Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom (58 page)

25Brown (ibid.) has a few brilliant pages that illuminate the whole controversy (pp. 209-14). When Donatists took over Catholic buildings later in the fourth century, they "scraped off, smashed up, or simply removed the altars, whitewashed the walls, and either actually washed out the interior of the building or symbolically sprinkled it with salt water. Chalices and other serving vessels used by Catholic priests in their perverted sacraments had to be melted down. The Donatists regarded the Catholics' consecrated host as useless and tainted, and accordingly they threw it to the dogs, which the Catholics of course considered to be terrible sacrilege" (Michael Caddis, There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire [Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005], pp. 120-21).

26Eusebius Church History 10.5.

30Optatus Against the Donatists.

27Gaddis, There Is No Crime, pp. 60-61.

"Drake, Constantine and the Bishops, p. 213.

291bid., pp. 118, 219.

31jbld.

"Drake, Constantine and the Bishops, p. 118.

33Potter (Roman Empire at Bay, p. 408) says that during the early stages of the conflict, Constantine honored the independence of the church.

34Drake, Constantine and the Bishops, p. 220.

35Barnes, Constantine andEusebius, pp. 58-60.

36Quoted in Gaddis, There Is No Crime, p. 54.

37Gaddis (ibid.) notes that soldiers, magistrates, judges and other officials remained in place when Constantine assumed power. The head had changed, the body very little.

38Optatus Against the Donatists.

39Jones, Constantine and the Conversion ofEurope, pp. 101, 105-6.

40Still, it is not accurate to say, as Yoder does, that Christian emperors from Constantine on ruled "on what constitutes orthodox belief" (John Howard Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel [Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984], p. 136). Constantine came the closest to doing this, and even he was enforcing decisions of episcopal councils, not making the decisions himself. After Constantine, emperors had no direct role in deciding theological issues.

41Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, p. 60.

42Optatus Against the Donatists.

"Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe, p. 98; D. G. Kousoulas, The Life and Times of Constantine the Great: The First Christian Emperor, 2nd ed. (Author, 2007), pp. 301, 307-8; MacMullen, Constantine, pp. 105, 114.

44Gaddis, There Is No Crime, pp. 126-27.

'Recent scholarship presents a fairly radical revision of many details concerning Nicaea-from the chronology of events and the reliability of sources such as Athanasius to the context, background and importance of Arius himself, to the force of the Nicene formula, the effect of its creed, and the question of the relation of orthodoxy and heresy. The best recent treatments are found in Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine andEusebius (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), pp. 191-244; Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), chaps. 2-3; Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 29-91; R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), pp. 13-273; Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), pp. 1-33. Deft and still useful older treatments are found in Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Pelican History of the Church 1 (New York: Penguin, 1967), pp. 129-36; W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), pp. 492-517. David S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180-395, Routledge History of the Ancient World (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 401-22, is out of his depth in the theology.

'The Melitian controversy is briefly summed up in Chadwick, Early Church, p. 124; Frend, Rise of Christianity, pp. 493-94; Williams, Arius, pp. 32-41. Potter, Roman Empire at Bay, p. 412, tells the story of the prison-house schism. Records list an "Arius" as a supporter of Melitius, and Frend (Rise of Christianity, p. 493) believes it is the same Arius who later emerged in conflict with Alexander. That implies that Arius was a very slick operator, changing from loyalty to Melitus to Peter's successor, and recent scholars have doubted that the two are the same man (Williams, Arius, p. 40; Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, p. 5).

'All quoted in Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, pp. 6-7.

4Ayres, Nicaea, emphasizes the central importance of theories of "begetting" in the debate over Arius's views.

5Athanasius On the Synods 16.

'Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, pp. 203-4.

Trend, Rise of Christianity, p. 497.

BEusebius Life 2.64-72.

'Charles Matson Odahl (Constantine and the Christian Empire [London: Routledge, 2004], p. 192) argues that Constantine did recognize the importance of the theological issues but aimed first and foremost at Concordia among the bishops.

10Socrates Ecclesiastical History 1.9.

"Ibid.

12Odahl, Constantine and the Christian Empire, p. 197; Timothy D. Barnes, "Constantine, Athanasius and the Christian Church," in Constantine: History, Historiography andLegend, ed. Samuel Lieu and Dominic Montserrat (London: Routledge, 1998); Ayres, Nicaea, p. 89; most thoroughly, Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, pp. 154-155. A. H. M. Jones (Constantine and the Conversion ofEurope [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978], p. 132) claims that Constantine chaired the meeting and that it was organized like a meeting of the Senate or town council, in which the chair of the meeting fully participated in the deliberations. H. A. Drake (Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000]) also notes the parallels with the Senate, as does Francis Dvornik, "Emperors, Popes and General Councils," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6 (1951), but the latter makes the crucial point that the emperor had no vote in the Senate but was an admittedly powerful moderator of senatorial deliberations.

"Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, pp. 157-63.

"Barnes, "Constantine, Athanasius," pp. 10-11.

"Quoted by Frend, Rise of Christianity, p. 498.

16On Constantine's role at the council, see Ayres, Nicaea, pp. 89-90; Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, p. 171, both of whom conclude that we have no way of knowing what exactly he did. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion ofEurope, pp. 133-34.

17Athanasius does not say that Constantine introduced this term.

18Odahl (Constantine and the Christian Empire, p. 197) attributes the introduction of the term to Lactantius and Ossius.

19Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, pp. 215-17; Williams, Arius, p. 71; Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, p. 173; Jones, Constantine and the Conversion ofEurope, pp. 138, 146.

20Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, p. 172.

"Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, p. 229; Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe, pp. 148-49.

22Athanasius Defense 40. Translation from P. R. Coleman-Norton, Roman State and Christian Church (London: SPCK, 1966).

24Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, pp. 208-38; Williams, Arius, p. 80; Ayres, Nicaea, pp. 101-2. Behind the falls of these Nicene supporters, Chadwick (Early Church, pp. 134-35) sees the hand of Eusebius of Nicomedia.

"Jones, Constantine and the Conversion ofEurope, pp. 150-51.

23Ibid.

26Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, pp. 10-14, on the background of Athanasius as a lowerclass biblicist. See also Hanson, Searchforthe Christian Doctrine, pp. 239-73; Jones, Constantine and the Conversion ofEurope, p. 153.

27Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, p. 21; Potter, Roman Empire at Bay, p. 422; Jones, Constantine and the Conversion ofEurope, pp. 155-56.

28Jones, Constantine and the Conversion ofEurope, pp. 156-57.

291bid., pp. 160-63. Athanasius never completely denied the charges of breaking a chalice or of intimidation. His response to the chalice episode was usually that it did not matter since Ischyras was not a priest and therefore the chalice was not holy. Anyone with small children will recognize the maneuver, a denial that is as good as an admission.

"Socrates Ecclesiastical History 1.34, p. 96; Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, p. 263.

"Hanson (Search for the Christian Doctrine, p. 263) notes that we do not know why Athanasius was exiled. Ayres (Nicaea, p. 103) says that the last straw was the charge that Athanasius threatened to interrupt the transport of grain from Alexandria to Constantinople. See also Jones, Constantine and the Conversion ofEurope, pp. 163-64.

33Raymond Van Dam, The Roman Revolution of Constantine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 257.

14 This is Drake's plausible thesis.

32 Ulysses.

35John Howard Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), p. 144.

36Ibid., pp. 201-2, n. 3.

37Ibid., 140.

38R. R. Reno, "Stanley Hauerwas," in Blackwell Companion to Political Theology, ed. Peter Scott and William T. Cavanaugh (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), p. 310.

41Michael Cartwright, introduction to Yoder, The Royal Priesthood: Essays Ecclesiological and Ecumenical, ed. Michael G. Cartwright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 10.

42Yoder, Priestly Kingdom, p. 245, n. 3.

391bid., p. 311.

40Ibid., p. 312.

431 return to the contradictions between Yoder's historiographic theory and practice in chapter 13.

44John Howard Yoder, Christian Attitudes to War, Peace and Revolution, ed. Theodore J. Koontz and Andy Alexis-Baker (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009), p. 58. Gilbert Dagron (Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office in Byzantium, trans. Jean Birrell [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003], p. 135) attributes the phrase to Lucifer of Cagliari, a fourth-century bishop.

46Ibid., p. 71.

47On the development of baptismal liturgy, see Paul Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). The elaborate catechetical rites of the fourth century look for all the world like efforts to do something quite different from what Yoder claims. Far from making "it easy for people to get in" (Yoder, Christian Attitudes, p. 71), the church is responding to the post-Constantinian growth and mainstreaming of the church by making sure that baptismal candidates know what they are getting into. Yoder's claim is also refuted by the well-known fourth-century practice of delaying baptism, sometimes, as in Constantine's case, until near death. Not only did the church not accommodate unquestioningly to Constantine; at some points, it overreacted in the opposite direction!

49Ibid., p. 59.

45Ibid., p. 60.

48Yoder, Priestly Kingdom, p. 158.

50Ibid., p. 324.

"Michael j. Hollerich, "Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First `Court Theologian,'" Church History 59 (1990): 309.

54Hollerich, "Religion and Politics," p. 313-15.

52Ibid., p. 313; Barnes, Constantine andEusebius, p. 266.

s3Eusebius Life 3.33.

"Ibid., p. 318; cf. Frank S. Thielman, "Another Look at the Eschatology of Eusebius of Caesarea," Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987): 226-37.

56From "Politics of the Cross Revisited," Carter's blog.

57Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 135. He adds, "We may suspect that the rhetoric of Eusebios [sic] was specifically intended to detach the new sovereign from `caesaropapism' by systematically locating imperial priesthood within the Christian empire, certainly, but outside the Church and by treating it as a metaphor."

58Rufinus Church History 10.8.1-2. Quoted in Van Dam, Roman Revolution, pp. 331-32.

59Van Dam, Roman Revolution, pp. 335-42.

6oR. A. Markus, Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of Augustine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).

61John Howard Yoder, Preface to Theology: Christology and Theological Method (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2002), p. 223.

62The classic discussion in English is George Huntston Williams, "Christology and ChurchState Relations in the Fourth Century," pts. 1-2, Church History 20, nos. 3-4 (1951); see also Rousas John Rushdoony, The Foundations of Social Order: Studies in the Creeds and Councils of the Early Church (Fairfax, Va.: Thoburn, 1978), chap. 2. Rushdoony states with characteristic bluntness: "Everywhere, pagan statism found Arianism to be an ideal doctrine" since "Arianism was humanism and statism" (p. 14).

63lnterestingly, he accurately credits Galerius for ending persecution in the Eastern Empire but gives no credit to Constantine for having ended Western persecution several years earlier or for securing the toleration of Christians permanently after 312. J. Alexander Sider ("'To See History Doxologically': History and Holiness in John Howard Yoder's Ecclesiology," Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 2004, p. 154) notes that from Yoder's account one would gain the impression "that the persecution under Diocletian and Galerius was in fact not terribly consequential for the formation of Christian consciousness in the fourth century."

64Dvornik, "Emperors, Popes and General Councils,"; and Walter Ullmann, "The Constitutional Significance of Constantine the Great's Settlement," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 27 (1976)-both crucial articles. See the similar claims of Drake, Constantine and the Bishops, p. 289: "Christians in the late empire recognized the emperor as a sacrosanct individual, with the right and duty to regulate religious affairs." Johannes Roldanus, The Church in the Age of Constantine: The Theological Challenges (London: Ashgate, 2006), p. 39, misses the point when he claims that "according to traditional Roman thought, the cultic domain was sacred and the Emperor's responsibility was rather to guarantee unimpeded worship than to intervene in questions concerning the legitimacy of priests." Diocletian's policy matched this only if we define "unimpeded worship" narrowly to include the worship of the traditional Roman gods. The emperors always had the right, though few exercised it, of suppressing dangerous cults.