CHAPTER 8
CHAPTER 8
The Church and the Empire Just at the time that the Church was coming to a certain level of definition of itself, its relationship with the empire changed so drastically that from that time forward the Church and the empire each identified themselves in relation to the other. The early fourth century saw the extremes of the Great Persecution and then arguably the first Christian emperor. More than any other time in the history of the Church, the first quarter of the fourth century could be described as "tribulation."
In the forty years or so from the end of Valerian's persecution to the beginning of the Great Persecution, an atmosphere of mutual toleration filled the empire. The pagans tolerated the Christians, and the Christians even came to trust the pagans to a certain extent, so that being a Christian didn't seem quite so dangerous, and each side felt it was safe to assimilate some practices from the other. At the time, some non-Christians might even have interpreted it as a meeting in the middle as philosophy moved toward a kind of monotheism, and it was thought that the only people who held on to the traditional Greco-Roman mythologies were those invested in government jobs and the less educated folks out in the countryside. In fact, the term pagan comes from the Latin pagani, meaning "country dwellers."
Although the Church was still technically illegal, in some areas local churches existed as "corporations," possibly even registered with the government as funerary societies.' In this way, the churches could own cemeteries and legally bury their dead. In this period,
Christians also started to build the first church buildings.' What had begun as small groups meeting in people's homes had evolved into converted space, then dedicated space, and now structures built specifically for worship. In Rome, the earliest churches (the so-called
The Church and the Empire title churches) were built on land donated by the owners of the original houses used for worship. In some cases, the remains of early
Roman houses can be seen in the excavations under the present-day churches.' By the end of the third century, some cities in the empire even had a population with a Christian majority. Many nonChristian Romans had come to a kind of resigned comfort with the Christians, and the Christians for their part had let down their guard.
They did not see the Great Persecution coming.*
'THE GREAT PERSECUTION
The emperor Diocletian had come to the throne in 285 CE.
Realizing that the empire was too large for one man to govern effectively, he created a tetrarchy, or a rule of four, in which the empire was divided in two (East and West) and each half had a senior ruler
(called Augustus) and a second in command (called Caesar). In this way, Diocletian attempted to stabilize the borders on both sides of the empire, since each side would have its Augustus closer at hand.
Diocletian retained for himself the highest authority, making himself the Augustus of the East. His second in command in the east was his son-in-law, Galerius. In the West, the Augustus was
Maximian, and the Caesar was a general named Constantius (the father of Constantine).
Like Decius before him, Diocletian also tried to bring back the glory days of the empire's golden age through renewed enthusiasm for the old religion. By this time, however, the old religion was coming to be seen as outdated, even by some of the non-Christians who were more philosophically minded. But even more important was the fact that the Christians had become comfortable enough with their place in Roman society that they felt it was safe to openly criticize the emperor's policies. In fact, Diocletian would not have been the first emperor to have Christians in his own household, and it has been suggested that his wife and daughter (Galerius's wife) may have been Christians or at least sympathetic to the Church. They, too, may have been openly disdainful of the old religion. At this point it seems that Galerius, at the beginning of the fourth century, persuaded Diocletian to renew persecution against the Christians. ty.
Reading the Early Church Fathers The so-called Great Persecution began as a test of loyalty in the legions. Some believed that the presence of Christians in the military would negatively affect the ability of the Roman augurs to read the signs that would enable them to predict the best days on which to engage the enemy. Based on prior precedents of pagan sacrifices used as tests of loyalty, it was actually the Romans who asserted that one could not serve both Christ and the emperor.
Soldiers who were suspected of being Christians were demoted; some were confronted and eventually martyred.'
The first imperial edict of Diocletian against the Church was timed to be issued just before Easter of 303 CE.' More edicts came later in 303 and in 304. Christian worship was forbidden. Church buildings were ordered destroyed. Christian scriptures and other writings as well as liturgical items were to be surrendered to the authorities. All Christians were ordered to demonstrate their loyalty to the emperors and to the state by making a pagan sacrifice.
Refusal to cooperate meant prison, torture, condemnation to the mines, or execution. The persecution was enforced more in the East, at least in part because Constantius was sympathetic to the Church and did not enforce the persecution in the areas under his control in the West.' Many Christian leaders were martyred, however. Others were imprisoned and tortured or condemned to slavery (if they were of the lower classes). The number of apostates was far fewer than in the Decian persecution, to the point where the prisons were filled to capacity.' Although in many ways the Church had let down its guard in the decades following the Decian persecution, the problem of the lapsed was still in its collective memory. Some
Christians even committed suicide to avoid the possibility of torture and the temptation to make an idolatrous sacrifice.? Some were sent to meet the wild beasts in the arena.'? If the Romans perceived that a whole town was Christian, the town was burned with the people in it.'' Propaganda became a tool of persecution, as the Romans circulated documents such as the Acts of Pilate, an antiChristian fictional account that made Pontius Pilate the hero of the story, which was made required reading in grammar schools."
Interestingly, Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Ecclesiastical History, treats the Great Persecution as if it were divine discipline for moral laxity and internal disputes that arose during the time of relative
The Church and the Empire peace." In this he is following the lead of Old Testament writers who saw the exile into Babylon as God's punishment for idolatry.
Just as the Babylonians were to the Jews, the Romans were seen by some Christians as both the instruments of God's chastisement and also the ungodly oppressors who would soon get what was coming to them. This is part of the message of the Book of Revelation." In fact, the untimely death of Galerius would be seen as God's vindication.
Diocletian had retired in 305, leaving Galerius as the Augustus in the east. At the same time, Maximian was forced to step down, leaving Constantius as the Augustus in the West. Persecution continued primarily in the East, under Galerius. It must be kept in mind, however, that an emperor has only so much power to enforce
(or prevent) persecution in all the places where the emperor cannot be personally present. In any case, Galerius, seen by the Church as the worst persecutor ever, became gravely ill. From his deathbed in 311 CE Galerius issued the Edict of Toleration, in which he admitted that the God of the Christians was indeed God, and promised to end the persecution if the Christians would pray for his recovery.'' Permission was given to rebuild church buildings and for Christians to gather for worship. All Christian prisoners were to be released. Upon the death of Galerius, however (a horrible death, as some Christian writers were happy to describe), persecution continued under his successor. Christians were barred from visiting the cemeteries, and some were driven out of the cities where they made their homes."
'THE FIRST CHRISTIAN EMPEROR
When Constantius died, his son Constantine was proclaimed emperor by his loyal legions. Eusebius compared Constantine to King David, anointed though not yet crowned." Rule over the western half of the empire would come down to civil war between Constantine and Maxentius, the son of Maximian. Their legions met at the river Tiber, on the northern boundary of the city of Rome, in 312 CE. At the time, the Milvian Bridge was just a series of boats joined together to facilitate crossing the river. While there io
Reading the Early Church Fathers are several versions of the story, the basic tradition includes a dream or a vision in which Constantine saw a Christian symbol emblazoned on the sky. The symbol was probably the abarum, the monogram of Christ consisting of the Greek letter chi (which looks like an "X") superimposed by the Greek letter rho (which looks like a "P"), These are the first two letters in the Greek spelling of Christos, or Christ. Other (later) versions of the story say that Constantine saw a cross in the sky.'* Upon seeing the symbol,
Constantine heard the voice of God saying, In hoc signo vinces (In this sign you will conquer). Constantine ordered his men to put the sign on their standards, and he and his legions marched into battle under the banner of Christ.
Constantine defeated Maxentius at what would come to be called the Battle at the Milvian Bridge, October 28, 312 CE.
Maxentius himself was drowned in the Tiber, and Eusebius would compare his demise to that of the Egyptians who had pursued
Moses: "horse and rider thrown into the sea."'" Constantine was received in Rome as a liberator, and the grateful Romans (who had hated Maxentius and saw him as a tyrant) erected a statue of Constantine, and eventually also a triumphal arch, which still stands near the Colosseum. The inscription on the inside of the arch is a dedication to Constantine that reads, Liberator Urbis—
Fundator Quietis (Liberator of the City—Founder of Peace)."° In 313 CE, Constantine and his coregent Licinius issued the Edict of Milan, which legalized Christianity. Although it would only be enforced in the West at first, this is generally seen as the beginning of a Christian empire. It is important to note, however, that the Edict of Milan did not make Christianity the only legal religion of the empire. Officially, it simply was meant to end the persecution.
In fact, the edict itself was really a letter to the senators granting freedom of worship to all religions." In the edict, Constantine specified that Church property was to be returned at no cost to the Christians. Thus the Church would finally become a legal entity with the right to own property under its own name and receive inheritances. Imperial money was eventually used to build churches, and it is at this time that the typical Roman meeting hall or basilica was adapted for Christian use." The edict also exempted clergy and their dependents from taxes and gave bishops the right to use the
The Church and the Empire imperial transportation system. Constantine would also eventually end the use of crucifixion as a form of execution, make Sunday a day of rest from work, and further exempt Christian clergy from civic duties.» He began to use some Christian symbolism on his coins, but he did not discontinue the use of pagan symbols."
When Constantine became emperor, he found that the Church was in some ways as divided as the empire. In the West, the Donatist controversy was threatening to split the Church, especially in North Africa. In 314 Constantine convened the Council of Arles, the first council of the Church convened by an emperor. At this council rebaptism was condemned, and therefore the Donatists were considered not only schismatics but also heretics.'> The Council of Arles also gave Christian bishops the same authority as civil magistrates, so that they could decide disputes between Christians. Constantine himself came to treat bishops as imperial advisors, though he also expected them to return the favor and consult him on ecclesiastical matters.
Constantine would eventually go to battle against Licinius for the sole rule of the entire empire. He defeated Licinius in 324, claiming that God had ordained his rise to power. But as soon as he took power in the East, he realized he had an even bigger problem than the Donatist controversy. The Arian controversy had erupted, which would lead to him convening the first ecumenical, or worldwide, council: the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Constantine had hoped that the Church would help him unify the empire, but first he had to safeguard the unity of the Church.
Constantine would eventually move the imperial capital out of Rome. The senate was too powerful and too conservative (that is, pagan) for him to make any significant moves toward a Christian empire as long as they were supposed to be his advisors. According to the story, he was told by God in a dream to move his capital to Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople, which means
"Constantine's city." Also called Nova Roma (New Rome), the project was begun in 326 and the new Christian city was dedicated in 330. No paganism would be allowed in New Rome. Temples were torn down or converted into churches. New church buildings were built. Pagan statues were destroyed or altered to look like biblical characters or heroes of the faith." One important factor
Reading the Early Church Fathers in the move from Rome to Constantinople was that the absence of the emperor in Rome left a void that would eventually be filled by the bishop of Rome. This power vacuum would open the way for the bishop of Rome to become the most important and powerful man in the city of Rome, and would contribute to the evolution of the office of the papacy. Over the centuries, the bishop of Rome would take over some of the programs once run by the government, including feeding the poor and protecting the city from invaders. The people would come to trust in the bishop more than the government for their own security.
Before we move on to the Arian controversy, the question remains of Constantine's faith. Scholars and others have debated the issue, though it seems that for many people, their own agenda determines the outcome of their research. It must be pointed out that much of what is credited to (or blamed on) Constantine did not actually happen until the reign of emperor Theodosius I (379-95 CE). Constantine never ruled as a baptized Christian. Like many men of his time, he postponed baptism until the end of his life, in part so that he would not be held to the moral standards of the Church (and the limit of one postbaptismal sin). Constantine also did not make Christianity the only legal religion. Paganism was not outlawed until the time of Theodosius, when nonChristians were commanded to attend church." Thus Constantine did not invent the connection of church and state. In fact, there had never been such a thing as a "separation of church and state." It had always been assumed that religion and government were interconnected, because religion was traditionally tied to one's nationality.
In reality, of course, Constantine did favor Christianity and gave certain privileges to Christian clergy, and financially supported the Church. However all he was doing was changing which religion would be the one favored by the state, while ostensibly allowing freedom of worship for the other religions.
As to his own personal faith, the question usually boils down to whether he was a sincere believer or simply an opportunist who tried to use the Church to his own political advantage. It seems clear that Constantine's mother was a Christian, and his father was at least sympathetic to the Church. His father refused to persecute the Church wherever he ruled, and his mother is the one who
The Church and the Empire would be known to the Church as Saint Helen. According to tradition, she made pilgrimages to the Holy Land as soon as such travel was safe after her son unified the empire. She is said to have found many artifacts and religious relics, some of which she brought back to Rome. She is also said to have found the actual cross of Jesus, as well as the site of his crucifixion and burial. In the end, we will never know whether Constantine grew up believing the faith of his mother, or whether he had a conversion experience on the eve of the Battle at the Milvian Bridge. Either way, however, it seems clear that he reigned as one who believed in Jesus Christ, who believed that the Father of Christ was the God responsible for his rise to power, and who feared that God could take the empire away from him at any time if he proved unworthy. Nevertheless, he ruled with an iron hand and did not hesitate to murder his political enemies, even when they were members of his own family. He looked to the Old Testament more than the New to guide him in running the empire, and he did not hesitate to use the Church to his advantage, especially in an attempt to keep the empire unified.*
'THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY
Adoptionism came to its most developed form in the early fourth century (see Table 5, Christology and Theology in the Fourth
Century). The Logos Christology of Theophilus of Antioch, with its lack of an eternally distinct existence of the Word, combined with the Christology of ascent found in the adoptionism of Paul of Samosata to create a Christology in which the Word was not eternal and Jesus was a mere man who earned an adopted divinity." In large part, adoptionism is as much an anthropology as it is a Christology. As an anthropology, adoptionism begins with the optimistic assumption that human perfection is possible. Theophilus and some others of the Antiochene school of thought had rejected the idea of original sin, preferring instead to say that every human was born with a clean slate and with the potential to be perfectly holy.
This is consistent with a Stoic understanding of virtue as moral progress. It is also consistent with the Antiochene exegetical methodology that was perceived as being more congruous with
Reading the Early Church Fathers Judaism, in which the essence of religion is following the law. Thus salvation was seen as the result of successfully striving for obedience to God. In other words, eternal life is the reward for an earthly life of righteousness.
In the development of doctrine as we see it in the early Church, Christology and soteriology are interrelated. In other words, the conclusions one reaches regarding Christ and his relationship to God will guide one's conclusions about salvation, or vice versa.
With Arianism, it could be argued that an optimistic anthropology leads to a soteriology that emphasizes human effort, which in turn drives an adoptionist Christology." Specifically, if salvation is a reward for obedience, then humans actually save themselves (or not) and the Savior is simply a pioneer, the first one to get it right, and the example to be followed. But Arianism goes beyond the third-century version of adoptionism by allowing a certain level of acquired divinity as part of the Son's reward. Thus Jesus was seen, not as God who became a man, but as a man who became a god, the first one to earn his elevation to a state of adopted divinity.
This divinity is a lesser divinity than that of the Father, however, so the Father and Son are not united by consubstantiality but by will (obedience), and therefore the Son is ultimately a created being.' The Arians interpreted Colossians 1:15, "firstborn of creation," to mean that Christ was the first created being, created to be the agent of the rest of creation. For them, the fact that Christ was "begotten" (generated) meant that he was created. There was a beginning to his existence and there was a time before this, when he did not yet exist.
In contrast to this, most of the bishops of the Church seem to have assumed an anthropology that, though it did not deny free will, was sufficiently pessimistic to believe that no mere human could ever achieve a level of obedience that would allow him or her to "earn" salvation. Thus Christ as Savior must be far more than an example to follow, and salvation must be more than human effort; it must include divine intervention. Therefore, as we have seen, Catholic
Christology was a Christology of descent, in which Christ is God who became human, not the other way around. These two opposite ways of viewing the intersection between anthropology, Christology and soteriology, came face to face in the city of Alexandria.
The Church and the Empire Arius and Alexander Arius (ca. 250-336 CE) was a priest of Alexandria under the authority of the bishop there, Alexander of Alexandria. Bishop
Alexander was teaching the doctrine of eternal generation as Novatian had understood it." For Arius, however (who apparently would have been more comfortable in the Antiochene school of Theophilus and Paul of Samosata), concepts such as eternal generation and consubstantiality seemed to overemphasize the connection and equality of the Father and the Son. 'To him these doctrines seemed to be either a form of modalism or a form of ditheism that compromised monotheism by implying two Gods. He reasoned that such an equality of Father and Son would make them no longer
Father and Son but "Brothers." Arius reacted by going to the opposite extreme and teaching a modified form of adoptionism. He emphasized the distinction between Father and Son to the point where the Son was not considered divine by nature, but was a created being who acquired divinity. "There was a time when he did not exist," became the shorthand summary of Arius's teaching.
Because of the Church's universal acceptance of John 1:1, Arius could not completely deny the preexistence of Christ, so he admitted that the Logos was preexistent, just not eternally preexistent. Following Paul of Samosata, he proposed that the Logos was not the preincarnate Jesus, but simply the personified wisdom of God, a created manifestation of God's mind extended for the purpose of creating the universe. Even the Logos was not eternal, however, but was created just before the rest of creation. Divine foreknowledge of Jesus' perfect obedience led God to prepare the Logos to unite with the human soul of Jesus at his baptism,* elevating the man Jesus to a level of quasi-divinity, higher than the rest of humanity but still lower than God. Thus Jesus Christ was an adopted son of God, just as we might become adopted sons and daughters of God." But he was not seen as the unique "natural" Son of God, united with the Father by a shared substance, as the mainstream bishops taught. For Arius, one might call Jesus the son of God after his baptism, but one should not call him the Son of God in an eternal or divine sense. Both Arius and Alexander would agree that Christ was the mediator of God and humanity. For Arius,
Reading the Early Church Fathers however, Christ was the mediator because he was between God and humanity, while for Alexander and the mainstream Church, Christ is the mediator because he is both divine and human."
Arius and Alexander confronted each other in about the year 319. Arius accused his bishop of teaching modalism. Alexander, in turn, accused the priest of dishonoring Christ by demoting him from divine to created. At first the issue seemed to be concentrated on the title "Father" for God. Alexander argued that if there was a time when the Son did not exist, then there was a time when God was not a Father.* Paraphrasing Novatian, Alexander's counterslogan became, "Always a Father, always a Son."" The implication is that if God changes from not being a Father to being a Father, this would compromise the immutability of God. For Arius, on the other hand, God was only potentially a Father before the creation of the Son. While Arius was also concerned to preserve the immutability of the divine, he believed that the greater threat to divine immutability would be to ascribe a divine nature to one who was born as a baby, grew up and learned things, and eventually died. Thus Arius drew the line of createdness and mutability between the Father and the Son, whereas the Catholics drew that line between the divine and human natures of Christ."
The main differences between Arius, representing the fourthcentury version of adoptionism, and Alexander, representing what would be clarified as the orthodox point of view, can be expressed as follows. For Arius, Jesus as only begotten son of God means that he is
God's favored and adopted son because of his perfect obedience, but ultimately he is created just like the rest of us. The connection between Father and Son is one of cooperating wills, and the distinction between Father and Son is a difference of substance, an ontological subordination in which any divinity that the son has is granted to him and is not his own. For Alexander and the mainstream bishops, on the other hand, Christ as om/y begotten means that he is uniquely and eternally generated.*' As Novatian had taught,
Christ's existence is dependent on the Father, but there was no time when the Son did not exist in reality as a distinct divine being. The Father and the Son are of the same divine substance, and the divinity of the Son is his own, not acquired or bestowed on him by adoption.
He is the "natural" Son of God—the Son of God by nature—and
The Church and the Empire while we may become adopted sons and daughters of God by identification with the natural Son of God, Jesus Christ remains unique among humanity. His connection with the Father is therefore an ontological equality and not a connection by will only.
Both sides knew that the human will of Jesus was submissive to the divine will (Luke 22:42). For the Arians, this submission of will constituted the only real unity between the Father and the Son, in that the human will of Jesus conformed to the will of God. But the Christology that would win the day affirmed that this submission of will demonstrated the distinction between the Father and Son, since it showed that the Father and Son are not one and the same person, even though there is a unity of substance. Therefore, to summarize, the Arian Christology is a Christology of ascent, in which Jesus Christ is a man who becomes a god, setting an example of behavior, implying a salvation by will and works. Orthodox
Christology is a Christology of descent, in which Jesus Christ is the divine Word who became human, who saves by divine intervention.
The Council of Nicaea The Arian controversy was a source of scandal in the Church, especially in the East. Both sides had their supporters, and with salvation itself on the line, there was a sense of urgency to come to some conclusions about what the bishops would endorse. The emperor Constantine knew that if he hoped to use the Church to help him keep the empire united, he needed to make sure this issue did not split the Church. He wrote letters to Arius and Alexander asking them to reconcile and sort out their differences, but to no avail, so he ordered all the bishops to attend a council in the city of Nicaea, southeast of what would later become Constantinople.
The Council of Nicaea, in 325 CE, was the first ecumenical (worldwide) council of the Church. It was attended by hundreds of bishops from all over the empire (though mostly from the East) as well as priests and laypeople. The question, as it was posed for debate, was whether there was a time when the Son did not exist, or whether he is coeternal with the Father. In other words, was the Son created, or was he eternally generated? Arius, and those like him, rejected the concept of eternal generation in favor of saying
Reading the Early Church Fathers what Origen had said, that the Son was the product of the Father's will, not his essence." The majority of bishops believed that the unity of Father and Son went deeper than only a union of will.
When it came time to write a statement of faith that would express the belief of the majority, however, the task proved difficult. The council itself had brought to light the existence of a variety of points of view, so that it was not a simple matter of two sides, one
Arian and the other Catholic, one heretical and the other orthodox.
It is not within the scope of this present book to outline the different factions in detail, but it is important to note that all of them claimed to be able to support their arguments with scripture in one way or another. Thus the task of writing a creed that could be taken by each bishop back to his home area, and that would not only teach the orthodox position but exclude the heretical, turned out to be more than most had bargained for.
The bishops who promoted what would become the orthodox position believed that if they could find a way to describe Christ that would highlight his uniqueness, then Arianism (in all its variations) would be refuted. Whenever biblical language was suggested, however, the Arians found it acceptable, implying that they could interpret it in such a way as to be consistent with their own
Christology. Ultimately, it became clear that the creed had to include the doctrine of consubstantiality of the Father and Son.
This was finally expressed with the Greek term, homoousios, meaning "of the same essence." In other words, the Son is of the same essence (or substance) as the Father. The Arians, of course, could not endorse this term, but the greater problem was that many of the other bishops were also reluctant to endorse it, since it is not found in scripture. For the first time, scripture could not interpret itself. Scripture alone was not enough (sola scriptura non satis est), and the bishops had to look outside of scripture to find a term that would interpret scripture in such a way as to provide the orthodox interpretation and rule out the heretical one. Of course, the designation of orthodoxy and heresy as applied to one side of the debate or the other could only be determined at the outcome of the council, but in the end, the word homoousios and the doctrine of consubstantiality were determined to be the most consistent with both scripture and tradition (prior orthodoxy). The creed was accepted
The Church and the Empire (though reluctantly by some) and anyone who refused to sign it was excommunicated.
To those who would not sign the creed, the term homooustios sounded like modalism, or worse, it sounded gnostic. The fact that the word is not found in scripture did not make bringing the creed home any easier, so many of the bishops who signed it would never use it. In fact, it was not required that every church use the creed.
The creed was meant to be a standard by which other creeds would be measured; thus, as long as a bishop could say that the creed used in his area was in agreement with the creed of Nicaea, that was enough. Eventually the creed would also become a tool of catechesis to teach new converts the correct understanding of the person of Christ. By the late fourth century it would become a litmus test for orthodoxy. At the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 CE, the creed was expanded to incorporate the outcome of the debate over the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and the statement of faith that we now know as the "Nicene Creed" was complete." Nicene orthodoxy insisted on a balance of unity and distinction in the relationship of the Father and Son (they are consubstantial, yet not identical) over against the adoptionist emphasis on the ontological difference between Father and Son. To be fair,
Arianism also has both unity and distinction in the relationship of Father and Son, but the unity is one of cooperation only, and the distinction is specifically in the assertion that the Father and Son are not consubstantial.
The Arian controversy was not the only topic of discussion at the Council of Nicaea. Among other items on the agenda was the definition of metropolitans, in which Rome was confirmed as primary. It is significant that an Eastern council would acknowledge the authority of the bishop of Rome, not only over other bishops in the surrounding areas, but also over the other metropolitans.
Also, the correct calculation for the date of Easter was discussed, and it was decided that all churches must conform to the calculation used in Rome. Although the ruling was not universally accepted or followed, this once again demonstrates that at least in theory the church of Rome held a certain primacy.
Reading the Early Church Fathers Athanasius of Alexandria and Nicene Orthodoxy After the Council of Nicaea, the Arians and various "semiArian" factions did not entirely go away. Throughout the 330s and 340s numerous smaller councils were held, alternately dominated by one party or the other, each one excommunicating its opponents. Sometimes violence broke out, especially in Alexandria.
Athanasius (bishop from 328 to 373 CE), who had attended the Council of Nicaea as Alexander's assistant, succeeded him as bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius then became the primary spokesman for Nicene orthodoxy, championing eternal generation and writing such documents as On the Incarnation of the Word, Defense of the Nicene Definition, and Against the Arians." When Athanasius became bishop of Alexandria, Arius himself was bold enough to complain to Constantine, which resulted in an edict of 333 CE that ordered all of Arius's writings to be burned. Consequently, apart from a couple of letters, Arius's writings no longer exist except in fragments quoted by Athanasius and other opponents of Arianism."
Some of the Arian bishops had signed the creed to keep themselves out of trouble, knowing that they could go back to their home areas and ignore it. Others refused to sign the creed.
Nevertheless, Arian bishops would be alternately in and out of the good graces of Constantine and his sons over the next few decades.
The Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia would even be invited to become the bishop of Constantinople, in direct violation of one of the canons of the Council of Nicaea, which stated that bishops may not move from one see to another. In fact, it would be Eusebius of Nicomedia who would baptize the emperor Constantine at the end of his life. When the Arian bishops were able to gain power, they concentrated their efforts on getting Athanasius removed from his see at Alexandria. In all, he was exiled and reinstated five times.
During times of exile, he was protected by the bishop of Rome, who sided with the Nicene bishops against the Arians and semiArians. Arius himself was recalled from exile and invited to be reconciled with the Church, but according to tradition, he died the night before he would have received communion. This story is probably unreliable, but it shows how the opponents of Arius saw him as the archheretic whom God would rather kill than reconcile.
The Church and the Empire It was not until after the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE, when the Greek language used to describe the Trinity could be clarified and enough of the semi-Arians would come over to the Nicene side, that the Arian controversy would subside in the East.
It would continue in the West into the fifth century, however, due to the missionizing efforts of the Arian bishops.
UNITY THROUGH STANDARDIZATION
In addition to legalizing Christianity, Constantine had also reunited the two halves of the empire, a move that facilitated greater communication among bishops. He also built basilica churches, some of which would become the city cathedrals or the seats of the bishops (from cathedra, meaning "throne"). Thus the stage was set for a new attention to standardization within the Church. Whereas the Church had formerly tolerated a greater amount of liturgical and disciplinary diversity, now the Church had the ability to work toward a unity through standardization of practice. In addition, the ease of travel and communication highlighted differences from one city to another, which could sometimes be an embarrassment."
We have several church-order documents, some of which go back to the third century in their original form, that outline church practice and liturgy. When reading these documents, the student of early Christianity should take them as the product of particular communities, and while the leaders of these communities (the writers of the documents) would certainly like to think that all
Christians should follow their lead and do as they do, the fact that this was not happening is proven by the very existence of the document. If everyone was practicing their Christian faith the same way across the empire, these documents would not have been necessary. Cherefore, we cannot assume that any of the standards proposed by these documents were universally accepted. In addition, these documents were continually updated, so that in their present form they represent an amalgam of material from the third and fourth centuries.
Reading the Early Church Fathers The Apostolic Tradition Traditionally attributed to Hippolytus, this document may in fact have originated in the third century. In its present form, however, it certainly contains layers of later material." It contains instructions for liturgy and ordination, including descriptions of the various church offices, as well as references to an early form of the Liturgy of the Hours and making the Sign of the Cross.*
This community expected that new converts would go through a three-year period of catechesis, which included regular exorcisms." The teachers might be clergy, but they could also be laypeople.* At the end of the catechumenate, sponsors attested to the candidate's sincerity and morality, at which time the candidate was baptized, a ceremony that also included an exorcism performed by the bishop.' An interrogative version of the creed was used as a statement of faith, in which the candidates would respond in the affirmative to the questions, "Do you believe...?"* The baptism was sealed with the Sign of the Cross on the forehead, ears, and nose.* The children of Christian parents were also baptized, including infants.** If a catechumen was martyred before being baptized, the martyrdom would count as a baptism in his or her own blood (cf. Luke 12:50).* Just as the "good thief" might hope to be with Jesus in paradise, the sincere believer who died without the chance of baptism was not without that same hope."
A newly baptized Christian's first Eucharist included milk and honey, to symbolize the hope of eternal paradise." The Apostolic
Tradition contains an early version of a eucharistic prayer, but it also says that the prayers were not static and could be embellished ad lib by the presider, as long as the theology contained in the prayers was orthodox. Members of the community were expected to fast before receiving the Eucharist." In the assembly, men and women were separated and were discouraged from greeting each other with a kiss.® The reverence with which the eucharistic elements were handled is consistent with early eucharistic theology that assumed a miraculous transformation had taken place, analogous to the incarnation itself.*!
With regard to ordination, it is stated that a (male) confessor does not need to be ordained (by the imposition of hands), but can
The Church and the Empire be considered a priest because of the presence of the Holy Spirit."
This is an interesting concession to charismatic authority. It has echoes of Cyprian's dilemma of wanting to control the confessors without offending the people who saw them as prophets. The Apostolic Tradition also clarified that although a deacon is ordained, he is not counted as a member of the council of priests, and he is not to preside over the sacraments, though deacons did help to distribute the elements." Thus the deacons fall into an in-between area, considered ordained but not authorized to preside over the sacraments. The Apostolic Tradition mentions the lay offices of subdeacon, reader, healer, and virgin." What may be one of the earlier layers of tradition is the reference to the consecration of bishops, who are said to be "chosen by all the people."® This may refer to a time when laypeople participated in the selection of a bishop, though it may also only mean that the people acknowledged their assent when the new bishop's name was announced in the consecration liturgy."
The Didascalia Apostolorum The Didascalia Apostolorum, sometimes called the Catholic
Didascalia, is written as advice for bishops, claiming to come directly from the twelve apostles, who had gathered in Jerusalem to write it."
It mentions Peter and Matthew by name, as if to invoke their authority against heresy.* Heresy is defined as blasphemy of the Holy
Spirit, because of its inherent rejection of scripture." Specific heresies mentioned are beliefs of the Ebionites, those who reject marriage
(possibly Encratites or other ascetic Gnostics), and vegetarians."
There is also a strong antirigorist argument in the Didascalia.
Bishops are instructed to accept all who repent by showing them mercy." The bishop is described as the physician of the church, so for the bishops to withhold reconciliation would be like a doctor withholding medicine from the sick. To forgive is to follow the example of Christ, but to fail to reconcile a sinner is to commit spiritual murder." Repentant sinners should not be shunned, since that might cause them to give up hope. Rather, they should be sought out like the shepherd who leaves the flock of ninety-nine and goes after the one lost sheep."* Even the sin of idolatry can be
Reading the Early Church Fathers forgiven, because God wants all to be saved, and God has given the keys of reconciliation to the bishops." To be excommunicated is to be cast out of the kingdom of God; therefore it is to be avoided since if anyone should die in a state of excommunication that person was believed to be damned." Although this document does not specifically say so, it would be assumed that one who died in a state of excommunication could not be buried with the Christian community. The only time a person should be excommunicated is when he or she is unrepentant, or if the sin is repeated after reconciliation."
Of course, heretics and schismatics cannot be reconciled as long as they remain unrepentant, since they effectively excommunicate themselves by separating from the Catholic bishops." In what appears to be a remark directed at Novatian, the document specifically mentions "puritans and sticklers for holiness" who "covet the primacy and dare to make a schism."" In fact, anyone who so much as prays with the excommunicated is thereby excommunicated." If heretics or schismatics come back to the Church, however, they are not to be rebaptized, but are only to be reconciled with the imposition of hands." Their prior baptism is considered valid because one baptism is enough, and to be rebaptized would "undo" the baptism.*' Penance is described in terms of fasting, the weeper stage lasting anywhere from two to seven weeks." An interesting connection is also made between fasting and almsgiving, with the recommendation that one might fast and give the money one would have spent on food to the poor.® Reconciliation was done by the bishops, who would lay their hands on the penitent sinner, a gesture understood as restoring the Holy Spirit to the person.™
In what appears to be an earlier layer of tradition, there is no allowance made for postbaptismal sin.** This point seems to contradict the antirigorist argument, since all postbaptismal sin is described as "deadly sin," assuming salvation is thereby lost. To keep oneself holy by refraining from sin was to keep the seal of baptism unbroken." Even so, all sins are cancelled by martyrdom.
Thus we seem to have evidence of an early stage in the development of this document, when it was still believed that one could successfully refrain from postbaptismal sin, and a later stage of development from after the controversy over the lapsed, when the goal is reconciliation and rigorism is denounced.
The Church and the Empire Unlike the community that produced the Apostolic Tradition, this community did not have lay teachers; only the clergy were allowed to teach. Laypeople were only allowed to speak "in refutation of idols and concerning the unity of God."*" Of course, whenever we read of such prohibitions we must always recognize the possibility that laypeople were actually teaching, and that the author(s) of the document wanted that practice to change.
Baptisms could be delegated to priests or even to deacons and deaconesses, but the "seal," or postbaptismal anointing (confirmation), must be performed by a bishop or priest."" Once baptized, the believer is encouraged to attend worship regularly, and the author criticizes those who are too busy with the affairs of the world, or who cannot wait to leave the assembly and go to the theater."" Men and women sit separately, as in the Apostolic Tradition; however, the Didascalia farther specifies that worshipers face toward the east for prayer." The Eucharist is described as a sacrifice that replaces the sacrifices of the Old Testament, just as baptism replaced circumcision." In addition to the regular church meetings, the Eucharist was also being celebrated in the cemeteries, including Masses for the dead." This refers to more than simply funeral services; it includes celebrations on the anniversaries of the deaths of the martyrs and other beloved dead." This was possible because of the belief that the dead in Christ are not really dead, but live in the presence of God.
The role of the deacon is described in some detail in the Didascalia. {n this community, the deacons also function as the ushers, or doorkeepers. This means that it is their job to make sure that the people sit in their proper places, according to age or rank of office.' They are even charged with questioning visitors to make sure that no one receives the Eucharist unless he or she is a baptized member in good standing with their home church. The deacons also visit the sick, the needy, and the confessors in prison." If possible, they should bribe the guards to gain better treatment of Christian prisoners, and they can use church money to buy the release of slaves.** The deacons provide the line of communication between the laypeople and the bishop, keeping the bishop informed of the needs of the people, but also apparently limiting access to the bishop to prevent the office from becoming too
Reading the Early Church Fathers focused on administration." Therefore, the number of deacons in a city church should be proportionate to the number of people.'"
The Didascalia specifies that a bishop should be at least fifty years old if possible, and it is desirable (though not required) that he be able to read.' A bishop may be married, as long as his wife is a believer.'" It is expected that a bishop draw a salary from the offerings of the church, but he must share the offerings with the widows, orphans, and any others who need support." The faithful are instructed to give their alms to the bishop, rather than directly to the needy. The bishop will decide who is most in need and will dispense the alms accordingly." In actual practice, the deacons would have distributed the alms, but the bishops retained the authority to determine who would receive support and how much." Finally, the bishop is charged with appointing the other clergy.' We can see that by the time this part of the Didascalia was written, the selection of church leadership was completely out of the hands of the laity, and even the priests had little or nothing to contribute to the selection of their colleagues. Each bishop chose the priests who would serve under his authority, and together the bishops of a region would select those priests who would be elevated to their level. The Didascalia justifies the authority of the monoepiscopacy by saying that in a church the bishop is the head, and the laity are the tail. The tail must obey the head.'"
The Apostolic Church Order This document is very much like the other two, even combining elements from them with the Didache, except that it is written more like a dialogue, as if the apostles are speaking and their actual words were recorded. It claims to be from the apostles through Clement of Rome, though it is clearly much later. In the list of apostles, it even confuses the two names for Peter (Peter from Greek; Cephas from Aramaic) and treats the two names as if they refer to two different apostles. The document may contain antignostic elements, since the dialogue style seems similar to some gnostic texts, and it criticizes the practice of women's participation in presiding over the sacraments.'
In this document we learn that the office of reader is consid-
The Church and the Empire ered the evangelist of the church.'" Deacons are not allowed a second marriage.''' Celibacy is advocated for priests.''' Bishops might be married, though celibacy is advised as the better path. Ifa bishop is married, however, he may not be married a second time.'" As in the Didascalia, it is advisable that a bishop should be literate, but even if he is not, he is the ultimate authority over the teaching and discipline of the church."
The Apostolic Constitutions This late fourth-century text rounds out our examination of the church-order documents and the attempts at standardization in the post-Constantinian Church. More than any of the others, it is a compilation of layers of material from different time periods, including portions from the earlier church-order documents. It contains the standard advice that bishops ought to be married only once and be at least fifty years old (though if no one of age can be found suitable, a younger man might be chosen).'* An important characteristic for a bishop is the ability to read the Old Testament and discern which laws apply to the Church and which do not.'%
The document assumes that bishops have the authority to judge civil cases, and it is implied that bishops have authority even over the aristocracy in their area.''' As the teaching authority in the Church, the bishop is described as a mediator between God and the faithful (in the context of worship), and as a father to the faithful he is to be honored as God's representative on earth.'""
The leaders of the Church are compared to the Trinity, though surprisingly, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are compared to the bishop, deacon, and deaconess respectively, with the priests compared to the apostles. Ordained bishops, priests, and deacons are expected to remain celibate if they were single when ordained.
They may be ordained if married, but only once, and they may not remarry, even if widowed.''* Here the deaconesses function as liaisons between the clergy and the women of the congregation.'"
Deaconesses are expected to be virgins or widows.'" The council of priests is compared to the Sanhedrin and the senate, and a relative scheme of payment of officers is outlined, with twice as much going to the priests and deacons as to the widows, readers, cantors, and 17,
Reading the Early Church Fathers ushers.!! Priests and deacons may be ordained by one bishop, but a new bishop must be consecrated by at least two other bishops."
The document includes an interesting description of worship in a Constantinian basilica, in this case the cathedral. The bishop is seated on a throne in the middle of the eastern end, with multiple priests on either side. The deacons stand by, ready to assist in the Eucharist. The laity sit opposite them, men separated from women and children, with the widows and virgins in front. After readings from the Old Testament, a cantor sings one or more psalms, and the people sing a refrain. Then the Book of Acts and/or Pauline epistles are read, after which all the people stand while the gospel is read by a priest or deacon. After the gospel reading there were apparently multiple short homilies by all the priests in attendance and then finally by the bishop. The catechumens and penitents are then excused and the deacons prepare the Eucharist. The faithful exchange the kiss of peace, but only men with men and women with women. Then a deacon leads intercessory prayer, after which the bishop begins the eucharistic prayer. Finally, the elements of the Eucharist are shared while the ushers watch the door so that no one who is an unbeliever, or uninitiated, can come in." Also provided are instructions for an all-night Easter vigil, with the baptism of the catechumens at dawn.'* The Apostolic Constitutions also contains familiar antirigorist arguments, including the mention of both Peter and Paul as having been forgiven by God for denial and persecution of the faith respectively.' In this case, however, excommunication seems to be more of a tool of discipline than a last resort.' Rebaptism is condemned as an attempt to crucify the Lord a second time.''"' Infant baptism is encouraged, based on the words of Jesus in Matthew
19:14, "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them.""8
In this community believers were expected to pray the Lord's Prayer three times a day and to give one-tenth of their net income to the widows, the poor, and the strangers." Also included are recommended prayers for morning, evening, and mealtime." It is clear that by this time the Church enjoys legal status, and there even appears to be a sense that the Church is starting to experience the phenomenon of nominal Christianity, people joining the Church for reasons other than a faith commitment. This might
The Church and the Empire explain the high expectations for the faithful, even to the point of being unrealistic. In fact, we noted that in the early centuries of the Church, catechism emphasized morality over theology. In the postConstantinian Church, however, the emphasis shifts to include teaching orthodox theology as preparation (and prerequisite) for baptism."*!
Finally, it is interesting to note that in the Apostolic Constitutions, we have come to the point where the church refers to a building.'"