DIVINE
WORD SEMINARY
CONSTANTINE
THE GREAT:
A
PROPHET IN THE 4TH CENTURY A.D.
IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS
IN THE
PROPHET
COURSE
BY
HARLE
D. PIGA, SVD
TAGAYTAY
CITY, PHILIPPINES
MARCH
2015
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1-
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………...
2
A.
STATEMENT
OF THE PROBLEM……………………………………………... 3
B.
SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE STUDY………………………………………………. 3
C.
SCOPE
AND LIMITATION……………………………………………………... 4
D.
METHODOLOGY…………………..…………………………………………….
5
CHAPTER
II- THE STORY OF CONSTANTINE “THE PROPHET”…………………………………………………………………………………..
6
A.
THE
YOUNGER FLAVIUS VALERIUS CONSTANTINUS……………………………………………………………....... 6
B.
THE
VISION OF CONSTANTINE……………………………………………… 7
C.
THE
PROPHETIC CROSS………………………………………………………. 12
D.
THE
EDICT OF MILAN…………………………………………………………. 14
CHAPTER
III- CONSTANTINE AND HIS PROPHETIC ROLE IN THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA……………………………………………………………………………………...
17
A.
CONSTANTINE’S
ACTION…………………………………………………….. 22
B.
THE
BAPTISM AND DEATH OF CONSTANTINE………………….………... 24
CHAPTER
IV- CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………. 26
A.
SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………
26
B.
FINDINGS………………………………………………………………………..
27
C.
RECOMMENDATION…………………………………………………………..
29
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………….
30
CHAPTER
I
INTRODUCTION
People today think of a prophet as any individual who grasps to tell the
future. While the gift of prophecy certainly includes the ability to see the
future, a prophet is far more than just a person with that ability. A prophet
is basically a spokesman for God, a person chosen
by God to speak to people on God's behalf and convey a message or teaching.
Prophets were role models of holiness, scholarship and closeness to God. They
set the standards for the entire community.
In Christianity a prophet is
one inspired by God through the Holy Spirit to bring a message for a
specific purpose. God's calling as a prophet is not to uplift an individual for
their own brilliance, but for the glory of God and to bring back people to him. The reception of a message is called revelation and the delivery of the message is designated prophecy.
At the baptism we were marked with oil as a sign that we are consecrated
to God and anointed by the Holy Spirit. Our anointing also was a sign that we
are joined to Christ and share in his threefold mission as prophet, priest, and
king. The Israelites anointed
their priests and kings with oil. They spoke of their prophets as being
anointed with the spirit. Jesus, known as the Christ, the anointed one, fills
all three roles. According to Luke, at the outset of his public ministry, Jesus
read from Isaiah and claimed that the words referred to him: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because
he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor” (Luke 4:18). Moreover, prophet is a messenger sent by God, a
person who speaks for God. He or she witnesses to God, calls people to
conversion, and may also foretell the future. Prophets often are killed for
their message. Jesus fits this
description. He is none other than the Word of God in the flesh. He called the
world to turn from sin and return to the Father and was put to death for it. In
Scripture Jesus is presented as a prophet. Crowds identified him as “Jesus the
prophet” (Matthew 21:11). He spoke of himself as a prophet: “No prophet is
accepted in his own native place” (Luke 4:24). He foretold his passion and
resurrection.
Furthermore, in this paper the student would try to
present historical accounts that will present Constantine the Great as an
individual who lived his three- fold mission through baptism as king, priest
and especially prophet. The topics below presented Constantine as a messenger of
God in the times of persecution on 300 year-old Church. What he had done to the
Church in his time and all that he had experienced like his “vision” of the
Cross was indeed qualified Constantine not only a champion of the faith but
eventually a prophet to unify and strengthen the Church in the 4th
century.
Finally the paper
followed the history of the Church in account. Church history treats of the
growth in time and space of the Church founded by Christ. Inasmuch as its
subject matter is derived from and rooted in the faith, it is a theological
discipline; and in this respect it differs from the history of Christianity.[1]
The idea of the Church should not only be derived on the understanding of
structure and its governance as such but on the divine origin founded on the
teaching of Jesus Christ. This is the very reason why we view the Church as
ship “sailing fully rigged and unchanged over the ocean of the centuries”[2]
guided by human sailor through the divine selection of the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, the historical character of the Church rests ultimately on the
Incarnation of the Logos and Its entry into human history.[3] It
understands on the basis that Christ willed his Church to be a society of human
beings. It rests on the fact that the Logos believes in the capacity and will
of human beings to reinforce the Kingdom of
Heaven mirrored in the Church under the leadership of men and women: the
apostolic college, the episcopate, the papacy and even to Emperors.
The history of the
Christian church is account of men and women who because of their prophetic
mission exemplified extraordinary work to contribute on humanities religious
heritage. These are individuals who professed the Lordship of Jesus Christ and
went on their way to express this faith in many countless terms. These people
in the church contributed not only for the development of Christian communities
but also for the furtherance of various fields such as politics, science, arts
and literature.
The researcher ventures
on the historical theology specifically on the role of Constantine in the first
ecumenical council of Nicaea in the year 325 on the occasion of heresies of
Arianism and Donatism. Here, we will explore who Constantine the Great is and
his contribution to the Christological foundation of the Church started in his
reign through his prophetic mission. Constantine, the emperor of the Roman
Empire also vowed for the unity of his territory, we would like also to
perceive the political and even personal interests of Constantine in convoking
the Council of Nicaea.
STATEMENT OF THE
PROBLEM
In this work, the
researcher attempts to answer the question “ Is Constantine a prophet in the 4th
century?” It aims also to answer the following questions, first, who is
Constantine the Great? And second, what is the political and theological
influence of Constantine in the life of 300 year-old Church with regard to the
prevailing error of his time?
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
STUDY
Church history as a
theological discipline in the light of prophetic mission of a person is not the
Church’s cabinet of antiquities. It is her understanding of herself and
therefore an integral part of theology. He who studies the development and
growth of the Church in the light of faith enters into her divine-human nature,
understands her as she is, not as she ought to be, learns to know the laws by
which she lived and himself gains a clear view of her from within. A condition
of this study of writing must of course be a strictly scientific investigation
and an impartial presentation of the facts. If these tasks are carried out,
Church history can and draws conclusions that will be important for the
understanding of the present day and modern problems.
In times like this,
Church history is constantly confronted with problems of the present day. We
are confronted with various shifts in our beliefs, traditions and relations to
one another, from church to church, from nation to nation and so much more. In
this regard, the importance of historical theology must be emphasized as to
realize the roots of the Church, including her centuries-old beliefs, in the
midst of twists and turn. Furthermore, I would like to highlight the value of
historical theology following the discussion of the prophetic mission that it
lies in the fact that it opens up rich possibilities of the Christian life, and
faces squarely the problems of human element in the Church, of power, of sin,
and failure. Historical theology can and will uphold our identity as prophets
even in the midst of plurality.
Specifically, this
paper would like to point on, first, on the value of secular power in helping
the Church realize its prophetic mission as an institutional organization. That
the secular power, in a positive way helps improve and defend the rights and even
privileges of the people of God throughout history. Second, that the Christians
as modern prophets should realize their humble beginnings in the hands of
secular authority. Third that the readers may understand a specific part of
profane and sacred history in which these two joined together, in a
collaborative effort, in whatever agenda they have, for the betterment of the
people of God.
SCOPE AND DELIMITATION
OF THE STUDY
The researcher is
investigating the prophetic mission of Constantine the Great, who convoked and
guided the first ecumenical council of Nicaea in the year A.D. 325.
Specifically, the paper covers the brief background of the young Flavius
Valerius Constantinus who later became Constantine the Great. The researcher
also tries to investigate on the importance of Edict of Milan in the year 313
on the life early Christians, the vision of Constantine according to available
sources, and the true cross ‘discovered’ through the effort of Empress Helena
and on its prominence and centrality to Constantine’s theology and
ecclesiastical power. Furthermore, the researcher ventures on the dominant
error of faith on Constantine’s time- the Arianism that prompted the Emperor to
convoke the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. These efforts were made to keep
the unity in the empire including his increasing toleration for Christianity,
as well as stricter regulations against traditional Roman religious practices
until his baptism in his death bed in the year A.D. 337.
However, the researcher
would like to establish the parameters of the paper by considering mainly on
secondary sources written and available regarding the subject matter.
Nevertheless, there are translated documents and records to further enhance the
paper. Other books and articles are also
cited in further understanding of the topic. This work is not more than thirty
pages and so the readers would expect a general and broad discussion of the
subject matter. In addition, the paper is not intended for a deep and detailed
Christological reflection especially in the third chapter but a simple
presentation on the issues and events happened in the life of the Church during
the reign of Constantine the Great.
METHODOLOGY
The paper is qualitative research maximizing
sources from libraries, book rooms and other written records containing
important data on the subject matter. Library research is done to gather
necessary and relevant information and data needed in the study. Critical
thinking, however, is very much part of research writing. In view of this,
analysis and introspection are employed by the researcher. Furthermore, the
paper is a historical theology in nature. Historical theology is the systematic
investigation, corrections and improvements of the information of the past in
regarding Church and humanity in relation to God as ever present in our
history. Hence, the researcher encourages the readers to take and proceed on
the paper in the light of Christian faith.
CHAPTER
2
THE
STORY OF CONSTANTINE “THE PROPHET”
A.
THE
YOUNGER FLAVIUS VALERIUS CONSTANTINUS
The third century was a
period of civil war, barbarian invasion, and general social breakdown
throughout the empire. As chaos mounted, so did the power of the military,
which successfully asserted authority over the Roman state, and even over the
seat of the emperors, who came and went so quickly that they were unable to
establish power centers of their own.[4] On the other side, the church also
went through unimaginable persecution from the Roman Empire, though all the
time growing and spreading. So imagine what an extraordinary turn of events it
was when the Roman emperor himself became a Christian later in the story.
Indeed the society needed a prophet.
The Emperor Flavius Valerius Constantinus, surnamed
the Great was born February 27, 272 or 274.[5] His birthplace is
believed to be Naissus, today’s Nis in Serbia. His father was Constantius
Chlorus[6] a native of that vicinity
and famous as a general under the Emperor Diocletian. His mother was
Helena,[7] the daughter of a humble
innkeeper, whom Constantius had met during his military sojourn in that
area. Constantine, born out of wedlock, had grown to school age before he
and his mother were united with Constantius, now governor of Dalmatia, to live
as a family at the mansion in Salonae on the Adriatic coast. It was there
that the young Constantine received the attention of his parents, his basic
education, and an early exposure to a military environment. His father’s mild
and tolerant disposition toward his subjects, his soldiers, and even his
defeated opponents, may explain Constantine’s own forthcoming attitude in favor
of free religious expression. Constantius may have had Christian leanings
since the early years. He had ascended to the position of power through
the military ranks. Later, based on Emperor Diocletian’s arranged
conditions, he advanced by divorcing Helen and marrying Emperor Maximian’s
daughter, Theodora. Another arrangement was that his son, Constantine,
would serve in Diocletian’s imperial court.[8] It was in 293 that
Diocletian and Maximian appointed their own Caesars under their charge to
bolster the administration of their respective jurisdictions. Diocletian
took Galerius as his Caesar and Maximian took Constantius. Galerius was
the instigator of the mandated Christian persecution. Constantine
followed Diocletian to the imperial city of Nicomedia in Asia Minor, while
Helen, now divorced, took up residence in Drepanum, a small town near
Nicomedia, in order to be near her son. The period of service at the
court and in the field under Diocletian, provided the opportunity for
Constantine to distinguish himself as a soldier, and proved to be very valuable
to him later in his role as an administrator. He also served under Galerius,
when the latter replaced Diocletian at the helm. In this case, however,
Constantine became a virtual hostage to his superior who held on to the young
centurion as an assurance against any aggression on the part of Constantius.[9] In time, Constantine
made his move and in a very swift escape rejoined his father at
Eboracum—today’s York in Britain. Constantius died on July 25, 306 and
the young and popular Constantine was proclaimed Augustus by his troops.[10] At his side was his
son Constantine, who is commonly said to have been about eighteen years old. He
was described by contemporaries as a large, impressive-looking man, and he
certainly had impressed his father’s troops. They spontaneously hailed him as the
successor to Constantius, the August of the Western empire.[11] The event marked the
beginning of Constantine’s climb to the top.
B. THE “VISION” OF CONSTANTINE
The “vision” of Constantine launched him as a person
who had received a particular message from the Christian God. Constantine took the first step towards the
realization of his idea in the autumn of 312 when, against the advice of his
entourage, he took the field against the Maxentius, then master of Italy and
Africa, and whose troops outnumbered his.[12] Maxentius
is Maximian’s son, seeing shunted himself, staked his own claim to be emperor
of the West.[13]
Previously, Constantine obtained Licentius’ agreement (another emperor) to this
undertaking and promised him the hand of his sister Constantia in return.
Constantine stormed Italy, moving against Maxentius’ army, fortified in Rome.
The story is that Constantine’s legion were spent by now, demoralized, and
uncertain so far from home. In the coming battle against Maxentius, who would
be fighting on his home ground, they would be decided underdog.[14] The
decision turned in Constantine’s favour at the battle of the Milvian Bridge to
the north city on October 28, 312.[15]
Maxentius lost throne and life, and the way was on for Constantine into the
Western capital consecrated tradition. He was in possession of the whole of
Western Europe and had victoriously concluded the first stage of his journey to
universal rule.[16]
Prior to the battle in the Milvian Bridge, the
emperor, in desperation raised his eyes to the sky and implored the Deus
Summus to reveal his identity and to proffer his help. Constantine later
confided to Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea what followed, and he swore by an oath
that his story was true. He said,
“Accordingly he called on him
with earnest prayer and supplications that he would reveal to him who he was,
and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And
while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared
to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had
it been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself
long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored
with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who
could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of
after-time has established its truth? 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.”[17]
The account of “vision” of
Constantine will eventually be doubted by some historians and offering some
explanations from the experience of real miracle or vision to that of merely
invention of his mind because of the great circumstance he was facing.
Moreover, if it was truly happened, it has been thought that what Constantine’s
“vision” was merely a natural phenomenon from the sun or from the formation of
the cloud in the sky. This skeptical explanation from other historians is a
response of the unavailability of any proof recorded apart from Eusebius and Lactantius
or from any vivid description. It must have been the emperor was purely in
destress of how he could claim victory from the enemy and so his mind seek
refuge for some alternative gods including the God of Christians.
The emperor
did not completely comprehend the meaning of this apparition; but that night he
had a dream in which Christ appeared to him and admonished him to use the
sacred sign of the Christian faith as a defensive charm for his army. As
Constantine had been a protector of Christian believers in his domains, there
were Christian clergymen traveling in his entourage and praying for the success
of his campaign.[18]
He questioned them on the meaning of his revelations and on the sacred signs of
their religion. They responded that the cross was the symbol of the victory
over death won through the saving act of Christ. They probably informed him
that Christian fideles were marked with the sign of the cross at
baptism, and were told to invoke the name of Christ whenever they felt
endangered by demonic forces.[19]
The emperor learned that the crux et nomen Christi were potent signs
which could be used against the forces of evil.[20]
Constantine probably remembered the famous incidents when the failure of an haruspex
at Antioch to find any signs in a sacrificial animal had been blamed on the
hexing of the sacrifice by a Christian palace worker marking his forehead with
the symbol of the cross; and when the failure of the Oracle of Apollo at Didyma
to utter prophecies was blamed on the existence of the iusti.[21]
The emperor must have reasoned that if Christian signs were more powerful than
pagan rites, the Christian Divinity would be the Deus Summus, and the
sacred symbols of Christ would overcome the superstitious magic of Maxentius.
At this moment, Constantine converted to the Christian God.[22]
His conversion was not the final decision in a long internal search for moral
regeneration and personal salvation; but it was not a momentary act of pure
political expediency either.
Solar syncretism had made him a seeker of the
“Highest God.” Cultural toleration had opened him to Christian influences.
Superstitious religion had made him a believer in symbols. His revelatory
experiences convinced him that the God of the Christians had answered his
sincere prayers, and that the sign of their cult would meet his urgent
needs. The following morning he summoned his workmen, and directed them to
fashion a new battle standard known as the Labarum[23]—it
was a gold spear crossed by a bar holding a banner with the imperial portrait,
and topped with a monogram made out of the first two letters of the name of
Christ in Greek, the letter Chi traversed by the letter Rho.[24]
It therefore combined the two potent symbols of Christianity. Constantine
communicated his religious revelations to his soldiers, and ordered them to
mark their shields with the monogram of Christ, which would serve as a
safeguard against the enemy. If this personal account of his conversion
experience had not been preserved by
Eusebius, something similar to it would have to be assumed based on the
references to prayers, dreams, divine inspiration, and sacred sign found
in other written sources, and on the use of crosses and Christograms seen on
Roman imperial coins.[25]
Suffice it to say here that Constantine did not just tell this story to his
biographer, but he also related it to his family and friends, and that it
became common knowledge in late antiquity. When a usurper tried to overthrow
his heirs a dozen years after his death, his daughter Constantina and his son
Constantius II reacted by issuing bronze coins invoking the divine vision of
their father and the divine institution of their dynasty.
Eusebius
added, “thus
then the God of all, the Supreme Governor of the whole universe, by his own
will appointed Constantine, the descendant of so renowned a parent, to be
prince and sovereign: so that, while others have been raised to this
distinction by the election of their fellow-men, he is the only one to whose
elevation no mortal may boast of having contributed.”[26]
C.
THE PROPHETIC TRUE
CROSS
Just as Constantine’s battle-eve
vision of the cross at Milvian Bridge in 321 was not reliably recounted until
325, so the full story of Helena’s “discovery” of the True Cross was first told
only years later, by Saint Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, in the year 395.[27]
Eusebius, our source for Constantine’s Nicaean telling of her vision, was, as
we saw, the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. In that role, he accompanied
Helena on her pilgrimage, and he records the fact of that journey’s having
taken place.[28] Meanwhile, the
promulgation of the Nicaean creed, unanimous or not, hardly settled the
quarrels in the Church, with the objections being raised especially in the
East. “It would have been Helena’s task in her ‘pilgrimage’ to help solve the
problem.”[29] Drijvers provides an
exhaustive history of the legend of the True Cross, and in what follows I rely
on his account “Helena’s journey was not restricted to Palestine, but included
in fact a visit to all eastern provinces, as Eusebius himself states. She did
not travel as a humble pilgrim but as an Augusta.”[30]
In Drijver’s view, Helena made her dramatic journey to further Constantine’s
effort to Christianize pagans.[31]
Her related purpose was to help Christians overcome their reluctance to embrace
the policy of unification of the Church.
There are reasons to
accept as historical the underlying fact of the legend of the True Cross. That
under Constantine, within a short time of Nicaea, something thenceforth
revealed as the cross on which Jesus died was discovered. Constantine, writing
to the bishop of Jerusalem in 326, refers to a “token of that holiest Passion”
that had only recently been rescued from the earth, and he implicitly defined
the basilica,[32] to be known as the
Martyrium, as a shrine to the True Cross.[33]
This is a geographical and physical extension of his placing the cross at the
center of Christian symbolism at Milvian Bridge, and at the center of theology
at Nicaea. As in reflected in the adjustments to the Nicene Creed in these
years- “crucified…suffered, died, and was buried”- the idea of the centrality
of the cross spread quickly.[34]
Saint Cyril, a successor
bishop of Jerusalem, writing in 351 to a successor emperor, Constantine’s son
Constantius II, connects the dots by the Milvian Bridge vision to the
discovered True Cross in Jerusalem.[35]
“For if in the days of your imperial father, Constantine of blessed
memory, the saving wood of the Cross was found in Jerusalem (divine grace
granting the finding of the long hidden holy places to one who nobly aspire to
sactity, now, sire, in the reign of your most godly majesty, as if to mark how
far your zeal excels your forebear’s piety, not from the earth but from the
skies marvels appear: the Only-begotten Son of God, even the holy Cross,
flashing and sparkling with brilliant light, has been seen at Jerusalem”[36]
The cross became the
central figure of Christianity in the time of Constantine the Great. From his
vision of this sign to the discovery of the True Cross facilitated by his
mother Helena. It seems that after the victory in the Milvian Bridge, the idea
of searching for the relic became dominant in the life and works of Constantine
and Helena. Through their efforts, the Church developed a theology and
spirituality centered on the Cross of Christ.
D. THE EDICT OF MILAN
The edict of
Milan is a declaration that permanently recognized religious toleration for Christianity within the Roman Empire. It was the outcome of a
political agreement concluded in Milan between the Roman emperors Constantine and Licinius in February 313. The Edict of Milan gave Christianity
a legal status, but did not make Christianity the official religion of the
Roman empire. Hilarion Alfeyev, a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church in
the Metropolitan of Volokolamsk, presented a paper in the opening of the academic year at the
Pontifical Theological Faculty of Southern Italy. He said,
“Two years
ago, the Christian world solemnly celebrated the 1700th anniversary of the
edict signed in Milan in 313 AD by the emperors of the Eastern and Western
parts of the Roman Empire Constantine and Licinius. The Edict of Milan is in
essence the first official state document in the Roman Empire to which the
‘Catholic Church’ gained the right not only to exist, but also the right to
state and public recognition. If before Christians were persecuted and
destroyed, if they could exist only in the catacombs and deep underground, then
the Edict of Milan Christians for the first time, on an equal footing with
pagans, were given the right to confess and preach openly their faith, to build
churches and open monasteries and schools.” [37]
The
great achievement of the Constantine era was the recognition of the Church as a
full participant in the social process, which allowed her to not only freely
organize her internal life but also to exercise an important influence on the
life of the state and society.[38]
Many Christians of that time still remembered how the persecutors of the Church
obliterated her from the public arena and drove her out from city.[39]
We can have an idea of the worldview of Christians in the era of persecution by
reading, for example, the Apology of Tertullian.[40]
Christians in the era of persecution had to prove to the imperial authorities
their loyalty and their usefulness by participating fully in the life of civil
society.[41]
Yet the authorities remained deaf to such proof. And suddenly the same
generation of persecuted and harassed Christians became a witness to the
recognition of the Church as an integral part of society.[42]
Moreover, several years after the issue of the Edict of Milan Christianity was
transformed into a spiritual force that in many ways defined the course of the
subsequent history of the empire and the entire world.
As a result of the Milan Accords the
emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius affirm something completely new.
They are publicly declaring:
“We have, therefore, determined, with sound
and upright purpose, that liberty is to be denied to no one, to choose and to
follow the religious observances of the Christians, but that to each one
freedom is to be given to devote his mind to that religion which he may think
adapted to himself in order that the Deity may exhibit to us in all things his
accustomed care and favour… now everyone who has the same desire to observe the
religion of the Christians may do so without molestation… Christians are
granted unrestricted liberty… Liberty is granted to others also who may wish to
follow their own religious observances; it being clearly in accordance with the
tranquility of our times, that each one should have the liberty of choosing and
worshiping whatever deity he pleases.”[43]
It is important to note that this document granted freedom to
Christianity not to the detriment of the other religions of the Roman Empire;[44]
the followers of the various pagan cults retained their rights and freedoms as
before.[45]
However, the Edict of Milan in essence recognized the fact that the Church is not
some marginal sect that corrupted the traditional pillars of society. On the
contrary, the document’s authors were convinced that Christians were capable of
directing the mercy of God to all the people.[46]
That Christians could please God and be useful to society is what the new edict
was based upon, expressing the hope that the ‘Deity’ would send down upon the
authorities and the people ‘in all things his accustomed care and favour’.[47]
These lines did not merely give rights and freedoms to the Christians on an
equal footing with the pagans, but also opened up to them the possibility of
declaring themselves to be a new force capable of having a positive influence
on society and to fill its life with divine meaning.[48]
In these new conditions Christians – bishops,
theologians, monks and many laymen – found their place. Within the empire there
unfolded a riotous blooming of Christian thought and culture, there was born a
Christian philosophy of history, there was formed a new relationship of the
Church towards the world that surrounded her.[49]
The era which was initiated by the publication of the Edict has entered history
as a golden age of Christianity, while for the empire this era became a time of
shifts in worldview paradigms.[50]
The Church’s theology lay at the foundation of a new understanding of personal,
social and governmental responsibility, influenced the renewal of all of
society’s institutions, gave a new integral foundation to family relationships
and the attitude towards women, and ensured the gradual eradication of the
institution of slavery in the empire.[51]
The Edict of Milan has been justly called
within the scholarly world the ‘edict of toleration’.[52]
And yet it is with the Edict of Milan that a new era was begun both for the
Church and for the Roman state, which ultimately led to the issue in 380 AD of
the decree of emperor Theodosius I which proclaimed Christianity to be a state
religion and placed the traditional pagan religion in effect outside of the
law.[53]
CHAPTER III
CONSTANTINE AND HIS
PROPHETIC ROLE IN THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA
This will be his greatest contribution in the Church
not only as an emperor but as person with prophetic role. Constantine remained
in northern Italy into the spring of 313 until he was sure that Licinius had
gained ascendancy over Maximin in Thrace. While his ally pushed the persecutor
back into Asia, overcame their foe, and liberated Christians in the east,
Constantine moved up into Gaul, defeated Franks on the Rhine, and returned to
Trier in triumph in the west. Although he believed that power from the great
Deity of the Christians had aided him in winning victory over his enemies and
in gaining supremacy in the empire, Constantine as yet knew little about the
beliefs and practices of Christianity. Over the next few years, his study of
Christian doctrines and his involvement in Church disputes would strengthen his
knowledge of his new religion, and stir within him a sense of mission. When he
returned to Rome for the celebration of the Decennalia of his accession,
he became convinced that he was the divinely appointed agent of the omnipotent
Christian Divinity, and began a building program which would transform the city
from a pagan capital into the Apostolic See.[54]
In the decade following, the political alliance and
religious agreement between Constantine and Licinius would crumble, and the two
emperors would struggle for supremacy in the Roman world. First, they quarreled
over the appointment of a Caesar in Italy, and fought two battles by which
Constantine gained control of the Illyrian and Balkan provinces (316–17).[55]
Then, they carried on a “cold war” over religion, with Constantine expanding
his support for the Christian Church and Licinius affirming his loyalty to the
pagan cults.[56]
Finally, a campaign against barbarians in Licinian territory by Constantine and
a persecution of Christians in the east by Licinius ignited a “holy war” in
which Constantine and the Christian cause triumphed over Licinius and the pagan
gods. In the aftermath of his victory, Constantine would proclaim Christianity
the favored religion in the Roman Empire, and would extend his imperial
beneficence to the Eastern Church. When he found that the eastern clergy were
divided over the definition of the Deity, the pious emperor climaxed his
political triumphs by summoning an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church
known as Council of Nicaea.
This council
opened on 19 June in the presence of the emperor, and regarded the most
important in the history of the Church.[57]
In the extant lists of bishops present, Ossius of Cordova, and the presbyters
Vitus and Vincentius are listed before the other names, but it is more likely
that Eustathius of Antioch or Alexander of Alexandria presided.[58]
The bold text in the profession of faith of the 318 fathers constitutes,
according to Tanner "The additions made by the council to an
underlying form of the creed", and that the underlying creed was most
likely "derived from the baptismal formula of Caesarea put forward by the
bishop of that city Eusebius" or that it "developed from an original
form which existed in Jerusalem or at any rate Palestine".[59]
"A direct descent from the creed of Eusebius of Caesarea is manifestly out
of the question."[60]
The figure of 318 given is from Hilary
of Poitier and is the traditional one. Other numbers are Eusebius 250,
Eustathius of Antioch 270, Athanasius about 300, Gelasius of Cyzicus at more
than 300.[61]
They were
united in the confession of faith, and also about the date of Easter. And each
individual put his signature to their common doctrine. This is the agreement of
faith that the great council of Nicea, assented to with a loud acclamation:
“We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all
things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the
only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of
the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten
not made, CONSUBSTANTIAL with the Father, through whom all things
came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our
salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up
on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and
the dead. And in the holy Spirit.”[62]
And those who say: "There was a time when he was
not", and "before he was begotten he was not", and that he came
to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance,
affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the
Catholic and Apostolic church condemns.[63]
It was called by the Emperor Constantine as
a prophet with the aim of bringing peace and harmony to the church. The issues
that needed to be resolved were the date of Easter and the Arian controversy.
Constantine’s concern was above all for unity and harmony. The bishops, while
sharing this concern, placed a higher premium on theological truth. For them
the resolution of the Arian affair had to preserve the truth of the Gospel as
well as the unity of the church. Those who were concerned to maintain the full
deity of Christ had every reason to be satisfied with the creed that emerged
from the council. The two original aims were met in that Arianism was condemned
and the date of Easter was fixed. Other disciplinary matters were also resolved
in the canons of the council.
A.
CONSTANTINE AND THE ARIANISM
A prophet is someone who would reject the errors of
time. And hence, Constantine became aware of the prevailing errors of Arianism
in his empire. The conflict had started in Alexandria during the “cold war”
era, and characterized it according to Eusebius as “mighty fire” centered on
the precise relationship of Christ the Son to God the Father.[64]
The New Testament had indicated clearly that Jesus was the promised Messiah of
Old Testament prophecies, and in some special sense the Son and Word of God who
communicated the perfect revelation of divine will to humanity.[65]
However, some texts in the Bible emphasized the humanity of Christ and his
subordination to the Father (Mt 24:36: “But as for that day and hour, nobody
knows it, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, no one but the Father
alone”); while others emphasized the divinity of Christ and his equality with
the Father (Jn 10:30: “The Father and I are one”).[66]
Church theologians had struggled for centuries to maintain the Old Testament
doctrine of a single God while making room for the New Testament teachings
about the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Christian definition of the Deity.[67]
The Church in the Latin west, following the lead of Tertullian, had settled on
the concept of a Triune God of one substance and three persons, emphasizing the
unity and equality of the persons within the Trinity.[68]
The Church in the Greek east had split over this issue, with some leaders
largely in agreement with the western definition; but others following the lead
of Origen, emphasizing the unique nature of the Father, and the separate and subordinate
qualities of the Son and the Spirit.[69]
Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated but controversial Christian teacher/martyr in
the early fourth century—along with several of his influential students—had
taken the speculations of Origen to the extreme, and seemed to be denigrating
the status of Christ the Son in order to preserve the unique quality of God the
Father.[70]
Such was the case with Arius, the man whose name defined the theological
controversy which now engulfed the eastern church— Arianism.[71]
Arius was a senior presbyter serving the Baucalis parish in a rural district of
Alexandria during the reign of Licinius. He was a tall, ascetic, and eloquent
preacher, who delighted in using Platonic speculation in his biblical homilies
and in receiving passionate adoration from his faithful hearers.[72]
Starting from Platonic premises, he taught that God was the eternal and
indivisible monad[73],
and that once He was alone and not a
Father.[74]
Wishing to create the cosmos, God made a Son out of nothing, and endowed him
with his Word through whom the created order came into being. The Son,
therefore, was neither co-eternal nor consubstantial with the Father: he was
both posterior in time to, and different in essence from, the Father. The
Father was unoriginated and without a beginning, but the Son was originated and
with a beginning. Although anterior to other creatures, the Son was still a creature,
and, like them, subject to change.[75]
B.
CONSTANTINE’S RESPONSE
Constantine strategically elevated the Catholic Church
into a power that somehow will unite his empire. At least, this was in the mind
of the emperor. However, he found himself in the middle on internal conflicts
of beliefs on the Christian deity. As a result, the emperor halted his imperial
tour at Antioch, composed a long and eirenic[76]
letter to Alexander and Arius, and commissioned his Christian advisor Ossius of
Cordova to take the letter to Alexandria and see if he could settle the
theological conflict at its source.[77]
Ossius seems to have carried out his mission in the early months of the year
325. Although Constantine probably understood the seriousness of the
theological dispute from his readings in Lactantius and from his discussions
with Ossius, he attempted to minimize the significance of the conflict and to
play the role of a peacemaker in his epistle in public on obscure issues that
the feebleness of human faculties could never fully understand; he argued,
rather, that it was more important for them to maintain a spirit of concord and
a unity of fellowship in service to “our great God and common Savior.” He urged
them to resume a united judgment of faith and mutual feelings of friendship.[78]
After Ossius had returned to Nicomedia in the spring
from dealing with this “blazing fire’, Constantine and his imperial entourage
journeyed southwest to Nicaea, and prepared the palace for the upcoming council
which was convoked by Constantine himself to settle the dispute between two
parties.[79]
The imperial audience hall was lined with seats which were organized according
to the status of the episcopal leaders. As the date for the council approached,
Christian bishops—often accompanied by presbyters and deacons— arrived in the
Bithynian city and settled in their appointed accommodations.[80]
Only a few Church leaders came from the west, where there was little interest
in the eastern conflicts: Ossius from Spain; Caecilian from Africa; Marcus of
Calabria, and the Roman presbyters Victor and Vincentius, representing Pope
Sylvester, from Italy; Nicasius from Gaul; and Domnus from Pannonia.[81]
Most of the bishops and clergy came from the east, where the conflicts had been
very divisive: among the anti-Arians, Alexander of Alexandria and his
charismatic deacon Athanasius; Macarius of Jerusalem; Eustathius of Antioch;
and Marcellus of Ancyra; among the pro-Arians, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis
of Nicaea, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Narcissus of Neronias.[82]
Besides these primary figures, there were scores of lesser-known bishops from
small towns, who seemed more interested in meeting the imperial champion of
their faith than in debating the divisive issues of the day.[83]
Since about 300 bishops—and three or four times that many associated clergy—
descended upon Nicaea from across the empire and beyond its borders, this
gathering has rightly been called the “First Ecumenical Council of the Church.”[84]
C.
THE BAPTISM AND DEATH OF CONSTANTINE
Meanwhile, the great defender of the Nicene faith
had come fully on the scene. Athanasius was born in Alexandrea about 295.[85]
In the early stages of the Arian controversy, he was a deacon, and served as
private secretary to Bishop Alexander. Not a great speculative theologian,
Athanasius was in great character.[86]
Hence, Eusebius of Nicomedia soon saw in Athanasius the real enemy. Constantine
would not desert the Nicene decision, but the same practical result could be
achieved, Eusebius thought, by striking at its defenders.[87]
The Eusebians determined to secure the embarrassment of Athanasius and the
restoration of Arius.[88]
The latter, who had returned from exile even before Eusebius, now presented to
Constantine a creed carefully indefinite on the question at issue. To
Constantine’s untheological mind this seemed a satisfactory retraction, and an
expression of willingness to make peace. He directed Athanasius to restore
Arius to his place in Alexandria. Athanasius refused. Charges of overbearing
and disloyal conduct were brought against Athanasius.[89]
Constantine was finally persuaded that the main obstacle in the path of peace
was Athanasius’ stubbornness. The bishops assembled for the dedication of
Constantine’s just completed church in Jerusalem, under Eusebian influences,
and decided in favor of Arius’ restoration in 335, and near the end of the year
Constantine exiled Athanasius in Gaul.[90]
The leading defender of the Nicene creed being thus struck down, the Eusebians
planned the restoration of Arius himself to church fellowship; but on the
evening before the formal ceremony was to take place Arius suddenly died in
336. He was an aged man, and the excitement may well have been fatal.[91]
The Nicene faith seemed thus not
officially overthrown, but practically undermined, when Constantine died on May
22, 337. Shortly before his death he was
baptize at the hands of Eusebius of Nicomendia.[92]
The charges which his life had witnessed, and he had largely wrought, in the
status of the church were enormous; but they were not by any means wholly
advantageous.[93]
If persecution had ceased, and members were rapidly growing under imperial
favor, doctrinal discussions that earlier would have run their course were now
political questions of the first magnitude, and the Emperor had assumed a power
in ecclesiastical affairs which was ominous for the future of the Church.[94]
Yet in the existing constitution of the Roman Empire such results were probably
certain, once the Emperor himself should become, like Constantine, an adherent
of the Christian faith.
CHAPTER IV
A.
SUMMARY
The third century was a
period of civil war, barbarian invasion, and general social breakdown
throughout the empire. Alongside
with it, the church also went through unimaginable persecution from the Roman
Empire, though all the time growing and spreading. So what an extraordinary
turns of events it was when the Roman Emperor himself became a Christian later
in the story. He became a champion of faith and a prophet of his time. The
young Flavius Valerius Constantinus, surnamed the Great was born February 27,
272 or 274. His birthplace is believed to be Naissus, today’s Nis in
Serbia. He grew in the palace with the emperor to keep him fit in battle
while his father is ruling the Western part of the empire- the Gaul. He is
brilliant, advance in battle skills and respectable stature. This character of
Constantine was seen by his army when he fought together with his father who is
advancing in age. Later in the battle, the latter died while eventually
Constantine was unanimously proclaimed as the new emperor of the West. This was
the start of the promising career of the young Constantine who made every way
possible to claim victories against enemies. In the battle of Milvian Bridge
against emperor Maxentius of East, he earnestly prayed and had a “vision” or
message of the cross instructing him to carry the sacred sign of the
Christian faith as a defensive charm for his army. He had won the battle and
became the sole emperor of the Roman Empire. Through his prophetic cross he had
conquered the whole empire and through the same sign of the Christians, he
earned respect and honor from his people especially from the Christians in
which took its height when his mother Helena “discovered” the True Cross in
Jerusalem. By this, the cross became the central political and theological
manifestation of his power in the empire. As a sign of his gratitude to the God
of Christians who had placed him in the highest position in the land, he was
beginning to show toleration to the Christian religion by giving them rights
and privileges in the empire. Although, to understand that even in the
beginning he was shown toleration on Christians, it reached summit when he
signed the Edict of Milan or Edict of Toleration.
In
the mind of the emperor was the unity of his empire that is why he bound his
people in the mantle of Christianity. However, later he realized and ever
witnessed the disturbing internal faction of Christians in understanding the
nature of Jesus Christ their Lord. In search for the truth, Arius, a priest
from Alexandria tried to explain that Jesus Christ was were human and not
divine. Therefore, Jesus did not share on the divinity of the Father. The
empire was stunned by this controversy until the emperor convoked the First
Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 to clarify the nature of Jesus Christ. The
issue is fundamental in such a way that the whole Christian faith and the unity
of the empire depend on the problem of Arianism. As a result of the Council,
Constantine together with the bishops condemned Arius and his heretical ideas. However, this was not solved the controversy
and Arianism continued to flourish in the all parts of the empire. Nevertheless,
Constantine the “Prophet” in his untheological political background paved the
way of convening the bishops to define a fundamental yet summit article of
faith that Jesus is truly human and truly divine. Constantine may not be
satisfied of what was happening in his empire yet he was instrumental in
guiding a younger Church.
B. FINDINGS
The prophetic role of Constantine in the Council of
Nicaea could also be interpreted as the influence of Constantine in the life of
the Christian Church, not only in the life time of the emperor but until today.
The research, though simple and direct offers indications that will prove that
indeed, Constantine is one of the secular rulers who exercised his prophetic
mission in the Church in its entirety.
The vision of Constantine in the
Milvian Bridge and the discovery of the True Cross by the empress Helena are
significantly linked to one another. These events influenced greatly not only
in the life and culture of the whole empire but also in the theological
development in the Church. This sacred symbol of Christianity became the center
piece in many great buildings and places of the empire not to mention its
centrality in every house of the Roman Christians. Moreover, the Church
beginning to this age, gradually remove the shameful concept of the cross from
symbol of criminal death to its supremacy in theology and spirituality. The
cross which was the object of vision of Constantine is one way or another
became the supreme symbol on human history. The cross starting from this era
became the symbol of our prophetic mission as Christians.
Following the argument above, the research
would like also to assert the intervening influence of the secular power with
the ecclesiastical authority, and vice versa. In the life of Constantine it is
very obvious how the secular power kept the Church from further persecutions of
the enemies of the Church. Constantine became the refuge of an infant Church
which was shattered by the overwhelming persecution in all parts of the empire.
His toleration policy toward the Christian religion paved the way for the
declaration of Church as the official religion of the empire by his successors.
Nevertheless, this intertwining cooperation of powers will eventually emerged a
new face after Popes will have become superpower who will play the lead role in
the middle ages.
What is significant in this research
is the fact that Constantine was baptized shortly before his deathbed by Eusebius
of Nicomendia who in history is obvious as a sympathizer of Arianism, or an
Arian himself. Therefore, Constantine was baptized as a Christian in a
heretical group of Arianism. If our three-fold mission as king, priest and
prophet is to be received by the power of baptism, can we qualify a great
leader who established the Church as a truly prophet without the sacrament of
baptism?
C.
RECOMMENDATION
In this section, the researcher finally has the
opportunity to present the actions that future readers should take as a result
of the paper. First, the field of historical theology following the topic of
prophetic mission is interesting in such a way that it gives us a background of
what is present today. For example, we could understand the name “Roman” in the
official name of the Church if we look back on its history during reign of
Roman Empire in the ancient and Middle Ages. These, should also consider by the
students to further understand our contextual theology now a days. Second, the
readers or students should also deliberate on the importance of secular power
like Constantine in the development of theology and the Church as a whole
throughout history. We should understand that what the Church possesses right
now are linking efforts and labors of ecclesiastical and secular power in the
history. Third and lastly, the readers of this paper should also try a deeper
theological reflection using the prophetic mission as its background in
creating and sustaining a Church.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CARROL, James. Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the
Jews: A History. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001.
DRIJVERS, Jan Willem. Helena
Augusta: The Mother of
Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding of the True Cross.
Netherlands: E.J Brill, 1992.
FRANZEN, August and
John Dolan, John. A History of the Church. Herder: Palm Publishers Montreal, 1965.
GRANT,
Robert. Augustus to Constantine: The Rise
and Triumph of Christianity in the Roman World. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers, Inc., 1900.
HILARION OF VOLOKOLAMSK. “The
Theology of Freedom. Christianity and Secular Power: From the Edict of Milan to
the Present.” Opening of the Academic
Year at the Pontifical Theological Faculty of Southern Italy (17 October 2014),
https://mospat.ru/en/ (accessed November 15, 2015).
JERIN,
Hubert and Dolan, John, ed. History of the Church. New York: The Seabury Press: 1980.
JOHNSON,
Luke Timothy. Among the Gentiles:
Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. USA: Yale University Press, 2009.
MC
BRIEN, Richard. The Church: The Evolution
of Catholicism. New York: HarperCollins, 2008.
NEUNER,
Jacob and DUPUIS, Jacques, eds. The
Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, 7th
ed. Bangalore: Theological Publication of India, 1978.
ODAHL, Charles Matson.
Constantine and the Christian Empire. New York: Routledge,
2004. pdf format.
PAMPHILIUS,
Eusebius and Schaff, Philip ed. NPNF2-01.
Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine,Oration in Praise of
Constantine. New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890. pdf
format.
SHARP, Pamela June Oberg. Constantine’s Policy of Religious Tolerance:
Was It Tolerant or Not? MA Comparative Literature and Cultural
Studies, New Mexico: University of New Mexico, 2010. pdf format.
TANNER, Norman
P. ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical
Councils, http://www.papalencyclicals.net (accessed
November 15, 2015).
WALKER, Williston.
A History of the Christian Church.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959.
[1] Hubert Jerin and John Dolan,
ed., History of the Church (The
Seabury Press: New York, 1980), 1.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4]James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews
(Houghton Mifflin Company: New York, 2001), 165.
[5]
Eusebius
Pamphilius and Philip Schaff, ed., NPNF2-01.
Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine,Oration in Praise of
Constantine (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890), pdf
format.
[6]
August Franzen and John
Dolan, A History of the Church (Herder:
Palm Publishers Montreal, 1965), 57.
[7]
Ibid.
[9] Ibid, 413.
[10]James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword, 170.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Huber Jerin, Church History, 410.
[13] James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword, 170.
[14] Ibid, 171.
[15] Huber Jerin, Church History, 411.
[16] Ibid.
[18]
Charles
Matson Odahl, Constantine and the Christian
Empire (New
York: Routledge, 2004), pdf format,91.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Huber Jerin, 411.
[23] Eusebius Pamphilius, Eusebius Pamphilius, 491.
[24] Charles Matson Odahl, 92.
[25]
Ibid.
[27] Jan Willem Drijvers, Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding of
the True Cross (Netherlands: E.J Brill, 1992), 5.
[28] James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword, 195.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Jan Willem Drijvers, Helena Augusta, 67.
[31] Ibid, 64.
[32] Basilica shrine on the site of
the tomb of Jesus.
[33] Jan Willem Drijvers, Helena Augusta, 85.
[34] James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword, 196.
[35] Ibid, 196.
[36] Cited by Drijvers, Helena Augusta, 82.
[37] Hilarion of Volokolamsk, “The
Theology of Freedom. Christianity and Secular Power: From the Edict of Milan to
the Present,” Opening of the Academic
Year at the Pontifical Theological Faculty of Southern Italy (17 October 2014),
https://mospat.ru/en/ (accessed
November 15, 2015).
[38] Pamela June
Oberg Sharp, “Constantine’s Policy of Religious Tolerance:
Was It Tolerant or Not?” (MA Comparative Literature
and Cultural Studies, New Mexico: University of New Mexico,2010) pdf format,
16.
[39]
Volokolamsk, The Theology of Freedom.
[40] Apologeticus is Tertullian's most famous work, consisting
of apologetic and polemic; In this work Tertullian defends
Christianity, demanding legal toleration and
that Christians be treated as all other sects of the Roman Empire. It is in this treatise that one
finds the phrase: "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church”.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Sharp, Constantine’s Policy of
Religious Tolerance.
[44] Jerin, History of the Church, Vol. 2, 7.
[45] Sharp, Constantine’s Policy of Religious
Tolerance.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Volokolamsk, The Theology of Freedom.
[50] Jerin, History of the Church, Vol. 2, 10.
[51] Volokolamsk, The Theology of Freedom.
[52]Ibid.
[53]Ibid.
[54] Odahl, Constantine and the
Christian Empire, 106.
[55]Ibid,143.
[56]Ibid.
[57]Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), 108.
[58] Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, http://www.papalencyclicals.net (accessed November 15, 2015).
[59] Ibid.
[60]
Ibid.
[61] Ibid.
[62]J. Neuter and J. Dupuis, The Christian Faith (Bangalore:
Theological Publication of India, 1978), 6.
[63] Ibid, 7.
[64] Jerin, History of the Church, Vol. 2, 16.
[65] Odahl, Constantine and the
Christian Empire, 167.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Jerin, History of the Church, Vol. 2, 21.
[68] Ibid, 20.
[69] Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 107.
[70] Ibid.
[71] Odahl, Constantine and the
Christian Empire, 168.
[72] Jerin, History of the Church, Vol. 2, 17.
[73] Single unit, an indivisible and
hence ultimately simple entity, such as an atom or a person (philosophy)
[76] A part of Christian theology
concerned with reconciling different denominations and sects.
[77] Odahl, Constantine and the
Christian Empire, 169.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ibid.
[80] Ibid.
[81] Jerin, History of the Church, Vol. 2, 22-23.
[82]Ibid, 23.
[83] Odahl, Constantine and the
Christian Empire, 172.
[84] Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 108.
[85] Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 109.
[86] Ibid.
[87] Eusebius Pamphilius, Eusebius Pamphilius, 438.
[88] Ibid.
[90]
Eusebius Pamphilius, Eusebius Pamphilius, 439.
[91] Ibid.
[92] Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 110.
[93] Ibid.
