From: hyde@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Arians, Donatists, Gnostics, O My!
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:05:05 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <MIB.92Apr3010805@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.010716.1118@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>    >Also, what about the Donatists?  Apparently, Constantine was persecuting
>    >them as early as 316 (before he had re-united the entire empire);
>    >the Donatists "...had the unhappy distinction of being the first schismatics 
>    >to be persecuted by a Christian government." How were they different?
> 
>    Basically, Donatism was a politcal squabble over the succession of
>    the Bishop of Carthage(?)
> 
> Oops, again.  During the Persecution under Domition, the emporer's
> edict was that the Christian Scripture must be burned.  Those who
> turned them over when raided were committing a great sin of apostacy
> in the eyes of the Church.  Understandably, however, many capitulated
> anyway.  When the Persecution ended, those who had apostacized
> included many of the clergy, the bishops, and the people.  The
> Donatists declared that all the ecclesiastical acts by those who had
> apostacized the faith were invalid.  Most notably, they rebaptized
> those who had been baptized by priests that capitulated.  The
> Donatists, as a result, voluntarily separated themselves from the rest
> of the Church, and tried to convince the mass of Christianity to join
> them.  Ultimately, the issue came down to the question of the validity
> of the sacraments as performed by priests who commit great sins.  The
> final statement of the church is that the sacraments do not depend on
> the worthiness of the minister.  There was a dispute over who was the
> authentic bishop of Carthage, with a Donatist and a Catholic claimant;
> this is the issue to which Eric refers.


	In somewhat more detail:

	Sometime around 155 a heresy called Montanism
	(after its founder, Montanus) arose in north africa.
	One could regard it as the "last stand" of
	early christianity against the laxer rules which
	were coming into force as the number of christians
	grew.  Montanists were quite puritanical (marriage
	was allowed, but remarriage after the death of a
	spouse was not, as it was regarded as bigamy) and
	many fast days and even months were imposed.
	Self denial, virginity, and Martyrdom were the ideal.
	The world was about to end.

	The Montanists were excommunicated, including Tertullian,
	a church father and fighter of heresy, who was
	converted (if that is the correct word) by Montanus.
	In a sense, the church was repudiating its past.
	There is no way the strict form of christianity
	practiced by the montanists could have become the
	religion of the masses so the church (Bishop
	Callistus of rome (217) is associated with this)
	"mitigated the strict rule of penitence, which...
	no longer accorded with the spirit of the times"
	(Walter Nigg, "The Heretics").

	Montanism eventually seems to have declined, perhaps
	because the world did not end, perhaps for
	evolutionary reasons (people who regard marriage
	and childbearing with suspicion are less likely
	to pass on their faith.  The Shakers are an
	extreme example).  I am unaware of what, if any,
	measures the orthodox took against the Montanists aside
	from excommunication.  As christianity was not then
	in charge of the state, perhaps no large scale
	persecution was possible.  Monatism seems to have
	given birth to several sects with similar ideas
	(though perhaps without the end of the world
	idea, since that did not pan out).  Some of these
	survived into the 500s, or later.


	North Africa remained an area where an uncompromising
	christianity was relatively common.  This attitude helped
	spawn the next major heresy in the area.


	In 311 a decon named Cecilian was elected bishop of
	carthage.  He was progovernment, forbid christians to
	visit imprisioned family members, and was suspected of
	being a "traditor" - one who had surrendered the holy
	scriptures to the authorities.  North africa was then
	rather intensely christian and these actions were not
	likely to be tolerated.  In addition, it was claimed
	that the election was invalid as some customs
	had not been observed.  Of course, that may well
	just be propaganda by the defeated side.

	The dissatisfied christians elected as their
	bishop one Majorinus (Donatus is still in the future), who was
	duly consecrated by the Numidian bishops.

	Only after Majorinus' death was Donatus elected bishop
	by the more extreme christians.  He seems to have
	been a powerful personality, convincing in argument,
	learned and intelligent.  Even St. Augustine, who
	was later to reccomend the violent suppression (Cogite intrare)
	of Donatus' followers, called him a "precious stone",
	for the quality of his writings.

	In actions typical of the christian churches throughout
	the ages, all of Donatus' writings were destroyed.
	Thus we are unable to evaluate his writings, to determine
	whether indeed he was a heretic, or whether it is the
	contemporary church which is heretical. (Of course it
	is also possible that both or neither are heretical.)

	The violence done against Donatists provoked a reaction,
	and the movement became involved with a quasi-revolutionary
	group, the Circumcellions, who wished to level the
	classes.  Donatism, at least as practiced by some of
	its adherents, became something far more extreme than
	Donatus would have approved of.  The more extreme Donatists
	seem to have considered themselves at war with all of
	humanity, or at least of orthodox christianity.
	An unhealthy worship of (or even desire for) martyrdom
	governed the actions of a segment of the populace,
	possibly a remnant of Montanism.

	Despite the persecutions of Constantine and St Augustine,
	the sect survived in the back country of north africa,
	and helped make the roman/byzantine hold on that province
	insecure.  In return for some promise of toleration, they
	aided the (arian) Vandals in their conquest of the province.
	I do not know how well the promise was kept, but the
	Arian germans tended to be far more tolerant of the
	orthodox than vice versa.  It seems possible they left
	the Donatists more or less alone, for there were still
	Donatists in the area at the time of the islamic
	conquest.  How long they survived that I do not know.

	That is rather more than I intended to type, but
	after all, the alternative was to do some work :-)



						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@ac.dal.ca or hyde@dalac