Article contents
St. Augustine's Attitude to Religious Coercion
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Extract
Augustine had to face the issue of religious coercion throughout his episcopate, and especially in his dealings with the Donatist schism. As far as I know, he is the only writer in the Early Church to discuss the subject at length. He even changed his mind on the issue, and he has told us of this ‘conversion’ with characteristic disarming frankness. It is a change which cannot fail to interest us, for whom the problem remains acutely relevant. He went on to justify religious coercion with a thoroughness and coherence which is quite as much part of his character as is his candour: and so Augustine has appeared to generations of religious liberals as ‘le prince et patriarche des persécuteurs’
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright ©P. R. L. Brown 1964. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
References
1 Lamirande, E., ‘Un siècle et demi d'études sur l'ecclésiologie de S. Augustin: Essai bibliographique,’ Rev. des études aug. VIII (1962), 1–124Google Scholar, contains extensive references to the literature on this subject. All references accompanied simply by volume number and page are from the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiae Latinorum of Vienna.
2 Lecler, V. J., Histoire de la Tolérance au siècle de la Réforme vols. I, II (1955)Google Scholar (transl. Weston, Toleration and the Reformation, 1960). Bayle, P., Commentaire philosophique … (revised ed. Amsterdam, 1713)Google Scholar, remains the classic demolition of Augustine's arguments.
3 V. references and criticisms in Joly, art. cit. (note *), 263–6.
4 For reserves on such an interpretation of the problem of coercion in the Later Empire v. Brown, P. R. L., ‘Religious Coercion in the Later Roman Empire: the case of North Africa,’ History XLVIII (1963), 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The best exponents of this view, Frend, o.c. (note*), 227–43, and Brisson, J.-P., Autonomisme et christianisme dans l'Afrique romaine (1958) 269–88Google Scholar, contain shrewd judgements on Augustine's final attitude to coercion, but pay insufficient attention to its sources and evolution.
5 Febvre, L., Le problème de l'incroyance au XVIe siècle: La religion de Rabelais (Évolution de l'Humanité, 1942), 157.Google Scholar
6 Diacre, Marc le, Vie de Porphyre, c. 73, ed. Grégoire-Kugener, (Association G. Budé, 1930), 57–9.Google Scholar
7 Palladius. Historia Lausiaca, c. XV.
8 De Vera Religione XVI, 31; Retract I, 12, 6.
9 A well-known summary of this view is Willis, G. O., St. Augustine and the Donatist Controversy (1950), 127–35Google Scholar, which seems to be accepted in Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire (1964) 11, 935.Google Scholar For the wider aspects of the problem (the supposed anti-social nature of the Donatist movement, V. n. 4 above). Two points should be noted. First, that the violence of the Donatists, alone, cannot explain Augustine's change of attitude. The Rogatist sect had no record of violence, yet Augustine would not exempt them from the laws against heretics: Ep. 93 iii, II (34 2, p. 455): ‘sed nulla bestia, si neminem vulneret, propterea mansueta dicitur.’ Second, that Augustine's statements cannot be treated as being all of equal value, or as reflecting a single viewpoint. Thus, in his later works, the violence of the Donatists comes to predominate, to the exclusion of other elements: Contra fulianum III, 5 (421): Retractationes II, 5 (426/7); C. fulianum op. imperf. I, 10 (420/30), and Possidius, Vita Augustini cc. IX and X. This later perspective unduly simplifies the more differentiated account in Ep. 93 of 408 (34, 2, 445 f.).
10 Most recently: Jans, H., ‘De Verantwoording van geloofsdwang tegenover Ketters volgens Augustinus' correspondentie,’ Bijdragen XXII, 2 (1961), 133–63.Google Scholar
11 e.g. the evolution of the central ideas of the ‘City of God’: Guy, V. J.-C., Unité et structure logique de la ‘Cité de Dieu’ (1961), 5–10.Google Scholar
12 These are: Epp. 23 (34, 2, 63 sq.)—Maximin bishop of Sinitum: 33 (34, 2, 18 f.)—Proculeianus bishop of Hippo; 34 and 35 (34, 2, 23 f.)—on the same subject: 43 and 44 (34, 2, 85 f.)—debate with Fortunius bishop of Tubursicubure: 49 (34, 2, 140 f.)—bishop Honoratus: 51 (32, 2, 144 f.) and 66 (34, 2, 235 f.)—Crispinus of Calama.
13 Andreas-Henning, v., ‘Mitteliranische Manichaica,’ M. 2. S.P.A.W. Phil.-Hist. Kl. VII (1933), 301Google Scholar (Mission of Addas): Philostorgius III, 15, ed. Bides, 461 (Challenge to debate by Apthonius to Aetius of Antioch); Marc le Diacre, Vie de Porphyre c. 85 f., ed. cit. (n. 6), 66 f. (debate of Julia with Porphyry); Contra Fortunatum and Contra Felicem (25, 81 f. and 801 f.)—debates with Augustine in Hippo; De Duabus Animabus IX, 16 (25, 65)—Augustine's debates as a Manichee.
14 De Civ. Dei. XVIII, 54.
15 Ep. 50 (34, 2, 143).
16 Conc. Carth. V can. 15.
17 Sermo 24: 16th June, 401: V. Sermones de Vetere Testamento, ed. Lambot, , Corpus Christianorum, 41, 1961, 234.Google ScholarSermo 62: 399 or later: Perler, O., Rech. augustin. I (1958), 12.Google Scholar For an earlier dating—398–9, Tillemont, V., Mémoires Ecclésiastiques vol. XIII, 318–20.Google Scholar
18 Morin I, C. I. Sermones post Maurinos Reperti, Miscellanea Agostiniana, 1930, 590; 23rd June, 401.
19 Serm. 24, 7; 169, 10; 279, 4. All in reference to Deut. XXXII, 39: ‘Ego percutiam et ego sanabo: ego occidam et ego vivere faciam.’
20 Ep. 173, 3 (44, 641).
21 e.g., inter multa, Ep. 93, ii, 5 (1, 342, 449).
22 esp. Contra Epistulam Parmeniani VIII, 15 (51, 35).
23 e.g. Contra Cresconium III, xlvii, 51 (52, 458).
24 See the references and remarks of Mandouze, A., ‘S. Augustin et la religion romaine,’ Rech. augustin. I (1958), 218–22.Google Scholar
25 Con. Ep. Parm. VIII, 15 (51, 35).
26 Enn. in Ps. VI, c. 13.
27 De Cons. Evang. I, xxvi, 40 f. (43, 39 f.).
28 De Cath. Rud. XXVII, 53.
29 Lohse, v. B., ‘Augustins Wandlung i. seiner Beurteilung d. Staates,’ Studia Patristica VI, Texte u. Unters. LXXXI (1962), 447–75Google Scholar, for the reflection of this attitude in his early evaluation of the State, and his later change of view.
30 V. esp. Ep. 93, V, 17 (34, 2, 461/2).
31 V. esp. Ep. 93, V, 17 (34, 2, 461). This anxiety is confirmed by the Commonitorium of the Council of 404. The laws affecting the testamentary powers of heretics were to be applied: ‘His sane exceptis, quilite pulsati putaverint ad Catholicam transeundum, quia de talibus credibile est, non metu coelestis judicii potius quod terreni commodi aviditatem unitatem catholicam praeoptasse.’
32 e.g. Jean de Nikiou, Chronique, c. XCIX, ed. Zotenberg, , Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale XXIV, 1, 535Google Scholar, on Domitian of Mitylene: ‘Domitien … ordonna que l'on forçat, par contrainte, les Juifs et les Samaritains à recevoir le baptême et à devenir chrétiens. Mais ce furent de faux Chrétiens….’
33 Enn. in Ps. VII, c. 7. Ep. 29, 9 (34, 1, 120).
34 v. P. R. L. Brown, art. cit. (n. 4), 293.
35 e.g. Contra Gaudentium XXV, 28 (53, 226).
36 Contra Gaudentium XXXIII, 42 (53, 241).
37 Contra Litteras Petiliani II, LXXXIV, 185 (52, 115), cf. II, LXXXiii, 183 (52, 112), and Gesta Collationis Carthag. iii die. no. 258 (Patrol. Latina XI, 1413C), that the Catholics were distinguished in their policy of forcing men to believe against their wills.
38 Contra Gaudentium XIX, 20 (53, 215).
39 Contra Lit. Pet. II, lxxxiv, 185 (52, 115), transl. Dods, , The Works of Aurelius Augustine vol. III (1872), 354–5.Google Scholar
40 Marrou, v. H. I., ‘Doctrina et disciplina dans la langue des Péres de l'Eglise,’ Bull. du Cange IX (1934), esp. XII, 21–5.Google Scholar
41 e.g., inter multa, Ep. 93, V, 17 (34, 2, 462–8). It is used for the indirect pressure to adopt Christianity brought to bear on the sons of the pagan rebel, Nicomachus Flavianus: De Civ. Dei. V, 26, 36 Corpus Christianorum 47, 162). For the nature of these pressures on the individual—which did in fact include the use of direct force against coloni—V. Brown, art. cit. (n. 4), 286.
42 e.g. De Genesi contra Manichaeos II, c. 42, and De Vera Religione, c. 29.
43 e.g., inter multa, Ep. 89, 7 (34, 2, 424).
44 Sermo 112, 8.
45 For a formal analysis of Augustine's general doctrine Rimml, v. R., ‘Das Furchtproblem i.d. Lehre d. Hl. Augustins,’ Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol. XLV (1921), 43–65, 229–59.Google Scholar
46 Optatus, De Schismate Donatistarum III, 5 (P. L. XI, 1013 B): ‘Unus Deus et duae diversae voces.’
47 Sermo 24, 4.
48 Optatus, De Schism. Don. III, 7 (P. L. XI, 1017A): ‘Sed video vos hoc loco tempora separantes.’
49 Implied in Contra Cresconium IV, xlvi, 56 (52, 553–4).
50 De Sermone Domini in Monte I, cc. 63–5.
51 Contra Adimantum c. 17 f. (25, 166 f.).
52 Contra Faustum XXII, 20 (25, 608 f.).
53 e.g. De Utilitate Credendi c. 9 (25, 12); cf. Sermo 62, 8, where the image of a Paedagogus is used of the Imperial legislation against Jews, heretics and pagans.
54 Contra Faustum XXII, 21 (25, 611, 7)
55 e.g. Blumencranz, B., Die Judenpredigt Augustins (1946), 144–5.Google Scholar
56 v. Edw. Cranz, , ‘The development of Augustine's ideas on Society before the Donatist controversy,’ Harv. Theol. Rev. XLVII (1954), esp. 273–6 and 279–81Google Scholar, for Augustine's early ‘periodisation’ of history, and its gradual abandonment.
57 e.g. Contra Faustum XXII, 23 (25, 618).
58 v. esp. Ep. 93, III, 9 (34, 2, 453).
59 Optatus, , De Schism. Don. III, 5Google Scholar (P.L. XI, 1013–14). cf. Jerome, , Ep. 109, 2–3Google Scholar, with remarks of Silvestre, H., Rev. d'Hist. éccles. LVIII (1963), 532–6.Google Scholar
60 Ferrua, A., Le pitture della nuova catacomba di Via Latina (1960), tav. XCII, and 48–9.Google Scholar
61 Liebeschutz, v. H., ‘Die politische Interpretation d. Alten Testaments bei Thomas v. Aquino u. Spinoza,’ Antike u. Abendland IX (1960), 39–62.Google Scholar
62 Contra Cresconium I, X, 13 (52, 335). cf. the most illuminating reconstruction of part of this attitude by Frend, W. H. C., ‘The Roman Empire in the eyes of Western Schismatics during the 4th century,’ Miscellanea Historiae Ecclesiasticae, Stockholm, 1960(1961), 9–22.Google Scholar
63 The administrative circumstances of North Africa gave a bishop extensive powers to intervene in the application of the laws on religious dissent: v. Brown, art. cit. (n. 4), 302–4. Augustine's interventions by letter, therefore, should be treated as exceptions to the usual routine of suppression: they reflect circumstances where the application of the laws had passed beyond his immediate control and, so, called for correspondence.
64 v. esp. the correspondence between Augustine and Macedonius, Epp. 152–5 (44, 393 f.), where the doctrinal basis of Augustine's attitude is made explicit. I regret that I have been unable to consult Keating, G., The Moral problems of fraternal, paternal and judicial correction, Diss. fac. theol. Pontif. Univ. Gregor. (Rome, 1958).Google Scholar
65 Ambrose, Ep. 25, 3.
66 Ep. 21, 6 (34, 1; 54, 5).
67 In I Ep.Joh. VII, 8. Gallay, v. J., ‘Dilige et quod vis fac: Notes d'éxegèse augustinienne,’ Rech. de sc. relig. XLIII (1955), 545–55.Google Scholar
68 Ep. ad Gal. Expos, c. 57.
69 Caes Arelat. Sermo 183, 6 (Corpus Christianorum 104, 748).
70 Ep. 204, 2 (57, 318).
71 Ep. 95, 3 (34, 2, 508–9).
- 41
- Cited by