(Scripture Reading Exercise.)

CONSTANTINE.

NOTES.

The Revolution of the Fourth Century: Constantine: It will be observed that I have so far confined my quotations concerning the corruptions which arose in the Church to the first three centuries of the Christian era. I have done so purposely; and chiefly that I might show by such quotations that the forces which were to bring about the destruction of the Christian Church were active during those ages; and also because an event took place in the first part of the fourth century that culminated in the triumph of those forces. This event was the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of Rome.

Parentage and Station of Constantine: Constantine the Great was the emperor under whose reign this unlooked for revolution took place. He was the son of Constantine Chlorus, emperor of the West in the preceding reign; which reign he had shared with Galerius Maximianus, who ruled the East. Constantine was an "emperor bora of an emperor, the pious son of a most pious and virtuous father," is the flattering announcement of his parentage on the paternal side, by his contemporary, Eusebius, the church historian; though he neglects to mention the obscure origin and humble vocation (that of inn keeper) of Constantine's mother, Helena, whom her husband repudiated when raised to the dignity of "Caesar" in the reign of Diocletian.

Constantine was proclaimed emperor by the army in Britain on the death of his father at York, 306 A. D.; but civil strife raged through the empire for eighteen years, occasioned by the contending aspirants for the imperial dignity. The future patron of Christianity, however, overcame all his rivals and reigned sole monarch of Rome from 323 A. D. to the time of his death, fourteen years later.

The policy of Constantine's father towards the Christians in his division of the empire (the West) had been one not only of toleration, but also of friendship; and this policy the son followed from the commencement of his career as emperor. The fact of both his own and his father's friendliness toward the Church on the one hand, and the hostility of his rivals against the Church on the other, brought to him the united support of the Christians throughout the empire; and though they were not so numerous as they are frequently represented to be, yet it cannot be denied that the Christians were important factors in determining the course of events in the empire at this time; and truly they were faithful allies to Constantine, and he, on his part, neglected not to meet their anticipations of reward.

A careful study of his life and character will force the conviction upon the mind that Constantine was a most suitable head for the revolution which ended by establishing a pseudo-Christianity as the state religion of the decaying empire. A professed Christian for many years, if we may believe Lactantius and Eusebius, he postponed his baptism, after the fashion of his times, until the very last year of his life, in order that, purified at once from all the stains of sin by means of it, he might be sure of entering into bliss. Such the explanation of those who would defend this delay of the emperor's; but one cannot fail to remember that it was quite customary at this time among many professing the Christian religion to put off baptism as long as they dared that they might enjoy a life of sin, and then through the means of baptism, just before death, as by magic, obtain forgiveness.^[A] On the motives that prompted Constantine's acceptance of Christianity, our historians are not agreed. According to Eusebius, his conversion was brought about through seeing in the heavens a luminous cross at midday, and above it the inscription: "By this Conquer." This miraculous sign was supplemented on the night following by the appearance of Jesus Christ to the emperor in a dream, with the same symbol, the cross, and directed Constantine to make it the ensign of his banners and his protection against the power of the enemy.^[B] According to Theodoret, the emperor was converted through the arguments of his Christian mother.^[C] According to Zosimus, it was through the arguments of an Egyptian Christian bishop—supposed to be Hosius, Bishop of Corduba—who promised him absolution for his crimes, which included a number of murders, if he would but accept Christianity.^[D]

[Footnote A: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. i, p. 252. Decline and Fall., vol. ii, chap. xx.]

[Footnote B: Eusebius' Life of Constantine, bk. i, 27.]

[Footnote C: Hist. Eccles., vol. i, bk. i, ch. 17.]

[Footnote D: Zosimus, bk. ii, p. 104.]

The Conversion of Constantine: It is as difficult to settle upon the time of Constantine's conversion as it is the means and nature of it. Neander inclines to the opinion that he was early influenced in favor of Christianity through the example if not the teachings of his parents, who, if not fully converted to the Christian faith, were at least tolerant of it; and may be reasonably counted among the number who at least admitted Christ to the pantheon of the gods. By an act of his in 308 A. D., after the death of his father, and he himself had been proclaimed emperor of the West, shows that he was at that time still respected the pagan forms of worship; for hearing that the Franks, who had been inclined to rebel against his government, had, on his preparations to make war upon them, laid down their arms, he offered public thanks in a celebrated temple of Apollo, and gave a magnificent offering to the god.^[A]

[Footnote A: Neander's Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 8.]

The story of Constantine's conversion, as related by Eusebius, would fix that event in the year 312 A. D.; and surely if the open vision of the luminous cross and the subsequent appearing of Christ in his dream were realities, Constantine had sufficient grounds for a prompt and unequivocal conversion to the Christian faith. But after that, if we consider the conduct of the emperor, we shall find him, however astonishing it may seem, still attached to pagan ceremonies of worship. As late as 321 A. D., nine years after the visitation of Christ to him, we find him accused of artfully balancing the hopes and fears of both his pagan and Christian subjects by publishing in the same year two edicts; the first of which enjoined the solemn observance of Sunday; and the second directed the consultation of the Haruspices^[A]—the soothsayers of the old pagan religion. Of this circumstance, Neander, who is disposed to palliate the conduct of Constantine as far as possible, after intimating that this lapse might be accounted for on the grounds of state policy, says: "Yet the other hypothesis, viz., that Constantine had actually fallen back into heathen superstitions, may indeed be regarded as the more natural."^[B] Five years after his supposed miraculous conversion "we find marks of the pagan state religion upon the imperial coins."^[C] "A medal was struck," says Dr. John W. Draper, doubtless referring to the same thing, "on which was impressed his (Constantine's) title of 'God,' together with the monogram of Christ." "Another," he continues, "represented him as raised by a hand from the sky while seated in the chariot of the Sun. But more particularly the great porphyry pillar, a column one hundred and twenty feet in height, exhibited the true religious condition of the founder of Constantinople. The statue on its summit mingled together the Sun, the Savior, and the Emperor. Its body was a colossal image of Apollo, whose features were replaced by those of Constantine, and around the head, like rays, were fixed the nails of the cross of Christ, recently discovered in Jerusalem."^[D] While on the day Constantinople was formally made the capital of the empire, he honored the statue of Fortune with gifts. In view of all these acts, ranging as they do over the greater part of the first Christian emperor's life, and through many years after his supposed conversion, I think Gibbon is justified in his remarks upon this part of Constantine's conduct: "It was an arduous task to eradicate the habits and prejudices of his education, to acknowledge the divine power of Christ, and to understand that the truth of his revelation was incompatible with the worship of the gods."^[E]

[Footnote A: Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. iii, ch. xx.]

[Footnote B: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 21.]

[Footnote C: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 21.]

[Footnote D: Intellectual Development of Europe, vol. i, p. 280.]

[Footnote E: Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xx.]

The Character of Constantine. Turing from the consideration of the equivocal conduct of the emperor to his character, we have a subject about which there is less disagreement among authorities; for even Christian apologists are compelled to admit the wickedness of this first Christian emperor. "Relying with presumptuous confidence," says Neander, "on the great things which God had done throug him, for the advancement of the Christian Church, he found it easy to excuse or extenuate to his conscience, many a wrong deed, into which he had suffered himself to be betrayed by ambition, the love of rule, the arbitrary exercise of power, or the jealousy of despotism."^[A]

[Footnote A: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 24.]

"It is indeed true that, Constantine's life was not such as the precepts of Christianity required," Dr. Mosheim remarks, but softens the statement against the emperor by saying that "it is but too notorious that many persons who look upon the Christian religion as indubitably true, and of divine origin, yet do not conform their lives to all its holy precepts."^[A]

[Footnote A: Mosheim's Institutes, vol. i, p. 214.]

Dr. Lardner, after drawing a most favorable outline of Constantine's person and character, and citing the flattery of contemporary panegyrists as a description of the man, says: "Having observed these virtues of Constantine, and other things, which are to his advantage: a just respect to truth obligeth us to take notice of some other things, which seem to cast a reflection upon him."^[A] And then in the most naive manner he adds: "Among these, one of the chief is putting to death so many of his relatives!" He enumerates the victims of the first Christian emperor as follows: "Maximian Herculius, his wife's father; Bassianus, husband of his sister, Anastasia; Crispus, his own son; Fausta, his wife; Licinius, husband of his sister, Constantia; and Licinianus, or Licinius, the younger, his nephew, and son of the forementioned Licinius."^[B] The last named victim was a mere lad when put to death, "not more than a little above eleven years of age, if so much," is Dr. Lardner's own description of him. Fausta was suffocated in a steam bath, though she had been his wife for twenty years and mother of three of his sons. It should be remembered that this is the list of victims admitted by a most learned and pious Christian writer, not a catalogue drawn up by pagan historians, whom we might suspect of malice against one who had deserted the shrines of the ancient gods for the faith of the Christians. But this rather formidable list of murdered victims admitted by Dr. Lardner shakes not his faith in the goodness of the first Christian emperor. Some of these "executions" he palliates, if not justifies, on the ground of political necessity; and others on the ground of domestic perfidy; though he almost stumbles in his efforts at excusing the taking off of Crispus, the emperor's own son; Fausta, his wife, and the lad Licinius. "These are the executions," he says, "which above all others cast a reflection upon the reign of Constantine; though there are also hints of the deaths of some others about the same time, with whom Constantine had till then lived in friendship."^[C] After which the Doctor immediately adds—in the very face of all the facts he adduces, and after reciting the condemnation of both heathen and Christian writers of some of these murders—the following: "I do by no means think that Constantine was a man of a cruel disposition; and therefore I am unwilling to touch upon any other actions of a like nature: as his making some German princes taken captive, fight in the theatre; and sending the head of Maxentius to Africa, after it had been made a part of Constantine's triumphal entry at Rome." When one finds a sober Christian writer of the eighteenth century who can thus speak of Constantine; and further remembers that to this day a priest of the Greek Church seldom mentions the name of the "imperial saint," without adding the title, "Equal to the Apostles;" one is not surprised that while he lived and at his court a Christian bishop could be found who "congratulated him as constituted by God to rule over all, in the present world, and destined to reign with the son of God in the world to come."^[D] Or that Eusebius, who is spoken of as one of the best bishops of the imperial court, "did not scruple for a moment to ascribe to the purest motives of a true servant of God, all those transactions into which the emperor, without evincing the slightest regard to truth or to humanity, had suffered himself to be drawn by an ambition which could not abide a rival, in the struggle with Licinius; when he represents the emperor, in a war which, beyond a doubt, had been undertaken from motives of a purely selfish policy, as marshaling the order of the battle, and giving out the words of command by divine inspiration bestowed in answer to his prayer."^[E]

[Footnote A: Lardner, vol. iv, p. 39.]

[Footnote B: Lardner, vol. iv, p. 39.]

[Footnote C: Lardner, vol. iv, p. 44.]

[Footnote D: Neander Ch. His., vol. ii, p. 25.]

[Footnote E: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 25.]

Concluding Reflections Upon Constantine: Enough of this. Let us look no longer at this first of the Christian emperors through the eyes of churchmen seeking to extol his virtues and hide his crimes, all for the honor of the Church. So odious had he become in Rome for his many murders that a pasquinade, which compared his reign to that of the detested Nero, was nailed to the palace gates. "The guilty emperor," says one, "in the first burst of anger, was on the point of darkening the tragedy, if such a thing had been possible, by a massacre of the Roman populace who had thus insulted him." His brothers were consulted on this measure of vengeance, however, and the result of their counsel was a resolution to degrade Rome to a subordinate rank, and build a metropolis elsewhere, and hence the new capital of the empire rose on the shores of the Bosphorus.

Reflecting upon the career of Constantine from the days of his young manhood, which had in it something of the quality that makes the successful leader of men, to the time when he fell under the influence of the false priests of a corrupted religion, Draper says:

"From the rough soldier who accepted the purple at York, how great the change to the effeminate emperor of the Bosphorus, in silken robes, stiffened with threads of gold; a diadem of sapphires and pearls, and false hair, stained of various tints; his steps stealthily guarded by mysterious eunuchs, flitting through the palace; the streets full of spies, and an ever-watchful police! The same man who approaches us as the Roman imperator retires from us as the Asiatic despot. In the last days of his life, he put aside the imperial purple, and, assuming the customary white garment, prepared for baptism, that the sins of his long and evil life might all be washed away. Since complete purification can thus be only once obtained, he was desirous to procrastinate that ceremony to the last moment. Profoundly politic, even in his relations with heaven, he thenceforth reclined on a white bed, took no further part in worldly affairs, and, having thus insured a right to the continuance of that prosperity in a future life which he had enjoyed in this, expired."^[A]

[Footnote A: Draper, Intellectual Development, vol. i, p. 283.]

And so Gibbon:

"The sublime theory of the Gospel had made a much fainter impression on the heart than on the understanding of Constantine himself. He pursued the great objects of his ambition through the dark and bloody paths of war and policy; and, after the victory, he abandoned himself, without moderation, to the abuse of his fortune. Instead of asserting his just superiority above the imperfect heroism and profane philosophy of Trajan and the Antonines, the mature age of Constantine forfeited the reputation which he had acquired in his youth. As he gradually advanced in the knowledge of truth, he proportionately declined in the practice of virtue; and the same year of his reign in which he convened the council of Nice, was polluted by the execution, or rather murder, of his eldest son (Crispus). * * * * * At the time of the death of Crispus, the emperor could no longer hesitate in the choice of religion; he could no longer be ignorant that the church was possessed of an infallible remedy (baptism), though he chose to defer the application of it, till the approach of death had removed the temptation and danger of a relapse. * * * * * * * The example and reputation of Constantine seemed to countenance the delay of baptism. Future tyrants were encouraged to believe that the innocent blood which they might shed in a long reign would instantly be washed away in the waters of regeneration; and the abuse of religion dangerously undermined the foundations of moral virtue."^[A]

[Footnote A: Decline and Fall, ch. xx.]

The First "Christian" Emperor: Such, then, was the first Christian emperor. He uplifted "Christianity" from the condition of a persecuted religion, and made it the state religion of Rome; and also provided means for its wider acceptance. If for this it shall be claimed, as it is, that much in his evil life should be overlooked, it would still be pertinent to ask whether his acts in connection with Christianity did not debase rather than exalt it; and if his provisions for its wider acceptance did not tend rather to the corruption of what remained true in the Christianity then extant, than to the establishment of true religion.