Donatus and the Second Church Split

While the first church split (the Novatians) centered on the issue of how to deal with believers who had lapsed during persecution that ended in 250 A.D., the second church split focused on the character of church leaders who appeared to cooperate with the persecutors during the persecution that ended around 305 A.D.  At the heart of the disagreement were two simple questions:

1. Should church leaders who demonstrate unethical, immoral, or just un-Christian behaviour be removed from their positions of authority in the church?  (Or be prevented from promotion into those positions in the first place?)
2. Do local bishops, priests, and believers have any say in who gets appointed bishop over them?

At the end of the discussions, the Catholic Church answered both questions with a resounding, "NO."

The Story of Donatism

The controversy started during the persecution under Emperor Diocletian (coin shown at right).  The punishments were not always equally applied across all regions of the empire.  Some were forced to sacrifice to idols or face death, and in other places holy books were handed over to be destroyed and that was sufficient demonstration of compliance with the Emperor's decree.  To the shock of some believers, some Catholic priests and bishops were seen willingly handing over precious Scriptures to the Roman governors in order to avoid being killed.  They were called "traditor" or "surrenderers."

An additional component of the controversy stemmed from the pain and grief from the loss of so many Christian martyrs.  This generated a lot of respect and honour for them among the surviving believers, so much so that some Christians actively sought the honour of martyrdom by trying to get themselves killed.  They would state they had some Christian documents (which they didn't) and then refused to hand them over to the authorities.  The result was a sure death sentence.

The church leaders rightly were concerned about this growing practice of "intentional martyrdom" and taught against it.  In North Africa, the practice was growing in popularity and Carthage Bishop Mensurius decided to send his archdeacon Caecilian to disperse the crowd who were visiting and encouraging the imprisoned Christians.  While some prisoners were likely those who had intentionally got themselves arrested, not all the prisoners were there voluntarily and the Christians were deeply upset at Caecilian's actions and the fact that he appeared to be taking the side of the persecutors.  Later when this incident was recounted, he was described as a "tyrant" and "butcher."  He obviously did not win a lot of friends that day!

To add insult to injury, after Mensurius' death Caecilian was appointed Bishop of Carthage.  This infuriated the believers, priests and bishops who were already angry with him.  They elected their own candidate for bishop, Majorinus, and the stage was set for a showdown.  As Majorinus died shortly after his appointment, Donatus of Casae Nigra (died ~355 A.D.), sometimes called Donatus Magnus, was appointed in his place.  As Donatus led the movement for a number of decades, the movement became known as Donatism.

A hearing was given at Rome and the verdict came down in favour of Caecilian.  Instead of theology being determined by the vote of the majority of bishops, as it had been in Novatian's day, this now was a minority overruling a majority.  The Donatists complained why an opinion held by 20 bishops should overrule the opinion of 70 bishops.  The decision was appealed and appealed again, and every hearing resulted in the same verdict.  Even Emperor Constantine got involved and delivered the same decision.  For the first time in history (but not the last) the head of government would rule on the theology of the church.

To complicate matters, a violent group of fanatical believers known as Circumcelliones roamed throughout North Africa dispensing their own brand of vigilante justice.  They harrased Catholic bishops and priests, vandalized Catholic churches, and even resorted to murder when it suited them.  They supported the Donatists, although the Donatist teachings did not condone such behaviour.  However, the punishments that the Circumcelliones brought on themselves were also dispensed to the Donatists in general.  Rightly or wrongly, their lots became intertwined.

While initially the Donatists were only considered schismatics, eventually they were declared heretics and their churches were to be confiscated.  At times and in certain places, such edicts were carried out, but because the Donatists outnumbered the Catholics in many places in North Africa, the Donatists survived as a parallel church system for centuries.  Donatus himself was eventually captured by the authorities and died while in exile.

The Theology of Donatism

At the heart of the debate was the issue of character and discipline.  Should church leaders model the behaviour they teach to others?  If a bishop recants his faith in the face of persecution, should he be allowed to return to his position of authority in the church?  If a fallen bishop ordains other bishops, are those ordinations valid?

To the Donatists, these questions were very clear.  Church leaders needed to demonstrate worthy, Godly behaviour to receive and continue in their offices of authority.  They created a separate group of churches that considered the Catholic Churches to be populated with unbelievers.  Converts from Catholicism to Donatism were often rebaptized.  They built their church on the basis of believers who demonstrated Christian faith, not just adherents to a religion.  

As the years passed, the original issues around the persecution faded into the background, but the issue of church leadership never did.  As Augustine waded into the debate decades later, he taught forcefully against Donatism while begging the Donatists to return to the Catholic Church.  He did not meet with much success.

The issue of fallen church leaders was subtle.  If a church leader fails or sins, does that invalidate the ordinations he performed?  What about the baptisms he performed?  Clearly it should not automatically follow that an ungodly priest or bishop makes everyone he has ordained or baptized ungodly too.  It implied guilt by association.

So there were two distinct issues at play:  1) Should character matter when choosing a church leader? and 2) Does the work performed by an ungodly church leader become invalid because of the leader's sinfulness?  The correct answers were 1) Yes and 2) No.  Unfortunately no one separated the issues.  The Donatists said everything performed by the ungodly leader was invalid because character was important, and Augustine said character was unimportant for church leaders as the power lay in the office and sacraments themselves.  Both extremes were destructive.  It ultimately didn't matter which camp won because both were going to harm the church.

The End of Donatism

The Roman Catholic Church established clearly in the time of Donatus that churches had no role in the appointment of their leaders, they had no freedom to disagree with those church leaders, and there was no requirement that church leaders should behave in a Christian manner.  The church was sliding down a slippery slope with increasing speed.

The Donatist issues were never resolved, just repeatedly overruled.  As coexistence was not permitted by the Catholic Church, persecution was the only method left.  A few Donatist churches survived until about 600 A.D. when the Muslim hoards solved the issue for them by destroying both the Catholic and Donatist Christians in North Africa with the sword.

  

Cyprian

Like Tertullian, Cyprian (~200 - 258 AD) lived in Carthage (modern Tunis) in North Africa.  He was not baptized as a Christian until the mid-240's AD, but was rapidly put into church leadership roles including bishop in 249 AD.  He was fairly wealthy from a career in the legal profession, and gave some of his wealth to the poor after his baptism.  He was martyred in 258 AD.

His writings deal with controversies in the church during his time in leadership.  He also wrote about the plague that ravaged Carthage during Emperor Valerian's reign, encouraging the Christian's to stay strong in their faith and to help the sick.

One controversy he was involved in was how to deal with believers who had renounced their faith and worshiped the emperor during times of persecution and then desired to return to the church later.  One camp refused to allow them back in the church, while the opposite camp accepted all of them without question.  Cyprian took a middle ground, one that the bishop of Rome agreed with.

Cyprian was also the first early church father who championed infant baptism.  He felt they should be baptized as early as possible. Under his influence, 66 bishops declared themselves in favour of infant baptism in 253 A.D. and within a generation it had become standard practice in the North African churches.

Cyprian based many of his arguments around the term "Catholic Church" meaning the central, authoritative, and traditional church organization that claimed descent from the Apostle Peter.  In his Treatise "On the Unity of the Church" Cyprian refers to Matthew 16:18 where Jesus tells Peter that "on this rock I will build my church" and concludes that the authority given to Peter rests only with the Catholic Church.  Anyone who disagrees with the church leaders is causing disunity and is not part of the true church.  As Broadbent states in The Pilgrim Church (p.34), Cyprian went as far as claiming, "He who is not in the Church of Christ is not a Christian."

The church had now begun to exclude any and all Christians who disagreed with the most powerful bishops on non-core doctrines.  (By "non-core" I mean any doctrines of faith not expressly addressed in the New Testament.)

This large-scale excommunication of Christian believers created new practical problems in the church that had never existed before.  If an excommunicated group baptized people in the name of Christ, are those converts really Christians?  If those converts later come to the Catholic Church and renounce whatever "heresies" that existed in that group, do they need to be baptized again?  Cyprian argued yes; other bishops argued no, but it was an issue that was not resolved in his lifetime.

For the first time in history, it was no longer enough to be baptized in the name of Christ;  Cyprian now taught that one needed to be baptized in the Catholic Church to be a true Christian.