A.D. 381 heretics, pagans, and the dawn of the monotheistic state ( PDFDrive )

reinstated in his bishopric in 327, to administer the sacrament.
In his Life of Constantine, Eusebius of Caesarea openly acknowledges the
independence of the emperor from the Church. He even quotes Constantine as
saying he was the bishop for those outside the Church and portrays him as the
direct representative of God. Constantine thrived in this role, but he clearly
found the bishops more troublesome than he had hoped. ‘You, the bishops, do
nothing but that which encourages discord and hatred and, to speak frankly,
which leads to the destruction of the human race,’ he exploded at one point. 19
This was unfair, as Constantine was trying to mould a Church of his own making
and in doing so he had broken with much of Christian tradition. He bequeathed
lasting tensions to the Church in the form of debates over the correct use of
wealth (how much, for instance, should be diverted into showcase buildings), the
relationship of Christians to war and imperial authority, and the nature of the
Godhead itself. There is no significant evidence that Constantine was prepared to
compromise with what had already been established as Christian teaching, and
he kept himself clear of the institution of the Church itself. It has even been
argued that the founding of Constantinople, an expansion of Byzantium, a city
with no Christian heritage, was a means of distancing himself from those cities
where Christianity was deeply rooted. He had been, after all, the chosen of God,
and blasphemous though it might appear, his mausoleum in Constantinople was
dedicated to the Holy Apostles of whom he considered himself number thirteen!
The context within which the Church operated had been changed for ever. ‘The
master narrative of Christianity would become so deeply implicated in the
narrative of imperial power that Christianity and government would become
inextricably linked.’ 20