Christianity and the Roman Empire

4.3.1 A Threat to the Empire?

The Romans were not very religious, worshipping their ancestors and little else. This situation did not fail to provoke a great spiritual vacuum, already lamented by Cicero (106-43 bc).

Many Romans, however, did yearn to infuse their lives with meaning, spurring a large number of them to join certain Near Eastern mystery cults (such as that of Mithras).^{^[127]} As Schott (2008, 25) points out, the fact that the Roman Empire facilitated commerce and contact between disparate peoples created a receptive spiritual framework, as philosophers were seeking to bridge cultural gulfs and cultivate an intellectual ecumenism. This receptivity made them amenable to the teachings of Christ, leading to mass conversions.^{^[128]}

The new religion, however, posed a political problem, as it elevated God over the civil power of the emperors,^{^[129]} making it a threat to the cohesion of a state which had deified its “monarchs”, the figure of the emperor providing a religious focus shared by the entire Empire (Rives 2007, 156). As Brent (1999, 126) notes, the key to the problem was that Christian Gentiles were Roman citizens. The Jews, on the other hand, were not, exempt from Greco-Roman religious customs and able to avoid the requirement, whether purely social or legal, to take part in the Imperial Cult.

Beginning with Nero (37-68 ad) the persecutions would begin, yielding the first martyrs.^{^[130]} These suppressive efforts would end up backfiring on the emperors, as the example set by the tortured Christians infused the new religion with an aura and a prestige which quickly multiplied its numbers (Fredriksen 2010). In the end the emperors had to give in.

4.3.2 From Forbidden Cult to Official State Religion (380 ad)

“If you cannot beat them, join them”.

This well-known saying sums up the attitude adopted by the Roman emperors who, beginning with Constantine, relied upon Christianity to strengthen their political positions. The imperial decrees issued in 311 and 313, officially recognizing and tolerating Christianity, merely recognized what was already a fact: the significant expansion of the Christian churches and the considerable social power which the bishops had come to possess.^{^[131]} This development was evident in the 313 Edict of Milan itself, through which Constantine and Licinius accepted Christianity, thereby, among other things, ordering the restitution of goods which had been confiscated from the Christians.^{^[132]} When we consider as well the progressive weakening of imperial power, undermined by civil strife, it is not difficult to understand that the emperors were tempted to ally with the Christians to shore up their power. The first to clearly embrace this policy was Constantine (306307), advised by one of the most important Christian figures of the era: Hosius, Bishop of Cordoba, in the province of Hispania. It should be pointed out that Constantine was successful at unifying the Empire in large measure thanks to the support of the Christian bishops, establishing an alliance between the secular and the religious authorities that would last for a long time.^{^[133]}

The ascent of Christianity was consolidated by Constantine’s successors Constant (337-350), and Constantius II (337-361). In addition to prohibiting pagan sacrifices, they decreed the closure of the temples and banned outdoor demonstrations of non-Christian worship, sanctioning the violation of these rules with harsh penalties (Noethlichs 2006). These excesses certainly explain the reaction of the Emperor Julian (361-363), who the Christians accused of trying to restore ancient pagan practices, dubbing him the “Apostate”—from the Greek apostasis (abandonment). In reality, Julian had only acted to restore the freedom of worship which had been proclaimed in 313, and to allow pagans religious freedom by returning their temples to them.^{^[134]} However, Julian’s early death made the Roman Empire’s process of Christianization unstoppable.^{^[135]}

After a period of relative reconciliation under Valentinian I and Valens (364375), Gratian and Valentinian II again stepped up the pressure against paganism in a process that culminated with Theodosius I (379-395), issuing the Edict of Thessa- lonica (380), decreeing the official status of the Catholic faith:

We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches.

They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority, which, in accordance with the will of Heaven, we shall decide to inflict.^{^[136]}

It was Justinian (527-565), who was responsible for doing away with the last vestiges of paganism. To this end, he had the philosophical school of Athens closed; imposed Christian education upon all families, excluding pagans and heretics from all schools; made baptism mandatory, with anyone not baptized rendered unable to own property; and sanctioned heresy with the death penalty. As Sotomayor stated, in less than a century the panorama had completely changed. During the first centuries being a Christian had been a risk. By the late fourth century the risk consisted of continuing to be a pagan, or at least insisting on exhibiting it. Throughout this period it is not surprising that the number of those officially having converted to Christianity grew at a rapid rate, though profound convictions or faith were not necessarily the main motivations for requesting baptism (Cf. Sotomayor y Muro 1979, I, 178). It is interesting that from a legal point of view, in the Code of Justinian (534 AD), Catholic principles were already associated with the idea of the “common good” (Ando 2006, 130).^{^[137]}

Following the Edict of Milan, the various Christian churches were not only recognized but received favorable treatment by the Roman authorities, particularly after 324, when Constantine remained as the sole Roman emperor. The imperial administration then not only restored to them all the property seized during the persecutions, but also subsidized the clergy and promoted the construction of new basilicas^{^[138]} in which Christians could gather. All this made possible the consolidation of the ecclesiastical apparatus which had been developing from the beginning.

4.3.3 The Origins of Catholicism

Originally, the main interest of the Church during the difficult second and third centuries was to organize its functioning and teachings.

The first bishops and presbyters had to preserve the teaching of Christ against deviations, adapt it to the Gentile mind using the best in pagan thought, and face persecution and martyrdom. When conditions started to become more favorable in the course of the fourth century, the main concern of Church leaders was to build a closely-knit organization, which was as uncompromising towards heresy and schism as it was towards the demands of the state (Richardson 1996, 26).

Following the Council of Elvira (early fourth century) records indicate that councils were held with increasing frequency. In these early councils, the bishops not only resolved organizational issues, but began to define the dogmatic features which would eventually come to define official Christian doctrine in an effort to reinforce the unity of the Church. The churches continued to retain their autonomy, but above them the idea of a universal Church was crystallizing, whose members embraced a single body of beliefs (Hanson 1989).

The universality of the Church required, however, choosing the correct interpretation of the Scriptures which, once adopted by all the bishops, were to be maintained as the only valid ones for all churches. Fundamental to the orthodox consensus (Pelikan 1975, 333), was the affirmation of the authority of a tradition believed “everywhere, always, by all” (Ubique, Semper, Ab Omnibus).^[139] This approach entailed condemning views which deviated or diverged from those approved by the councils. Thus emerged the concept of heresy—from the Greek hairesis (choice)—to designate all those doctrines rejected by the gatherings of bishops. In this way, a whole series of beliefs were dismissed and condemned, among them those of the Arians, the Pelagians, the Pneumatomachi, the Monothelites, the Nestorians, the Monophysites, the Donatists and the Priscillianists. Thus was constituted a body of interpretations of the Scriptures established as “orthodox”—from the Greek words orthos (straight) and doxa (opinion).^{^[140]}

All this work involving the unification of dogma was also possible because during the fourth century, there appeared a number of remarkable Christian authors and thinkers producing writings of great importance (Young 1989).

This second generation of Christian intellectuals came to be called the “Fathers of the Church”, to differentiate them from the previous “Apologists”.^{^[141]} While the latter arose primarily in the West, the Fathers of the Church were more numerous in the Eastern area of the Empire (Greek Patrology), though there were also important Fathers in the Western sphere, as well (Latin Patrology.)^{^[142]}

The orthodox interpretation of Scripture led to a progressive universalization of Christianity. Thus, did the Christian churches come to conform a single, coherent and uniform entity: the Catholic Church (from the Greek katholikOs, meaning “universal” or “general”; the preposition katha meaning “on” or “downwards”, while the adjective holos means “whole” or “complete”.)^{^[143]}

4.3.4 Emperors vs. Bishops: “Caesaropapism”

The recognition of Christianity as the official religion of the Empire would give rise to the problem of relations between the civil and ecclesiastical powers, as the emperors were loath to tolerate the existence of an independent power over a strictly spiritual domain.^{^[144]} This was called “Caesaropapism”, a term coined by Max Weber who considered a Caesaropapist the “secular ruler that exercises supreme authority in ecclesiastic matters by virtue of his autonomous legitimacy” (Weber 2007, 1158-1204). It may be said that following the Edict of Milan (313), the emperors acted to intervene in the ecclesiastical sphere, even in regards to strictly doctrinal matters, to strengthen their political positions, as they wanted the complete subordination of priests to secular power (Swedberg and Agevall 2005, 22). In this sense, it was a system whereby an absolute monarch had supreme control over the Church within his dominions, and exercised it even in matters (e.g. doctrine), normally reserved for the ecclesiastical authority (Livingstone 2000, 218).

Worthy of note in this regard is the imperial attitude in the case of the Arian controversy: despite the formal condemnation of Arianism at Nicea in 325, the emperors came to favor the Arians, who they considered much more pliant to the pressures of civil authority.

It is significant in this regard that at the Synod of Antioch, Constantine himself chose to condemn the “rebel bishops” (Catholics), who remained faithful to the Nicene doctrine, supporting the Arians instead.^{^[145]}

His successor, Constantius II (337-361), went even further, persecuting the Catholics and even attacking Pope Julius I (337-352).

The imperial attitude triggered, of course, protests by leading Church figures of the day, including an almost centenarian Hosius of Cordoba (257-359). However, the clashes between civil and ecclesiastical power had only just begun. Imperial interventionism would recur with Theodosius I, whom St. Ambrose of Milan (340397) criticized several times for his conduct in this regard.^{^[146]} The result was that Christianity was a religion at first prohibited by the state, then tolerated by it, and ultimately, endorsed and favored by it (Gaudemet 1973), a transformation that would have major consequences in the history of Western public law.

4.4

<< | >>

↑

Source: Aguilera-Barchet Bruno. A History of Western Public Law. Between Nation and State. Springer,2015. — 788 p.. 2015

Christianity and the Roman Empire

More on the topic Christianity and the Roman Empire: