[This was for an assignment for Early Church History with James Bradley. We were to exegete a particular historical text, in this case Augustine's Correction of the Donatists, by giving some historical context, describe the author's thesis and how he defends it, and briefly evaluate the work. I chose this work by Augustine, instead of two others by Athenagoras and Athanasius, because I am keenly interested in the problematic church-state issues that come out of it. I put some notes on my sources at the bottom.]

In his 185th epistle, Augustine writes to Boniface a letter that functions like a prolonged essay entitled, “A Book on the Correction of the Donatists.” In the correspondence, Augustine makes a case for the state-endorsed persecution of the Donatists. The intention of the present paper is to briefly exegete this document by noting the historical context, addressing the thesis and arguments of the text itself, and finally shortly evaluating the claims of the text from the present author’s own theological perspective and situation, namely Anabaptism.

Donatism arose out of a particular historical conflict regarding a specific bishop of Carthage named Caecilian. The group, that would later be called Donatists, accused Caecilian of being consecrated by a traditor, one who handed over Scripture during Diocletian’s persecution of the Christians. They claimed that Caecilian’s consecration as bishop in about 311 was invalid. To give more background to this situation, Mensurius, Caecilian’s predecessor, believed that those who absolutely refused to cooperate with authorities were overreacting. Caecilian, as Mensurius’ arch-deacon, prevented food from being taken to the “confessors” who were in prison and speaking out against the bishop. Therefore, when Caecilian was consecrated, the Numidian bishops, who supported the objection of Caecilian, appointed their own rival bishop who was soon succeeded by Donatus, from whence the Donatists get their name. They challenged Caecilian and when they failed, unsuccessfully appealed all the way to the Emperor (c. 316). Over the next century, Carthage came to be split between the two rival North African Christian communities. This is the situation in which Augustine writes his letter to Boniface in around 417. Bonifice was the tribune of Africa and would have been in charge of implementing punishments upon the Donatists.

Augustine’s main endeavor in his “correction of the Donatists” can be found stated in various ways in multiple places within the document. One of the clearest and most succinct statements in this regard is found in the opening line of the 23rd paragraph: “Why, then, should the Church not force her lost children to return if those lost children were forcing others to perish?” The Donatists have not only been led astray, but they are consequently leading others astray. They pose a threat to themselves and those that they bring to their position, while at the same time they pose a violent threat to the Catholic church. Augustine accuses the Donatists of cruel murders, plundering attacks of homes, burning of homes and churches, the fire into which some even throw Scriptures (30). In other words, in Augustine’s view, there is much at stake here.

Augustine argues that persecution done for the right and just reasons is a good thing, though he tames his language by suggesting that the attempt of the Catholic church to “correct and heal” (see 51) the Donatists is an act of love (e.g., 7). Throughout the argument, Augustine makes frequent use of the Scriptures to make his case. He even uses the words of a non-Christian author, oft quoted by the Donatists, to uncover the inconsistency of the Donatists’ case (21).

Augustine begins his letter by distinguishing for Boniface between the Arians and the Donatists. While the Arians say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of separate substances, the Donatists hold that the three are one substance. The real issue is “Church unity,” about which they quarrel and to which they are a hostile threat (1). Though Augustine will later challenge their beliefs regarding sinlessness (39-40), for example, the central concern about the Donatists is not one of belief about God, but rather about their relationship with the Catholic church and with the state. The Donatists recognize Christ in the Scriptures, but “with an amazing blindness” they deny the authority of the Catholic church (2).

To support their view regarding the Catholic church, Augustine suggests that the Donatists “pick and choose” their Scriptures, so to speak. Augustine goes through various Scriptures with which the Donatists agree and those with which they refuse to agree (3). The implication is that the reading of Scripture done by the Catholic church is correct and holistic, while that of the Donatists is selective and incomplete.

At this point, Augustine addresses the historical concern regarding Caecilian, mentioned above. He states that their evidence is questionable about whether Caecilian was guilty of their accusations (that Caecilian was consecrated by a traditor). Even if they were correct, Augustine argues, the Donatists would still not be justified in cutting themselves off from the unity of the Catholic church (4-5). Augustine uses the actions of the Donatists in this historical situation to point out their inconsistency: the Donatists claim that Christians should not call upon the authority of a Christian emperor against the “enemies of Christ,” and yet that is what they themselves did in appealing to Constantine in Caecilian’s case (6). Augustine states that the Donatists lie in their claim that they won the case against Caecilian, and now “the laws by which the Donatists wanted to destroy the innocent Caecilian have been turned against them” (7). As we shall see, the Donatists treatment of Caecilian surfaces a few more times as Augustine continues to make his case (see 10, 16, and 47).

Augustine next major point in his argument is to distinguish between just and unjust persecution. Those who stand up against “bad laws in favor of error and against the truth” are justified in their correct stance and “win the crowns of martyrs.” On the other hand, those who react against “good laws in favor of the truth and against error” do not gain such status and are indeed “punished.” Of these, Augustine states that “those who act with violence are struck with terror and those who act with intelligence are corrected” (8). The Donatists distort the situation, then, by claiming that they are being persecuted as martyrs, because they are refusing to obey “good laws.” We must distinguish between false martyrs and true martyrs. For this, Augustine points to the Psalms and to the example of Sarah persecuting Hagar in contrast to Saul persecuting David. Hagar was justly persecuted, while David was not (9). The main thought here is that those who are being justly persecuted deserve their “correction,” while those being unjustly persecuted deserve “help” (even though he will later state that correction via persecution is, in fact, a necessary form of help). Therefore, the Donatists say that being persecuted is the mark of the true church, but yet they persecuted Caecilian; Caecilian was part of the true church because he was unjustly persecuted (10).

Augustine appeals to the threat of the Donatists’ heinous violence, even suicidal violence, as reason for their just persecution (e.g., 12, 18, 26). At first, he claims, Augustine was against the use of force in the “correction” of the Donatists. He and some others desired to extract fines from the wayward bishops and leaders of the Donatists (25), but the violent threat was too great and “God knew” that more needed to be done (26). Augustine appeals to the example of Paul, who was forced into faith through physical blindness and then given correction (22). It is better, of course, to bring heretics to the true church through by gentle instruction than by “the fear or the pain of punishment.” This fact, however, does not negate the necessity of the latter option (21).

Augustine believes that saving the Donatists is somewhat akin to saving people in a building about to collapse (33-34), which seems to imply impending doom for the Donatists at the final judgment. He suggests that even if some of the people in the building stubbornly kill themselves when the rescuers rush in to save everyone that they can, that should not stop them from saving those for whom it is possible. Even if they are only able to rescue a few, while the rest perish by their own faults, it would be worth the effort. Augustine states that the Catholic church does not “hate” the Donatists, instead he says, “let them come” and participate in the church, leaving behind their errors (46). They do not take the property of the Donatists out of greed for the property, but if the Donatists would come back to the true church, they would gain their property back and would share in the property of the church, along with the Catholics (35-36). The Holy Spirit, after all, cannot be found outside the Catholic church (49-50).

As an Anabaptist, the present author is skeptical of arguments that would justify state-sanctioned persecution of those who do not belong to what the state considers the “true” church. I am inclined to sympathize with the claims of the Donatists that the Catholic church unjustly appeals to the emperor in its persecution of their sect. In paragraph 20, Augustine asks, “[W]hy should adultery be punished by the laws and sacrilege be permitted? Or is it less serious for a soul to be unfaithful to God than for a woman to be unfaithful to her husband?” It is possible to respond by saying that unfaithfulness to God is indeed more serious than unfaithfulness to a spouse, but the former is not in the jurisdiction of the state to enforce judgment. Augustine also argues that the violence is too large a problem to not appeal to the Christian emperor for help (18). Many would agree that allowing the state to respond to violence is a good thing, as long as the response is appropriate to the action (e.g., punishment would not be enforced upon those who did not commit the actions). We must distinguish punishing violent behavior, however, from persecuting those who have a different belief system simply because they have a different belief system.

On the other hand, Augustine’s arguments are not without merit. One can appreciate the appeal to “love” and the rejection of “hate” in his instruction on how to deal with the Donatists. The reader can also sympathize with the deep division that would have been part of everyday reality in Carthage. If Augustine’s account is correct, something indeed must be done regarding the rampant violence and he rightly denounces the apparent suicidal desire for martyrdom seen in radicals. The unfortunate reality is that Augustine wrapped these valid concerns together with a desire to persecute the rival Christian community because it was a rival Christian community, an inclination that would lead the church into great state-sanctioned trouble.

[On sources: I used the text found in “Letter 185,” translated by Roland Teske in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation of the 21st Century, vol. II.3., edited by Boniface Ramsey (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2004), 178-206. Citations in my paper come from this text, with the paragraph number in parentheses. In his note on the letter (see page 178), Teske states that Augustine later treated this document as a “book” in Revisions 2.48, which is where he gave it the title, The Correction of the Donatists. My historical background information was gleaned from various articles in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Henry Chadwick's The Early Church, and Teske's own introduction to the work.]