INTRO:

Central issue of this course: explain one of the most important turning points of history, the triumph of Christianity in the Roman empire. Just about everything we've talked about helped in one way or another to explain that triumph. And yet, account not yet complete. Brought the story up to AD 311--Galerius decision to abandon the persecution of Christians. At this point, Christianity still very strong, but triumph by no means certain. Christians were not a majority, persecution still a very real possibility. And yet before the 4th century was over, less than 90 years after the death of Galerius, Christianity was not only the dominant religion in Rome, but almost the only religion left in the Roman empire. How did it happen?

Typically, the textbooks will give credit to one great man, a man named Constantine, for the triumph of Christianity. And to a certain extent, it's right to emphasize the contributions of Constantine. Constantine is one of the most important figures in the history of the church. The support he gave the church was certainly an important factor in the eventual triumph of Christianity over paganism. But while the political support of men like Constantine was important, there was something even more important to the success of the church--the triumph of Christian thinkers in the battle for the hearts and minds of men.

Constantine immensely competent person. Astute politician, and a more than decent general. He no doubt learned much from his father Constantius, a man who Diocletian had instituted as one of his Caesars, and a man who, on the retirement of Diocletian and Maximiam, had become a co-Augustus alongside Galerius. When Constantius had died, his place was supposed to be taken by his Caesar (Maxentius). But the army said no: they wanted Constantine to replace his father. This helped lead to a new round of civil wars in Rome. On Galerius death in 311, there were 6 men all claiming the title Augustus. One of these, Constantine, who had managed to put together himself a fairly formidable array of supporters. But equally formidable the support for his rival, Maxentius--and it was certainly no foregone conclusion that Constantine would win.

But finally it looked as if there would be a decisive battle. The forces of Constantine on one side, forces of Maxentius on the other. The night before battle, Constantine had a dream (chi/rho symbol). Then, day of battle, Constantine, sun worshipper, looked up at the sun for a sign. Cross emblazoned across sun, heard a voice that said, "in this, conquer."

Well, what's it mean? Who knows. But when Constantine one the battle and made good his claim to be Augustus in west, he attributed victory to the favor of the Christian God. And Constantine, being a gentleman, returned the complement: he began to favor the God of the Christians, and, of course, the Christians themselves.

(Edict of Milan, 313--read)

Edict of Milan not only granted tolerance to church, but restored much that Christians had lost during persecution (notice also compensation--Constantine a gifted politician). Constantine soon went beyond this and issued all sorts of decrees favorable to Christianity.

--money to clergy
--Christian clergy exempted from taxes
--money to build churches
--confiscated lands restored
--Sunday set aside a day of rest
--Some pagan practices forbidden (mostly private, not public!)

In 324, Constantine defeated Licinius in battle and became sole emperor of Rome. This enabled Constantine to go even farther. Shifted emphasis to east--new city: Constantinople. Old Rome resistant to change: here, Constantine could bring about transformation he wanted. New senate: his own men, many Christians. New buildings--Churches, rather than temples would dominate. End of bloody gladiatorial shows: instead, horse racing.

Impact on Roman society in general and on church in particular tremendous. Not surprisingly, numbers of Christian expanded dramatically. At most, 10% of west and 50% of east Christian when Constantine took over. In short order, 90% at least nominal Christians. Christian art and architecture, now subsidized, take off. Christians now favored in educational system: Lactantius and Eusebius very influential: tutors of emperors own sons! Copies of Bible no longer burned, but subsidized by emperor.

It's easy to understand why Eusebius and his contemporaries viewed Constantine as a 13th apostle, a man who had done as much (or more) than Simon, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, and the rest.

But there was, perhaps, a price to be paid for Constantine's support of the church. Constantine expected the church to support him, and he expected the church to help him as he consolidated his control over the empire. And for the most part, the church did help: it served as the glue binding together a people that otherwise might have gone to war with one another at any time.

But the church only could do this if the church itself was unified, and there was no guarantee that the church would be. Heresy a problem almost from beginning. So how was church to get its act together? Who was going to settle disputes in church and make sure church was unified? (Three guesses!!!).

Constantine himself! But Constantine no theologian, and he new he was no theologian. What to do? Relied on councils. For example, there was a dispute about who would be bishop of Carthage. Constantine called for a conference at Arles (314). Didn't care what the decision was, as long as they decided. And of course, it worked. Emperor supported the council's decision. And that was the end of the story.

More important council, help at Nicaea in 325. Problem addressed here was Arian controversy. Arius, Presbyter of Alexandria vs. bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius: there was a time when son was not. Easy enough to reach agreement. 218 of 220 assembled bishops agreed to condemn Arius' teaching. Further, agreed on the Nicene Creed. (Read)

"And the church live happily ever after without any more divisions." Well, no. Introduction of "homousias" term a real problem. Homoiousias? No. Semi-Arians condemned at Constantinople (381). Well, if Christ is God, who did Mary give birth too? God! Mary, theotokos, the god bearer. Some objected (Nestorians). Were they right? No! Condemned at Ephesus 431. Well, what about the nature of Christ, one combined nature? Two natures? Monophysites said one. Condemned at Calcedon (451).

Such disputes destroying Christian unity. How can church help glue empire together when Christians are so violent in their disagreements with one another?

Why wouldn't they shut up and cooperate with one another? They cared, thought it made a difference. Nestorius, "Give me, O emperor, the earth purged from heretics, and I will give you heaven in return. Help me destroy the heretics, and I will help you conquer Persia."

And in a way, Nestorius was right. A united Rome was incredibly strong and prosperous. What Nestorius couldn't see was the he was part of the problem, as much guilty as anyone else in helping to divide the church.

Now is all this Constantine's fault? Did the advent of the ecumenical council make things worse? Hard to say. One thing clear, though, is that Constantine changed the nature of the struggle. Before the time of Constantine, only penalty for a heretic was exclusion from church--certainly an unobjectionable practice. If someone doesn't follow rules of your religion, well--let them start own church. But with Christianity becoming the official religion of Roman state, heresy became for the first time a political offense. (I think this answers in part a question one of you raised a couple of classes ago, why Christians themselves became persecutors). Christianity glue holding empire together (just as emperor worship had once held empire together). And now, failure to conform to Christianity was just as bad a political crime as failure to worship the emperor had been in the days before Christianity.

In any case, Constantine introduced to church a problem that was not at all easy to answer. Christ: my kingdom is not of this world. But what if, all of a sudden, Christ's kingdom were of this world, i.e., what if Christians found themselves in charge of a society. What should they do then? For more than a thousand years after the time of Constantine, Christians have wrestled with this question, and there really is no easy answer. Despite constant effort, no one has yet succeeded in creating a truly Christian state.

But I need to make it clear that, while Christian societies invariably fail to live up to their ideals, the attempt to reach these ideals has had some exceedingly positive effects on societies. Rome itself a clear example. As Rome becomes Christian, families become more stable. Divorce all but disappears. Infanticide and the abandoning of children disappear. Idolatry disappears. The gladiatorial shows disappear. Much social tension disappears as well, as rich and poor are united by brotherhood in Christ. And in addition to all that, Christianity brought with it a whole new way of viewing the world, and of viewing life itself.

And this brings us to final part of this question--intellectual triumph of Christianity, victory Christianity won in minds (and hearts) of men and women in Roman empire.

Most important element of this victory, Bible itself. Again and again, men and women fell in love with the scripture, so much so that they would often give their lives rather than allow a single copy of any one of the Old or New Testament books to be destroyed.

Among those who fell in love with the scripture, some of the greatest thinkers of the day, e.g. Justin Martyr. Justin (d. AD 165) born in Palestine to pagan parents. He studied the philosophers: Stoics, Aristotelians, Platonists, constantly searching for truth--but more than a bit frustrated. And then an old man introduced him to the prophets--and Justin became a fervent convert. He believed that in Christianity he had found the true philosophy. He moved to Rome, and started a school. While there he wrote a couple of important books. One, his first apology, is a defense Christianity against pagan accusations. But Justin doesn't just defend Christians against unjust accusations. He shows in all sorts of ways the superiority of Christianity to pagan philosophy and to pagan religion. And apparently, there was simply no intellectual answer to Justin's argument. His primary opponent among those who still defended traditional pagan beliefs, a philosopher named Crescens, had to resort to political measures to silence Justin. Brought accusations against him, led to Justin's martyrdom.

Death of one man not going to stop the growth of Christian philosophy. Justin's pupil, Tatian, took over where Justin had left off, giving us another excellent defense of Christianity. At the same time, an apologist named Athenagoras was advancing the case for Christianity in the very heart of the pagan philosophical world, the city of Athens. What's interesting here is that, before his conversion, Athenagoras was a recognized expert in Plato ("On the Difficult Saying in Plato"), and when a man like this converts--well, naturally enough his testimony to the philosophical rigor of Christianity carries a lot of wait.

Especially important is Athenagoras defense of marriage. He makes an exceedingly good case for the one man/one woman arrangement that came to dominate western society (at least as a standard) for more than a thousand years to come. Athenagoras also an ardent defender of children, explaining, not only why infanticide is wrong, but also why it's wrong to take the life of an unborn child.

It's important to note that, while the apologists were thoroughly familiar with the Christian scriptures, they often make relatively little use of the Bible itself in there arguments. The reason is clear enough: the pagan philosophers they were trying to reach simply didn't accept the authority of the Bible. What they did accept was the authority of the great figures of Greek literature. And what the apologists do is to put together material from Hesiod, Simonides, Euripides, Menander, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics--showing from pagan sources the essential truth of Christian doctrine.

And apparently, the pagans who tried to refute them found themselves fighting a losing battle. A man named Celsus, for instance, tried to come up with a convincing counter argument to Christianity. His work was popular enough among a certain segment of the pagan philosophical community, but the Christians soon blew away his arguments. Or, rather, one Christian in particular blew away his arguments: Origen.

Origen, unlike most of the other apologists, was born into a Christian family. His father Leonidas was martyred c. 202 when Origen was a boy. He would have followed his father, but mom, not willing to lose both husband and son, hid his clothes so he couldn't go out and boldly declare his faith in Christ.

And it was a mighty good thing for the church that Origen did survive. He was one of the most brilliant of all church writers. At the age of 18, he was in charge of a philosophical school, teaching logic, dialectic, natural science, geometry, astronomy, ethics, and theology.

He was an incredibly prolific writer. Supposed to have written some 6,000 works. We know titles of 800, and many volumes of his writing have survived. He wrote so much that a later church writer asked the question "Who could read all Origen wrote?"

But Origen was impressive, not just for quantity, but for the quality of his work. Most historians would agree in calling him the greatest thinker of his day, perhaps one of the greatest thinkers of all time.

Now why does a man like that become a Christian? Well, in this case, because he was born into a Christian family. But why does he stay a Christian? And why is he so successful in converting others?

Well, to really understand that, you'd have to read Origen's own works, and the works of his rivals among the pagans. But I think I can offer at least a brief explanation of what's going on in Origen's mind and in the minds of so many other great thinkers of the time.

You see, pagan philosophy had achieved some enormously impressive things. The works of Aristotle, Plato, and the Stoics are fascinating and attractive reading. But there was one huge problem with pagan philosophy. It didn't seem to lead anywhere! For 300, 400, 500, 600 years, the Greek philosophers continued to debate the same questions addressed by Thales, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Democritus and the other 6th century B.C. philosophers--and they came up with--they came up with nothing. No definite answers in any philosophical field.

Anthropolgy? No answers. Teleology? No answers. Ontology? No answers. Epistemology? No answers. Ethics? No answers.

And by the time Christianity started to grow in the Roman empire, most pagan philosophers had decided that there were no answers. There never had been any answers. There never would be any answers. For centuries, the dominant philosophical school was that of the Skeptics, i.e. the people who believed there were no answers.

The Christian philosophers not only claimed that the questions could be answered, but they gave the answers. Clever, consistent, and convincing answers.

Consider the basic situation. You have a choice between a teacher who says, "Come study with me. I don't have any answers, but you'll learn from me that their are no answers." And you've got another teacher, a teacher who says, "I'll give you some answers, some solid answers, and further more, I'll answer the questions that concern you most deeply, questions about the meaning and purpose of life, and questions about how we ought to live our lives on this earth."

Now which of these teachers do you choose??

It isn't really very surprising that men and women of the 2nd and 3rd centuries chose in large numbers the Christian teachers, is it? You see, Christianity offered them coherent, comprehensive, and attractive answers to the great philosophical questions that the ancient world had wrestled unsuccessfully with for centuries.

And the answers stood up. For more than a thousand years, throughout the Middle Ages and into the early modern period, Christianity provided more convincing answers to the great questions of life than any other philosophical or religious system. And in my opinion at least, things are no different today. The ideas of the early church are still the most plausible and attractive alternative to skepticism about the big questions of life, and it seems to me likely that these ideas will long continue to win the minds of men and women. And perhaps more important, their hearts will be won as well.

Well, I hope this course has provided plenty of food for thought. And I hope too that, for at least some of you, it's been food for the heart as well. My thanks for the truly excellent contributions many of you have made to class discussion. Good luck on your final.