Where were New Testament Churches found in the 4th Century?

You're essentially right here. There were few differences in fundamental doctrine between the Donatists and the Constantine-led Catholics. But I'm not sure that they considered themselves the "real Catholics." Constantine himself invented the term, and led the unification effort. While the Donatists went along at first and even asked for arbitration from Rome in one instance, after the arbitration went against them they decided that church and state should be separate--somewhat of a convenient change in doctrine to be sure, but certainly an anti-Catholic belief.

These statements are, to me, too dogmatic (seeing we have so little evidence from the Donatists themselves) and somewhat misleading, since Christianity in the 4th century was so much different than it is in the 21st century. For example, my reading says that it was dire sins, not just any sin after baptism, that they exercised church discipline towards. And even then it didn't appear to be that such sins could never be forgiven, just that they left it up to God, not the church.

They believed in the priesthood, yes. So do I believe in the priesthood of the believers. However, I think you'd be hard put to prove that the Donatist concept of the priesthood was the same as that of 21st century Catholicism.

Concerning venerating relics, again this is a supposition. A rich widow Donatist named Lucilla did so according to Schaff. Did anyone else? My reading doesn't say this was a Donatist doctrine.

All around, to me the far greater heresy was that of Constantine in uniting the churches and instituting control from the top. As a good Baptist (I hope! ) I stand strongly for the separation of church and state, and against the top-down control of denominationalism. As a missionary I've suffered much from a denominational-type field council of another fundamental Baptist board. Unity is right--but only if it is voluntary.

 

John of Japan:

Actually the first person to use the term "Catholic Church" was Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrneans about 110 A.D.:

John of Japan:

You may be right on this, although it was widely held in the early centuries of the church that once sins had been forgiven by baptism, there was no more forgiveness of sins available. On that point I recommend a volume by J. N. D. Kelly called Early Christian Doctrines.
John of Japan:

To the contrary, the Donatist concept of the priesthood was exactly like that of 21st Century Catholicism. They believed priests were necessary for administration of the sacraments, which were the sine qua non of salvation. They simply thought their own priests were imbued with the proper graces to administer the sacraments and that those priests of the "mainline" Catholic church had unclean hands and lacked grace.

John of Japan:

Maybe I pulled the trigger too quickly on that, but I think it is strange that Lucilla was criticized by the "mainline" Catholics for her veneration of relics but was embraced by the Donatists. The logical conclusion would be that Donatists venerated relics. We know they held the Christian martyrs is very high esteem.

 

I know that he didn't force anything. I know that he is said to have declared freedom of religion. But he involved himself directly in the process at Nicea, presiding in his robes of state according to Vedder's Short History of the Baptists (p. 68). And he wasn't even baptized at that point!

My point is not that he made Christianity the state religion, because that is disputed. My point is that he laid the groundwork and started the process going. He set up the government of the Catholic Church which allowed it to oppress so many, starting late in that century and continuing to the present day. (As we write, Protestants are persecuted by the Catholics in some Latin American countries--maybe not by official edict, but they are persecuted.)

 

Did Ignatius mean it the same way Constantine did? I hardly think so. To Ignatius it was just an adjective (some Protestant confessions use the adjective), not an organization.

I love to read and love church history, and would enjoy this one. Right now, though, I'm researching other areas and don't have extra book money.

And here you have found the Achilles heel of my argument--the soteriology of the Donatists. So on that I'm up a creek looking for a paddle. The Donatists certainly didn't hold the Reformed and Baptist distinctive of salvation through faith by grace alone.

But I have to ask, where is your original source on the priesthood of the Donatists? That is what I am laboring against here: the histories I have don't give original sources from the early church, they just make these bald statements. A resource book of 4th century documents would be nice.

I'm going to move on. I leave for evangelism shortly. But I'm going to put out Patrick of Ireland (389-461) as an evangelical of the era. Also, there was another group which claims it began in the 4th century, though outsiders disagree, but I don't have time to look it up.