catholics to suffer the Donatists with patience. This was not easy, for the schismatics broke out intoviolence. At Cirta, Silvanus having returned, they seized the basilica which the emperor had built for the Catholics. They would not give it up, and Constantinefound no better expedient that to build another. Throughout Africa, but above all in Numidia, they were numerous. They taught that in all the rest of the world theCatholic Church had perished, through having communicated with the traditor Caecilian; their sect alone was the true Church. If a Catholic came into theirchurches, they drove him out, and washed with salt the pavement where he had stood. Any Catholic who joined them was forced to be rebaptized. They asserted that their own bishops and ministers were without fault, else their ministrations would be invalid. But in fact they were convicted of drunkenness and other sins. St. Augustine tells us on the authority of Tichonius that the Donatists held a council of two hundred and seventy bishops in which they discussed for seventy-five days the question of rebaptism; they finally decided that in cases where traditors refused to be rebaptized they should be communicated with in spite of this; and the Donatistbishops of Mauretania did not rebaptize traditors until the time of Macarius. OutsideAfrica the Donatists had a bishop residing on the property of an adherent in Spain, and at an early period of the schism they made a bishop for their small congregation in Rome, which met, it seems, on a hill outside the city, and had the name of "Montenses". This antipapal "succession with a beginning" was frequently ridiculed by Catholic writers. The series included Felix, Boniface, Encolpius, Macrobius (c. 370), Lucian, Claudian (c. 378), and again Felix in 411.

The Circumcellions

The date of the first appearance of the Circumcellions is uncertain, but probably they began before the death of Constantine. They were mostly rustic enthusiasts, who knew no Latin, but spoke Punic; it has been suggested that they may have been of Berber blood. They joined the ranks of the Donatists, and were called by them agnostici and "soldiers of Christ", but in fact were brigands. Troops of them were to be met in all parts of Africa. They had no regular occupation, but ran about armed, like madmen. They used no swords, on the ground that St. Peter had been told to put his sword into its sheath; but they did continual acts of violence with clubs, which they called "Israelites". They bruised their victims without killing them, and left them to die. In St. Augustine's time, however, they took to swords and all sorts of weapons; they rushed about accompanied by unmarried women, played, and drank. They battle-cry was Deo laudes, and no bandits were more terrible to meet. They frequently sought death, counting suicide as martyrdom. They were especially fond of flinging themselves from precipices; more rarely they sprang into the water or fire. Even women caught the infection, and those who had sinnedwould cast themselves from the cliffs, to atone for their fault. Sometimes theCircumcellions sought death at the hands of others, either by paying men to killthem, by threatening to kill a passer-by if he would not kill them, or by theirviolence inducing magistrates to have them executed. While paganism still flourished, they would come in vast crowds to any great sacrifice, not to destroy the idols, but to be martyred. Theodoret says a Circumcellion was accustomed to announce his intention of becoming a martyr long before the time, in order to be well treated and fed like a beast for slaughter. He relates an amusing story (Haer.Fab., IV, vi) to which St. Augustine also refers. A number of these fanatics, fattened like pheasants, met a young man and offered him a drawn sword to smite them with, threatening to murder him if he refused. He pretended to fear that when he had killed a few, the rest might change their minds and avenge the deaths of their fellows; and he insisted that they must all be bound. They agreed to this; when they were defenceless, the young man gave each of them a beating and went his way.
When in controversy with Catholics, the Donatist bishops were not proud of their supporters. They declared that self-precipitation from a cliff had been forbidden in the councils. Yet the bodies of these suicides were sacrilegiously honoured, and crowds celebrated their anniversaries. Their bishops could not but conform, and they were often glad enough of the strong arms of the Circumcellions. Theodoret, soon after St. Augustine's death, knew of no other Donatists than theCircumcellions; and these were the typical Donatists in the eyes of all outsideAfrica. They were especially dangerous to the Catholic clergy, whose houses they attacked and pillaged. They beat and wounded them, put lime and vinegar on their eyes, and even forced them to be rebaptized. Under Axidus and Fasir, "the leaders of the Saints" in Numidia, property and roads were unsafe, debtors were protected,slaves were set in their masters' carriages, and the masters made to run before them. At length, the Donatist bishops invited a general named Taurinus to repress these extravagances. He met with resistance in a place named Octava, and thealtars and tablets to be seen there in St. Optatus's time testified to the venerationgiven to the Circumcellions who were slain; but their bishops denied them thehonour due to martyrs. It seems that in 336-7 the proefectus proetorio of Italy,Gregory took some measures against the Donatists, for St. Optatus tells us thatDonatus wrote him a letter beginning: "Gregory, stain on the senate and disgrace to the prefects".

The "persecution" of Macarius

When Constantine became master of the East by defeating Licinius in 323, he was prevented by the rise of Arianism in the East from sending, as he had hoped,Eastern bishops to Africa, to adjust the differences between the Donatists and theCatholics. Caecilian of Carthage was present at the Council of Nicea in 325, and hissuccessor, Gratus, was at that of Sardica in 342. The conciliabulum of the Easternson that occasion wrote a letter to Donatus, as though he were the true Bishop ofCarthage; but the Arians failed to gain the support of the Donatists, who looked upon the whole East as cut off from the Church, which survived in Africa alone. The Emperor Constans was an anxious as his father to give peace to Africa In 347 he sent thither two commissioners, Paulus and Macarius, with large sums of money for distribution. Donatus naturally saw in this an attempt to win over his adherents to the Church by bribery; he received the envoys with insolence: "What has the emperor to do with the Church?" said he, and he forbade his people to accept any largess from Constans. In most parts, however, the friendly mission seems to have been not unfavourably received. But at Bagai in Numidia the bishop, Donatus, assembled the Circumcellions of the neighbourhood, who had already been excited by their bishops. Macarius was obliged to ask for the protection of the military. TheCircumcellions attacked them, and killed two or three soldiers; the troops then became uncontrollable, and slew some of the Donatists. This unfortunate incident was thereafter continually thrown in the teeth of the Catholics, and they were nicknamed Macarians by the Donatists, who declared that Donatus of Bagai had been precipitated from a rock, and that another bishop, Marculus, had been thrown into a well. The existing Acts of two other Donatist martyrs of 347, Maximian andIsaac, are preserved; they apparently belong to Carthage, and are attributed by Harnack to the antipope Macrobius. It seems that after violence had begun, the envoys ordered the Donatists to unite with the Church whether they willed or no. Many of the bishops took flight with their partisans; a few joined the Catholics; the rest were banished. Donatus the Great died in exile. A Donatist named Vitelliuscomposed a book to show that the servants of God are hated by the world.
A solemn Mass was celebrated in each place where the union was completed, and the Donatists set about a rumour that images (obviously of the emperor) were to be placed in the altar and worshipped. As nothing of the sort was found to be done, and as the envoys merely made a speech in favour of unity, it seems that the reunion was effected with less violence than might have been expected. TheCatholics and their bishops praised God for the peace that ensued, though they declared that they had no responsibility for the action of Paulus and Macarius. In the following year Gratus, the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, held a council, in which the reiteration of baptism was forbidden, while, to please the rallied Donatists, traditors were condemned anew. It was forbidden to honour suicides as martyrs.

The restoration of Donatism by Julian

The peace was happy for Africa, and the forcible means by which it was obtained were justified by the violence of the sectaries. But the accession of Julian the Apostate in 361 changed the face of affairs. Delighted to throw Christianity into confusion, Julian allowed the Catholic bishops who had been exiled by Constantiusto return to the sees which the Arians were occupying. The Donatists, who had been banished by Constans, were similarly allowed to return at their own petition, and received back their basilicas. Scenes of violence were the result of this policy both in the East and the West. "Your fury", wrote St. Optatus, "returned to Africaat the same moment that the devil was set free", for the same emperor restored supremacy to paganism and the Donatists to Africa The decree of Julian was considered so discreditable to them, that the Emperor Honorius in 405 had it posted up throughout Africa for their shame. St. Optatus gives a vehement catalogue of the excesses committed by the Donatists on their return. They invaded the basilicaswith arms; they committed so many murders that a report of them was sent to the emperor. Under the orders of two bishops, a party attacked the basilica of Lemellef; they stripped off the roof, pelted with tiles the deacons who were round the altar, and killed two of them. In Maruetania riots signalized the return of the Donatists. In Numidia two bishops availed themselves of the complaisance of the magistrates to throw a peaceful population into confusion, expelling the faithful, wounding the men, and not sparing the women and children. Since they did not admit the validity of thesacraments administered by traditors, when they seized the churches they cast theHoly Eucharist to the dogs; but the dogs, inflamed with madness, attacked their own masters. An ampulla of chrism thrown out of a window was found unbroken on the rocks. Two bishops were guilty of rape; one of these seized the aged Catholicbishop and condemned him to public penance. All Catholics whom they could force to join their party were made penitents, even clerics of every rank, and children, contrary to the law of the Church. some for a year, some for a month, some but for a day. In taking possession of a basilica, they destroyed the altar, or removed it, or at least scraped the surface. They sometimes broke up the chalices, and sold the materials. They washed pavements, walls, and columns. Not content with recovering their churches, they employed pagan functionaries to obtain for thempossession of the sacred vessels, furniture, altar-linen, and especially the books (how did they purify the book? asks St. Optatus), sometimes leaving the Catholiccongregation with no books at all. The cemeteries were closed to the Catholic dead.
The revolt of Firmus, a Mauretanian chieftain who defied the Roman power and eventually assumed the style of emperor (366-72), was undoubtedly supported by many Donatists. The imperial laws against them were strengthened by Valentinian in 373 and by Gratian, who wrote in 377 to the vicar of prefects, Flavian (himself aDonatist), ordering all the basilicas of the schismatics to be given up to theCatholics. St. Augustine shows that even the churches which the Donatists themselves had built were included. The same emperor required Claudian, theDonatist bishop at Rome, to return to Africa; as he refused to obey, a Romancouncil had him driven a hundred miles from the city. It is probable that the CatholicBishop of Carthage, Genethlius, caused the laws to be mildly administered in Africa.

St. Optatus

The Catholic champion, St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, published his great work "De schismate Donatistarum" in answer to that of the Donatist Bishop of Carthage,Parmenianus, under Valentinian and Valens, 364-375 (so St. Jerome). Optatushimself tells us that he was writing after the death of Julian (363) and more than sixty years after the beginning of the schism (he means the persecution of 303). The form which we possess is a second edition, brought up to date by the author after the accession of Pope Siricius (Dec., 384), with a seventh book added to the original six. In the first book he describes the origin and growth of the schism; in the second he shows the notes of the true Church; in the third he defends theCatholics from the charge of persecuting, with especial reference to the days ofMacarius. In the fourth book he refutes Parmenianus's proofs from Scripture that thesacrifice of a sinner is polluted. In the fifth book he shows the validity of baptismeven when conferred by sinners, for it is conferred by Christ, the minister being the instrument only. This is the first important statement of the doctrine that the graceof the sacraments is derived from the opus operatum of Christ independently of the worthiness of the minister. In the sixth book he describes the violence of theDonatists and the sacrilegious way in which they had treated Catholic altars. In the seventh book he treats chiefly of unity and of reunion, and returns to the subject ofMacarius.
He calls Parmenianus "brother", and wishes to treat the Donatists as brethren, since they were not heretics. Like some other Fathers, he holds that only pagans andheretics go to hell; schismatics and all Catholics will eventually be saved after anecessary purgatory. This is the more curious, because before him and after him inAfrica Cyprian and Augustine both taught that schism is as bad as heresy, if not worse. St. Optatus was much venerated by St. Augustine and later by St. Fulgentius. He writes with vehemence, sometimes with violence, in spite of his protestations of friendliness; but he is carried away by his indignation. His style is forcible and effective, often concise and epigrammatic. To this work he appended a collection of documents containing the evidence for the history he had related. Thisdossier had certainly been formed much earlier, at all events before the peace of 347, and not long after the latest document it contains, which is dated Feb., 330; the rest are not later than 321, and may possibly have been put together as early as that year. Unfortunately these important historical testimonies have come down to us only in a single mutilated manuscript, the archetype of which was also incomplete. The collection was freely used at the conference of 411 and is often quoted at some length by St. Augustine, who has preserved many interesting portions which would otherwise be unknown to us.

The Maximianists

Before Augustine took up the mantle of Optatus together with a double portion of his spirit, the Catholics had gained new and victorious arguments from the divisions among the Donatists themselves. Like so many other schisms, this schism bredschisms within itself. In Mauretania and Numidia these separated sects were so numerous that the Donatists themselves could not name them all. We hear ofUrbanists; of Claudianists, who were reconciled to the main body by Primianus ofCarthage; of Rogatists, a Mauretanian sect, of mild character, because noCircumcellion belonged to it; the Rogatists were severely punished whenever theDonatists could induce the magistrates to do so, and were also persecuted byOptatus of Timgad. But the most famous sectaries were the Maximianists, for the story of their separation from the Donatists reproduces with strange exactitude that of the withdrawal of the Donatists themselves from the communion of the Church; and the conduct of the Donatists towards them was so inconsistent with their avowed principles, that it became in the skilled hands of Augustine the most effective weapon of all his controversial armoury.
Primianus, Donatist Bishop of Carthage, excommunicated the deacon Maximianus. The latter (who was, like Majorinus, supported by a lady) got together a council of forty-three bishops, who summoned Primianus to appear before them. The primaterefused, insulted their envoys, tried to have them prevented from celebrating theSacred Mysteries, and had stones thrown at them in the street. The councilsummoned him before a greater council, which met to the number of a hundredbishops at Cebarsussum in June, 393. Primianus was deposed; all clerics were to leave his communion within eight days; if they should delay till after Christmas, they would not be permitted to return to the Church even after penance; the laity were allowed until the following Easter, under the same penalty. A new bishop ofCarthage was appointed in the person of Maximian himself, and was consecrated by twelve bishops. The partisans of Primianus were rebaptized, if they had beenbaptized after the permitted delay. Primianus stood out, and demanded to be judgedby a Numidian council; three hundred and ten bishops met at Bagai in April, 394; theprimate did not take the place of an accused person, but himself presided. He was of course acquitted, and the Maximianists were condemned without a hearing. All but the twelve consecrators and their abettors among the clergy of Carthage were given till Christmas to return; after this period they would be obliged to do penance. This decree, composed in eloquent style by Emeritus of Caesarea, and adopted byacclamation, made the Donatists hence-forward ridiculous through their having readmitted schismatics without penance. Maximian's church was razed to the ground, and after the term of grace had elapsed, the Donatists persecuted the unfortunate Maximianists, representing themselves as Catholics, and demanding that the magistrates should enforce against the new sectaries the very laws whichCatholics emperors had drawn up against Donatism. Their influence enabled them to do this, for they were still far more numerous than the Catholics, and the magistrates must often have been of their party. In the reception of those who returned from the party of Maximian they were yet more fatally inconsequent. The rule was theoretically adhered to that all who had been baptized in the schism must be rebaptized; but if a bishop returned, he and his whole flock were admitted without rebaptism. This was allowed even in the case of two of the consecrators ofMaximian, Praetextatus of Assur and Felixianus of Musti, after the proconsul had vainly tried to expel them from their sees, and although a Donatist bishop, Rogatus, had already been appointed at Assur. In another case the party of Primianus was more consistent. Salvius, the Maximianist Bishop of Membresa, was another of theconsecrators. He was twice summoned by the proconsul to retire in favour of thePrimianist Restitutus. As he was much respected by the people of Membresa, a mob was brought over from the neighbouring town of Abitene to expel him; the agedbishop was beaten, and made to dance with dead dogs tied around his neck. But his people built him a new church, and three bishops coexisted in this small town, aMaximianist, a Primianist, and a Catholic.
The leader of the Donatists at this time was Optatus, Bishop of Thamugadi(Timgad), called Gildonianus, from his friendship with Gildo, the Count of Africa (386-397). For ten years Optatus, supported by Gildo, was the tyrant of Africa. Hepersecuted the Rogatists and Maximianists, and he used troops against theCatholics. St. Augustine tells us that his vices and cruelties were beyond description; but they had at least the effect of disgracing the cause of theDonatists, for though he was hated throughout Africa for his wickedness and his evildeeds, yet the Puritan faction remained always in full communion with this bishop, who was a robber, a ravisher, an oppressor, a traitor, and a monster of cruelty. When Gildo fell in 397, after having made himself master of Africa for a few months,Optatus was thrown into a prison, in which he died.

Saint Augustine

St. Augustine began his victorious campaign against Donatism soon after he wasordained priest in 391. His popular psalm or "Abecedarium" against the Donatists was intended to make known to the people the arguments set forth by St. Optatus, with the same conciliatory end in view. It shows that the sect was founded by traditors, condemned by pope and council, separated from the whole world, a cause of division, violence, and bloodshed; the true Church is the one Vine, whose branches are over all the earth. After St. Augustine had become bishop in 395, he obtained conferences with some of the Donatist leaders, though not with his rival at Hippo. In 400 he wrote three books against the letter of Parmenianus, refuting his calumniesand his arguments from Scripture. More important were his seven books on baptism, in which, after developing the principle already laid down by St. Optatus, that the effect of the sacrament is independent of the holiness of the minister, he shows in great detail that the authority of St. Cyprian is more awkward than convenient for the Donatists. The principal Donatist controversialist of the day was Petilianus,Bishop of Constantine, a successor of the traditor Silvanus. St. Augustine wrote two books in reply to a letter of his against the Church, adding a third book to answer another letter in which he was himself attacked by Petilianus. Before this last book he published his "De Unitate ecclesiae" about 403. To these works must be added some sermons and some letters which are real treatises.
The arguments used by St. Augustine against Donatism fall under three heads. First we have the historical proofs of the regularity of Caecilian's consecration, of the innocence of Felix of Aptonga, of the guilt of the founders of the "Pure" Church, also the judgment given by pope, council, and emperor, the true history of Macarius, the barbarous behaviour of the Donatists under Julian, the violence of theCircumcellions, and so forth. Second, there are the doctrinal arguments: the proofsfrom the Old and New Testaments that the Church is Catholic, diffused throughout the world, and necessarily one and united; appeal is made to the See of Rome, where the succession of bishops is uninterrupted from St. Peter himself; St. Augustine borrows his list of popes from St. Optatus (Ep. li), and in his psalmcrystallizes the argument into the famous phrase: "That is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail." A further appeal is to the Eastern Church, and especially to the Apostolic Churches to which St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Johnaddressed epistles - they were not in communion with the Donatists. The validity ofbaptism conferred by heretics, the impiety of rebaptizing, are important points. All these arguments were found in St. Optatus. Peculiar to St. Augustine is thenecessity of defending St. Cyprian, and the third category is wholly his own. The third division comprises the argumentum ad hominem drawn from the inconsistency of the Donatists themselves: Secundus had pardoned the traditors; full fellowship was accorded to malefactors like Optatus Gildonianus and the Circumcellions;Tichonius turned against his own party; Maximian had divided from Primatus just as Majorinus from Caecilian; the Maximianists had been readmitted without rebaptism.
This last method of argument was found to be of great practical value, and manyconversions were now taking place, largely on account of the false position in which the Donatists had placed themselves. This point had been especially emphasized by the Council of Carthage of Sept., 401, which had ordered information as to the treatment of the Maximianists to be gathered from magistrates. The same synodrestored the earlier rule, long since abolished, that Donatist bishops and clergyshould retain their rank if they returned to the Church. Pope Anastasius I wrote to the council urging the importance of the Donatist question. Another council in 403 organized public disputations with the Donatists. This energetic action roused theCircumcellions to new violence. The life of St. Augustine was endangered. His future biographer, St. Possidius of Calama, was insulted and ill-treated by a party led by aDonatist priest, Crispinus. The latter's bishop, also named Crispinus, was tried atCarthage and fined ten pounds of gold as a heretic, though the fine was remitted byPossidius. This is the first case known to us in which a Donatist is declared aheretic, but henceforth it is the common style for them. The cruel and disgusting treatment of Maximianus, Bishop of Bagai, is also related by St. Augustine in detail. The Emperor Honorius was induced by the Catholics to renew the old laws against the Donatists at the beginning of 405. Some good resulted, but the Circumcellions ofHippo were excited to new violence. The letter of Petilianus was defended by a grammarian named Cresconius, against whom St. Augustine published a reply in four books. The third and fourth books are especially important, as in these he argues from the Donatists' treatment of the Maximianists, quotes the Acts of the Council ofCirta held by Secundus, and cites other important documents. The saint also replied to a pamphlet by Petilianus, "De unico baptismate".

The "Collatio" of 411

St. Augustine had once hoped to conciliate the Donatists by reason only. Theviolence of the Circumcellions, the cruelties of Optatus of Thamugadi, the more recent attacks on Catholic bishops had all given proof that repression by the seculararm was absolutely unavoidable. It was not necessarily a case of persecution forreligious opinions, but simply one of the protection of life and property and the ensuring of freedom and safety for Catholics. Nevertheless the laws went much further than this. Those of Honorius were promulgated anew in 408 and 410. In 411 the method of disputation was organized on a grand scale by order of the emperor himself at the request of the Catholic bishops. Their case was now complete and unanswerable. But this was to be brought home to the people of Africa, and public opinion was to be forced to recognize the facts, by a public exposure of the weakness of the separatist position. The emperor sent an official named Marcellinus, an excellent Christian, to preside as cognitor at the conference. He issued a proclamation declaring that he would exercise absolute impartiality in his conduct of the proceedings and in his final judgment. The Donatist bishops who should come to the conference were to receive back for the present the basilicas which had been taken from them. The number of those who arrived at Carthage was very large, though somewhat less that the two hundred and seventy-nine whose signatures were appended to a letter to the president. The Catholic bishops numbered two hundred and eighty-six. Marcellinus decided that each party should elect seven disputants, who alone should speak, seven advisers whom they might consult, and four secretaries to keep the records. Thus only thirty-six bishops would be present in all. The Donatists pretended that this was a device to prevent their great numbers being known; but the Catholics did not object to all of them being present, provided no disturbance was caused.
The chief Catholic speaker, besides the amiable and venerable Bishop of Carthage,Aurelius, was of course Augustine, whose fame had already spread through the whole Church. His friend, Alypius of Tagaste, and his disciple and biographer,Possidius, were also among the seven. The principal Donatist speakers wereEmeritus of Caesarea in Mauretania (Cherchel) and Petilianus of Constantine (Cirta); the latter spoke or interrupted about a hundred and fifty times, until on the third day he was so hoarse that he had to desist. The Catholics made a generous proposal that any Donatist bishop who should join the Church, should preside alternately with the Catholic bishop in the episcopal chair, unless the people should object, in which case both must resign and a new election be made. The conference was held on the 1, 3, and 8 June. The policy of the Donatists was to raise technical objections, to cause delay, and by all manner of means to prevent the Catholicdisputants from stating their case. The Catholic case was, however, clearly enunciated on the first day in letters which were read, addressed by the Catholicbishops to Marcellinus and to their deputies to instruct them in the procedure. A discussion of important points was arrived at only on the third day, amid many interruptions. It was then evident that the unwillingness of the Donatists to have a real discussion was due to the fact that they could not reply to the arguments and documents brought forward by the Catholics. The insincerity as well as the inconsequence and clumsiness of the sectaries did them great harm. The maindoctrinal points and historical proofs of the Catholics were made perfectly plain. Thecognitor summed up in favor of the Catholic bishops. The churches which had been provisionally restored to the Donatists were to be given up; their assemblies were forbidden under grave penalties. The lands of those who permitted Circumcellions on their property were to be confiscated. The minutes of this great conference were submitted to all the speakers for their approval, and the report of each speech (mostly only a single sentence) was signed by the speaker as a guarantee of its accuracy. We possess these manuscripts in full only as far as the middle of the third day; for the rest only the headings of each little speech are preserved. These headings were composed by order of Marcellinus in order to facilitate reference. On account of the dullness and a length of the full report, St. Augustine composed a popular resume of the discussions in his "Breviculus Collationis", and went with more detail into a few points in a final pamphlet, "Ad Donatistas post Collationem".
On 30 Jan., 412, Honorius issued a final law against the Donatists, renewing old legislation and adding a scale of fines for Donatist clergy, and for the laity and their wives: the illustres were to pay fifty pounds of gold, the spectabiles forty, thesenatores and sacerdotales thirty, the clarissimi and principales twenty, thedecuriones, negotiatores, and plebeii five, which Circumcellions were to pay ten pounds of silver. Slaves were to be reproved by their masters, coloni were to be constrained by repeated beatings. All bishops and clerics were exiled from Africa. In 414 the fines were increased for those of high rank: a proconsul, vicar, or count was fined two hundred pounds of gold, and a senator a hundred. A further law was published in 428. The good Marcellinus, who had become the friend of St. Augustine, fell a victim (it is supposed) to the rancour of the Donatists; for he was put to death in 413, as though an accomplice in the revolt of Heraclius, Count of Africa, in spite of the orders of the emperor, who did not believe him guilty. Donatism was now discredited by the conference and proscribed by the persecuting laws ofHonorius. The Circumcellions made some dying efforts, and a priest was killed by them at Hippo. It does not seem that the decrees were rigidly carried out, for theDonatist clergy was still found in Africa. The ingenious Emeritus was at Caesarea in 418, and at the wish of Pope Zosimus St. Augustine had a conference with him, without result. But on the whole Donatism was dead. Even before the conference the Catholic Bishops in Africa were considerably more numerous than the Donatists, except in Numidia. From the time of the invasion of the Vandals in 430 little is heard of them until the days of St. Gregory the Great, when they seem to have revived somewhat, for the pope complained to the Emperor Maurice that the laws were not strictly enforced. They finally disappeared with the irruptions of the Saracens.

Donatist writers

There seems to have been no lack of literary activity among the Donatists of the fourth century, though little remains to us. The works of Donatus the Great were known to St. Jerome, but have not been preserved. His book on the Holy Spirit is said by that Father to have been Arian in doctrine. It is possible that the Pseudo-Cyprianic "De singularitate clericorum" is by Macrobius; and the "Adversus aleatores" is by an antipope, either Donatist or Novatianist. The arguments of Parmenianus andCresconius are known to us, though their works are lost; but Monceaux has been able to restore from St. Augustine's citations short works by Petilianus ofConstantine and Gaudentius of Thamugadi, and also a libellus by a certainFulgentius, from the citations in the Pseudo-Augustinian "Contra Fulgentium Donatistam". Of Tichonius, or Tyconius, we still possess the treatise "De Septem regulis" (P.L., XVIII; new ed. by Professor Burkitt, in Cambridge "Texts and Studies", III, 1, 1894) on the interpretation of Holy Scripture. His commentary on theApocalypse is lost; it was used by Jerome, Primasius, and Beatus in theircommentaries on the same book. Tichonius is chiefly celebrated for his views on theChurch, which were quite inconsistent with Donatism, and which Parmenianus tried to refute. In the famous words of St. Augustine (who often refers to his illogical position and to the force with which her argued against the cardinal tenets of his own sect): "Tichonius assailed on all sides by the voices of the holy pages, awoke and saw the Church of God diffused throughout the world, as had been foreseen and foretold of her so long before by the hearts and mouths of the saints. And seeing this, he undertook to demonstrate and assert against his own party that nosin of man, however villainous and monstrous, can interfere with the promises ofGod, nor can any impiety of any persons within the Church cause the word of Godto be made void as to the existence and diffusion of the Church to the ends of the earth, which was promised to the Fathers and now is manifest" (Contra Ep. Parmen., I, i).
From: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm