"Wherefore come out from
among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and I will
receive you."--2 Cor. 6:17.
1. At the commencement of
the fourth century, distinct and separate bodies of professed
Christians continued to exist throughout the Roman empire.
Each church had an elder to preside, while in every province one
bishop was invested with a superiority over others, in point of
rank and authority. The ancient method of church government
seemed, in general, still to subsist, while at the same time, by
imperceptible steps, it varied from the primitive rule, and degenerated
towards the form of a religious monarchy. This change in
church affairs, which commenced last century, was followed by a
train of vices which dishonor the character of those who presided
over ecclesiastical affairs. [Mosh. Ec. Hist. v.i.p. 193, c. 2]
In 303, Diocletian, the emperor, after repeated importunities
from the pagan priests and others, who were alarmed at the
increase of Christians, and the dangers attending their ancient
superstition; issued an edict, requiring the Scriptures to be
given up to his officers. A fire breaking out in the palace was
charged upon Christians, which excited the emperor to severe
measures. All bishops were now imprisoned. The third edict
encouraged tortures, and every diabolical means were used in
order to bring Christians over to sacrifice to the gods.
Afflictions disgracefully sinful were inflicted, which cannot
decently be explained. Africa is said by Eusebius [Ec. Hist. lib.
8. cap. 1--10] to have produced vast numbers of martyrs. The
diligence and zeal of the Roman magistrates, in executing these
edicts, had like to have proved fatal to the Christian interest.
In 306 Constantine, born in to Britain, was saluted emperor, and
in 311, Galerius published an edict, ordering all persecution to
cease, which was confirmed by Constantine, who in 313 granted a
toleration to all persons professing Christianity.
2. On peace being realized
in 311, the members, presbyters, and others, in the Carthaginian
church, made choice of a pastor to preside over that interest.
This business was managed without calling together the various
members of the community, and a serious rupture ensued.
[Claude’s Del. of the Reform, v. ii. p. 3. c. 4] One
objection raised against Cecilian, the new bishop, was, that
during the persecution he had delivered the holy Scriptures to
the officers of Diocletian. One Donatus took a prominent station
in opposition to the choice of the church, and many persons
supported his views. "By his superior abilities and
virtues," says Gibbon [Ro. Hist. c. 21], "he was the
firmest supporter of his party." This controversy, in a
short time, spread far and wide, not only throughout Numidia,
says Mosheim, but even throughout all the provinces of Africa,
which entered so zealously into this ecclesiastical war, that in
most cities there were two bishops, one at the head of the
catholic party, and the other presiding over the Donatists. [Ec.
Hist. C. 4, c. 5, ~ 2] The churches of the latter amounted to
four hundred. [Rob. Hist. of Bap. p. 213]
3. These seceders or
dissenters in Africa, were called DONATISTS, from the name of
their reformer, though by some they were called Montenses. The
Donatists did not differ from the catholics in doctrine, [Camp.
Ec. Lect. p. 240] but in morals, and they seceded on the grounds
of discipline from the community. [History of the
Donatists, p. 60] The Donatists maintained that the church
ought to be made up of just and holy men, or at least of those
who are such in appearance; and that although wicked men might
lurk in the church it would not harbor those who were known to be
such. [Dupin’s Ch. Hist. C. 4, c. 3] They were zealous in
requiring penitence of all those who united with them, and the
narrow and solitary way, observes Gibbon, which their first
leaders marked out, continued to deviate from the great society
of mankind. [Rob. Hist. c. 21] They thought the church ought to
be kept separate from the world, a religious society voluntarily
congregated together for pious purposes. With this view they
admitted none to fellowship without a personal profession of
faith and holiness; and them they baptized. [Rob. Hist. of Bap.
p. 215] They baptized converts from paganism, and they
re-baptized all those persons who came over to their fellowship
from other communities; [Mosheim. ib.] they were very careful to
remove from their places of worship every thing that bore any
resemblance to worldly communities. [Gibbon’s Ro. Hist. c.
21] While the Catholics, under Constantine, were ornamenting
their sanctuaries, so as to resemble heathen temples, the
Donatists’ zeal prompted them to clear the walls and floors
of their places of worship of all vestiges of the ancient
superstition. The regard which they paid to purity of
communion, occasioned their being stigmatized with the term
Puritans. [Jones, ubi sup.]
4. The Donatists and
Novatianists very nearly resembled each other in doctrines and
discipline; [Id. v. i. 472] indeed they are charged by
Crispin, a French historian, with holding together in the
following things: First, For purity of church members, by
asserting that none ought to be admitted into the church but such
as are visibly true believers and real saints; Secondly, For
purity of church discipline; Thirdly, For the independency of
each church; and, Fourthly, they baptized again those whose first
baptism they had reason to doubt. [Danver’s Treat. p. 272]
They were consequently termed Re-baptizers, and Anabaptists.
[Baronius’ Ann. see above ch. 2, sect. 1st. ~ 5, note 9,
references] Osiander says, our modern anabaptists were the same
with the Donatists of old. [Danvers, ib.] Fuller, the English
church historian, asserts, that the Baptists in England, in his
days, were the Donatists new dipped [Idem.]: and Robinson
declares, they were Trinitarian Anabaptists. [Hist. of Bap. p.
216]
5. The disputes between
the Donatists and Catholics were at their height, when
Constantine became fully invested with imperial power: A.D. 314.
The catholic party solicited the services of the emperor, who, in
answer, appointed commissions to hear both sides, but this
measure not giving satisfaction, he even condescended to hear the
parties himself; but his best exertions could not effect a
reconciliation. The interested part that Constantine took in the
dispute led the Donatists to inquire, What has the emperor to do
with the church? What have Christians to do with kings? or What
have bishops to do at court? Constantine, finding his authority
questioned and even set at nought by these Baptists, listened to
the advice of his bishops and court, and deprived the Donatists
of their churches.
This persecution was the
first which realized the support of a Christian emperor, and
Constantine went so far as to put some of the Donatists to death.
The Circumcellians, men of no religion, saw these Puritans
oppressed, and from sympathy, and a love of native freedom,
actually took up arms in their defence. [This conduct of these
men is always represented to the disparagement of the Donatists,
but later records of Protestants leave the Donatists with credit
in this defensive war.] Every thing now combined to disturb the
peace of the province, to prevent which the emperor found it
necessary to abrogate those laws he had previously made against
the Donatists. His superstitious regard to the rites of the
church, and the Catholic clergy, increased as he declined in
life, and consequently through their influence he issued, in 330,
his edict against all Dissidents and Seceders from the orthodox
cause. These views and measures he supported till 337, when death
terminated his career.
The ensuing emperors were
influenced generally by the stipendiary bishops, consequently
chequered circumstances attended dissenters. In 362 Julian
permitted the exiled Donatists to return and enjoy the sweets of
liberty, which revived the denomination, and by their zeal and
unceasing efforts, brought over, in a short time, the greatest
part of the African provinces to espouse their interest. From
various sources of information, it is most evident that the
Donatists were a most powerful and numerous body of dissenters,
[Mosheim’s Ec. Hist. ubi supra.] almost as numerous as the
catholics, which, considering the strictness of their discipline,
and their close adherence to the laws of Zion, is a subject of
pleasing reflection. Their influence must have been considerable,
since as Mr. Jones remarks, "There was scarcely a city or
town in Africa in which there was not a Donatist church."
[Ecc. Lect. v. i. p. 474]
6. OPTATUS, Bishop of
Mela, or Milevi, a city of Numidia, wrote a book against the
Donatist separation, addressed principally to Parmenianus, a
minister of that persuasion. In this book he charges the
Donatists with removing sacred things out of those places of
worship, which came into their possession from other
denominations; with washing the walls of such sanctuaries; and
thinking themselves more holy than others. He charges them with
re-baptizing catholics as if they were heathens; and asserts, in
opposition to the views held by the Donatists, that "all men
that come into the world, though they be born of Christian
parents, are filled with an unclean spirit, which must be driven
away by baptism. This is done by the exorcism, which drives away
the spirit, and makes it fly into remote places. After this the
heart of man becomes a most pure habitation, God enters and
dwells there; when therefore you re-baptize men, you drive out
God from his habitation, and the devil re-enters." He does
not charge them with unsoundness in the faith, but declares,
"All Christians have one faith and one creed." Speaking
of the persecution they experienced, he considered the justice of
God sent it upon the Donatists to revenge the dishonor they had
done to the waters of baptism. Their success in proselyting
catholics occasioned Optatus to call them thieves and heretics.
[Rob. Hist. of Bap. p. 189. 96. Optatus] To make baptism valid,
he says, three things are necessary, The Trinity, the faith of
him that receives it, the faithfulness of the minister; and then
there is no occasion of re-baptizing. He argues, that the faith
of him who receives baptism, is necessary to the validity of the
sacrament. This view of exorcising the candidate proves Optatus
to have been ignorant of modern paedobaptism. [Dupin’s Ch.
Hist. C. 4. v. ii. pp. 87--96. Optatus]
7. In 377, the emperor
Gratian, influenced probably by the catholic party, who envied
the growing prosperity of the Donatists, deprived them of their
churches, and prohibited all their assemblies, public and
private; but their number and influence prevented the edict being
fully executed. At some period during this century, and very
probably while under suppressing edicts in Africa, the doctrines
and discipline of the Donatists were established in Spain and
Italy; but their influence in other kingdoms bore no comparison
to their numbers, importance, and operations in their native
province. These people maintained their popularity through the
century, and continued formidable to their enemies through the
ensuing age, but afterwards we shall trace them declining in
credit and numbers. Two circumstances combining about the end of
this century, operated prejudicially to their interests; the one
was a division among themselves about a man named Maximin, which
discord was very considerably aided by the catholics, in order to
weaken their energies and importance; the other was, the rise,
credit, efforts, and influence of Augustin, bishop of Hippo, with
the court of Rome. [Mosh. Hist. C. 4 p. 2. c. 5. ~ 6]
8. AUGUSTIN was born at
Thagaste in Numidia (Algiers) A.D. 354, of Christian parents.
He was not baptized in infancy. His early life was dissolute,
from which conduct he had been unfavorably represented by various
writers.* His change of views on religion took place while he was
under Ambrose’s ministry at Milan, by whom he was first
baptized. It is probable that Augustin imbibed from the Milanese
bishop, the spirit of usurpation and tyranny so prominent in his
proceedings. Some parts of this Father’s works are
excellent, the reading of which will convince any Christian, that
he was well acquainted with the innate depravity of the heart.
Soon after his baptism he gave up his profession, and returned to
Africa, where he was again baptized by Valerius, bishop of Hippo.
Here he rose to eminence in the church, and contended with four
classes of dissenters from various motives. The Arians he
disputed with on the doctrine of the Trinity: the Pelagians, on
the points of original sin, and the ingenite state and power of
the human will to spiritual duties:++ the Manicheans, on the
origin of virtue and vice, and the Donatists on the ceremonies of
the church and the expediency of infant baptism. It is probable
that Augustin, in the heat of controversy expressed himself on
different subjects more energetically than he would have done in
the absence of exciting causes. Innocent of Rome, Ambrose of
Milan, Augustin of Hippo, with others, had united their influence
in supporting the catholic church, and these bishops in 390
received the sanction of the emperor Honorius, in establishing
superstitious rites against the zeal and efforts of many pious
and judicious Christians. [Mosh. Hist. C. 4. ~ 22] This union of
secular and spiritual power operated alike on all dissenters. In
398 a council of bishops at Carthage petitioned the emperor for
the removal of all heathen temples, and the destruction of all
images, which was granted. In 399 the temples were razed, and
Christianity was said to be much extended. [Baronius Ann. C. 4 c.
9, A.D. 399] This combination was prejudicial to the Donatists,
whose churches were numerous in this province, "and which
were served by no less than four hundred bishops." [Mosh.
Hist. C. 4, ~ 7]
9. The Donatists had
hitherto maintained themselves in reputation, and their affairs
were in a good state. The catholics having Augustin as
their head, with other zealous adjutors, exerted every means for
their suppression; but finding their preaching and writing
effect very little alteration; they, in 404, sent a deputation to
the emperor Honorius, requesting him to enforce those edicts,
made in previous reigns, against the Donatists. The emperor first
imposed a fine on all those who refused to return into the bosom
of the church, banishing the pastors of the refractory. The year
following, severe measures were adopted, but the magistrates were
remiss in their execution. This occasioned a council at Carthage,
which sent a deputation to the emperor, soliciting the
appointment of special officers to execute his edicts with vigor.
Though weakened by these severe measures, the Puritans were yet
quite strong.
[* There is an obscurity
about Augustin’s motives and conduct, which is at variance
with Christianity; virtues and vices to the extreme have been
attached to him. See Dupin’s and Mosheim’s Histories,
with Bayle’s Dictionary, and Robins. Hist. of Bap. ch. 23.]
[++ The advocates of
Pelagianism, say, that Augustin first discovered and propagated
those sentiments since termed Calvinistic, but this is an error.
The early writers expressed themselves equally decisive on
election, predestination, &c., with Austin, though not so
frequently; and it is equally evident, that the early churches
held his views. The ministers of religion had, for about two
centuries, been more engaged in adjusting the new philosophy and
arranging ceremonies, than in discussing the doctrines of grace:
but the views of Pelagius, when made known, awakened all the
native energies of Austin’s mind. Pelagius, in conference,
found all the valuable learning and authority of previous ages
against him, which no doubt regulated him in abjuring his error.
See Dupin’s Lives and Works of the Fathers;
Cave’s ditto; Daille’s Use of the Fathers;
Toplady’s Hist. Proof; Gill’s Cause of God
and Truth.] In 408, after Stilicho, the general, had been put
to death, they increased in strength, and in the ensuing year,
they had accessions to their interests, when from their rising
importance the emperor granted a law in favor of religious
liberty; but the united exertions of catholics occasioned the
abrogation of this law the following year. Tired with the appeals
of these contending parties, the emperor sent a tribune with full
power to conclude the unhappy contest. Consequently a public
meeting was called, and as Lardner says, "a famous
conference was held at Carthage in 411." [Lardner’s
Cred. of the Gospel Hist., vol. iv. pt. 2, c. 67, p. 96] In this
celebrated synod, the number of ministers from the different
churches, in both denominations, was found to be nearly equal;
though some ministers of the dissenting party were unavoidably
absent. [Ibidem.] The catholics numbered two hundred and
eighty-six, and the Donatists, two hundred and seventy-nine. The
defeat of the latter is not attributed to the catholics’
majority, but principally to Augustin’s influence at court
and his writings. The defeated Donatists appealed to the emperor,
but without attaining any beneficial result. [Mosheim’s Ec.
Hist. C. 5, p. 2, ch. 5]
10. In 412 Cyril was
ordained bishop of Alexandria. One of his first acts was to shut
up all the churches of the Novationists, and strip them of every
thing of value. Augustin, supported by a kindred spirit in
Cyril, exercised all his influence, and consequently the edicts
procured against the Donatists, were now of a more sanguinary
character. The Catholics found by experience, that the means
hitherto used had been ineffectual against the Donatists: they
now prevailed on Honorius, and Theodosius, emperors of the east
and west to issue an edict, decreeing, That the person
re-baptizing, and the person re-baptized, should be punished with
death. In consequence of this cruel measure martyrdoms ensued.
Gibbon remarks on these edicts, that "three hundred bishops,
with many thousands of the inferior clergy, were torn from their
churches, stripped of their ecclesiastical possessions, banished
to the islands, proscribed by law, if they presumed to conceal
themselves in the provinces of Africa. Their numerous
congregations, both in cities and the country, were deprived of
the rights of citizens, and the exercise of religious worship. A
regular scale of fines, from ten to two hundred pounds of silver,
was curiously ascertained according to the distinctions of rank
and fortune, to punish the crime of assisting at a schismatic
conventicle; and if the fine had been levied five times, without
subduing the obstinacy of the offender, his future punishment was
referred to the discretion of the imperial court. By these
severities, which obtained the warmest approbation of Augustin,
great numbers were reconciled to the catholic church: but the
fanatics (or faithful) who still persevered in their opposition,
were provoked to madness and despair. [Ro. Hist. Ch. 33] Augustin
owned, the city of Hippo had been full of conventicles, till he
procured penal laws for their suppression. When the Donatists
reproached him with making martyrs of their bishop and elders,
and told him God would require an account of their blood at the
day of judgment; he replied, "I know nothing about your
martyrs, martyrs! martyrs to the devil. There are no martyrs out
of the church, beside, it was their obstinacy, they killed
themselves."
11. The Donatists
rebaptized all persons coming from other professing communities;
this conduct Augustin disapproved, and observes, "You
(Donatists) say they are baptized in an impure church, by
heretics; but the validity of the baptism depends upon God’s
authority, not on the goodness or sanctity of the person who
officiates." Their objections to his infant baptism, he
endeavors to answer, remarking, "Do you (Donatists) ask for
divine authority in this matter? Though that which the whole
church practises, is very reasonably believed to be no other than
a thing delivered by the apostles, yet we may take a true
estimate, how much the sacrament of baptism does profit infants,
by the circumcision which God’s former people
received." [Wall’s Hist. pt. 1, p. 182--7]
This question shows, that the
Donatists required scriptural authority for their faith and
practice in all the affairs of God’s house.
Innocent fell in with this
practice and infant communion, and after Zosimus, Boniface, in
418, was bishop of Rome. This Boniface inquires of Augustin,
"Suppose I set before you an infant, and ask you whether,
when he grows up, he will be a chaste man or a thief? Your
answer, doubtless, will be, I cannot tell. And whether he, in
that infant age, have any good or evil thoughts? you will say, I
know not. Since you therefore dare not say any thing, either
concerning his future behaviour, or his present thoughts; what is
the meaning, that when they are brought to baptism, their
parents, as sponsors for them, make answer and say, to the
inquiry, Does he believe in God? they answer, he does believe. I
entreat you to give me a short answer to these questions, in such
a manner, as that you do not urge to me the prescription of the
customariness of the thing, but give me the reason of the
thing," Augustin felt the difficulty of giving a reason for
his own custom, and subjoined a silly reply, gets angry, and
concludes by saying, "I have given such an answer to your
questions as I suppose is to ignorant or contentious persons not
enough, and to understanding and quiet people, perhaps more than
enough." Again, "He that does not believe it [infant
baptism], and thinks it cannot be done, is indeed an
infidel." [Wall’s Hist. pt. 1, c. 15, p. 196]
Augustin being required to
answer so many questions, and explain its utility, proves how
great a share he had in introducing the rite, and in his reply,
he considers scripture and tradition on an equal footing in the
church, while the catholic community is the only church.
Augustin was requested by the
Donatists to state "what good the sacrament of Christ’s
baptism does to infants?" He says in reply, "As to
which matter it is piously and truly believed, that the faith of
those by whom the child is presented, or offered to be
consecrated, profits the child." But Augustin does not say
what advantage attends the child where the sponsors have no
faith, as is so common in the present day. These inquiries from
the dissidents of Africa, are similar to those often made by the
Baptists of the present day, satisfactorily proving their
denominational character. This assertion is further established
by Mr. Long, who says, "though there were great feuds
between the Donatists and others, yet they were professed
Anabaptists." [History of the Donatists, p. 60]
"They did not only re-baptize the adults, that came over to
them, but refused to baptize children, contrary to the practice
of the catholic church"! [Id. p. 103. Ecbertus and Emericus,
two catholic writers, assert the same, Danver’s Hist. Bapt.
p. 272, &c.] Though Augustin confines the church to the
catholic body, yet it must not be forgotten, that there were
churches more or less extensive throughout Africa, besides the
Donatists, and known as Manicheans, Montanists, Novationists, and
other, whose morals were far more excellent than even Saint
Augustin’s [Bayle and some French historians say he was a
hard drinker], but all these were heretics in his view, and
objects of his most virulent animosity.
12. The difficulty of
establishing infant baptism, even among the licentious clergy and
people of Africa, [rules were made in every council at this
period, to restrain the licentious clergy] suggested to Austin
[Augustin] the expediency of calling together a number of his
brethren, which he effected at Mela, in Numidia. Amidst
ninety-two ministers, Augustin presided; he, with them in this
assembly, since called a council, issued the following manifesto
of their charity to dissenters, That it is our will that all that
affirm that young children receive everlasting life, albeit they
be not by the sacrament of grace or baptism RENEWED; and that
will not that young children, which are newly born from their
mother’s womb, shall be baptized to the taking away original
sin, THAT THEY BE ANATHEMATIZED." [Mag. Cent., in
Danver’s Hist. pp. 118-9] Having attained eminency in the
church, and the support of his brethren to enforce the doctrine
of infant salvation from water baptism, another assembly of
divines was convened the same year at Carthage, to enforce the
rite, and occasion its universality if possible. The council
solemnly declared, "We will that whoever denies that
little children by baptism are freed from perdition and eternally
saved, that they be accursed."+ So little regarded were
the proceedings of this first assembly, that disputes have
existed as to its date; but Innocent, Bishop of Rome, having
expressed his concurrence to Augustin, a little before his
dissolution, which took place in 417, we place the Milevitan
council in the preceding year.++ Believers’ baptism has
never borrowed a foreign aid for its support; it originated from
heaven, John 1:33, and has been maintained to this day among the
followers of the Lamb, by the same divine teaching and sustaining
power; while every cruel and oppressive measure has been engaged
to suppress the practice, and to substitute infant baptism and
rhantism in its room. The establishment of this rite by these
severe censures, in time, raised the catholic community into
numerical importance, and by patronizing the infant cause, the
bishop of Rome became a father (papa) to the church. His
authority was allowed or disallowed by the adoption or refection
of this rite,* as in England, in 596, and among the Albigenses in
1178, which shall be fully shown. His advice was sought by
Spanish bishops, respecting the mode of baptizing children, and
he has devised or sanctioned means for sanctifying by water the
foetus and embryo in every stage. Every class of servants under
his holiness, in the church and out, who received this his mark,
from the crowned head to the lowest menial, has felt the
pope’s honor involved in the infant rite. Consequently they
all have advocated, and enforced by fire and sword, the
sanctifying ceremony in opposition to the Baptists in every age.
Every national establishment, as a daughter or division of the
Romish community, adopts the measure as the best palladium to its
constitution. But to return from this digression; the instruction
sought by many ministers from Augustin and Innocent, on church
affairs, respecting this rite and other discipline [Dupin’s
Ecc. Hist C. 5, v. iii pp. 195-8], the former’s controversy
with Petilianus, a pastor among the Donatists on infant baptism,
with his calling together and presiding in those assemblies which
issued such decided measures--show Augustin to have been the
active innovator, at the same time the difficulty he realized in
imposing the ceremony on the Africans, proves the novelty of the
thing. These features point Augustin out as the first who
ventured to attack at law, believers’ baptism. The
innovators went, therefore, on the forlorn hope, and a plain tale
puts them down. They did not pretend to ground infant baptism on
Scripture, but tradition; and as they could not cite a law, human
or divine, they ventured to place it on universal custom."*
Yet strange as it may appear, that which was said to be a
universal custom, required the penalty of damnation to enforce!
How sadly does the Carthaginian curse descend on the heads of
Austin’s successors in practice, who hold his rite, but who
deny his doctrine! [Rob. Hist. of Bap. p. 281]
[+ Danvers, ubi sup. This
practice commenced as here, with a mistaken view as to
children’s condition. "Jesus himself did not baptize
children, nor did he order his disciples to do it; nor would they
have forbidden infants to be brought unto him, if they had known
anything about infant baptism; if while he declared infants to be
of his kingdom, if while he had such a fair opportunity of being
explicit as to their baptism, and of setting an example of it,
&c., we may learn, that infants may be acknowledged of
Christ’s kingdom, brought unto him, and obtain his blessing
without being baptized."--M’Lean on Christ’s
Commission, p. 123.]
[++ Ivimey’s Hist. of
the Bapt. v. i, p. 23. Note. "The necessity of
paedobaptism was never asserted in any council, till about the
year 418." Episcopius and Limborch, in Gibbs on Bap. p.
129.]
[* Consequently the extension
of the pure church and kingdom of Jesus Christ, can be traced
only where this rite and all human ceremonies are repudiated, and
where the law of Zion alone regulates.]
The laws, edicts, and canons
were more or less oppressive to the Puritans for twenty-eight
years. The invasion of the Vandals in 428 relieved the oppressed
from the scourge of licentious bishops and a cruel court. These
invaders entered Africa from Spain; many who followed the army
were protected by them in full liberty, under the ancient name of
Goths, Gothmen, or Goodmen. The Vandals, like other German
tribes, had no king, no priest, and consequently were the avowed
friends of liberty. [Robinson’s Ecc. Research, ch. 7,
p. 106] The Donatists’ situation and circumstances became
ameliorated under this new dynasty, though they never regained
their former extent, nor recovered their early popularity and
vigor. For one hundred years, Africa was governed by people
called barbarians, yet their conduct was milder towards the
followers of the Lamb and the Christian interest, than the
Catholics had ever been. During this period, the Vandals
allowed the Donatists to enjoy the sweets of civil and religious
freedom, which, probably, did not really conduce to their
spiritual prosperity; but when the empire of the Vandals was
overturned, in 534, the privileges of religious freedom ceased to
the Donatists, with the government of these barbarians.
13. The Donatists still,
however, remained a separate body, possessed their churches, and
defended themselves from the reproach of their enemies. They
industriously tried every means to resuscitate their interests;
but the hostility of the rising pope, Gregory, operated
considerably on society, to their prejudice. This pope wrote
to two African bishops, requiring them to exert themselves in
every possible way, to suppress the Donatists. Marked out
for vengeance, and realizing opposition and persecution in every
form, they disappeared. It is presumed these people, "of
whom the world was not worthy," emigrated to Spain and
Italy, or mingled with the pagans in the interior, and worshipped
the Redeemer as opportunities offered. From their conduct in
assembling in caves and dens of mountains to worship, they
obtained the name of Montenses, i.e., moutaneers. [Idem, p. 112;
in Abyssinia, and Africa, immersion is now practised;
Millar’s Geo., v. i. pp. 356 and 367] In the seventh
century, the Donatists dwindled away almost into obscurity, but
about the middle of the eighth century, the gospel light was
quite extinguished in Africa; and, as Gibbon observes, it never
after enlightened any territory, nor can it be considered as
having any extensive existence in the present day. [Ro. Hist. ch.
51; see Dupin, Donatus and Optatus. Mosh. Ecc. Hist.; Hist. of
Donatists, by Mr. T. Long, Prebendary of St. Peter’s, Exon.;
Claude’s Defence of the Reform, v.i. part 8, ch.. 4;
Lardner’s Works, v. iv. p. 2, c. 67, pp. 91--103; Mr. W.
Jones’s Lect. on Ecc. Hist. lect. 25.]
14. To review the history
of such a People, so correct in morals, simple in spiritual
worship, scriptural in faith and practice, for the period of
above four centuries, is a pleasing employment. The continued
preservation which the Donatists realized amidst trials the most
formidable from crowned and mitred heads, is a satisfactory proof
of their character, as forming part of that church against which
the gates of hell shall never successfully prevail. We cannot
help realizing a sacred respect for the memories of this body of
people, whose religious profession and views were so nearly
allied to our own; and some feelings of pleasure may be lawfully
indulged at the remembrance of being their legitimate successors.
ORCHARD'S TABLE OF CONTENTS
BAPTIST HISTORY
BAPTIST HISTORY & DOCTRINE SITE MAP
|