This paper looks at Augustine of Hippo’s public theology through his role in the Donatist controversy, especially his support for using government pressure to deal with church division. Augustine’s teaching on the city of God and the earthly city is one of his most important contributions, but his response to the Donatists raises a hard question: should the church ever use the power of the state to protect church unity or correct false teaching? This paper argues that Augustine’s role in the Donatist controversy shows both the strength and the danger of his public theology. On one hand, Augustine understood that truth, unity, and peace in the church mattered and were not just private concerns. On the other hand, his support for the imperial pressure against the Donatists shows how easily the church’s spiritual mission can become mixed with the power of the state. By looking at Augustine’s two-cities framework alongside the Donatist controversy, this paper will consider whether his use of state power was an expression of rightly ordered love or an example of using the methods of the earthly city to protect the peace of the church. While Augustine’s legacy is mixed, that is what makes it so important for Christians today. He reminds us how important it is to care deeply about truth, unity, and public order, but also to be careful when the church tries to use political power to accomplish spiritual goals.

Introduction: The Public Theology Question of Church Unity and State Power

Public theology relates to how Christians speak and live in public, not just inside the four walls of the church. Theologian Kevin Vanhoozer describes public theology as “theologically informed discourse aimed at the general public.”[1] This means that Christian truth is not meant to stay private. The church bears witness before its neighbors, leaders, and the culture around us. But this is also where the danger comes in because the church can easily confuse faithful witness with political control. The question is not whether Christian faith should have a public voice. It definitely should. The question is how the church can stay faithful in the public without giving up its spiritual mission or depending on the force of the state to maintain or enforce it.

Augustine of Hippo’s life and writings help us think through this question. David Vincent Meconi, an Augustine scholar and editor of The Cambridge Companion to Augustine’s City of God, says the Christianization of the Roman Empire before Augustine was “a truly watershed moment.”[2] Augustine lived in a world where Christianity, empire, public order, church division, and theology were all tied together. Augustine was not writing from a distance. He was a bishop, pastor, theologian, and public leader trying to guide the church through real conflict. That is part of what makes The City of God so important here, as Gerard O’Daly notes how this masterpiece has a “wide-ranging scope, including political thought and Christian apologetics.”[3]

The Donatist controversy brings this issue into clearer focus because Augustine really did care about church unity, and his concern was not shallow. He believed division hurt the body of Christ and damaged the church’s witness. But his later support for using government pressure against the Donatists raises a hard question for Christians: can the church use the power of the state to protect spiritual unity without damaging the church’s own mission?

This paper argues that Augustine’s role in the Donatist controversy shows both the strength and the danger of his public theology. He was right to believe that unity, truth, and peace mattered, not only for the church but also for society. At the same time, his support for government pressure against the Donatists shows how easy it is for the church to blur the line between the city of God and the earthly city.

The Donatist Controversy: Purity, Schism, and Catholic Unity

The Donatist controversy grew out of a painful time of persecution in Roman North Africa, especially in Numidia and around Carthage, which would be present-day Algeria and Tunisia. During that time, some Christian leaders were accused of handing over Scripture or sacred items to the Roman authorities. These leaders were called traditores, and the main person accused was Felix of Aptunga. He was one of the bishops who helped consecrate Caecilian as bishop of Carthage. Because of that, they argued Caecilian’s ordination was invalid.[4] This issue became even bigger when people began asking whether bishops and ministers connected to this kind of compromise could still serve faithfully in the church. The Donatists believed corrupt leaders weakened the purity of the church and made its ministry invalid. For them, protecting the holiness of the church meant separating from anyone who they believed had betrayed the faith.

Augustine rejected this view because he believed it divided the body of Christ and misunderstood what the church really is. For Augustine, the holiness of the church did not depend on the moral perfection of its ministers. The church is holy because it belongs to Christ. That also meant the sacraments were not made invalid by the failures of the person performing them. So this controversy was not just about church politics. It raised far bigger questions about what the church is, how the sacraments work, how discipline should take place, what holiness means, why unity matters, and how the church should relate to government power.

The controversy also affected public life. Augustine was a bishop in a society where religious division could easily spill over into social disorder. This was not just a private church argument happening behind closed doors. It affected families, cities, and even imperial policy. That is why the Donatist controversy became such an important test case for Augustine’s public theology. It forced him to wrestle with whether the government could help the church restore unity and correct division without crossing a dangerous line in the sand.

Augustine’s Theology of the Church: Unity, Sacraments, and Love

Augustine’s response to the Donatists came from what he firmly believed about the church. He did not see church unity as something that was optional. Division was not just a small disagreement or a harmless preference over paint color. He saw it as something that wounded Christian love. For Augustine, the church’s unity was rooted in Christ. The sacraments belonged to Christ long before they belonged to any pastor, bishop, or minister. Because of that, sacraments such as baptism were still valid even if the person performing it was morally flawed.

Augustine makes this clear in his writings against the Donatists. The Donatists tried to use Cyprian to defend rebaptism, but Augustine pushed back. He told them not to use Cyprian’s authority to argue for rebaptism, but to follow Cyprian’s example of protecting unity. Augustine writes, “Do not then bring Cyprian’s authority against us for repetition of baptism, but hold with us to Cyprian’s example for preservation of unity.”[5] This really gets to the heart of Augustine’s concern. For him, the issue was not just about how baptism should be handled. The deeper issue for him was whether the church would be guided by love and unity.

This is one of the strongest parts of Augustine’s view. He was right to push back against the idea that the church’s ministry depends on perfect leaders. If baptism or the sacraments only counted when the minister was morally pure, then believers would always be left wondering if their baptism or standing in the church was secure. Augustine sought to move that confidence away from human holiness and back to Christ. As Isaiah reminds us, even our righteous acts are like filthy rags apart from God’s grace, so the church’s hope can never rest in the holiness of any human leader (Isa. 64:6). In that sense, Augustine’s response to the Donatists was very pastoral. He wanted Christians to trust in Christ’s faithfulness instead of trusting in the purity claims of any one group.

But Augustine’s concern for unity also created a real danger. If unity becomes something the church feels it must protect at any cost, then it can start justifying methods that do not look like Christ’s kingdom. Augustine was right that unity matters, but the harder question is whether government force can ever create the kind of unity the church is actually called to live out.

From Persuasion to Coercion: Augustine and Imperial Power

Augustine did not begin by supporting government force. Instead, his position developed over time. He first relied on persuasion, preaching, teaching, and pastoral correction. But as the conflict with the Donatists continued, he became more open to using government pressure. Augustine eventually believed that this kind of pressure could be corrective if it helped bring people back into the unity of the church. This becomes a point of no return.

Augustine provides one of his clearest arguments when he says the real issue is not whether someone is forced, but what they are being forced toward. He writes, “The question is not whether anyone is compelled, but to what he is compelled.”[6] For Augustine, force could be justified if it pushed someone toward truth instead of away from it. That thinking allowed him to see government pressure as a kind of tough-love mercy. In his mind, the state could help stop harmful division and bring wandering believers back to the church.

Augustine also used Luke 14:23, where Jesus says, “compel them to come in,” to support this view. In Letter 185, he connected this command to the unity of Christ’s body when he wrote, “The supper of the Lord is the unity of the body of Christ.”[7] Augustine did not believe the Donatists were simply turning down a religious invitation. He believed they were rejecting the unity of Christ’s body. Because of that, he came to believe that government pressure could be used to help bring them back into the church.

Peter Brown, a historian known for his work on Augustine and late antiquity, helps keep us from reading Augustine too simply. Brown says that Augustine’s view of religious coercion was never “a ‘doctrine’ in a state of rest.”[8] In other words, Augustine’s thinking was not flat or simple. It developed over time and was shaped by real pressure, pastoral concern, and the situation he was facing. This matters because Augustine should not be painted as just being power-hungry or controlling. He was trying to deal with real problems in the church and society. At the same time, just because his position made sense historically does not mean it was theologically sound.

Augustine’s Two-Cities Theology and the Donatist Problem

Augustine’s own teaching on the two cities helps us evaluate how he handled the Donatists. In The City of God, Augustine says, “Two loves have made two cities.”[9] The earthly city is shaped by broken love, pride, control, and the desire for earthly security and glory, while the city of God is shaped by rightly ordered love for both God and neighbor. These two cities are not the same thing as the church and the government, so Augustine is describing two communities shaped by what they love most.

This distinction is crucial for public theology. While the church lives in the world, it does not belong to the world. It makes use of earthly peace, but its final hope is in eternal peace. R. A. Markus, a historian known for his work on Augustine and early Christian political thought, helps clarify this shared historical space by describing the saeculum as “the sphere of temporal realities in which the two ‘cities’ share an interest.”[10] In other words, Augustine’s two cities are spiritually distinct, but they remain historically intertwined in the present age.

The Donatist controversy tested whether Augustine consistently applied this distinction. If the city of God is marked by rightly ordered love, and the earthly city is often marked by domination, then the use of imperial coercion to secure church unity becomes theologically complicated. Augustine wanted to use earthly power for a spiritual good. His motives were true, and his goal was ultimately unity. The problem is that the method Augustine supported came from the power of the state. That raises the main question of this paper: can the church use government power to protect spiritual unity without damaging its public witness?

The Strength of Augustine’s Position: Unity Is Not Optional

Augustine’s position did have real strengths. First, he understood that unity is essential to the church’s identity because a divided church weakens its witness before the world. Jesus prayed that His followers would be as one so that the world might believe. Augustine’s concern for unity was therefore not merely institutional. It was both theological and evangelistic in nature.

Second, Augustine understood that the sacraments are rooted in Christ, not in the perfection of the minister. That mattered because it gave ordinary believers stability. If baptism depended on the moral worthiness of the person performing it, then believers would always have to wonder about the minister’s hidden life, past, present, and future. They would have to ask whether he had been faithful before, whether he was faithful now, and whether something later might call everything into question. Augustine’s view protected believers from that kind of fear by placing the power of the sacrament in Christ.

Third, Augustine recognized that religious division could have real public consequences. The Donatist controversy was not just an abstract classroom debate. It affected communities, bishops, congregations, and overall civil order. While the state cannot redeem humanity, it can restrain certain forms of disorder. At the same time, Herbert Deane, who has written extensively on Augustine’s political and social thought, points out the clear limit of this kind of force when he writes that “compulsion cannot make the heretic or schismatic a sincere believer or a good man.”[11] Augustine’s use of imperial authority makes more sense when we remember the real pastoral and public problems he was facing. But Deane’s warning also shows the limit of force because no amount of coercion could ever produce the kind of faith, love, and repentance Augustine had wanted to see.

For these reasons, Augustine’s concern should not be brushed aside too quickly. He was trying to defend unity, protect the sacraments, correct division, and deal with public disorder. His instincts were not all wrong. The church must care about unity. The church should resist division. The church should understand how theology affects public life. The problem was not that Augustine cared about unity. The problem was the use of government force to try to protect it. If Pandora’s box is opened, the church may find itself relying on political power in ways it never intended.

The Danger of Augustine’s Position: Coercion Can Distort the Church’s Witness

The danger of Augustine’s position is that coercion can often produce outward conformity without any inward conversion. So, while the state can compel behavior, it cannot create faith. It can restrain violence, but it cannot produce repentance. It can force someone to show up for the church, but it cannot make them truly love Christ or His people. This is the central weakness in Augustine’s defense of coercion. The state can restrain evil, but it cannot create faith, repentance, or love. Oliver O’Donovan, a leading voice in Christian political theology, makes this point well when he writes that “secular justice could not itself effect what church justice set out to achieve, the repentance and regeneration of the sinner.”[12] This is where Augustine’s position becomes so dangerous. While government pressure may produce outward conformity, it cannot create the inward work of grace. So, when the church relies on civil power to secure spiritual ends, it risks confusing the methods of the earthly city with the more important mission of the city of God.

When the church depends on government power to accomplish spiritual goals, it can start confusing the ways of the earthly city with the mission of the city of God. The church may start out with good motives, like protecting truth and unity, but over time it can start leaning on political power to do what only Christ can do. When that happens, the church’s witness gets weakened. Ultimately, the church is called to proclaim Christ, not depend on Caesar or any other political figure to accomplish what only Christ can do.

Eric Gregory, a theologian and ethicist known for his work on Augustine and political theology, believes Christians can be involved in public life without giving up what they believe. He argues that a Christian view of purpose, love, and human flourishing can still have a place in public life when he writes that, for Christians, “something like this teleological structure is both warranted and compatible with liberal self-understandings.”[13] In other words, Christians can bring a God-shaped view of purpose, love, justice, and human flourishing into the public without trying to control people by force. Public involvement is not the same thing as coercive control. Christians should speak, serve, encourage, disciple, and work for the good of others, but we must be careful not to use political power to do what belongs to the gospel message and work of the Holy Spirit.

Augustine’s support for coercion leaves a mixed legacy. His motives were often pastoral in nature, but the methods he resorted to are still troubling. A loving goal does not automatically make force the right approach. In Augustine’s case, imperial pressure against the Donatists included civil penalties, the loss of church property, and exile for leaders who continued to resist Catholic unity. That kind of pressure may have produced outward agreement, but it could not create genuine love for Christ or His church. When the church tries to force unity, it may protect the appearance of unity while also weakening the spiritual reality behind it. Real church unity has to be rooted in truth, faith, love, and genuine charity.

Public Theology Without Coercive Control

The modern church can learn a lot from Augustine. Christians should not pull back from public life. They should actively pursue truth, unity, justice, peace, religious liberty, and protecting vulnerable people. These are not just private issues. In these endeavors, the church should speak clearly, serve faithfully, and engage these issues with courage. But the church also has to be careful not to use the government to do what only Christ and the Holy Spirit can do.

Miroslav Volf, a theologian known for his work on public faith and human flourishing, rejects both withdrawal from public life and coercive control. He believes Christian faith should be active in public life, including “business and politics,” but he also warns against using force to impose faith on others. Volf calls that kind of coercive faith a “seriously malfunctioning faith.”[14] This gives the modern church a helpful lens to learn from Augustine with both respect and caution. The church should not be silent or absent in the public square, but it also should not confuse faithful witness with trying to control people through political power.

A true and faithful public theology should persuade, not force. It should proclaim truth, not manipulate people. It should serve others, not try to dominate them. It should speak truth to power, not become dependent upon power. The church can work with the government for public good, such as safety, justice, religious liberty, and protecting vulnerable people. But the church should never use the state to force church unity, compel belief, or create fake spiritual agreement.

Augustine’s two-cities theology helps the church keep this in balance. The earthly city has a real role, but it is still limited. Governments can preserve order, punish evil, and protect people from violence. But the city of God points to a kingdom that cannot be created by laws, empires, or force. When Christians forget the value of government, we can become careless and irresponsible. However, when we forget the limits of government, we can also start treating politics like an idol.

The Church’s Public Role: Faithful Witness Without Political Captivity

The church’s public role is to be a faithful witness without becoming controlled by politics. The church should not hide from society, but it also should not become the religious voice of the state either. Jesus warned that “no one can serve two masters” (Matt. 6:24), and that same warning applies here. The church cannot serve Christ faithfully while also letting political power become its master. It should feed the hungry, care for the poor, protect children, defend the unborn and vulnerable, comfort the suffering, welcome the stranger, visit prisoners, strengthen families, and speak truth to power. These are all forms of public theology because they show the world what the church loves and stands for. In a day when many people know more about what the church is against than what she is for, this kind of witness matters more than ever.

At the same time, the church cannot tie itself too closely to any political system. Augustine’s own example reminds us that even a brilliant theologian like himself can blur the line between spiritual care and governmental force. When the church loses its prophetic voice, it becomes dependent on political power. It also loses its missional heart when it tries to control people instead of persuading them.

Because of that, the church’s public witness should have both conviction and restraint. Conviction keeps the church from remaining silent. Restraint keeps the church from trying to dominate and govern. The church must speak clearly about truth, sin, justice, human dignity, and the lordship of Christ, while also remembering that the kingdom of God advances against the gates of hell through preaching, service, prayer, sacrificial love, and the power of the Spirit, not through forced religious agreement.

Speaking to the Broader Society Today

Augustine’s role in the Donatist controversy still speaks to us today because the temptation to use power for good-sounding reasons has not gone away. People on both the right and the left can start believing their cause is so important that force becomes justified. Religious groups can fall into that same trap too. Augustine pushes Christians to ask more than, “Is our goal right?” We also have to ask, “Are our methods faithful to Christ?” In the simplest of terms, the church still has to ask, “What would Jesus do?” before it asks what political power can accomplish.

Leonard Verduin, a Christian Reformed pastor and historian who wrote about church power and dissenting believers, helps show how this problem did not end with Augustine. In The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, Verduin demonstrates how some Reformers treated the Anabaptists as a new version of the Donatists. He quotes Urbanus Rhegius as saying, “God raises up the magistracy against heretics, faction-makers, and schismatics in the Christian Church.”[15] This is a prime example of just how quickly Augustine’s problem can reappear in later church history. When the church becomes too comfortable using its political power to protect spiritual truth, it can end up repeating patterns it should have learned to question in the first place. Verduin presses this point even further with the warning that “Every religious cultus that gets tied up with coercion must of necessity become corrupt.”[16] He then argues that the Reformers’ cooperation with secular power and the return of “Christian sacralism” was “fraught with much evil.”[17] This does not mean Augustine or the Reformers should be dismissed completely, but it does mean their use of coercive power must be examined carefully. Once the political power is treated as a tool for enforcing church unity, spiritual discipline can quickly become civil punishment. The Anabaptists may have been labeled as schismatics or a new form of Donatists, but Verduin’s critique reminds the church that the deeper issue will always be whether or not Christian truth can be faithfully defended by the sword of the state.

John Inazu, a legal scholar who writes on religious liberty, pluralism, and public disagreement, gives us a helpful way to think about this today. He argues that “dialogue and persuasion can coexist alongside deep and intractable differences about beliefs, commitments, and ways of life.”[18] I believe this matters because the church does not have to choose between being silent or trying to control people. We can speak the truth in public while still understanding the difference between persuasion and force.

This is especially important in a culture that is so divided today. Many people are tired of outrage, distrust, and the constant fight for power. The church should offer a different kind of witness and if we do not, this will be a huge missed opportunity. We can show that truth does not have to be cruel, conviction does not have to use force, and public involvement does not have to make us captive to politics. Inazu’s warning is helpful when he says it is often better to “wait patiently for the fruits of persuasion than to force the consequences of coercion.”[19] The church can have a presence in the public without being controlling. It can be courageous without being harsh. It can seek the good of the earthly city without confusing it with the kingdom of God.

Possible Objections and Responses

Several objections can be raised against this argument. The first is that Augustine supported coercion because he believed it was rooted in love and I believe there is some truth to that. Augustine did not see coercion as hatred. He believed forceful correction could bring the Donatists back to truth and unity. Mar Marcos, a scholar of ancient Christianity and religious coercion, explains this tension well when she writes, “it was philanthropy, the desire of saving them all, that made Christians intolerant.”[20] But good intentions do not automatically make force the correct method. Christians have to ask more than whether the goal is good. We also have to ask whether the method looks like Christ. A method can easily end up damaging the very truth it is trying to defend.

A second objection is that the Donatist controversy involved public disorder, so the state did have a real role to play. That is a fair point. The government does have a responsibility to restrain violence and protect public order. But restraining violence is not the same thing as enforcing church unity. While the state can protect people from harm, it cannot create true spiritual unity. This distinction is key for faithful public theology. Tertullian gave an earlier warning when he said, “it is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion.”[21] Despite Augustine living in a different situation, Tertullian’s warning still matters. Force cannot create what should come from faith, conviction, and love.

A third objection is that rejecting coercion would make Christianity too private. I do not believe that tracks. The church can have a strong public witness without using government power to force religious agreement. Public theology does not require control. It requires faithful presence, truthful speech, moral courage, and love for one’s neighbors. The church must speak to public issues without becoming a coercive institution.

A fourth objection is that Augustine lived in a very different time. Sure, that is true, but it does not make his example irrelevant. Christians today are not dealing with the Donatist controversy, but we still face the temptation to use political power for spiritual goals. Augustine’s world was different, but the danger is still the same. His example should help Christians think carefully about the church, the state, truth, unity, and power.

Conclusion: Church Unity, State Power, and the Limits of Coercion

While Augustine’s role in the Donatist controversy is complicated, it does give Christians a lot to learn from. His concern for church unity, the sacraments, and Christian truth was very real and important. He was also right to see that division hurts the church and that the church’s witness affects more than just the people inside its walls. However, his support for government force also shows the danger of mixing the church’s spiritual mission with the power of the state.

Augustine’s two-cities theology, especially when read alongside his response to the Donatists, is still valuable today because it reminds Christians not to confuse earthly power with the kingdom of God. The church lives in the world, but it is not of the world, so it should seek the good of its neighbors, while remembering it ultimately belongs to Christ and Christ alone. While we should care about truth, unity, justice, and peace, we must resist the temptation to use political power to accomplish any spiritual goals. Augustine helps the church see why unity matters, but also why the use of force is always dangerous. The church must bear a faithful public witness, but it must do so in a way that looks like the city of God, not the controlling patterns of the earthly city.

Bibliography

Augustine. Augustine: Political Writings. Edited by E. M. Atkins and R. J. Dodaro. Translated by E. M. Atkins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Augustine. Baptism. In The Donatist Controversy I. Translated by Maureen A. Tilley and Boniface Ramsey. Edited by Boniface Ramsey and David G. Hunter. The Works of Saint Augustine I/21. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2019.

Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Henry Bettenson. London: Penguin Books, 2003.

Augustine. “Letter 93.” In From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought, 100–1625, edited by Oliver O’Donovan and Joan Lockwood O’Donovan. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Brown, Peter. “St. Augustine’s Attitude to Religious Coercion.” Journal of Roman Studies 54, nos. 1–2 (1964): 107–16.

Deane, Herbert A. The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963.

Gregory, Eric. Politics and the Order of Love: An Augustinian Ethic of Democratic Citizenship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Inazu, John D. “A Confident Pluralism.” Southern California Law Review 88 (2015): 587–617.

Marcos, Mar. “The Debate on Religious Coercion in Ancient Christianity.” Chaos e Kosmos 14 (2013): 1–16.

Markus, R. A. Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Meconi, David Vincent. “Introduction.” In The Cambridge Companion to Augustine’s City of God, edited by David Vincent Meconi, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

O’Daly, Gerard. Augustine’s City of God: A Reader’s Guide. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.

O’Donovan, Oliver. The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Introduction: Pastors, Theologians, and Other Public Figures.” In The Pastor as Public Theologian: Reclaiming a Lost Vision, edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Owen Strachan, 1–25. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

Verduin, Leonard. The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Volf, Miroslav. A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2011.

---

[1] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Introduction: Pastors, Theologians, and Other Public Figures,” in The Pastor as Public Theologian: Reclaiming a Lost Vision, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Owen Strachan (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 19.

[2] David Vincent Meconi, “Introduction,” in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine’s City of God, ed. David Vincent Meconi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 1.

[3] Gerard O’Daly, Augustine’s City of God: A Reader’s Guide, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), vi.

[4] E. M. Atkins and R. J. Dodaro, eds., Augustine: Political Writings, trans. E. M. Atkins, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 127.

[5] Augustine, Baptism 2.12, in The Donatist Controversy I, trans. Maureen A. Tilley and Boniface Ramsey, ed. Boniface Ramsey and David G. Hunter, The Works of Saint Augustine I/21 (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2019), 431.

[6] Augustine, “Letter 93,” in From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought, 100–1625, ed. Oliver O’Donovan and Joan Lockwood O’Donovan (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 131.

[7] Augustine, “Letter 185,” in Augustine: Political Writings, ed. E. M. Atkins and R. J. Dodaro, trans. E. M. Atkins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 188.

[8] Peter Brown, “St. Augustine’s Attitude to Religious Coercion,” Journal of Roman Studies 54, nos. 1–2 (1964): 107.

[9] Augustine, The City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 14.28, 632.

[10] R. A. Markus, Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 133.

[11] Herbert A. Deane, The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), 217.

[12] Oliver O’Donovan, The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 260.

[13] Eric Gregory, Politics and the Order of Love: An Augustinian Ethic of Democratic Citizenship (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 332.

[14] Miroslav Volf, A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2011), xvi.

[15] Urbanus Rhegius, quoted in Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 50.

[16] Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 92.

[17] Verduin, Reformers and Their Stepchildren, 92.

[18] John D. Inazu, “A Confident Pluralism,” Southern California Law Review 88 (2015): 592.

[19] Inazu, “A Confident Pluralism,” 593.

[20] Mar Marcos, “The Debate on Religious Coercion in Ancient Christianity,” Chaos e Kosmos 14 (2013): 3.

[21] Tertullian, To Scapula 2.2, quoted in Mar Marcos, “The Debate on Religious Coercion in Ancient Christianity,” Chaos e Kosmos 14 (2013): 4.