Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom (22 page)

The conflict soon divided the church in Carthage and swept through North Africa. Some Numidian bishops came to investigate the situation in
Carthage and appointed a replacement for Caecilian. Tempers were getting out of hand: the replacement was murdered in his church. A council of seventy bishops, presided over by Secundus of Tigisis, determined that Felix had been a traditor and that as a result his consecration of Caecilian was invalid. The council looked at Carthage and saw an empty see, and named Majorian bishop of Carthage.23

None of the parties quite grasped what was actually happening in the dispute. Personalities clashed, ambitions were frustrated, and African Christians debated about martyrs and traditores, but the battle was not most fundamentally about the surface issues. Some of the Numidian bishops, after all, had also been traditores.24
Underneath, it was a dispute about how the church should relate to the Roman world. It was a question of purity.25
Did traditores become unclean? Did they communicate this pollution in their official acts? In the interests of purity, must the church keep itself at arm's length from the Roman world? North African Christians had long nurtured a strongly legalistic, rigorist and pharisaical version of the faith. To be Christian meant to avoid worldly contaminants. The opposing view developed alongside and took various forms. For Eusebius, the church had conquered the world. A century later, Augustine, a North African himself, was less sanguine on that point, but his Christianity was still expansive enough to absorb much of the outside world.

When Constantine defeated Maxentius in 312, he decreed that property seized during the persecution should be returned to the church and that Christian clergy should be exempted from public services or "liturgies." In Carthage, the questions "What counts as a church?" and "Who is a Christian clergyman?" needed answers. Majorian wanted the exemption and the property. So he appealed to the proconsul of North Africa, Anullinus, de
pouncing Caecilianus as a false bishop and asking for a judgment from Constantine. On April 15, 313, Constantine wrote to Miltiades, bishop of Rome, worrying over the fact that Christians were "following the baser course, and dividing, as it were, into two parties," submitting to bishops "at variance" precisely in "those provinces which Divine Providence has freely entrusted to my devotedness, and in which there is a great population." Constantine's solution was to summon Caecilian "with ten of the bishops that appear to accuse him, and with ten others whom he may consider necessary for his defense," to Rome to have a hearing before Miltiades and other bishops. Constantine passed on his record of the case to Miltiades, advising him to note "that I have such reverence for the legitimate Catholic Church that I do not wish you to leave schism or division in any place."26

Constantine did not take upon himself the responsibility of intervening in the church's dispute. The Donatists appealed to him. If anyone is to blame for starting a process that subordinated the church to the emperor, it is not Constantine but the Donatists. He was invited to sit. Constantine did not let the Donatists get away with bypassing church authorities to whom they should be subject. Rather than accepting the appeal directly, Constantine deflected responsibility to the bishops who were to be assembled at Rome. Initially, he treated the church as a separate polity, governed by its own bishops. Eventually Constantine intervened directly in the dispute, but only after several councils had proved ineffectual. The letter makes clear Constantine's desire for unity and concord within the church. He wanted no "schism or division" in the "catholic" church. His stated reason is that he has "reverence for the legitimate Catholic Church." One might, again, read that as a cynical bit of political propaganda, but it is equally plausible to consider it a sincere, and very early, statement of his personal attachment to the church.

This rancorous context is crucial for assessing Constantine's actions. The question that faced him was not, how can I control the church, which lives peaceful and at ease in my kingdom? The question was, how can I get two North African churches that hate each other enough to kill to recognize each other as brothers? As noted above, he was not the only one with an agenda.

DONATIST TWISTS AND TURNS

Unfortunately, the bishops were not as interested in concord as Constantine was.27
By the time the bishops assembled in Rome in early October 313, Donatus-"charismatic, eloquent, tireless, and utterly convinced of the justice of his cause""-had
taken over as the "shadow bishop" of Carthage. In the meantime, Miltiades had done what he could to ensure the outcome by stacking the court with anti-Donatist bishops.29
Unsurprisingly, they decided against Donatus, particularly condemning his practice of rebaptizing those who had been baptized by traditores or those consecrated by them. Perhaps aware of Miltiades' manipulation of the decision, Constantine felt compelled the following summer to call bishops to a second council at Arles. In summoning them, he offered imperial transport and issued an exhortation. He reviewed his efforts to settle the controversy at Rome and his hopes that the Donatist dispute could be put to rest. Information from sources in North Africa made it clear that the controversy was continuing because of the bad will and disgraceful conduct of some of the participants. "After I had read your letters," he wrote, "I recognized clearly that they would not place before their eyes either considerations of their own salvation, or (what is of more importance) the reverence which is due to Almighty God." This is clear from the fact that "they are persisting in a line of action which not merely leads to their shame and disgrace, but also gives an opportunity of detraction to those who are known to turn their minds away from the keeping of the most holy Catholic Law."30

His final exhortation reminded the bishops of the dangers that their divisions posed to Constantine and the empire:

Since I am well aware that you also are a worshipper of the most High God, ... I consider it by no means right that contentions and altercations of this kind should be hidden from me, by which, perchance, God may be moved not only against the human race, but also against me myself, to whose care, by His heavenly Decree, He has entrusted the direction of all human of fairs, and may in His wrath provide otherwise than heretofore. For then
shall I be able to remain truly and most fully without anxiety, and may always hope for all most prosperous and excellent things from the ever-ready kindness of the most powerful God, when I shall know that all, bound together in brotherly concord, adore the most holy God with the worship of the Catholic religion, that is His due.31

Constantine's interest in a unified church is evident. He wanted a unified church, among other things, for the good of the empire. His stated concern, however, is to preserve God's kindness, not to manipulate the church. He planned to use the tools available to an emperor to restore "brotherly concord" so that the whole church can "adore the most holy God with the worship of the Catholic religion."

The council that met at Arles in August 314 was the first council called by a Roman emperor.32
It had a negligible impact on the Donatist controversy. The bishops reiterated the decision of Rome, condemning Donatus and reaffirming Caecilianus as bishop of Carthage, and passed a canon requiring bishops to provide evidence when leveling charges of traditio. Far more important for the future of the church and its relation to Constantine than the decision was the fact of the council itself. Despite the imperial summons, Constantine stood back to let the bishops do their work.33
He may have attended sessions, but he was informed of the bishops' decision after it had been made. Still, the very decision to convene a second assembly to deal with the question already answered at Rome was the first time an emperor had "effectively nullified" the decision of a coun- cil.34
Necessary as it may have been, it set a dangerous precedent, for after Arles any emperor might claim the right to summon councils to revisit earlier decisions with which he disagreed.

The Donatists did not rest satisfied with the decision of Arles for even a month. On August 19, Maximus of Carthage asked that the case be argued directly to Constantine, presenting evidence to the North African officials that Felix of Abthungi had indeed been a traditor. This was new information for Constantine, and he ordered his vicarii, first Aelius Paulinus and then Aelianus, to investigate. They found Felix innocent again,
and Constantine summoned Caecilian and representatives of the Donatists to appear before him. They did so in Milan on October 315, where Constantine rendered what he thought was a final verdict: Caecilian was innocent, and he returned to Africa as bishop of Carthage, with support both from bishops and from the emperor.3s

Constantine had shifted and appeared to be indecisive. New evidence, or allegedly new evidence, or tricks, kept arising and forcing him to take up another appeal. Now that he had rendered a final decision-simply reiterating the decision of Rome two years before-he became frustrated. Riots were breaking out in the streets of Carthage, and when Roman soldiers joined some citizens in attacking a Donatist church in 317 and killed two bishops, a rumor spread that Caecilian had egged them on. A Donatist sermon described "bands of soldiers serving the furies of the traditores." For the Donatists, "bloodshed marked the end of this hatred. Now the soldiers endorsed the contract and the covenant of crime in no other way than by the seal of blood." Children and women were slaughtered in the basilica, while others shielded their eyes. Though anticipating a slaughter, the brave Donatists stood firm, and many "flew undaunted to the house of prayer with a desire to suffer."36
To make matters worse, Constantine had of course not overhauled the army overnight; the same soldiers who had seized books from traditores on Diocletian's orders were still on duty in North Africa.37

Constantine threatened to visit Africa to destroy and annihilate the Donatists, and in another letter he launched some choice invective in their direction. He claimed that the "mercy of Christ" had departed from them, "in whom it is as clear as the sun of noon-day, that they are of such a character, as to be seen to be shut off even from the care of Heaven, since so great a madness still holds them captive, and with unbelievable arrogance they persuade themselves of things which cannot lawfully be either spoken or heard." They were "departing from the right judgment that was given, from which, as through the provision of Heaven I have learnt they are appealing to my judgment-Oh, what force has the wickedness which even
yet is persevering in their breasts!" In Constantine's opinion, "the judgment of Bishops ought to be looked upon as if the Lord Himself were sitting in Judgment." Perhaps thinking of 1 Corinthians 6's prohibition of Christians' taking fellow believers to court, he added, "For it is not lawful for them to think or to judge in any other way, excepting as they have been taught by the teaching of Christ. Why then, as I have said with truth, do wicked men seek the devil's services? They search after worldly things, deserting those which are heavenly. Oh, mad daring of their rage!
1131

At some point in the following two years, Constantine ordered Donatists' property to be confiscated and their churches closed. He imprisoned Donatist bishops, and some were tortured and put to death.39
The precedent was not lost on Augustine. Though he dismissed Constantine's policy as a "most disgraceful indulgence" (indulgentia ignominiossima), he gave an evangelical defense of the coercive suppression of heresy. For their own sake, they should be forced back into communion with the true church: "Compel them to come in." Constantine, who had ascended to the throne as liberator ecclesiae, had begun to persecute Christians-schismatic Christians, but Christians.40

In the end, Constantine admitted defeat. He recalled Donatist exiles41
and in a letter to the bishops and people of North Africa counseled patience. "You know right well," he reminded them, "that, as Faith required, so far as Prudence permitted, as much as a single-minded intention could prevail, I have endeavored by every effort of kindly government to secure that, in accordance with the prescriptions of our law, the Peace of the most holy Brotherhood, whose grace the supreme God has poured into the hearts of His servants, should, through complete concord, be preserved secure." His decrees and threats, however, "have not prevailed to subdue the obstinate violence of crime, which has been implanted in the breasts of certain men," and there is no hope except in "that source to which all good
desires and deeds are referred." Peace cannot be forced, and "until the Heavenly medicine shows itself, our designs must be moderated so far as to act with patience, and whatever in their insolence they attempt or carry out, in accordance with their habitual wantonness-all this we must endure with the strength which comes from tranquility." Alluding to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, he urged them not to return wrong for wrong and reminded the bishops that "it is the mark of a fool to snatch at that vengeance which we ought to leave to God." This was especially true for Christians, whose "faith ought to lead us to trust that whatever we may endure from the madness of men of this kind, will avail before God for the grace of martyrdom." Overcoming means enduring "with an unshaken heart the untamed savagery of men who harass the people of the Law of Peace." Through patient endurance, he hopes, "these men, who are making themselves the standard-bearers of this most miserable strife, may all come to recognize, as their laws or customs fall into decay, that they ought not, through the persuasion of a few, to give themselves over to perish in everlasting death, when they might, through the grace of repentance, be made whole again, having corrected their errors, for everlasting life.1142
Having done all he could to glue the fractured pieces of the African church back together, he found he had to leave it to God. He did not want to make martyrs, nor to be another Diocletian, sacrificing Christians for the good order of the empire.