Search

It is ever my first, and indeed my only object, that ... our souls may all become more zealous, with all sobriety and earnest unanimity,for the honor of the Divine law. I desire, therefore, especially, that you should be persuaded . .. that I have no greater care than how I may best adorn with a splendid structure that sacred spot, which, under Divine direction, I have disencumbered as it were of the heavy weight offoul idol worship; a spot which has been accounted holy from the beginning in God's judgment, but which now appears holier still, since it has brought to light a clear assurance of our Saviour's passion. It will be well, therefore, for your sagacity to make such arrangements and provision of all things needful for the work, that not only the church itself as a whole may surpass all others whatsoever in beauty, but that the details of the building may be of such a kind that the fairest structures in any city of the empire may be excelled by this... . For it is fitting that the most marvelous place in the world should be worthily decorated.'

The study of church-state relations in the age of Constantine may be approached in many ways. Imperial church building is one of these avenues of study and interpretation. Lactantius long ago complained of the building mania of Diocletian and other members of the Tetrarchy. Eusebius lauded the churches of Constantine as signal proofs of his magnificence and as the discharge of a sacred debt. Procopius later condemned the extravagance of Justinian's building programs, although without specifically mentioning churches. And many modern writers have taken the churches of Constantine as evidence for both a personal and a public commitment to Christianity. Only a few historians, however, have asked whether there was an overriding plan or purpose to this activity, e.g., Glanville Downey has suggested the likelihood of a plan in the case of Justinian. Thus arises the question, was the construction of churches the instrument or at least the reflection of an imperial policy toward Christianity?

Church and State relations a topic of public debate. There are many issues involved here public religious observances, government assistance or exemptions extended to church groups, legislation reflecting particular religious and moral teachings to name a few. We cannot escape the fact that religion and the churches have a special status in our country, and that they exercise a considerable influence on society and even on government policy. It is historically instructive to see how many of the contemporary patterns and practices in respect to Church and State go back to that crucial period of initial recognition of the Church by the State under the emperor Constantine. For it was in that period that the Church and its clergy first received certain privileges and exemptions from the State, and that the State began to clothe itself in Christian forms and ceremony. I should like therefore to examine the changes which took place in Church and State relations under Constantine, particularly the legislation affecting the Church. I want to ask how, if at all, these changes were prepared for, how they were effected, and how, from the perspective of the Church, they were justified. The earliest Christians lived, of course, in a non-Christian and usually hostile society. The Church's claim to an exclusive revelation ruled out any possibility of syncretism or co-existence with the other cults of the Roman empire. The Church's position was analogous to that of Judaism with its rigid monotheism, but the Jews existed not merely as a religion but also as a nation with a long history. Their claim to special status was one of birthright. The Church, on the other hand, chose not to remain a sect of Judaism but rather to open itself to the world. It could not claim legal status as a nation, nor could it expect toleration as a religion without acknowledging the official emperor cult. Still, as the New Testament indicates, the relationship of Church and State did not become at once a matter of open conflict. There are at least three attitudes toward the State to be found in the New Testament.' There is the attitude of Luke, especially in the Acts of the Apostles, which views the