Constantine the Great: Eastern Orthodox Saint? - Part 2

The Council of Nicaea

In 325, the Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council, was convoked by Constantine in order to settle the Arian dispute. Constantine had personally written to St. Alexander (d. 326/328) and Arius (256 – 336), admonishing the bishops back into communion.

First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea with the condemned Arius in the bottom of the icon.

Constantine “appeared to be the only one on earth capable of being [God's] minister for this good end,” that is, the healing of the differences within the Church (Eusebius, The Life ..., 3.5). As Eusebius described, Constantine “proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones” (Ibid., 3.10). Not only was great reverence bestowed upon the Christian emperor who ended the persecution, but Constantine also exceedingly honored the Christians who survived the persecution. Fourteen years had passed since the final persecutions under the Emperor Galerius had ended, and many of the bishops who made up the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 bore in their bodies the scars of persecution. Among the writings of St. Maruthas, or Marutha of Martyropolis (d. c. 420), is History of the Council of Nicaea, in which he provides a brief account of the Council. Describing the assembly of the bishops, he says:

[Constantine] kissed the spots which were the marks of Christ in their bodies. Of the 318 fathers, only 11 were free from such marks. . . . But all the others were more or less maimed in their persecutions from heretics. Some had their eyes taken out; some had their ears cut off. Some had their teeth dug out by the roots. Some had the nails of their fingers and toes torn out; some were otherwise mutilated; in a word there was no one without marks of violence; except the above-named persons. But Thomas, Bishop of Marash was an object almost frightful to look upon; he had been mutilated by the removal of his eyes, nose and lips; his teeth had been dug out and both his legs and arms had been cut off. He had been kept in prison 22 years by the Armanites [Armenians] who used to cut off a member of his body or mutilate him in some way every year, to induce him to consent to their blasphemy, but he conquered in this fearful contest to the glory of believers and to the manifestation of the unmercifulness of the heretics. (On the Council of Nicaea, tr. Austin H. Wright [1851])

This doesn't appear to be a group of derelict shepherds who were deceived into embracing a Constantinian shift in the Church. The above account is consistent with Ecclesiastical History by Theodoret of Cyrus (393–457), who also described the bishops present at the Council as an “army of martyrs.”

At this period many individuals were richly endowed with apostolical gifts; and many, like the holy apostle, bore in their bodies the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ. James, bishop of Antioch, a city of Mygdonia, which is called Nisibis by the Syrians and Assyrians, raised the dead and restored them to life, and per- formed many other wonders. . . . Paul, bishop of Neo-Caesarea, a fortress situated on the banks of the Euphrates, had suffered from the frantic rage of Licinius. He had been deprived of the use of both hands by the application of a red-hot iron, by which the nerves which give motion to the muscles had been contracted and rendered dead. Some had had the right eye dug out, others had lost the right arm. Among these was Paphnutius of Egypt. In short, the Council looked like an assembled army of martyrs. (The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, 1.6)

Most importantly, the council reached a settlement regarding the Arian controversy, the emperor “bringing them into similarity of judgment" (Socrates, Ecclesiastical ..., 1.8). Constantine himself favored the word homoousious (consubstantial) in the creed. While Constantine summoned and funded the council, there are misconceptions about his role. The emperor was present as an overseer and presider of the council, bringing the bishops to one mind and judgment concerning the disputed questions, but he did not cast any official vote. Bercot gives too much credit to Constantine: “The bishops soon accepted Constantine's solution and adopted this new creed” (The Kingdom..., 170). The emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties and finally deferred to the decision of the bishops. Constantine ordered Arius into exile, the council having anathematized him. Moreover, any treatise composed by Arius was consigned to the flames, and anyone who concealed the writings of Arius was to be put to death. In a letter to the churches, Constantine explained that his number one care was maintaining the unity of the Church. So great was the emperor's desire for ecclesiastical unity that he also summoned the bishop of the Novatians to agree to the council as a means to heal their long-lasting schism from the Church.

Despite Constantine's hopes for the council, Arianism was not extinguished. In 335, a council in Tyre was convoked by Constantine to address charges against St. Athanasius (296/298 – 373) from Eusebius of Nicomedia (d. 341) and other Arians. Though the charges were false, St. Athanasius was deposed by his opponents, and Constantine, exasperated by the discord of the rival bishops (and deceived), banished St. Athanasius and exiled him to Gaul. Even this misguided decision came from a pure motive for the “establishment of unity in the church," (Socrates, Ecclesiastical ..., 1.35), the Athanasian conflict relentlessly threatening ecclesiastical peace. Desiring peace in the Church and the empire, Constantine made mistakes, but he also “grew more earnest in Christianity and confessed that the confession at Nicaea was attested by God” (Ibid., 138).

Icon of St. Constantine, accompanied by the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325), holding the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.

The Executions of Crispus & Fausta

The most serious attack on Constantine's moral character has often been made by the infamous case of the executions of his family members. Only one year after the Council of Nicaea, Constantine's eldest son Crispus (300 – 326) was arrested and put to death by poison, and his second wife Fausta (289 – 326) was scalded to death in a boiling bath. The executions are difficult to reconcile with Eusebius' image of a saintly Christian emperor who “never desired harsh measures against anyone” and was “the meekest, and gentlest, and most benevolent of men" (The Life..., 1.45, 46). Although Eusebius praised Crispus as “a most beneficial prince” in The Church History (10.9.4), his Life of Constantine contains no mention of Crispus or the executions, probably out of embarrassment and/or deference to Constantine. That Constantine was indefensible has not been proven, due to a lack of documentary evidence. “But the pride of prosperity caused Constantine greatly to depart from his former agreeable mildness of temper,” wrote Eutropius, “he put to death his son, an excellent man; his sister's son, a youth of amiable disposition; soon afterwards his wife, and subsequently many of his friends" (Abridgement of Roman History, 10.6).

According to Zosimus (fl. 490's – 510's), an antagonistic pagan who wrote in order to slander Christianity, the Christian emperor put to death Crispus on suspicion of debauching his mother-in-law Fausta, and Constantine under pretense of comforting his mother Helen over the death of his son had Fausta killed in a hot bath. Zosimus assigned Constantine's Christian conversion to the year 326 after the executions of his family members, “his conscience accusing him" (New History, 2, tr. Green and Chaplin [London, 1814]). Accordingly Constantine's military successes were re-assigned to an earlier “pagan” period and the abandonment of pagan sacrifices the cause of the empire's collapse. This adjustment of the facts, in addition to being further removed from the events, makes Zosimus' history unreliable (aptly called “new”). On the other hand, Sozomen refuted Zosimus' argument as an invention of pagans who wanted to vilify Christianity.

Mr. Bercot also takes issue with there being no Church criticism of Constantine's actions. Bercot, referring to the executions of Licinius, Crispus, and Fausta, writes, “The Church looked the other way, never condemning Constantine–or even criticizing him–for any of these murders” (The Kingdom, 189). Further, Bercot said, “I have not found a word of criticism from anybody. They seem to have adopted a policy of looking the other way. Of course he was not a baptized Christian.... The Church said nothing. They're just silent" (“David Bercot on Constantine the Great” [34:30]). Actually the fact that Constantine was not a baptized Christian could have much to say about the lack of ecclesiastical criticism about him. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “But them that are without God judgeth” (1 Cor. 5:13).

In the eighth century, the Passion of Artemius records an account of Constantine executing Crispus because Fausta accused him of assaulting her by force. Upon learning that Fausta had falsely accused Crispus, then Constantine had Fausta executed. In the twelfth century, the Greek historian Zonaras, having access to fourth century documents, gives a similar account. According to Zonaras, Fausta was in love with Crispus but could not get him to go along with the affair. She then accused Crispus of being in love with her and attempting to do violence to her. Therefore, Crispus was condemned to death by his father, who believed Fausta. But when Constantine recognized the truth, he punished Fausta for her licentiousness and the death of his son. A secret love affair or political plotting against Constantine, whether true or false accusation, may have given Constantine the evidence to execute judgment against them. Also, Roman law had the death penalty on the books as a legal punishment for adultery. If Crispus and Fausta were both guilty of adultery, another possible scenario, then this case would be a scandal only if one assumes the death penalty for adultery is scandalous.

Constantinople, the New Rome

Deservedly called the first Byzantine emperor, Constantine followed in the footsteps of his pagan predecessor Diocletian’s movement eastward, and set up his new capital in Byzantium. “New Rome” represented a break with Rome's pagan past and embrace of Christianity. The new Christian imperial city was dedicated in 330 and renamed Constantinople, meaning “City of Constantine.” Afterwards, Constantine became “increasingly attentive” to the interests of Christianity (Socrates, Ecclesiastical ..., 1.18). Even Mr. Bercot acknowledges that “Constantine genuinely desired to promote Christianity throughout the empire,” and, “he sincerely believed that if he blessed the church, God would bless the Empire” (The Kingdom..., 164, 165).

To Kingdom Christians like Bercot, Constantine's role as emperor and the New Rome are scrutinized under the doctrine of the “Two Kingdoms.” The “Two Kingdoms” doctrine is a Protestant belief held by Lutherans, some Calvinists, and Anabaptists. In Anabaptist and Kingdom Christianity, the doctrine teaches that there exist two kingdoms on earth, the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world, that do not share communion with one another. The “Two Kingdoms” doctrine is also related to the philosophical concept of the separation of church and state, defining political distance in the relationship between religious organizations and the state. The concept was promoted by Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke, and the phrase “separation of church and state” is derived from the term “wall of separation between church and state,” coined by Thomas Jefferson. But there was no such separation in antiquity. The early Christians knew of no such "Two Kingdoms" doctrine as promoted in the 16th century Protestant Reformation, or the  “separation of church and state” as defined in the the 17th and 18th century Age of the Enlightenment, both historical developments being unique to the West. Ancient states were also religious institutions. Although Constantine became a Christian, he was still a Roman emperor. Therefore, early Christians like Eusebius and Lactantius, who personally knew the emperor (and who are quoted by Kingdom Christians), do not appear to be disturbed in the slightest by the political and military circumstances in which Constantine's conversion occurred.

Just as many of us today cannot imagine a society and culture such as Rome without the separation of church and state, neither can we envision a civilization in which pagan sacrifice and idolatry was commonplace. But this was Constantine's world. Constantine built churches in honor of martyrs, particularly the Church of the Holy Apostles, where he was buried upon his repose in 337. More overtly than before, Constantine used every means to rebuke the errors of paganism, including the destruction of temples and idolatrous images everywhere. Undoubtedly many pagans viewed Constantine as a tyrant, but his strict measures against paganism also resulted in the conversions of many. Most significantly, he completely abolished pagan sacrifice and idolatry of any kind. Furthermore, legislation was passed for the observance of the Lord's day (Sunday), to honor Church feasts, and martyrs' commemorations. Constantine's City assured the triumph of Christianity over paganism, and made it eventually possible to make Rome a Christian empire.

Constantinople, the New Rome

Constantine's Postponed Baptism

Constantine's late baptism is yet another reason for critics to scrutinize his Christian identity. For instance, when Mr. Bercot was asked, “Why did Constantine wait to get baptized?” he replied, “[Constantine] knew there would be too much blood on his hands to maintain his position as emperor" (“David Bercot on Constantine the Great,” [36:20]) In delaying his baptism, Constantine followed one custom at the time which postponed baptism until old age or death (See Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Post Classical World, eds. G.W. Bowersock, Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar [Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1999], 331). 

Soon after the Feast of Pascha in 337, Constantine became seriously ill. Seeking “purification from sins of his past career,” he became a catechumen and attempted a return to Constantinople, proceeding only as far as the suburbs of Nicomedia (Eusebius, The Life..., 4.61). In his appeal to the bishops, Constantine declared, “[S]hould I be destined henceforth to associate with the people of God, and unite with them in prayer as a member of his Church, I will prescribe to myself from this time such a course of life as befits his service” (Sozomen, The Ecclesiastical History, 4.62). In other words, Constantine understood his association with the Church to be somehow deficient or incomplete until his baptism. The bishop of the city where Constantine lay dying, who also became the emperor's baptizer, was Eusebius of Nicomedia (d. 341), an Arian bishop. 

Following his baptism, Constantine “arrayed himself in shining imperial vestments,” a baptismal garment, “refusing to clothe himself with the purple any more" (Sozomen, The Ecclesiastical History, 4.62). By postponing his baptism, seeking purification from the sins of his past career, and refusing to wear the imperial purple robe, Constantine may have understood Christian piety to be incompatible with his imperial reign. On the one hand, Constantine's deathbed baptism is problematic and further complicates his gradual conversion to Christianity, but, on the other hand, his repentance and baptism are a climactic proof of his sincerity as a Christian, albeit at the end of his life. If his Christian faith could be disputed beforehand, it is all the more genuine as the emperor finally became a full-fledged member of the Church.

Conclusion

This essay has studied the facts in their conflicting complexity surrounding the political career and personality of the first fully-attested Christian emperor. The majority of historians believe that Constantine's Christian conversion before the battle of Milvian Bridge was genuine. This is supported by Constantine's ending persecution by the Edict of Milan, Christianizing legislation, ongoing favor toward the Church, public statements about the Christian God, and his interest in the conciliar resolution of Christian disputes such as the Council of Nicaea. As a soldier-emperor, Constantine's official punishments of heterodox Christians (and St. Athanasius) and the executions of Crispus and Fausta are unfortunate political mistakes, but they are somewhat standard for emperors. He may have delayed his baptism precisely because of the irreconcilability of his political career and his Christian faith. Constantine's baptism, though late and theologically incorrect, was a new birth for the emperor as well as the crowning moment of Constantine's faith. Constantine's syncretism is also predictable, but more important was his progressively increasing devotion to Christianity which ultimately eclipsed his former paganism, reflected by the gradual disappearance of the pagan pantheon from the coinage. Despite Constantine's political mistakes and personal sins, he is the emperor who assisted the early Church in evangelizing the Roman Empire. St. Constantine is an important historical link in the transition from the persecuted underground Church and the official State Church, which are one and the same, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Christ had prophesied that He would build His Church, and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18). For all of Constantine's great achievements on behalf of the Church, and for his own repentance and faith in Christ, he is revered in the Orthodox Church as Saint Constantine the Great, Equal-to-the-Apostles.

Secondary Sources:

Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981).

Barnes, Timothy. Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011).

Drake, H.A. Constantine and the Bishops (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000). 

Jones, Arnold Hugh Martin. Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (London: University of Toronto Press, 1978).

Leithart Peter J. Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010).

Pelikán, Jaroslav. The Excellent Empire: The Fall of Rome and the Triumph of the Church (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1987).

Siecienski, A. Edward, ed. Constantine: Religious Faith and Imperial Policy (New York, NY: Routledge, 2017).