Library › St Optatus of Milevis › Against the Donatists

Against the Donatists

St Optatus of Milevis, tr. Vassall-Phillips, 1917

Book 3, That Neither Can Macarius Be Called a Persecutor, nor Can Those Who Were Put to…

For that Macarius did not draw forth the sword which Peter sheathed, is proved by God, who, speaking to the valley of Sion, says:
‘They that have been wounded in thee were not wounded by the sword.’¹

Show, if you can, that any one man in the time of Macarius was struck with the sword. He goes on to say:
‘They that died in thee did not die in war.’²

So you should consider carefully whether it be not rash to call men, who experienced no war waged against Christians, by the name of martyrs.

For nothing was at that time either done or heard, such as it has been customary to do or say in a war against Christians³----in a war that is called persecution, like that which was carried on under two of the four beasts which Daniel saw rising from the sea.⁴

Of these beasts, the first was like a lion. This was the persecution under Decius and Valerian. The second was like a bear. This was the second persecution under Diocletian and Maximian, when impious magistrates waged war against the Christian Name----amongst whom, sixty years and more ago, were Anulinus in the Proconsular Province, and Florus in Numidia.

It is well known to all what their carefully planned cruelty⁵ brought about. War, declared against the Christians, was raging furiously. In the temples of the demons the devil was triumphant. The altars were smoking with unclean odours,⁶ and those who could not⁷ come to the sacrilegious sacrifices were everywhere driven to offer incense.⁸ Every spot was made into a temple of abomination.⁹ Old men, soon to be on their deathbeds, were defiled¹⁰; unwitting infancy was polluted; little children were carried by their mothers to the shameful deed; parents were driven to the bloodless slaughter of their children¹¹; some were driven to destroy the temples of the living God, others to deny Christ, others to burn the books of God,¹² others to offer incense.

Not even you will be able to pretend that any of these things was done by Macarius. Under the persecutor Florus, Christians were forced to the temples of idols; under Macarius, the slothful¹³ were ordered¹⁴ to the [Christian] basilica. Under Florus, the command was given to deny Christ and pray to idols. Under Macarius, on the contrary, all were warned that one God should be prayed to by all together in the Church.¹⁵

Since then you see that no war was waged against Christians; and that God mentions that some have died without war, saying ‘And they who died in thee did not die in war’¹⁶; and that those may well be held to be but doubtful martyrs who were not urged either to sacrilegious sacrifices, or to profane offering of incense,¹⁷ or to denial of the Name of God; and that there is no path to martyrdom excepting through confession----with what reason can you call those men martyrs, who were not confessors? Or, which among them was driven¹⁸ to deny Christ, and confessed His Name?

So, if there can be no martyrdom apart from confession of the Name of Christ----and if in this case no one confessed Christ----and if that which you assert to have been done, was done in vindication of the Commands of God----and if, whereas God had prophesied that this should come to pass, His Commands were vindicated, whilst you are unable to prove that we had any share in it----if these things be so, consider whether it be not merely idle, but also superstitious, to place those who died without persecution¹⁹ where they are, who, having confessed Christ, were allowed to die on behalf of the Name of God.

Or, if you will have it that they are martyrs----prove that they were lovers of Peace (in which are laid the first foundations of martyrdom), or that unity, beloved by God, was dear to them, or that they lived in charity with their brethren----(for that all Christians are brothers we have proved in our first Book, and shall also prove beyond doubt in our fourth).

Those men who (as you maintain) ought to be called martyrs, refused to recognise their brethren, and had no charity.

And let it not be said in their excuse that they were unwilling to hold communion with Betrayers, since it has been most clearly proved that they themselves were the sons of Betrayers. Therefore you have no way of excusing them, for it is abundantly clear that they had not charity, without which martyrdom can neither be [rightly] named nor have any existence, without which the very greatest and most commanding²⁰ virtue loses its effect, without which the knowledge of all tongues is worthless, without which even the fellowship of angels is of no avail----as says the Apostle Paul:
‘If I have the power of commanding mountains so as to move them from place to place, and if I speak with the tongues of all nations, even of angels, and if I deliver my body to the flames, and have not charity in me, I am nothing. But I shall be as tinkling brass²¹ in the desert, so that the effect of my word should die away there, where there is none to hear.’²²

If one so great,²³ if the blessed Paul, if the Vessel of Election, declares that (although possessing commanding virtue²⁴ and the company of angels) he is nothing, unless he have charity, consider whether they ought not to be called something very different from martyrs, who, having deserted charity, may, by reason of that desertion, perhaps have suffered something.

Previous · Contents · Next