Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T02:57:14.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sects under Constantine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

Stuart G. Hall
Stuart G. Hall*
Affiliation:
University of London, King’s College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Looking back a hundred years after the death of Constantine the historian Sozomen wrote:

Under earlier emperors those who worshipped Christ, though they differed in their opinions, were considered the same by the Hellenizers and were similarly badly treated. They could not interfere with each other because of their common sufferings, and for this reason each group used to assemble without difficulty and form a church, and by keeping up continual mutual contact, even if they were few in number, they were not dispersed.

He contrasted this with Constantine’s success in repressing the sects. Sozomen is clearly right as far as he goes. Antiheresy laws gave powers to bishops they did not have before. He goes on:

But after this law they could neither assemble publicly, because they were prevented, nor in secret, because the bishops and clergy in every city kept them under observation.

We shall look more closely at this change.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 23: Voluntary Religion , 1986 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 HE II. 32,3.

2 Ibid. 32,4.

3 Bauer, Walter, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen 1934, 2nd ed 1964 Google Scholar); trans, as Orthodoxy and heresy in earliest Christianity (London 1972).

4 In the Optatus dossier, CSEL 26, 211-212, English text in Coleman-Norton, P.R., Roman state and Christian church (London 1966) I pp. 68–69 Google Scholar.

5 CSEL 26, 208-210; Coleman-Norton I pp. 59-61.

6 Eusebius, Vita Constantini (= VC) II 66.

7 VC II 71.

8 VC III 64-65 (GCS Eusebius I hrsg. Winkelmann, F., pp. 117–119 Google Scholar; ET NPNF 2 series I pp. 539-540 and Coleman-Norton I pp. 90-92).

9 Gelasius HE II 32, esp. 32,8 and 32,19.

10 Codex Theodosianus 16,5,2; Coleman-Norton I p. 158.

11 Socrates HE I 10.

12 64,1.

13 64,2.

14 Eusebius, HE VII 30,18-19.

15 Barnes, Timothy D., Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge Mass.London 1981) p. 224 Google Scholar.

16 VC III 63,1.

17 Barnes, Cf, Constantine and Eusebius pp. 227–228 Google Scholar and see below n.30.

18 65,1.3.

19 Eusebius VC II 59.

20 VC III 63,2.

21 65,2.

22 VC III 66.

23 Sozomen HE II 32,5.

24 Ibid. 32,6.

25 VC III 63,3; 66,1.

26 65,3.

27 Socrates HE 1 9.

28 Cf Acts 19,17-19; Eusebius HE VII 7,1-4.

29 Codex Theodosianus 16,5,4; Coleman-Norton I p. 342.

30 To the discussion on p. 10 should be added: 1. The title ‘Victor’ used in the opening was not adopted till 324. 2. An earlier date (326) was proposed by Chadwick, Henry, History and thought in the early Church (London 1982) cap 13; cf Hanson, R.P.C., ZKG 95 (1984) pp. 174–178 Google Scholar.