DONATISM. – An African schism that takes its name from the bishop DONATUS (q.v.). This schism, which afflicted the Church of Africa for 350 years—from the end of the Diocletian persecution to the Muslim conquest, though it is particularly associated with the period between 313 and the Vandal invasion—arose from disputes over the conduct of the clergy during the persecution. Recent scholarship has sought to restore due importance to religious election and doctrinal motives, without denying the economic, social, and even ethnopolitical causes that modern writers, from Thümmel and Marrou (q.V. BIBLICA.) onward (including F. Oertel, in *Cambridge Ancient History*, XII, Cambridge 1939, p. 280), have highlighted. During this crisis, the African Church was led to abandon certain distinctive positions and adopt the doctrine and practice of Rome. Matters of no small significance—such as the efficacy *ex opere operato* of the Sacraments, the very conception of the Church, the distinction between heresy and schism, the relationship between Church and temporal authority, and the legal status of non-orthodox Christians within the Christian state (q.V. SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER; CHURCH; HERESY; SACRAMENT; SCHISM)—were discussed, deepened, and clarified by theologians such as St Optatus and the great Augustine in their disputes with the dissenters. These debates also involved figures of some importance, such as Ticonius, whose reflections exerted no small influence even on St Augustine himself.
During the persecution, between the culpable weakness of some and the almost fanatical zeal of others, the bishop of Carthage and primate of Africa, Mensurius, along with others, had set an example of shrewd—perhaps too shrewd—prudence by handing over heretical books instead of the Scriptures. When the persecution ended under Maxentius, Mensurius, who condemned such excesses of zeal, was in turn criticized by the rigorists, especially the Numidian bishops, led by Secundus of Tigisi. Meanwhile, having refused to hand over the deacon Felix, who had offended Maxentius, Mensurius was summoned to Rome and, before departing, entrusted gold and silver to some faithful. He died on the return journey (311). At Carthage, it was decided not to wait for the Numidian bishops in the consecration of the new bishop-elect. However, against the expectations of the two aspirants, Botrus and Celestius, Cecilian was chosen and consecrated by Felix of Abunzu. Thereupon, the two disappointed parties—a domineering and ambitious widow, Lucilla, already hostile to Cecilian, and the depositaries of the treasures—united: they summoned the Numidians, who, under Secundus of Tigisi, declared Cecilian’s consecration null and void (though he declared himself willing to accept a valid consecration if the nullity of the first were proven) because it had been performed by Felix, a *traditor*. They also accused Mensurius and Cecilian himself, his deacon, of *traditio* (the handing over of sacred books and objects to persecutors). They then elected as candidate favored by Lucilla, Majorinus (312).
Thus, after his victory over Maxentius, Constantine, eager to win the goodwill of African Christians, found himself confronted by the schism. The date of a letter he wrote (in Eusebius, *Hist. ecc.*, X, 6, 1-3), in which he instructed Cecilian to distribute the subsidies granted to the churches of Africa and assured him of imperial support against the dissenters, remains uncertain. The dissenters, for their part, turned to the proconsul Anullinus (113), requesting through him that the emperor resolve the controversy by appointing judges from Gaul—a region untouched by the persecution. Constantine designated the bishops Maternus of Cologne, Reticius of Autun, and Mannus of Arles to hear both sides, in union with Pope Miltiades. The Pope convened fifteen other Italian bishops, and the council, held on 2 October 313 in the house of Fausta at the Lateran, decided in favor of Cecilian. Donatus (on the question of his person, q.V. DONATUS), now bold and enterprising leader of the schismatic party, objected that the judgment had been hasty: Felix of Abunzu had not been investigated. Soon thereafter (the precise sequence of events is uncertain due to the state of the sources), an inquiry into Felix was conducted and he was cleared of all calumnious charges. The Synod of Arles on 19 August 314 confirmed the favorable sentence for Cecilian and decreed, among other things, that *traditores*, once proven by public acts, were to be deposed, though ordinations performed by them on blameless subjects remained valid; nor was baptism administered in the name of the Trinity, even by heretics, to be repeated. Yet the Donatists did not yield. Thus, Constantine, keeping Cecilian (at Brescia) and Donatus in Italy, considered deposing both contenders and appointing a new bishop of Carthage. He sent two bishops, Eulalius and Eunomius, who instead upheld the conciliar decrees. Donatus returned to Africa, as did Cecilian. But the Donatists once more appealed to the emperor, requesting that he judge in person; Constantine did so, writing to the vicar of Africa, Eumalius, on 10 November 316.
Four years later, a dispute between the deacon Nundinarius of Cirta (Constantina) and his Donatist bishop, Silvanus, led to a new investigation, which revealed that Silvanus himself, as a subdeacon, had been a *traditor* along with his bishop, Paul. Among the documents circulated by Nundinarius was also the minutes of a meeting of bishops held at Cirta on 13 March 305, under the presidency of Secundus of Tigisi, which listed all the *traditores*. This revelation struck at the accusers of Cecilian and the entire Donatist party, which from then on sought to cast doubt on the authenticity of the text—though even in its transmitted form, it appears highly suspect to modern scholars (Tillemont, Buonaiuti, and others), whom Catholics in the long controversy continually reproached the Donatists with citing.
Thus, the grounds for dissent and resentment grew. Neither repression nor the tolerance that Constantine granted in 321—on the eve of his conflict with Licinius, for obvious political reasons—could now avail. Since the Donatists were reproached for not being in communion with the Church of Rome, they likely found a following among the numerous African colony: the so-called *Montenses*, who had a bishop, Victor. In Africa, they intensified their propaganda, built new churches, and increased their numbers, doubtless taking advantage of social, economic, and political discontent. Indeed, though for some years no severe measures were taken against them—except perhaps those unknown to us that provoked Prefect Gregory’s insults from Donatus—they had by now become outright adversaries, technically and politically, accusing Catholics of political interference in religious matters and thus opposing the civil authorities themselves. Their polemical questions to Catholics—“What have Christians to do with kings? And bishops with the court?” (317)—echoed Donatus’ challenge to the two commissioners, Paul and Macarius, sent in 347 by the emperor Constantius, who was deeply concerned with religious unity in his territories and sought reconciliation. Yet, amid acts of violence, even this attempt failed.
Constantine may have been influenced by the fact that, while the Catholic bishop of Carthage, Gratus, was seated with the orthodox bishops at the Council of Serdica, the Arian bishops of the conciliabulum of Philippopoli, in their effort to gain adherents in the West, had also approached Donatus, who was probably not entirely unmoved by their invitation. In any case, the mission of Paul and Macarius provoked very serious incidents. The Donatist bishop of Bagai, also named Donatus, turned to the Circumcellions; riots broke out, the troops under the command of the comes Silvester indulged in excesses, and the repression resulted in further victims, including Donatus himself, along with the other Donatist bishop Marcellus and others, venerated by the schismatics as martyrs; Donatus was sent into exile.
In 349 Bishop Gratus convened a Council in Carthage, in which he gave thanks to God for having put an end to the schism. The Council endorsed the condemnation of rebaptism and declared it illicit to venerate as martyrs those who had fallen, not for the faith, but for sheer suicidal mania or in resistance to authority. But the Donatists felt confirmed in their belief that the true Church was the one opposed by political power, the Church of the martyrs. This is the idea repeated in the “Passions” of their “martyrs”: the Passio Donati, the Passio Marculi, the Passio Maximiani et Isaac (a work by Macrobius); it inspired a lost writing by the African Vitellius (cf. Gennadius, De vir. illustr., 4) with the significant title De eo quod odio sint mundo Dei servi, and a sermon (according to A. Pincherle, not by St. Optatus of Milevis, but by a Donatist, perhaps Optatus, a schismatic bishop of Thamugadi) which is still found in Gaudentius (cf. Augustine, C. Gaud., I, 5, 6; 20, 22; 26, 29 ff.).
Under Constantius matters did not change, and the African episcopate continued to enjoy imperial protection, while Restitutus of Carthage presided over the Council of Rimini and signed that profession of faith which was later deplored by the Roman Council of 378. But under Julian, who permitted the return to their sees of all exiled bishops, the Donatists also asked for and obtained permission to return to theirs: among them was Parmenian, the successor of Donatus at Carthage and author of a work in five books, later refuted by St. Optatus of Milevis. Thus began the literary controversy. Parmenian did not reply to St. Optatus. But he had to react, first with a refutation (c. 373), then by having one of his own, Ticonius, condemned by a Council, because on various points he implicitly gave ground to the Catholics.
But Ticonius’ dissent was not the only one within Donatism. Despite the condemnations by Valentinian (373) and Gratian (377), the schism continued to spread; but groups of dissenters were also forming, such as that of the Rogatists or Rogatianists, from Rogatus, bishop of Cartenna in Caesariana, c. 370, who reproached his colleagues for their excesses and violence, and the smaller groups of the Urbanenses in Numidia and the Claudiani or Claudianists in Carthage itself, brought back to unity by the successor of Parmenian, Primian, against whom, however, the new schism of the Maximianists broke out, led by the deacon Maximian. He, excommunicated by Primian, managed to have him condemned by a council of 43 bishops in Carthage and then deposed by one of nearly 100 at Cebarsussa in Byzacena; but he in turn was condemned by a council of 310 bishops at Bagai in 394, almost repeating the history of the origins of the schism itself.
Meanwhile, after a period almost of inaction, the struggle against the schism had been energetically resumed by the Catholics, under the leadership of Aurelius of Carthage, at the Council of Hippo in 393. At this Council St. Augustine delivered a sermon, De fide et Symbolo, and from this moment onward he was never to abandon the struggle. To the propaganda of the Donatists, who repeated their accusations in popular songs and hymns, he opposed a composition of the same kind, the Psalmus abecedarius contra partem Donati; and at the same time, convinced that the best method to follow was that of persuasion, through exchanges of letters, public debates, and polemical treatises (against the letter in which Parmenian refuted Ticonius, against other letters of the Donatist bishop of Citta or Constantina, Petilian, etc.) and at the Carthaginian Councils of the years 397, 401, and 403 he sought in every way to persuade the dissenters to return to Catholic unity. But in those years there was little fruit; instead, the violence increased, and it struck even Possidius, bishop of Calama, the friend and biographer of Augustine. Thus recourse to civil authority proved indispensable. The Council of 404 asked Honorius to apply to the Donatists the laws that punished heretics. The legates of the Council, Thaesius and Evodius, who went to Ravenna, found there other African bishops who had come to seek justice and protection; wherefore on 12 February 405 the Emperor issued a veritable edict of union: the Donatists, by the mere fact of rebaptizing, were to be considered heretics like the Manichees, and were to restore the churches taken from the Catholics. The Carthaginian Council of 405 thanked the Emperor. In the same year, in reply to the grammarian Cresconius, who had taken up the defense of Petilian, St. Augustine, considering Donatism a true heresy, affirmed the duty of Christian kings to serve God “if in their realm they prohibit evil, not only with regard to human society, but also to divine religion” (C. Cresc., II, 1, 9; III, 51, 56).
The Donatists begged the Emperor to withdraw the edict. After the death of Stilicho, they spread the rumor that the persecution was his doing and that the decree had been abrogated, and took heart again. The Carthaginian Council of 408 itself sent legates to the court. St. Augustine also wrote to the new powerful minister Olympius, and Honorius reaffirmed the previous laws, even threatening the death penalty, against which St. Augustine protested. But at the beginning of 410 the Emperor again granted tolerance, which, however, was withdrawn in August following, after an intervention by the new Carthaginian Council. Nevertheless, the difficult political situation also deterred Honorius from violence, and thus it was possible to carry out the plan, long cherished by Augustine, of a plenary meeting of the episcopates of both sides, at which there could be discussion with the dissenters and, by persuasion, they could be brought back to Catholic unity: at least those in good faith.
Thus took place the “Conference” (Collatio) of Carthage in June 411, at which there were present 279 Donatist bishops, 286 Catholic ones, and 7 speakers on each side. When, after long discussions on points of procedure or preliminaries, the merits of the case came to be considered, Augustine, who at the opportune moment raised the question of the Maximianists, had the satisfaction of hearing Primian repeat Catholic theses. On 26 June the comes Marcellinus pronounced his sentence, favorable to the Catholics. Honorius confirmed it on 30 January 412, punishing the Donatists with fines, confiscation of goods, and exile. St. Augustine, with renewed vigor, sought to win them over, publishing documents, the acts of the conference, new appeals; to these was added that of a council of Numidian bishops. After the beheading of Marcellinus, the Donatists revived somewhat, but soon realized that nothing had changed in their regard. Subjected to ever harsher penalties (in 414 they were struck with perpetual infamy, which deprived them of civil rights; in 428 Valentinian III and Theodosius II forbade all their assemblies under penalty of death), while the Augustinian doctrine regarding the conduct to be observed toward them was being formulated ever more clearly with the application of the *compelle intrare* (Lk. 14:23), many returned to the Catholic Church, others took refuge in secrecy; but there were no lack of examples of fanaticism or violence.
Thus, the priest Donatus of Mutugenna, having been arrested, threw himself into a well and, after being saved, sought death at all costs. A Catholic priest, Restitutus, was killed; another, Innocentius, had an eye gouged out and a finger cut off; the Donatist bishop Rogatus, later converted, had his tongue torn out. Emeritus, one of the Donatist spokesmen at the Conference of 411, was met by Augustine in Caesarea, who led him to the church and invited him to a discussion, during which the Donatist remained stubbornly silent; and Gaudentius, bishop of Thamugadi, who had fled his see but later returned, sought to burn the church. Augustine addressed his final great treatise against the Donatists to him in 420.
After the northern Africa fell into the power of the Vandals, who were Arians, they persecuted both Catholics and Donatists alike. Justinian, having reconquered Africa, took care to eliminate Arianism, but did not forget the Donatists, who, though now in the background, were still remembered during the controversy over the Three Chapters. They are mentioned more than once in the correspondence of St Gregory the Great, who also addressed the emperor Maurice. Thus they survived until the Muslim conquest.
The reason for this persistence of the schism was probably to be sought not only in the religious, political, and social factors mentioned, but also in the fact that, it seems, it had the largest number of adherents—or at least the most convinced and tenacious—in the countryside. The large number of Donatist episcopal sees accords with the traditions of the African Church and is proportionate to the number of Catholic sees. Yet while there were many places where they stood side by side—with bishops (as has been said, the Donatist had succeeded in building his own church)—at the Conference of 411 there were Catholic bishops in sees where there was no Donatist, and vice versa. Where they had few followers, the schismatics organized parishes, both rural and urban.
As for hierarchy and places of worship, no differences can be detected between Donatists and Catholics. Donatist churches are difficult to identify (one is certainly that discovered at Béman, *Ala miliaria*, near the emeritorial area with the tomb of the “mariere” Roffa, sister of Honoratus, bishop of *Aquae Sirenes*, and of two other bishops and three priests; and the complex of buildings, including the residence of Bishop Optatus, recently uncovered at Timgad, ancient Thamugadi, in the so-called “western castle”). Even in epigraphy, the Donatist character—more evident where there are references to the claim to constitute the church of the “saints” and “martyrs”—is not always clear nor can it be inferred simply from formulas such as *Deo laudes* and *bonis bene*, which are quite common.
In liturgy, however, there was at least one difference, arising from the strictly conservative nature of the schism: the Donatists, as appears from St Augustine and from a disputed sermon to which reference has been made, did not accept Epiphany.
SGR. c. 77 (1905), pp. 3 ff.; F. Martroye and H. Leclercq, in *DACL*, IV, cols. 1457–87; F. Martroye, *Circoncellions*, ibid., III, cols. 1692–1710; P. Monceaux, *Histoire littéraire de l'Afrique chrétienne*, IV–VII, Paris 1912–23; G. Bareille, s.V. in *DTHC*, IV, cols. 1701–28 (cf. id., *Donat.*, ibid., II, cols. 1687–92); O. Vannies, *Les circoncellions*, in *Revue africaine*, 1926, pp. 13–28; E. Buonaiuti, *Il cristianesimo nell'Africa romana*, Bari 1928, pp. 292–311, 322–40, 381–85; A. Pincherle, *Un sermone donatista attribuito a s. Ottato*, in *Biblica*, 12 (1923), p. 134; id., *L'arianesimo e la chiesa africana nel IV sec.*, ibid., 14 (1925); id., *L'ecclesiologia nella controversia donatista*, in *Ricerche religiose*, 1 (1925), pp. 35–55; id., *Noterelle ottasiane*, ibid., 3 (1927), pp. 440–45; id., *Due postille sul d.*, ibid., 23 (1927), pp. 160–64; various chapters by J.-R. Palanque, J. Zeiller, and P. de Labriolle, in *Fliche-Martin-Frutaz*, II, p. 461; III, pp. 43–57, 209–20; IV, pp. 67–77. – For liturgy, also: B. Botte, *Les origines de la Noël et de l'Épiphanie (Textes et études liturgiques)*, Louvain 1932; J. Leclercq, *Aux origines du cycle de Noël*, in *Ephemerides liturgicae*, 9 (1946), p. 22; for archaeology, also: E. Albertini, in *Comptes rendus Acad. Inscript.*, 1939, p. 100; L. Leschi, *ibid.*, 1947.