1

Outline: , Sulpicius, and the Christian

Richard Goodrich

I. Introduction A. Argument: 1. In Sulpicius Severus' Chronicon, the Gallic author challenged and rejected Eusebius' model of a Christian Roman Empire. This was driven by complex motivations: Gallic antipathy toward the Roman state, apocalyptic thought, and a desire to promote Martin.

B. Premises (To demonstrate my argument, I will show): 1. That Eusebius proposed an innovative model for a Christian Roman Empire 2. Sulpicius was familiar with Eusebius' works/model 3. Sulpicius rejected this model and offered his own alternative 4. Sulpicius' model was driven by: a. A provincial distrust of imperial authority b. His apocalyptic thought c. A desire to promote Martin

C. Significance: A study of Sulpicius' project will contribute to our understanding of: 1. How provincial elites viewed the weakening Roman empire 2. How Christian Roman authors used texts and traditional rhetoric to promote themselves and their subjects 3. The ongoing debate among Christian thinkers about the proper relationship between church and state

II. Background: Eusebius' Christian Roman Empire (Prem. 1) A. Eusebian Excess 1. Three centuries of animosity toward Christians comes to an end 2. Eusebius wants to ensure 's place going forward 3. Promotes a model of a Christian Roman Empire based on the career of Constantine a. Most prominently in his works: Hist Ecc, Vita Const, and Laus Const 4. This model became normative over the next century a. Foundational for the entire Byzantine Empire

B. Unpacking the Model (Key Secondary Sources for this Section = Cameron & Hall (1999); Barnes (1981), Drake (1995, 2000); Dvornik (1966)) 1. The Emperor's Relationship to God a. A Christian actualization of Hellenistic King Theory/Extension of Roman Religion Model (1) One in which church and state are linked in the person of the emperor (2) The emperor is God's representative, the point man between heaven and earth 2

b. He was favored by God (1) Eus VC 1.6: God grants Const long life and prosperous rule because of C's devotion and piety c. And appointed by God (1) Eus VC 1.24: Constantine becomes emperor through God's will (2) Eus VC 2.28: Const declares himself to be God's chosen instrument to remove impiety from entire world and bring all to a proper observance of God's law d. He has a special relationship with God (1) Eus VC 1.47: God warns C of plots against him allowing him to nip them in the bud; gives C miraculous foreknowledge of events. (2) Eus VC 4.14-16: C's personal piety; C has coins minted with himself looking upward in gesture of prayer (15.1), and also in statues (15.2) (3) Eus VC 4.17: C's study (4) Eus VC 4.48: C is blessed because in this life he rules the Empire and in the next he will rule alongside Christ; C rebukes the bishop who makes this claim and says that he should pray that the emperor will be found worthy to be Christ's slave in the next life. e. He acts to bring about God's Will (1) Eus VC 1.40: God, through Constantine, restores Rome to ancient splendor and liberty (2) Eus VC 2.28: C credits God for his military success (3) Eus VC 2.55: C claims to be acting on God's behalf to restore the Empire (4) Eus VC 2.28: C declares himself to be the instrument chosen by God to remove impiety from entire world and bring all to proper observance of God's law 2. The Emperor's Relationship to the Church a. He is set above the Church (1) Eus VC 1.46: On behalf of God C maintains an unwearied oversight over the church (2) Eus VC 4.8-14: C rejoices when he hears that Christianity is flourishing in Persia, and "as one who had general responsibility for them everywhere, there too he again took prudent measures on behalf of them all." So C is the leader of the church even outside the Roman borders. In a letter written to the Persian emperor, C offers some fascinating ideas about his own humility and submission to the divine (10); again the centrality of the idea of peace being the fruit of an empire/people in right relationship with God (12); this theme especially clear in 14.1. (3) Eus VC 4.24: at dinner with bishops he notes that he is the bishop to those outside the church; he exercises a bishop's supervision over all of his subjects, pressing them to lead godly lives b. He judges the Church (1) Donatism (a) Eus VC 1.45.1: ecclesiastical troublemakers who do not respond to reason are tolerated and placed in the hands of God; C does not take action against them. 3

(b) Eus VC 1.45.2-3: Donatist controversy: did not punish those who committed crimes in the controversy, claiming they were driven by demons and not responsible for their actions. (c) Eus VC 2.66: brief mention of the African controversy (Donatist Controversy) cf Barnes NE chapt 15 (2) (a) Eus VC. 1.44: convenes synods to resolve disputes and participates/oversees them/joins in the deliberations (b) Eus VC 2.61-65: Arian error begins corrupting laity, works among bishops, and ultimately requires Constantine to correct it (c) Eus VC 3.6: C convenes Council of Nicaea to sort these matters out (d) Eus VC 4.41: Council of Tyre; Interesting that in all of these theological disputes, it is Satan/Envy that are acting to disrupt the peace of the church/empire. C brings peace, Satan brings discord; 42.3 Dionysius, a man of consular rank sent to oversee the council; 42.4 any bishop ordered to attend who does not will be driven into exile (e) Eus VC 4.43-48: bishops at Tyre are then sent to (3) Other theological controversies (a) Eus VC 3.59-63: Continues to intervene to settle church dispute over Eustathius: the church in wanted to secure the services of Eusebius (b) Eus VC 3.63-66: C moves against the heretics; 65: forbids their meetings, confiscates their buildings; exhorts them to return to the Catholic faith (This all seems a bit inimical to presentation as a peace-maker) 66: this sparks a mass return of heretics and schismatics to the true faith c. Constantine's judgments intended to bring peace to the church (1) Eus VC 2.64-72: C's letter to Arius and Alexander; this letter characterized by request that Arius and Alexander agree to disagree, that they act like philosophers (71.2); that they not sacrifice peace for inconsequential/trivial quibbles (68.2; 68.3; 69.1; 71.1); best policy is don't ask, don't tell (69.2; 71.7); these matters lay beyond mind's comprehension (69.3); theological disagreement should not produce division (71.5); C refuses to meet with warring factions (72.2) (2) Eus VC 2.71.1: Greatest folly is to argue over inconsequential things; veiled threat that laity should not be under bishops who cannot coexist peacefully (3) Eus VC 3.13: dissension of bishops (1); overridden by the calm and patient interventions of C (2); C as unifier and peacemaker : important point seems to be that C is the center of the church, he pulls it together and brings peace among warring factions; SS seems to rebuff this interpretation with a model which sees emperors as dangerous injection of power on one side of a controversy or another that destabilizes affairs. (4) Eus VC 3.24.1: C composes many letters to instruct the bishops 4

d. He is a Patron of the Church and the bishops (1) Church: (a) Eus VC 1.42: funds the construction of many new churches (b) Eus VC 3.47-53 : Other church building projects: Constantinople; Nicomedia; Antioch; Mamre; chastises Palestinian bishops for idols at Mamre (c) Eus VC 4.58-60 : builds shrine to Apostles (2) Bishops (a) Eus VC 1.32.1: Summons bishops to court for first time to explain his vision; 32.3 bishops become his advisors (b) Eus VC 1.42: C showers gift upon the bishops, makes them dine with him, makes them his traveling companions (c) Eus VC 1.52: C receives bishops at court, Licinius expels them --- importance here is the Eusebius' model has emperor surrounded by bishops while ungodly ruler disdains their company (d) Eus VC 2.4.1: Priests in C's vanguard to support him with their prayers (e) Eus VC 3.14: C brings about a truce, claims that he had won a second victory over Satan by healing the breach; holds victory feast with bishops; VC 3.15.2 : not one bishop missing from imperial banquet; some reclined on couches around him, relaxing with him (f) Eus VC 3.16: C gives gifts to all bishops present, based upon their ranks 3. The Christian Roman State [See Fowden (1993)] a. The State is Being Christianized (1) Eus VC 2.44: C appointed new governors for the East who were mostly Christian (2) Eus VC 2.46: Satan driven out of Government by God and Constantine b. The Power of the State Expands Christianity (1) Eus VC 2.19: Christianity extended through C's victories in the East (2) Eus VC 4.37-39: cities are converted: Constantia c. Consequently Both Church and State will Flourish and Prosper

C. Did Sulpicius know Eusebius' Works? (Prem. 2) 1. Eusebius as first church historian 2. Sulpicius draws on his work extensively in composing his own history (Chronica) a. direct references to Eusebius, Chronica in SS Chron 2 b. SS Chron 2.27.1 and Eus HE 1.6 both state Herod was first foreign king of Judea; both claim his rule was necessary to fulfill Jewish prophecy; both claim it was necessary that a non-Jewish ruler be in power to usher in advent of Christ. c. SS. Chron. 2.29 and Eus HE 2.25 have exact same phrase: Paul was beheaded in Rome, Peter suffered crucifixion there. d. Schematization of the nine persecutions of Christians (SS 2 Chron. 28-33) appears to have been drawn from Eus HE e. Parallels between Eus VC 1.10 and SS Mart 1.1 when discussing motivations for commemorating their subjects 5

3. Did Sulpicius Counter Any of Eusebius' well-publicized positions? a. Yes, example of Licinius not being a true persecutor (SS Chron 2.3.1, Eus HE 10.8.11-19; Eus VC 1.49-56) 4. Conclusion: Sulpicius knew Eusebius' Works a. His own historical works drew heavily upon Eusebius, and thus his different conclusions about Church/State relationship are not accidental

D. Earlier Opposition to this Model 1. Was opposition to the Eusebian model innovative? After all, several earlier bishops had opposed emperors [See Flower (2013); McLynn (1994); Setton (1944); Tamas (2014)] a. Athanasius b. c. Ambrose 2. At the risk of oversimplifying, these opponents did not attack the Eusebian idea of a Christian Roman Empire a. Rather, they were critical of emperors who took the "wrong" theological positions and used their power to support "heretics" b. So it is not the model that is problematic, but the imperial theology c. All of these bishops attempted to win over the emperors in ways that Sulpicius will criticize

III. Sulpicius' Critique of the Christian Roman State (Prem. 3) A. Historiographical Approach / Methodology 1. Odd Selection of Material a. The majority of Chronicon is concerned with Jewish history (1) Has little to say about secular/Roman history (2) Very little to say about the early Church (a) Passes over 300 Years of Church history, skipping from to Constantine b. The little that is concerned with the Church is focused on the experience of the Arian and controversies in the West c. Overview of chapter arrangement 2. Unconventional Chronological Scheme a. Eschews regnal arrangement b. Comparison with other historians [Mehl (2011)] (1) Eus HE begins with the advent of Christ (2) Eus VC begins with C. (3) Eus Chron begins in the east with the Chaldeans and follows Graeco- Roman stream (4) Ruf HE (5) Closest similarity might be Josephus 6

3. Analysis: What does this unconventional dating/selection of material mean? [See Fowden (1994); Mehl (2011)] a. The history of Jewish/State relations is a useful place to test the viability of a theocracy b. The state is usually corrupt and past encounters with it have not gone well (1) SS Chron 2.18.1: Jason promised greater tribute to King Seleucus if High Priesthood taken from Onias and given to him; this fighting between candidates leads to "moral decay" and the people turn to Greek idols and practices. (2) SS Chron 2.18.2: Menelaus supplants Jason in similar manner, followed by Lysimachus when Menelaus fails to deliver tribute : this struggle leads to civil war and the subsequent moral decay of Israel; this leads many to set aside Judaism and adopt pagan worship (3) SS Chron 2.26: Romans (Pompey) successfully conquer Israel because of fight between religious leaders c. Even Christian Emperors and Magistrates can be Corrupt (1) SS. Chron 2.49.1: Priscillianists win support of Spanish proconsul, and thus obtain judgments (death penalty) against their opponents; Prefect of Gaul appeals to emperor, but emperor has been bribed by Priscillianists and refuses to offer support. d. Historically State is an Opponent of Judeo-Christianity (1) Examples from Jewish History (2) History of the Persecutions

B. Rewriting Constantine 1. A Christian Roman Emperor? a. Eusebius' model is centered on the person of Constantine as the perfect example of a Christian Roman emperor. Sulpicius seems less-convinced. 2. Damnatio memoriae: Sulpicius Writes Very Little About Constantine; Magnifies Importance of his Mother, Helena a. SS Chron 2.33: most striking is SS's presentation of C.: in this chapter we have a sparse reference to C. "For then Constantine, who was the first Christian among all the Roman emperors, became master of the state." b. SS Chron 2.33-34: This is followed by a chapter and a half about Constantine's mother, Helena (1) Credited with the spread of the faith (2.33) (2) She is the Empress who shared power with her son (2.33) (3) She crushed the idols and built churches in Jerusalem (2.33); contra Eus who puts the building in C's hands (VC 3.25-41). (4) She discovers Holy foot prints (2.33.3); Cf VC 3.42 (5) She discovers the One True Cross (2.34) (6) SS emphasizes that "These deeds were accomplished through Helena" (SS Chron 2.35.1) 7

3. Constantine and the Arians a. Eusebius presents Constantine in a positive constructive light (Eus VC 3.10-14) b. SS seems to identify Constantine as the problem (1) The only positive thing SS writes about C. comes in this chapter, with the assertion that "the world had received, from the Christian emperor, liberty and an example of faith." (SS Chron 2.35.1) (2) Followed by: "This peace produced a far greater danger for the church" (ss Chron 2.35.1) (3) The Emperor was corrupted (4) The emperor was misled ("the emperor thought that he was carrying out the duty of religion" SS Chron 2.35.1) (5) The emperor "employed the power of persecution. Bishops were driven into exile, brutality was employed against the priests, and punishment inflicted on the laypeople who had separated themselves from communion with the Arians." 4. Corrupt Constantine a. Sulpicius leaves the reader with the image of a corrupt emperor b. He is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Church/State fusion c. And illustrates the dangers of a relationship with the State

C. Subsequent Emperors have been a catalyst for ecclesiastical disputes 1. Heretical Bishops Manipulate Emperors a. Emperors lack theological training and so unable to discern truth from heresy b. The precedent of 2.35.1 is repeated (1) SS. Chron 2.35.3: argument gives way to treachery and suborning of legal process (2) SS. Chron 2.38.1: Arians rely upon power of Emperor to gain theological supremacy; the emperor subservient to will of the bishops who occupy his palace, esp 2. Emperors are Corrupt and Corruptible a. SS Chron 2.48: Ultimately, after appeals to powerful bishops Damasus and Ambrose have failed, Priscillianists bribe high-ranking official to overturn imperial edict (Gratian now dead) and order they be reinstated in their churches. With imperial backing, they easily resumed control of the Spanish churches, over the wishes of the rest of the western bishops. Illustrates the danger of corrupted secular power wading into ecclesiastical affairs. b. See also the examples of bribery in the first book of Chronicon 3. The Requirements of the State Are Often Inimical to Christianity / Emperors and Secular Officials May Have Little Interest in Christian Principles/Values a. SS Dial. 2.5.3 -- Emperor Valentinian will not receive Martin's humanitarian embassy until forced by God 8

4. Power of the Emperor/State is Dangerous for the Church a. The Emperor Can Use His Power to Persecute Christians Who are Not in Favor [see Stevenson (2014)] (1) SS Chron 2.35: This begins with Constantine (2) SS. Chron 2.38.1: Arians rely upon power of Emperor to gain theological supremacy; (3) SS Chron. 2.36.2: Athanasius and other bishops sent into exile (4) SS. Dial. 1.7.1: Origenist monks sent into exile [see Goodrich (2013)] (5) SS Chron 2. 47.2: When Priscillianists take root in Spain, the orthodox bishops, through "poor judgment" appeal to secular judges to try these men, depending on secular force to punish what is an internal church matter. (6) SS Chron 2.50.2-3: Executes Priscillianist Heretics b. The Emperor's Power Inflames/Catalyzes Religious Disputes (1) Example of Constantine mentioned above (SS Chron. 2.35) (2) SS Dial 1.7.1: Bishops call upon Prefect of Alexandria to issue edicts against their adversaries in dispute over Origenism ; Monks are attacked and driven out of the city by soldiers (3) SS Dial. 1.7.2: As with Priscillianist controversy, Origenist controversy would never have engulfed the Empire if bishops had not turned it into a major event by turning to the secular arm to enforce their decisions create sympathy for heretics by making martyrs (4) SS Chron 2.51.2 -- Execution of Priscillian leads people to think of him as a martyr and support for movement grows in Spain; heretical bishops should simply be removed from their sees -- any further punishment is detrimental to the church 5. The Temptations of Power and Influence Leads Bishops Astray a. SS Chron 2.50.1: SS condemns bishops on both sides, heretics and those who are after them, for being more interested in putting on a show before the emperor than solving the problem. Martin, the only hero in the story, attempts to dissuade the emperor from doing anything rash (like executing the heretics) but the emperor is goaded on by the other bishops b. SS VM 20.1: Bishops "fawn over the Emperor" (1) They "subordinate priestly dignity for royal patronage" (2) Only Martin retains "apostolic authority" by keeping himself aloof from the court of Maximus; SS VM 20.2: refuses to have dinner at court, even though often invited

D. Summation: The Christian Roman Empire Model is Dangerous and Should be Rejected

IV. Analysis: Why Did Sulpicius Reject the Eusebian Model? A. Sulpicius uses the Chronicon to make a statement about how the faith is to be ordered 1. Paulinus Nola Ep 28.5: "I have given some thought to your project, which, as you told me, has engaged you in analyzing and comparing the account of past ages in the interests of our faith" 9

B. His Writings Represent a Local Pessimistic Gallic View of the Empire (Prem. 4a) 1. Past Gallic Resistance in Times of Imperial Weakness (Matthews (1971, 1975)) a. The Gallic Empire (260-274) (1) Gaul breaks free of Roman control (2) Largely driven by tumult at center (3) Weak Emperors (4) Imperial neglect of Gaul b. Gallic Usurpers (1) Gaul was also unusually receptive to usurpers (2) Magnus Maximus (3) Constantine III c. We can deduce therefore that some of Sulpicius' ambivalence about the Empire is a product of a larger Gallic distrust of Empire

C. Apocalyptic Event Horizon (Prem 4b) 1. A sense of the impending Apocalypse runs throughout Sulpicius' Works a. This is based on the book of Revelations (1) The great war between God and Satan is imminent (2) When the battle resumes, the Antichrist and will use the State against the Church b. Hilary and Martin as the Two Witnesses (Rev 11)? 2. Emperors as Antichrist and the Second Nero a. SS VM 24.1: Return of the Antichrist and Nero b. SS Dial. 2.14.1: implying sons of Theodosius might be antichrist and new Nero c. SS VM 18.1: Demons stirring up rumors of approaching tribesmen to terrify Gallic people -- Martin thwarts them d. SS VM 24.1: Return of the AntiChrist and the Apocalypse e. SS Chron 2.34: One persecution remains, the return of Nero and the Antichrist 3. Consequently, Christians would be well-advised not to stake their hopes on the emperor

D. The Ongoing Project to Promote Martin as a Model Bishop (Prem 4c) (And Sulpicius as the authoritative keeper of Martin's legacy) 1. The Overarching Literary Project a. Chronicon comes after the Life of Martin, three extant letters promoting Martin [See Yuzwa (2014)] b. And precedes Dialogues, Sulpicius' summation of his promotion of Martin c. These writings work together to promote Martin 10

2. Martin is a Fourth Century Apostle, an Example for Bishops and the Rest of the Church a. Bishops should eschew the power that comes from an association with the State and follow the Apostolic example of Martin b. Proper Role of Bishop is to Maintain Distance From Political Power (1) VM 20.2: Martin will not share meal with Emperor Maximus because he had supplanted two other emperors (killing one) interestingly enough, Maximus justifies his conduct as being in line with the will of God, and Martin allows himself to be persuaded to share a meal with him. SS seems to see this as a way for Martin to win imperial support for his petions on behalf of his people; Martin breaks this rule only when the needs of people make it unavoidable; and when this is necessary, "Martin commanded more than he asked" (2) Martin's powers reduced when he compromises with Magnus Maximus c. Proper Relationship is Bishop Above Emperor/Magistrate (1) SS Dial 2.5.6: Martin gives Valentinian a hot seat (2) SS. VM 20.3: Martin does not pass cup of wine to Emperor of high ranking officials dining with him, but to lowly priest, whom he deems superior to all the secular men. This pleased the emperor and his subordinates. Word quickly spreads of his deed, which none of the other, sycophantic bishops, had ever dared. (3) SS. Dial. 2.6.1: Empress of Magnus Maximus acts as servant to feed Martin dinner, and because of her pious desire to do so (i.e. she recognizes her own proper relationship to Martin) must be numbered among great queens of history d. Bishop above Secular Officials (1) SS. Dial. 3.4: Martin opposes Avitianus who is preying on civilians in Gaul; Avitianus forced by God and Martin's prayers to grant Martin's petitions on behalf of his people (2) SS. VM 17.1: Martin refuses to heal Proconsul Taetradius' servant until Taetradius renounces his pagan beliefs e. No one better exemplified this ideal than Martin

V. Conclusion A. Restatement of Argument 1. Sulpicius and Eusebius Offered Radically Different Models of Church/State Relations 2. Brief summation of major differences

B. Significance 1. What has this paper demonstrated?