Chapter TWO: The Attitude of the Church

Toward the World up to 700 c.e.

A. Diffusion of Christianity: Some Data1

2.1-2.2 Development up to 400 c.e.

2.1 In the Empire, toward the year 100 c.e., there were already about 50 Christian
communities: ten in Palestine; a few but important ones in the Middle East (Antioch,
Damascus); about twenty in the southern and western parts of Asia Minor; about ten in
Macedonia and Greece (Corinth!); a few important communities in Italy (Rome); and
perhaps Marseilles in Gaul; and finally perhaps in Alexandria, Egypt.
Toward the year 200 c.e., there were more than 200 Christian communities, but it
is necessary to take into account the fact that in several regions of Asia Minor one could
find already many Christians in the country. About ten communities in Palestine (the
community of Jerusalem was much reduced after 135 c.e.); a few communities in the
Middle East; about forty communities in Asia Minor; some fifteen communities in
Macedonia and Greece, a few in Italy; another ten in Egypt; a few in North Africa
(Carthage); a few in Gaul (Lyons); and the rest of Europe, in some towns like Cologne
and Vienna...
Toward the year 300 c.e., the number of 450 communities would be surpassed.
About ten in Palestine; about thirty in the Middle East; 150 communities in Asia Minor
(several cities now with Christian majorities); about thirty in Macedonia, Greece and the
Balkans; about sixty communities in Italy, Sicily, Sardinia (Siracusa, Cagliari, Milano,
Firenze); about forty in Egypt; perhaps more than 200 in North Africa; about forty in
Spain and Portugal (many in the south, Mérida already in 250 c.e.); another thirty in Gaul
(before 250: Arles, and toward 250: Toulouse and Rheims); and another ten in Britain;
and finally another ten in Germany and Austria.
In Europe however, the country remained largely pagan (from pagus, i.e., village).

1 Only general lines will be presented here; not all the dates are certain. H.-I. MARROU,
L’expansion dans l’Empire romain et hors de l’empire au cours des cinque premiers siècles, » in
Histoire universelle des missions catholiques, dir. S. Delacroix, I, Paris 1956, 33-62. The classic
study remains that of A. HARNACK, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten
drei Jahrhunderten, 4.Auflage, Leipzig 1924; translated as Missione e propagazione del
cristianesimo nei primi tre secoli, Milano 1945.
Page 1 of 36
 Toward the year 400 c.e., the Catholic Church already enjoyed the official
protection on the part of the Emperor and every other religious expression would now be
prohibited. Being Christian now became the condition for acquiring a public office.
Around 300 c.e., the number of Christians must have been 2 million in the West
and between 5 or 6 million in the East out of, respectively, about 20 and 40 million
inhabitants. One therefore arrives at the figure of 10%. Around 400 c.e., in the West
there might have been between 4 and 6 million and in the East between 18 and 20
million. Thus one arrives at 40% for the Empire and 50% for the East alone. In 400 c.e.,
the number of Christians could have been a little bit inferior to 50%; but in Antioch, the
Christians had already reached 65% of the population.

2.2 Beyond the Empire. Toward the year 100 c.e., perhaps several small groups
existed through commercial contacts. A presence in India, where Jews could be found,
cannot be excluded. The voyage from Alexandria could be made in 94 days.2
Toward the year 200, in Osroene there was the important Church of Edessa, in
Adiabene Arbela (modern Arbil or Erbil), and in Iran Ctesiphon (sometimes Ktesiphon)
and other communities.
Toward the year 300, there were about fifteen communities in Iran. Armenia
would early on become the first Christian state, thanks to the role played by Gregory the
Illuminator. The presence of Christians in India was documented.
Toward the year 400, the situation of the Christians in Iran became difficult.
Despite the persecutions however, the Church endured. Ethiopia became a Christian
nation (before 350 c.e. the episcopal consecration of Frumentius, or Abba Salama, took
place). Among the Goths in the Balkans (some were already Christians before 300 c.e.),
the bishop Ulfila (consecrated in 341) had brought many to the faith (in its Arian
expression).

2.3-2.4 Development after 400 c.e.

2.3 In the Empire. The Empire became smaller and more Christian. Before the
Barbarian threats, converting to Catholicism became a “national” question. The fact that
Catholicism was the religion of the Empire and Church of the State also occasioned
conversions. Toward the year 500 c.e., the majority of the Empire’s population had
become Christian.
Toward the year 600 c.e., Christianization became almost complete, thanks also to

2 Samuel Hugh MOFFETT, A History of Christianity in Asia, I. Beginnings to 1500, San

Francisco: Harper, 1992, 29-32. The student is directed to this work for more information on the
Christian communities to the east of the Roman Empire.
Page 2 of 36
a stringent legislation.
Toward the year 700 c.e., the Christian empire would lose much territory because
of the Arab expansion.

2.4 Outside the Empire. Toward the year 500 c.e., some forty episcopal seats could be
identified in Iran. Their center was the seat of Ctesiphon-Seleucia, with the “Catholic” as
“Patriarch.” Christianity penetrated Arabia (but perhaps even before 400 c.e.?). In
Armenia there were more than twenty dioceses. In the Germanic kingdoms in Italy,
North Africa and Spain, there were difficulties, but the Church continued to maintain
itself. In Gaul/France, the situation in the south remained good, but in the north it was
more difficult. In “Germania” Christianity suffered. The Anglo-Saxons remained pagans
because the Britannic Church did not want to convert the invaders. In the Celtic world,
the Britannic Church languished, but in Ireland it marked great progress (the mission of
Palladius in 431 c.e., and of Patrick in 432).
Toward the year 600, the Church in Iran maintained her vitality (despite
representing a minority) and exercised a missionary activity beyond eastern boundaries
(India). In Arabia, Christian presence grew (and this fact explains Christian elements
present in Islam). In the German kingdoms, the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons started
(mission of St. Augustine of Canterbury in 596). And in the Celtic world, to be noted
was the missionary activity of St. Columban (Irish monk) with the monastery of Iona.
And in Wales there was the activity of St. David.
Toward the year 700, Iran, the Middle East and North Africa fell under the
dominion of the Muslim Arabs, thus starting a process of diminishing Christian presence
in these lands. In the German kingdoms, the Church in England continued to grow
thanks to the action of the St. Augustine and Irish-Scottish monks (but with problems and
tensions as well). From Ireland and from England missionary monks migrated to
continental Europe: St. Willibrord in the Low Countries (becoming the first bishop of
Utrecht in 695). Very important, both for France and Germany would be, after 700 c.e.,
the missionary and monastic activity of St. Boniface (d. 754).3
3 [A helpful summary account may be read in Stephen NEIL, A History of Christian Missions,
(The Penguin History of the Church, Volume 6), 2nd ed., revised by Owen Chadwick, London et al.
1964/1986, 42-52. Neil-Chadwick points to three important facts: 1) “that the Gospel spread
eastwards from Palestine into the region of Mesopotamia”; 2) that “Edessa was one of the great
Christian centres in that region”; and 3) that “the language of that area was Syriac.” Regarding
Syriac: “Syriac is a Semitic language akin to Hebrew and Aramaic. The Churches of that region
which still use Syriac in their liturgy boast that they alone among the Churches have kept the
original and authentic speech of our Lord himself. This can hardly be made out, but Syriac is
certainly not very far removed from the Aramaic which was spoken in Palestine in the time of
Christ. Syriac-speaking Christianity had a character of its own. Its adherents were sharply critical
of the Greeks, whom they called “disputers” -- always asking complex theological questions, and
obscuring the simplicity of the Gospel by human imagination. The Syrians were simple, more
Page 3 of 36
 B. Diffusion of Christianity: Several Ways

2.5-2.7 Diffusion of Christianity: Several Ways

2.5 Was the Early Church a missionary Church? The question may cause surprise to
many of us who have always assumed this to be so; that it was would be a characteristic
that seems thus to be obvious.4 At the end of the Gospel of Matthew, we read the
missionary mandate of Christ to his disciples to go out to all the world and to baptize the
peoples (Mt 28:19). We know the missionary journeys of St. Paul; the early Church was
in constant expansion. The Church knew that she was obliged to witness to Christ and to
have a mission in the world. However, we cannot talk of a general and continuous
missionary activity organized in the early Church.5 There is a need therefore to nuance
and to distinguish between the apostolic and post-apostolic periods in this early history of
the Church.

2.6 The apostolic period (up to the year 100 c.e.). In Judaism a genuinely missionary
tradition did not exist, in the sense of an organized attempt to convert pagans. But the
presence of Jews in many places within and without the Roman Empire opened Judaism
to a universalism,6 and before sympathizers there were individual initiatives.

direct, inward-looking, and with a certain mystical quality in their faith. Much less original than the
Greeks, they yet produced what is in some ways the most remarkable of all early Christian
documents, the Hymn of the Soul. This is a kind of early Pilgrim’s Progress. The soul is sent forth
into the world to find and bring back a very precious pearl; in spite of much forgetfulness and many
perils, the pearl is recovered from the land of Egypt, and brought back to the heavenly dwelling . . .”
(43-44) The book goes on to deal with the Thomas Christians of India, the Church in Ethiopia,
Armenia, and finally to the barbarian nations north of the Danube and the British and Irish Isles.
For a fuller and more recent account of the Christianity beyond the Roman Empire, cf. Ian GILLMAN
and Hans-Joachim KLIMKEIT, Christians in Asia Before 1500, Ann Arbor, Michigan 1999. “Asia” in
the title refers to Syria, Palestine, “Arabia,” Armenia and Georgia, Persia, India, Central Asia, China,
and South-East Asia.]
4 Thus F. HAHN, Das Verständnis der Mission im Neuen Testament, Neukirchen 1963, 10.

In a footnote however, he admits that the concept “mission” was absent in the New Testament. The
same characteristic in Yves CONGAR, O. P., "Souci du salut des païens et conscience missionnaire
dans le christianisme postapostolique et préconstantinien,” in Kyrikon. Festschrift Johannes
Quasten, ed. P. Granfield and J. Jungmann, Münster: Aschendorf, 1970, I, 1-13. Congar’s argument
is based on the diffusion itself of the Church, but even he admits that the early Church did not have
a missionary bias.
5 Mission im Neuen Testament, ed. K. Kertelge, Freiburg 1982; J. Alonso DIAZ, ALa
evangelización de los gentiles como problema de la Iglesia primitiva,@ in Studium Ovetense 10
(1982) 95-117.
6 L. LEGRAND, Unity and Plurality: Mission in the Bible, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990; Charles
PERROT, “Existait-il un prosélytisme juif?”, in Le monde de la Bible, n. 81, mars-avril 1993, 7.
Page 4 of 36
 Jesus limited his preaching activity and that of his disciples to the Jews (“Do not
go among the pagans and do not enter the cities of the Samaritans...”, Mt 10:5).

The fact that Matthew maintained this text in a gospel that ended with a universal
missionary mandate indicates the historicity of the fact and, theologically, the Jews
occupied a special place in the reign of God.

But beside Mt 28:19, other texts speak of the salvation of all peoples (Mk 13:10;
Lk 3:6, 24:47: “in his name conversion and the forgiveness of sins shall be preached to all
the peoples, beginning from Jerusalem”; 1 Tm 2:4: “God, who wants that all men be
saved and that they arrive at the knowledge of the truth”). Universality was to be
interpreted in the first place as “not only Israel”, and not so much as “every single
person.” This being the end times, the prophecy of Isaiah 60 and Micah 4 would be
realized...in Jerusalem. In Acts 3-7 one can see this “mission” in Jerusalem itself, in the
work of Peter. Here one can see what is being considered: to testify where one finds
oneself, always in hopeful waiting for the imminent return of the Lord. The testimony
elsewhere would therefore be the result of given circumstances. A first geographic
movement took place when the first Christians were expelled from Jerusalem. Ulterior
contacts were also the result of circumstances.
In the case of Paul, his temperament -- humanly speaking -- also played a role. He
wanted to go to the ends of the earth (to be interpreted as: in every corner of the Empire,
or also in the city of Rome itself -- Rome was the entire Empire after all!). But we note
that, first of all, Paul also started with preaching to the Jews, in order to orient himself, in
a second moment, to “all the nations.” Neither did Paul have a “plan of mission.”
The diffusion of the Gospel was conditioned and facilitated by the network of
roads of the Empire and depended on knowledge of Greek.

2.7 After 100 c.e. The apostolic period could perhaps be called “missionary,” but this
was not the case for the following centuries. It seems that the missionary mandate of
Christ might have been interpreted as directed only to the Twelve (and Paul). The
bishops did not see an “apostolic succession” under this aspect. Moreover, it seems that
the mandate might have been considered as completed. In the four corners of the Empire
or “until the ends of the earth” Christians could already be found. Irenaeus of Lyons
represented this thinking (Adversus haereses 1, 10, 1.2; 3, 11, 8; 5, 20, 1).
The fact that prayers for the conversion of pagans were rare and are difficult to
interpret is rather striking.

Here we may be referred to Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 59, 4;

Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians 10,1; Aristides, Apologia 17,2; Justin the
Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 108; and the Didascalia Apostolorum 2, 56.

Page 5 of 36
 Also missing were prayers for the conversion of the Emperor or for a Christian
Empire!
In any case, after the year 100 c.e., we only exceptionally find true and proper
missionaries: Gregory the Thaumaturge, with his missions in Pontus and in Cappadocia
(243-272); Martin of Tours (316/7-397), who evangelized in the countryside of Gaul;
Gregory the Illuminator, the Apostle of Armenia (first half of the 4th century).

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) evangelized simple people who were already

Christians. But he was not interested in the pagans beyond the frontiers [of the
Empire]. And Patrick went to Ireland initially for the pastoral care of Christians who
were already there.

Augustine of Canterbury (d. 604), sent to England in 596 c.e. by Pope Gregory I the
Great, was the representative of a new epoch.

C. Diffusion of Christianity: Motivations

2.8 Several Motivational Factors. It would be good to consider the diverse ways of
becoming a Christian: an instantaneous conversion or a process of conviction. For some,
preaching would have been convincing, for others the example of the martyrs, for others
still the exercise of Christian charity. The ties of marriage and friendship were other
channels. It seems that the healing of the sick and the possessed had been a very
important motive in a world full of fear for the invisible forces of evil. The diffusion of
Christianity

was also due to the defects of pagan society. In the cities where social divisions
were becoming more marked, Christianity offered an equality quite less worldly. It
preached, and in the best cases put into practice, love in a world where brutality was
common. It offered certainty and persuaded there where a vast consensus
recognized that the great adventure of Greek philosophy had excavated a grave for
itself in the heat of debates. Toward 250 Christianity was still the faith of an
exiguous minority, but its progress was sufficient to shed light on the growing
failure of pagan cities.7

D. Diffusion of Christianity: Social Aspects

7 Robin Lane FOX, Pagani e cristiani, Rome-Bari: Laterza, 1991, 335. An important work!
The English original: Pagans and Christians, London: Viking, 1986.
Page 6 of 36
2.9 Social Class of Christians. The early Church, was it an Ecclesia sordida? This
deals with the question that, according to those who opposed Christianity, initially the
Christians were just individuals of low social extraction.8

Celsus writes: “we see woolers, cobblers, laundrymen and peasants plus illiterates
approaching in private foolish young women and boys and affirming stupefying
things.”

It cannot be denied that many Christians were poor and simple, “people of the
masses,” but the picture must be completed. On the one hand, there was no noteworthy
number of slaves; the Church did not think that it had any special mission toward them
but accepted slavery as a social reality. On the other hand, there was a small, reduced
number of well-off and noble gentry.
Already among the disciples of Jesus were members of the “middle class” like
Simon Peter or Matthew, and also rich persons like Lazarus. Among the Christians in
Corinth at least some were rich (“not all”: 1 Cor 1:28). Among only the poor, the
question of whether one could or could not eat meat could not have been raised (1 Cor 8).
In the Acts of the Apostles we can identify many well-off people: the functionary
of the Queen of Ethiopia (8:28), the centurion Cornelius who “gave many alms” (10), the
mother of John Mark who had a big house (12:12); Manaen, childhood companion of
Herod the Tetrarch (13:1), the proconsul Sergius Paulus (13:7), Lydia, trader of rich cloth
(16:14), “not a few women of the nobility” (17:4), Dionysius, member of the Areopagus,
i.e., the Supreme Court (17:34), and Priscilla and Aquila, makers of tents (18:2).
Some scholars -- but contested by others -- affirm the presence of Christians of
high nobility even before the year 100 c.e. In 57, Pomponia Greaecina, wife of the
governor of Britain; in 82, the consul Lucius Flavius Sabinus; cousin of the future
Emperor Domitian; in 91, the consul Manius Acilius Glabrio; in 95, the consul Marcus
Flavius Clemens, considered by some the brother or cousin of Domitian, and his wife
Flavia Domitilla.
Hermas, in his writing The Shepherd, referring to the community of Rome in 150
c.e., talked of Christians too involved in affairs or too sumptuous (Vision 1.3.1; 2.3.1;
Precepts 6.2.5; Similitudes 2; 4.5; 4.7; 8.8.1-2; 8.9.1; 9.13.3). Tertullian, around 200 c.e.,
mentioned two Christian senators (The Apologetics 37:4; To Scapula 4:6). Clement of
Alexandria had to write a work with the title “If the rich could be saved.” For Carthage

8 This thesis has been taken up again in recent times by some Marxists, but for reasons quite
different. [Chapin most probably refers here to the social-scientific analysis which would see in
early Christian communities expressions of protest against the Roman Empire. There is some value
in being reminded of the material conditions which characterised Christian communities in the first
centuries. But one must avoid any narrowing of horizon or any kind of reductionism.]
Page 7 of 36
at the beginning of the 3rd century, a study concluded that Christians did not prevalently
belong to the inferior classes.9

E. Relations with the Roman Empire up to 311/31310

2.10-2.11 Apostolic Period: Obedience but with Distance

2.10 Classic texts on obedience are Rom 13:1-7 (“Everybody must be subject to the
constituted authority, because there is no authority that is not from God, and those that
exist have been established by God...”), 1 Pt 2:11-17 and Lc 20:25 / Mt 22:21 (“Give
therefore unto Caesar what is his, and to God what is God’s”).
This obedience has a social foundation. Like the Jews, many Christians (of whom
many were precisely Jews), belonged to the “small bourgeois citizenry” which did not
have any reason to rebel and instead had every reason to favor “law and order” so that
they could peacefully pursue their own affairs and their own religion.11 The first revolts,
in the time of Montanism, exploded in the countryside.
Obedience also had a religious foundation. Again, like Jews, Christians knew that
God was always greater and that nothing happened outside of God’s own will.

“God’s name be blessed forever and ever, because knowledge and power are his. He

9 G. THEISSEN, Soziologie des Urchristentums, Tübingen 1979; L. COUNTRYMAN, The Rich

Christian in the Church of the Early Empire, New York-Toronto [1980]; A. MALHERBE, Social
Aspects of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., Philadelphia [1983]; W. MEEKS, The First Urban Christians.
The Social World of the Apostle Paul, New Haven 1983; G. SCHOELGEN, “Ecclesia Sordida? Zur Frage
der sozialen Schichtung frühchristlicher Gemeinden am Beispiel Karthago‘s zur Zeit Tertullians," in
Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Ergänzungsband 12 (Münster 1984); R. Aguirre,
“Sociología del movimiento de Jesús,” in Lumen 34 (1985) 105-131: F. BEYDON, “Luc et les dames de
la haute Société,” in Etudes Théologiques et Religieuses 61 (1986) 331-341; G. THEISSEN, “Vers
une théorie de l’histoire sociale du Christianisme primitif,” in Etudes Théologiques et Religieuses
63 (1988) 199-225.
10 H. RAHNER, Kirche und Staat im frühen Christentum. Dokumente aus acht
Jahrhunderten, München 1961; J. BLANK, „Kirche und Staat in Urchristentum,“ in Kirche und Staat
auf Distanz. Historische und aktuelle Perspektiven, ed. G. Denzler, München 1977, 9-28; Kurt
ALAND, “Das Verhältnis von Kirche und Staat in der Frühzeit,“ in Aufstieg und Niedergang der
Römischen Welt, ed. W. Haase, Berlin-New York 1980, vol. II, 23, 1, pp. 60-246.
11W. FREND, “Early Christianity and Society: A Jewish Legacy in the Pre-Constantine Era,” in
Harvard Theological Review 76 (1983) 53-71; R. GRANT, Early Christianity, 83-95; Clarence LEE,
“Social Unrest and Primitive Christianity,” in The Catacombs and the Colosseum: The Roman
Empire as the Setting of Primitive Christianity, ed. S. Benko and J. O’Rourke, Valley Forge 1971,
134.
Page 8 of 36
 makes times and seasons alternate, deposes kings and exalts them, concedes
wisdom to the sages, knowledge to the intelligent... You, O King, you are King of
kings, to you the God of the heavens has given reign, power, force and glory...” (Dan
2:20-21,37).

The Jews put their hope in the coming of the Messiah, the Christians await his imminent
second coming, therefore it is better to obey, in passivity, because all of this will pass
away.

2.11 The distance is expressed in texts like Rom 12:2 (“Do not conform yourselves to
the mentality of these times...”), Col 2:20 (“If however you have died with Christ to the
elements of the world”), Col 3:1-2 (“If therefore you have risen with Christ, look for the
things of above”), 1 Pt 1:1 (“Comport yourselves with fear in the time of your
pilgrimage”), 1 Pt 2:11 (“Beloved, I exhort you, as strangers and pilgrims...”)12 James 1:1
(“James...to the twelve tribes dispersed in the world...”).
This distance finds its theological reason in the expectation of the parousia, judged
to be imminent. A strong expression of this may be found in Phil 3:20:

Our home (πoλίτευμα) instead is in the heavens, and from there we await as savior
the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transfigure our miserable body in order to conform it
to his glorious body, by virtue of the power he has to submit everything else to
himself.13

Phil 1:17 says: “comport yourselves as citizens (πoλίτεύεσθε) worthy of the

gospel”; Eph 2:19 calls Christians “fellow citizens of the saints (συμπoλίται).” Other
texts: 1 Cor 7:29-31 (“I tell you this brothers: the time has now been made short”); Heb
11:13-16 (“...God does not disdain to call himself their God: he has in fact prepared for
them a city (πoλίv)”; Heb 13:13-14 (“...we do not have here a stable city (πoλίv) but we
go in search of that of the future”).
In the texts of the Apocalypse or Revelation one finds a complete rejection of
Rome and of every terrestrial authority.14

2.12-2.17 From 100 c.e. to 312: Acceptance but always with Distance

12 A different interpretation may be found in J. ELLIOT, A Home for the Homeless: A

Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter: Its Situation and Strategy, London 1982. This refers to the
strangers in the cities, not to Christians in general who have not yet found themselves in their true
home, heaven.
13 J. LAMBRECHT, “Our Commonwealth is in Heaven,” in Louvain Studies 10 (1985) 199-205.
14 F. BOVON, “Possession ou enchantement. Les institutions romaines selon l’Apocalypse de
Jean,” in Cristianesimo nella Storia 7 (1986) 221-238.
Page 9 of 36
2.12 The endurance of the Empire offered to Christians new experiences in their relation
with it. To mere obedience one may join the attitude -- more positive -- of acceptance,
including for some elements of appreciation. Acceptance expressed itself in at least three
ways: in the writings of the Apologists, in the presence of Christian functionaries, and
in the prayers for the Emperor and the Empire.
The Apologists,15 when they directed supplications to the emperors in order to
defend the Church against attacks and thus impede persecutions, were pushed to discover
praiseworthy elements in the Empire. We wish to suppose that, though keeping quiet on
other aspects, they were not insincere in their affirmations. Thus we find elements of a
first “theology of the Empire.”

In 176, Melito, Bishop of Sardis, wrote to the Emperor: “...Our philosophy in its
beginnings, it is true, flourished among the barbarians (Jews); but then, diffused in
the midst of your people under the reign of the great Augustus, your ancestor, it
became, above all through your empire, of propitious omen. From that moment the
power of the Roman Empire increased in grandeur and splendor. You now have
become its head and heir, and such will remain with your son, if you protect this
philosophy that, born with the empire and blossoming under Augustus, had, among
the other cults, the respect of your ancestors.”16

There were Christians who remained or who became functionaries17 [or

bureaucrats] of the Empire. They would be few; some texts speak of a refusal of public
functions (Tatian, Discourse to the Greeks (Oratio ad Graecos) 11, 1; Tertullian,
Apology (Apologeticum) 38, 3; Origen, Against Celsus (Contra Celsum) 8, 75; Minucius
Felix, Octavius 31, 6; 37, 7-10). The ties of the functionaries with the pagan cults had to
be an obstacle for many Christians; they would have had to escape certain cultic
obligations also. But the ecclesiastical authorities were certainly cautious in admitting
those who were already functionaries to communion or to ordination (Pope Stephen I
[254-257], Letters 1, 1; Synod of Elvira [between 298 and 314], canon 2, 3, 55 and 56;

15 Names and dates in Chapter Five. But cf. also Gli apologetici greci, translation,
introduction and notes by C. Burini, Rome: Città Nuova Editrice, 1986, Collana di testi patristici 59;
and R. GRANT, “Five Apologists and Marcus Aurelius,” in Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988) 1-17.
16From EUSEBIUS, Storia ecclesiastica, 4, 24, 7. English translation in EUSEBIUS, The History
of the Church from Christ to Constantine, tr. G. A. Williamson, rev. and ed. with new introduction
by Andrew Louth, London: Penguin Books, Book 4, Chapter 26, Section 7.
17 A. BIGELMEIER, Die Beteiligung der Christen am öffentlichen Leben in
vorConstantinischer Zeit, München 1902; Th. KLAUSER, „Bischöfe als staatliche Prokuratoren im 3.
Jh.,“ in Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 14 (1971) 140-149. (The cultic acts were not
required perhaps before the reign of Decius.)
Page 10 of 36
Synod of Arles [314], canon 7). These precautions also proved that some Christians had
been functionaries. Other proofs are offered by a text of Tertullian (Apologia 37, 4), a
text of Clement of Alexandria (The Pedagogue 3, 11 / 3, 78, 318) and the Roman
Martyrology (there were senators and consuls among the martyrs).

A special case was Paul of Samosata who between 260 and 270 was at the same time
a high functionary of the financial administration of Syria, at that time independent
under Queen Xenobia, and Bishop of Antioch. But his all too worldly lifestyle and
some of his doctrines provoked criticism. In 268 a synod deposed him, and in 270
he was expelled from the episcopate (following the order of the Emperor who once
again was master of Syria).

Prayer for the Emperor and the Empire had diverse dimensions. Prayer for
persecutors had a biblical tradition (cf. Jer 29:7, Mt 5:44). Christians made this prayer in
the interest of public order (which left space for the exercise of their own religion).

“Which men are more just in order to obtain that of which they had need in respect
to us who pray for your empire, so that from father to son you obtain the kingdom --
a thing which after all is maximally just -- and so that your empire would have
expansion and growth while all become your subjects? This is also to our
advantage, in order to lead a serene and tranquil life and thus we ourselves may be
able to willingly fulfil all the things that have been commanded us to do.”
(Athenagoras, A Plea for Christians 37, 2-3)

Another reason was to help along the end of the world (which would coincide with
the end of the Empire). Among the texts (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 60,
4 - 61, 1-3; Aristide of Athena, Apology 16, 7; Justin the Martyr, Apology I, 17;
Tertullian, Apologeticum 30-32, and To Scapula 2, 6; Cyprian, An Address to
Demetrianus 20), we may cite Lactantius, Divine Institutes 7, 25, 11:

But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a
street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now
arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still
sustains all things; and the God of heaven is to be entreated by us and implored -- if,
indeed, His arrangements and decrees can be delayed -- lest, sooner than we think
for, that detestable tyrant should come who will trader-take so great a deed, and dig
out that eye, by the destruction of which the world itself is about to fall.19

One can also note a certain pride regarding the Empire as an organization

18 A new system for classifying the works of Clement of Alexandria has been adopted.
19 Cf. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07017.html.
Page 11 of 36
(Tertullian, On the Soul 30, 3 and On the Philosopher’s Cloak 2, 7).20 In Justin, Clement
of Alexandria and Origen (d. 254), one notes an opening to the forms and some elements
of the philosophical and literary culture of the Empire. Origen had seen a providential
dimension in the Empire.

We would say in reply, that so He did; for righteousness has arisen in His days, and
there is abundance of peace, which took its commencement at His birth, God
preparing the nations for His teaching, that they might be under one prince, the king
of the Romans, and that it might not, owing to the want of union among the nations,
caused by the existence of many kingdoms, be more difficult for the apostles of Jesus
to accomplish the task enjoined upon them by their Master, when He said, "Go and
teach all nations." Moreover it is certain that Jesus was born in the reign of
Augustus, who, so to speak, fused together into one monarchy the many populations
of the earth. Now the existence of many kingdoms would have been a hindrance to
the spread of the doctrine of Jesus throughout the entire world; not only for the
reasons mentioned, but also on account of the necessity of men everywhere
engaging in war, and fighting on behalf of their native country, which was the case
before the times of Augustus, and in periods still more remote, when necessity
arose, as when the Peloponnesians and Athenians warred against each other, and
other nations in like manner. How, then, was it possible for the Gospel doctrine of
peace, which does not permit men to take vengeance even upon enemies, to prevail
throughout the world, unless at the advent of Jesus a milder spirit had been
everywhere introduced into the conduct of things?21

The Prayer of Christians therefore proves a certain relative acceptance of the Empire; it
would not be possible to pray for something that would have been completely an evil.
But attention must be paid to two things.
Many aspects of Roman society would be radically rejected by Christians, such as
the moral decadence, public spectacles of the circus where gladiators and other victims
were immolated in games under the amused eyes of the spectators, the inferiority of
women (Tatian, Address to the Greeks 22 and 23; Minucius Felix, Octavius 12 and 30).
Lacking however was prayer for the conversion of the Emperor and the
prospective of the Christianization of the Empire!22 Tertullian explained why:

20 J.-C. FREDOUILLE, «Tertullien et l’Empire, » in Recherches Augustiniennes 19 (1984) 111-

131.
21ORIGEN, Against Celsus II, 30. Here we use the text from the following internet website:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-56.htm#P8167_2023251.
22ORIGEN, Against Celsus VIII, 72, speaks of the possibility that all the peoples would be
submitted to the one unique law; but this seems to me to deal with the eschaton.
Page 12 of 36
 Yes, and the Caesars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not
been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars.

2.13 The distance therefore endured. This distance expressed itself in terminology.
There was the use of the word παρoικεɩv (“to dwell as a stranger”), applied to the Church
in Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 1, 1 (“The Church of God which dwells in
Rome, to the Church of God which dwells in Corinth”) and in the Martyrdom of Polycarp
1,1 (“The Church of God which dwells in Smyrna to the Church which is in
Philomelius”). The same concept is found in The Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude I, 1
(“You know that you servants of God dwell in a strange land, because your city is far
from this city”), in the Letter to Diognetus 5, 5.9.10 (Christians “live in their homeland,
but as strangers; they participate in everything as citizens and from all they are detached
as strangers. They dwell on earth, but they have their citizenship in heaven. They obey
the established laws, and with their life they transcend the law”), in Tertullian, The
Crown 13, 4 (“You are a pilgrim in this world and a citizen in the heavenly Jerusalem”)
and in Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen X, 108, 4 (“Let, then, the
Athenian follow the laws of Solon, and the Argive those of Phoroneus, and the Spartan
those of Lycurgus: but if thou enroll thyself as one of God's people, heaven is thy
country, God thy lawgiver.”). In the Acts of the Martyrs, i.e., the protocols of their
causes, the expression “I am a Christian” (before being a Roman) returns again and again.
In another mode, Cyprian, in his Address to Demetrianus 20, expressed himself (“We no
longer live for the world but for God...”).
Much more negatively did Minucius Felix express himself:23

"Nevertheless, you will say that that very superstition itself gave, increased, and
established their empire for the Romans, since they prevailed not so much by their
valour as by their religion and piety. Doubtless the illustrious and noble justice of
the Romans had its beginning from the very cradle of the growing empire. Did they
not in their origin, when gathered together and fortified by crime, grow by the
terror of their own fierceness? For the first people were assembled together as to an
asylum. Abandoned people, profligate, incestuous, assassins, traitors, had flocked
together; and in order that Romulus himself, their commander and governor, might
excel his people in guilt, he committed fratricide. These are the first auspices of the
religious state! By and by they carried off, violated, and ruined foreign virgins,
already betrothed, already destined for husbands, and even some young women
from their marriage vows-a thing unexampled and then engaged in war with their
parents, that is, with their fathers-in-law, and shed the blood of their kindred. What
more irreligious, what more audacious, what could be safer than the very confidence
of crime? Now, to drive their neighbours from the land, to overthrow the nearest

23 E. HECK, “Minucius Felix und der Römische Staat. Ein Hinweis zum 25. Kapitel des
*Octavius+,” in Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984) 154-164.
Page 13 of 36
 cities, with their temples and altars, to drive them into captivity, to grow up by the
losses of others and by their own crimes, is the course of training common to the
rest of the kings and the latest leaders with Romulus. Thus, whatever the Romans
hold, cultivate, possess, is the spoil of their audacity. All their temples are built from
the spoils of violence, that is, from the ruins of cities, from the spoils of the gods,
from the murders of priests. This is to insult and scorn, to yield to conquered
religions, to adore them when captive, after having vanquished them. For to adore
what you have taken by force, is to consecrate sacrilege, not divinities. As often,
therefore, as the Romans triumphed, so often they were polluted; and as many
trophies as they gained from the nations, so many spoils did they take from the
gods. Therefore the Romans were not so great because they were religious, but
because they were sacrilegious with impunity. For neither were they able in the
wars themselves to have the help of the gods against whom they took up arms; and
they began to worship those when they were triumphed over, whom they had
previously challenged. But what avail such gods as those on behalf of the Romans,
who had had no power on behalf of their own worshippers against the Roman arms?
For we know the indigenous gods of the Romans-Romulus, Picus, Tiberinus, and
Consus, and Pilumnus, and Picumnus. Tatius both discovered and worshipped
Cloacina; Hostilius, Fear and Pallor. Subsequently Fever was dedicated by I know
not whom: such was the superstition that nourished that city – diseases and ill
states of health.24

2.14 Moreover, the distance was reinforced in a dialectical process of osmosis: the
Church absorbed some structural elements from the Empire in order to take its distance
from it.25
The community of Rome offered an example of an osmosis on the general level.
We find the Roman concept of the family in Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians
1.3 and in The Shepherd of Hermas, Precept 8.10. The aristocratic virtue of hospitality in
Clement (1.2, 10.7, 11.1, 12.1, 35.5). The reality of patron and client relationship in
Clement (38.2) and in Hermas (Similitude 2, 4-7). The idea of citizenship to express
being a member of the Church in Clement (2.8, 3.4, 54.4, 6.1, 51.2, 21.1, 44.6). The
ideal of harmony to overcome divisions in Clement (49.5, 2.2, 2.6, 3.4, 14.2, 49.5, 51.1-2,
54.2). The example of military discipline in Clement (21.4, 37.2-3, 41.1).26

2.15 The osmosis on the structural level was expressed in diverse ways. The

24 Cf. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-34.htm#P5687_888845.
25 E. HERRMANN, Ecclesia in Re Publica. Die Entwicklung der Kirche von pseudostaatlicher
zu staatlich inkorporierter Existenz, Frankfurt, etc. 1980.
26J. JEFFERS, Conflict at Rome. Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity,
Minneapolis 1991.
Page 14 of 36
terminology of Graeco-Roman public administration was adopted. For example, the
words ɛπίσκoπoς for the monarchical bishop, σύvoδoς for the meeting of bishops or
ordinare (to place one in the imperial service) for ordination.
Several forms of public administration were also adopted: the synod, as a means
for regulating certain things (in Asia Minor, once a year, the representatives of the cities
of a civil province converged in the metropole in order to organize the imperial cult); the
synodal process (like in the civil assemblies, the sessions were public, there was the
reading of the juridical instrument before the whole assembly, the examination of the
testimonies and audience of the legates...). There were also regional differences -- proof
of the imitation: in Africa there was a parallel to the sessions of the Senate, in Rome the
role of the Pope and of the bishops, priests and deacons was modeled on that of the
prefect and of his counselors, i.e., only the pope formulated judgment, after the
discussion; regional organization (Egypt conserved the principle of collegiality until 200
c.e., when a much greater civil centralization took place; it was then only when the
bishop of Alexandria, called much later patriarch, began to have a predominant position
over the communities in the other cities; in Africa, a predominant episcopal see was
lacking because the civil structure did not offer any support); the mode in which a bishop
communicated his election and consecration (through a type of letter which also used
consular officials); the use of the cathedra, which in the 3rd century was already a symbol
of episcopal authority (the theological justification says that this deals with the imitation
of the cathedra, i.e., seat of Moses, but in fact this deals, in praxis, with the introduction
into the Church of the special seat of Roman magistrates; even the enthronement, at the
end of the rite of ordination, much resembled the installation of civil magistrates).27

2.16 Another aspect of the osmosis was the acceptance of the juridical-social institution
of slavery. Here we have a case where the Empire showed itself more powerful than the
Church and exercised great influence over her. However, this acceptance would render
the Church ultimately stronger vis a vis the Empire. The attitude of the Church regarding
slavery would undergo a development during the early period. It would come to be seen
as normal; it seems that it was impossible to imagine an economy without slaves. This
fact would however begin to condition ecclesiastical laws.
In the liturgy, the principle was maintained that for Christ all human beings had
the same dignity. Slaves were admitted to baptism and the Eucharist in the same manner
as free men and women. It was of course by itself a revolutionary thing, because the
pagan slaves could not participate in the official cults (the gods were not interested in
slaves) and they therefore had to organize cultic acts for themselves. The principle of
equality was also put in practice in martyrdom (and in death). The inscriptions in the

27 Attention!!! This refers not so much to the essence of the apostolic authority of bishops
(instituted by Christ) but only to the concrete forms of their organization and exercise.
Page 15 of 36
catacombs never added to a name the word servus, slave.
But the abolition of slavery did not enter into the “program” of the Church (for
Paul, the abolition was not an urgent thing because the parousia was after all an imminent
reality, 1 Cor 7:20-22). The Church favored only the voluntary emancipation of slaves
on the part of their Christian masters (on the occasion of their baptism for example) and
worked to promote such a practice. Meanwhile there were Christians who owned [or
continued to own] slaves. This growing acceptance of slavery would express itself in the
3rd century, when no slave was baptized without finally the consent of his or her master,
and that before one could be ordained one needed to be emancipated. (Pope Calixtus I,
217-222 c.e., was a slave, and also perhaps Pius I, 140-155 c.e.)
Also after 312 c.e., the Church, it is true, desired good and humane treatment of
slaves, but she herself possessed slaves in growing numbers and never made any
principled move to abolish the institution of slavery. The fall in the number of slaves at
the end of the Empire was due to [negative] economic factors.
Augustine offered a theological justification of slavery:

“God wanted that the rational creature, made in his own image, should command only
those irrational ones: not the human being over another human being, but the human
being over the beast. Therefore the first just ones were instituted as pastors of animals
more than king of human beings, because also with this means God could demonstrate
that which required the order of the creature and that which demanded the merit of
sinners. In fact, one must understand that the state of slavery is certainly imposed on the
sinner with reason.” (De civitate Dei 19, 15)

John Chrysostom wanted only a moderation in the possession of slaves (2 or 3 for

every family, and a priest must have less than that). It seems that Gregory of Nyssa (d.
394) was the only one among the Fathers to strongly indicate slavery as something
against nature and against the will of God:

“Therefore he who takes possession of that which is the possession of God, and
attributes divine power to the human being, to consider himself Lord of men and
women, what else is he doing if not trespassing nature with his pride, considering
himself different from those who are subjected to him? ‘I acquired slaves and
maidservants.’ (Qoh 2:7) What? You condemn to slavery the human being whose
nature is free and master of itself, and you legislate against God, subverting his own
natural law! You submit to the yoke of slavery, transgressing and opposing the
divine order, the one who was created to become the master of the earth, and who
has been constituted by the Creator to command. . . . But you, dividing human nature
with slavery and lordship, you have made it to be at the same time servant and
master of itself. You in fact say: “I acquired slaves and maidservants.” But tell me,
willingly: at what price? What have you found, among all that exists, which might be
Page 16 of 36
 the equal value of human nature? With how much loose change have you measured
[human] reason? How many cents have you paid for the image of God? For how
much currency [‘stateri’] have you made cheap the nature created by God? . . . not
even God could reduce to slavery human nature, he who had freely called us to
freedom when we were slaves of sin.” (Homily on Qohelet IV)

2.17 A process with important consequences was the creation of several parallel
structures; the Church took into her own hands some sectors with high social relevance,
subtracting them from the State and creating a different system.
The Church started to follow her own marriage laws. While refusing to
recognize divorce and, during a certain period, mixed marriages, it began to accept as
valid marriages those which were not so considered by imperial legislation, i.e., marriage
of a woman of the nobility with an emancipated slave for example. The first case that we
know of was from the time of Pope Calixtus I (217-222 c.e.).
The Church created – for civil causes – its own tribunals. This refers to the
application of 1 Cor 6:1-7.

“There is among you one who, involved in a dispute with another, dares to have
himself judged by the unjust instead of by the saints . . .”

There was also the Jewish roots in the diaspora of its own “tribunals.” In addition, in the
Roman Empire, it was not strange to have one’s own arbiter for civil litigations. The
bishops were the ones who organized their own authentic tribunals, under their own
presidency, on the model of the state tribunals. Interesting was the fact that even the
pagans, knowing that the bishops were not corrupt men, brought their causes to these
episcopal tribunals.
In this way a State within the State was created, a parallel empire . . . On the part
of the Church this was expressed by Hippolytus (d. 235) who called the Church paradise
and also the σύστημα (the “system,” i.e., the “State”) of the saints (In Danielem I, 17,
18:7). Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) called the Church hortus conclusus, a closed garden
-- just as paradise was (Letters 69:4, 74:11, 75:15). But even the Empire considered the
Church in the same manner. The Church was like a separate and different people; and in
the measure in which it grew it was considered a threat. The persecutions were therefore
explained thus.

2.18-2.22 The Persecutions

2.18 Chronology. Pious tradition, which drew inspiration from the “ten plagues of
Egypt,” speaks of “ten persecutions,” having in mind persecutions in all of the Empire.

Page 17 of 36
The reality was rather different. Up to 250 c.e., these were really sparse and locally
limited. Only in 251 and 260, and also between 303 and 311, could one speak of global,
systematic and structured persecutions.

Subdivisions according to the Emperors:

Nero (54-68). In 58, a process was initiated against Pomponia Graecina, wife
of the consul Aulus Plautius, accused of externa superstitio (superstitious activity).
Did this refer to Christianity? In 64, after the notorious fire, there was a persecution
limited only to Rome, but, according to Tacitus, Annales 15, 44, 2/8, of an ingens
multitudo, condemned because of their odium generis humani [hatred of the human
race]. This referred to Christians, who were distinguished by their way of life and
by their rites which seemed strange (“to eat flesh and to drink blood”). Among the
victims were Peter and Paul themselves.
Domitian (81-96). The tradition speaks of the persecuted who were
members of his own family (the consul Flavius Clemens), accused like many others,
for example the consul Acilius Glabrio, guilty of atheism and philo-Judaism. This
could be interpreted as dealing with Christians. Individual actions of a governor
against Christians did not necessarily derive from the same emperor (the news in
Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 1:1 is rather vague: “unforeseen
calamities and adversities . . . one after the other”).
Trajan (98-117). His correspondence with Pliny, Governor of Bithynia
[northwestern part of Asia Minor], indicated not an active persecution of the Church
but the condemnation of individual Christians in well-defined circumstances (e.g.,
when they appeared as a danger for public order). Famous martyrs of the period:
Simon, Bishop of Jerusalem, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (a little after 110, probably
in the precincts of the Colosseum).
Hadrian (117-138). He may be considered a philo-Chistian (or
Christianophile), but there were (very few?) local persecutions. A famous martyr:
Pope Telesphorus, in 136 c.e.
Antoninus Pius (138-161). There were local persecutions, but these could
not be traced to the Emperor or to his initiatives.
Marcus Aurelius (161-180). Local persecutions increased in a period of
growing crisis in the Empire, but these persecutions could not be attributed to the
Emperor. Among the famous martyrs of this period were those of Lyon in 177 c.e.,
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (in 167 c.e., but according to other sources, in 156), and
Justin in Rome (165 c.e.).
Commodus (180-192). Local persecutions continued, but the concubine of
the Emperor, Marcia, was probably at least a philo-Christian (or Christianophile).
Septimius Severus (193-211). There was more peace for the Christians, but
in 202 c.e. there was a wave of persecutions, but this was not traceable to any
Page 18 of 36
 legislation of the Emperor, who was a Christianophile.28 Famous martyrs were
Perpetua and Felicity.
Caracalla (211-217). The Emperor was philo-Christian, but a severe
persecution in North Africa broke out under the direction of the Proconsul Scapula
(Tertullian would respond by writing a treatise addressed to the official: Ad
Scapulam).
Alexander Severus (222-235). The imperial family was philo-Christian and
there was peace for the Christians.
Maximinus Thrax (235-238). This emperor moved against the Christians.
Marcus Julius Philippus or Philip the Arab (243-249). He was certainly very
philo-Christian.
Decius (249-251). A brief but terrible action against Christians exploded
under Decius, lasting for about a year. One popular martyr was Pope Fabianus (in
250 c.e.). Particularly disturbing for the Church was the huge number of lapsi,
among whom were several bishops. A theological-pastoral offshoot of this
persecution was the question of their reconciliation with the Church.
Valerian (253-260). From 257 c.e., he persecuted especially the clergy in
order to demolish the Church; in 258, he also threatened the laity who belonged to
the nobility. This time there were no reports of denial of the faith. One famous
martyr of the period: Cyprian of Carthage (in 258 c.e.).
Gallienus (260-268). He promulgated an edict of tolerance which brought
Christians forty years of peace.
Diocletian (284-305). It was only in 303 when this Emperor initiated a
persecution.29 But this was universal in scope and it was well-organized. The
Church had been greatly flourishing, and the Emperor saw this as a threat to the
Empire. Here the problem of the traditores would come up, i.e., those Christians
who consigned the sacred books to the imperial authorities.
Galerius, Emperor in the East (305-311). Again there was an attempt to
impose the traditional religion of the Empire, but this failed miserably.

2.19 The motivations. Up to 250 c.e., the sparse and regionally limited violence against
Christians exploded for personal reasons like the vendetta and for economic reasons (the
Christians did not buy meat of animals used in pagan sacrifices and the temples thus

28 Michael DURST, „Christen als Römische Magistrate um 200. Das Zeugnis des Kaisers
Septimius Severus für Christen aus dem Senatorenstand (Tertullian, Ad Scapulam 4, 6),“ in
Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 31 (1988) 91-126, here 108-110.
29 P. S. DAVIES, “The Origin and Purpose of the Persecution of AD 303,” in Journal of
Theological Studies 40 (1989) 66-94.
Page 19 of 36
suffered economic dislocation).30 More often, because of irrational fear/hatred of the
Christians by the people who saw them as different and did not venerate the traditional
Gods,31 the Christians were considered the cause of disasters and catastrophes and
became the object of “pogroms” launched by the mob.

“The name of factiousness, to the contrary, must be applied to this pack which
conspires because of its hatred for good and tested citizens and which demands
with rowdy behavior the blood of innocents, putting forward in justification of their
own hatred also their stupid rumor according to which Christians were the cause,
from the beginning, of all public calamities. If the Tiber overflows its banks in the
city, if the Nile does not in the countryside; if the heavens do not move and the earth
moves, if there is famine, an epidemic, there is immediately screaming: the
Christians to the lions! Hey, so much people to a lion?” (Tertullian, Apologeticum
40, 2)

But even the intellectuals of the age had problems vis a vis the Christians.
Pliny the Younger (Plinius Caecilius Secundus, 62-113/114 c.e.), a typical
“Roman gentleman” and, from 111 c.e., Governor of Bithynia (in Northern Asia Minor),
spoke of the Christians in his letters to the Emperor Trajan, saying that they gathered
during a fixed day, before the dawn, singing hymns in honor of Christ like a god; that
they made an oath not to commit sins and crimes; that they dispersed and then later
gathered again to eat in simple and normal manner (Letters, Book 10, 96). He also said
that they were not guilty of cannibalism or of promiscuity, of which they had been
accused. But he also reported that they were hardheaded, did not obey the magistrates
and demonstrated contempt. They followed a strange cult, a superstition. They were
different from other human beings.
Marcus Aurelius, Emperor from 161 to 180, was a representative of Stoicism.
He reported that the absence of fear of death among the Christians was a form of
fanaticism and that this was not born of a reasonable vision of reality.
Claudius Galenus (129-201), the most famous medical doctor of the epoch, saw
Judaism and Christianity not as alien cults or superstitions but as a school of life or
philosophy. He showed appreciation for self-control and the overcoming of the fear of
death (characteristics precisely of the true philosopher), but found their doctrine
unacceptable for being dogmatic, uncritical, and unreasonable. A Creator God was an
arbitrary God, not bound to certain natural laws.

30 PLINY, Letters, 10, 96, 10; EUSEBIUS, Storia ecclesiastica, 3,32,1; 4,9.
D. LÜHRMANN, „Superstitio - die Beurteilung des frühen Christentums durch die Römer,“ in
31

Theologische Zeitschrift 42 (1986) 193-213.

Page 20 of 36
 Celsus,32 a conservative intellectual, wrote in 170/180 the first
scientific/systematic attack against Christianity: Άληθης λόγoς (the true doctrine, the
truthful discourse). He portrayed Jesus and Christians as ridiculous. He took from
Lucian of Samosata (120-180) the story of Peregrinus Proteus (De morte Peregrini), a
person who set fire to himself in 165 c.e., and who was a Christian for a time. He made
fun of Christians for their fraternal love and their disdain for death. Jesus, born of an
adulterous liaison, would have invented the story of the virgin birth and learned magical
tricks, which were criminal according to Roman law, in Egypt, and applied them, healing
the blind with mud (Jn 9:6) or casting out demons. Christians were fideist proletarians,
i.e., they blindly accepted the veracity of miracles. Celsus also wrote that it was
impossible to assent to Christian doctrine: an immutable God could not make himself a
human being, and if he were truly omnipotent, then this would not really be necessary if
he wanted to transform the world into a better reality. The crucifixion was something
horrendous. The resurrection was against the law of nature and God never acted in this
way because it was irrational. To adore Jesus as God contrasted with the worship of the
one supreme God. Moreover, this doctrine was revolutionary and dangerous. Christians
were supposed to be part of the Jewish tradition (and the Jews were at least traditional in
this), but they denied the Jewish law and therefore have broken the tradition, and
therefore they were without law, going against the order of the vόμoς .
Porphyry (232-304), disciple of the Neo-Platonist Plotinus, wanted to enter into
competition (rather very dangerous) with the Sacred Scriptures, which he knew very well,
with his own Against the Christians and other writings. He spoke of Jesus in a positive
way but accused the Christians of having abandoned the worship of the one transcendent
God, and of adoring Jesus instead, Jesus who was only a human being. He saw in this a
revolution against the order of things, with social and political risks involved.

2.20 Empire in Crisis: escape-goating Christians. After 250 c.e., the persecutions
now inserted themselves within a politico-religious framework. The Empire was in full
crisis. This crisis was perceived to be divine punishment; there was need therefore to
placate the gods . . .
Decius imposed on every subject the obligation of participating in a supplicatio
pro salute imperatoris, a prayer addressed to the Capitoline triad: Jove, Juno and Mars
(n.b.: the prayer was NOT addressed to a deified emperor). Special commissions were
set up to watch over the gesture and to convalidate the exercise by giving a “ticket,”
libellus. The Emperor, the intellectuals and the common people must have understood
that the Christians especially, though not exclusively, were a distinct community
(έκκλησία τoυ Θεoυ), who did not observe the social traditions (in Christian gatherings,

G. WATSON, “Celsus and the Philosophical Opposition to Christianity,” in Irish Theological

32

Quarterly 58 (1992) 165-179.

Page 21 of 36
the diverse social strata mixed with each other) nor the religions ones (they were
identified as “atheists”). In short, the Christians could not possibly participate in the
supplicatio. The motive therefore of the persecution was a religious one!33 Dealing with
a structured “people,” the persecution would also be structured.
Valerian (d. 260) would make “being Christian” a crime and ordered the execution
of the clergy. Thus he attacked the structure of the Church of which he must have had
knowledge.
After a period of “peace,” organized persecution took off again under the Emperor
Diocletian (284-305). The measures, taken in February of 303, were very severe. The
churches were to be shut down, the sacred books were to be consigned to the authorities,
and the assemblies to be prohibited.
Also in Galerius (d. 311) the religious motive would rear its head again.34

2.21 The Juridical Foundation. Up to 250, there were no special laws against
Christians; the persecutions were based on decisions made by individual governors and
therefore they had a regional character. It seems that the decisions in this case were
probably based on the general principle of the coercitio: the magistrate had the duty of
maintaining public order. One who declared himself or herself a Christian -- nomen
christianum -- and therefore belonging to a group suspected of criminal activities and
disorders could be persecuted, but only as individuals. The Church as such was not
targeted. Pliny and Trajan did not seem to find this juridical base very secure; their
policy was only one of reaction to the denunciations leveled against the Christians, which
were then submitted to a critical examination.35
But starting with Decius, there was in place an active policy on the part of the
Empire: general measures were taken against the “atheists” -- really they were Christians;
these measures were based on the fullness of authority of the Emperor. This time the
action taken against Christians was of a general nature, i.e., it was extended throughout
the Empire and took aim at the Church herself.

2.22 Number of martyrs. In the past, the number of martyrs of the persecutions was
33 C. SAULNIER, “La persécution des chrétiens et la théologie du pouvoir à Rome (Ier-IVer
siècle),” in Revue des Sciences Religieuses 58 (1984) 251-279; M. B. VON STRITSKY, „Erwägungen
zum Decischen Opferbefehl und seinen Folgen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Beurteilung
durch Cyprian,“ in Römische Quartalschrift 81 (1986) 1-15. Cyprian saw in the persecution a
judgment of God on Christians who had become tepid in their faith. Like the Emperor, God was
putting their faith to the test (De lapsis 5).
34 See Appendix III.
35 N. SANTOS YANGUAS, “Los rescriptos de Trajano y Adriano y la persecución de los
cristianos,” in Studium Ovetense 10 (1982) 119-133.
Page 22 of 36
greatly exaggerated because people thought that all those buried in the catacombs were
martyrs, which they were not. Neither can one reduce the number however to those
known in the Christian cult (for the West: 430, of which 150 were in Rome and
environs). Data remains rather scarce. Origen, writing sometime toward 248, said that
the total number of martyrs up until his time was still low enough; executions were
occasional and therefore easily countable (Contra Celsum 3, 8). The martyrologies
relative to the persecutions in Gaul during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180)
mentions less than 48 martyrs. Eusebius informs us that during the persecutions of
Diocletian and Maximinianus, the number of those persecuted, including those who gave
themselves up, in Palestine was around 91 and not all were killed. In Egypt however the
executions reached the number of 100 per day.36
In the meantime, the martyrs strongly marked the life of the Church. Martyrdom
was seen and lived as the ideal form of loyalty to the Lord and it certainly contributed
greatly to the growth of the Church. The courageous example of the martyrs was an
inspiration in the pagan world.

Etiam plures efficimur, quoties metimur a vobis; semen est sanguis christianorum.

We become more numerous every time we are killed by you; the blood of martyrs is
a seed. (Tertullian, Apologeticum 50, 13)

F. Relations with the Roman Empire after 311/313

A juridically tolerated Church (in 311 c.e.) would become a privileged Church (in 313).
Thus was born a “theology of the Empire” which gave rise to the development of an
intolerant “Empire-Church” (toward 380). This brought to head the problem of the role
of the Emperor in the Church.

2.23 A Church Juridically Tolerated. Tolerance came with Galerius. He wanted to

save the Empire and to bring all its subjects to the traditional religion. But the
persecution did not have the desired effect on Christians as the Emperor himself had
occasion to verify. He therefore surrendered to the inevitable and reestablished religious
tolerance, but with a request that expressed all the anguish of the Emperor.

“In exchange for our act of clemency, they [the Christians] should pray to their God

36 G. DE STE. CROIX, “Aspects of the ‘Great’ Persecution,” in Harvard Theological Review 47

(1954) 75-113. Ludwig VON HERTLING [Chapin’s predecessor at the Pontificia Universitas
Gregoriana] supposed the number to be around 100,000 martyrs. Cf. his “Die Zahl der Märtyrer bis
313,” in Gregorianum 25 (1944) 103-129.
Page 23 of 36
 for our well-being, for the state and their own, so that the republic [res publica] may
prosper and so that they could live without concern by the hearth of their home.”37

2.24-2.25 Toward a Privileged Church

2.24 After other persecutions in the East, the situation changed radically. The Emperor,
who on 28 October 312, near the Ponte Milvio in Rome, had defeated his rival Maxentius
for complete dominion of the western half of the Empire, began to protect the Church.
We of course refer here to Constantine, the first Christian Emperor.38
Of Constantine’s religiosity there can be no doubt. It was a religiosity that was of
a monotheistic character and centered on the concept of the God who was stronger. One
cannot exclude the possibility that he was already for quite some time a crypto-Christian.
In any case, from 306 on, he showed a philo-Christian policy. His monotheism should be
noted when, in 310, he declared the sol invictus his only god. Here one sees moreover
the concept of strength or power that was “invincible.” This concept would remain
predominant even when he presented himself openly as Christian (he was baptized only
on his death bed). The metaphor most used for God was δύvαμις -- the magical power of
Christianity which brings military victory. Another name of God for Constantine:
κρειττωv, “the strongest.”39 The victory of 312 over Maxentius would have been rather a
confirmation rather than a conversion. While Eusebius spoke of a miracle which
launched the conversion, Constantine in his writings40 testified to a continuous religious
growth.

Regarding the facts of 312, one must pay attention to those which they say are the
sources. Before the decisive battle against his rival Maxentius, on 28 October 312, near
the Ponte Milvio, Constantine was supposed to have had a dream (according to

37The whole text is in Appendix III. The true victory of the Church consists in her not being
destroyed by the persecutions.
38 The discussion over Constantine and the consequences of his reign will never end. There
are those today who still declare him an apostle (so that his reign was therefore a blessing for the
Church) and those who see in him one who exploited Christianity for political ends (above all his
reign brought negative consequences for the Church). It is enough to compare the titles of two
books: P. KEREZSTES, Constantine: A Great Monarch and Apostle, Amsterdam 1981, and A. KEE,
Constantine versus Christ: The Triumph of Ideology, London 1982. For a continuation of the
discussion, cf. H. A. DRAKE, “Constantine and Consensus,” in Church History 64 (1995) 1-15, and
Klaus BRINGMANN, „Die konstantinische Wende. Zum Verhältnis von politischer und religiöser
Motivation,“ in Historische Zeitschrift Band 260 (1995) 21-48.
39Thomas G. ELLIOTT, “Constantine’s Early Religious Development,” in Journal of Religious
Studies 15 (1989) 283-291; François HEIM, La théologie de la victoire de Constantin à Théodose,
Paris 1992.
40 Accessible only from 1960!
Page 24 of 36
 Lactantius, who wrote a few years after) or a vision (according to Eusebius, who wrote
on this affair many years after) of the cross with the words in hoc signo vinces. A pious
tradition wanted on that occasion the cross already as the symbol on the standards, but
this would have been materially impossible to do in such a short time. Such a symbol
was put on the shield and on the helmet of the Emperor.41

Politically, the choice of Constantine was smart: if the Church could not be
defeated, it was better to make of it an ally, this way one put an end to the existence of a
parallel state. But the politico-religious motive must also have been there. The Empire
needed the protection of the stronger divinity, and this showed itself to be the true God.
In this prospective, the Emperor sought to promote Christianity, construct churches,
respect the papacy, reform the legislation and protect the unity of the faith. It was not
therefore a purely political move; he “believed even too much in God.” In the behavior
of Constantine there was also much immorality; he was not a saint.
Constantine and Licinius (Emperor for the East) stipulated in January 313 c.e. the
oral agreement of Milan: mandated was the restoration of confiscated goods to the
Christian cult. Constantine implemented the accord in mandates sent to the different
governors in the West. Licinius published a decree for the East.42 Constantine then
initiated a series of philo-Christian legislation.

→ In 313 and other occasions; divorce became much more difficult to procure.
→ 3 November 313: death penalty inflicted only when the crime was proved/confessed.
→ 13 May 314: application of the laws according to justice and equity.
→ 21 March 315: it was no longer lawful to mark with a hot iron the front of the
condemned to forced labor (“because our face is the likeness of God”).
→ 13 May 315: assistance to the poor in order to evade the exposition of the newly born.
→ 13 May 315: subsidy from the private fund of the Emperor for the Catholic churches.
→ 13 August 315: prohibition of passing over to Judaism.
→ 13 August 315: the son of free father may not become a slave.
→ 23 May 318: prohibition of magical practices.
→ 23 June 318: civil effect for the decision of episcopal tribunals.
→ 11 May 319: prohibition of executing one’s own slaves; restriction of torture.
→ 31 January 320: tax on celibacy abolished.
→ 31 December 320: prisoners now protected from maltreatment.
→ 3 March 321: Sunday made official day of rest.
→ 18 April 321: emancipation of slaves eased through a procedure followed in church.
→ 3 July 321: on Sundays, tribunals now closed.
→ 3 July 321: the Church could receive donations and bequests.

41 H. SEELIGER, „Die Verwendung des Christogrammes durch Konstantin im Jahre 312,“ in

Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 100 (1989) 149-168.
42 Text in Appendix IV; this text is often, but incorrectly, cited as the “Edict of Milan.”
Page 25 of 36
 → 6 July 322: the sale of one’s children prohibited.
→ 25 December 323: anyone who obliges a Catholic to make a sacrifice in a pagan
temple subject to punishment.
→ 324: restitution of private goods confiscated during Galerian’s persecution.
→ 324: public financing of the construction of churches.
→ 24 April 325: protection of the poor.
→ 29 April 325: a family of slaves could not be divided (for example, in case of the sale
of landed estates).
→ 1 October 325: prohibition of gladiatorial games.
→ 326: Church made inheritor of the goods of heretics.
→ 14 June 326: a married man could not maintain a concubine in his own household.
→ 328: ordered construction of the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem.
→ 13 May 329: state assistance to the kids of poor parents.
→ 29 November and 1 December 330: bishops and priests (also Jewish rabbinate) made
exempt from public official obligations.
→ Etc., etc., etc.43

To be noted also were the privileges granted to the bishops: the use of public means of
transportation in order to travel to synods, places of honor in public functions, etc.

2.25 Thus was born a “theology of Empire.”44 One can imagine the enormous
impression made on Christians everywhere by the fact of having a Christian emperor just
a small distance of time from the heavy persecutions. There arose a new theological
interpretation of the reality of the Empire. Important for this was the bishop Eusebius of
Caesarea (d. 339), even if one should not reduce his theology only to his writings on the
matter, which still needs to be read with great nuances. This theology employs, for
example, 1 Cor 15:28.

“And when all things have been subjected to him (the Word), then also the Son
himself will subject to the one who has placed everything under him, so that God
may be all in all.”

43P.-P. JOANNOU, La législation impériale et la christianisme de l’Empire Romain (311-

476), Rome 1972; B. RASPELS, „Der Einfluß des Christentums auf die Gesetze zum Gefängniswesen
und zum Strafvollzug von Konstantin d. Gr. bis Justinian,“ in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte
102 (1991) 289-306.
44 R. FARINA, L’impero e Imperatore cristiano in Eusebio di Cesarea. La prima teologia
politica del cristianesimo, Zürich 1966; D. KÖNIG-OCKENFELS, „Christliche Deutung der
Weltgeschichte bei Euseb von Cäsarea,“ in Saeculum 27 (1976) 348-365; F. HEIM, La théologie de
la victoire: de Constantin à Théodose, Paris 1982; and M. HOLLERICH, “Religion and Politics in the
Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First ‘Court Theologian’,” in Church History 59 (1990) 309-
325.
Page 26 of 36
The emperor had to be an imitator of the Logos in his government of the things of this
earth; thus, in the same way that Christ has vanquished the demons, the emperor
vanquishes the enemies of the truth. The emperor, imitator of Christ, makes himself the
herald of the true knowledge of God and of the reign of God. Christ introduces human
beings into the kingdom of the Father; the emperor, in imitation of Christ, introduces
human beings into the Church, procuring for them salvation. The emperor prepares the
Empire so that he may consign it to the Logos, who in his turn will consign it to the
Father. A variant of this: the emperor becomes a kind of vicar of God the Father on
earth, just as Christ is so in heaven (paradise). In this vision, the emperor becomes part
of the plan of salvation and is an instrument of salvation!

Military service,45 which was once upon a time problematic for Christians because of
the use of arms, the employment of immoral means (for example, participation in
executions46), and the obligation to take diverse religious oaths,47 but despite all this
nonetheless accepted [as a kind of necessary evil], would now become acceptable. It
now became possible to specially consider that a war initiated by a Christian
emperor was a just war.48 This time, the pagans would be excluded from the
imperial military force; in 404 c.e., the Jews and Samaritans were excluded; in 410,
the heretics; in 416, the pagans.49

2.26-2.28 Toward An Intolerant “Church-Empire”. We must make a distinction

among three levels on which one can note a growing intolerance on the part of the
Church-Empire toward other religions (principally paganism and Judaism): acts of
popular violence, imperial legislation, and theological justification.

2.26 Acts of popular violence. After 325 c.e., at Heliopolis (Lebanon), the deacon
Cyril destroyed many pagan simulacra (the pagan reaction was to kill many Christian
virgins). Under Julian the Apostate (361-363), the following episodes were particularly
significant. At Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eupsyche and others demolished the temple of

45 J. HELGELAND, “Christians and the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine,” in

H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Untergang der Römische Welt II, 23/1, Berlin and
New York 1979, 724-834; L. SWIFT, The Early Fathers on War and Military Service, Wilmington
(Delaware) [1983]; J. HELGELAND, et alii, Christians and the Military. The Early Experience,
Philadelphia 1985; E. PUCCIARELLI (ed.), I cristiani e il servizio militare. Testimonianze dei primi
tre secoli, Firenze 1987.
46 Cf. TERTULLIAN, On Idolatry 9; also HIPPOLYTUS, The Apostolic Tradition 16.
47Cf. TERTULLIAN, The Crown 11; MINUCIUS FELIX, Octavius 29; ARNOBIUS, Against the
Pagans (Contra gentes).
48 AUGUSTINE, Against Faustus, 22: 73-76; Letters 189,4.
49 Codex Theodosianus 16:10, 16:8, 16:5.
Page 27 of 36
public Genius (they were executed for the deed). At Ancyra, the presbyter Basil and the
encratite Busiris spread propaganda against the pagan religion (they were executed also).
At Pessinus (or Pessinous, Pessinonte, Pessinunte), Christians agitated against the temple
of the goddess Cybele and for the destruction of its altar. At Arethusa, the bishop Mark
destroyed a temple and constructed a church on the site (he was killed by a mob). At
Gaza, Eusebius, Nestabius and Zeno went about demolishing temples (they were killed
by the mob). At Meros in Phrygia, Macedonius, Theodoulos, and Tatian broke statues in
a temple (they were killed). At Alexandria, the bishop Georgios and others gave offense
to the pagan religion (they were slaughtered). At Daphne, near Antioch, the temple of
Apollo was destroyed. At Bostra, there were riots between Christians and pagans. In
391, violent acts took place against the temples in Alexandria (the famous Serapeion,
which also housed a very important library, was destroyed). In 415, the pagan teacher
and mathematician Hypatia was killed by the crowd.50

2.27 Imperial Legislation. Constantine protected and promoted the Church, but he did
not restrict paganism. He wrote to the officials in the East (probably after 313 c.e.):

My own desire is, for the common good of the world and the advantage of all mankind,
that thy people should enjoy a life of peace and undisturbed concord. Let those,
therefore, who still delight in error, be made welcome to the same degree of peace and
tranquility which they have who believe. For it may be that this restoration of equal
privileges to all will prevail to lead them into the straight path. Let no one molest
another, but let everyone do as his soul desires. Only let men of sound judgment be
assured of this, that those only can live a life of holiness and purity whom thou callest
to a reliance on thy holy laws. With regard to those who will hold themselves aloof
from us, let them have, if they please, their temples of lies: we have the glorious edifice
of thy truth, which thou hast given us as our native home. We pray, however, that they
too may receive the same blessing, and thus experience that heartfelt joy which unity
of sentiment inspires. (Eusebius, On the Life of Constantine, Book II, 47-60)51

50 [“Hypatia was a mathematician, astronomer, and Platonic philosopher. According to the

Byzantine encyclopedia The Suda, her father Theon was the last head of the Museum at Alexandria.
Hypatia's prominence was accentuated by the fact that she was both female and pagan in an
increasingly Christian environment. Shortly before her death, Cyril was made the Christian bishop
of Alexandria, and a conflict arose between Cyril and the prefect Orestes. Orestes was disliked by
some Christians and was a friend of Hypatia, and rumors started that Hypatia was to blame for the
conflict. In the spring of 415 C.E., the situation reached a tragic conclusion when a band of Christian
monks seized Hypatia on the street, beat her, and dragged her body to a church where they
mutilated her flesh with sharp tiles and burned her remains.” This citation was taken from:
http://www.cosmopolis.com/people/hypatia.html (accessed 5:00 p.m., 5 November 2001).]
51For this translation, please go to the following website, accessed on 7 November 2001:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-28.htm#P7412_3092235.
Page 28 of 36
 Once more, let none use that to the detriment of another which he may himself have
received on conviction of its truth; but let every, one, if it be possible, apply what he has
understood and known to the benefit of his neighbor; if otherwise, let him relinquish
the attempt. For it is one thing voluntarily to undertake the conflict for immortality,
another to compel others to do so from the fear of punishment.

Under the sons of Constantine there were prohibitions of the pagan cult, but it
seems with dismal effect (341 c.e.: cesset superstitio, sacrificiorum aboletur insania;
356: the veneration of idols was declared a capital crime). Julian the Apostate (361-363)
clearly sought to restore paganism and to take away state assistance from Christians. His
“Manifesto to the City of Bostra” calls to mind a letter of Constantine:

Those who have gone astray (= Christians) should not offend those who adore the gods
rightly and justly according to the norms given to us from all eternity. And the
worshippers of the gods, for their part, should not assail the homes of those who err
more out of ignorance than out of conviction. We have to persuade human beings with
reason, not indeed with blows or violence or bodily torments. Now, as already for
some time, I exhort those who proceed on the road of true piety not to cause damage to
the crowds of Galileans (= Christians) . . . We ought no longer to hate but to pity those
who have an evil conduct in the things of supreme importance. Today, the maximum
good is piety, and the maximum evil is impiety. Those who, having abandoned the cult
of the gods, have given themselves to that of the dead and of the relics find punishment
in it. We have to pity them as someone affected by some illness, while we rejoice at
those who have been saved and liberated by the gods.

Under Valentinian I (364-375) and Valens (364-378), Christianity once again

enjoyed imperial privileges and imperial interferences, but imperial policy remained
tolerant toward pagans (only certain magical rites were prohibited, probably because of
the fear that they could be threatening to the Emperor). Under Gratian (375-383),
Valentinian II (383-392) and Theodosius (379-395) -- with this third predominating --
imperial policy moved toward a greater identification between Empire and Church, with
more restrictions imposed on the pagan cult. Here one must distinguish between the
dismissal of paganism, though not yet of pagans themselves, from the political sphere (in
379 c.e., the Emperors Gratian and Theodosius renounced the title Pontifex Maximus; in
382, the altar of the goddess Victoria was removed from the Senate), and the restrictions
put on the pagan cult (in 381, prohibition imposed regarding participation in pagan
sacrifices; in 391, prohibition of pagan worship in Rome itself; and in 392, prohibition of
the pagan cult throughout the Empire; because however of their cultural value,
Theodosius did not want the demolition of pagan temples). To be noted was the strong
pagan resistance to these measures; Theodosius continued to have pagans in important

Page 29 of 36
functions (thus, Rumorides, magister militum, 384;52 Symmachus, praefectus urbi, 384;53
Vettius Agorius Pretestatus, praefectus praetorio Italiae; Virius Nicomachus Flavian,
praefectus urbi, 393). Around 390, the Senate, including the Christians, proposed to
restore to the pagan priests their privileges. In 400, the altar of the goddess Victoria
returned to the Senate for some time. But in 416, the exclusion of pagans and Jews from
public administration was decreed. And in 527, catechetical instruction became
obligatory for all . . . and therefore baptism. In 529, the [pagan] Academy at Athens was
closed; it was the last center of pagan culture. In 557, the temple of Isis at Philae in
Egypt was shut down.54
Of another character were the choices/decisions made by the Emperor regarding
affairs internal to the Church. Theodosius (379-395), on 28 February 380, imposed on
Christians the order to accept that faith “which Damasus in Rome and Peter in Alexandria
profess,” i.e., the Nicene Creed (against the Arians). The Emperor (and therefore the
Empire) had made a dogmatic choice. Catholicism thus became, in some way, the State
religion. The Catholic Church became the Church of the State.
The theological justification of religious intolerance developed during the course
of the 4th century.55

2.28 Anti-Judaism in the Early Church56 was another form of intolerance. A pre-
Christian anti-Judaism had already existed. Beside this esteem for this nation on the part
of philosophers and the privileges accorded to it by Greek cities and by the Emperor,
there was also a great antipathy and even hatred toward the Jews. (The Roman power,
for political reasons, revoked every now and then these privileges and tied itself to the
hatred felt by the native populations for the Jews.) Imperial hostility against the Jews
was not founded on racial prejudice (“race” is a modern concept), but on Jewish religious
“separatism” and on its rejection of models drawn from Hellenistic culture. The Jews did
not participate in traditional religious practices and they held aloof from the rest of the
population, as if they were superior. The activities of groups of extremists (the revolts
against Rome in the years 66-73, 115-117, and 132-135) rendered the situation for all

[Cf. the following website for an interesting account of the military leader Rumorides (or
52

Rumoride): http://www.mercaba.org/FICHAS/IGLESIA/HT/1-28_capitulo.htm (accessed 11 Nov.

2001).]
53[For the conflict between Symmachus and St. Ambrose, go to the following website:
http://www9.brinkster.com/saxonshore/ambrose-symmachus.html (accessed 11 Nov 2001).]
54 [For pictures of the Temple of Isis at Philae, please check out the following web page:
http://users.erols.com/bcccsbs/africa/toisis.htm (accessed 11 Nov. 2001).]
55 Texts in Appendix V.
56 G. G. STROUMSA, “Dall’antigiudaismo all’antisemitismo nel cristianesimo primitivo,” in
Cristianesimo nella storia 17 (1996) 13-46.
Page 30 of 36
Jews all the more difficult.

Especially in Alexandria, Egypt, there were violent attacks (pogroms) against

the Jews. In Egypt, there was also anti-Jewish propaganda; the Jews would
have been formerly Egyptian lepers and therefore driven away. In Esther 3:8,
we find the anti-Judaism of Amman in Persia.

Christian anti-Judaism integrated an element properly theological; opposition

against the mother-religion and polemic against her pervaded the first Christian writings.
While the New Testament makes known discussions within Judaism (among which one
finds the conflicts between Jews who had decided to follow Jesus and those who refused
to traverse the same path), it is not possible to speak here of an anti-Semitism (necessary
here would be to distinguish between the text itself and the abuse of it made by some of
its interpreters). One must also take into consideration the diversity of writings of the
New Testament. There was no one unique New Testament position on the subject. After
the apostolic period however, we begin to see a progressive increase in phenomena which
must be identified as Christian anti-Judaism. From the time of Constantine, there was an
anti-Semite system in place which was universal, durable, official, and ideologically
“justified.” If in the terminology one appropriated the anti-Semitic polemic of Egypt, the
new thing was the theory that came to be developed, with the help especially of Sacred
Scripture. The beginnings are to be looked for toward the middle of the 2nd century. It
was an intellectual phenomenon, launched and developed by literate Christians. The
problems they dealt with: the nature of the incarnation and redemption, the being of the
elect people, the significance of the Law, the statute of Sacred Scripture and her
interpretation, the messianic nature of Jesus and the responsibility for his death
(“deicide,” punished by God as demonstrated by the failure of the Jewish revolt of 130
c.e.). If Jesus was the true Messiah, then the Church was the true Israel. Therefore the
Law is rejected (and ridiculed), as we can see in Pseudo-Barnabas, Justin the Martyr in
his Dialogue, and the author of the Letter to Diognetus. The Christians are the heirs of
the promise, not of the Jews, but of the Hebrews, the people of the First Alliance. The
Jews had rejected Jesus; indeed they were guilty of his death. It was already so in Melito
of Sardis (toward 200 c.e.) and in others (an example: Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio in
Christi Resurrectionem). The charge of the murder of God was the recurring and
principal theme for “justifying” hatred of the Jews.

The works that need to be indicated: Pseudo-Barnabas, Letters (130 ?); Justin the
Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (150); Milthiades, Against the Jews (180; lost);
Apollinarius of Hierapolis, Against the Jews (180; lost); Melito of Sardis, Homily on
Easter (180; “the first poet of the Deicide”); The Letter to Diognetus (200); Tertullian,
Against the Jews (220); Hippolytus of Rome, Against the Jews (235; lost); Cyprian, De
duobus montibus Sina et Sion, De iudica incredulitate, Adversus Iudeaos (all toward
250); Cyprian, Testimoniorum contra Iudaeos libri III; Martyrium Pionii; Eusebius of
Page 31 of 36
 Caesarea, passim; Ambrosiaster, Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti (380); John
Chrysostom, Eight Discourses against the Jews (to be read against the background of
the attempt of Julian the Apostate, d. 363 c.e., to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem!);
Augustine, Adversus Iudaeos (who nevertheless maintains a minimum of respect in
his language).

The aim was, officially, to do everything to spread contempt for the Jews. From
Constantine on, state legislation to operationalize this attitude was being set in place.
Already in 315 c.e.: Constantine prohibited, on pain of death, conversion to Judaism.
(Theodosian Codex 16, 8, 1) The canons of the Councils sought to separate Christians
and Jews as much as possible. The Jews were treated better than the heretics; however,
they were isolated from the rest of the population and humiliated, and to accept
proselytes were forbidden to them. Synagogues were destroyed (a novelty that arrived
with the Christianized Empire), usually with bishops (Cyril of Alexandria!) or monks as
instigators. Legislation started to reach its apogee when the construction of new
synagogues was prohibited. Later, Justinian (d. 565 c.e.) would allow to fall into disuse
the laws of the Theodosian codex, which declared Judaism to be a legitimate or licit
religion.

The strong polemic against the Jews would indicate, according to some scholars, the
profound social and religious vitality of Judaism in late antiquity. According to
others, the polemic served instead to indicate the auto-affirmation of Christians
when the Fathers of the Church combated Marcion and dualistic gnosticism. But the
radicalization of this anti-Jewish affect could also be seen instead in the light of the
“conversion of Constantine.” After all, Christians were already truly victorious in the
Empire. Now, intolerance would impose itself! Moreover, there was the fact that,
while the pagans were converting to Christianity en masse, the Jews had remained
loyal to their own faith (they were the only important rejection of the universality
of the Christian Empire. Thus they would have become the heirs of the pagans with
their false presumptions and lies and their relation with false gods and demons.
One may speak here of a demonization of the Jews.

2.29-2.30 Christian Emperor and Church

2.29 The Emperor controlled the Church. Socially and psychologically, the Christian
emperor was seen as the highest personage in the Church (the papacy had not yet taken
the “imperial” form that it would take later). The mode in which popes, councils and
bishops spoke of the emperor could only render his position stronger, particularly vis a
vis those who could not or did not want to make the necessary theological distinctions (a
whole series of bishops!). As the new Moses and as a friend of God, the emperor was
also a pastor. As vicar of Christ (after 700 c.e., the laws indicate the emperor as
representative of God) he possessed great power and was considered ισαπόστoλoς. The
Page 32 of 36
growing identification between Empire and Church made of him the Head of the Church.
He exercised the power of a universal bishop in the area of jurisdiction (though not in the
area of the sacraments), and not by apostolic succession but by divine constitution.
A bishop had power in the Church, the emperor over the Church. He called and
organized the councils and he promulgated their decrees as laws. He decided the
circumscription of the dioceses, intervened against heresies and had to confirm the
election of the patriarchs to their sees. In Constantinople, he indicated who among the
candidates proposed by the metropolitans would become patriarch and transmitted the
emblems of ecclesiastical power to the neo-elect even before his consecration.
Furthermore, the Christian emperor had the obligation to govern according to the
law of Christ. He should not be a tyrant (but this was also true for the ideal king in pagan
times).
There was also the duty to make war against the enemies of the Church (and
therefore of the “Empire-Church”).

2.30 The Church “checked” (or “restrained”) the Emperor. In practice and in
theological reflection, the Church had to indicate the limits of the position of the emperor
in the Church. He could not do everything that he wanted, for he was not a priest nor did
he have the charism of teaching (i.e., of the magisterium).
In practice we do see the attitude of opposition and correction in a “philo-
imperial” person such as Ambrose in the face of Theodosius (d. 395 c.e.).

At Callinicon, on the banks of the Euphrates, the crowd, instigated by the bishop,
burned the synagogue. The Emperor imposed on the bishop the task of rebuilding
the synagogue out of his own pocket. Ambrose protested the imperial order in a
letter he wrote to the Emperor (Letter 9), saying that a Christian could not do that
favor to the Jews. Theodosius however would not give in; the synagogue was to be
reconstructed, but now at the expense of the state. Ambrose, while preaching in the
presence of the Emperor, urged the Emperor to show himself indebted to God who
protected him and to honor God’s representatives on earth. Theodosius responded:
“I have already changed the order given...” But Ambrose wanted the complete
cancellation of the order: “do it thus, so that i can celebrate the sacrifice with
security for you...” In the end, Theodosius gave his word, and only then did Ambrose
say: “Now I will celebrate the mass, trusting in your word,” which he repeated. The
Emperor replied: “You may proceed with the celebration; you have my word...”
Theodosius was not able to resist the popular bishop, but he was certainly angry
and would from then on seek to limit the influence of the clergy.

In 390 c.e., at Thessalonika, a revolt broke out and Theodosius punished the ones
involved through the execution of thousands of citizens... In a letter, Ambrose (in
September 390) asked the Emperor, guilty of the crime, to make public penance for
Page 33 of 36
 the deed, otherwise he was going to be excluded from the sacraments. After much
hesitation, Theodosius complied, in a manner visible to all, otherwise he would not
be able to enter any church. Then for quite sometime, he was not allowed to enter
the church in his imperial robes. Only at Christmas was he finally reconciled with
the Church.

Theological reflection also indicated the limitations of the imperial position in the
Church.57 The bishop, Hosius of Cordova, good friend of Constantine, wrote to his son
Constantius, in 365, regarding the latter’s philo-Arian policy:

Intrude not yourself into Ecclesiastical matters, neither give commands unto us
concerning them; but learn them from us. God has put into your hands the kingdom; to
us He has entrusted the affairs of His Church; and as he who would steal the empire
from you would resist the ordinance of God, so likewise fear on your part lest by taking
upon yourself the government of the Church, you become guilty of a great offence. It is
written, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that
are God's." Neither therefore is it permitted unto us to exercise an earthly rule, nor
have you, Sire, any authority to burn incense. (Athanasius, Historia arianorum ad
monachos 44)58

Ambrose did not have any systematic thinking regarding the matter, but it is clear
that he did distinguish between Church and State. The Church was to act independently
of the State, which had only temporal ends, and the bishops had to have the liberty to
speak. Despite preferring the form of the republican state, he nevertheless saw in the
Roman Empire the providential design of God, which included the promotion of
monotheism. Still, the terrestrial Empire was a mere shadow of, not a participation in,
the celestial empire. Ambrose wrote, sometime in the year 386: “The Emperor is in the
Church, not above it.” (Letters 75, and already, 21 and 36).
John Chrysostom (d. 407) also wrote:

But there is still another power which supersedes the political, i.e., the power in the
Church. This authority is raised above civil authority, as the heaven is raised above the
earth, and even more. (Homily on 2 Cor 15:4-5)

Augustine (d. 430) himself produced a subtle discourse on the subject. God
founded the kingdoms and political power was given to both the good and the bad, to

57 P. C. BORI, “Date a Cesare quel che è di Cesare . . . . Linee di storia dell’interpretazione

antica,” in Cristianesimo nella Storia 7 (1986) 451-464. But the contrast between East and West
should not be exaggerated.
58[Cf., for Athanasius’s whole work, and for the text of no. 44, the following web page:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-52.htm#P4928_1951432 (13 Nov. 2001).
Page 34 of 36
Israel and Rome. The terrestrial state could never be the supreme value. The City of
God was a society of which a part continued to journey on earth. It was present in an
incomplete way in the Church (which is not yet perfect, because of persecution and the
presence of sinners) as a sacramental reality, i.e., as a sign of that which was still to
come. Also for this reason a theocracy was not possible. The City of God was not to be
identified either with the Christian Empire. The Christian Empire however rendered a
service to the construction of the City of God. This it did so far as the pagan state,
negatively speaking, checked in a certain sense sins through the sword and the laws and,
positively speaking, made possible the living together of human beings according to the
social nature of the human.
Maximus the Confessor (d. 662) said: “The emperor is not a priest” (Relatio
Motionis 4, which contained the report of his judicial process). And John Damascene (d.
750) wrote: “It is not of the kings to enact laws on the Church; the office of the kings is
good civil order, but ecclesiastical ordering is the task of bishops and teachers” (Defense
of Sacred Images II, 12).
The magisterium expressed itself in the following: Pope Felix II (III) wrote to the
Emperor Zeno in 484 c.e.:

It is in fact sure that it would be salutary for your affairs, that dealing with questions
about God, you attempt, according to how much he has established, to submit the royal
will to the priests of Christ, and not to prefer itself, and to learn the sacrosanct reality
from his bishops rather than to want to teach them, to respect the structures of the
Church and not to subject her to laws that are to be humanly followed... (DzH 345)

Pope Gelasius I59 also wrote to the Emperor Anasthasius I in 494:

In truth, O August Emperor, there are two powers from which this world is chiefly
directed: the authority in force of the consecration of bishops and the royal power. Of
these two powers, the much greater weight is that of the priests, inasmuch as they
render an account in divine judgment also of the very same kings of men . . . . .
regarding what is pertinent to public order, and knowing that, by supreme disposition,
government has been conferred on you, the same bishops of religion obey your law.
(DzH 347)

G. Relations with the Germanic Kingdoms60

59J. NELSON, “Gelasius I’s Doctrine of Responsibility. A Note,” in The Journal of Theological
Studies 18 (1967) 154-162.
60[Chappin] is aware that, for a complete account, one must also deal with Christians in
Iran, Armenia, Ethiopia, in the Celtic world, etc.
Page 35 of 36
2.31 Christian Germanic Kings and the Church. The authority of the king, who
reigns only over his own nation,61 did not have the universal dimension of imperial
authority. The kingdoms had not prepared the way for the Gospel. They could not serve
as image or symbol of the universal Church, or be identified with her. The king could not
be, like the emperor, a vicar of the universal dominion of Christ. The responsibility of
the king before the Church could not be conceived in the categories applied to the
emperor, who was responsible for the universal Church. But in the Church of his people,
the position of the king was preponderant inasmuch as he was Catholic (for initially,
many German kings were Arian; thus, the Catholics were obedient, but they were distant
from their kings).
The Catholic king was involved in the synodal activity of the Church in his
kingdom.62 His collaboration was necessary for its convocation and execution. The
synods had an important role to play in the making of political decisions. The king
strongly conditioned for example the designation of bishops; he could impede the choice
of unwanted candidates and he usually did impose his own preference. The king of the
Visigoths [in Spain] nominated even the bishops, but from 681 on however not without
the collaboration of the metropolitan archbishop of Toledo.
The foundation of the great authority of the king was based also on the concept of
sacral royalty. There was here a double dimension: the magical (“this king is strong
because he possesses celeritas e therefore he can protect us”), and the religious (“the king
belongs to this dynasty and therefore possesses gravitas and, standing in this tradition,
guarantees our ‘salvation’”). This concept would be sublimated in Christian authors like
Gregory of Tours (d. 594) or Venantius Fortunatus (m. after 600). The king participated
in the royalty of Christ and therefore had the vocation to serve and to be a father and a
pastor.63

S. TEILLET, Des Goths à la nation gothique. Les origines de l’idée de nation en occident
61

du au VIIe siècle, Paris 1984. The reality that a nation with a king formed one fatherland was a
Ve
novelty.
H. SCHWÖBEL, Synode und König im Westgotenreich. Grundlagen und Formen ihrer
62

Beziehung, Köln 1982.

63M. REYDELLET, La Royauté dans la littérature latine de Sidoine Apollinaire à Isidore de
Séville, Rome 1981; B. BRENNAN, “The Image of the Frankish King in the poetry of Venantius
Fortunatus,” in Journal of Medieval History 10 (1984) 1-11; M. SOT, «Hérédité royale et pouvoir
sacré avant 987, » in Annales. Economies. Sociétés. Civilisations 43 (1988) 705-733. To all of
this one must relate the rite of unction of the king, which will be dealt with in the third part.
Page 36 of 36