GORDON CONWELL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND THE GLOBALIZATION

OF THE MONARCHICAL EPISCOPATE

SUBMITTED FOR THE COURSE:

CH501 - CHURCH HISTORY TO THE REFORMATION

BY

DAVID MOSER

NORWICH, CT

NOVEMBER 2010
 The leaders were imprisoned, the laity was persecuted and many were

not free to congregate. The first three centuries of Christianity's existence

were marked by suffering at the hands of the Roman government.

Persecutions, the confiscation of property and the social pressures on

Christians were intense. Through great tribulation the early Church survived

and even spread into the fourth century. After centuries of governmentally

sanctioned or ignored persecution the Church was accustomed to hostility

and setbacks from the state. Constantine the Great, exerting more influence

on Christianity than perhaps any other individual of the era, completely

changed this situation. He halted the persecution of the church, returned

confiscated property, allowed and even promoted the worship of Jesus,

contributed to the financial welfare of the Church and even became involved

with the articulation and enforcement of orthodox doctrine. How could the

Church, having endured centuries of persecution, not embrace the agent of

so miraculous a reversal?

Constantine was revered, and is still respected, as one of the great

champions of Christ’s church. He contributed greatly to the globalization of

the church and allowed it the freedom to boldly preach Christ without fear of

reprisal. Constantine's reforms did not, however, produce solely positive

changes. The reforms of Constantine the Great caused dramatic shifts in the

structure of the Church and its relationship with the state.

 To measure the effects Constantine's reforms on the structure of the

Church we must first chart the trajectory on which it was already found. The

young Church already had undergone approximately three hundred years of

growth and development by the time Constantine’s having impact was felt

and it is important to understand where the Church was going before

analyzing the effects of his reforms.

To chart the development of the Church's structure we must begin at

its founding: the life of Christ and his apostles. Christ’s teachings and the

writings of the apostles in the New Testament give sparse information

regarding the proper structure of the Church. Additionally, Paul's own

missionary efforts do not seem to establish formalized leadership structures

until one is required by circumstances, only returning to recognize formal

leadership when the need arose.1

The earliest Church looked very similar to Christ’s following. The small

size of the group allowed for a very simple leadership structure. Christ’s

apostles, who served him during his earthly ministry2 continued to lead the

fledgling group.3 This office of apostle continued to hold tremendous

importance for the first generation of Christians. Even prior to Pentecost,

generally regarded as the beginning of the “Church Age,” the vacancy of

Judas Iscariot’s position was cause for concern to the other apostles who,

through Peter’s leadership, elected Matthias to replace him.4 The narrative

passages of the New Testament present almost no further testimony to the

structure of the Church.

The majority of the remainder of the biblical testimony to the structure

of the early church is presented by the Apostle Paul in the “pastoral”

epistles. In the letters, three church offices are mentioned: overseers, elders

and deacons. Scripturally, there is not a compelling reason to differentiate

the offices of overseer and elder as “the tasks of the overseers and elders

seem identical” and they are nowhere mentioned together as if they were

two separate positions within the Church.1 Through Paul’s letter to the

Romans we are treated to a glimpse of the early organization in that city: In

Romans 16:5 Paul implies that the assembly to which he is writing is actually

a network of small house churches in the capitol city.5

It is important to observe that Constantine was not responsible for the

formation of the office of bishop as a formal institution in the Church. By the

late first century there were, with the notable exception of Rome, bishops in

most of the major cities. There was at that time already a robust discussion

within the Church regarding the manner in which bishops should be

appointed. The Didache supports the election of bishops by the masses6 as

do the writings of Hippolytus,7 while other sources including Irenaeus, in his

Against Heresies, contended for appointment of successors by incumbents,

termed “apostolic succession.”8 Rome, with its numerous small Christian

bodies did not find itself in a position with central leadership where its
structure could be called a “monarchical episcopate” with a strong, central

bishop until the second half of the second century.9

The organizational structure of the Church did not evolve much beyond

the establishment of local bishops, presbyters and deacons throughout the

second and third centuries. This may be attributed to oppression by the

Roman government preventing the formation of a larger organizational

infrastructure or perhaps the system was simply the most effective

organizational model for the early Church. Prolonged conjecture regarding

this developmental plateau would be merely speculative. It is worth noting

that, though the nomenclature may be slightly different, this organizational

structure looks very similar to many of today's western churches with a lead

pastor functioning with the central leadership of a bishop, a board of elders

or church committee fulfilling the role of elders and church staff and involved

volunteers functioning as deacons.

The concept of a regional or global Christian authority where one

bishop exercised authority over another was almost completely foreign to

the early Church. In a debate regarding the repentance of Christians who

had renounced their faith during persecutions, two bishops, Cyprian of

Carthage and Stephen of Rome, were at odds.10 Cyprian rebuffed Stephen's

attempt to assert authority over another bishop with this revision to a

position of the Synod of Carthage which had previously held the office of the

Roman bishop in higher regard than others:

 For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by

tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of

obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty

and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be

judged by another than he himself can judge another.11

This exchange is significant for two reasons. First, it sets a precedent

of the Roman bishop attempting to assert authority over another bishop; a

precedent which would ultimately find its fulfillment as a result of

Constantine's rise to power. Second, it demonstrates the harsh attitudes of

the other leaders of the early Church towards such an exercise of authority.

The one dissenting voice to this sentiment in the early Church can be

found in Irenaeus who taught that, due to its relationship with Peter and

Paul, “every Church should agree with” the church at Rome.12 An observation

must be made regarding the nature this statement, however. It has already

been observed, Irenaeus, writing in AD 189, was writing at a time when

strong monarchical government in the Roman church was in its infancy.9 As

such, his intention could not have been to declare the Roman bishop head of

the global Church. It is far more likely that he was promoting unity among

the other churches with a practically and theologically strong congregation of

Christians with a rich history dating back to the ministries of Peter and Paul.

It is within this context of the Christian Church that Constantine rose to a

position of influence in world politics.

 Constantine's rise to power coincided with his conversion. In the wake

of his father's death Constantine found himself in conflict with Maxentius for

control of the western Roman Empire. Approaching Rome to battle

Maxentius, Constantine, seeking whatever god he could find to bless him,

prayed a rather selfish prayer: “Accordingly [Constantine] called on him with

earnest prayer and supplications that he would reveal to him who he was,

and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties.”13 In

response Constantine was given an astonishing vision:

“He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to

decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the

heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, Conquer by this.

At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole

army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the

miracle.”13

Bearing the symbol of the cross into battle, a comingling of Christianity

and military campaigns which is beyond the scope of the present discussion,

Constantine defeated Maxentius, solidified control over the western Roman

Empire and converted to Christianity. The nature of Constantine's conversion

in its sincerity and theological soundness has historically been the topic of

many investigations but is not of primary importance in this discussion

except in discussions of his motives for his actions to or through the Church.
 Constantine made major political changes in the light of his new faith.

None was more significant than the Edict of Milan. Together with Licinus, his

counterpart in the eastern Roman Empire, Constantine issued the Edict of

Milan in March of 313 declaring religious freedom throughout the empire.14

This was a drastic departure from the antagonistic position previously held

by the government towards Christians. It ended the cycles of persecution

which plagued the Church, terminating the violence, theft and abuse of

Christians and their property. Constantine proclaimed:

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 every one do as his soul desires.15

Not only did Constantine make Christianity legal, he attempted to rectify

many of the previous abuses perpetrated by the government against the

Church. He restored property of persecuted Christians and the was generous

to the Church. Eusebius reports:

With regard to those holy martyrs of God who had laid down their lives

in the confession of His name, he directed that their estates should be

enjoyed by their nearest kindred; and, in default of any of these, that

 the right of inheritance should be vested in the churches. Farther,

whatever property had been consigned to other parties from the

treasury… the generous mandate of the emperor directed should be

restored to the original owners. Such benefits did his bounty, thus

widely diffused, confer on the Church of God.16

Constantine also aided the Church in the transmission of the faith by the

commissioning, at public expense, of fifty copies of the Christian scriptures:

I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty

copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you

know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written

on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient,

portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in

their art... You have authority also… to use two of the public carriages

for their conveyance.17

The reforms did not end there. Constantine ordered the construction of

a great many churches to facilitate the worship of God18 and gave

considerable land holdings to Church officials, including a palace to the

Roman bishop.19 Constantine also made it temporally advantageous to be a

Christian by granting civil privileges upon the Church clergy including

removing the burdens of taxes and military service20 and through the

appointment of many Christians to government posts.21 These moves were

the beginning of Constantine’s subtle annexation of the Church into the

Roman state.

Despite Constantine's best efforts, the new relationship between the

Church and the State was not altogether positive. There were controversies

among the bishops regarding theology and church practices. In the first

instance of a politician exerting spiritual authority over the Church Augustine

presided as judge over a North African dispute regarding the Donatist

debate.22 The Donatist controversy was spurred by discussions of Church

practice and was, in relation to later events, relatively minor in lasting

consequences. The Arian heresy, however, was a dispute over a foundational

element of the gospel: is Jesus a created being or God Himself?23 This

controversy, being so essential to the life of the Church, began to produce a

very real division inside the Church. It was an instability with such fervor that

it could potentially have jeopardized the peace of the Empire. Constantine

dealt with this instability in a very dramatic way: On the authority of his

office as Emperor he “convoked” the Council of Nicaea.24

The first of the ecumenical councils, Nicaea was not the result of the

result of Christians working together for the unity of the Church; rather it was

instituted by the authority of Constantine. Constantine desired unity in the

Church, not for God’s glory, but, “as a basis for the welfare of the empire,”

and initially, “exerted himself to achieve a nontheological solution.”25

Underestimating the seriousness of the issue Constantine was greeted by

failure and called all the bishops to Nicaea to resolve the dispute. He

maintained control of the council by positioning himself as the arbiter of

truth:

The emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and received every

proposition with steadfast attention, and by occasionally assisting the

argument of each party in turn, he gradually disposed even the most

vehement disputants to a reconciliation. At the same time… he

appeared in a truly attractive and amiable light, persuading some,

convincing others by his reasonings… until at last he succeeded in

bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting every disputed

question.26

Nicaea is the second instance of Constantine exerting spiritual

authority over the Church and the first outward sign of Constantine linking

“the church to the empire and the empire to the church.”27 Constantine was

not a theologian. Indeed, he probably did not actually understand the debate

itself since he embraced bishops who espoused Arianism long after the

council had condemned it as heresy. Historians have observed that

Constantine's intention in the council of Nicaea was political stability, not

proper theology.28 He himself deemed the controversy, far from the

foundational debate which it was, to be so small as to be “of no…

importance”29, calling the dispute one of “small and very insignificant

questions”30 when compared to harmony in the Church and to the message

he preached. That message was a gratifying and socially stabilizing precept

which is not dissimilar to that which is espoused by today’s proponents of

the “prosperity gospel”:

We may see… both how unreasonable it were to question this truth…

since it appears that they who faithfully observe His holy laws, and

shrink from the transgression of His commandments, are rewarded

with abundant blessings, and are endued with well-grounded hope as

well as ample power for the accomplishment of their undertakings.31

Constantine’s interaction with the Church did not end with merely the

articulation of doctrine; he took ownership of it. By giving the decrees of

Nicaea, “the status of imperial law [with] the force of the Roman Empire…

behind them,”32 he gave possession of the Nicaea’s outcomes the

responsibility of the state, essentially annexing orthodox Christianity into the

Roman government. Constantine also enforced doctrine temporally. When

threatened by dissenting voices in the Church he issued a decree which

stripped the Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites and Paulians of property

and the right of assembly:

We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses

in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and our care in

this respect extends so far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious

and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house

or place whatsoever.33
 Constantine’s interactions with the Church continued to be motivated

by and directed towards political stability. These many reforms and

injections of Roman civil authority within the Church proved to have a great

impact on how the Church viewed itself. Eusebius observed that Constantine

even claimed to be a bishop himself.34 The magnitude of these shifts have

caused historians to observe that, “in the time of Constantine the church

became a state church.”35

Constantine’s empowering of the Church by means of the state caused

the church to model its structure after “political divisions [and] set up

provinces with metropolitans at their head. The Roman episcopate then

claimed jurisdictional primacy over all other bishoprics. As a result, the

Western sees all became subject to the papacy.”36 The first evidence of this

came shortly after Constantine’s reforms began to take hold. The Roman

bishop Julius, selected to the office almost entirely due to Constantine’s

influence,37 began to assert authority over other bishops. A group of Arian

bishops had removed Athanasius, now a bishop himself after succeeding

Alexander of Antioch, from service due to their theological disputes. Julius

condemned them, writing:

[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not

as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of

you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating

from all. ... Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to
 us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If,

then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of

Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church

here.38

Julius did not condemn the Arian bishops for heresy but for not passing

their decision through the office of bishop of Rome. Julius saw the Roman

church as the spiritual counterpart to the Roman government. The Roman

bishop was becoming the ecclesiastical version of the Roman Caesar.

Subsequent bishops of Rome followed this trend of advancing the

authority of the Roman church until Damasus finally “persuaded the emperor

to issue a decree naming the bishop of Rome ‘bishop of bishops’ and giving

him final jurisdiction over all church affairs” in AD 378.39 This decree exposes

how, under the influence of Constantine’s reforms, though it was not

Constantine himself ruling at this time, the Church was submitting its

spiritual authority to the state. Damasus justified his position not by

scripture, the agreement of other bishops or the testimony of the Holy Spirit

but by an appeal to an ordinance of the state. This culminated two years

later with the final annexation of the Church by the state when the new

emperor made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.40 This

was the final alignment of the Church with Rome and its policies.

Constantine's rise to power and conversion to Christianity was the

impetus for the Church to morph structurally from a network of

congregations with bishops of equal authority to a global organization with

centralized power in emulation of the government which fashioned it.

Constantine, unconcerned with truth and doctrine, annexed the Church as a

part of the Roman government and wielded it as an agent of political and

social stability. He annexed the Church through gifts of money, buildings,

land; by asserting both doctrinal and practical authority over orthodoxy and

by claiming the seat of a bishop. He used the Church to promote stability by

first promoting its acceptance throughout the Roman Empire, conforming its

doctrine to a set standard and enforcing that orthodoxy throughout the

Empire for the preservation of peace.

What can we learn from Constantine? God used him in mighty ways

and the Christian Church can celebrate what was accomplished through him.

The most important influence of Constantine was obviously the Edict of

Milan. The cessation of the great persecutions of the Roman Empire lifted a

great burden from Christians everywhere and allowed Christianity to explode

throughout the known world. We must remember that the edict did not make

Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire; it simply allowed

religious freedom. It was under this rule of law that Christianity was most

successful. In our day we must encourage similar policies throughout the

world to allow Christians the freedom to spread the Gospel but not to be

overbearing in the promotion of Christianity like the later reforms which

squashed its witness when the state was employed as an instrument of its

discipline.
 As his political maneuvering continued, we learn from Constantine we

also learn that Christians are not immune to the human tendency to

embrace a worldly savior. Constantine provided peace from persecution. It is

hard to imagine the incredible shift that must have been for the young

Church. Constantine was a politician and an empire builder, not a religious

scholar or missionary – he preached a false gospel, yet the leaders of the

Church all marched to the beat of his drum because of what he had

previously done. Today the Church is far too diverse and widespread to all be

overwhelmed with a similar personality cult but that does not preclude

denominations or single denominations from being swept from their

moorings by the strong current of a temporally powerful or charismatic

leader. We must always be watchful that we are not dislodged and led to

hand our faith or our organization over to a secular influence.

Finally, Constantine turns our attention to the world as a whole. The

new Emperor was heralded as the worldly savior of the Church and some

even thought that he was ushering the Millennial Kingdom. His aggressive

policies on defining and enforcing doctrine are a demonstration of spreading

the Kingdom in a very human way. And it didn’t work: The Church was left

beholden to the state with great numbers of nominal believers. What then is

the answer? “We must recognize with every ounce of our being that what

transforms society is,” not political, social or imperialistic action but, “the

gospel” of Jesus spread by the Holy Spirit through individual Christians.41

God’s kingdom is advanced not when emperors and kings make decrees but
when His people are sharing the good news of Jesus “in the synagogue with

the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with

those who happen to be there.”42

1
Marshall, I. Howard and Philip H. Towner. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral
Epistles, p 177-181. London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004.
2
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Matt 14.
3
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Acts 1-4.
4
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Acts 1:15–
26.
5
Henry Thorne Sell, Studies in Early Church History (Willow Grove, PA: Woodlawn Electronic
Publishing, 1998).
6
Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe. The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VII :
Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, p 381. Oak Harbor: Logos Research
Systems, 1997.
7
Fahlbusch, Erwin and Geoffrey William Bromiley. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, V 2, p 107.
Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003.
8
Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe. The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I :
Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, p 415. Oak Harbor: Logos Research
Systems, 1997.
9
Freedman, David Noel, Allen C. Myers and Astrid B. Beck. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p
264. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.
10
Douglas, J. D., Earle E. Cairns and James E. Ruark. The New International Dictionary of the
Christian Church., p 276. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.
11
Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe. The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. V :
Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, p 565. Oak Harbor: Logos Research
Systems, 1997.
12
Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe. The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I :
Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, p 415, p 416. Oak Harbor: Logos
Research Systems, 1997.
13
Schaff, Philip. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I, p 490. Oak Harbor:
Logos Research Systems, 1997.
14
Sell, Henry Thorne. Studies in Early Church History. Willow Grove, PA: Woodlawn Electronic
Publishing, 1998.
15
Schaff, Philip. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I, p 513, p 514. Oak
Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997.
16
Ibid p 505-6.
17
Ibid p 549.
18
Ibid p 532, p 533.
19
Fahlbusch, Erwin and Geoffrey William Bromiley. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, V 4, p 754.
Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 2005.
20
Fahlbusch, Erwin and Geoffrey William Bromiley. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, V 3, p 228.
Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003.
21
Schaff, Philip. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I, p 510. Oak Harbor:
Logos Research Systems, 1997.
22
MacMullen, Ramsay. Paganism in the Roman Empire, p 50. New Haven, Conn: Yale University
Press, 1981.
23
Eckman, James P. Exploring Church History, p 30. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002.
24
Schaff, Philip. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I, p 521. Oak Harbor:
Logos Research Systems, 1997.
25
Fahlbusch, Erwin and Geoffrey William Bromiley. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, V 1, p 121, V
1, p 122. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003.
26
Schaff, Philip. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I, p 523. Oak Harbor:
Logos Research Systems, 1997.
27
Fahlbusch, Erwin and Geoffrey William Bromiley. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, V 1, p 698.
Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003.
28
Ibid p 121-122.
29
Schaff, Philip. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I, p 523. Oak Harbor:
Logos Research Systems, 1997.
30
Ibid p 517.
31
Ibid p 506.
32
Fahlbusch, Erwin and Geoffrey William Bromiley. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, V 4, p 502.
Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 2005.
33
Schaff, Philip. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I, p 539. Oak Harbor:
Logos Research Systems, 1997.
34
Ibid p 546.
35
Fahlbusch, Erwin and Geoffrey William Bromiley. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, V 1, p 833.
Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003.
36
Ibid p 262-263.
37
Baumgartner, Frederic. Behind Locked Doors: A History of the Papal Elections, p 6. New York,
NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003.
38
“The Authority of the Pope” Catholic Answers. 2008. 11 Nov. 2010
<http://www.catholic.com/library/ Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp>
39
Baumgartner, Frederic. Behind Locked Doors: A History of the Papal Elections, p 7. New York,
NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003.
40
Fahlbusch, Erwin and Geoffrey William Bromiley. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, V 4, p 598.
Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 2005.
41
Carson, D. A. Scandalous: The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus. p 105. Wheaton, IL: Crossway,
2010.
42
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Acts 17:17.