Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom by Peter J. Leithart
Authors: Peter J. Leithart
Tags: Non-Fiction
Ads: Link
century, they "scraped off, smashed up, or simply removed the altars, whitewashed the walls, and either actually washed out the interior of the building or symbolically sprinkled it with salt water. Chalices and other serving vessels used by Catholic priests in their perverted sacraments had to be melted down. The Donatists regarded the Catholics' consecrated host as useless and tainted, and accordingly they threw it to the dogs, which the Catholics of course considered to be terrible sacrilege" (Michael Caddis, There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire [Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005], pp. 120-21).
26Eusebius Church History 10.5.
30Optatus Against the Donatists.
27Gaddis, There Is No Crime, pp. 60-61.
"Drake, Constantine and the Bishops, p. 213.
291bid., pp. 118, 219.
31jbld.
"Drake, Constantine and the Bishops, p. 118.
33Potter (Roman Empire at Bay, p. 408) says that during the early stages of the conflict, Constantine honored the independence of the church.
34Drake, Constantine and the Bishops, p. 220.
35Barnes, Constantine andEusebius, pp. 58-60.
36Quoted in Gaddis, There Is No Crime, p. 54.
37Gaddis (ibid.) notes that soldiers, magistrates, judges and other officials remained in place when Constantine assumed power. The head had changed, the body very little.
38Optatus Against the Donatists.
39Jones, Constantine and the Conversion ofEurope, pp. 101, 105-6.
40Still, it is not accurate to say, as Yoder does, that Christian emperors from Constantine on ruled "on what constitutes orthodox belief" (John Howard Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel [Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984], p. 136). Constantine came the closest to doing this, and even he was enforcing decisions of episcopal councils, not making the decisions himself. After Constantine, emperors had no direct role in deciding theological issues.
41Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, p. 60.
42Optatus Against the Donatists.
"Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe, p. 98; D. G. Kousoulas, The Life and Times of Constantine the Great: The First Christian Emperor, 2nd ed. (Author, 2007), pp. 301, 307-8; MacMullen, Constantine, pp. 105, 114.
44Gaddis, There Is No Crime, pp. 126-27.
'Recent scholarship presents a fairly radical revision of many details concerning Nicaea-from the chronology of events and the reliability of sources such as Athanasius to the context, background and importance of Arius himself, to the force of the Nicene formula, the effect of its creed, and the question of the relation of orthodoxy and heresy. The best recent treatments are found in Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine andEusebius (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), pp. 191-244; Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), chaps. 2-3; Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 29-91; R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), pp. 13-273; Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), pp. 1-33. Deft and still useful older treatments are found in Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Pelican History of the Church 1 (New York: Penguin, 1967), pp. 129-36; W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), pp. 492-517. David S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180-395, Routledge History of the Ancient World (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 401-22, is out of his depth in the theology.
'The Melitian controversy is briefly summed up in Chadwick, Early Church, p. 124; Frend, Rise of Christianity, pp. 493-94; Williams, Arius, pp. 32-41. Potter, Roman Empire at Bay, p. 412, tells the story of the prison-house
26Eusebius Church History 10.5.
30Optatus Against the Donatists.
27Gaddis, There Is No Crime, pp. 60-61.
"Drake, Constantine and the Bishops, p. 213.
291bid., pp. 118, 219.
31jbld.
"Drake, Constantine and the Bishops, p. 118.
33Potter (Roman Empire at Bay, p. 408) says that during the early stages of the conflict, Constantine honored the independence of the church.
34Drake, Constantine and the Bishops, p. 220.
35Barnes, Constantine andEusebius, pp. 58-60.
36Quoted in Gaddis, There Is No Crime, p. 54.
37Gaddis (ibid.) notes that soldiers, magistrates, judges and other officials remained in place when Constantine assumed power. The head had changed, the body very little.
38Optatus Against the Donatists.
39Jones, Constantine and the Conversion ofEurope, pp. 101, 105-6.
40Still, it is not accurate to say, as Yoder does, that Christian emperors from Constantine on ruled "on what constitutes orthodox belief" (John Howard Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel [Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984], p. 136). Constantine came the closest to doing this, and even he was enforcing decisions of episcopal councils, not making the decisions himself. After Constantine, emperors had no direct role in deciding theological issues.
41Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, p. 60.
42Optatus Against the Donatists.
"Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe, p. 98; D. G. Kousoulas, The Life and Times of Constantine the Great: The First Christian Emperor, 2nd ed. (Author, 2007), pp. 301, 307-8; MacMullen, Constantine, pp. 105, 114.
44Gaddis, There Is No Crime, pp. 126-27.
'Recent scholarship presents a fairly radical revision of many details concerning Nicaea-from the chronology of events and the reliability of sources such as Athanasius to the context, background and importance of Arius himself, to the force of the Nicene formula, the effect of its creed, and the question of the relation of orthodoxy and heresy. The best recent treatments are found in Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine andEusebius (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), pp. 191-244; Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), chaps. 2-3; Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 29-91; R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), pp. 13-273; Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), pp. 1-33. Deft and still useful older treatments are found in Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Pelican History of the Church 1 (New York: Penguin, 1967), pp. 129-36; W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), pp. 492-517. David S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180-395, Routledge History of the Ancient World (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 401-22, is out of his depth in the theology.
'The Melitian controversy is briefly summed up in Chadwick, Early Church, p. 124; Frend, Rise of Christianity, pp. 493-94; Williams, Arius, pp. 32-41. Potter, Roman Empire at Bay, p. 412, tells the story of the prison-house
Similar Books
