103 Lacking Love or Conveying Love? The Fundamental Roots of the Donatists and Augustine’s Nuanced Treatment of Them Introduction he relationship between Augustine and the Donatists has been the subject of much research and discussion. Most studies have examined it in various theological or ecclesiological aspects, speciically, the nature of church, baptism, and ministration.1 he roots of the Donatists and their historical context in connection with Augustine have also received much atention.2 Rather than stressing the Donatists themselves, others have focused more on Augustine’s treatment of them or his viewpoint See e.g., Maureen A. Tilley, ‘Dilatory Donatists or Procrastinating Catholics: he Trial at the Conference of Carthage’, in Doctrinal Diversity: Varieties of Early Christianity, ed. Everet Ferguson (New York: Garland Publishing, 1999), 161173; Mathew Alan Gaumer, ‘Dealing with the Donatist Church: Augustine of Hippo’s Nuanced Claim to the Authority of Cyprian of Carthage’, in Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language, and hought, eds. Henk Bakker, Paul van Geest and Hans van Loon (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 181-201; Frederick W. Dillistone, ‘he Anti-Donatist Writings’, in A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine, ed. Roy W. Batenhouse (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955), 175-202; Vasilije Vranic, ‘Augustine and the Donatist Claims to Cyprianic Ecclesiological Legacy’, Philotheos 7 (2007), 232–240; Gerald Bonner, ‘Christus Sacerdos: he Roots of Augustine’s Anti-Donatist Polemic’, in Signum pietatis (Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1989), 325-339. 2 See e.g., W. H. C. Frend, he Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Arica (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985); Geofrey Grimshaw Willis, Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy (London: S. P. C. K., 1950); John Anthony Corcoran, Augustinus Contra Donatistas (Donaldson: Graduate heological Foundation, 1997); François Decret and Edward Smither, Early Christianity in North Arica (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2011); James P. Keleher, Saint Augustine’s Notion of Schism in the Donatist Controversy (Mundelein: Saint Mary of the Lake Seminary, 1961). 1 104 Lacking Love or Conveying Love? on religious persecution in connection to the relationship between the church and the state.3 All things considered, the subjects of these studies can be expressed in three ways: the rise of the Donatists in their historical context, Augustine’s theological or ecclesiological reaction, and Augustine’s atitude or treatment of them. he present essay will focus only on the irst and third subjects—i.e., the roots of the Donatists and Augustine’s treatment of them—under one important theme: love. First, this study will demonstrate that the fundamental root of the Donatists is not a doctrinal or dogmatic mater; rather, it is a mater of the absence of a Christian virtue, namely, the lack of love.4 herefore, the historical context of North Africa— speciically regarding the issue of traditores, Circumcellions, and their implications—will be examined. Second, in contrast to the Donatists’ lacking love, Augustine’s treatment of the Donatists will be reviewed in the context of conveying love. Although Augustine admits to the use of coercion to treat the heresy from Leter 93 in ad 408 in contrast to his unwillingness in early writings (ad 392-404), this essay will show that even this permission conveys love and tolerance toward the Donatists.5 See e.g., Peter Brown, ‘St. Augustine’s Atitude to Religious Coercion’ and ‘Religious Coercion in the Later Roman Empire: he Case of North Africa’, in Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1972), 260-278, 301-331; Frederick H. Russell, ‘Persuading the Donatists: Augustine’s Coercion by Words’, in Limits of Ancient Christianity: Essays on Late Antique hought and Culture in Honor of R. A. Markus, eds. William E. Klingshirn and Mark Vessey (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999), 115-130; heodore T. Shimmyo, ‘St. Augustine’s Treatment of the Donatist Heresy: An Interpretation’, Patristic and Byzantine Review 10, no. 3 (1991), 173–182; Charles J. Scalise, ‘Exegetical Warrants for Religious Persecution: Augustine vs. the Donatists’, Review & Expositor 93, no. 4 (Fall 1996), 497–506. 4 Cf. Carles B. Pérez, ‘Augustine on Donatism: Converting a Schism into an Heresy’, in Studia Patristica 49 (Louvain: Peeters, 2010), 79-84; Gordon R. Lewis, ‘Violence in the Name of Christ: he Signiicance of Augustine’s Donatist Controversy for Today’, Journal of the Evangelical heological Society 14, no. 2 (Spring 1971), 103–110; Darryl J. Pigeon, ‘Cyprian, Augustine and the Donatist Schism’, Ashland heological Journal 23 (1991), 37–47; Steven Paas, A Conlict on Authority in the Early Arican Church: Augustine of Hippo and the Donatists (Zomba: Kachere Series, 2005), 55; Frend, he Donatist Church, 323. 5 Cf. Shimmyo, ‘St Augustine’s Treatment of the Donatist Heresy’, 173-182; 3 he Reformed heological Review 72:2 (August, 2013) 105 For this, Augustine’s anti-Donatist writings6 will be examined as well as several of his leters7 and sermons.8 he purpose of the present study, therefore, is to look at the fundamental roots of the Donatists and Augustine’s nuanced treatment of them in the context of lacking love vs. conveying love through an historical and documental survey. In the end, it will be shown that the fundamental roots of the Donatists and Augustine’s treatment of them is not primarily a doctrinal or dogmatic story. Rather, it is a story of Christian practice or discipline, namely, about love. Lacking Love: The Fundamental Roots of the Donatists Donatism as a schism began primarily with suspicion, not with doctrinal discord. Augustine clearly distinguished the Donatists position from that of the Arians, who were regarded as heretical due to their rejection of the deity of Christ. Augustine clariied: ‘[Donatists] hold entirely the same belief regarding the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost as is held by the Catholic Church’.9 Rather, through more Dillistone, ‘he Anti-Donatist Writings’, 201; Scalise, ‘Exegetical Warrants for Religious Persecution’, 497-506; Russell, ‘Persuading the Donatists’, 115-130. 6 E.g., Augustine, ‘On Baptism, Against the Donatist’, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaf (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2012), 411-514; idem, ‘he Leters of Petilian, the Donatist II and III’, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, 530-628; idem, ‘he Correction of the Donatists’, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, 533-651 (Leter 185). Original spelling, italics, punctuation will be retained in quoted passages. 7 E.g., Augustine, ‘Leter 34’, ‘Leter 44’, ‘Leter 76’, ‘Leter 88’, ‘Leter 93’, in Leters 1-99, he Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century II/1, trans. and annot. Roland Teske (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1990), 118-120, 173-181, 297-300, 351-358, 376-408. 8 Augustine, ‘Sermon 260A’, in Sermons 230-272, he Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century III/7, trans. Edmund Hill (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1993), 187-191; idem, ‘Sermon 358’, ‘Sermon 359’, ‘Sermon 360C’, in Sermons 341-400, he Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century III/10, 190-195, 198-208, 387-391. 9 Augustine, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 1.1’, 633; idem, ‘Leter 44:6’, 176; idem, ‘Leter 93:31’, 396. Cf. Lewis, ‘Violence in the Name of Christ’, 104; Pérez, ‘Augustine on Donatism: Converting a Schism into an Heresy’, 79-84. 106 Lacking Love or Conveying Love? intensive doubt and suspicion, the Donatist schism was born. his suspicion consisted of intolerance, distrust, and disrespect for those who were suspected to be traditores (‘surrenderers’). he Latin term traditores refers to bishops and other Christians who turned over the Scriptures, the sacred vessels, or the names of their brethren to the Roman authorities during the Roman persecutions. It is no exaggeration to say that throughout the fourth and the ith centuries in North Africa, deeprooted animosity between the Catholics and the Donatists was unleashed by this suspicion. As time went by, such psychological doubt was turned into physical behavior; speciically, violent conduct by the most zealous of the Donatist separatists, the Circumcellions or agonistici (‘soldiers or ighters for Christ’). Neither the suspicions with regard to traditores nor the destructive conduct of the Circumcellions were ultimately based on a certain doctrine or dogma such as the Trinity; rather, they were fundamentally grounded on a distorted Christian practice which can be characterized as lacking love.10 Ater the death of Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, in ad 311, Caecilian was ordained as bishop of Carthage by Felix of Abthungi, a man charged as a traditor with handing over the Scriptures to a Roman authority during the great persecution under Diocletian (303-311). he Numidian rigorists and bishops did not put their trust in Caecilian, for they predicated Felix as a traditor, excluded him from the episcopate, and therefore nulliied any consecration he conducted.11 Whether Felix had delivered the scriptures was in question,12 therefore the validity In the same vein, Albert Newman and Gordon Lewis classify the issue between the Donatists and Catholics as a controversy on ‘church discipline.’ See Albert Henry Newman, A Manual of Church History I (Philadelphia: he American Baptist Publication Society, 1933), 320; Lewis, ‘Violence in the Name of Christ’, 104. 11 Augustine, ‘Leter 88.1, 4’, 351-354. For a detailed historical context on this, see Willis, Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy, 1-25; Tilley, ‘Dilatory Donatists or Procrastinating Catholics’, 8-10; Lewis, ‘Violence in the Name of Christ’, 104-107; Dillistone, ‘he Anti-Donatist Writings’, 177-179. Cf. William Harmless, Augustine In His Own Words (Washington D.C: he Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 232-273. 12 Augustine states that ‘Whether Caecilianus was ordained by men who had delivered up the sacred books, I do not know. I did not see it, I heard it only from 10 he Reformed heological Review 72:2 (August, 2013) 107 of Caecilian’s consecration and the baptism he administered was also debated. Inasmuch as the raison d’etre of the Donatists depended on the charges against Caecilian, three trials were held to declare his guilt or innocence.13 However, not only the synod at Rome in 313, but also the Council of Arles in 314 acquited Caecilian.14 he Council of Milan in 316, summoned in the context of the Donatists’ appeal to the emperor for further consideration, also acquited him. hese results eventually led the Numidian Church to withdraw from the Catholic Church and to pave the permanent road toward a schismatic church. Ater the death of Majorinus, elected as a bishop of Carthage by the seventy Numidian bishops instead of Caecilian, in 315, Donatus Magnus (d. 355) succeeded him and continued the schismatic tendency. hese separatists were called the Donatists, named ater Donatus.15 he history of the Donatists, as briely explained above, is a history of suspicion. Although hunting out those involved in traditio looks right and just on the surface in terms of trying to maintain the holiness of the church, baptism, and the individual minister, this behavior, as Augustine evaluates it, begins with a groundless suspicion,16 a lack of love and peace,17 and his enemies. It is not declared to me in the law of God, or in the uterances of the prophets, or in the holy poetry of the Psalms, or in the writings of any one of Christ’s apostles, or in the eloquence of Christ Himself.’ See Augustine, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 1.5’, 634, emphasis added. 13 Cf. Lewis, ‘Violence in the Name of Christ’, 106; Corcoran, Augustinus Contra Donatistas, 1-39; Paas, A Conlict on Authority in the Early Arican Church, 17-32; Willis, Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy, 1-25. 14 Augustine, ‘Leter 88.4’, 353. 15 Ibid., 353-354. 16 Augustine states: ‘Your charge is false; you will never be able to prove it . . . this then, you should do irst; and then you might rise against us, as against men who were already convicted, with whatever mass of invective you might choose.’ See Augustine, ‘he Leters of Petilian, the Donatist II’, 534. 17 Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John 112-24; Tractates on the First Epistle of John, he Fathers of the Church, vol. 92, trans. John W. Retig (Washington, D.C.: he Catholic University of America Press, 1995), 208-214; idem, ‘Leter 44.5.11’, 179; idem, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 10.47’, 649-650; idem, ‘he Leters of Petilian, the Donatist II’, 588. Cf. Paas, A Conlict on Authority in the Early Arican Church, 55. 108 Lacking Love or Conveying Love? ultimately destroys the unity of the church.18 For this reason, Augustine inversely accuses the Donatists as “the betrayers of the sacred books’, for he thinks that they did not follow the example of Jesus that He ‘allowed his betrayer, Judas’.19 Augustine adds: Nor ought we to separate ourselves from the Catholic communion if anything should perhaps happen when we were unwilling or even opposed to it, if we were able, since we learned peaceful toleration from the lips of the apostle, Bear with one another in love; strive to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:2-3). We said that those who produced the schism did not have this toleration and peace, while now those who are more meek among their own people tolerate more serious evils for fear that what has already been split may be further split, if they are unwilling to tolerate less serious evils for the sake of unity.20 Separation from the church as the result of intolerance, for Augustine, is a most serious evil. Donatists ‘fell into the darkness of schism, losing the light of Christian charity’.21 Augustine further scolds the Donatists that ‘if you had charity, you would not picture to yourself a false unity in your calumnies, but you would learn to recognize the unity that is most clearly set forth in the words of the Lord’.22 Love and unity, for Augustine, are inseparable: ‘Christian charity cannot be preserved except in the unity of the Church’.23 Augustine further points out what elements the Donatists have been lacking in their mind and behavior: Count the things he [the Apostle Paul] mentioned: forbearance, love, unity of the Spirit, peace. he Spirit there named produces all of them, and you don’t have him. Were you being forbearing when you withdrew from the Church? Whom did you love, when you deserted the members of Christ? What unity are you let with in your sacrilegious breach, what peace in your Augustine, ‘Sermon 359.4’, 202; idem, ‘Sermon 360C.1’, 387; idem, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 1.1 and 11.50’, 633, 651; idem, ‘he Leters of Petilian, the Donatist II’, 599. 19 Augustine, ‘he Leters of Petilian, the Donatist II’, 534; idem, ‘Leter 44.5.10’, 178. 20 Augustine, ‘Leter 44.5.11’, 179. See also Augustine, ‘Sermon 260A.3’, 189; idem, ‘he Leters of Petilian, the Donatist II’, 599. 21 Augustine, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 10.47’, 649-650. 22 Augustine, ‘he Leters of Petilian, the Donatist II’, 588. 23 Ibid., 570. 18 he Reformed heological Review 72:2 (August, 2013) 109 impious discord?24 Augustine saw that under the pretense of retaining the holiness of the church, the Donatists ignored and underestimated the most important Christian virtues: forbearance, love, unity, and peace. In this regard, as Frend appropriately points out, Donatism as a schismatic movement ‘was the outstanding example of lack of charity.25 he Donatists’ lack of love gradually took on a more radical shape. he Circumcellions as the bands of Donatist fanatics stood in the center of this manner. Due to their mad behaviors, the whole of Augustine’s anti-Donatist writings were full of worries and concern toward them.26 Being intoxicated with spiritual self-conceit, the Circumcellions regarded the Catholics as the chaf which not only should be separated from the wheat—i.e., themselves—in the church, but also removed;27 thus, they severely assaulted the Catholics.28 Augustine described the brutality of this militant group several times: that they ‘laid ambushed for our bishops on their journey, struck our fellow clerics with the cruelest blows, inlicted upon lay people most serious wounds, and set their buildings on ire.29 Not only that, they commited worse evils. Between 406 and 411 Augustine and the Catholic clerics of Hippo wrote to Januarius, the Donatist bishop of Casae Nigrae in Numidia, with regard to the Circumcellions’ atrocity: ‘hey not only beat us with clubs and kill us with the sword, Augustine, ‘Sermon 260A.3’, 189. See also Augustine, ‘he Leters of Petilian, the Donatist II’, 538. 25 Frend, he Donatist Church, 323. Cf. Paas, A Conlict on Authority in the Early Arican Church, 55; Dillistone, ‘he Anti-Donatist Writings’, 181. 26 With regard to Augustine’s personal episodes, atitudes, and reactions to the Circumcellions, see Augustine, he Augustine Catechism: he Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, ed. John E. Rotelle (New York: New City Press, 1999), 47 (5.7); idem, Early Christian Biographies, he Fathers of the Church, vol. 15, trans. Mary M. Muller and R. J. Deferrari (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1952), 86; idem, ‘Leter 76’, 297-300; idem, ‘Leter 93:2’, 378; idem, ‘he Leters of Petilian, the Donatist II’, 541,576; idem, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 2.6-5.20’, 637-640. 27 Cf. Augustine, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 4.16’, 639. 28 Cf. Augustine, ‘Leter 88.6-8’, 354-356. 29 Ibid., 354. Cf. Augustine, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 7.27-30’, 634-644; idem, ‘he Leters of Petilian, the Donatist II’, 576. 24 110 Lacking Love or Conveying Love? but they have also thought up an incredible crime and hurl lime mixed with acid into our eyes in order to put them out’.30 hese atrocious acts were tacitly supported by the general Donatists and so they venerated the Circumcellions as heroes.31 hey once tried to assassinate Augustine during one of his trips outside Hippo, but the atempt was unsuccessful. Augustine recollected this incident in the Enchiridion 5.17: ‘I arrived at my destination by a circuitous route, and when I discovered they had laid an ambush I was glad that I had lost my way and gave thanks for this to God’.32 A pertinacious suspicion toward traditores in the early stage of the Donatism eventually turned into mad fury and violence toward the Catholics in general on the strength of the Numidian Church in North Africa. Love, tolerance, and trust disappeared; instead, antagonism and strife took their position. Augustine certainly believed concerning those rebaptized for the purity of the church, that their rebaptism could not be valid because there was fundamentally ‘no forbearing one another in love’.33 he biblical verse, 1 Corinthians 13:1, is oten used by Augustine in anti-Donatist contexts: ‘Inasmuch as they have not charity, they cannot atain to eternal salvation. . . . And herein let them hear not my words, but those of the apostle: “hough I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. . . .”’34 he ultimate problem of the Donatists is thus not a mater of rebaptism or of the nature of the church. Rather, it is the mater of lacking love: ‘You do not have love . . . so for your own honor you divide unity’.35 he other theological diferences or ecclesiological discord between the Catholics and the Donatists resulted ultimately from lacking love, not vice versa. In order to seek the fundamental roots of the Donatists, various Augustine, ‘Leter 88.8’, 356. Dillistone, ‘he Anti-Donatist Writings’, 179. 32 Augustine, he Augustine Catechism, 47. Cf. Augustine, Early Christian Biographies, 86. 33 Augustine, ‘On Baptism, I.9-12’, 417. Cf. Augustine, ‘On Baptism, I.3.4-4.5’, 413-414; Pigeon, ‘Cyprian, Augustine and the Donatist Schism’, 41; Dillistone, ‘he Anti-Donatist Writings’, 194-196. 34 Augustine, ‘On Baptism, I.9-12’, 417. 35 Augustine, Tractates on the First Epistle of John 6.13, 214. 30 31 he Reformed heological Review 72:2 (August, 2013) 111 theses—e.g., socio-economic factors based on geographical characteristics of the area of Numidia and Carthage (Frend)36 or theological factors in connection to ecclesiology (Dillistone)37—have been proposed. hese factors are without doubt crucial constituents in tracing back its roots. Yet, as examined above, a fundamental inner catalyst, which decisively triggers the rise of the Donatist schism, should not be underestimated. As Augustine stresses, if the Donatists have love and tolerance,38 the church would not be divided by suspicion toward suspected traditores and also the Circumcellions’ brutality would not be recorded in church history. In this sense, Newman, Lewis, and Pérez’s argument—i.e., the early stage of Donatism was closed to a schism, not a heresy, but the later stage transformed into a heresy39—could be right, for the fundamental root of the Donatists is not a doctrinal or dogmatic dissonance with the Catholics, but a distorted Christian conduct and practice, namely, lacking love.40 According to Frend, Donatism is a kind of North African nationalism against the Roman Empire. It should be found in the ethnic, social, and political divisions of North Africa, which are largely determined by the physical geography of the region. See Frend, he Donatist Church, 1-24. 37 Dillistone succinctly shows three main natures of the Donatist controversy in the theological context as follows: (1) the doctrine of the church, (2) the theory of the relations of church, and (3) the doctrine of the ministration of the sacraments. See Dillistone, ‘he Anti-Donatist Writings’, 176. 38 Cf. Augustine, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 10.47’, 649-650. 39 Lewis states: ‘the catholic, or universal Christian church did not charge the Donatists with heresy, a violation of basic Christian doctrine. he charge was schism, a violation of Christian love and unity. he primary issue, then, was not one of doctrine, but one of practice.’ See Lewis, ‘Violence in the Name of Christ’, 104. Cf. Newman, A Manual of Church History, I: 320. Pérez sees that there is a kind of development that the schismatic condition of Donatism ‘entailed and to justify its change from being a schism to something worse, namely heresy.’ See Pérez, ‘Augustine on Donatism: Converting a Schism into an Heresy’, 80. 40 Willis also argues that ‘On the whole it appears from Augustine’s writings that they [Donatists] were for the most part orthodox in doctrine, though schismatical in practice. . . . [Later] the edict [February 12, 405] explicitly stated that the practice of second baptism had transformed a schism into an heresy, an idea possibly suggested by Augustine himself.’ See Willis, Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy, 130. 36 112 Lacking Love or Conveying Love? Conveying Love: Augustine’s Nuanced Treatment for the Donatists Augustine tried to ill the Donatists’ vacancy of love with love language. Yet, in anti-Donatist contexts, whether Augustine’s love was sincere and authentic has been in debate, for unlike his early writings in ad 392-404, from Leter 93 in ad 408 he seems to admit the use of coercion toward the Donatists. Whereas Herbert Deane sees this transition as a kind of inconsistency in Augustine’s political thought,41 Robert Markus tries to grasp this in a progressive change toward reinforcement for pastoral strategy.42 However, in light of careful examination of the chronology of Augustine’s anti-Donatist polemics, Deane’s criticism is not valid, for at least from the writings from 396 to 40643 to those writen from 408 to 417,44 Augustine incessantly used love language, even when he seems to permit coercion toward the Donatists. hus, if we take Augustine’s words as sincere, his treatment of them was consistently based on love and tolerance.45 Before Leter 93, Augustine’s position toward the Donatists was clearly tolerant and lenient, conveying love. When Augustine wrote to Eusebius, a Roman oicial in Hippo and a Catholic layman, in ad 396, he expressed his strategy to the Donatists as follows: ‘God knows that this atitude of my mind is directed toward peace and that I am not trying to force anyone involuntarily into the Catholic communion, but to reveal the plain truth to all who are in error.’46 Augustine’s tolerant tactic, which does not consist of any strong coercive conversion, also relected in Leter 44 in ad 396, states that ‘we exhorted him [a Donatist] to strive Herbert A. Deane, he Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), 216-219. 42 Robert A. Markus, Saeculum: History and Society in the heology of St. Augustine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 149-153. 43 E.g., Leter 34 (396), Leter 44 (396), Sermon 260A (397), he Leters of Petilian (400), Leter 76 (403), Leter 88 (406), and Sermon 360C. 44 E.g., Leter 93 (408), Sermon 358 (411), Sermon 359 (411), and On Correction (417). 45 Cf. Markus, Saeculum, 149-153; Shimmyo, ‘St Augustine’s Treatment of the Donatist Heresy’, 177-179; Scalise, ‘Exegetical Warrants for Religious Persecution’, 497-506; Russell, ‘Persuading the Donatists’, 115-130. 46 Augustine, ‘Leter 34.1’, 118. 41 he Reformed heological Review 72:2 (August, 2013) 113 with us again and again with a calm and peaceful mind that so important an investigation might by a careful examination come to an end’.47 With regard to Petilian’s question—‘why do you drag us to you against our will?’—Augustine’s answer posed in Leter of Petilian in ad 400 was consistent with his previous position: We neither drag you to us against your will, nor do we kill our foes; but whatever we do in our dealings with you, though we may do it contrary to your inclination, yet we do it rom our love to you, that you may voluntarily correct yourselves, and live an amended life . . . When, then, you come over from your heresy to us, you cease to be what we hate, and begin to be what we love.48 Likewise, Augustine’s sole concern was to correct and amend the Donatists’ trouble, not with compulsion, but with love. he Circumcellions having become more notorious, their ruthless behavior toward the Catholics brought Augustine deep worry and concern.49 Nevertheless, as presented in Leter 88 (ad 406), although Catholic bishops underwent much sufering from the Circumcellions, they ‘did not, nonetheless, complain to the emperors about these injuries and persecutions that the Catholic Church endured at that time in our area’.50 Rather, they tried to show their ‘brotherly love’ toward the Donatists ‘in the bond of peace’.51 he Catholic clerics also stated that even though ‘we are injured’, ‘with great love we keep them [the Circumcellions] uninjured’.52 In this regard, the Catholic clerics of Hippo clariied the purpose of Leter 88 as follows: ‘We do not want to say: Condemn them;’ rather, we bring them ‘to the faith, which they lacked, and to the love of the Holy Spirit and to the body of Christ’.53 Based on these documents from ad 396 to ad 406, therefore, it can be said that Augustine’s stance toward the Donatists was fairly tolerant and charitable. Augustine, ‘Leter 44’, 180, emphasis added. Augustine, ‘he Leters of Petilian, the Donatist II’, 585, emphasis added. 49 Cf. Augustine, ‘Leter 88’, 351-358. 50 Augustine, ‘Leter 88.7’, 355. 51 Augustine, ‘Leter 88.7’, 355. See also Augustine, ‘On Baptism, I.18-27’, 423; idem, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 6.24’, 642. 52 Augustine, ‘Leter 88.9’, 356. 53 Augustine, ‘Leter 88.11’, 358. See also Augustine, ‘Leter 88.9’, 356. 47 48 114 Lacking Love or Conveying Love? However, Leter 93 in ad 408, writen to the Rogatist bishop Vincent, implies quite a diferent nuance with regard to Augustine’s treatment of the Donatists in comparison to his previous writings as noticed by many scholars.54 First, from Leter 93 Augustine pointed out the beneit for many derived from the use of secular power to correct the Donatists:55 ‘I think that it is not useless that they be held in check and corrected by the authorities established by God’.56 Second, Augustine demanded the Catholics take action with regard to the Donatists’ false behavior, arguing that ‘if we endured these people who were atacking our peace and quiet with various sorts of violence and ambushes, so that we did nothing at all that might be able to frighten and correct them, we would really have repaid evil with evil’.57 In contrast to Leter 88 that largely demanded they endure and have patience with the Circumcellions, Leter 93 demanded they do something to correct and amend their actions. Augustine overtly spoke these changed atitudes toward the Donatists in Leter 93 as follows: I yielded, therefore, to these examples [the implementation of the imperial laws has brought about the conversion of many schismatics], which my colleagues proposed to me. For my opinion originally was that no one should be forced to the unity of Christ, but that we should act with words, ight with arguments, and conquer by reason. Otherwise, we might have as false Catholics those whom we had known to be obvious heretics. But this opinion of mine was defeated, not by the words of its opponents, but by examples of those who ofered proof.58 E.g., see Christopher Kirwan, Augustine (London: Routledge, 1989), 209218; John M. Rist, Augustine: Ancient hought Baptized (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 239-245; Deane, he Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine, 216-219; Scalise, ‘Exegetical Warrants for Religious Persecution’, 497-498; Russell, ‘Persuading the Donatists’, 115-130. 55 Since Augustine’s atitude to religious coercion in the relationship between church and state is another lengthy topic, this present study will not fully deal with it. On this, Peter Brown’s articles are helpful. See Peter Brown, ‘St. Augustine’s Atitude to Religious Coercion’, in Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine (London: Faber and Faber, 1972), 260-278; idem, ‘Religious Coercion in the Later Roman Empire: he Case of North Africa’, in Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine, 301-331. 56 Augustine, ‘Leter 93.1.1’, 377. 57 Augustine, ‘Leter 93.2’, 378. 58 Augustine, ‘Leter 93.5.17’, 387. 54 he Reformed heological Review 72:2 (August, 2013) 115 Not only a growing physical fear inspired by the Circumcellions, but also his observation that the forceful secular action led to the conversion of many schismatics made Augustine sympathetic to the use of force against the Donatists.59 In fact, as Augustine wrote, even some of the Circumcellions became sincere Catholics: ‘Oh, if I could show you how many sincere Catholics we now have from the Circumcellions! hey condemn their former life and wretched error . . .’60 Yet, for Augustine, these practical and circumstantial factors would not be enough to justify the use of force; instead, the scriptural evidences are acutely needed. he command of the Lord of the feast, coge intrare, ‘Compel them to come in’ (Luke 14:23), is Augustine’s well-known exegetical justiication of the use of force toward the Donatists.61 In addition, Augustine discussed the typological parallel of Sara’s ‘punishing’ of Hagar (Gen. 16:1-6; Gal. 4:21-31) and the Catholic Church’s ‘correcting’ of the Donatists.62 Paul’s experience that he was ‘forced to come to know and to hold onto the truth by the great violence [magna uiolentia] of Christ who compelled him’ (Acts 9:3-7) is another important biblical example that Augustine cited.63 he main theme of these whole scriptural evidences is the fact that God forces G. L. Keyes ofers a concise historical context that forms Augustine’s atitude concerning the use of force toward the Donatists. Keyes provides two main historical factors: A deep physical fear stimulated by the Circumcellions and their conversion to the Catholic faith by secular power. See G. L. Keyes, Christian Faith and the Interpretation of History: A Study of St. Augustine’s Philosophy of History (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966), 124-146. See also Markus, Saeculum, 133-153; Scalise, ‘Exegetical Warrants for Religious Persecution’, 497-498. 60 Augustine, ‘Leter 93.2’, 378. 61 Augustine, ‘Leter 93.5’, 380; idem, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 6.24’, 642. Russell argues that ‘Christ’s coge intrare uses external compulsion to foster inward free choice.’ See Russell, ‘Persuading the Donatists’, 124. 62 Augustine, ‘Leter 93.6’, 380-381. For a detailed discussion of Augustine’s use of the Sara-Hagar story, see Scalise, ‘Exegetical Warrants for Religious Persecution’, 499; Dillistone, ‘he Anti-Donatist Writings’, 184-185. Augustine’s notion of the Two Cities in his City of God also implies this Sara-Hagar allegory of Paul in Galatians. See Augustine, he City of God Against the Pagans, ed. and trans. R. W. Dyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 636-638 (XV, 2-3). 63 Augustine, ‘Leter 93.5’, 380; idem, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 6.23’, 642. 59 116 Lacking Love or Conveying Love? people ‘toward righteousness [ad iustitiam]’.64 Speciically, throughout Leter 93 (ad 408) and he Correction of the Donatists (Leter 185, ad 417), one can overlook neither Augustine’s changed atitude toward the Donatists nor his sympathies for the use of force based on these biblical examples. It is also true that Augustine’s transition and justifying religious coercion have provided a hermeneutical embarrassment and obscurity to interpreters.65 However, although a certain transition toward admiting and legitimizing the use of force appears in Augustine’s writings, it does not mean that his strategy of treatment for the Donatists radically changes into a retaliatory persecution without any tolerance or is mere avengeful repayment of evil for evil. Rather, in contrast to the Donatists’ lacking love, Augustine’s treatment of them, even though he admited to the use of force, was basically grounded in a kind atitude of conveying love. In the context of admission of the use of force, Augustine’s nuanced treatment of the Donatists, which carries love and tolerance, should be comprehended in three themes: historical circumstance, motive, and nurtureable discipline. First, as Willis and Keyes properly point out, it should not be overlooked that Augustine’s sympathy toward the use of force is caused by ‘the pressure of circumstances’.66 Speciically, with a rapid rise in Augustine, ‘Leter 93.5’, 380. E.g., Deane continually speaks of the interpretive diiculties with regard to Augustine’s transition. See Deane, he Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine, 216-219. Willis tries to ind Augustine’s transition in historical context. See Willis, Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy, 127-133. According to Bonner, Augustine’s atitude toward the Donatists is highly based on utilitarianism. See Gerald Bonner, St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies (London: SCM Press, 1963), 295. Being more sympathetic to Augustine’s transition, Shimmyo argues that although Augustine strongly responded to the Donatists, he had a ‘loving and tolerant atitude’ toward them. See Shimmyo, ‘St Augustine’s Treatment of the Donatist Heresy’, 177-179. With a similar vein to Shimmyo, see Scalise, ‘Exegetical Warrants for Religious Persecution’, 498-501; Russell, ‘Persuading the Donatists’, 124-127; Markus, Saeculum, 149-153. 66 Willis, Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy, 133; Keyes, Christian Faith and the Interpretation of History, 139-146. Russell argues that ‘His [Augustine’s] ‘theory’ of coercion was not crated from dogma but in response to the unique historical situation (temporaliter!) that resonated with his thought in other 64 65 he Reformed heological Review 72:2 (August, 2013) 117 violence,67 self-martyrdom,68 and arsons of the Circumcellions,69 largely present in the writings ater ad 406, Augustine became keenly aware of the necessity of correcting them even by using force. Second, Augustine strongly emphasized ‘purity of motives’ when using force towards the Donatists. He stated: Since the good and the evil do the same things and sufer the same things, they must be distinguished, not by their actions and punishments, but by their motives. Pharaoh wore down the people of God with hard labor; Moses punished with hard chastisements the same people when they acted sinfully. What they did was similar, but they did not similarly will to do good. Pharaoh was inlated with tyranny; Moses was inlamed with love. Jezebel killed the prophets; Elijah killed the false prophets.70 Although both Augustine and the Donatists simultaneously used force, Augustine wanted to make clear that his use of force is diferent from their use in terms of the diferent underlying motive. In other words, according to whether the motive of using coercion is to ‘repay evil with evil’ or to ‘correct the evil by a good deed’,71 its justiication could be lost or secured. An impure motive, according to Augustine, has ‘always persecuted the good’ and pure motive has ‘always persecuted the evil: the former savagely, the later in moderation; the former in the service of desire, the later in that of love’.72 hird and lastly, Augustine’s treatment of the Donatists was not based on a destructive or punitive coercion, but on a therapeutic coercion or a nurtureable discipline.73 Augustine articulated: But clearly with those who are misled by the wicked and go astray under the contexts.’ See Russell, ‘Persuading the Donatists’, 125. 67 Augustine, ‘Leter 93’ and ‘he Correction of the Donatists 4.15’, 638-639. 68 ‘hey [Circumcellions] seek from men the glory of martyrdom . . . It was their daily sport to kill themselves, by throwing themselves over precipices, or into the water, or into the ire . . . the devil taught them these three modes of suicide.’ See Augustine, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 2.8-3.12’, 636-638. 69 Augustine, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 7.27-7.30’, 644-645. 70 Augustine, ‘Leter 93.2.5’, 380, emphasis added. 71 Augustine, ‘Leter 93.2.7’, 381. 72 Augustine, ‘Leter 93.2.8’, 382. 73 Russell, ‘Persuading the Donatists’, esp. 125-126. See also Dillistone, ‘he Anti-Donatist Writings’, 191. 118 Lacking Love or Conveying Love? name of Christ, we use a tempered severity, or rather gentleness, in order that Christ’s sheep may not perhaps wander astray and need to be recalled to the lock in such a way.74 In this sense, Augustine’s emphasis was not on mere punishment, but on instructive persuasion. Whatever the true and lawful mother does, ‘even if it is felt to be harsh and biter’, she does not ‘repay evil with evil, but applies the good of discipline to expel the evil of iniquity, not out of harmful hatred, but out of healing love’.75 Augustine’s major premise is thus simple: ‘Let us love our enemies because this is just, and God commanded it’.76 One of the famous Augustinian epithets, ‘love, and do what you will’ (dilige, et quod vis, fac) in the Epistle of St. John, 7.8, is important here:77 See what we are insisting upon: that the deeds of men are only discerned by the root of charity. . . . [S]ome actions truly seem rough, seem savage; howbeit they are done for discipline at the bidding of charity. Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee: Love, and do what thou wilt: whether thou hold thy peace, through love hold thy peace; whether thou cry out, through love cry out; whether thou correct, through love correct; whether thou spare, through love do thou spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.78 For Augustine, love should be the prerequisite for doing anything. In Sermon 358 in ad 411, Augustine also declared that ‘only charity rather than animosity could overcome them [errors by the Donatists]’, for “the victory of truth is charity’.79 In this love language, Augustine stated plainly a detailed principle of persecution as follows: ‘no capital Augustine, ‘Leter 93.3.10’, 383, emphasis added. Augustine, ‘Leter 93.2.5’, 380, emphasis added. 76 Augustine, ‘Leter 93.2.4’, 379. 77 According to Harmless, few realize the original context of this epithet is the Donatist controversy. It appears in a sermon delivered just ater Easter, 407. See Harmless, Augustine In His Own Words, 270. As Russell points out, some tend to look at this epithet as the most notorious Augustinian saying to justify religious coercion. See Russell, ‘Persuading the Donatists’, 126. 78 Augustine, ‘Homilies on the First Epistle of John 7.8’, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaf (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2012), 504, emphasis added. 79 Augustine, ‘Sermon 358’, 190. 74 75 he Reformed heological Review 72:2 (August, 2013) 119 punishment was imposed upon it . . . Christian gentleness might be observed, but a pecuniary ine was ordained, and sentence of exile was pronounced’.80 hese principles, as Augustine repeatedly stresses, should be conducted ‘in the spirit of love’ in order to ‘correct their error’ as well as to ‘recall from error that they may drive headlong into truth’.81 In this regard, as Scalise appropriately pointed out, Augustine’s use of force was not only based on a ‘kindly harshness’, but also on ‘remedial discipline’.82 As Augustine described, since the Donatists were sick people with ‘cold and wicked hearts’, they needed ‘a kind of medicinal inconvenience’.83 his medicinal inconvenience does not refer to a punitive coercion, but a ‘therapeutic coercion’.84 With regard to Augustine’s transition from unwillingness toward an admission of the use of force, Shimmyo, Scalise, Russell, and Bonner’s evaluation—i.e., this change does not represent ‘the total reversal’ of Augustine’s position85—could be right, for his love language, even in admiting a religious coercion, deeply underlies his writings. Augustine’s consistent atitude of conveying love toward the Donatists neither faded in the mood of the rising power of the Circumcellions, nor even in a permissive atmosphere of public religious persecution. In any case, Augustine never gave up his love language and this consistency was kept in response to the Donatists’ lacking love. CONCLUSION he fundamental root of the rise of the Donatists was a distorted Christian practice, namely, lacking love. he suspicions toward traditores and violent conduct of the Circumcellions were ultimately grounded on this lacking love. he doctrinal or theological discords between the Augustine, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 7.26’, 643. Augustine, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 2.11’, 637. 82 Scalise, ‘Exegetical Warrants for Religious Persecution’, 500-501. 83 Augustine, ‘he Correction of the Donatists 7.26’, 643. See also Augustine, ‘Sermon 360C.6’, 390. 84 Russell, ‘Persuading the Donatists’, 127. 85 Shimmyo, ‘St Augustine’s Treatment of the Donatist Heresy’, 173-182; Scalise, ‘Exegetical Warrants for Religious Persecution’, 497-506; Russell, ‘Persuading the Donatists’, 115-130; Bonner, St. Augustine of Hippo, 307. 80 81 120 Lacking Love or Conveying Love? Catholics and the Donatists (e.g., the issue of rebaptism, nature of the church, etc.) also resulted from this lacking love. he history of the Donatists was thus substantially based on the lack of love. On the other hand, Augustine’s treatment of them was deeply grounded on conveying love. Even in the context of the use of coercion, Augustine’s conveyinglove-atitude was apparent. he interpretive gap shown between the writings before Leter 93 in ad 408 and that Leter onward can be illed up by Augustine’s consistent atitude toward the Donatists. he core of this constant atitude primarily consisted of love, tolerance, and respect. Based on this study, the fundamental nature of the Donatist controversy thus can be expressed as lacking love vs. conveying love. his speciic framework, ‘lacking love vs. conveying love’ which is related with a particular controversy, could be valid, when it is applied to the whole Augustinian doctrinal structure in general. he natural order of the entire Augustinian doctrine, as Etienne Gilson itly points out, is ‘to branch out around one center, and this is precisely the order of charity’.86 Gilson further adds that ‘charity imposes its own order on his [Augustine’s] doctrine only because it dominates and inspires it’.87 In light of Gilson’s observation, the scheme of ‘lacking love vs. conveying love’ in the Donatist controversy could play a crucial part in building the whole Augustinian love-centered structure. In terms that ‘the more a doctrine tends to be built around charity the more Augustinian it is’,88 the Donatist controversy as the mode of confrontation, lacking love vs. conveying love, deinitely appears more Augustinian. For Augustine, love is not only ‘greater than the other two, that is faith and hope,’, but also ‘the end of every commandment, that is, every commandment concerns charity’.89 hus, it is not surprising that Augustine, who regards love (not cupiditas, but caritas)90 as the Etienne Gilson, he Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine, trans. L.E.M. Lynch (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1961), 237, emphasis in the original. 87 Gilson, he Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine, 237. 88 Gilson, ibid., 238, emphasis in the original. 89 Augustine, he Augustine Catechism, 130, 133. 90 According to Augustine, mundane and wrong love that clings to the world is cupiditas. In contrast, caritas is the right love which seeks eternity and the absolute future: the ‘root of all evils is cupiditas, the root of all goods is caritas’ 86 he Reformed heological Review 72:2 (August, 2013) 121 primacy above all, has to respond to the Donatists’ vacancy of love with love language. hroughout the Augustine-Donatists controversy, Augustine makes a ceaseless efort to keep not only the commandment ‘love your neighbour as yourself ’ but ‘love your enemy’ as well.91 All things considered, the fundamental nature of the Augustine-Donatists controversy thus would not be a doctrinal or dogmatic story; rather, it is a story of Christian practice or discipline, namely, about love. Jae-eun ParK Grand Rapids (Commentaries on the Psalms 90:1, 8) Both right and wrong love have this in common—craving desire, that is appetitus. See Hannah Arendt, Love and Saint Augustine (Chicago: he University of Chicago Press, 1996), 9-44. Augustine’s notion of caritas is admitedly regarded as the central notion that penetrates throughout Augustine’s whole thought. See William S. Babcock, ‘Cupiditas and Caritas: he Early Augustine on Love and Human Fulillment’, in Augustine Today, ed. Richard John Neuhaus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1-34; Frederic S. Carney, ‘he Structure of Augustine’s Ethic’, in he Ethics of St. Augustine, ed. William S. Babcock (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 11-38. For the general background with regard to love as the center of Augustine’s interpretation of Christianity, see Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, trans. Philip S. Watson (Chicago: he University of Chicago Press, 1982), 449-562. 91 For a detailed discussion on the relationship between love for God and love for neighbor in Augustine, see Raymond Canning, he Unity of Love For God and Neighbour In St. Augustine (Heverlee-Leuven: Augustinian Historical Institutes, 1993).