Survey of Church History LESSON · first historian of the church, Eusebius. Eusebius wrote at the...

Transcript - CH505 Survey of Church History© 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

1 of 14

LESSON 07 of 24CH505

The Age of Constantine

Survey of Church History

Greetings once again in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let me invite you to join me in prayer as we begin our class together. Let us pray. Eternal God, we give You thanks once again for the privilege of coming to study Your work in the world, and we ask that You would guide us by Your Spirit, that all that we think, all that is said would honor You. For it is in Christ’s name that we pray. Amen.

We want to focus our attention today on the enormous revolution which took place in the early fourth century with the coming to the throne of “Constantine the Great.” Church-state relations really date from that important event, and all of the significant and interesting changes which took place in the church are certainly important for us to think about and to study. I’d like for us to spend our time together today doing that.

The conversion of Constantine resulted in perhaps the greatest change that the church had yet undergone. The effect of this was, of course, both external and internal. External: in that it vastly changed the relationships between church and state. And we see the impact of that right down to our present day. And internal: in that it transformed the church’s faith and life itself.

I want to examine both of these. Let’s start, however, with Constantine’s rise to political power. And we’re speaking here of Constantine the Great, whose dates are from AD 274 to 337. The central figure in the immense shifts was, of course, Constantine. Few people have been seen in such a variety of ways or interpreted in a greater number of ways than has Constantine. For Eastern Christianity, he still remains the holy initiator of the Christian world, the instrument for the victory of light over darkness. For Western Christianity, Constantine is often regarded as the beginning of the enslavement of the church by the state, the first major departure of the church from its primitive purity. I would suggest that a more helpful interpretation is more mixed, neither making Constantine a devil or a saint, but rather a very significant figure in the church’s history whose actions and decisions changed

Garth M. Rosell, Ph.D. Professor of Church History and Director

Emeritus of the Ockenga Institute at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

in South Hamilton, Massachusetts

Transcript - CH505 Survey of Church History © 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.


2 of 14

Lesson 07 of 24

the whole course of our church’s life.

We’re fortunate to have some good materials relating to Constantine and this era. Those of you who are reading along with us in La Tourette may want to review pages 91-96 in particular. Others of you may want to dig out from your libraries C. B. Bush, Constantine The Great and Christianity. Even though this was published earlier in the 20th century by Columbia University Press, it makes excellent use of the sources and is still a very helpful source of information on Constantine and his times.

Perhaps the most interesting place to read, however, is the very first historian of the church, Eusebius. Eusebius wrote at the same time Constantine was living, his History of the Church is the only surviving history of the church during its first three centuries and makes for fascinating reading, not only relating to Constantine, but also relating to all of that history which we’ve been talking about thus far in our course together. There are a whole series of additions of Eusebius’ work. The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine, the G. A. Williamson translation put out by Penguin Books in a handy little paperback is an excellent place to look. Another that I particularly like is in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series. We’ve talked about this series before, but volume I is completely devoted to Eusebius [and] to his History of the Church, to his “Life of Constantine,” and, in fact, [to] his oration at the occasion of Constantine’s death. That volume, published by Eerdmans in the early part of the 1980s, is available in most libraries, and you may want to pull that out. I’m going to be referring to it later on as well.

Let’s look, then, at Constantine’s own early life and development. Constantine grew up in a home in which great importance was attached to dreams and visions. In fact, his family came to believe that they were not only the elect of God, but that Constantine himself had a very special purpose in life—that his career was directed from above. Now this wasn’t seen in particularly Christian terms. But it was seen in terms of visions which gave him a divine mission, and this was to have its focus in political and military work. Constantine’s own political star began to rise during the bitter struggles following Diocletian’s abdication. You may remember that under Decius and Diocletian were the great empire-wide persecutions of the church. And in AD 305, the second of these figures, Emperor Diocletian, abdicated the throne. Before he abdicated, however, he had already inaugurated a rule in the empire by two sub-emperors (so-called) and those that worked with them. In effect, he had divided the East from the



3 of 14

Lesson 07 of 24

West. And following his own abdication, we find in the East the rule being taken over by Galerius and in the West by Constantine (That is, Constantine the Great’s father). His rule, however, was challenged by another called, Maximian (And I want to come to that in a moment). The division of strategy between ruling the East and the West was an interesting experiment. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out well. But it opened the door for Constantine to be crowned at York in AD 306, succeeding the very short rule of his own father who had ruled from AD 305 to 306 following the abdication of Diocletian.

The political climate, however, was so uncertain that several years had to pass before Constantine could actually make his claim secure. He had a rival who had established himself in Rome, a man named Maxentius. And it was against Maxentius that Constantine eventually marched with a small army. And it was outside of Rome (after crossing the Alps in the bitter cold of winter) that he had his great battle with Maxentius and defeated Maxentius and became the sole ruler of the West. Now it’s in that event that we find the beginnings of Constantine’s own allegiance to Christianity and, in fact, his own account of his conversion to the Christian faith.

Eusebius picks this up in his “Life of Constantine,” in that volume, the Second Series of the Nicene, Post-Nicene Fathers, volume I (that I mentioned before), on page 489 if you want to follow that. Let me read a portion about Eusebius writing of this great event of the battle with Constantine and Maxentius to you:

Being convinced, however, that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical enchantments which were so diligently practiced by the tyrant, he sought Divine assistance, deeming the possession of arms and numerous soldiery of secondary importance, but believing co-operating power of Deity invincible and not to be shaken. He considered, therefore, on what god he might rely for protection and assistance [He knew from his early visions that he was given a special divine destiny, but he didn’t know which god to turn to for help]. Now while he was praying, God sent him a vision of a Cross of Light in the heavens. This came at midday, with an inscription admonishing him “to conquer by that.” [Here’s the account]. Accordingly, he called on him with earnest prayer and supplications that he would reveal to him who he was and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he



4 of 14

Lesson 07 of 24

was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe it had not been related by another person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterward declared it to be the writer, then he was honored with the acquaintance in society and confirmed his statement by an oath. Who could possibly now hesitate to accredit the relation?

He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens above the sun and bearing the inscription, “Conquer by this.” “At this sight, he himself was struck with amazement and his whole army also which followed him on this expedition and which also witnessed the miracle.” He later had occasion to doubt it, but that night it came to him in a dream, “a renewed vision of the very same sign,” as Eusebius phrases it:

And while he continued to ponder and reason the meaning, night suddenly came on; then in his sleep, the Christ of God appeared to him in the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen and to use it as a safeguard for all the engagements with his enemies. The very next morning he got up, communicated what had happened to his friends: and then called together all the workers in gold and precious stones, sat down and described to them what he had seen, and called upon them to make out of gold and precious stones the standard of the cross... with which he was going to enter the great battle with his foe, Maxentius. They did so, and that sign of the cross was carried at the head of his army.

Now there are a lot of variations to what that actual sign looked like. All of them include the first two Greek letters of Christ’s name, and those are put in various configurations on top of each other or in various forms to signify what he had actually asked to be put on the troops of his forces as they entered battle. Following this time, of course, he receives Christian instruction helping him to understand the nature of the faith that had now captured him and under which he was going to march.

The actual battle itself is a fascinating one, because he [Constantine] met Maxentius by the Tiber River at the Milvian Bridge in AD 312, some 10 miles outside of Rome. And in fact, the battle went Constantine’s way. He defeated Maxentius who



5 of 14

Lesson 07 of 24

drowned in the river and Constantine himself became the sole ruler of the West.

Now did Constantine actually become a Christian? Well this is hotly debated and, in fact, continues to be debated right down to our own time. We have accounts of that conversion which you can read and ponder for yourselves. One thing that we can say for sure, however, is that it changed his life. And it changed the course of the empire and the church forever. Faith had, of course, not come to him through the church, it had been directly bestowed upon him from above. As some say, [he was] “like Paul,” whom Eastern Christians often like to use as a parallel to Constantine. If you look at Acts 9, you’ll see some interesting parallels.

In short, there’s a sense in which Constantine did not see himself so much converted as a person as he did as an emperor. His transformation was not so much personal as it was political or imperial. [It was] a shift from the old Roman pagan gods, represented by Maxentius, to the Christian God. [It was] a kind of triumph of God over the prophets of Baal. Thus, the Age of Constantine becomes a somewhat ambiguous age in forms of religious life, headed by a man whose conversion was more political, perhaps, than personal; one who tied the Christian churches to the machinery of the state. Certainly, however, it was an enormous change in the life of the church.

One of the first things that was done after Constantine’s conversion was the promulgation of the Edict of Milan, which was produced in AD 313 as a joint effort between Constantine, who had now consolidated his power in the West, and Licinius, who had consolidated his power in the East. Remember that the East and the West had been divided. The account of that is a rather fascinating one, and I’d like to read just a portion of that to you because it’s one of the most important documents in the history of the church. And it points in the direction of freedom of religious belief and practice, following a good many years now of deep persecution and of martyrdom (and you’ll recall we talked about the dimensions of that in our last lecture). But if you pick up in Eusebius again, I’m reading now again from this first volume of the Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series on page 378—The Imperial Decrees of Constantine and Licinius:

Perceiving long ago that religious liberty ought not to be denied, but that it ought to be granted to the judgment and desire of each individual to perform his religious duties according to his own choice, we have given orders that



6 of 14

Lesson 07 of 24

every man, Christian as well as others, should preserve the faith of his own sect and religion. We resolve…to grant both to the Christians and to all men freedom to follow the religion which they choose, that whatever heavenly divinity exists may be propitious to us and that all who live under our government shall prosper. We have, therefore, determined with sound and upright purpose that liberty is to be denied to no one to choose and to follow the religious observances of the Christians, but that to each one freedom is to be given to devote his mind to that religion which he may think adapted to himself, in order that the Deity may exhibit to us in all things his accustomed care and favor.

Now that’s about as powerful a statement of religious freedom as you’re going to find anywhere throughout the history of the church. And you can see what kind of change this is going to bring about. For the period from Pentecost up to Constantine (from about AD 30 to AD 313) is a time of persecution for the Christians. Now with the Edict of Milan, we enter a period of religious freedom from Constantine’s taking of power in 313 until about AD 380.

It’s interesting also to note that by the end of the century, with Theodosius taking over in rule, that Christians come to dominate the empire. And from 380 until the Fall of Rome Christianity becomes the required state religion. And in fact, Christians then turn around and begin to persecute some of the others. It’s a very interesting process and one that is instructive to us, I think, and to which we’ll come back in just a bit.

With the advent of religious freedom in the empire, many Christians came to feel that the millennium had, in fact, arrived. This is the feeling of Eusebius, very clearly, as he reflects in his writings on this event. But was it really so? No one can doubt, of course, that the Constantinian Era is a kind of paradigm of historical success. Only 200 years before neither Pliny or Trajan or almost anyone else knew much about this strange sect of Christians. Now it had become the major recognized religion in the empire. If anything is to be labeled success, certainly that must be. Instead of a few disciples waiting for the parousia of their leader, the church was seeing its bishops received in the imperial palace with pomp and honor. In place of the pagan soldier Emperor Caracalla, there was Constantine the Great—dying only after receiving baptism at the hands of a Christian bishop. In place of “Caesar is Lord,” the cry was now “Christ is Lord.”



7 of 14

Lesson 07 of 24

Now the great minds of the culture could turn their attention to Christian theology. Now the church supported by the state could begin to build its buildings and carry on its ministries. Now the shields of the imperial forces would carry the mark of the cross. In this amazing upsurge, the Christian church had come to power. After two bitter attempts to restore the empire to the old religion, as one historian phrased it, “The Roman world bowed to Christianity. The one thing that Rome could not wipe out was the blood of the martyrs. Now Christianity could build its vast basilicas, powerful episcopal sees, hold its world-wide theological debates and boast a membership spanning the Mediterranean shores.” [These are some] interesting comments from one of the old historians. Here is a religion success story if ever there was one. And no symbol of this triumph could perhaps be a greater one than the great reception feast which was given by Constantine for the leaders of the church following his victory at the Milvian Bridge. Here were gathered some 300 bishops, including the mutilated leaders from prisons and from mines now released. They were received by the emperor himself and gathered about the table for a lavish feast and celebration.

It would be nice to end on such a high note. But there’s a lot more to the story because we have here the problem, the mixed results. And despite the enthusiasm of Eusebius and others, we can’t write over the Constantinian Era, either historia triumphans (triumphant history) or historia negativa (negative history), for God does not sanctify success neither does He delight in failure. In fact, the results of Constantine’s conversion are both beneficial and problematic. And I want to look at both sides of that coin with you.

What are some of the negative results? One of these certainly is the rise of religious complacency. Constantine’s victory brought peace to the Christian community following a period of rather intense persecution. As we find in art, the splash of color against a very dark backdrop. Within the context of that peace, the church grew very rapidly. Adolph Harnack estimates that in Rome the number of Christians in AD 250 was something around 30,000. By AD 340, it had grown to over 300,000.

With this rapid growth, however, as is often true in the church, came complacency. Being a Christian became, for the very first time in history, “the thing to do.” The church began to attract social and political climbers. It was an advantage now to be a Christian rather than a severe disadvantage. It attracted not only the sincere, but now great numbers of insincere. Social climbers and



8 of 14

Lesson 07 of 24

political folk who wanted to get ahead. Christian church for three centuries had been both purified and disciplined by persecution. Now they tended to become lax and rather self-satisfied. More, you see, is not necessarily better. More peace doesn’t necessarily produce better Christianity. And certainly more Christians do not necessarily mean a stronger church.

We see some interesting parallels to this phenomenon right here in America during the 1940s and 50s. Those of you who lived through those years will remember the tremendous growth of the church between 1940 and 1960. In 1940, according to Sidney Ahlstrom in his A Religious History of the American People, 49 percent of the population belonged to some religious body. By 1960, it had grown from 49 percent to 69 percent. That’s the very highest it has ever been in our history, colonial or national.

Furthermore, there was tremendous church building going on during this time. In 1945, about 26 million dollars per year was spent on bricks and mortar for the building of churches. By 1960, that figure annually was one billion sixteen million. [That is] enormous church building. And in fact, if you travel around the country and look at Christian ed wings and new sanctuaries and the like and note on their cornerstones the date at which they were built, you’ll find that many of those will have been built in the late 40s and during the 1950s.

Religion was popular. It was in 1954 that “Under God” was added as a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance. It was in 1956 that “In God We Trust” was adopted as the official motto of the United States. And one of my favorite illustrations is the quote by President Eisenhower, who said, “Our government makes no sense [speaking this in the mid-50s] unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith—and I don’t care what it is. It’s that final phrase that gives away the game. It’s important to believe, religiosity is critical for our society, but it doesn’t matter much which faith in which you put your trust.”

Now here’s a fundamental problem in church growth—more Christians don’t necessarily mean better Christianity. And, in fact, the Constantinian Expansion brought more descent, hypocrisy and even murder under Christian pretext than all three previous centuries combined (I want to come back to that in just a moment).

A second genuine problem that we have is, what I have called, “The Cultural Captivity of the Churches.” Combined with this tendency toward complacency was this subtle lure of secularism.



9 of 14

Lesson 07 of 24

Prior to Constantine, of course, Christians lived as a tolerated (or perhaps even vigorously persecuted) minority in a largely hostile world. As permanent aliens, they found themselves unable to conform to much of social practice. They were threatened with persecution and death. They always needed to be “on their toes,” so to speak. Since one’s days are numbered, life is seen then as a gift. Death is a witness to the faith, as we saw in the great martyrs of the church. The community was linked together by identifiable practice over against the larger cultural patterns.

After Constantine, however, Christians came increasingly to live in an accepting world. They were recognized as a part of the community. They were able to conform to social practices. They felt increasingly comfortable in society and with social involvements. Those who had been accustomed to living in radical distinction from the world now became increasingly identified with it. Some of you are familiar with H. Richard Niebuhr’s categories in his book Christ and Culture. And if you use those categories, you see the shift from “Christ against Culture,” which is the normative pattern of those early centuries of the church (in which the Christian church stood out as over against its surrounding culture), to a position which might be called the “Christ of Culture.” That culture and Christianity became so integrally involved with one another that they could hardly be told apart.

And in fact, if we look at our own day and survey the Gallup Poll Studies of religion, which have come out in great profusion over these last decades, we see again and again that church membership in America today makes very little difference in actual moral choices made by people in our culture. In other words, it’s hard to tell a Christian from a non-Christian. It is popular to be part of that larger cultural mix. And it seems to me that that is an enormous problem, which not only emerges from the Constantinian Era, but which continues to plague us right down to our own day. Of course, there have always been those within the church who have stood against that kind of cultural conformity. We see this in the 19th century Adventist Movement. We see it again in the early 20th century Pentecostal Movement in which folk are seen as distinct over against a rather hostile world, both religious and secular. The same is true of our contemporary mission studies. One of the interesting recent books that’s been published by Lesslie Newbigin is called The Gospel in a Pluralist Society put out by Eerdmans in 1989. And what Newbigin, along with many others, are now saying is: That in our world of relativism and of pluralism, there needs to be a return to the kind of absolute



10 of 14

Lesson 07 of 24

structures of Christianity as distinct from that larger pluralistic culture.

Many other examples could come to mind as well. One of the most interesting illustrations of this kind of contrast between true Christianity, which is almost always biblically counter-cultural, and a kind of cultural religion which always begins to emerge when Christianity is too easily accepted within the larger culture, is found in the writings of Sietze Buning (Actually, that’s not his name—his name is Stanley Wiersma, he’s a professor of English at Calvin College, but writes under the pen name Sietze Buning). And he published in 1978, put out by Middleburg Press in Iowa, a very little known but fascinating book of poetry called Purpaleanie and Other Permutations. And one of the most intriguing stories in that collection is one titled “Obedience,” which grows out of the experience of the Dutch Christians here in America—in this case, in the Midwest. Let me read it for you:

Were my parents right or wrong not to mow the ripe oats that Sunday morning with a rainstorm threatening? I reminded them that the Sabbath was made for man and of the ox fallen into the pit. Without an oats crop, I argued, the cattle would need to survive on town bought oats and then it wouldn’t pay to keep them, and isn’t selling cattle at a loss like an ox in a pit? My parents did not argue. We went to church. We sang the usual Psalms louder than usual—we and the others whose harvests were at stake: “Jerusalem where blessing waits, our feet are standing in thy gates. God be merciful to me, on thy grace I rest my plea.” The pastor’s spur of the moment concession, “He rides on the clouds, the wings of the storm; the lightening and wind, his missions perform.” The pastor made no concessions on sermon length: “Five good reasons for infant baptism,” though we heard little of it, for more floods came and more winds blew and beat upon that house than we had figured on even. More lightening and thunder and hail the size of pullet eggs; falling branches snapped the electric wires. We sang the closing Psalm without the organ and in the dark: “The seed from Abraham descended, God’s covenant love is never ended.” Afterward, we rode by our oats field, flattened. “We’ll still mow it,” Dad said, “10 bushels to the acre may be in what would have been 50 if we had mowed right after milking and if the whole family had shocked. We could have had it weatherproofed before the storm.” Later at dinner, dad said, “God was testing us…I’m glad



11 of 14

Lesson 07 of 24

we went.” “Those Psalms never gave me such a lift as this morning,” Mother said, “I wouldn’t have missed it.” And even I thought, but did not say, how guilty we would feel now if we had saved the harvest. The one time Dad asked me why I live in a Black neighborhood, I reminded him of that Sunday morning. Immediately he understood. For fathers and mothers often fail to pass on to sons and daughters their harvest customs for harvesting grain or real estate or anything. No matter, so long as fathers and mothers pass on to sons and daughters another more important pattern, defined as absolutely as muddlers like us can manage—obedience.

I think we have captured there exactly the point which I would like to make out of the Constantinian Era. For there we have a contrast with the normal rational surrounding culture—a counter-culture which grows out of a biblical faith. One of the dangers of the Constantinian Era and of this great revolution is that it captures us once again in cultural captivity.

We also have the interesting reality of the movement from martyr to inquisitor. Although Constantine followed a policy of religious freedom, a position which was open to all religious groups, the clear tendency was toward Christian domination. And by the time of Theodosius (as I mentioned a moment ago) in AD 380, a series of laws were passed to eliminate or greatly curtail the practice of non-Christian religion. For example, all endowments held by the temples and non-Christian priests were seized and given to the church. Non-Christian sacrifices and rites of worship were forbidden and made a punishable offense. Constantine’s own son ordered the death penalty for all idol worshipers and, in fact, confiscation of their property. Furthermore, all anti-Christian books were to be banned and a decree was established that “No one was allowed to write or speak against the Christian religion”—a kind of position of censorship. Those who had been so heavily persecuted and who had suffered so greatly under the Roman persecutions became themselves the persecutors. They moved from martyr to inquisitor. And that ought to teach us a good lesson for our day, our tendency again and again, when we are in power or positions of authority is to do to those we see as our enemies exactly what we feel they have done to us. Christ calls us to a greater discipleship than that—to love our enemies and to do good unto those who misuse us (Matthew 5:44).



12 of 14

Lesson 07 of 24

We find also the revolution in church and state, and perhaps this is most important of all—of the changes. On the one hand, it seemed a boon—that state money was now used to build churches, to support ministers and care for their various programs. It seemed to be a great blessing that state soldiers were used to protect and even later promote the faith. It seemed a great thing that churches could be built for all people, not just those who had money, but all people could have access to worship.

On the other hand, the new arrangement carried the seeds of immense problems. Which held final say in disputed matters, the church or the state? We are going to see later that all too often the state becomes the dominant partner. How could the church maintain its prophetic role while increasingly dependent upon the state? How could church leaders resist the temptation to, in fact, use the strong arm of the state to enforce their position against all the centers within and without? And those problems, my friends, are still with us. The structures of church and sect (the patterns of persecution, toleration, denominationalism, religious freedom, all of those elements) are surrounded by the spinoffs of this Constantinian Era.

Now if there are those negative results, what are the positive results? Well I think, for the churches we have to see as a positive result, the end of persecution. There’s no great benefit in being persecuted. There’s no great benefit in being killed for the faith other than its opportunity to give witness to our beliefs. We treasure life, we value life, and the end of persecution was a blessing. Church buildings could now be built. Old buildings could be returned or restored. Churches which had been confiscated under the Decius or Diocletian persecutions were either returned or now rebuilt at public expense. That certainly was a plus—to have places of worship. Constantine himself built churches in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Constantinople. The great Sancta Sophia, Hagia Sophia, meaning “Sacred Wisdom,” was built by him and destroyed later and restored again by Justinian in AD 537. [It was] an enormous building, the leading cathedral perhaps down into the late Middle Ages.

Furthermore, the clergy were granted special privileges. They were freed from taxes. Crimes of clergy were tried before ecclesiastical, rather than civil courts. And the clergy soon became a kind of privileged class, almost above the law of the land.

Furthermore, Sunday observance was recognized. Although Christians had gathered on Sunday mornings for centuries, the



13 of 14

Lesson 07 of 24

state now proclaimed the first day of the week as a time for rest and worship, and the practice soon became general throughout the empire. By AD 321, Constantine had forbidden the courts to be held on Sundays, except in cases where they could give freedom to slaves. And the military was commanded to omit daily exercises on Sunday.

For the state, we can say that certain gains came in the form of the end of official sacrifices. Heathen worship, which was tolerated out in the rural areas, particularly began to cease in terms of its sacrificial structures. Little was, of course, done to protest this kind of elimination of an important element of pagan worship. Paganism was in difficult times and Christianity was in the ascendancy, so few voices were raised against it. But you see in this great transition, changes coming about in the practice of religions other than Christianity. Old temples fell into disuse, some of them were even turned into churches and new churches were built as needed.

Many of the state practices were changed. For example, crucifixion was outlawed now as a form of execution for criminals. The cross, which had been a symbol of despair and destruction, now became the symbol of hope, tied to Christ and Christ’s work of ministry and death and ultimate resurrection. Infanticide was discouraged and repressed. Slavery was made more humane. In fact, gladiatorial games were ended simply as an exhibition of the slaughter of people for the pleasure of the spectators. All of these, I think, can be seen as genuine gains for the state.

Furthermore, in Christian theology, with the ending of a period of intense persecution, Christians could now turn their attention in new directions. And in fact, the great theological developments in the life of the church come following the ascension to power of Constantine the Great. The increasing preoccupation of the church was to define its faith and draw its parameters against a whole new enemy, the enemy of heresy. So that the movement away from the kind of outside external pressure of persecution now opens the possibility of looking within and beginning the process of development of theology.

How then are we to view this era? Well we can pick up some of the glorious sentiment which Eusebius portrays in his writings about Constantine. And following Constantine’s death, he writes The Life of Constantine in which he says:

I am indeed amazed when I consider that he was but lately visible and present with us in his mortal body. And even

Transcript - CH505 Survey of Church History© 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

Christ-Centered Learning — Anytime, Anywhere

14 of 14

The Age of ConstantineLesson 07 of 24

now after death, he’s still with us and his honor and praises continue. But farther, when I raise my thoughts even to the arch of heaven and there contemplate his thrice blessed soul in communion with God Himself, freed from every mortal and earthly vesture and shining in a robe of light. And when I perceive that it is no more connected with the fleeting periods and occupations of mortal life, but honored now with ever blooming crown and an immortality of endless and blessed existence, I stand as if it were without power of speech or thought and unable to utter a single phrase.

Of course, he goes on to utter many phrases about Constantine, all of them glorious, pointing to the 60 years of life, the 30 years of rule of one whom he felt was not only a great servant of the people but a great servant of God.

How are we to assess Constantine? Well probably that will continue to be debated for years to come. How are we to assess the Constantinian Era? Certainly as a major force in changing the life of the church both externally in its relationships to the state and internally in terms of some of the new struggles of cultural captivity, of complacency. The kind of modern struggles which emerge out of the Constantinian Era, but continue to plague us down to this day. Now however, the church was freed to look at its own faith and theology. And it’s that subject that we’ll turn to in our next lecture.

Survey of Church History LESSON · first historian of the church, Eusebius. Eusebius wrote at the...

Documents

Transcript of Survey of Church History LESSON · first historian of the church, Eusebius. Eusebius wrote at the...