1

He restricted the pollutions of idolatry which had for a long time been practised in every city and

country district, so that no one should presume to set up cult-objects, or practise divination or other

occult arts, or even to sacrifice at allas if almost everybody would in future belong to God, once the

obstacle of polytheistic madness had been removed.1

Such read the description of Constantine Is actions against traditional Greco-Roman religion, as

transmitted by the great Church historian, bishop, and personal biographer of the Emperor, Eusebius of

Caesarea, in the first half of the fourth century.

Even a generation earlier, the notion of attempting to pass such legislation against the traditional and

established religion (in so far as it can be called such) of the Empire would have been simply

unthinkable. That the Emperor Constantine felt comfortable in doing so, and moreover, that Eusebius

felt confident enough to relate these events without fear of reprisals demonstrates not only the

tremendous growth of Christianity from its humble Jewish beginnings, but also the close bond that grew

between Church and State.

How Christianity developed and evolved into a faith capable of becoming the official religion of the

Roman Empire (in AD 380)2

is a topic that has been discussed and debated by countless scholars and

authors, due in part to the so-called catalyst3 that was the conversion of the first Christian emperor,

Constantine I, and the impact this had on the faith. In the essay that follows however, my intention is not

so much to simply discuss Christianitys evolution under Constantine, but rather to try and understand

the different ways in which particular elements of Christianity evolved during my self-imposed parameter

of Constantines thirty year reign (AD 306-337).

One of the key issues that must be addressed from the outset is the nature of the available source

material. Eusebius of Caesarea, mentioned above, is perhaps the best primary source for evidence on the

person and policies of Constantine as an almost direct contemporary of the Emperor; but this is not to

say that he is without his faults. Written sometime towards the end of Constantines reign (and indeed

not long before the death of Eusebius himself) Eusebius Life of Constantine (Vita Constantini, VC) was

written in a heavily apologetic4

and panegyrical style, with the intention of not just creating an idealised

image of Constantine for the general readership, but also of laying down a template for Constantines

1 Eusebius, VC II.45 2 Elsner 1998: 287 3 Tanner 2011: 26 4 Eusebius, VC pg. 12

2

sons (his immediate successors) to follow. The resultant effect is thus a mixture of fact and opinion rather

tightly entwined that one must be careful to try and untangle. Moreover, as a bishop and biblical scholar,

Eusebius had his own theological views that at times may have conflicted with those of Constantine,

thereby resulting in the occasional omission of certain details and the reinterpretation of others.

Nevertheless, as a means of understanding Christianitys evolution under Constantine, Eusebius is an

indispensable source particularly as one of the Bishops main aims was, in his own words, the recording

of actions dear to God.5

Another key source, and perhaps an obvious one, is Constantine himself- specifically the letters and

legislation written and passed by the Emperor. His letters, many of which have been preserved by

Eusebius inclusion of them in his Life of Constantine, provide an invaluable insight into the religious

views and attitudes6

of the Emperor that would be difficult to ascertain otherwise and as such can aid in

understanding what the Emperor thought about the role of the Christian Church and what kind of a

presence he had within the institution. As public documents meant for public consumption however,

Constantines words can only tell us what he wanted to be known and how he wanted to be perceived;

though for the purpose of this essay, perhaps that is enough. The laws of Constantine are also vitally

important for understanding the kind of legal status given to the Church during his reign, as well as for

understanding the intensity of the relationship that grew between Church and State. Unfortunately not all

of Constantines laws have survived, and we must thus rely on the official codes compiled by later

emperors (such as the Theodosian Code compiled under Theodosius II in the fifth century) though

these codes usually preserve only later modifications of earlier laws.7

Through the combination of all

these early sources however, we can perhaps hope to obtain a relatively clear picture of the different ways

in which Christianity evolved during this concentrated period of time.

Constantines self-described conversion to Christianity (an issue that has been exhaustively debated and

cannot be discussed in detail here) was bound to have an impact on the religion whether good or bad,

intentional or not, due to the religions history with the State. Since its foundation in the years

surrounding Christs death, Christianity had gradually picked up momentum, (through active

proselytizing, amongst other means) to a point where the State began to regard it as more than just a

5 Eusebius, VC 1.10 6 Eusebius, VC pg. 42 7 Barnes 1981: 50

3

stubborn, though harmless, mystery cult, but as perhaps something more threatening. After more than

two centuries of alternating periods of persecution and (what can only be described as) reluctant

toleration, AD 303 saw the initiation of several edicts by the Emperor Diocletian, and what would later

come to be known as the Great Persecution. The edicts implemented instructions for the leveling of

churches, the burning of Scriptures, and the deprivation of status, privileges and even potentially freedom

for Christian clergymen and laymen alike.8

After a generation of peace,9

the persecution had important

consequences for the development of Christian identity;10

particularly with regards its view on the State,

and this is one of the key elements that will be examined in further detail in the discussion that follows.

Also amongst the key elements that will be discussed are the issues of orthodoxy and its important

counterpart: heresy. In the following study I will be addressing the evolution and implementation of the

notion of heresy, the doctrines, creeds, controversies, and schisms related to heresy and indeed

orthodoxy, as well as attempting to explain why orthodoxy became such an important issue during the

early fourth century and the reign of Constantine. Art and architecture also underwent a significant

transformation in the fourth century, and as such I will attempt to examine why this was, with particular

attention given to the connection between art and Scripture, Constantines patronage of churches and the

effect this had, in addition to the significant fourth century development of relic veneration.

Other key elements related to Christianity that will be discussed are the structure of the Church and how

particularly the role of the bishop developed under Constantine, as well as liturgical aspects of the

Church such as rituals and ceremonies (with the evolution of the Christian calendar falling within this

area of discussion also).

The issue of the Churchs relationship with the State is perhaps one of the most passionately covered

elements when discussing the evolution of the Christian Church, and deservedly so. How the Church was

able to reconcile its spiritual responsibilities with more secular duties, and moreover how the State was

able to so carefully adapt to the structure and workings of the Christian Church, are equally remarkable

achievements that could never have been foreseen during the first three centuries of Christianitys

establishment. Due to the importance of this development, I shall also be conducting an examination of

the different ways in which this relationship blossomed and the, perhaps unforeseen, effects this had on

8 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica VIII.2 9 Barnes 1981: 19 10 Drake 2000: 85

4

the identity of the Christian Church, as well as explaining exactly why the relationship between Church

and State was such a delicate issue.

Though a variety of different elements will be covered, some basic questions will need to be asked of all

of them. It is generally agreed that Constantine had an effect in some way on the Christian Church, but

how much of an effect? After over three hundred years of pagan that is, traditional Greco-Roman

polytheistic imperial rule, the introduction of a practicing Christian Emperor would presumably have

had some degree of impact on the Church, but with regards to the above outlined elements that

experienced change during our period, it must be asked exactly how far their developments were the

result of Constantines direct and deliberate intervention in ecclesiastical affairs, and how far they were

due to other factors, such as natural evolution. Such a question is vital to any understanding of

Christianitys increasing sense of definition throughout the fourth century, and for good reason. If the

developments were for instance, entirely the result of Constantines direct intervention, the Church

would perhaps have begun to see itself more and more as a product of imperial construction, operating

and evolving under the direct control and supervision of the state. The Church prided itself on being a

continuation of the holy mission first begun by Christ and his apostles, and if the Emperor was thus

allowed to impact on the Church in so great a way, this sense of spiritual purity could perhaps be seen as

being undermined. If however, the developments were instead the result of natural evolution- products

of their time- this notion of continuity and purity could be maintained, with the effects of the Emperors

intervention having almost no impact on the real identity of the Church. Perhaps the best way of

ascertaining the extent of Constantines intervention is to examine how each of the aforementioned

elements looked before the reign of the Emperor, and how they looked after. As such, there will be

some movement outside the set parameters of Constantines reign, but only slightly.

One key term that must be properly addressed before any investigation can begin is Christianity. From its

birth in the first century AD, Christianity had taken a number of different forms vastly different to any

form of Christianity one may recognize today.11 From Christians who believed in God as the creator of

11 Ehrman 2003: 2

5

the universe, to others who believed in a subordinate creator; from Christians who recognized the

existence of one God, to others who believed in as many as 365-12

the list goes on.

As such, while attempting to understand how the religion of Christs followers evolved during the thirty

year span that was the reign of the Emperor Constantine, one thing that must be kept in mind at all times

is the diversity of Christianity; it was not as simple as merely one branch of an already defined, and

universally agreed upon religion evolving, but many branches, simultaneously undergoing dramatic (and

some not-so dramatic) changes. With this in mind then, proper attention can be given to the first of the

elements to be studied: orthodoxy and heresy.

Orthodoxy & Heresy

In AD 312, upon his defeat of his western rival Maxentius, Constantine became master of Africa13 and

encountered one of the first of the several schisms he was to mediate throughout the duration of his

reign. The so-called Donatist schism had begun to form under the Great Persecution due to the

pressure felt by many clergymen to hand over copies of sacred books and objects to imperial authority;

thereby making them literally traitors (from traditores, meaning people who hand things over).14 The

issue then arose as to the validity of acts these traditores had performed while in office, with the priest-

Donatus of Casae Nigrae- and his followers holding a rather rigorist view that the sacraments performed

were invalid, and thus anyone who had been baptised (as was one of the key issues raised by the

Donatists) by a tainted clergyman, had to have the sacrament administered anew-15

something many other

North African clergymen disagreed with. Constantine, upon receiving a petition from the proconsul of

Africa, Anullinus,16

(who had himself received it from a member of the Donatist party) and perhaps

feeling it his duty to ensure unity within his newly favoured faith, agreed to a hearing where both sides

could air their grievances and peace could be made; the so-called Council of Arles in AD 314. Although

Constantine may have had intended to settle the matter in a manner resembling traditional imperial

hearings, what actually took place resembled more a traditional Church council according to ecclesiastical

precedent.17

Despite the eventual failure of the council to settle the Donatists issues once and for all,

12 Ehrman 2003: 2 13 Barnes 1981: 56 14 Drake 2006: 116 15 Drake 2006: 117 16 Barnes 1981: 57 17 Barnes 1981: 57

6

several important factors regarding Constantine and his involvement in the Church and Church matters

can be observed. Firstly, that neither side saw it improper to seek the intervention of the Emperor is

particularly significant as it demonstrates the Churchs willingness to continue on (at least for now) the

traditional close relationship between Church and State. The person of the emperor had always played a

major role in traditional Greco-Roman religion, in fact holding the highest religious office of pontifex

maximus alongside his other more secular offices, and thus it is unsurprising that many Christian

clergymen believed the new Christian Emperor should have a similar (although perhaps not identical)

part in the new faith. Moreover, that Constantine himself did not appear to have many anxieties or

doubts regarding his involvement illustrates not only this same idea of the bond between Church and

State, but also the importance felt by the Emperor of ensuring proper unanimous worship by his subjects

to maintain the peace of the Empire. This is an issue that would play an important factor in the

development of heresy, as we shall go on to see.

What must be noted about the Donatist schism however, is that it was just that- a schism. The issues that

arose between the Donatist party and the other members of the North African church did not relate to

doctrinal disputes and thus the real issues regarding heresy/orthodoxy were not yet brought to the fore.

What the Donatist dispute did do however was arm Constantine with the tools and lessons necessary to

deal with the next Church disagreement- this time an actual doctrinal dispute- Arianism.

At some point in the early AD 320s (although scholars are not agreed exactly when),18

Arius, a priest of

Alexandria, and a small group of followers,19

were excommunicated by a council20

summoned by Arius

own bishop, Alexander, on the basis of teachings deemed by the council to be incompatible with

acceptable Church teachings. The matter centred on the nature of Christ with relation to God the Father,

with Arius concluding that if God created the Son, there had to be a point in time in which the Son did

not exist (although as the creator of the worlds, this would have been at a time before time itself existed),21

and moreover as a creation of God, the Son was not of the same substance of the Father; though a

perfect creature,22 he was nonetheless a creature, unlike the Father. Despite backing up his argument

18 Hall 1991: 125 19 Roldanus 2006: 77 20 Drake 2000: 239 21 McGrath 2011: 274 22 Athanasius, I.5

7

with passages from Scripture,23

in addition to following an almost identical tract of thought as one of the

great and respected Christian thinkers of the third century, Origen,24

Bishop Alexander saw Arius

teachings as compromising the position of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully human and thus

undermining his ability to redeem mankind from sin and death through his own death on the Cross.25

In late AD 324, Constantine, having been made aware of the dispute, made the decision to intervene.

Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Life of Constantine, wrote of the shock felt by the Emperor upon hearing

of the disturbance afflicting the churches26 and refers to a letter of Constantine addressed to both

Alexander and Arius, and entrusted to one of the godly men of his court27 (usually presumed to be

Ossius, Bishop of Corduba)28

in the hopes of mediating the matter. The letter, quoted in full by Eusebius,

sees Constantine expressing his desire for unity within the Church in order to ensure the peace of the

Empire,29

in addition to condemning the matter as extremely trivial and unworthy of such controversy.30

Though the letter does indeed highlight Constantines great interest in maintaining peace in the Church

(for the sake of the Empire), it also demonstrates a great deal of naivety on his part with regards to how

important issues of doctrine were to the faith. Indeed as a former adherent of traditional Greco-Roman

religion, a religion that placed far more emphasis on what one did as opposed to what one thought, such

naivety is to be expected.

There was however, another reason, highlighted by Eusebius, which may have prompted Constantine to

seek for unity within the Church- the watchful glare of the pagans. Knowledge of the dispute had

apparently become so widespread by AD 324 that sacred points of divine doctrine had become subject

to public mockery by unbelievers in the theatres.31 If Constantine had any hope of promoting his

religion throughout the Empire, the Church would have to maintain a united front.

Taking the Council of Arles as somewhat of a template, Constantine called together what would become

the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church in AD 325- the Council of Nicaea. Although no

23 Proverbs 8:22 (GNB) 24 Barnes 1981: 204, Roldanus 2006: 77 25 Drake 2000: 238 26 Eusebius, VC II.61.2 27 Eusebius, VC II.63 28 Barnes 1981: 212 29 Eusebius, VC II.65 30 Eusebius, VC II.68.2 31 Eusebius, VC II.61.5

8

detailed record of the proceedings survives,32

what is certain is that the council was by far the largest

assembly of bishops hitherto,33 with Constantine (supposedly) taking pride of place in the middle of the

bishops, on a small chair made of gold.34

The outcome of the Council was extremely significant for the definition of orthodoxy (from orthodoxos,

meaning right or correct belief) within the Christian Church. Among the key issues raised at the Council

was, of course, the Arian dispute, which resulted in the drawing up of what is known today as the Nicene

Creed. Although the form that survives today is not the original creed of AD 325 (but that which is

generally assumed to have been drawn up by the Council of Constantinople in AD 381)35

the

introduction of the Nicene Creed had a significant impact on what the Church deemed to be orthodox

thought, with the creed becoming, as one scholar put it, the touchstone of Christian orthodoxy.36 Based

on a baptismal creed used at Jerusalem,37

one of the main intentions of the creed was to affirm the full

divinity of Christ against the Arians and thus led to the inclusion of four explicit condemnations of Arian

views,38

as well as the inclusion of a word intended specifically to confound the Arians who had been

able to find acceptance in all previous attempts at devising a statement of faith.39

That word was

homoousios. Roughly translated as consubstantial, homoousios had previously been repudiated by

Arius as Manichaean40

(the Manichees being an illegal religious sect who followed the teachings of the

third-century Mesopotamian gnostic, Mani)41

and thus the combination of homoousios, along with the

affirmation of Christ being begotten of the Fatherthat is, from the essence of the Father42 finally

offered the pretext necessary to condemn Arius and his followers as heretics for their refusal to accept

the creed. Arius was however, not the only person to find fault with the creed. Although only he and two

other bishops refused to sign the statement of faith, Eusebius of Caesarea also found the creed difficult to

32 Drake 2000: 252 33 Chadwick 2001: 199 34 Eusebius, VC III.10.5 35 Hanson 1989: 154 36 Drake 2006: 124 37 McGrath 2011: 15 38 McGrath 2011: 16 39 Drake 2000: 255 40 Hall 1991: 132 41 Augustine, Confessions pg. xiv 42 Eusebius, Letter on Council of Nicaea.

9

accept,43

however, being himself present at the council under a provisional ban of excommunication,44

the

bishop reluctantly signed the creed, followed promptly by a letter sent by him to his congregation

explaining the proceedings of the council and justifying his signing of the document. That Eusebius felt

such pressure can be seen as demonstrating the increasing effect of a Christian Emperor within the

Church.

Another key issue on the councils agenda was the dating of Easter. From around the second century,

there had been unresolved disagreement over the correct dating of Easter. Different churches used

different systems to calculate the correct date, with the churches of Syria and Cilicia, for instance, basing

their calculation on the date of the Jewish Passover thereby resulting in mockery by many Jews for the

Christians reliance on their neighbouring synagogues to give them the correct date in order that they be

able to calculate the time of their principal festival.45

Constantine, upon hearing of this dependence on

Jewish synagogues, was appalled and demanded that all churches celebrate Easter on the same Sunday.46

It was decided that the date of Easter was to be kept in accordance with the ancient practice of Rome and

Alexandria, and although the churches did not adhere straight away, the Syrians eventually abandoned

their Easter rule.47

The council set several important precedents for future doctrinal disputes as well as ecumenical councils.

Firstly, that the church now had a credal statement approved by over 200 bishops as well as the Emperor,

meant greater reinforcement could be given to the definition of Christian orthodoxy,48 and even more so

to heresy. Although originally a neutral word simply meaning choice49 (hairesis), heresy had gradually

grown over the previous two centuries to bear much greater negative connotations as a label for incorrect

Christian belief, although what was incorrect belief was not, at this point, entirely clear. Rather than being

a reaction to defend what was orthodox therefore, the Council of Nicaea resulted in the determination of

it.50

Any future disputes thus could (and indeed did) look back at the canons passed by the Council of

AD 325 for reference and precedent.

43 Hall 1991: 132 44 Barnes 1981: 216 45 Chadwick 2001: 204 46 Chadwick 2001: 205 47 Hall 1991: 134 48 Gwynn 2010a: 61 49 Lyman 2007: 297 50 Hanson 1989: 143

10

Secondly, that Arius was exiled in addition to being excommunicated had a significant impact on the way

future heretics would be treated. Rather than merely being subjected to the rulings of the Church,

heretics could now find themselves sent into exile by law, thus demonstrating the growing close

relationship between Church and State that resulted from Constantines patronage. Under such

circumstances, it is unsurprising that Eusebius felt pressure to sign the credal statement.

This growing close relationship between the two entities (and what could be described as imperial

intervention) also led to an increasing need for the Church to define itself, particularly in terms of what

qualified individuals as belonging to the Catholic (universal) Church. One of the main stimuli behind

the Donatist schism was in fact an order sent by Constantine to Anullinus, the proconsul, to restore all

property seized during the persecution to the Catholic church of the Christians,51 followed by another

letter, again to Anullinus, giving instructions relating to the clergy of the Catholic church over which

Caecilianus [Caecilian] presides.52 With Caecilian being the main rival to Donatus and his followers, the

letters understandably caused friction concerning who was an adherent of orthodox belief, and thereby a

member of the Catholic Church, and who was not.

The clarification of orthodox belief may also have had an effect not only on the identity of the Church,

but also on the identity of individual Christians. Rather than merely feeling content to simply follow the

teachings of Christ and his apostles, it is reasonable to assume that many may have felt pressure to define

themselves through identification with one of the several conflicting branches53

now that notions of

heresy and schism had found their way into public law.54 In order to avoid excommunication and/or

exile, subscription to orthodox teaching may have been the safest move.

With all these issues in mind, one can begin to uncover why orthodoxy became such a major concern in

the fourth century, and more importantly where the push came from. From the viewpoint of

Constantine, the Emperor would have seen the schisms and doctrinal disputes as threatening the stability

(and subsequent growth) of the Church, and through that, the stability of the Empire. Moreover, upon

putting his full backing behind the Christian Church, and indeed the Christian God, Constantine would

have wanted to ensure proper unanimous worship in order to please Him.

51 Eusebius, HE X.V.15-17 52 Eusebius, HE X.VII.1-2 53 Perrin 2010: 214 54 Perrin 2010: 212

11

Similarly, from the viewpoint of the Church, many would have wanted to ensure uniformity in order to

guarantee the growth and survival of the Church as well as to ensure God was pleased by the concord of

His people. However, it should also be noted that the issues of heresy and orthodoxy also became the

basis for some slightly less than honourable intentions amongst members of the Church- in particular the

bishops. With Constantine taking a considerably active role in ecclesiastical matters, it would have been

fairly obvious that whichever side he took in any dispute could hope to receive his full support, and any

privileges that might come with this; the Donatists, for example, were excluded from any of the legal and

financial privileges that Constantine afforded the Catholic Church.55

Various groups thus each attempted

to bring round the Emperor to their side, and in turn gather the reins of ecclesiastical government into

their hands.56

These groups were headed by the leading figures of their Christian communities- the bishops. How these

men came to occupy such a central role in the workings of the Church, particularly in relation to their

connection to the Emperor, brings us to our next area of discussion: the structure of the Church.

Structure of the Church

The development of the episcopate within the Christian Church is a complex and multi-layered issue

intertwining with and relating to numerous other aspects of the Late Roman Empire, both religious and

secular. The reason for this relates in part due to the duties of the bishop, and the effect the

accumulation of duties had on the actual episcopal role. However, it is in part also due to the person of

the bishop and what he represented not only in relation to the sheep within his Christian flock, but also

to those looking in from the outside- the pagans.

In order to adequately assess how, and indeed if, the role of the bishop developed during the reign of

Constantine it is perhaps necessary to understand the tradition of the episcopate, what role the bishop

played before Constantine, and how the differing circumstances of Late Antiquity impacted upon it. In

doing so, I shall hope to address the underlying question of imperial intervention, viz., Can changes in

the role of the bishop be attributed solely to Constantines imperial patronage, or are there traces of these

developments much earlier?

55 Barnes 1981: 60 56 Hanson 1989: 147

12

Bishop, from the Greek word episkopein meaning to oversee, was an office originally meant for just

that- overseeing the members within ones congregation.57 Dated (incorrectly) by many Christians to the

time of Peter, the apostle of Christ, the episcopal office was highly respected and it was this tradition and

notion of Peter being the first bishop that provided a sense of stability and continuity to the office (in

addition to forever enhancing the position of the see of Rome).

The earliest mentions of the term episkopos come from the New Testament, where it is used almost

synonymously with presbyter (elder), to identify local leaders of the first Christian communities.58 1

Timothy, attributed to the apostle Paul but actually written at least 50 years or so after his death, lists

some of the necessary qualities that must be possessed by members of the episcopate, such as

respectability and self-restraint.59

Although perhaps not an accurate representation of the beliefs of Paul,

the statements were evidently thought valid enough to be included within the New Testament canon, and

as such can be viewed as representing the attitudes of some (but perhaps not all) Christians, of the late

first60

/early second century, towards bishops. This emphasis on the character of bishops is echoed in the

Didache, an ancient church order dated (with great difficulty and without unanimous scholarly

agreement) to somewhere between the second half of the first century and the first half of the second

century.61

Chapter Fifteen of the Didache encourages congregations to appoint bishops (and deacons)

worthy of the Lord,62 in addition to emphasising the authority of the bishop, and in doing so

demonstrates the evident fear felt by the author that the local ministers might not receive the same degree

of respect as the charismatic prophets and teachers63 of the time (an issue we shall return to).

Another early view comes from Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, as translated in several letters of his,

composed as he traveled to meet his fate, namely, martyrdom under the Emperor Trajan in AD 115.64

As an approximate contemporary to the author of 1 Timothy, his views concerning the episcopate and

the role of the bishop are significant. In the Letter to the Smyrnaeans (of Smyrna, Asia Minor), Ignatius

sets out what appears to be a relatively basic version of an ecclesiastical cursus honorum65 with the

57 Rapp 2005: 24 58 Gwynn 2012: 877 59 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (GNB) 60 Ehrman 2003: 31 61 Bradshaw 2010: 9 62 Didache XV 63 Chadwick 1993: 47 64 Gwynn 2012: 878 65 Rapp 2005: 173

13

recipients of the letter instructed to follow the bishops as Jesus Christ does the Father, and to follow the

presbytery as the apostles,66

thereby distinguishing the two entities in terms of authority. Again, although

Ignatius views cannot be generalised to represent the views of all Christians during this period, it is

noteworthy that already there appears to have begun a notion of the monarchical episcopate (a single

bishop at the head of each Christian community)67

that would become an established ecclesiastical feature

by, and actually before,68

the time of Constantine.

Bishops had a number of different duties, both official and spiritual. The supervision of clerics,

management of charitable foundations, and the administration of church finances all fell under their

jurisdiction,69

as did the weekly celebrations of the liturgy and the preaching of sermons. Within their

respective communities, they also acted as local patrons, representing their cities and individual citizens

before imperial magistrates,70

while the active role, played by congregations, in the selection process of

electing new bishops created a power base among the citizens, which even few civil officials could match.71

The conflicts that had plagued the Church early on meant that by the latter half of the second century,

synods and councils of bishops had begun to be held.72

As H. A. Drake has pointed out, simply by being

the one who attended these councils, participated in debates and wrote or approved key documents, the

bishop naturally took on a special role as the link between the local community and the worldwide body

of the church,73 thereby aiding in the enhancement of his position. That a bishop served for life74 also

aided in the enhancement of his position as well as in the development of the notion of a monarchical

episcopate. All of these episcopal features were present within the first three centuries of Christianity, and

thus we can already see the unique role occupied by the bishop at this time.

Something else that also played a key part in the definition of the episcopate, in addition to the

development of the Church hierarchy, was the idea of apostolic succession. By the second century,

there was no one alive who had ever known the apostles, or even known anyone who did. It was

66 Ignatius, Smyrnaeans VIII 67 Gwynn 2012: 878 68 Ibid. 69 Van Dam 2007: 344 70 Ibid. 71 Drake 2000: 105 72 Donovan 1997: 75 73 Drake 2000: 106 74 Van Dam 2007: 345

14

therefore vitally important for bishops to be seen by their congregations (as indeed they were) as carriers

of the same spiritual authority held by the apostles, and thus as a way for Christian laymen to correctly

follow the teachings of Christ. Charismatic figures such as ascetic or monastic holy men (like the desert

fathers of the fourth century) or the martyrs and, in particular, the confessors who had endured torture

and survived the persecutions without renouncing their faith, could all be seen as alternatives to

traditional Church authority, which in turn could undermine the authority of the bishop. It was thus of

vital importance for the Church to have a secure ecclesiastical hierarchy in place.

Moreover, with most of the Christian Scriptures written and circulated at a time when the Second

Coming of Christ was thought to be imminent, the longer the Church went with no sign of this Second

Coming, the more important the role of the bishop and the security of the Church hierarchy came to

be.75

This need for security resulted in a formalisation of the Churchs organisation, with the Church imitating

in its structure that of the contemporary imperial administration. This imitation of the civil hierarchy in

turn, helped to reinforce and clarify a hierarchy among bishops and their sees.76

With the capital of a

province being home to the court of the provincial governor,77

it perhaps seemed only natural that

bishops of capitals (metropolitans) be given a level of superior jurisdiction over other bishops within their

province78

(although this was not a decision met with unanimous approval).79

Several of the canons passed

at the Council of Nicaea80

focused on upholding the traditional rights of jurisdiction of the metropolitan

bishops,81

demonstrating the significance of them as a body within the structure of the Church, in addition

to illustrating the importance of custom in relation to the governance of the Church hierarchy (and

indeed the Church in general). Custom however, was soon to give way to other, previously absent,

influences.

With the introduction of the great Christian patron that was Constantine, the Church began to receive

money, privileges and responsibilities on a scale it had never before experienced. One of the chief areas

75 Heitink 1999: 91 76 Van Dam 2007: 350 77 Liebs 2000: 240 78 Ibid. 79 Gwynn 2012: 882 80 Canon 4, Canon 6, Canon 7 81 Barnes 1981: 218

15

of the Church to benefit from this new level of patronage was indeed the episcopate. Upon encountering

the different schisms and disputes that threatened the Church, Constantine appears to have turned to the

bishops for instruction, guidance, and support very early on; it has been suggested that as early as AD

312,82

around the time of his conversion, Ossius (the Bishop of Corduba, who featured quite heavily in

the Arian dispute) was a member of Constantines court, becoming one of Constantines closest advisers

until his, perhaps unexpected, retirement shortly after the Council of Nicaea.83

It is unsurprising

therefore, that the bishops were one of the chief beneficiaries of the privileges afforded by the Emperor.

In AD 318, Constantine granted bishops the ability to settle certain legal disputes if either party requested

the suit be transferred to an episcopal court84

(audentia episcopalis)85 resulting in a greater expansion of

their secular duties. Three years later, Constantine allowed churches the right to inherit property and

money through contributions, imperial donations, and pious bequests, thereby making the Church a

considerable economic force.86

As one of the bishops responsibilities concerned the administration of

church finances, the substantial income he now controlled would unsurprisingly impact on the episcopal

role. With more money came greater independence, with bishops now able to independently found

charitable institutions, construct churches and shrines, and preside at festivals.87

According to a letter of

Constantine as recorded by Eusebius (as well as through a law recorded in the Theodosian Code),88

the

Christian Emperor also granted bishops immunity from the strains of civil service, to ensure they not be

distracted from the performance of their religious duties.89

This granting of immunity made clerical

service significantly more attractive to those members of, in particular, the curial class, who found such

obligations to civil service particularly onerous,90

thereby resulting in an upwards expansion of the social

stratification of the episcopate, with more and more bishops coming from wealthy backgrounds (such as

the curial class). The benefits of becoming a bishop appear to have been recognisable even to pagans; as

Jerome, one of the great Church Fathers of the fourth century, related in an invective, a pagan Roman

82 Barnes 1981: 212 83 Barnes 1981: 225-6 84 Rousseau 2002: 216 85 Gwynn 2012: 881 86 Rapp 2005: 172 87 Van Dam 2007: 344 88 Theodosian Code XVI.2.2 89 Eusebius, HE X.7 90 Van Dam 2007: 346

16

consul was known to have said to a bishop in jest, Make me bishop of Rome, and I will at once be a

Christian.91

Although no early church orders or canons of synods and councils issued any specific recommendations

for the social background or personal wealth for suitable episcopal candidates,92

the growing numbers of

wealthy clerics, and particularly bishops, meant that a privileged social background soon became an aid

(whether intentional or not) to privileged access to the episcopal office.93

How much of an effect Constantines grants had on the actual role of the bishop (and indeed the

structure of the Church) is questionable. Although the granting of judicial authority to the episcopal court

was a Constantinian innovation,94

the settling of disputes had long been a traditional episcopal role,95

as

seen through the synods and councils convened by the bishops during the second century. Moreover,

although the Church undoubtedly had access to more financial resources under Constantine than ever

before, the ways in which they used this money were hardly revolutionary: care for the unfortunate96

through the establishment of charitable institutions, and the construction and restoration of churches

were both traditional concerns of the episcopate. The function of the bishop as patron was also an

established episcopal role, although his influence was now arguably much greater than before. Perhaps

the most obvious effect of Constantines patronage was the development of a much closer relationship

between Church and State. During Christianitys early days, the Church had been rather

uncompromising with regards to many elements of its character, including its relation to the State, and

understandably so. The persecutions endured during earlier times resulted in inherent tensions between

Church and State (particularly due to the traditional religious identity of the State) with many early

Christians seeing themselves as set over against the world.97 One area this had a great effect on, and

which requires greater discussion, was the identity of its religious character.

In order to ensure it was not seen as another branch of Judaism, or indeed as another of the many pagan

mystery cults that were in existence at the time, Christianity had to create a strong, and defined identity,

91 Jerome, To Pammachius against John 8 92 Rapp 2005: 173 93 Rapp 2005: 202 94 Rapp 2005: 243 95 Gwynn 2012: 881 96 Ibid. 97 Bradshaw 1992: 65

17

completely separate in both character and practices from either Judaism or paganism. As the leaders of

their congregations, it was up to the bishops to ensure this identity was created and kept. Following

Constantines arrival within the Christian Church however, and the emergence of the Church as a public

institution, this inflexible nature began to dissipate, with the Church and indeed the bishops, now

appearing quite willing to absorb and Christianize existing pagan (and Jewish) ideas and practices.98

One

of the key elements of the Church to benefit from this change in attitude was the Christian liturgy.

Liturgy

Liturgy, with regards its use in the Christian sense, refers to the formal or public worship99

of the Christian

Church. The purpose of the section that follows is to attempt to understand how particular aspects of

Christian liturgy, such as the central rites (e.g. baptism) and the Christian calendar, developed during the

reign of Constantine. As stated above, with the gradual emergence of the Church as a public institution, it

was inevitable that certain aspects of its character would change. One of the aims here however, is to see

how far this was true with relation to its liturgy, and how much of an effect the Christianization of

existing ideas and practices had on the character of the liturgy.

By the time of Constantine, Christianity had taken root in numerous different parts of the Empire, from

Italy to Africa, Spain to the Middle East. It is therefore not surprising to discover that different churches

had different ways of doing things,100

with practices differing from region to region, and at times even

differing between churches located within the same region. The dispute over the dating of Easter

(mentioned above) is one example of how Church practices could differ, but there were of course others.

The emergence of a Christian calendar had begun from the earliest days of the faiths establishment.

Understandably, with the various interpretations of Christ and the person of Christ, many churches

placed differing degrees of emphasis on key parts of Christs life, which consequently coincided with the

differing degrees of importance given to days within the budding Christian calendar. Moreover, as

custom had played such a key role in the ordering and governance of many aspects of the early Church,

it is only natural that there would be differences in the liturgical year amongst the different Christian

communities, with each church ordering its calendar according to whatever precedent they had known.

98 Ibid. 99 Kilmartin 1997: 683 100 Yarnold 1985: 95

18

The season of Lent, for instance, appears to have begun in Egypt before spreading to other parts of the

world, where at least from the fourth century, if not earlier, a forty-day fast was held, in imitation of the

forty-day fast of Jesus Christ while he was in the wilderness.101

Because some churches calculated the

forty-day period differently (with some excluding Sundays, or Saturday and Sundays, along with other

important days such as Good Friday), the actual length of the Lenten season could vary considerably.102

Sunday, appears to have been chosen fairly universally as a day of worship sometime towards the end of

the first century103

and although scholars disagree on the exact reasons why this day was chosen by early

Christians, under Constantine it was made a public holiday.104

The law of Constantine as it survives in the

Theodosian Code, relates that no litigation be transacted on Sunday, the Day of the Sun,105 (although

Eusebius adds a distinctly Christian emphasis in his transmission of the law, referring to it as the day of

the Lord and Saviour106 thereby distinguishing it from the traditional day of pagan sun veneration)107 while

in another part of the law,108

surviving in the Code of Justinian, rest is prescribed for all, thereby giving the

impression that Sunday was now to be treated as something of a Christian Sabbath.

Evidence from the first three centuries indicates that the Eucharist (the re-enactment of the Last Supper)

was celebrated exclusively on Sundays but by the fourth century, some churches (in the East) had

extended their Eucharist celebrations to include Saturday also, while others turned their Wednesday and

Friday services of the word into full celebrations of the Eucharist as well.109

According to early Christian sources, there were also two quite distinct ways of celebrating the feast of

Easter. One way (the way that became universal) kept the feast on the Sunday following the Jewish

Passover, thus focusing the celebration on the resurrection of Christ. The other situated the feast on the

actual day of the Passover thereby making Easter a memorial of the death of Jesus.110

Christmas, of course, is another of the significant dates located within the Christian calendar and it is

perhaps here that we can best observe not only how practices could differ throughout the Christian

101 Bradshaw 2010: 97 102 Cobb 1985: 412 103 Bradshaw 2010: 83 104 Bradshaw 2010: 84 105 Theodosian Code II.8.1 106 Eusebius, VC IV.18 107 Roldanus 2006: 170 108 Code of Justinian III.12.3 109 Bradshaw 2010: 85 110 Bradshaw 2010: 88

19

community, but also how the Christianization of pagan ideas worked in practice. Mentioned for the first

time in connection with the Western date we know Christmas as today, 25 December, in AD 336 in the

Philocalian Calendar111

(Chronograph) of AD 354, there was apparently some disagreement within the

first three centuries about the correct date on which this significant event should be celebrated. Though

there has been much debate and disagreement about why 25 December was chosen (due to the presence

of existing pagan celebrations on this day, such as the birthday of Sol Invictus, the unconquered Sun, as

well as the winter solstice)112

it appears most likely that the emergence of Christmas on this date was, partly

at least, an attempt to counter pagan festivities at this time.113

It can be argued, as indeed it has,114

that there

were other reasons for the emergence of Christmas celebrations on 25 December, but that it appears

within the Christian calendar for the first time under the reign of Constantine, the first Christian

Emperor, is noteworthy.

By the mid-fourth century, it appears to have secured its place within the Roman Christian calendar as

well as the North African, but not universally. It was not, for example, until the fifth century that

Jerusalem or Egypt accepted its date, whereas Armenia appears never to have accepted it at all.115

Even

within North Africa, the Donatists always refused to observe Christmas, because at the time of their

schism it was not observed by the African church, and thus when it was introduced by the Catholic

Church they considered it a celebration of the traditores.116

The liturgical practices themselves also appear to have differed amongst the various Christian churches

throughout the Empire. Following the Council of Nicaea, there emerged a desire felt amongst the

Church to standardise liturgical practice-117

a desire, which coincided with the general move towards the

formalisation of Christian public life during this period.118

While it had been a small, outcast, and

persecuted religion, the members of the Christian faith had been confined to worshipping in houses, in

fear and in secret, thereby making the Church a very private and somewhat insular community.119

111 Cobb 1985: 414 112 Bradshaw 2010: 94 113 Cobb 1985: 414 114 Willis 1994: 81 115 Bradshaw 2010: 96 116 Willis 1994: 80 117 Bradshaw 2010: 55 118 Gwynn 2010a: 49 119 Wainwright 1985: 35

20

Without the means or ability to adequately network and communicate with other churches across the

Empire, local churches were likely to worship according to the customs of their regions.

Moreover, the successors of the apostles (known as the Apostolic Fathers) such as Clement, Bishop of

Rome, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch and Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who were teaching by the end of

the first century, all lived and preached during a time before any of the New Testament books had been

canonized (and even before some had been written),120

and were therefore unlikely to have had any

standardised method of practice for the liturgy with which to circulate to other churches.

However, with Constantines growing presence and the emergence of the Church as a public institution,

in addition to the numerous Church debates, and subsequent drive towards a single unified Church, it

would have been logical to ensure that all churches were celebrating the liturgy in much the same way not

only for the sake of formalising the faith, but also to ensure no hints of, what could now be deemed as

heretical teaching, were present in any Church liturgy.

Because the great majority of early Christians were Jews, it was perfectly natural for many Jewish festivals

to be selectively continued.121

Passover, for example, merged imperceptibly into Easter and continued

with the name Pascha, while Pentecost (traditionally celebrated by Jews fifty days after the day of

Passover) was also continued,122

but as a day commemorating the gift of the Holy Spirit in accordance

with Acts 2.123 There were however, also many new introductions by the early Christians, such as

Ascension Day, in addition to several innovative liturgical practices. The custom of baptism within the

Christian Church, according to implications by the New Testament, was derived from John the Baptist.124

Where exactly he derived the custom from himself is uncertain, although a connection between ritual

Jewish cleansings and purifications seems likely. Over the course of the four centuries between

Christianitys establishment and the Peace of the Church brought about by Constantines conversion to,

and patronage of, the religion, the practice of baptism had evolved significantly and was a relatively

standardised practice (in Rome at least) by about the second century.125

120 Willis 1994: 3 121 Chadwick 2001: 223 122 Ibid. 123 Bradshaw 2010: 93 124 Bradshaw 2010: 3 125 Justin Martyr, First Apology 61, 65

21

The sacrament of baptism was not taken lightly by the early Christians. Seen as the primary method for

obtaining forgiveness of all sins, thereby guaranteeing entrance into the kingdom of heaven,126

it is

unsurprising that many chose to delay the taking of this momentous sacrament until much later on in life

(usually on ones deathbed). Constantine himself was baptised only shortly before his death, being acutely

aware of the prominence of sin surrounding the role of an emperor, as demonstrated by his refusal to

touch the robe of imperial purple following the ceremony.127

It is this belief in the definitiveness of

baptism that led to disagreements within the Church concerning infant baptism and whether or not it was

sensible to baptise young children, either for reasons of them being already sinless, or due to the fact that

they were too young to understand the significance of the sacrament and thus not prepared for a total

conversion of life.128

The practice and popularity of infant baptism consequently fluctuated throughout

Christianitys first four centuries until approximately the end of the fourth century where it appears to

have made a lasting return.129

The cessation of persecution and simultaneous patronage of the Church by Constantine also resulted in a

change in the practice of Christian initiation.130

As it was now both safe and respectable to become a

Christian131

(in addition to potentially beneficial), the number of people wishing to convert to the religion

significantly increased. Before being fully baptised however, one would become a catechumen, where

they would receive instruction and preparation for baptism. As catechumens were already regarded as

Christians,132

many were in no hurry to complete the initiation process (particularly due to the

definitiveness of the sacrament), thereby resulting in a greater number of catechumens. This in turn

resulted in a greater formalisation of both the baptismal ceremony proper (incorporating some of the

theatricality of pagan mystery cult ceremonies),133 as well as a greater significance being given to the

ceremony of admission to the catechumenate.134

126 Ferguson 2009: 617 127 Eusebius, VC IV.62 128 Yarnold 1985: 96 129 Ibid. 130 Bradshaw 2010: 23 131 Ibid. 132 Bradshaw 2010: 23 133 Ibid. 134 Yarnold 1985: 96

22

What of the character of the liturgy then? We have outlined some of the ways in which aspects of the

liturgy developed, including the Christianization of some existing ideas, but did this have an effect? It is

generally agreed that traditional Greco-Roman religion survived as long as it did due to its ability to adapt

to and assimilate with, local cults and practices. With the emergence of Christianity as a semi-state-

religion, it would appear that Christianity took on this feature, incorporating (possibly) pagan festivals as

well as Jewish celebrations into its mould. Though this may have altered the liturgical character

somewhat, the standardisation of practices by ecumenical councils, such as Nicaea, also aided in this. In

order to ensure that there might be the same practice in all the communities,135 certain practices and

teachings were altered or removed, resulting not only in a change in the liturgical character but another

area we have yet to discuss: art and architecture.

Art and Architecture

As one scholar has stated, the significance of art as a form of Christian theological expression cannot be

denied.136 With its ability to help teach the Bible to the illiterate (as famously stated by Pope Gregory the

Great)137

and represent complex theological ideas, it is unsurprising that art underwent a relatively

simultaneous process of definition alongside doctrine, throughout the early fourth century.138

Artistic

representations no less than textual polemics illustrate the attitudes and beliefs of those responsible for

them,139

and therefore as the religious identity of Christianity became more formalised and notions of

heresy and orthodoxy became more defined, many visual aspects of Christianity developed in tandem

with this. Under the reign of Constantine however, Christianitys process of definition was still ongoing,

and thus explicit visual images created in reaction to doctrinal debates (such as the Santa Maria Maggiore

decorated, in part at least, in reaction to the Nestorian disputes of the fifth century)140

were not yet that

apparent. The factor to perhaps most drastically affect Christian art and architecture during this period

was the patronage of the Christian Emperor. Not only did the backing of the Emperor mean that

Christians no longer had to be secretive about their artwork (thereby resulting in greater opportunities for

the development of artistic expression), but the money bestowed by him on the Church meant structures

135 Canon 20 136 Gwynn 2010b: 234 137 Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum XI.13 138 Gwynn 2010b: 240 139 Gwynn 2010b: 235 140 Milburn 1988: 109

23

and artworks could now be commissioned on a much larger and richer scale (although this is not to

suggest that the Church in the period immediately preceding the Emperors conversion was a picture of

poverty).141

After his defeat of the usurper Maxentius, we are told that Constantine supplied rich help from his own

resources to the churches of God, enlarging and beautifying many of the sacred buildings;142 a

programme he continued throughout his reign, as seen through the several letters sent by the Emperor to

the provinces encouraging such building and beautification.143

One such letter,144

sent to Macarius, Bishop

of Jerusalem, stipulated that the church to be built within his most holy of cities, be worthily

embellished with the most valuable of marbles, and (if the bishop desired it)145 a coffered vault made of

gold.

One of the chief concerns of some scholars today (and apparently a concern also of some Christians of

the time),146

was how the riches and elaborate decorative schemes now employed in churches could be

reconciled with the well-known teachings of Christ concerning wealth. It is easier for a camel to go

through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,147 Christ was said to have

told his apostles. In the aforementioned letter to the Bishop of Jerusalem, Constantines justification for

suggesting such elaborate decoration and adornment for the building was so that the worlds most

miraculous place be decorated in accordance with this level of prestige, surpassing all other cities

(presumably both churches and temples). A key part of the traditional role of the Roman emperor, and

one of the main ways in which he presented his imperial power, was the sponsorship of large and

extravagant buildings built in honour of the gods to assure their good will, and thus it is perhaps to be

expected that Constantine would wish to bestow the same traditional privileges on his new faith. That

Jesus had been a poor and modest being did not appear to negate, in Constantines mind at least, the

idea of making rich offerings.148

Rather, the Emperor appears to have felt it his duty to ensure that

Christianity be honoured with rich monuments signifying its triumph over the false religion of the pagans,

while Christ was honoured with gifts befitting a king.

141 Doig 2008: 18 142 Eusebius, VC I.42 143 Eusebius, VC II.46, 144 Eusebius, VC III.30-32 145 Janes 1998: 55 146 Brown 2012: xxiv 147 Mark 10:25, Matthew 19:24, Luke 18:25 (KJV) 148 Janes 1998: 54

24

The influx of riches bestowed by the Emperor does not, in actuality, appear to have been an issue for the

majority of Christians of the time. Indeed, early Church theologians such as Clement of Alexandria

argued that the possession of wealth was not in itself an issue, but rather the love of wealth- how else

could the Church hope to help the less fortunate if no one had any money?149

It has been suggested that

those who were in fact troubled by the rising splendours of the new urban churches had probably long

since abandoned the towns for the purity of the desert anyway150

(although, that Clement felt it necessary

to defend the possession of wealth can perhaps be seen as suggesting otherwise). The construction of

new, richly decorated buildings did bring other concerns to the fore however, namely the issues of

iconography and idolatry.

The Second Commandment forbade the making of images151

and this was a prohibition regarded by

several early Christian theologians as completely binding on Christians.152

The issue concerning images

appears to relate to the concern over worshipping them (as also stated in the Second Commandment)

and thus anxiety over the place of imagery and icons within the Church is somewhat understandable.

However, as has been argued by one scholar, that the rejection of images was stated by some early

Church Fathers, does not mean their attitudes can be generalised as representing those of the masses.153

From as early as the second century, Christians were expressing their faith in artistic terms: on cups and

signet rings adopting formerly neutral images and reinterpreting them in a Christian light (i.e. doves,

fishes, ships).154

Even some imagery that had been employed in pagan art (i.e. the figure of an orant or a

Good Shepherd) could be used by Christians in an allegorical sense, whereby only a Christian viewer

would really understand what was being depicted; images of a fisherman, for example, would be

understood as alluding to Christ but only by those who understood the symbolism.155

Allegory depicted

through such well-established imagery was a key part of early Christian art (due largely perhaps to the

illegal status the religion held156

and subsequent reluctance of individuals to reveal their religious

affiliation) and although scenes taken from the Holy Scriptures were present, they were abbreviated and

149 Clement of Alexandria, Rich Man 150 Janes 1998: 52 151 Exodus 20:4-5 (GNB) 152 Chadwick 1993: 277 153 Murray 1977: 316 154 Chadwick 1993: 277 155 Grabar 1968: 8 156 Grabar 1968: 25

25

summary,157

drawn from a small repertory of biblical stories (mostly Old Testament, such as Abraham,

and Jonah). It was not until the Constantinian era that the range of subjects increased, and new biblical

stories appeared.158

The reign of Constantine also saw the dawn of a new addition to the visual sphere of Christianity: relic

veneration. Although the veneration of saints may have begun prior to Constantine in order to fill the

role previously occupied by the worship of pagan deities,159

it was the supposed discovery of the True

Cross (later attributed to Constantines mother Helena) that brought relic veneration onto a much larger

scale.160

Helenas pilgrimage to the Holy Land touched off a wave of fashionable tours161 there, although

pilgrimage was by no means unknown prior to this.162

This discovery coupled with Constantines

eagerness to build great monuments to saints (particularly martyrs) on sites of religious significance,

resulted in an increased popularity in the veneration of relics.

As we have discovered, the Peace of the Church led to a greater number of people wishing to convert to

the faith. Inevitably, this impacted on the architectural space needed for worship. While Christianity had

been a small, persecuted minority, the private houses they occupied for meetings had been relatively

sufficient. Now however, the Church needed larger buildings to accommodate its growing numbers, and

looked to existing architectural forms to achieve this. The basilica was a common building type used for a

variety of purposes163

(both religious and secular) in cities throughout the Empire, and with its trademark

long rectangular hall and relatively inexpensive design,164

it seemed the perfect fit for the needs of the

Church. Many of the churches set up by Constantine in the West took the basilican shape (e.g. Lateran

Basilica, St. Peters Basilica), and it became the most common church design in this part of the Empire

from his reign onwards.165

157 Ibid. 158 Jensen 2000: 756 159 Gwynn 2010a: 108 160 Gwynn 2010a: 109 161 Drake 2000: 237 162 Doig 2008: 30 163 Milburn 1988: 86 164 Janes 1998: 55 165 Gwynn 2010a: 27

26

With all these issues in mind, it is perhaps easier to see the extent to which Constantines patronage

influenced the development of Christian art and architecture. The money bestowed by him upon the

Church did indeed allow greater and more elaborate structures to be built, however, the existence of

great church structures prior to Constantines reign (such as the church at Nicomedia destroyed by

Diocletian in AD 303)166

has led some scholars to conclude that even without the example set by the

Christian Emperor, splendour would still have been lavished upon the late Antique church.167

Furthermore, the existence of such structures would suggest that Christians had begun to experiment with

larger places of worship even before the influx of converts following Constantines own conversion. That

the Emperor legalised Christianity however, allowed the religion to be much more open and expressive

with its art, and this in turn led to greater experimentation and a development of its visual vocabulary.

Conclusion

Throughout the course of this essay one factor has appeared, in some way, shape, or form, as impacting

on each of the key elements of Christianity- the relationship between Church and State. Though it may

be difficult to appreciate the relation between the two entities in modern society, perhaps seeing the

involvement of secular leaders in matters of religion as an intrusion, this was not the mind-set held by the

majority of people in antiquity, particularly for the adherents of Greco-Roman polytheism. The issue

arises however, of how far this was true for the Christian Church. The apostle Paul famously affirmed the

Christians obligation to law and government in his letter to the Romans: Let everyone be subject to the

governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.168 The Donatists

appeals to the Emperor to intervene in their dispute with the North African church demonstrates the

acceptance of this subjection to the State of Constantine, but an earlier appeal by some eastern bishops to

the Emperor Aurelian in AD 272 (as recorded by Eusebius)169

over a church matter, shows that Christians

still believed the Emperor to have a superior position, whether he was Christian or not. Several decades

after the Donatists first imperial appeal however (and under the rule of Constantines sons) Donatus

appears to have had a change of heart, remarking, What has the church to do with the Emperor?170

166 Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum XII 167 Janes 1998: 54 168 Romans 13:1 (NIV) 169 Eusebius, HE VII.30.19 170 Optatus, Against Donatists III.3

27

following the Emperors decision to distribute alms on his own initiative.171 Such a statement then would

suggest that members of the Church only disliked the involvement of the State when the State acted

contrary to their wishes. A brief overview of the ways in which the State became involved in each of the

key elements may serve to illustrate the extent of its involvement, and what effect (if any) this had on the

identity of the Church. With regards to the issues of orthodoxy and heresy, aside from the appeals to the

Emperor, it was perhaps Constantines very obvious presence at the ecumenical Council of Nicaea and

subsequent legal exile of those found to be opposed to orthodox thought that best highlights the impact

the States involvement had on the Church and ecclesiastical procedure. Furthermore, Constantines

apparent drive towards a unified church (resulting in the favouring of particular bishops), in addition to

his increasing reliance on the episcopate for secular matters, is illustrative of the States impact on

elements of Church structure. For Church liturgy, it was Constantines decision to proscribe Sunday as a

day of rest, by law, that brought the State closer into the ecclesiastical sphere, while the bestowment of

great sums of money and general imperial patronage of the religion impacted (to a degree) on the shape

of Christian art and architecture. Taking just these examples, one may conclude that the impact of the

State on the evolution of these elements was great, but as we have already seen, the seeds of some of

these developments had been sown even before the reign of Constantine. It was thus not a case of the

State triumphing over the Church.172 What can be argued however, is that Constantines involvement

within the Church acted as something of an accelerant for our aforementioned elements. The issue and

definition of orthodoxy, for instance, had already been a concern of the Church and one they were

probably eager to resolve; the calling of the Nicene Council and the insertion of terms like Catholic into

public law can be viewed thus as merely fast-tracking the process. With this in mind, the key elements of

Christianity we have examined can therefore be seen as products of both Church and State, with natural

evolution and imperial intervention working almost in tandem with one another to create a new and

more defined Church identity.

171 Brown 2000: 235 n.5 172 Janes 1998: 161

28

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Athanasius, Against the Arians. Discourse 1. [www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm] (Date Accessed: 25/1/13)

Augustine, Confessions. Oxford University Press, 2008. (trans. H. Chadwick) Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall be Saved? [www.newadvent.org/fathers/0207.htm] (Date Accessed: 1/3/13)

Code of Justinian. [www.constitution.org/sps/sps12.htm] (Date Accessed: 10/2/13) Didache. [www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm] (Date Accessed: 21/2/13) Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical History). [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm] (Date Accessed: 1/2/13)

Eusebius, Letter on the Council of Nicaea. [www.newadvent.org/fathers/2804.htm] (Date Accessed: 27/1/13)

Eusebius, Life of Constantine. Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1999. (trans. A. Cameron & S. G. Hall)

Good News Bible: Catholic Edition: Schools Edition (GNB) (2nd

Edition). Harper Collins, 1994.

Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book XI. [www.newadvent.org/fathers/360211013.htm] (Date Accessed: 25/2/13)

Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans. [www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm] (Date Accessed: 21/2/13) Jerome, To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem. [www.newadvent.org/fathers/3004.htm] (Date Accessed: 10/2/13)

Justin Martyr, First Apology. [www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm] (Date Accessed: 17/2/13) Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum (On the Deaths of the Persecutors). [www.newadvent.org/fathers/0705.htm] (Date Accessed: 6/3/13) New International Version (NIV). [biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible] (Date Accessed: 9/3/13)

Nicene Canons in Christianity in Late Antiquity, 300-450 C.E.:A Reader. Oxford University Press, 2004. (compiled by B. D. Ehrman & A. S. Jacobs)

Optatus, Against the Donatists. Liverpool University Press, 1997. (trans. M. Edwards) A Readers Guide to the Holy Bible: King James Version (KJV). Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1972. Theodosian Code. Princeton University Press, 1952. (trans. C. Pharr)

Secondary Sources

Barnes, T. D., Constantine and Eusebius. Harvard University Press, 1981. Bradshaw, P., The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy. SPCK, 1992. Bradshaw, P. Early Christian Worship: A basic introduction to ideas and practice. (2nd Edition). SPCK, 2010.

Brown, P., Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD. Princeton University Press, 2012. Brown, P., Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. University of California Press, 2000. Chadwick, H., The Penguin History of the Church, vol. 1: The Early Church (Revised Edition). Penguin Books, 1993.

Chadwick, H., The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great. Oxford University Press, 2001.

Cobb, P. G., The History of the Christian Year in The Study of Liturgy. SPCK, 1985. (eds. C. Jones, G. Wainwright and E. Yarnold) pp. 403-418

Doig, A., Liturgy and Architecture: From the Early Church to the Middle Ages. Ashgate Publishing, 2008.

Donovan, D., Distinctively Catholic: An Exploration of Catholic Identity. Paulist Press, 1997. Drake, H. A., Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.

Drake, H. A., The Impact of Constantine on Christianity in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine. Cambridge University Press, 2006. (ed. N. Lenski) pp. 111-136. Ehrman, B. D., Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press, 2003.

Elsner, J., Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph: The Art of the Roman Empire AD 100-450. Oxford University Press, 1998.

Ferguson, E., Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009.

29

Grabar, A., Christian Iconography: A Study of Its Origins. Princeton University Press, 1968. Gwynn, D. M., Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity: A Bibliographic Essay in Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity. Leiden, 2010a. (eds. D. M. Gwynn and S. Bangert) pp. 15-134 Gwynn, D. M., Archaeology and the Arian Controversy in Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity. Leiden, 2010b. (eds. D. M. Gwynn and S. Bangert) pp. 229-264

Gwynn, D. M., Episcopal Leadership in The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press, 2012. (ed. S. F. Johnson) pp. 876-915

Hall, S. G., Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. SPCK, 1991. Hanson, R., The achievement of orthodoxy in the fourth century AD in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick. Cambridge University Press, 1989. (ed. R. Williams) pp. 142-156 Heitink, G., Practical Theology: History, Theory, Action Domains: Manual for Practical Theology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1999.

Huskinson, J., Art and Architecture AD 193-337 in The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 12: The Crisis of Empire AD 193-337 (2nd Edition). Cambridge University Press, 2005. (eds. A. Bowman, A. Cameron and P. Garnsey) pp. 672-703

Janes, D., God and Gold in Late Antiquity. Cambridge University Press, 1998. Jensen, R. M., Art in The Early Christian World Vol. 2. Routledge, 2000. (ed. P. F. Esler) pp. 747-772 Kemp, M., The Oxford History of Western Art. Oxford University Press, 2000. Kilmartin, E. J., Liturgy in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Vol. 2 (2nd Edition). Garland Publishing, 1997. (ed. E. Ferguson) pp. 683-687

Liebs, D., Roman Law in The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 14. Cambridge University Press, 2000. (eds. A Cameron and B. Ward-Perkins) pp. 238-259

Lyman, J. R., Heresiology: The invention of heresy and schism in The Cambridge History of Christianity Vol. 2: Constantine to c. 600. Cambridge University Press, 2007. (eds. A. Casiday and F. W.

Norris) pp. 296-313

McGrath, A. E., Christian Theology: An Introduction (5th Edition). Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2011. Milburn, R., Early Christian Art and Architecture. Scolar Press, 1988. Murray, C., Art and the early Church, Journal of Theological Studies, N.S., Vol. 28, (pt. 2.), 1977. pp. 303-45.

Perrin, M.-Y., The Limits of the Heresiological Ethos in Late Antiquity in Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity. Leiden, 2010. (eds. D. M. Gwynn and S. Bangert) pp. 201-228 Rapp, C., Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Leadership in an Age of Transition. University of California Press, 2005.

Roldanus, J., The Church in the Age of Constantine: The theological challenges. Routledge, 2006.

Rousseau. P., The Early Christian Centuries. Pearson Education Limited, 2002. Tanner, N., New Short History of the Catholic Church. Burns & Oates, 2011. Van Dam, R., Bishops and Society in The Cambridge History of Christianity Vol. 2: Constantine to c. 600. Cambridge University Press, 2007. (eds. A. Casiday and F. W. Norris) pp. 343-366 Wainwright, G., The Periods of Liturgical History in The Study of Liturgy. SPCK, 1985. (eds. C. Jones, G. Wainwright and E. Yarnold) pp. 33-38

Willis, G. G., A History of Early Roman Liturgy to the Death of Pope Gregrory the Great. Boydell Press, 1994.

Yarnold, E., The Fourth and Fifth Centuries in The Study of Liturgy. SPCK, 1985. (eds. C. Jones, G. Wainwright and E. Yarnold) pp. 95-109