Part 145

"Shortly after the beginning of the fourth century there occurred an event which, had it been predicted in the days of Nero or even of Decius, would have been deemed a wild fancy. It was nothing less than the conversion of the Roman Emperor to the Christian faith. It was an event of momentous importance in the history of the Christian religion. The Roman empire, from being the enemy and persecutor of the Church, thenceforward became its protector and patron. The Church entered into an alliance with the State, which was to prove fruitful of consequences, both good and evil, in the subsequent history of Europe. Christianity was now to reap the advantages and incur the dangers arising from the friendship of earthly rulers and from a close connection with the civil authority. Constantine was born in 274. He was the son of Constantius Chlorus. His mother, Helena, was of obscure birth. She became a Christian—whether before or after his conversion, is doubtful. … After the death of Constantine's father, a revolt against Galerius augmented the number of emperors, so that, in 308, not less than six claimed to exercise rule. The contest of Constantine was at first in the West, against the tyrannical and dissolute Maxentius. It was just before his victory over this rival at the Milvian Bridge, near Rome, that he adopted the Christian faith. That there mingled in this decision, as in most of the steps of his career, political ambition, is highly probable. The strength of the Christian community made it politic for him to win its united support. But he sincerely believed in the God whom the Christians worshipped, and in the help which, through his providence, he could lend to his servants. … Shortly before his victory over Maxentius there occurred what he asserted to be the vision of a flaming cross in the sky, seen by him at noonday, on which was the inscription, in Greek, 'By this conquer.' It was, perhaps, an optical illusion, the effect of a parhelion beheld in a moment when the imagination … was strongly excited. He adopted the labarum, or the standard of the cross, which was afterwards carried in his armies. [See ROME: A. D. 323.] In later contests with Licinius, the ruler in the East, who was a defender of paganism, Constantine became more distinctly the champion of the Christian cause. The final defeat of Licinius, in 323, left him the master of the whole Roman world. An edict signed by Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius, in 311, had proclaimed freedom and toleration in matters of religion. The edict of Milan, in 312, emanating from the two latter, established unrestricted liberty on this subject. If we consider the time when it was issued, we shall be surprised to find that it alleges as a motive for the edict the sacred rights of conscience."

_G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church, pages 87-88._

"Towards the end of the year Constantine left Rome for Milan, where he met Licinius. This meeting resulted in the issue of the famous edict of Milan. Up to that hour Christianity had been an 'illicita religio,' and it was a crime to be a Christian. Even in Trajan's answer to Pliny this position is assumed, though it forms the basis of humane regulations. The edict of Milan is the charter of Christianity; it proclaims absolute freedom in the matter of religion. Both Christians and all others were to be freely permitted to follow whatsoever religion each might choose. Moreover, restitution was to be made to the Christian body of all churches and other buildings which had been alienated from them during the persecution. {452} This was in 313 A. D. … But the causes of dissension remained behind. Once more (323) the question between paganism and Christianity was to be tried on the field of battle, and their armies confronted one another on the plains of Hadrianople. Again the skill of Constantine and the trained valour of his troops proved superior to the undisciplined levies of Licinius; while at sea Crispus, the eldest and ill-fated son of Constantine, destroyed the enemy's fleet in the crowded waters of the Hellespont, sowing thereby the seeds of his father's jealousy. Byzantium fell, but not without a vigorous resistance; and, after one more crushing defeat on the site of the modern Scutari, Licinius submitted himself to the mercy of Constantine. … What we notice in the whole of these events is the enormous power which still belonged to paganism. The balance still wavered between paganism and Christianity. … Constantine had now, by a marvellous succession of victories, placed himself in a position of supreme and undisputed power. At this juncture it is of interest to observe that … the divided empire, which followed the reign of Constantine, served to sustain Catholicity at least in one half of the world. … The foundation of Constantinople was the outward symbol of the new monarchy and of the triumph of Christianity. … The choice of this incomparable position for the new capital of the world remains the lasting proof of Constantine's genius. … The magnificence of its public buildings, its treasures of art, its vast endowments, the beauty of its situation, the rapid growth of its commerce, made it worthy to be 'as it were a daughter of Rome herself.' But the most important thought for us is the relation of Constantinople to the advance of Christianity. That the city which had sprung into supremacy from its birth and had become the capital of the conquered world, should have excluded from the circuit of its walls all public recognition of polytheism, and made the Cross its most conspicuous ornament, and the token of its greatness, gave a reality to the religious revolution. … The imperial centre of the world had been visibly displaced."

_A. Carr, The Church and the Roman Empire, chapter 4._

With the first General Council of the Church, held at Nicæa, A. D. 325 (see NICÆA), "the decisions … of which received the force of law from the confirmation of the Emperor, a tendency was entered upon which was decisive for the further development; decisive also by the fact that the Emperor held it to be his duty to compel subordination to the decisions of the council on penalty of banishment, and actually carried out this banishment in the case of Arius and several of his adherents. The Emperor summoned general synods, the fiscus provided the cost of travel and subsistence (also at other great synods), an imperial commissioner opened them by reading the imperial edict, and watched over the course of business. Only the bishops and their appointed representatives had votes. Dogmatic points fixed … were to be the outcome of unanimous agreement, the rest of the ordinances (on the constitution, discipline and worship) of a majority of votes."

_W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, page 337._

"The direct influence of the emperor, however, does not appear until the Emperor Marcian procured from the Council of Chalcedon the completion of the Patriarchal system. Assuming that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were Patriarchates by the recognition of their privileges at the Council of Nicæa (though the canon of that council does not really admit that inference), the Council of Chalcedon, by its ninth, seventeenth and twenty-eighth canons, enlarged and fixed the patriarchal jurisdiction and privileges of the Church of Constantinople, giving it authority over the Dioceses of Thrace, Asia and Pontus, with the power of ordaining and requiring canonical obedience from the metropolis of those Dioceses, and also the right to adjudicate appeals in causes ecclesiastical from the whole Eastern Church. The Bishop of Jerusalem also obtained in this council patriarchal authority over Palestine. The organization of the Church was thus conformed to that of the empire, the patriarchs corresponding to the Prætorian Prefects, the exarchs, to the governors of the Dioceses, and the metropolitans to the governors of the provinces—the Bishop of Rome being given by an edict of Valentinian III., of the year 445, supreme appellate jurisdiction in the West, and the Bishop of Constantinople, by these canons of Chalcedon, supreme appellate jurisdiction in the East. … Dean Milman remarks that the Episcopate of St. John Chrysostom was the last attempt of a bishop of Constantinople to be independent of the political power, and that his fate involved the freedom of the Church of that city."

_J. H. Egar, Christendom: Ecclesiastical and Political, from Constantine to the Reformation, pages 25-27._

"The name of patriarch, probably borrowed from Judaism, was from this period the appellation of the highest dignitaries of the church, and by it were more immediately, but not exclusively, designated the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. One patriarch accordingly presided over several provinces, and was distinguished from the metropolitan in this, that the latter was subordinate to him, and had only the superintendence of one province or a small district. However the designation applied only to the highest rulers of the church in the east, and not to those in the west, for here the title of patriarch was not unfrequently given, even in later times, to the metropolitan. The first mention of this title occurs in the second letter of the Roman bishop, Anacletus at the beginning of the second century, and it is next spoken of by Socrates; and after the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, it came into general use. The bishop of Constantinople bore the special title of œcumenical bishop or patriarch; there were also other titles in use among the Nestorians and Jacobites. The Primates and Metropolitans or Archbishops arose contemporaneously. The title of Eparch is also said to have been given to primates about the middle of the fifth century. The metropolitan of Ephesus subscribed himself thus in the year 680, therefore in the succeeding period. There was no particular title of long continuance for the Roman bishop until the sixth century; but from the year 536 he was usually called Papa, and from the time of Gregory the Great he styled himself Servus Servorum Dei."

_J. E. T. Wiltsch, Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church, pages 70, 71 and 72._

{453}

"Christianity may now be said to have ascended the imperial throne: with the single exception of Julian, from this period the monarchs of the Roman empire professed the religion of the Gospel. This important crisis in the history of Christianity almost forcibly arrests the attention to contemplate the change wrought in Christianity by its advancement into a dominant power in the state; and the change in the condition of mankind up to this period, attributable to the direct authority or indirect influence of the new religion. By ceasing to exist as a separate community, and by advancing its pretentions to influence the general government of mankind, Christianity to a certain extent, forfeited its independence. It could not but submit to these laws, framed, as it might seem, with its own concurrent voice. It was no longer a republic, governed exclusively—as far, at least, as its religious concerns—by its own internal polity. The interference of the civil power in some of its most private affairs, the promulgation of its canons, and even, in some cases, the election of its bishops by the state, was the price which it must inevitably pay for its association with the ruling power. … During the reign of Constantine Christianity had made a rapid advance, no doubt, in the number of its proselytes as well as in its external position. It was not yet the established religion of the empire. It did not as yet stand forward as the new religion adapted to the new order of things, as a part of the great simultaneous change which gave to the Roman world a new capital, a new system of government, and, in some important instances, anew jurisprudence. … The religion of the emperor would soon become that of the court, and, by somewhat slower degrees, that of the empire. At present, however, as we have seen, little open aggression took place upon paganism. The few temples which were closed were insulated cases, and condemned as offensive to public morality. In general the temples stood in all their former majesty, for as yet the ordinary process of decay from neglect or supineness could have produced little effect. The difference was, that the Christian churches began to assume a more stately and imposing form. In the new capital they surpassed in grandeur, and probably in decoration, the pagan temples, which belonged to old Byzantium. The immunities granted to the Christian clergy only placed them on the same level with the pagan priesthood. The pontifical offices were still held by the distinguished men of the state: the emperor himself was long the chief pontiff; but the religious office had become a kind of appendage to the temporal dignity. The Christian prelates were constantly admitted, in virtue of their office, to the imperial presence."

_H. H. Milman, History of Christianity, book 3, chapter 4._

"As early as Constantine's time the punishment of crucifixion was abolished; immoral practices, like infanticide, and the exhibition of gladiatorial shows, were discouraged, the latter of these being forbidden in Constantinople; and in order to improve the relation of the sexes, severe laws were passed against adultery, and restrictions were placed on the facility of divorce. Further, the bishops were empowered, in the name of religion, to intercede with governors, and even with the emperor, in behalf of the unfortunate and oppressed. And gradually they obtained the right of exercising a sort of moral superintendence over the discharge of their official duties by the judges, and others, who belonged to their communities. The supervision of the prisons, in particular, was entrusted to them; and, whereas in the first instance their power of interference was limited to exhortations addressed to the judges who superintended them, in Justinian's reign the bishops were commissioned by law to visit the prisons on two days of each week in order to inquire into, and, if necessary, report upon, the treatment of the prisoners. In all these and many other ways, the influence of the State in controlling and improving society was advanced by its alliance with the Church."

_H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire, pages 56-57._

"The Christians were still a separate people. … It can scarcely be doubted that the stricter moral tone of Constantine's legislation more or less remotely emanated from Christianity. … During the reign of Constantine Christianity continued to advance beyond the borders of the Roman empire, and in some degree to indemnify herself for the losses which she sustained in the kingdom of Persia. The Ethiopians appear to have attained some degree of civilization; a considerable part of the Arabian commerce was kept up with the other side of the Red Sea through the port of Adulis; and Greek letters appear, from inscriptions recently discovered, to have made considerable progress among this barbarous people. … The theological opinions of Christianity naturally made more rapid progress than its moral influence. The former had only to overpower the resistance of a religion which had already lost its hold upon the mind, or a philosophy too speculative for ordinary understandings and too unsatisfactory for the more curious and inquiring; it had only to enter, as it were, into a vacant place in the mind of man. But the moral influence had to contest, not only with the natural dispositions of man, but with the barbarism and depraved manners of ages. While, then, the religion of the world underwent a total change, the Church rose on the ruins of the temple, and the pontifical establishment of paganism became gradually extinct or suffered violent suppression; the moral revolution was far more slow and far less complete. … Everywhere there was exaggeration of one of the constituent elements of Christianity; that exaggeration which is the inevitable consequence of a strong impulse upon the human mind. Wherever men feel strongly, they act violently. The more speculative Christians, therefore, who were more inclined, in the deep and somewhat selfish solicitude for their own salvation, to isolate themselves from the infected class of mankind, pressed into the extreme of asceticism; the more practical, who were in earnest in the desire of disseminating the blessings of religion throughout society, scrupled little to press into their service whatever might advance their cause. With both extremes the dogmatical part of the religion predominated. … In proportion to the admitted importance of the creed, men became more sternly and exclusively wedded to their opinions. … While they swept in converts indiscriminately from the palace and the public street, while the emperor and the lowest of the populace were alike admitted on little more than the open profession of allegiance, they were satisfied if their allegiance in this respect was blind and complete. Hence a far larger admixture of human passions, and the common vulgar incentives of action, were infused into the expanding Christian body. {454} Men became Christians, orthodox Christians, with little sacrifice of that which Christianity aimed chiefly to extirpate. Yet, after all, this imperfect view of Christianity had probably some effect in concentrating the Christian community, and holding it together by a new and more indissoluble bond. The world divided into two parties. … All, however, were enrolled under one or the other standard, and the party which triumphed eventually would rule the whole Christian world."

_H. H. Milman, History of Christianity, book 3, chapter 4-5._

"Of this deterioration of morals we have abundant evidence. Read the Canons of the various Councils and you will learn that the Church found it necessary to prohibit the commission of the most heinous and abominable crimes not only by the laity, but even by the clergy. Read the homilies of such preachers as Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory, and you may infer what the moral tone of a Christian congregation must have been to which such reproofs could be addressed. Read, above all, the treatise on Providence, or De Gubernatione Dei, written at the close of our period by Salvian, a presbyter of Marseilles. The barbarians had over-spread the West, and Christians had suffered so many hardships that they began to doubt whether there was any Divine government of human affairs. Salvian retorted that the fact of their suffering was the best evidence of the doctrine of Providence, for the miseries they endured were the effects of the Divine displeasure provoked by the debauchery of the Church. And then he proceeds to draw up an indictment and to lend proof which I prefer not to give in detail. After making every allowance for rhetorical exaggeration, enough remains to show that the morality of the Church had grievously declined, and that the declension was due to the inroads of Pagan vice. … Under this head, had space permitted, some account would have been given of the growth of the Christian literature of this period, of the great writers and preachers, and of the opposing schools of interpretation which divided Christendom. In the Eastern Church we should have had to notice [at greater length the work of] Eusebius of Cæsarea, the father of Church History and the friend of Constantine; Ephrem the Syrian, the poet-preacher; the three Cappadocians, Basil of Cæsarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, each great in his own way, the first as a preacher and administrator, the second as a thinker, the third as a poet and panegyrist; Chrysostom, the orator and exegete; Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Kyros, along with Chrysostom the most influential representatives of the School of Antioch. In the Western Church we should have had to speak of Ambrose, the eloquent preacher and voluminous writer; of Jerome, the biblical critic; and of Augustine, the philosopher and controversialist, whose thoughts live among us even at the present day."

_W. Stewart, The Church of the 4th and 5th Centuries (St. Giles' Lectures, 4th series)._

See ROME: A. D. 323, to 391-395.

"Hitherto Christian asceticism had been individualistic in its character. … In the third century hermits began to form a class by themselves in the East and in Africa; in the fourth they began to be organized into communities. After the institution of monastic societies, this development of Christian asceticism spread far and wide from the deserts of the Thebaid and Lower Egypt; Basil, Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, Ambrose, were foremost among its earliest advocates and propagators; Cassian, Columbanus, Benedict, and others, crowned the labours of their predecessors by a more elaborate organization."

_I. Gregory Smith, Christian Monasticism, pages 23-25._

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 318-325. The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicæa.

See ARIANISM: and NICÆA, THE FIRST COUNCIL OF.

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054. The Eastern (Greek, or Orthodox) Church.

"'The Eastern Church,' says a well-known writer, 'was like the East, stationary and immutable; the Western, like the West, progressive and flexible. This distinction is the more remarkable, because at certain periods of their course, there can be no doubt that the civilization of the Eastern Church was far higher than that of the Western.'"

_G. F. Maclear, The Slavs, page 25._