CH301/501 The Church to 1550
(Formerly D2101/3101 Church History A)
Lesson Three - Caesar : Friend or Foe? - The Changing Nature of Church and State Relations to 337AD

1. Introduction

In week 2’s material we looked in part at the challenge Judaism posed to the early church. In this week’s material we will only interact with Jewish / Christian relationships where Roman authorities become part of the scenario. The focus of this week’s material is on the changing nature of Church and State relations, especially as it expressed itself in persecution, and the dramatic change to that relationship instigated by Constantine.

Reading Gonazalez it is possible to identify four basic categories of relationships between the church and the state:

1. The church is largely ignored or tolerated,
2. Local authorities sanction persecution at its own instigation or the instigation of ‘the mob’,
3. Imperial authorities initiate Empire wide persecution of the church,
4. Imperial authorities actively favour the church.

While it is not possible to divide these categories chronologically, there is an identifiable shift in the dominant response of the state to the church in 249AD when Decius initiated his persecution of the church, and another shift in 312/313AD initiated by Constantine.

In the period prior to 249AD church and state relations were dominated by indifference or short localised persecutions, often initiated by the local population supported by the local authorities rather than the Imperial authorities. Between 249 and 312/313AD the relationship of church and state was dominated by Imperial initiated persecution, of longer duration and empire wide in its scope. After 312/313AD the church became a favour religion of the emperor and received lavish support.

How the church responded to the various interactions with state authorities will also occupy our attention. In week 2’s material we looked at the response of the church to opposition though the work of the apologists. This week we will look at the response of the church to persecution. Christians responded in a number of ways to opposition and persecution from state authorities. There were martyrs and confessors, as well as those who lapsed or apostatised. These responses raised questions concerning the readmission of those who had lapsed, and the alternatives at times led to schism in the church. In the end, the church developed its understanding of the nature of the church, of authority within the church and of the sacraments, especially baptism.

While opposition to the church from state authorities brought obvious challenges, the support of state authorities for the church brought its own, perhaps less obvious, challenges. Some scholars argue that the challenge of the state supporting the church were more dangerous to the church than outright opposition. By investigating the relationship of Constantine and the church we will begin to see the nature of the challenge and the general lines of response made by the church.

In our final section we will attempt an evaluation of the various responses of the church to the different relationships experienced between church and state, and in light of that evaluation seek to think about church and state relations in our own time.

2. Church and State Relations to 249AD

The initial relationship of the church to Roman authorities was masked by how the Romans viewed Christians at the time. Gonzalez (1984, 31-32) presents the view that Christians were identified as a sect of the Jews. Only when Jewish/Christian interactions disturbed the public peace did the Roman authorities intervene. In the early years of the church’s history Roman intervention appears not to have discriminated between Jews and Christians.

Gonzalez (1984, 33) argues that the distinction between Jews and Christians became more evident to the Roman authorities as more gentiles joined the church and the gentile church distanced itself from growing Jewish nationalism. Chadwick (1982 rept, 23) indicates this distinction between Jews and Christians was finalised in the minds of the Roman authorities by the Jewish Bar Cochbar revolt of 133-135AD.

The first Roman state sponsored persecution of Christians occurred during the reign of the Emperor Nero (54-68AD) Click here to R302 a list of Roman Emperors. In your own words summaries the events that took place in Rome that led to the martyrdom of Christians at Nero’s instigation.

Book Cover : The Early Church by Henry Chadwick

Chadwick (1982 rept, 26) asserts that the persecution was not ideologically motivated, yet it did set a precedent.

On the one hand Gonzalez depicts the relationship between church and state during the reigns of the Emperors Vespasian (69-79) and Titus (79-81) as characterised by an attitude of indifference on the part of the Imperial authorities. The contrasting attitude of both these Emperors towards the Jews could not be sharper, as they were both engaged in suppressing the first Jewish Revolt through executions, enslavements, deportations and taxation. These Emperors appear to have focused on suppressing the threat posed by Jewish nationalism. It could be argued the measures they took only exacerbated the problem, and the Jews rebelled, first the Jews of the Diaspora in 115AD, and then the Palestian Jews in the Bar Cochbar revolt of 132-135AD. On the other hand the Roman authorities appear not to have differentiated clearly between Jews and Christians at this point. The case of Clemens and Domitilla during the reign of Domitian (81-96) is perhaps illustrative of this situation. Gonzalez (1984, 36-37) leans towards supporting the traditional interpretation of Eusebius of Caesarea that Domitilla at least, and probably also Clemens, were persecuted as Christians. [2 lines for student responses] [Link to Graeme’s thoughts W3T2]

The severe persecution of the Christians during the time of Domitian is said by many scholars to be reflected in the Book of the Revelation. However Frend (1981, 181) questions the severity of the persecution when he states that from the end of the first Jewish uprising ‘for two generations’ identifiable persecution of Christians as confessors of Christ ‘may be counted on the fingers of one hand’.

(modern Turkey). The incident and its aftermath are discussed by Gonzalez (1984, 39-41). What information can we discern from the letter of Pliny to Trajan concerning the impact of Christianity in the area, the process undertaken by Pliny to investigate and punish those who refused to recant, and the legal grounds to which he appealed to punish the Christians?

Our next evidence of the attitude of Roman authorities towards Christians comes from Bythinia, a province in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The incident and its aftermath are discussed by Gonzalez (1984, 39-41).

Photo : Bust of Emperor Trajan

Among the many matters that to concerned Pliny was that of anonymous accusations. Chadwick (1982 rept, 28) helpfully informs us that under Roman law if accusations were found to be slanderous the accuser could become the accused and be subject to the same fate as the one they accused. This usually made people hesitant about bringing charges against others that had a capital punishment. However, to allow anonymous accusations would subvert this aspect of Roman law. Pliny’s concern with anonymous accusations appears to be about maintaining the balance of the law rather than protecting Christians from anonymous accusations as such.

The reply of the Emperor Trajan (98-117) sets out what becomes Imperial policy towards the church for many years to come.

Tertullian challenges the logical consistency of Trajan’s letter on the grounds that the Christians have broken no law.

Tertullian says that if Christians have broken a law let them suffer the punishment of law breakers. If they have broken no law they should not be brought before the courts. Of course once the Christians were brought before the courts the legal scenario changes. As the Pliny letter indicates it is the obstinacy of the Christians in their unwillingness to recognise the authority of the court to command their obedience to offer sacrifice to the gods. In our time we might think of this as Christians being held by magistrates in ‘contempt of court’.

The variety of responses is perhaps not surprising. That some should demand that people not hide or flee and face the authorities is understandable when we take account of Chadwick’s information (1982 rept, 30) that it was believed that martyrs gained immediate admission to paradise and the victor’s crown. It is also understandable that the church should discourage people from putting themselves forward to become martyrs when it had experienced a number of these would be martyrs who recanted their faith and brought dishonour and ridicule on Christians.

Chadwick (1982 rept, 31) notes a number of other responses of the church to the challenge by the state authorities to conform. Gnostic Christians argued that performing the outward act of sacrifice could not pollute the ‘conscience’, so they saw no problem offering sacrifice to the gods. In Spain some Christians saw no contradiction in holding the office of ‘flamen’ in the cult of the Emperor and professing Christ as Lord, much to the distress of their more ‘puritan brethren’. Syncretism was therefore also an option.

Photo : Bust of Marcus Aurelius

During the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180) Gonzalez (1984, 46) suggests some additional features that added to the suspicion of Christians and their subsequent persecution. The idea that invasions, floods, famine, epidemics and natural disasters were evidence that the ancient Roman gods were no longer protecting the Roman Empire is added to the list of common accusations that were levelled at Christians. In this instance however, it is the Emperor who makes the link that the Christians through their lack of worship of the Roman gods are the cause of the problems. Persecution of the Christians was therefore a spin off of the Emperor’s attempt to revive the ancient religion of Rome. The persecutions that are recorded do not appear to have direct links to the Imperial policy but were rather local expressions of anti-Christian responses that were in line with the Emperor’s general policy towards Christians. The deaths of Felicitus, Justin Martyr and the martyrs of Lyon and Vienne in Gaul fit this interpretation.

By the end of the second century the general attitude of Trajan towards Christians appears to provide the dominant response of the Roman authorities to Christians. While the position of Christians was precarious, the persecution was not continuous, nor organised by a central authority, and its impact was localised. Gonzalez (1984, 48) rightly points out that the ‘good will’ of the Christians pagan neighbours was a crucial factor in how the state authorities responded to them. Chadwick (1982 rept, 29) also points out that persecution and martyrdom did not ‘seriously slow down the expansion of Christianity’, rather the heroic quality of the martyrs added weight to Tertullian’s claim ‘the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church’.

3. Imperial Opposition 249 - 313AD

Gonzalez (1984, 83-85) sets the scene for the Decian persecution by referring to the reign of Septimius Severus (193-211).

Septimius Severus’s edict of 202AD outlawed both Judaism and Christianity and imposed the death penalty on any who converted to either faith. The differentiation between Jews and Christians is now explicit, but their monotheism and obstinate refusal to compromise sees them treated in the same way by the authorities.

Chadwick (1982 rept, 116-117) adds another factor to those identified by Gonzalez, pagan intellectual attacks. He suggests that in the late 170’sAD something of a pagan intellectual revival occurred, as seen in the attacks on Christianity initiated by Celsus and later Porphyry. This pagan revival is characterised as ‘defensive’ and created a certain ‘prickliness’ among the educated strata of Roman society towards Christians, especially as Christians were making more converts among those groups at the time. Emperors were influenced by this revived intellectualism and the attitude of the Emperors to the church was increasingly determinative of the relationship between the church and state. As Chadwick says: ‘But it is characteristic of the changed situation of the church in society in the third century that whereas earlier persecution usually depended on local factors the personal attitude of the emperor himself now became increasingly decisive in determining the Church’s fortunes’ (1982 rept, 117).

While Septimius Severus promulgated laws directed against the church, nevertheless, the period 200-249 was a time of rare persecution and plentiful conversions (Gonzalez, 1984, 84-85). The dramatic change instigated by Decius caught the church unprepared and the consequences of the persecution for the church were even more unsettling.

Photo : Statue of Decius

Decian Persecution

Neglect of the ancient Roman gods is a theme we saw as one aspect of Septimius Severus’ motivations, as was the idea that misfortune befalling the empire was the direct result of this neglect. The problem and its solution are presented then as merely a cause and effect scenario. Overcome the neglect of the Roman gods and they will renew their blessing on the Empire.

While Decius’ edict may not have been directed against the church as such, nor as Selinger (2002, 79-82) argues even have been religiously motivated, the effect of the Decian edict was to bring about a wave of arrests, imprisonments and some martyrdoms. Gonzalez (1984, 86) outlines a series of options open to Christians when faced with the challenge to offer sacrifice and obtain a certificate to verify they had done so. There is general agreement that large numbers of Christians compromised their confession of faith and took one of the three options that allowed them to obtain a certificate of sacrifice (a libelli click here to see, R08, a sample).

Some scholars indicate the sudden proclamation caught the church unprepared, but how would you prepare a congregation for persecution? Others indicate the rapid growth of the church was accompanied by a growing laxity among Christian converts or lack of true conversion. These new converts were therefore easily scared into apostasy.

The Decian persecution ceased as suddenly as it had started. Decius was killed in battle with the Goths in 251AD and the church rejoiced that her tormentor was dead. However, the Emperor Valerian (253-260) after an initial period of indifference towards the church instigated two edicts that deliberately targeted the leadership of the church. Selinger summaries the two edicts as follows: ‘whereas the first Valerian law ordered loyalty, the second punished disloyalty’ (2002, 95). Leaders of the church were initially identified and faced with the command to offer sacrifice to the gods. Failure to do so resulted in arrest and imprisonment or exile. The second edict faced the leaders of the church with the choice of sacrifice to the gods or execution. Like the Decian persecution, the persecution of Valerian came to an abrupt end through the removal of the Emperor. This time it was the Persians who were responsible for removing the persecutor of the church.

The Great Persecution

Photo : Statue of Diocletian

A period of ‘peace’ followed Valerian’s persecution of the church, and the church continued to grow. However Imperial sponsored persecution was not at an end. During the reign of Diocletian (284-305) and Galerius (293-311) the church faced ‘The Great Persecution’. How does Gonzalez explain the outbreak of persecution against the church in 303AD? What role does Galerius play? What influence does the re-structuring of the Empire into the Tetrarchy have on the impact of the persecution on the church? Look at the description of Lactantius for a contemporary fourth century Christian account of what motivated the persecution.

A series of four edicts were eventually promulgated against the church between 303 and 304AD. The first on 24 February 303 ordered the destruction of Christian building and books. Christians holding public office were to be removed, and those Christians of the upper classes lost their privileges, in ‘particular, they could not act as plaintiffs in cases of injury, adultery, or theft’ (Frend, 1984, 457). A second edict ordered the arrest of the leaders of the church who were to be forced to sacrifice to the gods. A third edict reinforced the second urging authorities to force the arrested clergy to offer sacrifice to the gods (Frend, 1984, 460). To this point the aim of the persecution appears to be to break the leadership of the church, forcing them to be apostate rather than make them martyrs. However, with the issuing of the fourth edict the balance shifted. All Christians were ordered to offer sacrifice to the gods on pain of death (Frend, 1984, 461). If the first three edicts reflect the Valerian persecution, the fourth reflects Decius’ Empire wide edict.

The enforcement of the edicts was not uniform across the whole of the Roman Empire. In the areas controlled by Galerius and Diocletian the edicts were applied rigorously and thoroughly. In the western half of the Empire it was less rigorously applied, to the point where in the area controlled by Constantius, the father of Constantine, it appears to have had very little application. It was Constantine who would dramatically change the attitude of the state towards Christians, from one of opposition and persecution to support and favour.

Other Challenges

Apart from the obvious challenge of persecution and the response of martyrdom, the church was faced by a number of other challenges. Those who succumbed to the threats of the state and compromised their confession of faith were called lapsed or apostate. Some remained apostate, but many repented and wanted re-admission to the church? What was the church to do? Would it take them back or permanently exclude them? If the church were to take them back should all cases be treated the same? And who had authority to re-admit them to the church? Would it be the confessors who had stood firm throughout the trials of persecution and been released before they could become martyrs? Or would it be the bishops and presbyters of the church acting alone or in synod that would determine who was re-admitted?

Schism also became a major issue of debate in the church. Where bishops with opposing views on re-admission of the lapsed vied for control of the one bishops see, who represented the true church, and who represented the schismatic church? Questions were also raised about the efficacy of various rites of the church conducted by schismatic bishops and priests. Was baptism, performed by a schismatic bishop valid, or did a person baptised by a schismatic bishop require ‘re-baptism’ to join the true church?

Cyprian of Cathage was heavily engaged in these debates. In debates with the confessors of Cathage, Cyprian established the principle that it is the bishops and not the confessors who have been authorised by virtue of their apostolic succession to determine the re-admission of the lapsed. For Cyprian the church was not a place of absolute purity, but a place for sinners in need of the medicine of grace. This view was more lenient than the rigorist view of the Novatians who wanted to establish a pure church. Cyprians view of the church would dominant the theology of the church in the west. In his debates with the Novatians, Cyprian argued for the unity of the Catholic Church, under the authority of a college of bishops in apostolic succession as the true church. Only those bishops elected to a vacant see and confirmed by their fellow bishops already appointed were true bishops. While Cyprian held a view of the college of bishops in apostolic succession defining the true church, his views would later be modified so that the true church was identified with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome. On the topic of baptism, Cyprian differed with Steven the Bishop of Rome. Steven was of the view that if the true formula was used it did not matter if the bishop was schismatic or not. The sacrament was Christ’s and not controlled by the faith or purity of the individual performing the task. Cyprian argued that only those with the Holy Spirit were able to perform the sacrament effectively. Schismatics were outside the church and therefore did not have the Holy Spirit, hence any sacrament they performed was invalid and without effect. Over time the view of Steven prevailed, and the Roman Catholic Church developed a view of the sacraments that taught their effectiveness was not dependent on the faith or life of the one performing the rite.

Gonzalez (1984, 90) concludes his discussion of these matters as follows:

‘The question of what should be done about those baptised Christians who sinned divided the Western Church repeatedly. It was out of that concern that the entire penitential system developed. Much later, the Protestant Reformation was in large measure a protest against that system.’

4. Imperial Favour : Constantine 312 - 337AD

Photo : Bust of Constantine

The significance of the Emperor Constantine on the Church and its relationship to the state is considered by historians to be immense. You will have the opportunity to investigate this topic in greater depth as you research and write your essay for this subject.

For now, it will be important to present a brief overview of Constantine’s life, his religious commitment and the impact he made on the church.

Underlying much of Gonzalez’s analysis is the view that from early on Constantine was in a struggle with the ancient aristocratic families of Rome for control and influence of the Empire. To be out of Rome away from the ancient families' power base in the Senate and pagan religion was to sideline them from the centre of power in the Empire.

Constantine’s conversion is afforded considerable space for discussion by Gonzalez (1984, 120-122). He rejects the conclusion of those authors who present Constantine as ‘the goal towards which the history of the church and of the Empire had always been moving’ and those who portray Constantine as simply a shrewd politician, arguing instead that ‘Constantine was a sincere believer in the power of Christ’.

When arguing about the sincerity of Constantine’s conversion people usually begin with the two versions of Constantine’s reported visions. Gonzalez (1984, 107) gives little weight to the evidence of the visions, instead spending time focusing on a range of other matters that speak for or against the sincerity of Constantine's conversion.

Gonzalez also challenges those who depict Constantine as insincere. For example he speaks of Constantine never technically being a Christian until the last months of his life when he was baptised. As such Constantine was not under the discipline of the church, or undergone the normal pre-baptismal training in doctrine and had his life tested against the church’s expectations for converts. This allows Gonzalez to diminish the criticism that some of Constantine’s lifestyle, actions and religious practices demonstrate insincerity in his conversion.

Part of Gonzalez’s (1984, 122-123) presentation on Constantine is to outline his religious development. His view is that Constantine shifted from a fairly even-handed engagement with Christians and pagans, to a more favoured treatment of Christians but not open opposition of paganism. The implication is that Constantine’s policy was as much politically motivated as religiously motivated. Gonzalez’s presentation shows a strong correlation between Constantine’s political security and his favouring Christianity.

Tease out from Gonzalez those ways in which Constantine showed favour towards Christians. What additional information is there in the following quote from Chadwick (1982 rept, 127-128)?

Constantine’s benefactions to the Church were on a large scale. The ravages of persecution he made good by financing new copies of the Bible and building churches, especially the basilicas in Rome at the traditional shrines of St Peter and St Paul and in the Holy Land at Bethlehem and the Holy Sepulchre. The palace of his second wife Fausta, formerly the property of the Lateran family, he gave to the bishops of Rome as an episcopal residence (which it remained until 1308). He even assigned a fixed proportion of provincial revenues to church charity, so large that even when cut to a third at its restoration after the suspension under Julian’s pagan revival, it was reckoned generous. Constantine also endeavoured to express Christian ideals in some of his laws, protecting children, slaves, peasants and prisoners. An edict of 316 directs that criminals may not be branded on the face ‘because man is made in God’s image’.

A law of Constantine of 321 closed law courts ‘on the venerable day of the sun’ except for the pious purpose of freeing slaves, and deprecated Sunday labour except where necessary on farms.

You will find much more in your readings for the essay about the evidence for and against the sincerity of Constantine’s conversion.

The other major debated topic concerning Constantine is the impact he had on the Church. There are aspects that on the surface would appear indisputably positive for the church, for example the cessation of persecution. Yet Gonzalez points out that some people of Constantine’s day thought this a negative outcome. Why did they hold to that opinion? For Graeme’s thoughts (W3T6) Click here. There is a variant of this attitude still around today. You may have heard people say that nominalism in the Western church is one of the major reasons for its weakness and a sure way of removing nominalism would be to have the church in the West undergo server persecution.

Gonzalez goes into reasonable detail about the impact of Constantine’s patronage of the church particularly on worship. The picture he draws is one of strong contrast between the simple worship services of the third century church and the richly decorated ceremony befitting an Emperor’s presence. Apart from the obvious difference in appearance between the worship of the third century and the Constantinian church, Gonzalez (1984, 125) also notes the less active participation of the congregation in worship as a negative outcome of Constantine’s impact on the church. He also spends considerable time describing a ‘basilica’, as the layout of this building also came to influence the way worship was conducted. Again it helped reduce the congregation's participation in worship.

An area mentioned briefly by Gonzalez is the intervention of Constantine in the church by calling Councils of bishops to resolve both disciplinary matters, i.e. the Donatist schism, and doctrinal matters, e.g. the Arian controversy.

Photo : Arch of Constantine

Chadwick (1982 rept, 131) looks at the Council of Nicea, 325AD as not only setting a precedent for Imperial intervention in the life and teaching of the church, but also as influencing the organisation and disciplinary structure of the church. The freedom of individual bishops is curtailed with a reciprocal growth in the power of the metropolitan bishops. Bishops were to be consecrated by all the bishops in a province if possible, and by not less than three, yet that consecration could be vetoed by the provincial metropolitan. A hierarchy of honour among bishops began to form, which would aid the claim of the bishop of Rome to primacy and supremacy.

Perhaps Chadwick’s most telling comment about the impact of Imperial patronage of the church comes in this observation: ‘In fact, as the fourth century advanced, it became increasingly the tendency for the final decisions about church policy to be taken by the emperor, and the group in the church which at any given time swayed the course of events was very often that which succeeded in obtaining the imperial ear’ (1982 rept, 132).

Mark Noll (1997, 62) in summarising the impact of Constantine on the church, especially as focused on the Council of Nicea writes as follows.

With the conversion of Constanine, the reality of the church as a pilgrim community gradually gave way. Especially over the course of the fourth through seventh centuries, as the Christian faith spread into northern and western Europe, the actions of rulers in initiating, promoting, supporting, and (often) dictating to the church gradually accustomed leaders in both church and state to notions of establishment. When rulers publicly acknowledged the centrality of the church to all of life, it was difficult for the church not to respond by assuming that it had a vitally important role to paly in this life, as well as for the life to come. Much good came of this adjustment, especially as the church’s evangelistic mission benefited form the help of rulers and when the church contributed its resources to the work of civilizing Europe’s barbarian hordes. But the cost was also high. A world where an emperor could make the critical decision to resolve a great doctrinal crisis was a world in which the emperor’s legitimate concerns for worldly order, success, wealth, and stability almost had to become concerns as well in the church.