History Of The Church
Lesson 5: The Church In The Empire – AD 313 - 590

Speaker: John Phillis
Date: July 21^st, 28^th, 2004, Wednesday Evening Adult Bible Class

[Note: Please read Lesson 6, “Clarification of these Studies,” to gain a better understanding of the process of the “slippery slope” to apostasy and what we are trying to accomplish in these Lessons. Here are some excerpts from Lesson 6A:

One of the things that we have noticed in these Lessons is that the history—what we have in the way of history—is largely what is contained in this “Path to Apostasy” [see “Path to Apostasy” in Lesson 6A]. From the end of the apostolic age, the light of revelation went out at the end of the 1^st Century. We really have very little in the way of the HISTORY of the LORD’S church. We’ve discussed this. I know that most of you, like me, believe that the Lord’s church—from its establishment in AD 33 until this very day—has always been. But we have very little in the way of the history of it. Why? Well, we don’t know exactly, but none of the least of reasons would be, perhaps, because of the persecution that they underwent—first, persecution by the Jews; then persecution by the Romans. The Lord’s true church went underground in many places. They met in secret. They didn’t advertise their meetings. They didn’t have a building with a sign out front, you know, which would have been an open invitation, you see, to “Come get us here!”

And so, we don’t know a lot about what the Lord’s church was doing through this period. Now, were some of them, perhaps, on this path to apostasy? No doubt. Were some of them on the path of the Lord’s true church? No doubt. And so, when we talk about “Christians” being persecuted in the 2^nd Century, the 3^rd Century, the 4^th Century, and so on, who are we TALKING about? Well, again, the record is not clear, but beside the multitude on the path to apostasy, surely we are also talking about brethren—those who were doing everything that they could to remain faithful, to genuinely follow the New Testament precepts for the government of the church, the organization of the church, the worship of the church, practicing baptism for the remission of sins—ALL of those things.

Please keep these things in mind as you read these Lessons.]

We’re going to be look at the history of the church in the Roman Empire, a period beginning early in the 4^th Century, about AD 313, up until 590—toward the end of the 6^th Century. As we look at this particular period of time, we might wonder and say, “Well, why these time frames?” AD 313 was the time when the persecution of the church ended because of Constantine and the Edict of Milan. We’ve discussed that first period of time, from the end of the 1^st Century—from the end of the apostolic age—up to that time when the church was under severe persecution to the end of that. Now, we pick up at that same period of time at AD 313 and will go through AD 590. And we see that AD 590 is going to be—in terms of a period of history—about the start of the period referred to as “the Dark Ages.” So that’s why these time frames are divided the way they are.

The rise of Constantine to power as the Roman Emperor brought drastic change to the status of the church. As we saw, the church was a persecuted minority, and because of Constantine and the Edict of Milan that he made, the church became a tolerated sect, then a favored religion and finally, long before the end of this period of time, it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. During this period, the organizational structure of the church began to assume a definite form, some of the great doctrinal issues that have ever since troubled the church were raised, and the seeds that later divided the “church” into East and West were sown.

Regarding the church becoming to a favored state, once again, Constantine is the one looked to through history. He did not make the church, at that time, the sole religion of the Empire, but his policy was, rather, a policy of toleration. But as the years passed, Christianity came to be seen in more and more of a favorable light, and the church was granted more and more privileges. Constantine died in 337 AD, and he would have his three sons come to the throne in those succeeding years. They would continue this practice that was begun under their father. As a matter of fact, they would expand what he had begun by granting Christianity additional rights. At the same time that Christianity was being granted additional rights by the state, some of the pagan religions of the day were facing restrictions.

Well, with the encouragement and this favored status that the state gave to Christianity, there were thousands and thousands who turned to Christianity. Unfortunately, not all who embraced Christianity did so for the right reasons. Some, it would seem, would embrace Christianity, not out of a true faith in Christ, not out of a true desire to be obedient to His Will, but rather, because it was something that was expedient for them to do, because, after all, it was something that the state favored. If one wanted to be in good favor with the Roman Empire, then this would be the religion that you would want to be a part of. And so, it did have a certain amount of prestige. It gave one opportunity for political advancement. In fact, there were even some economic favors that were received if they claimed to be a Christian in these days. My! What a contrast between what had gone on with those early Christians with the persecution that they suffered, even to the point where they could not work, could not make a living, and then progressing to the point where people found it attractive to be a “Christian” so that they might gain more wealth.

This “rosy” period in the Roman Empire was brief. In 361 AD, a nephew of Constantine came to the throne. His name was Julian, and he’s often referred to as Julian the Apostate. Well, why so? It was because he began to, not in any way begin a persecution of the church, of Christians, but he began to take away some of the rights and privileges that Christianity had come to enjoy in the previous 50 years or so, and he began to elevate some of the pagan religions that had been in existence. This didn’t last very long at all; in fact, it was only a period of about two years, and Julian the Apostate would be killed in battle. Following his death the church would quickly regain its lost privileges, and even add new ones.

Emperor Theodosius I issued an edict in AD 380 that made “Christianity” the exclusive state religion of the Roman Empire. And beyond that he even threatened punishment to any who followed any other religion. By AD 395 “Christianity” had become recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and its promulgation was carried out in the name of “patriotism.” In other words, it was connected so closely with the state that it was believed to be a very patriotic thing to support “the church,” to be part of “the church,” to grant these favors to “the church.” And in that period of time began the practice of, really in many ways, persecution those who practiced paganism in a similar way as Christians had been persecuted years before. Pagan temples were often seized. They were converted into Christian churches. Devotees of pagan religions were occasionally the victims of angry mobs, and those mobs were often times led by members of the Christian “clergy.” It’s really most distressing that those who had been so badly, so severely, so unmercifully persecuted even to the point of death would now, in such a short period of time, revert from being the persecuted to being the persecutors. Well, this is a force that is going to grow, as we will see as we continue our study, and we see activities that will be endorsed, that will be conducted, under the name of “Christianity.”

We see during this period that there is a further development in the hierarchy of the church. Of course, this development really represents a further drifting away, a further apostasy from the apostolic church and the organization of the church.

In our studies, we have already seen how the office of the “bishop” became distinguished from that of the “elder.” You recall that this became a practice apparently about the middle part of the 2^nd Century, where there would be a multiplicity of elders in a congregation, but one would be elevated above the rest. The others would continue to be referred to as “elders,” but the one who was elevated would be recognized as, and called, a “bishop.” He would be distinguished from his fellow elders. Then those “bishops” began to meet together to discuss issues and problems that faced the church, and these gatherings and meetings would be called “Synods.” At first, they were certainly not mandatory, but over a period of time they began to be more accepted and recognized; they would be more authoritative.

Well, again, these “bishops” start to develop prominence, start to develop power. It would be primarily the “bishops” who were over the churches in some of the larger cities, cities like Jerusalem, Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome and others. Because they were in large cities, because the churches there were large in size by comparison to some of the congregations in outlying or rural areas, we see that they, then, assert themselves more in the way of power and authority. These “bishops” came to be known as “archbishops,” and the “archbishops,” then, of the very prominent cities during this period of time [as mentioned above] grew more prominent and more influential, they began to be called and identified as “patriarchs.” They would become the “patriarchs” or the “fathers” of the “church.”

The “patriarchs” were theoretically people in authority, each one of them having equal status, equal authority. However, a series of circumstances arose which enabled the “patriarch of Rome” to gain preeminence over them all and would be recognized as the “chief patriarch,” and this for a variety of reasons. One obvious reason that the Roman “chief patriarch” became so prominent and was able to assert himself over the others was because of the prominence of the city of Rome. There was a great deal of prestige associated with the city. Even though Constantine moved the seat of the Roman government to Constantinople, Rome was still looked at by everyone as the center of the Roman Empire. From all over the Empire, people crowded into Rome, and when they returned, then, to their native lands, these persons carried with them the details of the glory of Rome. This was one of the reasons why the “chief patriarch” of Rome would be elevated.

But there were other reasons, as well. The Roman church put great interest in mission work. Missionaries from Rome went into every province, winning converts and establishing churches. It was only natural, I suppose you could say, that these churches who had been established by missionaries who had come from Rome to look to Rome for leadership. This “chief patriarch” of Rome would eventually become the pope—the papacy.

Several of the “bishops” of Rome distinguished themselves during this period of time by showing great courage, as well. The most notable of these ones was Leo the Great. He was “bishop of Rome” from 440 to 461. When Atilla the Hun swept down to Italy and posed a threat to the city of Rome—he was poised to attack Rome in 452—it was Leo, the “bishop of Rome,” who persuaded him to spare the city. And then, three years later when the city was about to be attacked from the north from Vandals in Northern Africa, Leo again spoke in defense of the city.

This, among other things, would work to the benefit of the “bishops,” specifically the “patriarch,” as he would be elevated to this place of prominence, and he would begin, then, to be recognized, not only there in Rome, but throughout the Empire, among churches in various places as the “preeminent one.”

Now, there still remains some controversy as to who was the first pope, because obviously, it was from the “patriarch,” the “father” of the church there in Rome that the office of the pope, the papacy, had its origin. Some say that it was Leo the Great, who was the “bishop,” the “patriarch” of Rome from 440 to 461 AD. Others say, “No, it’s not Leo the Great. Rather, it was Gregory the Great,” who was “bishop,” or “patriarch” of Rome from 590 to 604 AD. Well, I’m sure that wouldn’t probably trouble you that we don’t know exactly who the first pope was. Now, of course, in theory, the Catholics believe that Peter was the first pope. There is, of course, no support for such teaching, neither Biblically or even historically. There are some who claim that Peter did make a journey to Rome, but there is also evidence to the contrary, and so it is not even a fact that Peter ever even went to Rome, let alone to become the first pope! And so, I guess the controversy is really, “Who were the second and the third pope?” Maybe that’s what the controversy is.

July 28, 2004

We will continue looking at The Church in the Empire, but I want to share something with you that I read this past week that struck me. I receive, among many of the other reports and things that come my way, a report from a Brother named Jim Waldron. Jim works with Christians, works with churches in India, and he actually works under the oversight of the Main Street congregation in Crossville, Tennessee. He sends out a monthly report on activities and things that are going on in India, and I always find it quite interesting to read those reports. But there was something that struck me in a particular way when I was reading his report at the end of last week when it came. I just want to share this entire section with you, because I know that you will find it, at once, troubling, but also encouraging. And then, there is something that I hope you will draw a conclusion about, as I did, as well. This section of the report has a title [and Brother Waldron’s report follows]:

[John Phillis says,] Does that [statement, Their major complaint was that the new Christians were refusing to pay the dues that they formerly paid to the temple of their god.] remind you of something that we have talked about in this study so far? You remember that we have talked extensively about the persecution that our brethren in the 1^st Century underwent. They were persecuted for any number of reasons—among them was this very same reason that we read about here. Going all the way back to the 1^st Century, you remember we had talked about how that in the city of Ephesus, because of Paul’s teaching and converting of people from their paganism, their turning to Christ, their becoming obedient to the Gospel, they were no longer purchasing the icons, the images that were manufactured there by silver smiths to the goddess, Diana. And a group of silver smiths led by one named Demetrius caused a riot in Ephesus over that. We can read about that in Acts, chapter 19.

And then, in the later centuries, in the 2^nd and 3^rd Centuries, when persecution was being brought so heavily against Christians by Rome, we saw there that among the reasons given for this very severe persecution being brought against Christians was because they refused to participate any longer in the pagan rituals, visiting the temples and doing the kinds of things that were expected of them, and thus, they were persecuted.

Well, I thought it was quite interesting to read here about what had happened to Brother Samuel just a little over a month ago in India. There’s a brother in Christ who was beaten, who was told by this anti-Christian cult, “Don’t do this anymore.” And one of things that they were upset about was because those who had been converted were no longer paying money to the pagan temples. Some things don’t change, do they?

During this period, there were also a number of very serious doctrinal disputes which came up. The three we will note (there were, of course, many others) will give us, I think, a glimpse into the nature of some of these doctrinal problems that came along, and also give us an idea as to how these were dealt with.

The Dispute over Christ’s Relationship to God the Father

The controversy actually began in Alexandria, and you remember Alexandria was one of the major cities during this time. The dispute centered on two elders of the church—two presbyters—who were there, one named Arius, the other named Athanasius. Arius was troubled because it seemed to him that Christian teaching, and those who were teaching and presenting the doctrinal principles were presenting a doctrine of three distinct Gods, God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He took the position that Christ was different, that He was a different essence from the Father, and He was, thus, inferior. Now, Athanasius, on the other hand, asserted that God the Father and Christ the Son were essentially the same—they were of the same essence, and thus, they were equal.

Now, we might wonder and say, “Well, okay, we’ve got a local controversy. We’ve got a problem here between two brethren, two men who were presbyters, who were elders there in Alexandria. How could this be a major doctrinal problem?” Well, the argument actually spread. It spread from Alexandria and became an issue among theologians, among those who taught Christianity all over the east. And people, then, began to take sides. This became such a controversy, and it became such an issue, that it threatened the unity of the church. Also, Constantine was concerned that it might threaten the status of the Empire. That’s how far-reaching and wide-spread this had become.

Well, Constantine sort of “took the bull by the horns.” He was determined that this would be settled, and thus, his solution was to call a conference and to have the “bishops” and various scholars and theologians come to settle this issue. Do you see a problem here? Obviously, the church was already drifting from its roots. The apostasy was already underway. But here, we have, really, a problem that presents itself in that, the state has really become involved in the affairs of the church. Yes, the state had taken positions before—a position of persecuting Christians at one point, then later a position that they would tolerate and even elevate Christianity. But they were not specifically involved in the affairs, in the doctrine and the teaching and the practice of the church. And the “bishops,” it would seem, were so concerned about settling this grievance, this argument among themselves, that they failed to recognize the implications of allowing the state, the Empire—the Emperor specifically—to intervene and to become involved.

Well, in 325 AD, a council was called at a place called Nisei, a small city in the northwestern part of Asia Minor, where these matters were discussed. And this known historically as The Council of Nicaea. Well, there was a great deal of discussion. There was, actually, a great deal of bitter dissention over this matter, but in the end, the doctrinal position of Athanasius, who held that the Father and the Son are equal, would win out. But the controversy would not go away easily. It would be discussed again in later councils that were held in Constantinople in 381 AD and another that was held in 451 AD.

The Dispute over Christ’s Nature

Then there was a dispute over Christ’s nature. This was considered to be the second great controversy. This had to do with the incarnation of Christ and the relationship of the human to the divine nature of Christ. One position stressed the deity of Christ almost to the exclusion of His humanity. The opposite view emphasized Christ’s humanity so strongly that His deity was seriously compromised. Once again, this would be discussed and would be resolved in a “council,” this The Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. Which one prevailed, you ask? Well, really, neither one of them would prevail for very long, because it continued to be a controversy, and would be revisited again and again and again.

The Dispute over How Man is Saved

Then there was the dispute over how man is saved. This is considered to be the third major controversy. One named Pelegius, who is described as “an austere British monk,” came to Rome in the year AD 400. He expounded a view that, “salvation is essentially a matter of making right choices.” He repudiated the doctrine of “Original Sin,” and he held, in effect, that just as Adam and Eve were free to make a choice, so man is free to make a choice. Well, that doesn’t sound like it would be very controversial, except to this end, that man really saved himself, that you either made the right choice, or the wrong choice. And there was nothing in between, and there was nothing to ameliorate [to make or become better; to improve] your condition if you made the wrong choice—if you made a bad choice.

This view was opposed by one named Augustine, and, of course, Augustine is well-known in church history. He was the “bishop” of Hippo, which was in Northern Africa.

Actually, this controversy about how man is saved would continue, as well, because the opposition that Augustine brought was not really a Scriptural opposition. He would, rather, put forth a position that, indeed, God’s grace is necessary for salvation; that man really cannot do anything for himself; that man’s nature was such that he could not make right choices, and thus, man was completely dependent upon God. Well, say, that sounds like a pretty good doctrine. HOWEVER, he took it to the extreme—to the extreme that said that, one is pre-determined as to whether or not God will save him or her, and of course, this would eventually lead to the doctrine of “predestination,” a doctrine that would prevail and be picked up in later years, particularly during the period of the Reformation, especially by one named John Calvin.

So, again, here was this controversy. Again, it was one that would rage on and on, and people would take sides over it. And the “official positions” that were taken by these ones who were “leaders,” who were considered to be scholars, those whose positions people respected, were in both-wise wrong.

We see, then, that during this period of church history, there were these major controversies. There were others, as well. We see that they led to these “councils” that would come together with these ones who had been elevated, who had elevated themselves, and were recognized, then, as “church leaders,” to debate, to discuss, and the resolution of these matters, for the most part, would not be made based upon apostolic doctrine. They would be made based upon man’s reasoning, man’s opinion, even, to some extent, in sort of “diplomatic” and “democratic” kinds of ways. And so, we see there the beginnings of various and sundry types of meetings, of gatherings, of so-called “church leaders” to deal with controversies and issues, and so on, and often times they decided those apart from the Scriptures.

We want to mention, also, some of the missionary activities. And this was a period of time when there was a great deal of mission activity. The reason that is important, of course, is because the church and Christianity, as it had developed to that particular point, was indeed widespread throughout the Roman Empire. While it had never become the universal, the single religion of the Empire, it was recognized, as we mentioned a moment ago, at the end of the 4^th Century as the “official religion” of the Empire. And so, it was well entrenched in those areas that were controlled by Rome.

However, we see evidence of those who would go outside of the Empire, and who would spread the tenets of Christianity in other places, places where paganism was practiced. For example, Christianity would reach to the north into the Gothic region. It would also reach all the way up into a Germanic tribe, a people who were called the Franks—what we know now as Germany. It would also, during this period of time, have developed a fairly strong foothold in Britain and in Ireland, the Emerald Isle—and the one who was the missionary who was credited with taking the tenets of Christianity to Ireland is one named Patrick. He would later become known as Saint Patrick.

Other missionaries carried the tenets of Christianity to places like Armenia, to Mesopotamia, even into Central Asia. There’s evidence of Christianity being taken into places like Arabia, perhaps even into India, and even into Ethiopia. And this was during the 4^th and the 5^th Centuries.

And so, the point that is made here regarding this period of time and these activities is that, in less than 600 years (and we’re coming up here in this period of time that we’re looking at to near the end of the 6^th Century), Christianity, or a FORM of Christianity, had swept across the Roman Empire, had spilled even well beyond the borders of the Empire. And this had been accomplished in the face of persecution, with all kinds of barriers—barriers such as distances, of languages, of customs, the barriers of pagan religions, and so on. And so it is indeed a quite remarkable feat and a quite remarkable story.

A few of the more prominent individuals, who are recognized in church history, referred to as “church fathers,” are Augustine (354 – 430 AD), for example; Jerome (340 – 420 AD). There are others during this period of time, as well, whose historical writing about the church and those activities, as well as secular history, are relied upon, even to this day, for information—ones like Eusebius (260 – 340 AD), Ambrose (340 – 397), and Benedict of Nursia (480 – 554).

As has been pointed out, this period (313 – 590 AD) is a crucial one in the study of church history. During this period, the ecclesiastical structure of the church took definite shape and what came to be the orthodox theology was hammered out in the fires of controversy. By the time this period ended, the lengthening shadows of the future were already casting their ominous pall across the Roman Empire. The barbarians from the north had breeched the defenses of the Roman Empire in the West, and soon they would sweep the culture of Rome before them. The eastern portion of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, successfully warded off the barbarians and maintained a high level of culture throughout the Middle Ages. But the subordination of the church to the Emperor led to a sterility that was almost as disastrous to simple New Testament Christianity as was barbarianism in the West.