Some historians call him “the Great,” and other historians consider him a tyrant, even reckoning him one of the most infamous villains of Church history. The Emperor Constantine (c. 272 – 337) was a Christian monarch of major importance and has always been a controversial figure. In the Orthodox Church, he is revered as St. Constantine the Great, Equal-to-the-Apostles. But in the Kingdom Christian movement, St. Constantine “was an unregenerated man of the world” (David Bercot, The Kingdom That Turned the World Upside Down [Amberson, PA: Scroll Publishing Company, 2003], 164).
 |
| Emperor St. Constantine the Great |
Constantine's Conversion at the Battle of Milvian Bridge
An important event in Constantine's conversion is his military victory over Maxentius (r. 306 – 312) at Milvian Bridge in 312. When asked on a podcast about Constantine's vision at the Battle of Milvian Bridge, Mr. Bercot replied “I certainly don't think it was from God. I don't think that was a possibility.” He added, “My own personal feeling is that it was a made-up story” (Phil Baker, “David Bercot on Constantine the Great,” Reclaiming the Faith, Episode 131 [15:00]. June 21, 2022). Contrast this statement to Bercot's 1989 book Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up in which he stated, “Constantine genuinely believed that the Christian God had given him his victory and that this same God would now protect the Roman Empire” (122). It's difficult to reconcile Constantine genuinely believing the Christian God gave him his victory if it was also a made-up story.
Let us consider the historical evidence. According to the Greek historian Eusebius (c. 260/265 – 339), Constantine reflected upon the tragic downfalls of the idolatrous and tyrannical emperors who persecuted the Church, and he made the choice of Christianity. Prior to the battle Constantine had an experience that drastically changed his own life as well as the course of history. He claims to have received a vision of a cross shining in heaven. In the Life of Constantine, a biographical panegyric by Eusebius, Constantine saw in a vision a cross of light above the sun, with an inscription admonishing him to conquer by that. Later that night, Christ appeared to Constantine in his sleep with the same sign of the cross and commanded him to use it in all his wars.
The early Christian author Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325), an advisor to Constantine and tutor to his son Crispus, also described how Constantine was directed in a dream to delineate the heavenly sign on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. The account is also provided with corresponding details in the early church histories of the 5th-century church historians Sozomen and Socrates. Constantine placed this Christian symbol of the Labarum (the Christogram or Chi Rho: XP as described by Eusebius) on his banner and troops’ shields. When Constantine defeated Maxentius, he immediately gave thanks to God as the Author of his victory. To the early historians, what happened to Constantine served as a Christian conversion. In the words of Socrates (c. 380 – after 439), the emperor Constantine, “having thus embraced Christianity, conducted himself as a Christian of his profession” (Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus, 1.3 in NPNF2 2.2).
Some more recent historians, notably the English historian Edward Gibbon (1737 – 1794) and the Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt (1818 – 1897), seriously doubt the historicity of Constantine's conversion. Rather, the emperor, driven by ambition and lust for power, feigned his conversion as a political strategy to control Christianity as a world power. It is worth pointing out that around the time of Constantine's conversion, Christians accounted for approximately 10% of the population of the Roman Empire. Favoring such a tiny minority as the Christian population, Christianity also being so contrary to the Roman world, would have brought Constantine little immediate political advantage if he had ulterior motives for a feigned “conversion.”
 |
| Constantine's labarum, a standard incorporating the wreathed Chi-Rho, from an antique silver medal. |
To Burckhardt, Constantine's conversion miracle has “not even the value of myth” being “told to Eusebius by Constantine long afterwards” (Jacob Burckhardt, The Age of Constantine the Great [New York, NY: Pantheon Books, Inc., 1949], 296). It is true that Eusebius was interviewing an older Constantine, and we have no contemporary eyewitness accounts. Bercot also says, “It makes me wonder why [Eusebius] omitted such a key event in his earlier work on the history of the Church where he talks about the Emperor Constantine. It makes me think it's something that Constantine spun later.” (“David Bercot on Constantine the Great,” [17:00]). However, Lactantius' On the Deaths of the Persecutors was composed in 313/314, very shortly after the actual events. Eusebius stressed that he had heard the story from Constantine himself, who confirmed his statement by an oath. Within the archaeological evidence is early corroboration of the events by the symbol of the Chi Rho appearing on Constantinian artifacts. Also, Constantine made extensive use of the symbol in the later conflict with Licinius (r. 308 – 324).
Pagan Syncretism
Another reason Constantine's conversion is disputed is because he allegedly continued to tolerate and intermingle paganism with his Christian faith. Critics point to the title Constantine maintained as pontifex maximus of Roman paganism, the Sol Invictus (Unconquered Sun) emblem on his coinage, the Triumphal Arch, and his imperial subsidies to the cults of ancient paganism. For example, in the interview of David Bercot on the Reclaiming the Faith podcast, host Phil Baker commented, “Constantine never renounced his ties to … Sol Invictus. He remains the Pontiface Maximus, that title, even after his baptism” (“David Bercot on Constantine the Great,” [15:00]). Later, on the same podcast Bercot stated that Constantine “is a pagan,” and “He's looking at things the same way caesars before him had looked at it” (21:20).
 |
| Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") coinage |
Minted in 313 was coinage of the gold solidus of “Unconquered Constantine” with the pagan god Sol Invictus behind him. However, Sol emphasized Constantine's status as his father's heir since Sol was the god who protected Constantius. Solar monotheism was less offensive to Constantine's Christian subjects than the usual pagan pantheon (Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981], 36-37). At the same time, the increasing ambiguity of images depicted on Constantine's coinage and artwork is actually supportive of his Christian faith. Parting with the Roman custom of seeing the emperor in the company of many pagan gods, the emperor gradually emerged as the main and only figure. After several years, the pagan emblems ceased, and Constantine intentionally depicted only himself alone on coinage and portraits in the posture of prayer.
_-_South_side,_from_Via_triumphalis.jpeg) |
| The Triumphal Arch, in Rome, dedicated to Emperor Constantine |
The Triumphal Arch was built in 315 and dedicated to Constantine's victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The main inscription of the arch has the vague account of the emperor's inspiration of “the divinity” or “the divine,” also displaying sacrifices to pagan gods. However, the monument was commissioned by the Senate and the Roman people, not Constantine himself (Peter J. Aicher, Rome Alive: A Source-Guide to the Ancient City, I [Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Inc., 2004], 185-186). This fact also helps explain why the Christogram or Chi Rho was not depicted on the soldiers' shields, which Mr. Bercot cites as evidence for the account being fictitious. Referring to the plain shields, Bercot stated, “If that had really happened, surely they would've put that there. That would've been such a significant thing that whoever did the art, that would've been one of the key features. And it's not there” ("David Bercot on Constantine the Great" [18:20]). But the Roman Senate may have thought the name of Christ (or Christian symbols on the shields) would provoke public indignation in a predominately pagan society. By way of contrast, Constantine, after his defeat of Maxentius, ordered a statue representing himself, holding a cross, with the inscription in no uncertain language: “By virtue of this salutary sign … I have preserved and liberated your city” (Eusebius, The Life ..., 1.40 in NPNF2 1.493).
Interestingly, early pagan historiography is critical of Constantine for the opposite reason as modern historians. Constantine's nephew and son-in-law, Julian the Apostate (331 – 363), wrote the satire The Caesars (361) which denigrated the Christian emperor, calling him inferior to the great pagan emperors. Following Julian, the 4th-century Greek sophist Eunapius of Sardis began, and the early 6th-century Byzantine pagan historian Zosimus continued, a historiographic tradition that blamed Constantine for the decline of the Roman Empire, long before Gibbon's 20th-century Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. To Eunapius, Constantine was “pulling down the most celebrated temples and building Christian churches” (Eunapius, Lives of the Philosophers, tr. Wilmer Cave Wright [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921], 379). The fact that the emperor was so strongly criticized by the pagan authors shows that he did not put faith into his title or role as pontifex maximus. Nonetheless, Constantine was emperor to all Roman citizens, including the pagan majority, though he is criticized on both sides.
The Edict of Milan & Religious Toleration
Once he became emperor in the West, Constantine started passing laws favorable to the Christian faith, copies of which are documented in Eusebius' The Church History. Too numerous to list, his favors on behalf of Christianity are also described in great detail by Eusebius and Sozomen. Christian clergy were given legal advantages, compensation, and exemption from all public duties in the Roman state. Constantine invited Christian bishops to his own table, and donated from his own private resources for the building and enlarging of churches. In 313, the co-emperors Constantine and Licinius issued the Edict of Milan which declared Christianity to be a legal religion, as well as granting religious tolerance for everyone in the empire. It has traditionally marked the end of the persecution, also granting Christians the immediate restoration of their church buildings which had been confiscated during the Great Persecution under Diocletian (242/245 – 311/312). The edict is generally seen as Constantine's first notable act as a Christian emperor, but later historians have debated whether his motivation derived from genuine faith or political pragmatism.
Regardless of Constantine freeing the church from the tyranny of persecution, he is still villainized by some as a tyrant of history. Constantine's policy of religious toleration is juxtaposed with his imperial dealings toward heterodox Christian groups. Constantine took an immediate interest in Christian controversies, such as that of the Donatists, a Christian sect from Carthage. Stressing the need to heal the schism, Constantine ordered catholic and Donatist representatives to settle the dispute in council at Rome (313), and later at Arles (314), both of which ruled against the Donatists. In 315, Constantine himself judged the case at hearings in Rome and Milan, after which he made his final decision against the Donatists. After several attempts to heal the schism, Constantine finally ordered the Donatist's property to be confiscated and clergy to be exiled. Donatus refused to surrender his church buildings in Carthage, and the local Roman governor sent troops to deal with him and his followers. In 317, a Carthaginian mob killed several Donatists, including clergy. Ironically the emperor who ended the persecution of Christians and legislated religious toleration became intolerant of other Christians, even persecuting them. In his edict against the heretics and schismatics, the offending Christians were deprived of their public and private meeting places.
To Bercot, “The Donatist controversy set the precedent for the Roman emperor to convene church councils and even personally adjudicate church matters” (The Kingdom...., 166). However, there is more to the story than given in “The Donatists” section of Bercot's book. Turning schismatics into martyrs proved unsuccessful, and in 321 Constantine ordered toleration of the Donatists by reversing his policy and recalling exiles. The same year, Constantine wrote to the Christians of Africa that the government had abandoned its coercion against the Donatists. The Emperor exhorted the bishops to patiently endure the wrongs inflicted upon them by the Donatists. “In no way let wrong be returned to wrong” Constantine wrote, “for it is the mark of a fool to snatch at that vengeance which we ought to leave to God, especially since our faith ought to lead us to trust that whatever we may endure from the madness of men of this kind, will avail before God for the grace of martyrdom” (St. Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists [1917], tr. Rev. O. R. Vassall-Phillips, B.A., App. 9).
Sole Emperor of East & West
Licinius, co-author of the Edict of Milan, soon reverted to paganism and persecuted the Christians. In the civil war between the two emperors, Constantine extended mercy toward Licinius, allowing him opportunities to escape, but Licinius' heart was hardened. According to David Bercot,
Constantine had not really wanted a divided Empire. His ambition was to rule the entire Roman Empire. And Constantine feared Licinius might have the same ambition. So, in 324, Constantine invaded the territory governed by Licinius. He justified this to the Church on the grounds that Licinius had begun persecuting Christians again (Real Heretics, 188).
Speculating about Constantine's ambitions to be sole ruler is unnecessary. Licinius was indeed persecuting the Christians. The fifth-century Church historian Socrates noted how Constantine favored the Christians while Licinius, who had previously respected the Christians, changed his opinion and persecuted them:
Now Constantine, the emperor, having thus embraced Christianity, conducted himself as a Christian of his profession, rebuilding the churches, and enriching them with splendid offerings: he also either closed or destroyed the temples of the pagans, and exposed the images which were in them to popular contempt. But his colleague Licinius, holding his pagan tenets, hated Christians; and although from fear of the emperor Constantine he avoided exciting open persecution, yet he managed to plot against them covertly, and at length proceeded to harass them without disguise. This persecution, however, was local, extend- ing only to those districts where Licinius himself was: but as these and other public outrages did not long remain concealed from Constantine, finding out that the latter was indignant at his conduct, Licinius had recourse to an apology. Having thus propitiated him, he entered into a feigned league of friendship, pledging himself by many oaths not to act again tyrannically. But no sooner did he pledge himself than he committed perjury; for he neither changed his tyrannical mood nor ceased persecuting Christians. Indeed, he even prohibited the bishops by law from visiting the unconverted pagans, lest it should be made a pretext for proselyting them to the Christian faith. And the persecution was thus at the same time well known and secret. It was conceded in name but manifest in fact; for those who were exposed to his persecution suffered most severely both in their persons and property (The Ecclesiastical History, 1.3 in NPNF2 2.2).
Constantine, after offering up prayers to God, defeated Licinius at Chysopolis in 324, again attributing his victory to God. Subsequently Constantine became sole ruler of the empire, uniting East and West after the division of the empire under the Tetrarchy. Socrates discussed the war that arose between Constantine and Licinius on account of the Christians: “Constantine thus became possessed of the sole dominion, and was accordingly proclaimed sovereign Autocrat, and again sought to promote the welfare of Christians. This he did in a variety of ways, and Christianity enjoyed unbroken peace by reason of his efforts" (Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History, 4 in NPNF2 2.3-4).
 |
| St. Constantine |
After his victory, Constantine ordered to restore, repair and enlarge the old churches in the East which had been damaged in the persecution under Licinius, and to erect new churches on a larger scale. Constantine enacted more laws favoring Christianity, and encouraged all citizens of the empire, both Christian and pagan, to live together in peace. Nevertheless, Christians were promoted to offices of government, whereas pagan officials were forbade from making idolatrous sacrifices. Constantine also passed legislation altogether against pagan worship, statues, divination, and idolatrous sacrifices. He also condemned gladiatorial combat and crucifixion. Constantine built or rebuilt Christian basilicas in both East and West, his most famous building projects being the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Old St. Peter's Basilica.
In his Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, the early Christian Lactantius provided a theological reflection on the age of martyrdom by relating “who were the persecutors of the Church from the time of its first constitution, and what were the punishments by which the divine Judge, in His severity, took vengeance on them” (1 in ANF 7.301). Concerning the Emperor Constantine's coming to power, Lactantius wrote:
Behold, all the adversaries are destroyed, and tranquillity having been re-established throughout the Roman empire, the late oppressed Church arises again, and the temple of God, overthrown by the hands of the wicked, is built with more glory than before. . . . They who insulted over the Divinity, lie low; they who cast down the holy temple, are fallen with more tremendous ruin; and the tormentors of just men have poured out their guilty souls amidst plagues inflicted by Heaven, and amidst deserved tortures. For God delayed to punish them, that, by great and marvelous examples, He might teach posterity that He alone is God, and that with fit vengeance He executes judgment on the proud, the impious, and the persecutors (Ibid.).
To be continued ...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.