195. Synesios even stated that he wanted to have "many fine children" by her. 196. Synesios Ep., 105~(transl. C. Lacombrade, Syn~sios de Cyr~ne, Hell~ne et
chr~tien [Paris, 1951], 220-223). Lacombrade contended (ibid., 224-227) that Synesios eventually relinquished his archbishopric; but he certainly remained an impenitent neo-Platonist (ibid., 264-265). Despite Lacombrade's censure of U. von WillamowitzMoellendorff ("Die Hymnen des Proklos and Synesios," SAB, 14 , 272-295) for oversimplifying matters, it is hard to see that the Tatter's basic thesis has really gone astray.
197. Synesios must have felt quite in his element afterwards among the clergy of Africa, where the priests, upon coming out after Mass, would form irregular bands with their parishioners and stone to death any prowlers who fell into their hands (Synesios, Ep., 122).
198. Synesios, Discourse, 9. ~- ~--w ~ .. ->= ,u~, , 199. Ibtd., 23. '
200. Ibid., 25.
201. On the meaning of this speech, see E. Demougeot, Ga Th~orLe du Pouvoir imperial au ,D~but du V a Si~cle, Melanges de la Society tou1ousaine d'Etudes classiques, T (Toulouse, 1946), 205. Begin reading at line 20, and only return to the top of the page afterwards.
202. Synesios Catastasis, 2..This is but one example of the general development which Hobhouse (Church and the World, 110) tersely described: "More and more the emperor becomes the head of the Church on earth, and more and more the bishops approximate to the position of civil administrators."
203. Synesios, Ep., 78. 204. Ibtd., 57-58.
205. Ibid., 90. 206. Ibid., 121.
207. K. Treu, Synesios von Kyrene, Ein Kommentar zu seinem "Dion," TU, LXXI (Berlin, 1958), 26.
208. Dani~lou, Les Anges, 176-177. Dani~lou then proceeded to assert that although internationalism had had its Christian expression in the Holy Roman Empire, in its modern guise-a secularized, post-Christian version of the Eusebian conception of a Christian empire-it had become a demonic temptation which would lead to the kingdom of the Antichrist. My own ethical position-virtually point by point-would be exactly the opposite. But then when two men-one of them now [ 1970] to be found on the conservative fringe of the group of French cardinals, and the other for many years a militant member of a revolutionary party-pass from the establishment of facts to the making of judgments of value and meaning, differences are inevitable.
209. DaniElou, "La Non-Violence," 26.
210. R. de Pury (La Maison de Dieu, Cahiers th~ologiques, XIV [Neuchritel, 1946], 32-33) has splendidly denounced the self-deceit whereby the Church has believed that it has been serving its Master when it has reigned over "spiritual" spheres but has relinquished the proclamation of God's will in and for the world.
211. Dani~lou, "La Non-Violence," 28.
212. An anonymous reviewer of the French original of this book ("P.M.," in Ga Feuille d'Avis de Lausanne, November 15, 1960) stated, in words diametrically opposite to those of Dani~lou, that "The Christian vocation is always, as this historical study reminds us, a vocation to sanctity. Hornus tells this to us again through the Christian authors of the first centuries."
213. J. Dani~lou, Prayer as a Political Problem, transl. J. R. Kirwan (London, 1967 ).
214. Cf. my review in CS, 74 (1966), 666-668. The book is full of interesting insights, but I disagree with its basic presuppositions.
215. Moreau, La Persecution, 77; Homo, Les Empereurs, 29. Homo was not afraid of paradox, as can be seen in his contrasting of the "fanatical" Christians "who, should occasion arise, refused military service" with "pacific" Christians who accepted it.
216. Jerome, Vita Malchi, init.
217. Milburn (Early Christian Interpretations, 70) rightly quoted the above passage from Jerome to contrast it with Eusebius's oversimplified and unscrupulous attitude.
1. Lactantius, De Mort. Pers., 54; Eusebius, Vita, I, 28.
2. On this veneration, see F. Halkin, "Une Nouvelle Vie de Constantin dans un L~gendaire de Patmos," AB, 77 (1959), 63-107, 370-372, and the old but still basic study of F. Nave, "Constantin et Th~odose devant les ttglise orientales," in his G'Arm~nie chr~tienne et sa litt~rature (Paris, 1886), 155-191.
3. A summary of the discussion (with bibliography) can be found in A. Piganiol, "L'Etat actuel de la Question constantinienne, 1930-1949," Historic, 1 (1950), 82-96. See also E. Delaruelle, "La Conversion de Constantin," BLE, 54 (1953), 37-54, 84100; and J.-R. Palanque, "Constantin I~er le Grand," DHGE, XIII (1956), col. 607.
4. A. A1f81di, The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome (Oxford, 1948). H. Berkhof (Kirche and Kaiser [Zilrich, 1947], 60 ff. ) evidenced the same admiration of Constantine, as did K. Aland ("Die religi8se Haltung Kaiser Konstantins," SP, 1 [Berlin, 1957], 549-600). The latter (p. 575) even rejected the modest reservations about Constantine of H. Lietzmann (" Der Glaube Konstantins des Grossen," SAB, 29 [ 1937], 274). H. Ddrries (Constantine, passim) also believed in the sincerity, if not the depth, of Constantine's religious development. R. A. G. Carson ("The Emperor Constantine and Christianity," History Today, 6 , 20) was convinced that "despite many of his actions, the consensus of evidence indicates a genuine personal acceptance of Christianity by Constantine."
5. On the positive contribution made by Gr~goire and his school, see P. Orgels, "A propos des erreurs historiques de la Vita Constantini," Melanges H. Gr~goire, Revue Internationale de Philosophie (Brussels, 1963), 575-576. Most of the disagreement between the contending parties depends on whether one believes, with the classical school, that Eusebius, Vita, 2, 5-17, alludes solely to the 324 war, or whether one follows Gregoire in thinking that it refers both to that war and to the war of 314 together. Orgels (pp. 592, 600, 612) was of the latter opinion, basing his conclusion on a comparison between Vita, 2, 11 and Zosimus, Ecclesiastical History, 2, 19, 1. The transition between the first war and the second would thus be in Vita 2, 15. See also H. Gr~goire, "Nouvelles Recherches constantiniennes," Byz, 13 (1938), 566.
6. P. Petit, "Libanius et la `Vita Constantini,' " Historla, 1 (1950), 578-579. 7. H. Gr~goire, "Notes bibliographiques," BARB, 34 (1947), 229.
8. Cod. Theod., V, 20, 1.
9. H. Ehrhardt, "Some Aspects of Constantine's Legislation," SP, 2 (Berlin, 1957), 114-121.
10. H. Gr~goire, "La `Conversion' de Constantin," Revue de CUniversit~ de Bruxelles, 36 (1930-1931),55.
11. Idem, "Nouvelles Recherches " 561 idem, "L'Authenticit~ et I'historicit~ de la' Vita Constantini' attribute ~ Eus~be de C~sar~e," BARB, 39 ( 1953), 426-478.
12. Setton, Christian Attitude, 51-53; F. Vittinghoff, ' `Eusebius als Verfasser der Vita Constantini," RhM, 96 (1953), 330-373. J. Moreau ("Eus~be de C~sar~e," DHGE, XV [ 1963], col. 1456) has also concluded for Eusebian authorship. For persuasive arguments in favor of the substantial authenticity of the Vita, see A. H. M. Jones, "Notes on the Genuineness of the Constantinian Documents in Eusebius' `Life of Constantine,' " JEH, 5 (1954), 196-200. P. Petit "Libanius et la `Vita Constantini,' " 580-581 ), on the other hand, has provided a good summary of the critical view. One must note that Petit merely stressed that the author could not have been Eusebius in person. But he argued that the Vita was most probably composed before 340 by someone who had been closely connected with Eusebius, who had access to his files, and who shared his political views, Gr~goire ("Nouvelles recherches," 583) proposed as a simple hypothesis that Euzoios, the Arian bishop of Caesarea who inherited Eusebius's library, was the author. It was not Eusebius himself, Gr~goire contended, but rather this second Eusebius" who made Licinius's persecution of the Christians into the cause of the wars of 314 and 324, and who referred to the celestial vision as well as to the Labarum (ibid., 578). Petit (" Libanius et la' Vita Constantini,' " 581 ) was of the opinion that the additions to books 3 and 4, which were made during the reign of Theodosius, simply made Constantine t0 appear to be more fanatically opposed to paganism than he actually had been. Gr~goire (" L'Authenticit~," 467-470), on the other hand, was far more radical, basing his view on "objective evidence" that before 420 none of the sources currently extant contained a single quotation from the Vita or showed any discernible influence of it. He nevertheless admitted that both the style and the fundamental ideology of the Vtta are clearly Eusebian.
13. But, as A. Brasseur ("Les deux visions de Constantin," Latomus, 5 , 35-40) has pointed out, Constantine's vision was merely an unimportant pagan dream which gave a rallying sign to the army.
14. On the latter see Panegyric, 7, 21, with E. Galletiei s comments (Galletier, ed., Pan~gyriques latins, II, Les Pan~gyrtques constantiniens [Paris, 1959], 43-46).
15. J. Gags ("Le `Signum' astrologique de Constantin et le Mill~narisme de `Roma aeterna,' " RHPR, 31 , 181-223) has referred to, and corrected, an observation by F. Heiland (Die astronomische Deutung der Vision Konstantins [Lecture, Zeiss Planetarium, Jena, October, 1948]).
16. Carson, "The Emperor Constantine," 14-16. On this point, see the exhaustive documentation in M. R. Alfdldi, Die Constantintsche Goldpr8gung (Mainz, 1963). Alf8ldi's no. 118 (reproduced in plate 5, no. 60) is the famous coin of 313 with the triumphal entry into Rome and the text "FELIX ADVENTVS AVGG NN" on the one side; on the other side is Constantine's head in profile with the symbol of the divine sun behind him. (This coin has been reproduced and described with an analysis of its significance in Gr~goire, "Nouvelles recherches," 579.) The same image is found in coins produced in the periods of 313-317 (Alf8ldi, nos. 479, 480, 483, 489, 492 [plate 7 no. 105]), 314-315 (nos. 491 495), 317 (no. 486 [plate 7, no. lO6J), 317324 (nos. 481, 490 [plate 8, no. 126] 493 [plate 8, no. 125], 494 [plate 7, no. 120]), even 324-326 (no. 482). See also S. P. Kyriakides, "Konstantinos ho Megas kai he autokratike latreia", Hell'enika, XVII, 220-240. The important book by Jules Maurice (Numismatique constantinienne, 3 vols. [Paris, 1908-1912J, II, xxix-xxx) provides significant information about Constantine as an apostle of the monotheistic solar cult. See also Maurice's Constantin le Grand L'ortgine de la civilisation chrEtienne (Paris, 1924), 28. But Maurice still believed that Constantine had experienced a complete Christian conversion at the Milvian Bridge. The later ambiguities he explained by the fact that with Constantine a truly Christian monarchy had taken over an empire that was still predominantly pagan. Constantine was thus like "a very Christian King of
France, governing a Muslim empire" (Constantin, 68). But on the other hand, Maurice was also able to point out that as early as 313 the Tarragona mint in Spain was using the cross on the back of its coins at the same time as it was casting medals with the solar sign to commemorate the Milan meeting (Numismatique, II, 339). This would seem to prove that Constantine's syncretism worked in both directions and that some imperial officials soon understood this.
17. Maurice, Cottstantin, 99. Gr~goire ("L'Authenticit~," 465, and "Nouvelles recherches," 57) also made much of the triumphal arch with purely pagan decorative motifs which was erected in 315.
18. Delaruelle, "Conversion," 95.
19. F. Altheim, "Konstantins Triumph von 312," Zeitschrift ftlr Religion and Geistesgeschichte, 9 (1957), 221-231; GagE, "La Victoire," 386; idem, "Le ' Signum,' " 210; Galletier, Pan~gyriques latins, II, 112-115.
20. Gags, "Le `Signum,' " 209. J. R. Palanque (DHGE, XIII, rnl. 597) has also noted that initially at least Constantine's Christianity was thoroughly permeated by astrology.
21. J. Moreau, "Zur Religionspolitik Konstantins des Grossen," AUS, I (1952), 165, 168.
22. Combs, Doctrine politique, 304, 313. 23. Galletier, Pan~gyriques latins, II, 3, 20. 24. Maurice, Constantin, 22.
25. V. C. de Clercq, Ossius of CordoUa: a Contribution to the History of the Constantinian Period (Washington, 1954), 184. It was Constantine as well who had started the war of 312 (Pan~gyriques, 9, 2).
26. A Piganiol, L'Empire chrestien, 325-395 (Paris, 1947), 35-36. Foakes-Jackson (Eusebius Pamphili, 103) agreed that something terrible must have happened, but he advised against pressing details too far since they have reached us only through historians who were hostile to Constantine (Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XIV, 11, 20; Philostorgos, Ecclesiastical History, 2, 4; Victor, Epitome; Flavius Eutropius, Breoiarium, 10, 6; Zosimus Ecclesiastical History 2, 29). But can one cast this suspicion of prejudice against all of these sources? And what about the observer who was certainly not a prejudiced pagan-the anonymous author of the Vita Sancti Artemii (41, ASS, October, VIII , 856)? Similar testimony is also to be found in Jerome, Orosius, Sidoine Apollinaire, and Gregory of Tours. On this bloody tale see also Maurice, Constantin, 22, 93, 182-190. Carson ("The Emperor Constantine," 18) has provided a detailed description of this incident, and has concluded that "these murders are often quoted as evidence of Constantine's insincere Christianity; but although they were not the acts of one who truly embraces Christ's teaching, they are unfortunately not unparalleled in acts of many who are accepted as genuine professing Christians." To this I would simply like to add that acts of this nature have certainly never been acceptable except within "Constantinian" Christianity. Carson's reasoning is therefore circular, and is yet another example of the way in which the gospel of Jesus Christ has been corrupted by the Constantinian concordat.
27. L. Duchesne, Liber pontificalis (Paris, 1886), I, cix-cxx, which text dates from about 500.
28. Herval, "La Province," 52.
29. Gregoire, "Notes bibliographiques," 230.
30. A. Alfgldi, A Festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian Emperors of the IVth Century, Dissertationes Pannonicae, 2nd ser., 7 (Budapest, 1937), 36-37.
31. Parker, Christianity and the State, 50, citing Augustine, Confessions, I, 2.
32. Zosimus, Ecclesiastical History, 2, 2., A. Piganiol (L'Empereur Constantin .~!
[Paris, 1932], 80) suggested that Ossius of Cordova was the proponent of this argument.
33. Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, 1, 39.
34. Philostorgos, Ecclesiastical History, 2, l6~Piganiol, L'Empereur Constantin, 215.
35. Julian the Apostate, The Caesars, 2, 336b; idem, To the Athenians, 3, 270c. 36. Parker, Christianity and the State, 46, 49.
37. Gags, "La Victoire," 379.
38. Parker, Christianity and the State 47, 48. Cf. M. Besnier, L'Empire romain de l'Av~nement des Sw~res au Concile de Nice ( Paris, 1937), 358.
39, Gr~goire, "La'Conversion' de Constantin," 234, 265. 40. Ibid., 242-243.
41. Gags, "La Victoire," 388-389; idem, "Le 'Signum,' " 181, 185, 206; Galletier, Pan~gyriques latins, II, 112-115.
42. Orgels, `A propos des erreurs historiques," 584-585. 43. Gr~goire, "Nouvelles recherches," 588.
44. Gags, "Le `Signum,' " 198-199, 213.
45. Galletier, Pan~gyriques latins, II, 155-157. Jules Maurice, who was one of Constantine's most convinced admirers, listed among his hero's significant achievements "the sign of Christ attributed to the army, as legionary insignia" (Constantin, 49). Whether this was an achievement or a betrayal remains an open question.
46. Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars, 219, 271.
47- De Clercq, Ossius of Cordova, 148, 175, 158-160. 48. Piganiol, L'Empire chr~tien, 293.
49. Eusebius, Praep. ev., 6, 1; idem, Demonstratio evangelica, II, 2.
50. On this theological degeneration within Eusebius's thought, see H. Eger, "Kaiser and Kirche in der Geschichtstheologie Eusebs von Ca~sarea," ZNW, 38 (1938), 97-115 N. H. Baynes, "Eusebius and the Christian Empire," in idem, ed., Byzantine Studies (London, 1955), 168-172; E. Peterson, "Das Problem des Nationalismus im alten Christentum," ThZ, 7 (1951 ), 81-91 (reprinted in a French transl. in Dieu Vivant, 22 (1952), 88-106, and as an appendix to Dani~lou, Les Anges, 153169); F. E. Cranz, "Kingdom and Polity in Eusebius of Caesarea," HThR, 45 (1952), 47-66.
51. Epiphanius, Panarion, 68, 8; Athanasius, Apologia, 8.
52. Moreau, "Eustzbe," col. 1440. Hefele (Histoire, I, ii, 642 n. ) has placed primary emphasis upon the fact that Eusebius was a sable clearly to take sides.
53. See the excellent article on Eusebius of Nicomedia by M. Spanneut (DHGE, XV , cots. 1466-1472). Eusebius (of Caesarea) had at first enjoyed a close relationship with Constantine's sister Constantia, and as such was one of Licinius's intimates.
54. The oft-repeated statement that it was Eusebius who made the speech which welcomed Constantine to the council (Eusebius, Vita Const., I, preface; III, 11; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 1 19; J. B. Lightfoot, "Eusebius of Caesarea," DCB, Il, col. 312) is not in accord with the facts. Instead, this detail was added to the texts at a later date, by which time the two Eusebii had been able to win the emperor's confidence and to reverse the situation to theiradvantage. This is a good example of the rewriting of history which was common in Eusebius's circle. The actual speaker was probably Eustathius of Antioch (~M oreau, "Eus~be," cols.1440-1441 ).
55. Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, I, 20, 1.
56. Gr(goire, "L'Authenticit~," 471. See also Moreau, "Eus~be," col. 1443, which emphasized that Eusebius had fully shared in this pliant doctrine.
57. Setton, Christian Attitude, 42.
58. The expressions between quotation marks are those of Orgels (" A propos des erreurs historiques," 586), who noted that the Labarum was created on precisely that occasion. Orgels also emphasized (p. 588), on the basis of Eusebius, HE, X, 8, 16, that what have been termed the Licinian persecutions were only police precautions against the "fifth column" which his rival was organizing.
59. Orgels, op. cit., 584; Gr~goire, "Nouvelles recherches," 559-560.
60. Gr~goire, "L'Authenticit~," 464. This does not mean that Licinius-who murdered in cold blood the two Christian princesses Valeria and Prisca, the widow and daughter of Diocletian-was any less btuel than Constantine (idem, "Nouvelles recherches," 565).
61. Sirinelli, 488.
62. Ibid., 493, 253, 409. Sirinelli added that for this reason Eusebius had not imagined that the Church itself might colonize and organize the state according to its own principles. In this, his attitude was similar to that of Lactantius (Ibid., 495). Sirinelli also pronounced the following severe judgment (Ibid., 490): "[In Eusebius's writings] the stress was no longer on the Christian faith and on the hopes, new insights, and uniqueness which it implied; but it was rather on the perfect coincidence which existed between the teaching of Christian doctrine and the universe as it stood . . . . The question was not so much to demonstrate the new ideas which Christianity brought with it, but rather [to show] that Christianity did not introduce anything particularly new which would call for the renunciation of ideas which were commonly held."
63. Pichon, Lactance, 450.
64. I have already pointed out (Ch. 1, n. 115) that Eusebius, after Licinius's downfall, "corrected" history in order to erase most of his initial estimates of himwhich had been highly positive. GrEgoire ("Nouvelles recherches," 563) dated the three "editions" of the Ecclesiastical History as follows: 1st ed., 314-315; 2nd ed., 325; 3rd ed., after 326. On this point see also J. Vogt, "Die Vita Constantini des Eusebius ilber den Konflikt zwischen Constantin and Licinius," Historic, 2 (1953-1954), 463-471.
65. Sirinelli, 410. Since the Roman Empire was the worldly system within which the Christians must live, there was "a somewhat organic unity between empire and Church" (ibid., 485).
66. Ibid., 483.
257-258. 68. Ibid.,
69. Ibid., 253, 491.
211, 494. As Sirinelli elsewhere observed (ibid.,
472 n.), Eusebius was "basically the holder of a natural, rational religion in which there was more room for values of organization and edification than for those of devotion, self-sacrifice, and redemption."
71. Ibid., 244, 203, 240-243. 72. Ibid., 238.
74. J.-R. Palanque, "Constantin, Empereur chretien," 142. See also Palanque's treatment of "The Conversion of Constantine" in Palanque, Bardy, et al., The Church in the Roman Empire, 12-24, and his article "Constantin Ie~ le Grand," in DHGE, XIII (1956), cols. 593-608, in which he wrote (col. 599): "Doubtless motivated by superstitious reasons (he [Constantine] had gambled on the protection of the God of the Christians, to whom he attributed his unexpected victory over Maxentius),
his `conversion' was never a rnmplete one." In a similar vein, G. Downey ("Education in the Christian Roman Empire: Christian and Pagan Theories under Constantine and his Successors," Speculum, 32 , 50) wrote: "Some students believe that Constantine experienced a true conversion and that his policy toward Christianity was based upon genuine religious conviction, while others maintain that he was a calculating statesman who concluded that Christianity offered a means of uniting the empire and saving it from the political, military, and economic dangers with which his predecessor Diocletian had been struggling. . . . It seems beyond question that there was some feeling of a quid pro quo in the early stages of Constantine's connection with Christianity, a feeling which is certainly visible among the Christians of the period." To be complete, we must also mention Albert Floras, "La Conversion de Constantin le Grand," Mt'moire de dipl8me de 1'Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes [mimeographed ed.] (Paris 1949), which presents a moderate, rather conservative view it was, however, already out of date at the time of its publication.
75. Greenslade, Church and State, 12. 76. De Clereq, Ossius of Cordova, 159. 77. Parker, Christianity and the State, 52. 78. Foakes-Jackson, Eusebius Pamphlli, 108. 79. Hobhouse, Church and the World, 88-89.
80. Hefel~, I ii, 679. See the out-of-date but thorough bibliographies on various Constantinian questions in ibid., I, ii, 680-681. H. Leclercq (DAL, I, col. 2818)has even questioned the objective validity of Constantine~s baptism.
81. F. Laufer, "O triunfo da Cruz no tempo de Constantino," Estudtos [Brazil], 19, no. 73 (1959), 81-95.
82. Greenslade, Church and State, 16-18. Constantine summoned the Synod of Arles (Eusebius, HE, X, 5, 23-24) and the Council of Nicaea (P.-T. Camelot, "Les conciles oecumeniques des IVe et Ve'si~cles," in Le Concile et les conches [Paris, 1960], 49 ff., which was based on Eusebius, Vtta Const., III, 6, p. 79, on the synodic letter to the Egyptians quoted by Athanasius [Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, I, 9], and on the letter written by Constantine to the Church of Alexandria in which he claimed to have acted under "divine inspiration" [ibid., col. S7]). At Nicaea it was Constantine who made the introductory speech (Eusebius, Vtta Const., III, 13) and imposed the homoousios (letter, Eusebius to his flock, q. Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, I, 8, col. 72; Opitz, Athartasius Werke, III, i, 4344). At Chalcedon the situation was apparently still the same: "It does seem, as a matter of fact, that it was the emperor who presided and arbitrated at the discussions, and the bishops seem also to have found this quite natural" (Camelot, "Les Conciles," 58). The emperor Marcianus, however, who drew a parallel between the late Constantine and himself, seems in fact to have been far more respectful of Church authority than Constantine had been (Actin [VI] Concilii Chalcedonensis, in ACO, II, ii [Berlin-Leipzig, 1933], 140). Furthermore, a new factor at the time of Chalcedonaccording to Camelot-was the development of increased authority on the part of the Roman pope.
83. F. Dvornik, "The Authority of the State in the Oecumenical Council," The Christian East 14 (1934), 95-107.
84. Eusebius, Vita Const., IV, 24y See the useful bibliography in Y. Congar, After Nine Hundred Years (New York, 1959), 105.
85. A. Piganiol, G'Empire chrEtien, 61.
86. J. Straub, "Kaiser Konstantin als ~ntowo,~ nun bmbc," SP, 1 (Berlin, 1957), 678-695.
87. Greenslade, Church and State, 11; H. Kraft, " bwoumx ," ZKG, 66 (1955), 1-24; idem, "Kaiser Konstantin and das Bischofsamt," Saeculum, 8 (1957), 32-42.
88. G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, transl. J. Hussey (Oxford, 1956, 42-44.
89. This can already be seen in Donatism.
90. Palanque, "Constantin," DHGE, XIII (1956), col. 599.
91. E. Laboulaye, Journal des d~bats, October 2, 1860. It goes without saying that Laboulaye was in agreement with our condemnation. He therefore put these words into the mouths of those whom he singled out as the people who were really responsible for the alienation of so many people from the Christian faith.
Chapter 7 (Conclusion) 1. Marcellinus to Augustine, in Augustine, Ep., 136, 2.
2. Bainton ("The Early Church and War," 90) has contrasted the Christian view of peace as a dynamic reality with the Roman view in which peace was static and contractual.
3. Barnabas, Ep., 11, 8.
4. [See the recent and exhaustive study by M. Spanneut ("Geduld," RACK, IX [Stuttgart, 1976], cols. 243-294), which has convincingly demonstrated that-for the early Christians-patience involved both strength and power; and also that-for the early monks-patience, when intertwined with the hope of the kingdom, was a cardinal virtue. ]
5. P. Fabre, Saint Paulin de Nole et I'Amiti~ chr~tienne (Paris, 1949), 116.
6. For examples, see Didache, 1, 2-4; 2, 6-7; 3, 2; Clement of Rome, Letter, 13, 1; 19; 30, 3 and 8; Ignatius, Eph., 10, 1-3; 13, 2; idem, Pol., 1, 2; idem, Tral., 3, 2; 4, 2; Polycarp, Ep., 2, 2; 10, 2; Hermas, Precepts, V, 1, 1 and 5; 2, 3; 8; Tatian, Oratio, 19; Aristides, Apology, 15; Justin, First Apology, 11, 2; 14, 3; 15, 9; 16, 1-4; Acta Apollonii, 37; Athenagoras, Gegatio, 1; 11; 34; Irenaeus, Demonstration, 96; idem, Adv. Haeres., III, 18, 5-6; IV, 13, 3; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, II, 1, 2; idem, Qui Dices Salvetur?, 42, 1-15; Passio Scillitanorum, 2 and 7.
7. Tertullian, De Corona, 11. 8. Idem, Apol., 37, 5.
10. Idem, Ad Scapulam, 5. 11. Idem, De Patientia, 1. 12. Ibid., lo.
13. Ibid., 6-7; 15.
14. Origen, Contra Celsum, III, 7.
15. Ibid., III, 8., In his edition of the Contra Celsum ([Cambridge, 1953], 512), Henry Chadwick has suggested that these lines, which in the present state of the text are separated from the preceding passage by approximately a page, in the original followed it directly; he has also speculated that the gap was caused by the accidental turning over of a page in the course of binding. I concur with these hypotheses.
16. Origen, Contra Celsum, IV, 9.
VII, 26, 27. The last words, which are a quotation from Exodus 1:7, emphasize that the old Israel had made way for the new.
18. Ibid., VIII, 65.
19. Minucius Felix, Octavius, 30, 6.
20. Cyprian, Ad Dem., 17, 25. See also his Testimonia, III, 3, 8, 22, 23, 49, 106. For similar passages from the period between Tertullian and Lactantius, see Di
2, 1 and 2; II, 6, 1; II, 45, 1; II, 46, 2; V, 14, 22; Gregory the WonderWorker, Canonical Epistle, 5;
10, 5; Arnobius, Adv. Nat., 2, 45.
21. Lactantius, Div. Institutiones, VI, 18, 10-20. 22. Ibid., VI, 18, 25.
23. Ibid., VI, 18 29-32. Other Lactantius texts with a similar argument are: De Ira Dei, 20, 5 and 12; 21, 10; Div. Institutiones, V, 4-5, and 13-14; V, 8, 6.
24. Ambrose, Ep., 20_~See A. de Brogue, Saint Ambroise, 85.
25. Augustine, De Pattentia 2. See also ibid., 1 7 (6-7); 26 (22); 29 (26). See also Athanasius Getter on Gove and Temperance, p. 284; Basil, Homilies on the Psalms, 48; John Chrysostom Letters to Olympus, XIII, 4d; idem, Homilies on St. John, 82, 2; idem, Homilies on Romans, 14, 7.
26. Fontaine, "Sulpice Severe," 37, 38 n. 27. Am~lineau, Actes, 32-34.
28. Sulpicius Severus, Dialogues, II, 3.
29. Hershberger's The Way of the Cross in Human Relations is a remarkable meditation on this problem. See esp. pp. 33-42, in which he-closely following Bonhoeffer-has shown that the cross must permeate the Christian's entire life.
30. P. Burgelin ("La Fin de 1'Ere constantinienne," Fot et Vie, 58 , 16-17), in the course of a discussion of the Christian's political behavior, has strongly and rightly emphasized that the Church's primary concern must consist of refusing to allow itself to be split at this level.
31. Clement of Rome, Ep., 13, 3 ff.
32. Bainton, "Early Church and War," 86-87; Ryan, "Rejection," 15. A passage in the VSB (VIII , 550) commented with reference to SS. Ferreolus and Julian of Brioude, "Today their functions would be regarded as belonging more to the police than to the army." VSB (IX [ 1950], 380) added that Ferreolus's functions as a military tribune were "practically the same as those of a police inspector." Perhaps this is also the direction in which we should look for a solution to the chronological contradiction in St. Martin's life. About 336, two years after he was baptized, he transferred into a unit of the protectores-the nonfighting imperial police-and he stayed with them for twenty years (Fontaine, "Sulpice Swore," 54 n. ). From 334 to 336 Martin would thus have been a "soldier in name only" (Sulpicius Severus, Vita Martini, 3, 6; SCH, CXXXIII, 258). And thereafter he would no longer have been a soldier at all, for he had become a policeman (who in French is still called a "gardien de la paix" ).
33. For a discussion of the differentiation between the police and the army, which to me is ethically essential, see my paper "Dieu et la Guerre dans la ThBologie de Karl Barth," CS, 63 (1955), 580-590.
34. The word soclus is used, but apparently in a very broad sense. 35. Ambrose, De Off., I, 36, 178.
37. P. Ricoeur (Etat et Violence [Geneva, 1957], 13-14) vigorously stressed the contrast between war and the "violence" used by magistrates. I have not quoted these passages, because they are required reading for everyone. Ricoeur did not, however, feel that this was a completely satisfactory solution to the problem, for there was still the question of the survival of the state as such. Danielou ("La Non-Violence," 17) believed that, within the Palestinian circles closest to Jesus, the distinction was commonly drawn between the legitimate use of arms against brigands and the illegitimate use of arms for national or political struggles.
38. Cf. Chenu, "L'Evolution," 81, 87-90. Also w0rth consulting is Stephen Neill, A History of Chrfsttan Missions (London, 1964), 115, which quotes the negative judgment of Sir Steven Runciman (A Htstory of the Crusades [Cambridge, 1952-1954],
III, 469, 480). See also my own article "L'Imposture des Croisades," Communio Vtatorum, 6 (1963), 143-166. M. Villey himself concluded his review (RHDF, 40 , 268) by remarking: "We must indeed distinguish between the Holy War, for which credentials cannot easily be found in the first Christian tradition, and the war waged by Caesar. There is no evidence that the average Christian of the first three centuries would have called for conscientious objection in opposition to this [latter form of warfare].'~
39. This was a complete contradiction, for the central idea of monachism was that some people, far from the compromises of the world, should be able to live a perfect life and thereby compensate for the sins which the ordinary Christians-involved as they were in the complexities of daily life-could not help committing. Protestant theology, as I have noted, has rejected this system in principle. But it became doubly scandalous when the very people who pretended to keep their hands clean began plunging them into the blood of their brethren-apparently with a clear conscience. It is therefore not surprising that serious objections were raised when the military monastic orders were first founded. In the recently rediscovered letter Ad milites templi, the writer (probably Hugues of Payns, the founder of the Templars) found it necessary to react strongly against the doubts which were assailing his recruits on this point (j. Leclereq, "Un document sur les debuts des Templiers,' RHE, 52 , 86-89). I ~: ·".~
40. Orentius of Auch, Commonitorwum, II, 181-184 (quoted in P. de Labriolle, Histoire de la Litt~rature Latine Chr~tienne, ed. G. Bardy [Paris, 1947], II, 723-724). 41. Jerome, Ep., 127, 12. See also Ep., 126, 2 and 128, 4J all three of which are quoted in Labriolle, Histotre, I, 585.
42. Jerome, Ep., 60, 15-16, 18. 43. Ibid., 60, 16.
44. The first to use this expression in this sense was Frederic Ozanam, in an 1848 issue of the Correspondant (Fliche et Martin, XXI, 42).
45. This was acknowledged unambiguously by H. I. Marrou (SCH, XXXIII; 176), to cite only one example. See also Burgelin, "La Fin de I'Ere constantinienne,' 19-20. It is interesting to note that the Hesychasts, who in the fourteenth century were the largest school of mystics in the Greek Orthodox Church, were accused of national betrayal because they refused to identify Christian truth with the interests of the Byzantine Empire. Gregory Palamas, for example, found no difficulty in recognizing the positive aspects of the Turkish regime. The Hesychasts' humanist adversaries, on the other hand, were so dominated by the assumptions of politico-religious syncretism that they were eventually ready to sacrifice the integrity of the faith itself (J. Meyendorff, Introduction d l'~tude de Gr~goire Palamas [Paris, 1959], 158-159).
Postscript I. As H. Rahner has done in the first part of his remarkable collection of texts,
I. Eglise et l' Etat dons le Christianisnte printitif, transl. G. Zinek ( Paris, 1964), 29-38 (" Le refusopposeeal'~tat'),39-47("L'acceptationdel etat").
2. Fontaine "Christians and Military Service," 115. For a similar point of view, see the reviews of M. Meslin (Archives de Sociologie des Religions, 10 [ 1960], 185), R. Roques (RHR, 164 (1964], 241), and especially M. H. Vicaire (RIIE, 56 , 391392), whose brief notice was not a critique-it was a summary execution. A. Dumas' complaint ("L'Eglise d'avant Constantin et la violence," Esprit, 29 , 315), on the other hand, was that my texts "were more often thrown in than presented in an orderly manner."
3. Visser ("Christianus sum," 19). Roques (review, 241) commented that he would have preferred that the French edition's subtitle had read "the attitudes of the first Christians" rather than "the attitude of primitive Christianity."
4. Fontaine ("Christians and Military Service," 102), who had already commented upon some valuable pointers rnncerning the undue systematization whichin his eyes-resulted from it. M. Villey likewise remarked concerning my "passionate interest" at the beginning of his short review (RHDF, 40 [ 1962], 267). J. Danitslou also used this term in his contribution to the Nouvelle Histoire de l'Eglise, I, Des Origines h Gr~goire le Grand (Paris, 1963), 559. But then one may be quite cool in developing a totally distorted picture and, conversely, be passionately involved in arguing a wellgrounded case. Such seems to have been the view of G. Richard-Molard. In a brief review of EL in R~forme (October 15, 1960), after stressing that I had made no attempt to conceal my commitment, he maintained that "this deep feeling, far from reducing in the slightest the objectivity of the study, gives it a vigor lacking in many scientific and abstract works." I have argued elsewhere ("Christianisme et desordre ~tabli," CS, 74 , 666-668) that Cardinal Dani~lou had his "passionate interest" to0-an interest (no doubt diametrically opposed to mine) in the preservation of social conformity and of "the established order" in both politics and religion.
5. This is why I agree with Mehl and Dumas more than they seem to have thought. The former spoke (" Le Christianisme primitif" ) of an "ambiguity as fundamental as it is necessary in the common attitude of Christianity toward the state and its politico-military order"; the latter referred (" L' Eglise," 311 ) to the "constant ambiguities of a thesis [mine] which in intention claimed, on the contrary, to be purely objective." Would it be merely a play on words to say that my intention was precisely to demonstrate at least one ambiguity-that of the "Constantinian" historians in the overassurance of their clear consciences? Villey (review, 267) found in my text "many an embarrassed page and some abortive attempts to modify [my] positions." What is embarrassing in recognizing that the facts are complex? Fr. Rouquette (review, Etudes, 308, i , 424), on the other hand, was convinced that I, as a Protestant theologian, must have been deeply troubled at having to quote from the Church Fathers as well as from the Scriptures. An excellent response to him came from the very Protestant Fraternity Evangeslique (May 1960): "One cannot censure the author for falling into the simplifications of a fanatical pacifism. One must, on the contrary, acknowledge that he has brought us-within the limits of his discipline-a precious aid to calm reflection in the form of countless quotations from the Church Fathers. After reading this book . . . one will realize better what an anti-ecumenical sin certain Protestants commit who behave-even in the present day-as if the history of the Church had started in the sixteenth century." A similar approval of my method was expressed by P. Verseils (review, Etudes ~oang~liques, 20 [ 1960], 120), a spokesman of the most fundamentalist grouping within French Protestantism, who did not in the slightest degree share this book's ethical conclusions, and by P. Gagnier (review, Bulletin du Centre Protestant d'Etudes et de documentation, n.s., 53-54 [Aug.-Oct. 1960], 5-6), who did not share them either. Mehl, who also expressed satisfaction at the renewed interest in patristics which several of us have exemplified, explained it thus: "Admittedly, Protestantism does not accord a normative value to the Church Fathers; it subordinates their authority to that of the Scriptures, but it sees in them both an approach to the Scriptures which is profitable to the Church in all eras and a consistent attempt to incarnate the evangelical demands in the concert of history." I regret, therefore, that the journal of the French Jesuits has proved to be so ill-informed concerning what constitutes a sound reading of the Bible in its dialogue with tradition. I also wonder whether Fr. Rouquette, who has tried to confound me with
the holy wars of the Old Testament and the use of the interdict, would uphold these as moral prescriptions which current Christians ought to follow.
6. Merlin (review, 185). Hobhouse (Church and the World, 87) had already written, "Whatever merits Eusebius possessed as a historian ... his critical faculty deserted him in describing his hero . . . and his account of Constantine is little better than a nauseous panegyric, sometimes bordering on blasphemy." Hobhouse quoted Fleury's remark that one would not go far wrong on Constantine by retaining only the ill said of him by Eusebius and the good said of him by Zosimus (chiefly, Ecclesiastical History, II, 28-29). But in that case, Hobhouse concluded, one would have practically nothing at all to say about the first"Christian" emperor.