1
Diversity under Galerius and the Body Corporate under Licinius
In 311 and 313 respectively, Galerius and Licinius issued the two pieces of legislation that would define the legal status of Christians in the fourth century. This chapter attends to the details and background of these edicts. It first considers the meaning of Galeriusâs ruling that Christians may operate âon divergent principles,â praying for the empire (res publica) but not participating in customary contractual sacrifice. Attention turns thereafter to Liciniusâs (and Constantineâs) Edict of Milan, and especially its ruling on the restitution of confiscated property, which granted legal recognition to Christian assemblies rather than individualsâa phenomenon explored here in light of the third-century history of Christian corporate bodies. This chapter was first published as âDiversity Versus the Body Corporate,â in St. Markâs Review 225.3 (2013), and is reproduced here with minor revisions.
The first official toleration of a collective choice to live differently, in spite of the law, was granted to âthe Christiansâ by Galerius on April 20, AD 311. On June 13, AD 313, Licinius defined âthe churchesâ as having corporate status in law. These two truly epoch-making rulings lean in opposite directions. The one reluctantly implies an open society (as we might now say). The other grandly exploits it by insulating the churches as bodies corporate apart from the legal status of their individual members. In the twenty-first century we are still distracted between the rival options, both internally amongst church members and externally across the tides of public debate.
Galerius: A Conditional Toleration
For the better part of a decade Galerius had been promoting the public campaign for everyone to sacrifice to the gods. He was himself now the senior Augustus in Diocletianâs tetrarchy. His decision to excuse the Christians from sacrificing was made on his death-bed. The edict is our only surviving official definition of what had been wrong with the Christians.
The term secta (âway of lifeâ) clearly embraces both moral âdisciplineâ and intellectual âframe of mind,â as now abandoned by the voluntas of the Christians. Creed translates this as âself-willâ, rightly capturing the outrage of Galerius. (We might have said âcommitment.â) Eusebius reports that the edict was published âin each city,â and translated it seems by himself, âas well as may beâ (kata to dynaton). He gives for voluntas the Greek pleonexia (âpresumptionâ perhaps), and for secta of course hairesis. Both âsectâ and âheresyâ were to become pejorative in Christian usage, but not yet. In the fourth century one spoke easily of âthe Catholic secta.â
It is intolerable to Galerius that people should presume to make up laws for themselves to observe merely at their own discretion. He had no doubt been briefed on the argument of Origen that even the âcommon lawâ of civilized humankind might be rejected in the name of truth. Yet it was not the philosophical issue that concerned him, but the social one. The Christians were undermining national solidarity before the gods. Creedâs translation of per diversa varios populos, however, leaves Galerius with a fatuous anticlimax, it seems. Eusebius rendered both Latin adjectives with the Greek diaphoros, which should not imply âdifferentâ in the sense of âvariousâ, but rather in the more contrastive sense of âdiffering,â hence âdivergent,â or pejoratively âdivisiveâ or âdeviant.â So âdiversityâ (our contemporary ideal)...