R. PIERCE BEAVER

Cincinnati, Ohio

Donatism was an exclusively African schism and for more than a century held the center of the stage in the Christian life of that land. It was born of local passions and quarrels, and had no success outside of Africa. It became the church of the native population and, raising “altar against altar,”‘ successfully opposed both the Catholic church and the Roman Empire during several generations. Frequently, and especially in Numidia, the church of Donatus was more numerous, richer, and more powerful than its Catholic neighbor. Moreover, the Donatist cause came to shelter under its name a true social and economic revolt, which it found a useful instrument at times, but which was never a recognized part of its policy. Although the Donatist controversy was thus a local schism, it had important results for the Latin church, chiefly in regard to the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism, the orders and reception of schismatics and heretics, and the coercion of non-Catholics.

This schism was born at the moment when peace came to the church and, therefore, robbed Africa of its full share of the benefits of the new relations between church and state. Its immediate causes lay in the persecution of Diocletian, during which the civil officials tried to avoid making martyrs, and instead sought to break the morale of the Christians by closing their churches, preventing preaching, and by destroying all copies of the sacred Scriptures. This policy was rendered more difficult of execution in Africa than elsewhere because of the fanaticism of a numerous class who sought martyrdom. Charges brought by fanatics and malcontents against Bishop Mensurius of Carthage, his successor Caecilian, and certain of the latter’s consecrators, were the given reasons for the schism,2 but the duration and success of Donatism can not be explained by them.

These gave birth to the schism, but it was sustained by the underlying forces which are to be found in the psychological, political, and especially in the social state of the country. One must remember the character of the African Christians, the passionate temper which they shared with their pagan fellows, the fanatical expression of their devotion extending even to voluntary martyrdom, their intransigency, their devotion to local traditions, and their desire to manage their own affairs. Yet more important than these in the century-long support of Donatism by the native masses was the wide-spread economic misery. With this misery the church, directed by Latin clerics, was identified in the minds of many.

The Romanization of Africa had never been more than a thin and partial veneer. The ruling class of Roman or Italian stock was not numerous in comparison with the natives of the Punic and Berber races. The sea-ports and a few inland towns had a considerable population of Roman officials, agents, and business men, but the basic elements were still Punic, and in the rural districts entirely non-Roman. Racial friction had never entirely subsided, and now in the period of the Empire’s decline it was stimulated by the ever-growing mountain of legislation with which the government afflicted the provinces, and by the increasingly marked distinction between the economic state of the masses and their Roman masters. The Punic- speaking natives3 were not slow in giving their allegiance to that church which was in truth national, and which opposed the church of their Latin-speaking superiors. This identification of the Catholic church with the state was further con- firmed in the minds of the native population by the increasing ecclesiastical jurisdiction in secular affairs, particularly those of a judicial nature, as the administrative structure of the Empire distintegrated. Finally, no doubt as to the alliance remained after imperial legislation favored the Catholic church and placed at its service the civil and military forces of the state.4 Africa was primarily an agricultural province, and its crops were demanded for the provisioning of Rome and Italy, even more exclusively now that the grain of Egypt went to Constantinople. During the fourth century all those who were in any way involved in the process of supplying the capitals with food- stuffs were more and more firmly chained to their trades by imperial measures, and the burdens became almost intolerable at times. As elsewhere in the Empire, under the economic pressure which resulted from the continuously increasing impoverishment of the provinces and the ever heavier burden of the taxes, the curiales disappeared from the towns and the small farmers from the country; the land was more and more consolidated into isolated, independent, and self-sufficient domains. The dispossessed and poor sought the protection of the great proprietors and entered a state of serfdom. These landlords were Romans, and frequently non-residents, until the invasion of Italy drove them to Africa. By the generosity of those nobles who were Christians, the church, too, became a proprietor, and the ill-feeling of the serf for his master was not often lessened by the fact that the master was a bishop. Baxter states: “It has been often suggested that the most formidable heresies that confronted the Church arose in those provinces where Hellenistic or Roman culture was least assimilated, in Arian Egypt, Monophysite Syria, and Donatist Africa, and here, at least the union of orthodoxy with the State brought to a head that national feeling which was already partially aroused by the heavy burden of taxation, the compact and depressing system of land-holding, and the undoubted increase of economic difficulties. Donatism began within the Church; it ended as a social revolution.”5 Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the distressed element of the population saw in the Donatist cause a spiritual and moral justification for its insurrection, and Donatism made willing use of that revolt which had not been a part of its original policy. This revolt took the form of Circumcellionism.

The Circumcellions were remarkable bands of nomadic terrorists, recruited at haphazard from the dregs of the population, from the discontented of every native race and province, fugitive slaves, ruined farmers, oppressed colons, outlawed criminals, social failures, excommunicated Catholics, and purely religious fanatics.6 They spoke Punic. Their leaders were frequently Donatist clerics.8 Above all they were the self-appointed defenders of the church of Donatus, and called themselves Agonistici or Milites Christi.9 They were dubbed Circumcelliones by the Catholics because of their nomadic life in the rural districts where they found shelter in the peasants huts.’0 This appeal to, or at least approval of, brutal force and popular fanaticism is that which above all has discredited Donatism in the eyes of later ages, and is that which compelled Saint Augustine to approve of a policy of coercion. Although the church of Donatus sometimes disowned them, the Circumcellions were always its “advance guard,”" and its instruments of hatred and vengeance. Without the support of these wild bands Donatism would soon have been crushed by the machinery of the state.

The first troops of these Milites Christi appear to have arisen in 317 following Constantine’s order to hand the Donatist churches over to the Catholics.’1 Thereafter they appear throughout the course of the following century, showing more than usual violence at all times of crisis. A second outburst of Circumcellion fury occurred at the time of Constantine’s death, when the Praetorian Prefect Gregorius applied severe measures.13 During the following years the most renowned chiefs of the Numidian bands were Axido and Fasir, who rapidly ac- quired a sinister reputation.’4 The insurgents became bold enough even to oppose regular troops. Some of the schismatic bishops became so alarmed at the excesses of their allies, that they asked Count Taurinus to intervene, and in the ensuing battle the Circumcellions were routed and massacred. Although the bishops condemned them, their followers venerated them as martyrs.15 During the revolts of Firmus and Gildo the Agonistici and the majority of the Donatists supported the rebel chiefs, and in the time of the latter they found their most notorious leader in Gildo’s satellite, Bishop Optatus of Thamugadi. He recruited bands of Circumcellions and for ten years terrorized Numidia. Escorted by his henchmen, he went constantly through the land, pillaging villages, ransoming cities, intervening in all manner of private affairs, persecuting Catholics, im- posing his whims everywhere.’1 After the defeat of Gildo he was arrested and died in prison.” Through the first half of Saint Augustine’s episcopate one constantly encounters the roving bands, and the Conference at Carthage in 411 called forth their last great outburst of terrorism.’8 Repressive measures followed, but one still hears of Circumcellions in 418.19

Numidia was the stronghold of the Circumcellions and, therefore, Hippo constantly felt their presence. They are mentioned frequently in Saint Augustine’s correspondence.20 Not only did the schismatic bishop of Hippo have their support, but his regular followers were more numerous than the other party when Augustine succeeded to the Catholic throne.21 The reversal of this situation22 in the face of Circumcellion activity was by no means one of the lesser of the great churchman’s achievements. In 395 the Circumcellions damaged the church at Asna and destroyed the altar. This led to the trial of the guilty ones, and Saint Augustine feared reprisals.23 The new bishop of Hippo soon made himself so feared and hated by the rival sect that the Circumcellions decided to do away with him. Several times he was waylaid, and once the ambush would have been successful if Augustine’s guide had not fortunately lost his way.24 After the facts were known, the Catholics regarded this as an instance of divine intervention.25 In 403 the Circumcellions maltreated a priest, a converted Donatist, during the twelve days they held him prisoner.2 In nearby Calama, Augustine’s friend and biographer, Possidius, was waylaid by a band under the command of a priest who was a relative of the Donatist bishop of the place. He escaped from the road to a neighboring domain, and the house in which he sought refuge was set on fire three times.27 After the edict of union of 405’2 the violence increased.29 The Donatists of Hippo were not persecuted to an extreme degree in the execution of this measure ;3 their churches were confiscated, but the bishop remained in residence, and the priests were not dispossessed.3′ However, the law was the signal for renewed activity by the fanatics.32 In 406 the Catholic clergy of Hippo protested to the Donatist Primate of Numidia that his clergy and Circumcellions were raging against them in a new persecution of unparalleled ferocity.33 The wild bands beat to death certain of the Catholic clergy and slew others with the sword.34 Other victims were blinded with lime and acid. Houses of clerics were pillaged, and the Circumcellions stalked about the diocese armed with formidable weapons and “breathing out threats of slaughter, rapine, burning of houses, and blinding of eyes.”35 These acts were repeated in other bishoprics,36 and at Thibilis, Bishop Simplicius, a feeble old man of ninety, was reduced to the status of a catechumen and then rebaptized.37 In 409 the Proconsul Donatus initiated a campaign against the Agonistici by the proclamation of an edict on the application of the laws.38 The provisions were so severe that Saint Augustine thought it wise to encourage Donatus to be moderate and merciful and not to inflict the death penalty.39 At Sinitum near Hippo the Donatist priests issued an audacious proclamation, and addressed Augustine in most abusive and menacing terms.4? He responded with an Advertisement to the Donatists in which he urged them to come into the church and justified the repressive laws.41 This led to the usual violence, but now the acts of the Circumcellions reacted to the discomfort of the Donatist prelates, who feared the application of the legal penalties. They, therefore, opened subscription lists to idemnify the proprietors who had suffered loss.42 Just at this time the Donatists of Hippo received a new bishop, Macrobius, who made a triumphal entry into the city escorted by the “Soldiers of Christ,” singing their usual chant of Deo Laudes.4 One of his first acts was the rebaptism of a Catholic sub-deacon.44 This stimulated his ferocious allies to acts of bestial cruelty so great that Saint Augustine informed a correspondent who lamented the barbarian invasions, that the ravages of the invaders would seem light in comparison with those of the Donatist terrorists. What barbarian would be so fiendishly cruel, blinding, beating, and wounding the clergy; plundering and burning houses; robbing granaries, and pouring out oil and wine; and, by threatening to do this to all others in the region, compel many to be rebaptized?45 The forty-eight inhabitants of one small village were thus coerced.46 The answer of the Circumcellions to the Conference of Carthage and the edict of 411 was their last outburst of terrorism. Led by clerics the Circumcellions harassed the region about Hippo. The priest Restitutus was slain, and another, Innocentius, was mutilated. The criminals were tried and condemned by the Proconsul Apringius, brother of Marcellinus;47 but Augustine urged a modification of the extreme penalty.48 Elsewhere the Circumcellions made night attacks, burned priests’ houses, and threw Catholic manuscripts of the Scriptures into the fire.49 They killed bishops and clerics, put out the eyes, and tore off the hand and tongue of one bishop.50 Former Donatist churches in Carthage which had been delivered again to the Catholics were burned.51 One still hears of Circumcellion violence in 418,52 about 420,53 and even under the Vandal domination.54

From the beginning Circumcellionism took and kept the character of a jacquerie,55 a social rebellion of the peasantry. Goaded by economic misery and slavery, the Circumcellions attempted to reform society. They were not content only to dominate the country-side, to pillage and burn the farms and villages, to kill or mutilate those who displeased them; but they posed further as the redressers of wrongs, and as the defenders of the oppressed. They drove to revolt the colons on the great domains, the farmers, the slaves, and the natives.56 They raged against the wealthy, especially the great proprietors ;5 and, even when they had no grudge against an individual and did not know him, they took pleasure in humiliating him if he belonged to this class. If they met a man who was riding in a vehicle, they forced him to descend and give place to one of his slaves while he himself ran before in the manner of his servitors.58 By the use of intimidation, usually in the form of threats of death or burning, the Circumcellions extorted large sums of money from the proprietors,59 or compelled them to liberate slaves or satisfy some other whim.60 They took debtors under their protection, and forced the creditor to cancel the debt by destroying or handing over the document which proved the debt. If one resisted, he was certain to be visited with night attacks and even the burning of his house and farm buildings. Sometimes they went so far as to reduce a wealthy man to slavery and force him to turn the mill.61

These audacious attacks against the rich, often to the advantage of the poor and oppressed, won for the Circumcellions the loyalty of a large portion of the rural population. They seldom ventured into the towns, but the rural districts were absolutely under their control.62 Ordinarily the magistrates had little desire to invade their domain to bring them to justice, and the tax-farmers and fiscal agents no longer attempted to collect the imposts in these regions.63 The interest of the emperors in the suppression of the Circumcellions was due to this state of affairs perhaps even more than to religious considerations.

This social revolution was not a part of the regular Donatist policy and was never officially sanctioned by the schismatic church. Nevertheless, the Circumcellions were first and foremost not social revolutionists, but religious fanatics. They were exalted Donatists, in their own opinion the very flower of the church. They were “soldiers of Christ,” the army of “saints,” and their commanders were the “chiefs of the saints.”64 The majority of them had taken vows of virginity or chastity, and they regarded themselves most favorably in comparison with the Catholic monks and nuns.65 One of their most marked characteristics was an aspiration to martyrdom, which they believed could be voluntarily achieved.66 Although they confused martyrdom with suicide, they did not wish to strike the fatal blow themselves for fear that they might thus exclude them- selves from Paradise. They, therefore, sought for persons to kill them, and in a letter to Count Boniface, Saint Augustine related some of their practices.67 “Vast crowds of them used to come in processions to the most frequented pagan ceremonies, while the worship of idols still continued, not with the view of breaking the idols, but that they might be put to death by those who worshipped them. For if they had sought to break the idols under the sanction of lawful authority, they might in case of anything happening to them, have some show of a claim to be considered martyrs; but their only object in coming was, that while the idols might remain uninjured, they themselves might meet with death. For it was the general custom of the strongest youths among the idolaters, for each of them to offer in sacrifice to the idols themselves any victims that they might have slain. Some went so far as to offer themselves for slaughter to any armed travellers whom they met, using violent threats that they would murder them if they failed to meet with death at their hands. Sometimes too they extorted with violence from any passing judge that they should be put to death by the executioners, or by the officers of his court. And hence we have a story, that a certain judge played a trick upon them, by ordering them to be bound and led away as though for execution, and so escaped their violence, without injury to himself or them. Again it was their daily sport to kill themselves by throwing themselves over precipices, or into the water, or into fire; for the devil taught them these three ways of suicide, so that when they wished to die and could not find anyone whom they could terrify into slaying them with his sword, they threw themselves over the rocks, or committed themselves to the fire or to the eddying pool.” In the latter cases they sought to es- cape the charge of suicide by the assertion that they were thus escaping from their persecutors.

The other constant expression of this religious fanaticism was the persecution of the Catholic clergy, especially of those who had rallied to the church from Donatism.6 This use of the Circumcellions as the Donatist instrument of hate is characteristic of the schism throughout its entire history. In their fiendish work the wild bands were usually led by Donatist clerics, occasionally even by bishops like the notorious Optatus, a fact which proves the close, if unofficial, alliance between the “Soldiers of Christ” and the schismatic church.69 Saint Augustine frequently denounced this connection to the Donatists themselves.70 Many Donatist prelates did condemn the Circumcellions, and even Macrobius of Hippo, who began his episcopate in alliance with them, ended by denouncing them to their faces, although he expressed himself in Latin, and not in Punic which they understood.71 The majority, however, seem to have desired to keep the Circumcellions without being compromised with them, and to retain public favor without breaking with them.72 That must have been most difficult at times. In the end it led to the downfall of the sect, for it was the persistence of Circumcellion terrorism more than any other thing which induced the Catholic church to use the forces of the state in order to execute a relentless policy of coercion.

• 1 Augustine, Epistulae, 43. 17, 76. 2 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), pp. 99, 327). [In the following notes the Epistulae of Augustine will be cited as Ep.]; Optatus, De Schismate Donatistarum, I. 19 (CSEL, v. 26, p. 21). [Hereafter cited as Optatus].
• 2 For the history of the schism see volume IV of Monceaux, Histoire litteraire de I’Afrique chretienne.
• 3 Ep., 66. 2; 108. 14; 209. 2-3 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), pp. 236, 628; v. 57, p. 348); Augustine, In Johan. Ep. Tracitatus, II, 3 (PL v. 35, p. 1191).
• 4 The periods of imperial persecution of the Donatists were 317-321, 347-362, and following 411. Throughout the entire period there was a steadily in- creasing mass of legislation against the party. and it is too detailed to review here.
• 5 Baxter, Select Letters of St. Augustine, p. xxxii.
• 6 Ep., 35.2; 108. 14; 185. 12, 15 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), pp. 28, 628; v. 57, pp. 11, 14); Optatus, III., 4 (CSEL, 26, pp. 82-4).
• 7 Ep., 108. 14 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), p. 628).
• 8 Ep., 81. 1, 6, 7; 105. 3; 108. 14; 111. 1; 133. 1; 134. 2; 185. 25 (CSEL. v. 34 (2), pp. 407, 412, 413, 597, 627, 643; v. 44, pp. 80, 85; v. 57, p. 24); Augustine, Contra Crescon., III, 43. 47; IV, 51. 61 (PL, v. 43, pp. 522, 580-1); Breviculss Collationis, III, 11. 21, 22 (PL, v. 43, pp. 635-6); Optatus, III, 4 (CSEL, v. 26, p. 81, 83).
• 9 Ep., 108. 18 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), p. 632): Augustine, Enar. in Ps., 132. 3 (PL, v. 37, p. 1732); Optatus, III, 4 (CSEL, v. 26, p. 81).
• 10 Augustine, Contra Gaudent., I, 28. 32 (PL, v. 43, p. 725); Enar. in Ps., 132. 3 (PL, v. 37, p. 1732), Nam Circumcelliones dicti sunt, quia cireum cellas vagantur.
• 11 Monceaux, Hist. lit. de I’Afr. chrét., IV., p. 179.
• 12 Augustine, Contra Ep. Parmen., I, 11. 18 (PL., 43, p. 47).
• 13 Monceaux, Hist. lit. de I’Afr. chret., IV., p. 31; Kidd, Hist. of the Church to A. D. 461, II, p. 112.
• 14 Optatus, III. 4 (CSEL, v. 26, p. 82).
• 15 Ibid.
• 16 Ep., 43. 24; 51. 3; 53. 6; 76. 3; 87. 4, 5, 8; 108. 5 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), pp. 106, 147, 157, 327, 400, 401, 404, 616); Augustine, Contra Lit. Petil., I, 24. 26; II, 23. 53-55; 28. 65; 37. 88; 39. 94; 52. 120; 103. 237 (PI, v. 43, pp. 257, 276-9, 281, 291, 293, 301, 340); Monceaux, Hist. lit. de I’Afr. chret., IV, p. 65.
• 17 Augustine, Contra Lit. Petil., II, 92. 209 (PL, v. 43, p. 330).
• 18 Ep., 133; 134; 139. 1-2; 185. 30 (CSEL, v. 44, pp. 80ff, 148-50; v. 57, p. 28); Augustine, Contra Gaudent., I, 6. 7 (PL, v. 43, p. 709); Gesta cum Emerito, IX, (PL, v. 43, p. 704); Possidius, Vita Aug., 15.
• 19 Augustine, Gesta cum Emerito, IX, (PL, v. 43, p. 704); Monceaux, Hist. lit. de ‘Afr. chrét., IV, p. 94.
• 20 Ep., 23. 6-7; 29. 12; 35. 2; 43. 24; 76. 2; 88. 1, 6-8; 93. 2; 105. 3; 108. 14, 18; 111. 1; 133. 1; 134. 2; 139. 1-2; 185. 12, 25-27, 30, 41; 209. 2 (CSEL, v. 34 (1) pp. 70, 72, 122; v. 34 (2), pp. 28, 106, 327, 407, 412- 15, 447, 597, 627, 632, 643-4; v. 44, pp. 80-81, 85, 148-150, v. 57; pp. 10-12, 14, 24-25, 28, 36, 348).
• 21 Ep., 93. 17 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), pp. 461-2).
• 22 Even in the most remote districts of the diocese. Ep., 209. 2 (CSEL, v. 57, p. 348).
• 23 Ep., 29. 12 (CSEL, v. 34 (1), p. 122).
• 24 Augustine, Enar. in Ps., 54. 26; 132. 6 (PL, v. 36, p. 645; v. 37, p. 1732); Enchiridion, XVII (PL, v. 40, p. 239); Possidius, Vita Aug., 12; Cf. Ep. 88. 6 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), p. 412).
• 25 Possidius, Vita Aug., 12.
• 26 Ep., 88. 6-7 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), p. 412-413); Augustine, Contra Cresc., III, 46. 50-47. 51 (PL, v. 43, pp. 523-5).
• 27 Ep. 105. 4 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), p. 598), Possidius, Vita Aug. 14.
• 28 Cod. Theod, XVI, 5. 38, 6. 3-5; Ep. 88. 10; 185. 26 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), p. 416; v. 57, p. 26). This formal outlawry of Donatism brought into the Catholic fold so many of the wavering and moderate classes who were alarmed at the growing fury of the Circumcellions that Saint Augustine was at last whole-heartedly converted to the policy of coercion.
• 29 Ep., 88. 1, 6-8; 105. 3-4; 108. 14-16; 111. 1 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), pp. 407, 412- 415, 597-8; 627-30, 643-4).
• 30 Ep. 88. 8 (CSEL, 34 (2), p. 414).
• 31 Ibid.
• 32 Ep., 86; 88. 8-12; 105. 3; 106; 107; 108; 111. 1 (CSEL., v. 34 (2), pp. 396-7, 414-418, 597, 610-11, 611-12, 612-34, 643-4).
• 33 Ep., 88 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), pp. 407-419).
• 34 Ibid., 8 (p. 414).
• 35 Ibid.
• 36 Gesta Collat. Carth., I, 139, 187-189, 201 (Mansi, v. IV., pp. 123, 137-142, 149- 153.
• 37 Ibid., 188, 197.
• 38 Ep., 100. 2 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), p. 538); Cf. Cod. Theod., XVI, 5. 44.
• 39 Ep. 100 (pp. 535-538).
• 40 Ep., 105. 1, 4, 17 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), pp. 595-6, 597, 610).
• 41 Ep., 105 (pp. 595-610).
• 42 Ep., 108. 18 (CSEL v. 34 (2), p. 632).
• 43 Ibid., 18 (p. 632). Saint Augustine says that this “war-cry” was more dreadful than the roaring of the lion. Enar. in Ps., 132. 6 (PL., v. 37, p. 1732).
• 44 Ep., 106; 107; 108 (CSEL v. 34 (2), pp. 610-634).
• 45 Ep., 111. 1 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), pp. 643-4).
• 46 Ibid.
• 47 Ep., 133. 1; 134. 2; 139. 1-2; 185. 30 (CSEL, v. 44, pp. 80-81, 85, 148-150- v. 57, p. 28).
• 48 Ep., 133; 134 (CSEL, v. 44, pp. 80ff, 84ff).
• 49 Ep., 185. 30 (CSEL, v. 57, p. 28).
• 50 Ibid.
• 51 Augustine, Contra Gaudent., I, 6. 7 (PL, v. 43, p. 709).
• 52 Augustine Gesta cum Emerito 12 (PL, v. 43, p. 706).
• 53 Ibid.; Contra Gaudent., I, 22. 25 (PL, v. 43, pp. 720-21). About 420 to 423 there were still a number of fugitive remnants of the wandering bands. Ep., 209. 2 (CSEL, v. 57, p. 348).
• 54 Victor of Vita, Hist. Persecutionis Africae Provinciae (De Perseoutione Vanadalica), III, 10 (PL, v. 58, p. 225-6); Monceaux, Hist. lit. de l’Afr. chret., IV, p. 180.
• 55 Monceaux, Hist. lit. de l’Afr. chret., IV, p. 181.
• 56 Ep., 108. 18; 185. 15 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), p. 632; v. 57, p. 14); Optatus, III. 4 (CSEL, v. 26, pp. 81ff); Monceaux, Hist. lit. de 1′Afrique chret., IV, p. 182.
• 57 Ep., 108. 18; 185. 15 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), p. 632; v. 57, p. 14).
• 58 Optatus, III. 4 (CSEL, v. 26, p. 82).
• 59 Ibid.
• 60 Ep., 185. 15 (CSEL, v. 57, p. 14).
• 61 Ibid.
• 62 Augustine, Contra Lit. Petil., II, 83. 184 ( PL., v. 43, pp. 316-317); Contra Cresc., III, 42. 46 (pp. 520-21); Ad Don. Post. Col., 17. 22 (p. 666); Contra Gaudent., I, 28. 32 (p. 725).
• 63 Ep. 185. 15 (CSEL, v. 57, p. 14).
• 64 “Sanctorum duces,” Optatus, III. 4 (CSEL, v. 26, p. 82); Augustine, Enar. in Ps., 132. 6 (PL, v. 37, p. 173).
• 65 “Continentes, virgines sanctae, sanctimoniales.” Augustine regarded these Donatist virgins as “bands of homeless women who have declined matrimony in order that they may avoid restraint.” Ep., 35. 2 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), p. 28). Cf. Enar. in Ps., 132. 4, 6 (PL, v. 37, pp. 1730, 1732); Contra Ep. Parmen., II, 3. 6; 9. 19 (PL., v. 43, pp. 53, 62); Contra lit. Petil; II, 88. 195 (PL., v. 43, p. 320); Contra Gaudent., I, 31. 37; 36. 46 (PL, v. 43, pp. 729, 734-5).
• 66 Ep., 43. 24; 88. 8; 185. 8, 12; 204. 1-2, 5 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), pp. 106, 415; v. 57, pp. 8, 10-11, 317-18, 320); Optatus, III., 4 (CSEL, v. 26, p. 82f); Augustine, Ad. Don. Post Col., 17. 22 (PL, v. 43, p. 666); Contra Gaudent., I, 22. 25; 27. 30-31; 28. 32 ( PL, v. 43, pp. 720-21, 724, 725).
• 67 Ep., 185. 12 (CSEL, v. 57, pp. 10-11).
• 68 Ep., 88. 6; 105. 3, 4; 133. 1; 134. 2; 139. 1-2; 185. 18 (CSEL, v. 24 (2), pp. 412, 597-8; v. 44, pp. 80-81, 85, 148-50; v. 57, p. 16).
• 69 Ep., 88. 6, 7; 105. 3; 108. 14; 111. 1; 131. 1; 134. 2, 185. 2, 5 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), pp. 412, 413, 597, 627, 643; v. 57, p. 24); Augustine, Contra Cresc., III, 43. 47; IV, 51. 61 (PL, v. 43, pp. 522, 581).
• 70 Ep., 76. 2 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), p. 327): Ipse dixit, Messores angli sunt, non dixit, Messores principes Circumeellionum sint. The clerics were always the duces Circumncellionum, as Ep., 105. 3 (CSEL, v. 34 (2), p. 597). Cf.: Ep., 88. 1 (p. 407), and Contra Cresc., III, 43. 47 (PL, v. 43, p. 522).
• 71 Ep., 108. 14 (CSEL, v. 34 (2) p. 627).
• 72 Ibid., 18 (p. 632).

Beaver. The Donatist Circumcellions.

BISHOPS IN THE ANTI-DONATIST POLEMIC

BY

ROBERT B. ENO

Since the Reformation, the early history of the Roman primacy has been a matter of emotional debate as well as of earnest study. Certain texts have been the object of intense scrutiny in the process. Among patristic works, the writings of Cyprian have remained a special locus of contention. His view of the role of Peter and his use of the phrase “the chair of Peter” in particular have fascinated generations of scholars and polemicists alike. In this essay, I will argue that Cyprian’s view of Peter as the source and font of unity in the Church is still basic to the ecclesiology of the fourth century African author, Optatus of Milevis, and is still operative, albeit in a more vestigial fashion, in the anti-Donatist polemic of Augustine. Their use of the list of Roman bishops in such polemic derives ultimately from Cyprian’s view of Peter’s role as symbol of unity in the Church and is less directly concerned with Roman primacy than most commentators have usually presumed.
The lists of bishops found in certain early Christian documents have been of interest for several reasons. Those investigating the origins of the monarchical episcopate seek to determine if the names given are historical. They try to clarify the functions of those called episkopoi at the end of the first century. The idea of succession preoccupies others. Succession lists furnished one of the cornerstones for Eusebius in constructing his Church History. It is clear that in the second century, the monarchical episcopate, joined with the claim to apostolic foundation for certain sees, became a key element in elaborating a defence against Gnosticism.
Though Hegesippus spoke of making a diadoche of the bishops of Rome, when his text was cited by Eusebius, no list was given. It was left to Irenaeus to pass on the earliest list still extant. He argued that someone seeking to know the teaching of Jesus should go, not to the Gnostic masters, but to the Christian communities historically founded in the first century by the Apostles. He stressed that while there were a good number of such communities, especially in the east, for the sake of brevity, he would give only the list of the bishops of the outstanding community of apostolic foundation, Rome. The significance of his argument as well as of the list itself have long been debated. Apart from the list, the meanings of certain words such as principalitas have been the occasion for much research. In recent decades principalitas has been widely accepted as linked to the idea of “nobility or prestige of origin”, referring, of course, to the founding of the Roman church by Peter and Paul and not simply an indication of priority, historical or hierarchical.’
Irenaeus’ work in turn is usually considered to have been the foremost influence on Tertullian as the latter formulated his attack against heresy in the De praescriptione haereticorum. Seekers after truth, such as the Gnostics claimed to be, are invited to make better use of their time and curiosity by consulting their local see of apostolic origin. While he refers to bishop lists as part of his argumentation, Tertullian, unlike Irenaeus, did not actually give any. He did, however, introduce the notion of the “chair” of the Apostles, a term that will become more vital in the writings of Cyprian. Similarly, his use of principalitas in De praescriptione 31.1 may also be revelatory of how Cyprian uses a related word in his letter 59.14.2
As is well-known, in his Montanist period, Tertullian limited the Petrine privileges to Peter personally, denying that such powers were passed on to any successor or group of successors such as the bishops of the institutional Church. The position against which Tertullian is arguing seems to be the belief on the part of some that Peter functioned as the representative of the Church. What he received from Christ was meant for the Church, of which Peter was the symbol.3

Cyprian

The next great African author after Tertullian was Cyprian. Today, most scholars agree with the conclusions of Maurice Bevenot4 that in chapter four of the De unitate ecclesiae, Peter, because he is temporally the first to receive the authority that Christ gives to his Church, becomes for Cyprian the symbol of the unity of the Church. The Church is and must remain one because of the oneness of Peter at its origin. “…Ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit.” “…Unam tamen cathedram constituit et unitatis originem adque rationem sua auctoritate disposuit.”5
There is nothing strange about this unity of the Church; unity is a quality of God and thus should be characteristic of everything associated with God. “Deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata.” Throughout Cyprian’s writings, certain key words are closely associated with this reasoning about the unity of the Church: origo, radix, matrix, caput, ratio. But that the words are not confined solely to an ecclesiological context can be seen from a remark in his treatise against Demetrianus: “…Comites tibi plures radicis adque originis tuae pullulatione fecisti.”6
In letter 48 to Cornelius, Cyprian mentions that he has urged those travelling to Rome to be very careful about which party in the city they approach for fellowship. He exhorted them “…ut ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem agnoscerent ac tenerent.” The matrix and radix here do not refer to the Roman church as such but the “womb and root” are the Catholic Church. Since there is a schism in the Christian community of Rome, it is vital for Carthaginian Catholics to enter into communion with the Catholic community there. This is the community led by Cornelius, the bishop of the Catholic Church in Rome, not that of Novatian, the leader of a schismatic group.7
Other texts make it clear that Peter in his singularity is, precisely as symbol, the exemplar and font of the Church’s unity. “… Quando et baptisma unum sit et Spiritus Sanctus unus et una ecclesia a Christo Domino nostro super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata.” To Jubaianus, Cyprian insists that he (and Catholic bishops everywhere) hold the caput and radix of the Church. This is a certainty. Catholic bishops hold the “rationis ac veritatis firmitatem.” Later in the same letter, he reiterates: “Nam Petro primum Dominus, super quem aedificavit ecclesiam et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit…” In the Latin translation of his letter to Cyprian, Firmilian of Caesarea spoke of the fundamentum unius ecclesiae laid by Christ on Peter.
The De unitate makes use of this same vocabulary. The Devil helps to stir up dissension in the Church “…dum ad veritatis originem non reditur, nec caput quaeritur…” This is stated at the end of chapter three. He then proceeds at the beginning of the following chapter to cite the probatio facilis for this claim. The proof is none other than the text Matt 16: 18-19.8
The text of letter 59.14 is of fundamental importance for our question. It is the one place where Cyprianic speculation about the symbolic significance of Peter for unity seems to touch the contemporary church of Rome. Carthaginian schismatics, not content with the trouble they have caused in Africa, have now set sail for Rome “…ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est…” I will not linger over discussions of the meaning of principalis and cognate forms but, suffice it to say that I use it as does G. Clarke when he translates the phrase as “the primordial church”. As mentioned earlier, such a translation clearly is related to the now commonly accepted interpretation of Irenaeus’ use of principalitas in Adversus haereses III.3.2 when he speaks of the Roman church’s potior principalitas, referring to its extraordinary foundation by the two leading apostles.
The church of Rome is Peter’s church historically although it is not literally the primordial church; only the church in Jerusalem fulfills that role in history. I believe that here Cyprian is invoking once again his customary reference to Peter as the person whose oneness is both the symbol and the source of the unity of the Church. Here in letter 59.14 he extends the symbolic reference to incorporate Peter’s church as the source of unity thus making Rome the symbolic primordial church, the Urkirche. As the remainder of section 14 of letter 59 indicates, such symbolic reasoning has no bearing on questions of possible Roman authority over the rest of the Church.9
We cannot leave Cyprian without insisting one final time on the significance for him of Peter as the symbol of that essential characteristic or mark of the Church, its unity. I believe that Cyprian’s own statement in his letter 33 provides a key to his extension of the oneness of Peter-unity of the Church symbolism to include Peter’s own Church. “Dominus noster…episcopi honorem et ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in evangelio loquitur et dicit Petro…(Matt 16: 18- 19)…Inde per temporum et successionum vices episcoporum ordinatio et ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut ecclesia super episcopos constituatur et omnis actus ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur.”10

Optatus of Milevis

Why does Optatus include a list of the bishops of Rome in his anti-Donatist polemic? I maintain that he does so because he is still operating very much within the framework of Cyprian’s ecclesiology. The list is not primarily about succession as such but it is included because it is the list of the bishops of Peter’s “primordial church” as in Cyprian’s letter 59.14. It should be read as the extension and updating of the basic con- tention of Cyprian that Peter is the symbolic person at the origins of the Church, the person whose oneness grounds the unity of the Church throughout history.
When Optatus wrote a century after Cyprian, the situation of the Church had changed in several ways. Obviously the position of the Church in relation to the empire had altered radically. The Christian population had vastly increased. The ecclesiological arguments formulated by Cyprian in the face of local schism were no longer adequate for the new reality of the region-wide schism of the Donatists.
Nevertheless, the theological framework within which Optatus thought and wrote was still largely shaped by Cyprianic concepts and vocabulary. For example, though the Donatist schism was widespread, the theological arguments about the dotes, a concept suggested by Parmenian, revolved principally around the cathedra of one see, Carthage. While Optatus begins his second book with an argument con- fronting the new reality of his own time, viz. an argument from geographic catholicity over against the Donatists’ isolation and remnant theology, still he speaks in Cyprianic terms of the “cathedra Petri vel Cypriani”. The whole argumentation over the dotes revolves around the question of the cathedra and Optatus can claim: “…per cathedram Petri, quae nostra est, per ipsam et ceteras dotes apud nos esse.”‘
From the point of view of vocabulary as well, Optatus’ thought can be seen as still strongly Cyprianic. For example the use of radix. For Optatus as for Cyprian, the root is the Catholic Church. North African Catholics, Optatus asserts, remain in radice with the whole world. Conversely, the Donatists have cut themselves off from the root. Severed from the root of Mother Church, the Donatist community in the city of Rome together with their bishop is but a “ramus … vestri erroris, protentus de mendacio, non de radice veritatis.”’2 Cyprian had argued against Novatian that his cathedra was of his own creation, since Cornelius now lawfully occupied the sole legitimate cathedra of the Roman church. So, in a similar fashion, Optatus argued that the chair of Parmenian’s predecessor, Maiorinus, had no source of existence (origo) before he undertook to sit in it. The Donatists are a river without a source. The word origo is also applied to the historic beginnings of the schism. In Optatus, origo and caput connote not simply a sense of temporal beginning but also the source, not just the point where something starts but also the font out of which all later developments are drawn. Interestingly enough, the same point can be made about the word princeps and its cognate forms found in Optatus. Peter is the Catholic princeps. Principes tui, on the other hand, are not just the first Donatist leaders but the source and origin of all later troubles. 3
For this essay, the key passage in Optatus is that found early in book II where the list of Roman bishops is given. Here, I believe, the essential thought and base of argumentation remain those of Cyprian, especially as found in his letter 59.14. “…in urbe Roma Petro primo cathedram episcopalem esse conlatam, in qua sederit omnium apostolorum caput Petrus, unde et Cephas est appellatus.” Caput here means font and source as much as chief. The reason given by Optatus for Christ’s choice of Peter is exactly the same as Cyprian’s reasoning in De unitate 4: “…in qua una cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur, ne ceteri apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent, ut iam scismaticus et peccator esset, qui contra singularem cathedram alteram conlocaret.”’4 Then, in Optatus’ text, the list of Roman bishops follows.
Bringing forward the argument from geographic catholicity, Optatus notes that North African Catholics are in communion with this see of Rome. But then he challenges the Donatists not to show first of all whether they are in communion with Rome, but to demonstrate the origin of their chair. They do not have the dos of the cathedra because their first bishop did not sit on the chair of Peter, i.e. the chair of Cyprian.
Finally, in 11.4 comes the question of the so-called Donatist succession in Rome. Did Macrobius sit on the chair of Peter? Was he the lawful bishop of Rome? Did he sit in the place of the real contemporary bishop of Rome? Obviously not. He sat only in the same place his immediate predecessors sat, going back to Victor of Garba, the first immigrant African leader of the small Donatist community in Rome. 5
Though plainly a new element has entered the theological picture because of the argument from geographic catholicity, the same basic ecclesiology of Cyprian still prevails in Optatus. Communion with Rome, the most important and sole apostolic see of the west, is emphasized in order to highlight the isolation of the Donatists in North Africa. In itself, being in communion with Rome does not necessarily make any statement about primacy. The list of Roman bishops is introduced into the argument and it is brought forward to Optatus’ day because it constitutes an extension of Cyprian’s statement about Peter’s see as the Urkirche. The list also contrasts with the much briefer list of the Donatist bishops of Rome but its primary function is that it is the list of the bishops of Peter’s symbolic primordial church.

Augustine

Moving forward to the time of Augustine, we should take note that the relevant material from his pen comes from his earlier period, i.e. c.400 and before. One may wonder whether, if the newly-baptized Augustine had been able to hold to his original resolve and had never become a priest or bishop, we would have learned from the writings of this intellectual monk that there was a phenomenon in the North African church at the time known as Donatism. As it happened, the recently converted Augustine turned pastor was forced to confront the not very philosophically inclined movement of Donatism. It is not surprising that he quickly embraced and made much use of previously existing materials, not only the works of Optatus but also, no doubt, of what was probably a long-standing body of Catholic apologetic against Donatism with standard arguments and proof-texts as well as documentation concerning the historical aspects of the quarrel.
To this material, Augustine soon contributed his own Psalmus contra partem Donati (c.393-96). The relevant stanza begins with the thought that to be able to live, one must cease being cut off from the vine and return to live in radice. Then at the very end of the stanza come the words:

Numerate sacerdotes
vel ab ipsa Petri sede
et in ordine illo patrum
quis cui successit videte:
ipsa est petra quam non vincunt
superbae inferorum portae.16

In his treatise against the fundamental letter of Mani (397), Augustine gave his reasons for rejecting the invitation to accept the writings of Mani as a sort of Scripture. The massive reality of the Catholic Church is a decisive factor in that rejection. With a very clear echo of Cyprian’s letters 33.1 and 59.14, he says: “…tenet ab ipsa sede Petri apostoli, cui pascendas oves suas post resurrectionem Dominus commendavit, usque ad praesentem episcopatum successio sacerdotum…”
Returning to the debate with the Donatists, in his letter 43 (c.397-98) to several Carthaginian Donatists, he speaks of the importance of the see of Carthage at the historical origins of the controversy. It was linked to Rome “…in qua semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus…” The word principatus in this phrase has traditionally been translated into English as “primacy” but within the context of the tradition of Cyprian’s ecclesiology which, I maintain, is still alive in this early letter of Augustine, the word might more aptly, if not more felicitously, be translated as “primordiality”. Augustine’s phrase thus might be rendered: the Roman church, “in which the primordiality of the apostolic chair has always flourished…”
About two years later, in a letter to a Catholic of Cirta harassed by Donatists, Augustine ridicules Donatist claims (Letter 53, c.400). Catholics in Africa are in communion with the whole world so that alleged messages from angels demanding conversion to Donatism are to be ignored. The Donatist succession? What is that compared to the Catholic succession? “Si enim ordo episcoporum sibi succedentium considerandus est, quanto certius et vere salubriter ab ipso Petro numeramus, cui totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti Dominus ait:…” There follows the text of Matt 16:18f. and the list of the Rome bishops up to Anastasius.
Presumably it would not have been difficult for Augustine to have furnished at least a partial list of the Catholic bishops of Cirta to illustrate his argument. But he did not. Rather the by now traditional list of Roman bishops, the bishops of Cyprian’s primordial church, is given. The list and the argument were taken by Augustine from the African tradition as formed largely by Cyprian. But at this later date, to what extent can we be sure that Augustine himself is still consciously imbued with this traditional ecclesiology? It is difficult to be precise because we cannot read his mind.
There are clear indications that he no longer appreciated the full depth of the tradition he had inherited. For example, two observations are made by Augustine which go beyond the Cyprianic origins of the argument and are adapted to the need of his own day. He notes that no Donatist is to be found in the list, a reference presumably to the worth- less argument derived from a so-called Donatist succession in Rome. Further, he says, no traditor is to be found there either, an allusion perhaps to the accusation that, during the persecution of Diocletian, one bishop of Rome was guilty of something worse than traditio in the African sense, actual apostasy and idolatry, of betrayal by sacrificing to the traditional gods of Rome.17
One reason why the Cyprianic tradition may be weakening in Augustine is that it is still very strong among his opponents the Donatists. To be sure, they put much more emphasis on questions of origin than on the theme of unity. The whole vocabulary of origo, radix and mater/pater in the older usages is increasingly the property of the schismatics, as the objections of Petilian show. “Omnis res enim origine et radice consistit et, si caput non habet aliquid, nihil est…” On the third day of the conference of Carthage in 411, Petilian is still badgering Augustine with the question: Is Caecilian your father? In this matter too the Donatists could congratulate themselves on their literal, perhaps too literal, fidelity to Cyprian. Augustine’s answers go beyond the old framework. Later in the Contra litteras Petiliani (400-02), Augustine replies to his antagonist in terms of geographic catholicity. The Donatists are not in communion with the chair of the Roman church in which Peter sat and in which Anastasius now sits nor with the chair of Jerusalem in which James once sat and in which John now sits. In this passage, succession is an issue but not solely that of Rome. In his argu- ment from geographic catholicity, Augustine consistently appeals not only to the question of communion with Rome but also to communion with those eastern sees mentioned in the New Testament, in Paul’s let- ters and in the Apocalypse.
So, while the elements of the Cyprianic argument are still in place in the early theological development of Augustine, the original meaning seems to have faded a great deal and what remains is there primarily as a vestige which he inherited. The older African tradition has yielded in Augustine to the changed circumstances of the Donatist controversy. Yet, interestingly enough, even as Cyprian’s picture of Peter as the man whose oneness embodied the foundation of the Church’s unity, faded, Augustine was himself developing his own version of Peter’s symbolic significance, reverting in a way to the early Tertullian.
Very often for Augustine, Peter is the symbol of the Church as a whole, not just its unity, although certainly not excluding it. Peter speaks, unus pro omnibus. Peter receives; the Church receives. “Immo vero et in ipso Petro unitatem commendavit.” Already in letter 53, he noted that the words of Jesus in Matt. 16:18 had been addressed to Peter as representing the whole Church. Without going any further into this, one can safely say that this usage is found with great frequency in Augustine.18

Conclusion

Most scholars are in agreement that Cyprian’s use of the symbols of Peter and the Chair of Peter are not part of an argument in favor of Roman primacy. Indeed, many would claim that his views are inimical to such a development. In this essay, I have argued that the symbolic use of Peter and of Peter’s church, the ecclesia principalis, plays an integral and foundational role in the African ecclesiology so heavily influenced by Cyprian. Further, I see Optatus of Milevis as firmly in line with Cyprian’s ideas, so much so that when he introduces the list of Roman bishops into his anti-Donatist work, he is presenting them as the extension of Cyprian’s Petrine symbolism, not primarily as a reference to the contemporary see of Rome and its primacy in the Church. The list fleshes out the thought of Cyprian expressed in letter 33. “(Matt 16:18-19)…Inde per temporum et successionum vices episcoporum ordinatio. . .decurrit… ”
In his early anti-Donatist polemic, Augustine makes use of traditional material already to hand and, in one place, repeats the Roman bishop list. I believe that he does this primarily because this is what Catholic apologists before have done; it is the North African Catholic tradition. He seems, however, to have lost the full sense of the significance the symbolism once had for Cyprian.
In fine then, the lists are only indirectly a factor to be considered in the study of the development of the Roman primacy. Their first relevance is to the study of the development of the North African ecclesiology. As the remarks of the Donatist bishops show, the Africans attributed ultimate importance to origins, both as beginning and source. There is more continuity here than initially meets the eye.

NOTES

• 1 Irenaeus Adversus haereses III.3.1-3. SC 211.30-39. Comments and bibliography, SC 210.228-236. The text of III.3.2: “…ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam…”
• 2 Tertullian De praescriptione haereticorum 36 CCSL 1.216. Principalitas veritatis vs. Posteritas mendacitatis. 31 CCSL 1.212.
  It has usually been taken for granted that Irenaeus’ statements in Adv.haer. III.3.2 should be understood as extolling the Roman church as the exemplar for the entire Church throughout the world. But others have recently argued that Irenaeus should be understood in the light of Tertullian who makes use of Irenaeus’ ideas and who clearly sees Rome as the apostolic see of, and exemplar for, the Church in the west only. Cf. N. Brox, “Probleme einer Fruhdatierung des romischen Primats’ Kairos 18 (1976) 81-99. At about the same time as Brox, E. Lanne published an article: “L’eglise de Rome” in Irenikon 49 (1976) 275-322. Toward the end of the article (318ff.), he writes that a fragment of Irenaeus’ work dating very close to the time of composition has been found in Egypt. Lanne concludes from this that the passage in question, Adv.haer. 111.3, should be under- stood in a universal rather than in a merely local or western sense. In my view, the fragment of Irenaeus found in Egypt says something about the popularity of the work rather than about the intention of the author.
• 3 Tertullian De pudicitia 21 CCSL 2.1328. Tertullian’s opponents believe that because of Matt 16:18, the power of the keys has been given to the Church. In this context, the much discussed phrase occurs: “i.e. ad omnem ecclesiam Petri propinquam”, p. 1327. In the earlier Scorpiace, 10.8, Tertullian himself seemed to accept the view that the Church received the keys from God through Peter. CCSL 2.1088.
• 4 In addition to his critical edition of the De unitate in CCSL, Bevenot was the author of many studies on Cyprian. See, for example: “Episcopat et primaute chez S. Cyprien” EphThLov 42 (1966) 176-185. Bevenot’s views have been widely accepted. See, for example, Michael Fahey, Cyprian and the Bible (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1971). (Concerning Cyprian’s use of Matt 16:18f p. 309) “The text as Cyprian uses it, is not cited to argue a form of jurisdictional primacy for the Roman bishop; rather it is cited to emphasize the oneness of the Church founded by Christ first upon the person of Peter in order to provide an effective symbol of its oneness.”
• 5 Both citations are from ch. 4 of the De unitate. (CCSL 3.251) The first text comes from the TR or revised text in Bevenot’s reading; the second from the PT or original version of Bevenot’s now widely accepted view.
• 6 Cyprian ep. 43.5 Budé ed. Bayard p. 107; Ad Demetrianum 2 CCSL 3A.36.
• 7 Cyprian ep. 48.3 Bayard p. 118. There are still those who identify the matrix and radix with Rome as such. For example: A. Demoustier, “Episcopat et union a Rome selon saint Cyprien” RechScRel 52 (1964) 369; Charles Pietri, Roma Christiana Vol. 1, p. 306. (Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d’Athenes et de Rome. Fs. 224) (Paris: Boccard, 1976).
• 8 Cyprian, ep. 70.3 Bayard p. 255; ep. 73.2 p. 263; ep. 73.7 p. 266; ep. 75.16 p. 301. De unitate 3-4 CCSL 3.251. It should be noted that these remarks are made before the disputed section of chapter 4.
• 9 Cyprian ep. 59.14. Bayard p. 183. G. Clarke ACW 46.82 with commentary and bibliography pp. 257-258 (1986). U. Wickert, Sacramentum Unitatis (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971) comments on earlier literature, especially in chapter 7. The most noteworthy earlier studies on the ecclesia principalis phrase are: H. Koch, Cathedra Petri (1930); B. Poschmann, Ecclesiaprincipalis (1933) and P. Batiffol, Cathedra Petri (1938), a compila- tion of earlier essays.
• 10 Cyprian ep. 33.1 Bayard p. 84.
• 11 Optatus Contra Parmenianum 1.10 CSEL 26.12; 11.9 CSEL 26.45 respectively. On Optatus, see R. B. Eno, “The Work of Optatus as a Turning-point in the African Ecclesiology” The Thomist 37(1973) 668-685. The recent essay of Jane Merdinger, “Optatus Reconsidered” StPat 22.294-299, a paper given at the 1987 Oxford Patristic conference, seems to me to exaggerate the degree to which Optatus has been considered a champion of papal primacy.
• 12 Optatus 11.4 CSEL 26.37. Cf. also 1.15,28 CCSL 26.18,31; III.9 CSEL 26.93; 1.11 CSEL 26.14.
• 13 The chair ofMaiorinus: I.10 CSEL 26.12; “River without a source” 11.9 CSEL 26.45; “Principes vestri” VI.3 CSEL 26.147; “Peter, Catholic princeps” 11.4 CSEL 26.39; Donatist principes, passim, especially: 1.21 CSEL 26.22.
• 14 Optatus 11.2-3 CSEL 26.36-37; cf. also VII.3 CSEL 26.170-171,173.
• 15 Optatus 11.3-4 CSEL 26.37-39.
• 16 The introduction by Congar to the first volume of the anti-Donatist works of Augustine in the Bibliotheque Augustinienne (BA) is a treatise in itself. BA 29.9-133. Cf. his note on the use of Matt 16:18-19 on pp. 716-717. Psalmus contra partem Donati vss.238-240. BA 28.184.
• 17 Augustine Contra epistulam fundamenti IV.5 BA 17.396; ep. 43.7 CSEL 34.90; ep. 53.2,3 CSEL 34.153-154. K. Baus’ conclusion about the text of ep. 53 is debatable. See K. Baus, “Wesen und Funktion der apostolischen Sukzession in der Sicht des heiligen Augustinus” Ekklesia: Festschrift fur Bischof Dr. Matthias Wehr. (Trier: Paulinus Verlag, 1962) pp. 137-148, esp. pp. 140-141.
• 18 Augustine Contra litteras Petiliani II.V.10 BA 30.226 (The words are Petilian’s.); Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis a.411 221 SC 224.1162 (Ed. S. Lancel, 1975); Contra litteras Petiliani II.51.118 BA 30.382-384; Sermo 46.30 CCSL 41.555. On Peter as representative of the Church, see A. M. LaBonnardiere, “Tu es Petrus. La p6ricope ‘Mat- thieu 16,13-23′ dans l’oeuvre de saint Augustin” Irdnikon 34(1961) 451-499, especially 489-496; R. B. Eno “Forma Petri-Petrus, Figura Ecclesiae: The Uses of Peter” Augustiniana (Melanges van Bavel) 41(1991) 659-676.

Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993), 158-169, E.J. Brill, Leiden.

Eno – The Significance of the Lists of Roman Bishops in the Anti-Donatist Polemic

I have stored a copy of the PL XI and PL XLIII in my Scribd account, to make easily the access to these both documents.

Best regards.

Francisco.

M. Otto Seeck, à qui nous devons d’excellentes éditions de la 
Notitia dignitatum et des lettres de Symmaque, a publié, en 1889, dans le 
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte un importante mémoire 
sur la chronologie, tan discutée, des lois de l’empereur Constantin. Le résultat 
de ses recherches se trouve consigné dans un tableau chronologique en 
forme de regeste, qui sera, je pense, souvent consulté, et avec fruite. Au 
cours des recherches qu’a nécessitées cet important travail, M. Seeck a 
rencontré les documents officiels relatifs aux origines du donatisme. Il ne 
pouvait manquer de les faire entrer dans son cadre ; mais avant de leur 
assigner une place, il fallait d’abord s’enquérir de leur authenticité. Cette 
enquête a donné lieu à un mémoire séparé, publié dans le Zeitschrift für 
Kirchengeschichte. 
Il y a quelques années déjà, ces documents avaient été étudiés, au point 
de vue de leur authenticité, par un autre savant allemand, M. Daniel 
Vœlter. En rendant compte de son livre dans le Bulletin critique, j’avais 
produit quelques renseignements nouveaux sur la tradition de certains 
textes. M. Seeck ne parait pas avoir remarqué cet article, qui ne lui aurait 
peut-être pas été tout-à-fait inutile. Ses conclusions ne sont pas, comme 
celles de M. Vœlter, limitées à une partie des documents; elles en 
embrassent tout l’ensemble. Pour la partie qui leur est commune, ces deux 
savants ne se trouvent guère d’accord. Mais ceci ne me regarde pas. 
Ce que j’avais à dire à M. Vœlter, je le lui ait dit. Je dois maintenant 
m’occuper de M. Seeck, dont les conclusions, si on les laissait passer, 
introduiraient quelque perturbation dans l’histoire ecclésiastique africaine 
et compromettraient, en particulier, la réputation d’un personnage vénérable, 
qui n’a jamais été jusqu’ici l’objet du moindre soupçon, saint Optat de Milève. 
Pour la commodité du lecteur, qui ne comprendrait absolument rien si je 
me bornais à ferrailler avec mon partenaire, je vais reprendre dans son 
ensemble la question des documents sur l’origine du donatisme. 
Chemin faisant, soit dans le texte, soit dans les notes, j’expliquerai pourquoi 
je ne suis pas de l’avis de M. Seeck. Ce n’est pas toujours le cas ; en 
plusieurs endroits j’ai eu le plaisir de le voir rétablir contre M. Vœlter 
l’authenticité de certains documents.

Louis Duchesne. Le Dossier du Donatisme.
Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, Année 1890, Volume 10, Numéro 1
p. 589 – 650

Transcripción : Francisco Arriaga.
México, Frontera Norte.
29 Septiembre 2009 – 19 Octubre 2009.
Rev. 1.0

Duchesne – Le Dossier Du Donatisme