Donatus before Maximus

Two African churchmen made their shared name, Donatus, a curse in Christendom. The former held his "Church of the Martyrs" separate from Constantine's church. There was another one who led up a splinter faction, among what we'd call "Berbers". Constantine's church, which Eunomian church became the Vandal church, lumped those factions together and called them "Donatists" like... well, like we Catholics call the Eunomian church "Arians".

As I continue to read Gaddis: I feel like the first Donatus might have gone either way with Nestorius, but would have thoroughly approved Maximus. Maximus might prefer to disavow both, but I am wracking my brain to figure how he could.

We'll start with the hegemon over the Latin West at the time, Constantine. Constantine was still legally a Roman, a "pagan" as some call them. The Augustus who'd appointed him over the West was Diocletian; and his forerunner was - I'll submit - Aurelian, a monotheist under whose God all gods depend. In a Christian matrix, Constantine fell in with Arius: that this supreme God was the source of all Truth and Order, with the Holy Spirit flowing through - well, through whatever. Including through Jesus why not; but perhaps not always, inasmuch as the Son was assumed not present at (for instance) Sinai. I expect Mark Durie would consider Eunomianism an Aurelianist voodoo.

Constantine professed not to care about theology. Eunomia was the Imperial watchword, righteous Law; from the Father. Constantine as Emperor did, however, need to sus-out property-rights. Who owned what physical building?

Enter Donatus, fresh off Diocletian's vicious Roman persecution. He got out of prison only to find a number of apostate bishops and priests now begging for their sees and parishes back. This wasn't uncommon under Constantine; Melitius had a similar problem, similarly Novatian. Donatus felt that he had done his time and deserved to get back the church properties as were his. A particular sore-point was a fellow bishop Caecilian; who might not actually have been an apostate, but hadn't gone to gaol himself and then had "forgiven" a number of priests who'd kissed the Eagle. Caecilian meanwhile refused "Martyr" status from certain of the more-excitable birds against the Roman window. Gaddis draws several parallels between Caecilian and Augustine (and with the Roman Bishop at the time, one Melchiades / Miltiades now sainted).

We're not told if Donatus cared about theology either. Even Ambrose put out some clunkers, so I'm told. Donatus' complaint went more to investiture: the church can forgive, arguably must forgive; but to reinstall a bishop takes more than what it takes to readmit a layman. That cathedral belongs to - whom, again?

The old Catholic Encyclopedia seems fair on the dispute, overall siding with Augustine as you'd expect elsewhere. But now I wonder. I wonder if Donatus could sniff out, from Constantine's meddling, that the Church would not be redeemed through Empire just by nominally taking over an Empire. Donatus' question "what has Empire to do with the Church" is one that has always resonated, at least for us Latins. (Monotheletes will proffer an easy answer, depending on whether they're in power: quite literally, "all" or "nothing".)

I must note that Donatus started out, at least, trusting Empire; he went to the courts against Caecilian, with the (reasonable) proviso that his jurors be peers outside Africa which coastline was then rife with proImperial opportunists. Constantine actually agreed to try this case with impartial judges. But these found against Donatus. Donatus' partisans might say that we wuz robd. Hard to say, without a firm timeline.

I am also uncertain if any formal "Donatists" got into Nicaea; I know Donatus sat the Council out, leaving Caecilian to represent Africa. But Donatus' party put some important points on that board. Which makes me think that Donatus was, indeed, an unsung participant in Theodosian / Chalcedonian dyophysitism, more Nicene than Nicaea.

Mostly what has cost Donatus his crown of sainthood is what his followers - including another Donatus - made of his works and arguments. As Donatus couldn't take the L; too many Donatists, upon seeing Theodosius reject the Eunomian formula, wouldn't take the W. They resorted to terrorism; like the future Awza'i, they denied from the state its monopoly on violence.