the Christians themselves, for some reason, had followed such a caprice and had fallen into such a folly that they would not obey the institutes of antiquity
I find this language really surprising: "caprice"? "folly"? When I consider the huge impact of Constantine's tolerance and ultimate baptism into Christianity, this language seems to be such a denial of the weight of the historic persectution of Christians...!
whereby, moreover, through our clemency, public order may be secured.
This leads me to wonder at the true nature of the religious tolerance expressed by this edict...perhaps religious tolerance cannot be separated out from political motives for public order.
we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases
This strikes me as perhaps the first expression of "religious tolerance", as a state edict! I wonder why, as history seems to prove again and again, this tolerance is unsustainable?
The history of early Christianity covers the period from the origins of Christianity to the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
Okay, so as a test, I thought it was worth noting here how definitive this statement is about the time period considered "early Christianity", when Gonzalez makes clear that "such divisions are always somewhat artificial, and ...it is possible to divide the same history in different ways" (Gonzalez, 1996, p. 11).
A popular doctrine of the 4th century was Arianism, the denial of the divinity of Christ, as propounded by Arius
I'm appreciating how Gonzalez offers relative scale in his historical accounting, such as "no controversy was as far-reaching as Arianism", and that the First Council of Nicea was called in response to this controversy (Gonzales, 1996, p. 38). Wikepedia's entries leave me feeling like I've been delivered a bunch of dots that aren't connected.