Cyprian and Origen in context and taken as a whole are of little concern to me or what I've said. One need not bother with them to know that diverse opining was taking place and that diversity of belief was taking root in the time of the Apostles. The problem that exists is that no one was able to handle such problems as presented by an Arius or a Donatus and as such screams of the absence both of any central authority and of any power to put it to rest. Constantine didn't force the presence of the Bishops because they were doing a good job at keeping unrest to a minimum by remaining unified in belief. Constantine acted because the inability of the sects to agree and deal with their problems in any acceptable fashion was threatening the unity of the empire. There was no unifying structure or central point of control, nor was there a final authority respected by any of the Bishops to turn to in this. In effect, Constantine put his Foot down.
I'm not honestly sure why you bother to invoke Origen given what has been brought to light with regard to him in these threads. I'm sure I've read of his predelection toward being "creative" here. And as for Cyprian, on what authority do we recieve what he says as applying to the entirety of what called itself christianity. Furthermore, what is it you are presuming to proffer that he said that has either authority or bearing as regards what I've noted. Being familiar with your tendancies I'm not particularly captive in my chair awaiting your response; but, I'm curious as to what you think they've said that is of any worth in this discussion given the facts on the table.
As regards your comments re the church in Africa. Let us not forget that based on the frauds sold to the African Church by Rome several hundred years later, Africa's cannon included a known fraudulent or forged work. As for Donatus, here's what I found interesting "The Donatists set themselves up as the fierce and uncompromising enemies of all who had allowed themselves gestures towards the pagans in order to save their skins(although it was found later that some of their most vigorous opponents had done the same). As far as the empire was concerned, they stood for a deeply rooted disharmony: for they completely spurned traditional, classical, urban culture, and rejected the sovereignty of Constantine's official church, which they identified with this sore of hated background.
- Michael Grant, "Constantine the Great: the man and his times." Scribners, NY 1993.
This passage is dealing with the Donatist rise in the face of the persecutions of Diocletion. The impact here is that Donatus was preaching that it was wrong/evil to knuckle under to the Emperor and worship pagan gods in order to save their necks. This put them at odds with the other sects who in turn prattled off to the emperor and complained. Constantine saw them as a threat because they were seen as causing disunity. But, the facts paint them as a sect that kept strictly to the teachings of the apostles and prophets with regard to not venerating pagan gods. Or in other words, they were doing what they were supposed to and preaching against the actions of those who were not and this had the other sects in a tizzy. What vile things were cooked up before the emperor is of little concern at this point. The point to the emperor had little to do with whether they were right or wrong just as in the matter of Arius. His interest was in unity and preventing civil unrest while he tried to salvage the empire. Donatus was persecuted by Constantine to create a similitude of unity - not to bring about any sort of righteous justice. That he didn't differ in his handling of the matter of the Arians is expected after reading how the Donatists were handled. Those in error prevailed due to the meddling of an emperor in things of which he was largely ignorant. It is no wonder that revisionism has taken place either because the facts are a rather scathing rebuke. And the footprint of the error is still visible in the institution that was created via the meddlings of the emperor.
Given the politics involved in what was going on, it becomes ever more clear just why so much fraud was needed to prop these guys up. The guys in the right were put down for political expediency giving cart blanche to those who were in error to do with the forming institution whatever they would. But if it ever came to light the actual nature of what happened, in the midst of the problems of the time, it would have the same effect as if an atomic bomb were dropped on Rome. The level of unrest would have been through the roof. Thus the lie to the emperor was far less important than the one fabricated for the masses. And after that, the church is locked into a lie that they cannot but perpetuate lest the truth convict them. Who needs soap operas!!
Origen is a prime example of a "church father" peg who does not neatly fit into the "orthodox" hole.