The Emperor's Bane: Ecclesiastical Conflict under Aurelian and Constantine

A considerable amount of broader reading related to my research introduced me to a number of fascinating historical people and stories. I wish there had been more available time and space to deal with each of these at greater length.

I found one of these stories in the Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. It had to do with a Roman emperor named Aurelian (r. A.D. 270-275) and a deposed bishop known to us as Paul of Samosata. Aurelian was only involved in a peripheral sense, but the incident is significant for the history of relations between 'church and state': it is the first time we know that a group of Christian bishops petitioned a Roman emperor to intervene against one of their own.

The story is found in Book VII of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History.[1] According to Eusebius, Paul received the episcopal chair of Antioch upon the death of its previous holder, Demetrian, around the year 258. Some time later, however, Paul was suspected of holding an unacceptably 'low Christology'—which means that some other bishops may have been concerned that he over-emphasised the true humanity of Christ at the expense of His full divinity. The controversy appears to have lasted for some time with no resolution, and Eusebius included a letter of some bishops assembled in a council that describes their efforts to address Paul's 'heresy'.

The emperor Aurelian came to power subsequently in the year 270, and his five-year reign was largely spent fighting to re-unite a number of frontier regions that had broken away from central Roman control during the past decade or so. Some time during these years, the last in an apparent series of church councils took place. Eusebius wrote that at this council Paul of Samosata was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated. The council named Domnus in place of Paul as bishop of Antioch. The deposed bishop was, of course, expected to vacate and surrender any property belonging to the church of Antioch in order that his replacement could assume stewardship.

However, Paul refused to hand over control of that property. Eusebius picked up the story at this point:

'But as Paul refused on any account to give up possession of the church-building, the emperor Aurelian, on being petitioned, gave an extremely just decision regarding the matter, ordering the assignment of the building to those with whom the bishops of the doctrine in Italy and Rome should communicate in writing. Thus, then, was the aforesaid man [Paul] driven with the utmost indignity from the church by the ruler of this world' (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.30.19).[2]

There is no indication in the evidence we have that Constantine later relied specifically on this intervention by Aurelian as a precedent for his own engagements with ecclesiastical conflict. Nevertheless, Constantine was not the first emperor to find himself in the position of having to judge in a dispute among Christians. It is important to understand that the disagreement Aurelian was asked to adjudicate did not concern the theological controversy centred on Paul; nor was it in regard to any questions over identifying the rightful bishop of Antioch. These things had been determined previously by the bishops themselves during their council. Aurelian was asked to settle a dispute concerning property, not religion.

The emperor's decision did not indicate any official position regarding the theological issues that led to Paul's loss of his episcopal chair, nor whether he would ratify that deposition with the weight of imperial authority. However, Aurelian's provision that involved 'communication in writing' with the bishops of Rome and Italy may have had the unintended effect of indicating imperial support for or disapproval of ecclesiastical decisions.[3]

How so?

Written correspondence between the various churches of the Roman Empire was a custom dating back to the first decades of Christianity's existence (e.g., the epistles of the New Testament). Christian communities—scattered throughout the empire and even beyond areas under Roman influence—depended on communication to maintain a common identity through a relative coherence of beliefs and organisation. Bishops used correspondence to seek or offer advice and notify each other of problems such as schism or heresy. They traded letters as a means of recognising one another as 'catholic' or 'orthodox'. Church councils sent letters informing bishops in other areas about the decisions reached, which often involved the condemnation of heretics or schismatics, as well as providing the reasons for such a verdict.

The bishop of Rome did not, at this time, possess the singular authority that popes later claimed. But the church in Rome was looked to for leadership by churches in other places on the basis of its antiquity and status as imperial capital.[4] The cities of Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria were also centres of ecclesiastical influence during this latter part of the third century. As we have seen, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria each had earlier received letters informing them of action taken against the bishop of Antioch. Eusebius did not specifically say that the churches of Alexandria and Rome approved these actions, but the bishop of so influential a city as Antioch could not have lost his position without the tacit endorsement of Rome and Alexandria. These churches, having received the communication from Paul's opponents in Antioch, would have refused to acknowledge any letters sent by the deposed bishop or any of his supporters.

Aurelian's decision, therefore, virtually awarded the disputed property in Antioch to Paul's opponents. It also had the effect, undoubtedly not intended by the sun-worshipping Aurelian who viewed the matter as a simple property dispute, of nevertheless indicating imperial support for Paul's deposition (and, by extension, the theological position taken by his opponents).

Four or five decades later, the emperor Constantine was approached in relation to a growing discord among Christians in the North African provinces.[5] Like Aurelian, Constantine tasked some bishops with judging such a case. The bishop of Rome, Miltiades, presided at a hearing (which took place at Rome) in the year 313. Ten of those who accused Caecilian were heard, along with an equal number who supported him as the rightful bishop of Carthage. Also like Aurelian, Constantine supported the decision ultimately reached.

There were some notable differences between the situations confronting Aurelian and Constantine. The most obvious difference was that Constantine had begun to publicly identify himself as a Christian, the first Roman emperor to do so. A further difference was that Christian bishops seem to have petitioned Aurelian directly for help resolving their property dispute. However, Constantine first learned of the problem among Christians in North Africa when his deputy governor (vicarius) wrote informing him of certain charges brought against Caecilian, who had been serving as the bishop of Carthage.[6]

This is not the place to go into a narrative of the various conflicts between Christians that came to Constantine's attention, or how he dealt with them.[7] It is also not for me as a historian to judge whether or not Christians were 'right' or 'wrong' to approach the emperor or his officials for help in solving their disagreements. Perhaps the apostle Paul's words in I Corinthians 6:1-20 could be invoked in the case of Aurelian, who never claimed to be a Christian; but the advice here would not necessarily apply to one such as Constantine. I also have not taken up here the question of whether or not Paul of Samosata was a 'heretic' at all. These are issues I will leave to the experts in biblical studies as well as systematic theology.

[1] Euseb., Hist. eccl. 7.27.1-30.19.

[2] Translation by J.E.L. Oulton in Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History, Vol. II: Books 6-10 (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), 223-225.

[3] Andrew J. Pottenger, ‘Developing Imperial Doctrines of Power in the Rhetoric of Constantine the Great on Internal Ecclesiastical Conflicts’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester (2018), 188.

[4] W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 401.

[5] On the 'Donatist' schism, see W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952); Maureen A. Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa: The Donatist World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997); Jesse A. Hoover, The Donatist Church in an Apocalyptic Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).

[6] The letter of this official, Anulinus, is attached to one of numerous letters written by Bishop Augustine of Hippo roughly ninety years after the events described. See Aug., Ep. 88.2.

[7] In addition to n3 above, see Andrew J. Pottenger, 'The "Servant of God": Divine Favour and Instrumentality under Constantine, 318-25' in Studies in Church History, Vol. 54: Church and Empire (Stewart J. Brown, Charlotte Methuen, and Andrew Spicer, eds.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 31-45.