CHURCH AND STATE FROM CONSTANTINE TO JUSTINIAN

NAME:

DATE DONE:

DATE SUBMITTED:
 2

Q1.

Church and State relations: 4th to 6th Century AD

Introduction

One aspect of the relationship between Church and State that must be noted is the

participation of the Roman emperors in Church affairs. From the reign of Constantine at the

beginning of the 4th century, the leadership of both the Church and State was held in the hands of

the emperor with the church bishops playing secondary roles. As a result, the two centuries saw

heavy interference/participation in Church affairs after the fashion of ancient Rome where the

ruler of the empire was generally regarded as the head of religion. In this case, the emperor was

regarded as the de facto head of the Church and the intermingling of Church and State became

intricate. No emperor, including Constantine, expressed this reality of secular and religious

leadership as Justinian did in the 6th century.

Several significant aspects mark the changes in the relationship between Church and

State in the years between the two centuries. In the first century we see the rise of Christianity

from a proscribed religion the rulers of the empire sought to eliminate into the state religion of

the empire. Under the guidance of the first Christian emperors of a Christian empire, we see the

rebirth of Rome as the principle city of the faith as well as the establishment of new religious

centres such as Byzantium. The beginning of the 4th century brought with it the establishment of

rival doctrines such as Arianism while the century closed under the rule of an emperor seeking to

proscribe the establishment of heretic faiths and doctrines such as Arianism1. Despite the efforts

of Theodosius in stamping out heretic faiths in a reverse of the Christian persecutions, the

following century saw the growth of these heretic faiths due to political turmoil and revolutions

1
Grant, p. 171-173
 3

in the Western Empire. In the east, the Nestorian faith grew among the Persians and spread

across Asia via established trade routes. As a result, this century differed from the 4th century in

that secular religious control reduced and doctrinal fights among the different sects remained

confined to the academics. The 6th century on the other hand saw the establishment of Catholism

as the principle religion of the western arm of the Empire while Orthodoxy rises in the East. It is

in this century where we experience a shift in relations between Church and State whereby in the

East, the State maintains the traditional structure where the emperor serves as the nominal head

of the Church. Towards the West, the collapse of the empire due to barbarian invasions

destroyed the myth of the invincibility of the Roman Emperors while the Church filled in the

gap. As a result, this century saw the rise of the Church in the West where the bishop of Rome

gained ascendancy over not only religious matters in the West, but gained autonomy from the

secular leaders of the land.

4th Century

The reign of Constantine saw the rise of Christianity from a faith practiced in secret to a

faith openly practiced. Furthermore, State resources were incorporated in the establishment of

religious buildings in Rome such as the SS. Giovanni e Paolo, the S. Paolo fouri le Mura and St.

Peter’s Cathedral. The defeat of Livinius saw the growth of Christianity in the East with

Byzantium established as the major religious center of the East.

As established, the close of the century brought about the rise of Arianism2, a heretic faith

that gained popularity among the barbarian invaders of the Western arm of the Empire in the

following century. The first quarter of the century saw the rise of Donatism as a faith. Thus, the

Council of Nicaea held in 325 AD sought to eliminate these two conflicting ideologies that

2
Grant, p. 171-173
 4

questioned the fundamental doctrine of the Christian Church as practiced by the State. It is

during the council that the Roman Emperor’s tentatively establish themselves as the de facto

heads of a Church they had the power to authorize or proscribe. Later on in the century the West

experienced the first split between State and Church when Bishop Ambrose in Milan used the

threat of excommunication against the Emperor and effectively established a norm on the

relationship between the two.

5th Century

The 5th century was somewhat unremarkable in that the relationship between Church and

State was limited if non-existent. The invasion of Rome by the barbarians saw the reduction of

faith in the rule of secular leaders. In contrast, the Church in the West rose to prominence with

the leaders of the faith maintaining hope among the citizens of the empire. With the coming of

the Arian Ostrogoths in Spain and Italy, as well as Vandals in North Africa, Orthodox

Christianity saw the bleakest moment in history as it was the minority in terms of politics and

religion.

Towards the East, the rise of Nestorianism under the bishop Nestorian of Constantinople

brought about a split in the Eastern Church. During the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the

subsequent Council of Chalcedon, Nestorianism is declared a heretic faith, causing widespread

migrations into Persia where religious persecution of any sort was non-existent. Nestorianism

thus took advantage of the trade relations between Persia and Asia and spread.

6th Century

The 6th century saw an official split between East and West. Towards the West, the lack

of political power saw the suppression of Orthodox Christianity. Towards the East the case was

different in that Orthodox Christianity not only remained the dominant religion I practice but the
 5

secular leadership of the Empire remained in control of the religious aspects of the Empire. As

already stated the Emperor Justinian dominated the century in terms of political and religious

power. Justinian’s social and political reforms established his power in the Empire while his

activities in religious reforms established the pre-eminence of the Byzantine Emperor as the head

of the Church. Ultimately, despite his initial successes against the barbarian ruled Western

Empire, Justinian is confined to the East and under him the power of the State over the Church is

established and consolidated.

Q2. Constantine and Empire

Introduction

The reign of Constantine was special since it brought about the official recognition of

Christianity as the State religion. While this eventuality was an opportune happenstance for

Constantine, he was beset by divisions both within the Christian faith as well as outside. Within

the faith existed a number of rival doctrines and sects, each purporting to be the official and

sacred religion inherited from Christ of Nazareth. From without existed the rivalry represented

by the other religions of the empire which previously experienced official sanction. One needs

consider the fact that the position of Emperor in the Empire was one of near deity and previous

emperors considered themselves gods. Thus, the introduction of a religion that reduced the

godhood of the emperor presented a challenge. Furthermore, Constantine had to counter the

Army’s predilection for the faith of Mithras3. Thus, Constantine was faced with major difficulties

during his reign. Fortunately, the troubles linked to the pagan faiths were easy to deal with;

unfortunately, the ones concerning the Christian faith proved more difficult.

A Divided Church

3
Nisbett
 6

The Empire faced constant threat from barbarian incursions as well as the traditional

enemy represented by the Persian Empire. As a result, the Emperor required a unified empire

capable of withstanding the threats. Therefore, Constantine instituted Christianity as the official

religion of the empire and arranged affairs in a manner that would make the Church subordinate

to the State. Constantine’s first conflict with divisions within the Church involved ecclesiastical

matters where rival factions for the bishop’s seat in Carthage contended over the nomination. In

313 AD, the supporters of Donatus sought Constantine’s aid in establishing their leader as the

head of the Church in Carthage and Constantine’s position as the nominal head of the Church

became established when he used his secular powers to affirm the decision he made. By ordering

the Roman pope as well as summoning an ecclesiastical convention in Arles, Constantine begun

the trend where secular leaders displayed power over Church matters4.

Arius, an Alexandrian priest, initiated a doctrinal struggle within the Church by

questioning the position of Christ within the Christian faith. The argument as proposed by Arius

was that Jesus was subordinate rather than equal to God since God created Jesus. According to

Arius, this presupposed a period in time when Jesus did not exist. Due to this, he believed that

paying equal respect to God and Jesus was an affront to God5. Constantine saw this approach by

Arius as the precursor to more religious struggles and moved to proscribe the faith6. Constantine

thus convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to establish accepted Christian faith and

doctrinal teaching and during this, Arianism was declared heretic7. However, the influence of

4
Grant, 161-167

5
Treadgold, p. 35

6
Grant, p. 170

7
Ostrogorsky, p. 48. Grant, p. 171-173
 7

Arius among the people of Europe was too far spread and a later Council of Nicaea in 327 AD

re-established the position of Arius and is followers.

From the two above cases, it becomes evident that Constantine’s position in the

ecclesiastical and doctrinal struggles was the stance of a mediator seeking the affirmation of a

central point. In both instances, while Constantine supported one view over the other, the general

picture he portrayed concerned the wish to establish a single faith among his people hence unite

them. One can assume with retrospect that growing troubles with Livinius and the barbarians

necessitated his stance8.

Constantine’s Image as Defender of the Faith

Constantine worked hard to project an image as the principle defender of the Christian

faith, even as the cost of causing rifts within the empire. The emperor established new taxes and

ordinances which drew money from civilians and used most of these on public building works

such as the building of Churches. In cities such as Naples, Rome, Carthage, Constantinople and

others, Constantine dedicated funds towards the building and refurbishment of Christian

Churches and buildings in exclusion; ignoring the other religions9. Ideally, the idea behind this

approach was to induce the citizens of the empire to embrace the new religion but in reality, the

building endeavours established Constantine’s position as the greatest defender and benefactor of

the Christian faith10.

As a result, it becomes evident that Constantine’s ambition was to inculcate within the

people the idea of his pre-eminence in the religion among the people. Similar to the deification

of ancient roman emperors, Constantine projected the image that his reign and rule was sacred;
8
Grant, p. 36-38

9
Grant, p. 152

10
Grant, p. 171
 8

the origins of divine rule. As a result, questioning his rule or ordinances on religion was an

affront to his person. To draw in the pagan elements of his empire as well as establish cordial

relations, Constantine devised several strategies where by incorporating pagan names,

celebrations and events into the Christian faith, he could slowly unify the divided empire.

‘Eirene’ and ‘Sophia’, Greek names of antiquity, were assumed by the Christian faith11 and by

331 he begun proscriptions against pagan faiths by confiscating temple treasures12. We therefore

determine that his approach towards the pagan faiths included a passive aggressive stance where

he removed the support mechanisms from the faiths.

Q5.

Constantine and Persia

The relation between the Roman and Persian Empires was a spotted one. Constant wars

raged between the two superpowers of the ancient world with none gaining ascendancy over the

other. On the other hand, religious interaction between the two was a common occurrence. Prior

to the establishment of Christianity as the dominant religion of the Empire, Christians in Persia

faced persecution and this eventuality was taken advantage of by Constantine13. On the other

hand, the Christian Church in Persia did not consider relations with Rome as favourable and in

fact sought to break ties.

Persian Christians

Mesopotamia, a territory previously held by Rome, held a number of Christian sects and

religious groups such as the Bardaisanites, Marcionites and Elchasaites. Before the establishment

11
Ostrogosky, p. 47

12
Grant, 179

13
Constantine’s letter to Shapur provoked religious persecution since it was seen that the Roman Emperor aimed
to use the Christian elements within the Persian kingdom to conquer it. Oussani, 2012
 9

of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine, the Sassanid Empire

in Persia largely ignored these sects and religious groups. Moreover, due to doctrinal schisms

and differences, these `nasraye`14 as recognized by Persian officials sought little to no contact

with the Western Christian Church. There were a number of reasons for this seclusion but the

main reasons were that the works of several Christian proselytes such as Addai and Mari

established these communities with teachings and values different from the West. This doctrinal

independence proved alluring to the Persian administration since it meant that Christian citizens

could be trusted. As a result, with the proscription of Nestorianism in 325 AD, the fait found

ground for acceptance among these communities. Successful war with Rome under the

leadership of the charismatic Sassanid emperor Shapur I infused Mesopotamia with even more

Christians in the form of war captives.

In general, we thus see that Persian Christians in Mesopotamia and other regions of the

Persian Empire sought the ease of religious persecution by severing ties with the west. With the

doctrinal schism presented by the Nestorian faith, these heretics were deemed acceptable by the

Persian community and it is for this reason perhaps that Constantine scrapped the 325 AD

Council of Nicaea Edict against Nestorianism. Later on in the following two years, a greater

schism between East and West developed as Nestorianism gained favour among Eastern

Christians in Persia.

As stated, difficulties for Persian Christians begun with the establishment of Christianity

as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christians in Iranian or Persian cities faced

proscription under the rule of Shapur II since it was widely believed that their presence in Persia

14
Chaumont, p. 56-83
 10

offered opportunities for sabotage15. Brock reveals the works of Aphrahat, a Christian theologian

living in Persian Mesopotamia, expressing the desire to see the victory of the Christian Roman

Empire over the Persians16. Another individual, Simeon bar Sabbae of Syria, apparently refused

to collect taxes he knew would be used to fight against fellow Christians by the Persians17. In

general, while general sentiments among Christians in Persian regarded the West as family

relations, the general appeal to support the West was non-existent. However, the actions of few

individuals, most descendants of Shakur I’s victories over Antioch, caused concern among

Shakur II’s administration thus suffered religious persecution. When one considers the fact that

Constantine sought to establish himself as defender of the Christian elements within the Persian

Empire, the reactions of the Sassanid Empire against the Christians within its dominion become

clear.

Constantine’ Manipulations

In general, Constantine took the opportunity presented by Christians in Persia to foment

distrust and tension in Sassanid Persia. The letter to Shapur II did provoke increased persecutions

in Mesopotamia while sentiments ran low over Sassanid domination. Moreover, by establishing a

double tax against Christians, this in a manner pushed Persian Christians toward Constantine.

However, his greatest act of manipulation was the establishment of a Christian hegemony and

claiming dominance over Persian Christians. This not only infuriated the Persian Emperor but

also established a pretext for future invasions of Persia under the banner of religion.

15
Brock, p. 1-19

16
ibid

17
ibid
 11

References

Barnes, T. D. “Constantine and the Christians of Persia Barnes”. The Journal of Roman Studies ,

Vol. 75, (1985), pp. 126-136. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/300656

Brock, S. P. “Christians in the Sassanid Empire: A Case of Divided Loyalties” in S. Mews (ed.)

Religion and National Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Eusebius. “Life of Constantine”. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Vol. 1.

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc, 1994.

Grant, M. Constantine the Great- The Man and His Times. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,

1993.

Lieu, S. N. C. “Captives Refuges and Exiles: A Study of Cross-Frontier Civilian Movements and

Contacts between Rome and Persia from Valerian to Jovian” in P. Freeman & D.

Kennedy (ed.). The Defence of the Roman and Byzantium East. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1986.

Nisbett, M. J. “Sun worship, in Early Christian Period”. 08 March.2003. Christian Resource

Centre. Bermuda. Accessed 17th November 2012. Available at:

http://www.nisbett.com/holidays/christmas_and_sun_worship.htm

Ostrogorsky, G. History of the Byzantine State. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1969.

Oussani, G. "Persia." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton

Company, 1911. 20th November 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11712a.htm

Treadgold, W. A History of the Byzantine Society. Stanford, California: Stanford University

Press, 1997.