Concilio de Trento

The Donatist controversy during the reign of Constantine has possibly the greatest amount of extant Imperial documentary evidence of any episode in Late Antiquity and indeed was the first inter-Christian dispute in which the emperor was substantially involved. There are twelve surviving letters written by, or on the orders of Constantine, to officials and bishops of both parties which enable us, with

reasonable confidence, to gauge the level of his intolerance, and how that intolerance developed, or did not, as the dispute developed over the years. Moreover, ten of the letters were produced over a relatively short period of four years, the final two were produced in 321 and 330. Except for one passion narrative written during the first persecution, all the other texts, that is the vast majority, are Catholic, although Donatists too regarded themselves as Catholic. 1 _{Unlike the texts of the Theodosian}

Code, the texts of the letters preserved by the principal sources Optatus and Eusebius do not appear to have been substantially edited. 2 _{In Eusebius both the opening}

sentences and the final valedictory sentences are preserved, in Optatus the valedictory sentence appears to have been omitted only from Constantine's letter to Aelafius of 313 and also in Constantine's letter to Celsus of autumn 315. 3 _{In the two texts that}

1 _{Optatus is the principal source of the beginnings and development of the schism (CSEL 26 ed Ziwsa}

1893) and includes five letters of Constantine sent to Bishops and his officials as appendices. Eusebius includes the texts of five letters (text and translation by Kirsopp Lake 1949) and Augustine also has some material, including two letters (to Probianus and another to Eumalius), inEp43 (PL 33.159-173), 88 (PL

33.302-309), 105 (PL33.396-404) and in his Co n tra Cresco n iu m (PL 43.540-541). All the substantive texts are conveniently assembled with parallel French translation by Maier in two volumes, 1987 and 1989) Edwards (1997) has produced English translations of Optatus and the ten appendices which he included in his account. All translations of Optatus and his appendices are from Edwards; in quoting from the texts, I have not indicated Ziwsa’s nor Edwards’ year of publication for each translation quoted.

Stevenson, J. (1960, rev Frend 1987) has translations of the Augustinian material. Tilley (1997) provides an introduction, translation and notes of the Donatist passion narrative examined below. Shaw’s (1992) attempt to have the Donatists reclassified as ‘African Christians’ has not been widely adopted; although as a definition for the Donatist movement it does have merit.

2 _{Corcoran (2000) 22 on the general acceptance of the authenticity and accuracy of both Optatus’}

appendices and the letters preserved by Eusebius.

3

Opt. App. 3; Ziwsa 204-206; Edwards 181-184; Corcoran (2000) 304; Aelafius PLRE 1.16; Opt. App. 7; Ziwsa 211-212; Edwards 193-194; Domitius Celsus 8 PLRE 1 195

Augustine included, he omitted from both the valedictory sentences and only included the opening sentence in the letter to Probianus of 316.

We should expect to find evidence of intolerance in the manner in which Constantine approached the two parties; whether he was initially predisposed to one faction over another and how such predisposition might manifest itself, whether through policy decisions or through derogatory or dismissive language; and also, as the affair developed whether, and to what extent, and how, Constantine showed which side he was beginning to favour; and with that, the manner in which (whether through rhetoric or policy) he treated the opposing side.

The Donatist schism, and after 405 heresy, 4 _{was centred in the North African}

provinces of Numidia, Mauretania and to a lesser extent, Africa Proconsularis. 5 _It

began in 307 as a result of some effects of the ‘Great Persecution’ of 303-305 and lasted throughout the Roman, Visigothic and Byzantine periods into at least the late sixth century and possibly into the early eighth when Muslim armies finally secured the area for Islam. 6

The edict which began Diocletian’s persecution of 303-305 stipulated the destruction of churches, the surrender of scriptures for burning and the loss of civil rights, particularly for elite Christians. A second edict was apparently a specific response to disturbances in the east and ordered the arrest of clergy there. The third edict was again empire-wide and freed bishops who sacrificed. A final edict, apparently

4

Donatism was only declared heretical in the fifth century: CTh 16.5.37 of 25 February 405 and 38 of 12 February 405; see especially 16.6.4 of 12 February 405 and (for penalties) 5 of 12 February 405; 16.11.2 of 5 March 405; Frend (1952) 263; Warmington (1954) 99

5

There was also a Donatist Bishop of Rome and there was probably a small Donatist presence in either Gaul or Spain, possibly both. Parmenianus, Donatus’ successor as Bishop of Carthage was not an African, Opt 2.7 describes him as hispan u m au t g allu m and as apereg rin u s

6

Short narratives of the beginning of the schism are in Millar (1991) 584, Barnes (1981) 54-61, (1982) 238- 247, Birley (1987) 30-32, which includes a chronological table, and (for longer discussions) Jones (1948) 103-125; Frend (1952) 3-24, 141-147; Warmington (1954) 76-102. There is a dispute over the date of the beginning of the schism, Barnes (1975 and 1981) argues that it began in 307, against Frend’s (1952) 2, 143 original date of 312. Frend issued a rebuttal (Frend and Clancy 1977) maintaining his original date of 312. See Shaw (1992) for the end of the Donatists (and other Christians) in North Africa.

confined to the east, ordered sacrifices, but not universal sacrifices. 7 _{A number of}

clerics succumbed to imperial pressures and collaborated with the authorities

surrendering copies of the scriptures, vestments and church plate and even, in one case, murdering his own nephews. 8 _{Those who had co-operated became known as}

trad ito res, and were, in practice, regarded as apostates; because it was thought that they

had assisted the Devil, working through the Roman authorities, in his assault on the Church.

The African Church had developed a mechanism for dealing withtrad ito res as a result of Decius’ and then Valerian’s persecutions of 250-258. In 254, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, was approached by the Spanish congregations of Emerita and Legio for guidance as to whether a cleric who was not in a state of grace was able to dispense sacraments, and whether such sacraments would be valid. In contrast to Bishop Stephen of Rome who urged the Spanish to accept and obey their reinstalled Bishop, and drawing upon the decisions endorsed by the council of Easter 251, Cyprian replied firmly that a congregation had no option but to disassociate itself from a sinful bishop whose administration of the sacraments was thereby invalid and to elect a replacement. Indeed to remain in communion and to receive sacraments from such a bishop would endanger the salvation of the congregation. The logical corollary to this, for Cyprian, was that rebaptism was necessary for bishops who had strayed from the faith;

otherwise their administration of the sacraments would be invalid. Laymen would also have to be rebaptised since otherwise they would be outside the Church and therefore unable to receive any of its blessings. Cyprian called a Council of eighty- seven bishops which met on 1 September 256 in Carthage and unanimously endorsed his opinions. 9 _{The doctrine upon which the Donatist Church was to be founded fifty}

years later had been established.

7 _{Corcoran (2000) 179-182 In the case of in particular the second and the fourth edicts, Corcoran}

indicates that there is no evidence of enforcement in the west. Cf Schwarte (1994) who believes there was only one persecution edict.

8

Optatus 1.13 gives some of the names of collaborators, including the murderer.

Diocletian’s persecution of 303-5 produced numerous instances of collaboration, trad ito res and martyrs. A self-confessed trad ito r, the sub-deacon Secundus was elected bishop of Cirta in late 304 through popular choice. Although Secundus was a trad ito r, Frend indicates that his popular practice of robbing pagan temples was apparently sufficient to atone for his sins in the opinion of the mob. Just as potentially important for the question of whether Secundus’ enthronement was valid, was the fact that four out of the twelve bishops to ordain him were also

trad ito res. Despite this seemingly inexorable barrier, the bishops conveniently forgot

that they had to be pure of any sin in order to be bishops, but did remember to invoke the dogma that bishops were only answerable to God and, therefore, Secundus

remained in possession of his bishopric. 10 _{Despite opposition from elite elements in}

the church at Cirta, and tacit opposition from Mensurius bishop of Carthage, there was no immediate schism. 11

The schism only emerged after the death of Mensurius during the winter of 311-12. The Carthaginian clergy attempted to enthrone a successor without the

customary involvement of the Numidian primate. The clergy were unable to agree on a candidate so opted for a compromise in the person of Caecilian, Mensurius’

archdeacon. Unfortunately for him, Caecilian appears to have been unpopular with just about every element of society, essentially because he was a longstanding opponent of the “exaggerated esteem of martyrs.” 12 _{Twelve years earlier he had rebuked a}

Carthaginian noblewoman Lucilla for kissing the bone of a martyr before she received communion from him and thus secured her lasting enmity. 13 _{He was also popularly}

blamed for denying aid and sustenance to the so-called martyrs of Abitina while they were imprisoned in Carthage during Diocletian’s persecution, and thus contributing to

10 _{The doctrine that bishops could only be judged by God was formulated in Cyprian’s address to the}

September 256 Council of Carthage. See Frend (1952) 132-133 n 6 for references.

11

Frend (1952) 11-14

12 _{Frend (1952) 17}

13 _{Opt. 1.16; See Lockwood (1989) on the role of women in the north African church and in particular}

their deaths as well as organising vigilantes to forcibly prevent sympathetic visitors from visiting the martyrs. 14 _{Caecilian may have been trying to keep his congregation}

in order so as not to force the authorities to take more repressive actions. But he may also have been echoing opinions that had arisen under Cyprian on the role and

authority of martyrs and confessors and making an attempt to preserve exclusive authority for the episcopacy. Caecilian insisted that only the Church could rule whether someone was a martyr and hence worthy of veneration; as the Church had not done so in the case of the Abitinian martyrs there was no reason for the people to congregate around the prison and thereby to tacitly flout episcopal jurisdiction; officially there was nothing to see. 15 _{But for the anti-Caecilianists, the incident was}

merely proof of Caecilian’s inherent wickedness; Caecilian was “more ruthless than the tyrant, more bloody than the executioner.” 16

Another reason for excluding the Numidians, and further evidence of

underlying tensions within the North African Church as a whole, is indicated by the actions of Mensurius to safeguard the Carthaginian Church’s plate. Mensurius had been summoned to Rome to explain why he had refused to hand over one of his deacons, Felix, to the authorities for having written a tract, probably slanderous, against the emperor. Before he left, Mensurius entrusted the plate to church sen io res

and also gave an inventory of it to an elderly member of the congregation with orders that she should give it to his successor if he failed to return. Optatus indicates that two

sen io res Botrus and Celestius, had embezzled the plate and intended to exclude the

Numidians in order to keep their actions as quiet as possible. However, they were forced to return the plate on Caecilian’s ordination. 17

persuasively that the Donatist church was more accommodating and attractive to women than was the Catholic.

14

Acta Satu rn in i20 in Maier (1987) 86-7; Tilley (1996) 45

15 _{Frend (1952) 142: Frend suggests that the Ecclesiastical authorities were having growing doubts over}

the value of martyrdom and that martyrs could only be established by an investigation carried out by the Church; he points out that Optatus (1.16) records Lucilla’s martyr as being n ecd u m v in d icatu s

16

Acta Satu rn in i20 in Maier 87; Tilley (1996) 45-6:Caecilian o saev ien te ty ran n o et cru d eli carn ific e

However, Caecilian’s apparent disapprobation of the esteem which the martyrs enjoyed was not an indictable offence, but was probably the most significant

underlying factor leading to the enmity of many, especially Numidian bishops, and hence to the actual beginning of the schism. Officially however, his opponents focused on the involvement of an alleged trad ito r, Felix of Apthungi, in Caecilian’s enthronement. Such an involvement would, of course, on the precedents set under Cyprian, render Caecilian’s position invalid. Caecilian was accepted by all the

important sees without objection, except Secundus of Tigisis in Numidia who went to Carthage with seventy Numidian bishops and held a council, to which Caecilian was invited, in order to investigate the allegations. Caecilian naively offered to be re- enthroned if the Numidians could prove that Felix was a trad ito r. This apparent admission of guilt hardened the Numidians’ resolve and the council condemned Caecilian and declared thattrad ito res could only be readmitted after rigorous penance. Caecilian was replaced as bishop by Majorinus (a servant of the humiliated Lucilla) and the Numidians returned home. Majorinus died soon afterwards and was replaced by Donatus. 18 _{As it happens, Felix was declared innocent of trad itio by an imperial}

investigation in 314 or 315, but that mattered little to the infant Donatist Church. 19

Optatus’ statement that the schism “was brought forth by the anger of a humiliated woman [Lucilla], nourished by ambition, strengthened by avarice [of Botrus and Celestius]” 20 _{may be partially correct, but at best it ignores any underlying tensions}

within the African church that expressed themselves through Caecilian’s encounter with Lucilla and, as part of that, the considerable veneration that many North African Christians felt for the martyrs, (whose provenance they, more than the Church

decided) which was equally opposed by other North African Christians.

The government became involved in the dispute almost immediately after Constantine had secured the west and (in practice) by default. In the winter of 312/13

18

Opt. 1.19-20; Frend (1952) 18-20

19

Opt App 2 in Maier (1987) 175-87; Frend (1952) 22

20 _{Opt. 1.19}

Constantine ordered the restoration of Church property in the “Edict of Milan.” 21 _At

the same time, the order was repeated in a letter to Anullinus the proconsul of Africa. 22

Constantine also wrote to Caecilian informing him that he had instructed Ursus the

ratio n alis in North Africa to give 3,000 folles to Caecilian for his use. 23 _{Caecilian was}

also assured that should he need any more then he should not hesitate to seek them from the procurator Heraclides. 24 _{This letter has been taken by Frend in particular,}

and Barnes to a lesser extent, to indicate the prejudging of the schism by Constantine. 25

The letter certainly indicates that Constantine was aware of a problem in the North African Church, and he instructed the proconsul Anulinus and Patricius the Vicar 26

not to ignore any incidents in which people “of unstable mind are desirous of turning aside the laity.” 27 _{Caecilian was also encouraged to report such incidents to Anulinus}

and Patricius. But this is all the knowledge that Constantine displays about the controversy and he would appear to be incorrect; at this stage the controversy was, of course, restricted to the episcopacy and on the validity of the contesting claims and had little to do with “the laity” as Constantine's letter would seem to suggest. With regard to this final concern, if anything may be inferred, it may be a concern with public order, rather than any concern with strictly Episcopal matters.

But it seems more likely to indicate that the emperor, far from having formed any opinion or policy towards the anti-Caecilianist party, was carefully navigating his way in an area and with factions with which he was at best unfamiliar and at worse ignorant. Constantine was doubtless far too clever to allow himself to become embroiled in factionalism this early in his reign, not least because it would have

potentially weakened his authority in a part of the empire only very recently under his

21

Lact.DMP48.2-12; Eus.HE 10.5.2-14; Corcoran (2000) 158-160

22

Eus. HE 10.5.15-17; Maier (1987) 138-139; Corcoran (2000) 153, 335 nd; Anullinus 2 PLRE 1.78-79

23 _Eus.

HE. 10.6.1-5; Maier (1987) 140-142; Corcoran (2000) 153; Ursus 2 PLRE 1.988

24 Heraclides 2 PLRE 1.417 25 Barnes (1981) 56; Frend (1952) 145 26 _{Patricius 1 PLRE 1.673} 27 _Eus. HE. 10.6.4: kai; ejpeidh; ejpuqovmhn tina;~ mh; kaqestwvsh~ dianoiva~  tugcavnonta~ ajnqrwvpou~ to;n lao;n th`~ aJgiwtavvth~ kai; kaqolikh`~  ejkklhsiva~…bouvlesqai diastrevfein ktl.

control. It would be unreasonable to suppose, that at this early point in the schism, anyone in Italy would know, or be able to make a reasonable judgement, of just how long, and to what extent, the controversy was likely to last. At worst, if it became widespread with entrenched views, Constantine would have done himself a disservice through any prejudging of the controversy. Moreover, it was in Constantine's interest not to utterly embrace one party, but rather to keep all parties in a state of suspense, and waiting to see to whom would fall the advantages of Imperial favour. Thus, it seems more likely that since Caecilian was indisputably the first candidate elected to the see of Carthage (possibly as much as six years earlier) and had been accepted as such by his fellows, 28 _{then in practice if Constantine wished to distribute funds to the}

Church, in Carthage, such largesse could really only be given to Caecilian, known and acknowledged by other Bishops. To have given it to anyone else would at best have looked ridiculous and at worst alienated the Bishops in Italy; that most certainly would be evidence of prejudging the issue. If Constantine was prejudicial to the emerging Donatist party (or as it may have been at this stage, Majorinus party), then it would be reasonable to expect some derogatory reference to be made to them in the letter; or at least a positive indication that Constantine’s sympathies lay squarely with Caecilian, beyond any assumptions that could be inferred from his receipt of Imperial funds.

In February 313 Constantine wrote to Anullinus, the proconsul of Africa, to inform him of his decision to exempt all clergy from liturgies. 29 _{Constantine named}

the beneficiaries as those “in the Catholic Church over which Caecilian presides, bestow their service on this holy worship – those whom they are accustomed to call clerics.” Much of the rest of this fairly short letter is taken up with the benefits that flow to the state and to mankind from devotion to worship and the dangers to the same if such worship is neglected. This would appear to be more prejudicial than the previous letter in that, by implication, Constantine is excluding those clerics who did not acknowledge Caecilian’s primacy. Nevertheless Constantine made no derogatory