How could the church have been so infected by imperial power to render it so ineffective? This is the question that Roger Mitchell attempts to answer in the remainder of the first two parts of his book. He introduces key characters and periods in which the imperial principle was introduced and consolidated. The first of which is Eusebius of Caesarea.

Father of church history

Eusebius has the distinction of being referred to as ‘the father of church history’ and his most famous of books, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, was the first work of church history since the Book of Acts. Born around 260 C.E. in Palestine, he became the Bishop of Caesarea shortly after 313 and though he began the History in 290 he took a generation to complete it. These dates show that he was a contemporary of and a witness to some of the most momentous happenings of the early church period. His work did not just chronicle historical facts, however. He was also a theologian and an interpreter of events and his interpretation would become the accepted wisdom for centuries to follow.

Contrary to what we would expect, possibly, Eusebius did not portray Constantine as the one who ushered in messianic peace to the world. He was quite clear that this was the work of the church and was the continuation of the work already begun by Israel. However, while only the land of Israel was affected by this peace under Israel’s tenure, under the church’s tenure the whole of the empire was drawn in. Indeed, Eusebius saw the empire’s success – economic, political and military – as the result of the church’s success. A Christian emperor and a Christian empire was a sure sign that God’s work in his church was triumphant.

Plurality rejected

If a united empire and one emperor was the mark of success then the enemy over which this success was gained was polytheism and political plurality. Mitchell notes that to Eusebius this was the cause of all humanity’s problems and had to be defeated. Behind it was a demonic influence which stood against God and his plans for peace and restoration. In this kind of reasoning we can immediately see how Eusebius could then claim that empire and uniformity was a sign of victory and how plurality in either church practice or theology or in national governments was to be avoided at all costs. God’s sovereignty was manifested by uniformity in church and politics.

Eusebius, therefore, tied church and empire closely together. He probably wasn’t the first or the only one to make some of these connections but he was by far the most influential and his influence would last for a long time. In the next post we’ll look at how his view of sovereignty, of the atonement, and how the deliberations of the Council of Nicea managed to strengthen this tie to the extent that it still hasn’t been broken.

This post forms a series on Roger Mitchell’s book Church, Gospel & Empire. See previous post here.


Share