What has the emperor to do with the church?

[Lezer]

Christianity grew much more rapidly in Africa than in any other western province. It was firmly established in Carthage and other Tunisian towns by the 3rd century and had produced its own local martyrs and an outstanding apologist in Tertullian (c. 160â€"240). During the next 50 years it expanded remarkably; more than 80 bishops attended a council at Carthage in 256, some from the distant frontier regions of Numidia. Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage from 248 until his martyrdom in 258, was another figure whose writing, like that of Tertullian, was of lasting influence on Latin Christianity. During the next half-century it spread extensively in Numidia (there were at least 70 bishops in 312). The reasons for its exceptionally rapid growth are disputed. In northern Tunisia urban communities provided a social and economic environment similar to that in which Christianity had first spread in Anatolia and Syria, and much the same can be said about smaller communities in which early Christianity can be identified. It has been held that the intermingling of religious currents of Libyan, Carthaginian, and Roman origin tended toward monotheism, butâ€"even if this were true, which is debatableâ€"pagan monotheism was not a necessary stage toward the adoption of Christianity for more than a few. It does, however, appear that African Christianity always included a vigorous and fanatical element that must have had its effect in spreading the new religion, even though there is little evidence of positive missionary efforts.

Christians were still a minority at the end of the 3rd century in all levels of society, but they were in a good position to benefit from Constantine's adoption of the religion and his grants of various privileges to the clergy. At that time (313) a division occurred among the African Christians that lasted more than a century. Some Numidian bishops objected to the choice of Caecilian as the new bishop of Carthage, alleging that his ordination had been performed by a bishop who had weakened during Diocletian's persecution of the church and hence was invalid. They consecrated a rival bishop and, when he died, consecrated another named Donatus, who gave his name to the ensuing schism. The churches in numerous communities, especially in Numidia, followed Donatus from the start and claimed that they alone constituted the true church of the martyrs, who were objects of particularly enthusiastic veneration among African Christians. Among Christians outside Africa, however, Caecilian was universally recognized as the bishop of Carthage, and the emperor Constantine, when the Donatists appealed to him, followed the decisions of non-African church councils, recognizing Caecilian and his followers as the true church and hence as recipients of imperial favour. Some Donatists were killed when their churches were confiscated, the victims being honoured as martyrs, but in 321 Constantine rejected further pressure, and the Donatists continued to increase rapidly in numbers. For the rest of the century, they probably made up half the Christians in North Africa. They were strongest in Numidia and Mauretania Sitifensis, and the antischismatics predominated in the proconsular province of Africa; the position in the Mauretanias was more even, but Christianity did not spread rapidly there until the 5th century. In 347 the emperor Constans exiled a number of Donatist bishops and took repressive measures against the circumcelliones, seasonal farm workers who were particularly enthusiastic Donatists. But in 362 Julian the Apostate allowed the exiles to return. These were welcomed with enthusiasm, and the movement proved as strong as ever. Some Donatists appear to have been associated with the revolt of a Mauretanian chieftain, Firmus, and in 377 the first of a series of general laws proscribing Donatism was issued. Nevertheless, these laws were enforced only sporadically, partly because provincial governors and many local magistrates were still pagan and, at a time of growing weakness in the imperial government, were inclined to ignore instructions they found unwelcome. Donatism was further supported by Gildo, brother of Firmus and comes Africae (387â€"397). Then Augustine of Hippo Regius applied his enormous powers of leadership and persuasion to stimulate resolute action, evolving at the same time a theory of the right of orthodox Christian rulers to use force against schismatics and heretics. In 411 an imperial commission summoned a conference at Carthage to establish religious unity. The Donatists had to obey, though the decision against them was a foregone conclusion. The laws that followed their condemnation were more generally enforced and, though there was some resistance (some communities still existed in the 6th century), broke the schism as a powerful movement.

Much controversy surrounds the interpretation of Donatism's significance. An important view considers it in some sense a national or social movement. It is said to have been particularly associated with the rural population of less Romanized areas and with the poorer classes in the towns, whereas orthodox Christianity was the religion of the Romanized upper classes. The imperial government being identified with these Christians would have intensified the strength of the movement, and the circumcelliones' violence, moreover, could be considered a form of incipient peasant revolt. Thus the movement is claimed as analogous to Monophysitism in Egypt and Syria, which produced a vernacular literature and a passive rejection of Greco-Roman culture. The hostility of the Donatists to the existing society was typified by Donatus's remark: “What has the emperor to do with the church?” Against this view it may be said that Donatism in the non-Romanized tribal areas was certainly weak, and the relationship of the sect with Firmus and Gildo was of little importance. In Numidia it was at least as strong in the towns as in the rural areas, and in any case the distinction between the two can be exaggerated. The entire controversy was conducted in Latin, and no vernacular literature was produced; in fact, until the time of Augustine, most of the educated class, of the same social background as Augustine himself and fully imbued with Roman tradition, were Donatists if they were not pagan. It was the reluctance of the landowners to have their peasants disturbed, and the negligence of many provincial governors (both attacked by Augustine), that long protected the Donatists. Lastly, in spite of the remark attributed to Donatus, there is no evidence that the movement attacked the imperial system as a whole, as opposed to individual emperors and officials, and it made full use of its many opportunities to defend itself at law both against the other Christians and against divisions in its own ranks.

Nevertheless, although it is difficult to sustain the view that Donatism, especially in Numidia, represented in some way a resurgence of local pre-Roman culture or the speculative, though intriguing, notion that something similar led to the emergence of heretical movements of Islam in the same areas, Donatism certainly appealed to deep-seated traditions of African Christianity. Its fanatical devotion to the memory of martyrs, its doctrinal conservatism, and its total refusal to compromise on its claim to be the true church while its opponents were contaminated by the stain of weakness in the persecutions were fully in line with the heroic days of Tertullian and Cyprian.
http://qa.britannica.com/ebc/article-46477

[Lezer]

The revolt of Firmus, a Mauretanian chieftain who defied the Roman power and eventually assumed the style of emperor (366-72), was undoubtedly supported by many Donatists. The imperial laws against them were strengthened by Valentinian in 373 and by Gratian, who wrote in 377 to the vicar of prefects, Flavian (himself a Donatist), ordering all the basilicas of the schismatics to be given up to the Catholics. St. Augustine shows that even the churches which the Donatists themselves had built were included. The same emperor required Claudian, the Donatist bishop at Rome, to return to Africa; as he refused to obey, a Roman council had him driven a hundred miles from the city. It is probable that the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, Genethlius, caused the laws to be mildly administered in Africa.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm

[Lezer]

De geschiedenis van de Berber lijdt aan chronieke verraders:
. Theodosius was almost defeated and forced to withdraw several times, but in the end Firmus was betrayed and captured by Igmazen, a chieftain of the Isaflenses, who apparently wanted to win the support of Theodosius

De geschidenis van de Berbers is rijk aan zelfmoordplegers:
Not wanting to fall into the hands of Theodosius, Firmus committed suicide.
http://www.roman-emperors.org/firmus.htm

[Camaron'N'IstIgliwa]

De geschiedenis van de Berber lijdt aan chronieke verraders:
. Theodosius was almost defeated and forced to withdraw several times, but in the end Firmus was betrayed and captured by Igmazen, a chieftain of the Isaflenses, who apparently wanted to win the support of Theodosius

Afra,

Igmazen, what a wonderful name, it breathes the tamazight!
This review you had posted is really interesting, hope you'll go further in the subject.

[Lezer]

Wonderful name and a shameful person as well.

[Camaron'N'IstIgliwa]

Wonderful name and a shameful person as well.

Afra,

Even the above mentioned Firmus had killed his own brother for the sake of power inheritage...so can we appreciate these farther historical events using the morality standards that we know nowadays?
In respect of the few information I know, christianity's waves in north africa have brought the worst division effect among these countries. Perhaps mainly due to the Roman Empire strain, though you'll find that even faith men like Ukwistan (Augustus) have legitimated huge slaughtering on their native land ON BEHALF of christianity's quintessence.
Anyway, one shall try to be as objective as possible using historical evidences, that's the major requirement of History as a discipline.