{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/201/2010357.htm","path":"chr/ecf/201/2010357.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/201/2010357.htm","text":"\u00a76. Religious Characteristics.\nWas Constantine a Christian? This vain question has to be considered, hardly discussed. The interminable opinions, one way or the other, are for the most part wise-seeming, meaningless generalizations. Like any generalized statement, it is conditioned by the point of view of the author. When ten men answered the question \u201cWhat is a Christian?\u201d in ten different ways, who p. 431 shall say what any one is? This has been the difficulty. One does not conceive of Christianity apart from baptismal regeneration. The question has then narrowed to one of baptism. Constantine was not a Christian until just before his death. Another has some other test. Another is not a Christian himself, and so on. A good Biblical, Protestant starting-point is to say he was a Christian as soon as he believed in Christ, and that the evidence of faith is in confession and action. Already, before his campaign into Italy, he seems to have been in intimate contact with the Christians. Hosius was probably already one of his advisers. The young emperor had inherited his father\u2019s piety (Paneg. 307, c. 5), and was inclined to monotheism. The words of advisers must have made him think at least, and he seems to have made a sort of test of believing at the time of the famous \u201cvision of the cross,\u201d whatever that may have been. Judging from the way men think and feel their way to faith, it seems psychologically probable that, feeling his way along to that point, he tried faith and, having success, he substantially believed from that time on. Certainly from a very early period after this, the evidences begin to be clear and increasingly so as presumably his faith itself became more clear and fixed. The account in Eusebius of the process of thought by which he inclined toward Christianity has the greatest plausibility. He says that \u201cconsidering the matter of Divine assistance, it occurred to him that those who had relied on idols had been deceived and destroyed, while his father\u2026had honored the one Supreme God, had found him Saviour, &c.\u2026he judged it folly to join in the idle worship of those who were no gods\u2026and felt it incumbent on him to honor no other than the God of his father.\u201d The nature of the vision of the cross, whether a miracle, a natural phenomenon, or only a dream, does not affect the probability of the account by Eusebius of what followed it (V. C. 1. 32). \u201cAt the time above specified, being struck with amazement at the extraordinary vision, and resolving to worship no other God save him who had appeared to him, he sent for those who were acquainted with the mysteries of his doctrines, and inquired also what God was.\u2026They affirmed that he was God, the only begotten Son of the one and only God,\u201d and he thereupon \u201cmade the priests of God his counsellors and deemed it incumbent on him to honor the God who had appeared to him, with all devotion.\u201d According to Sozomen, \u201cit is universally admitted Constantine embraced the religion of the Christians previous to his war with Maxentius and prior to his return to Rome and Italy; and this is evidenced by the dates of the laws which he enacted in favor of religion\u201d (Soz. 1. 5; cf. 1. 3). Philostorgius (1. 6), \u201cin conformity with all other writers,\u201d ascribes to the victory over Maxentius (Photius. Epit.). This is confirmed, too, by the remark of the Panegyrist (313, c. 4; cf. c. 2 and c. 11), that he conducted the war by Divine instruction, and the famous inscription on the triumphal arch, \u201cinstinctu Divinitatis.\u201d According to Augustine he was at the time of the petition of the Donatists, \u201cmindful of the hope which he maintained in Christ\u201d (August. contra litt. Petil. Bk. II. c. 92, p. 205).\nThe tales of his baptism at this time, or by Sylvester at all, are pure fables (cf. under The Mythical Constantine), but it appears from antecedent probability, from testimony, and from his early subsequent identification with the Christians that he became fairly convinced at this time. His letters concerning the council at Arles, to be sure, have little direct evidence, but enough to show that he regarded the Christian religion as the worship of that one supreme God, and in them Hosius was already his trusted adviser. But in his letters to Chrestus (314) he speaks of those who are \u201cforgetful of their own salvation and the reverence due to the most holy faith,\u201d and if his letter to the bishops after the council at Arles\u2014a letter full of expressions like \u201cChrist the Saviour,\u201d \u201cbrethren beloved,\u201d \u201cI who myself await the judgment of Christ,\u201d \u201cour Saviour\u201d 3044 \u2014be genuine, Constantine was well advanced in his commitment in 314; but whether it is or not, p. 432 the fact of his Christian advisers, of his laws in behalf of Christians, and various substantial favors to them, his recognition of their God as his one God, makes it almost idle to discuss the question. Was Constantine a Christian in 314? What is a Christian? He seems to have been. The type was that of many a business-man church-member of to-day\u2014Christians, but neither over-well-instructed, nor dangerously zealous in the exercise of his faith. It must be remembered that during these earlier years his confession of his faith and identification of himself with the Christians was conditioned by his relation to the old religion. Such a change was a radical novelty. His position was not yet secure. He had to use his utmost tact to keep all elements in hand. He was conditioned just as a modern Christian emperor or president, a majority of whose political advisers and subjects or electors are non-religious. He had great problems of political organization to effect, and was immersed in these. The only matter of surprise is that he grew so rapidly. There is no ground whatever for supposing that he dissembled to the end, or even at all. To say that his retaining the title of pontifex maximus, or making concessions respecting the old worship, or allowing soothsayers to be consulted, or even the postponement of his baptism, indicate this, is critical absurdity in the face of evidence. 3045 Testimony, both heathen and Christian, to the openness of his action is complete, and the testimony of his acts\u2014such, e.g., as the law for the observance of Sunday\u2014conclusive. Later, at least, he \u201cmost openly destroyed temple worship and built Christian houses of worship\u201d (Eunap. Vita \u00c6des. 37, ed. Boiss. p. 20). From the defeat of Licinius on, edicts, letters, speeches, acts of all sorts, testify to a most unequivocal adoption of the Christian religion. Eusebius hardly overstates in saying that \u201che maintained a continual testimony to his Christianity, with all boldness and before all men, and so far was he from shrinking from an open profession of the Christian name, that he rather desired to make it manifest to all that he regarded this as his highest honor\u201d (V. C. 3. 2). Really the question whether he considered himself, or was considered, a Christian at and after the time of the Council of Nic\u00e6a is too idle even to mention, if it had not been gravely discussed. In the opinion of the bishops there he was \u201cmost pious\u201d and \u201cdear to God\u201d (Ep. synod. in Socr. 1. 9; Theodoret, 1. 8). On his part, letters are full of pious expression and usually begin or end or both with \u201cbeloved brethren.\u201d To the council itself he describes himself as \u201cfellow-servant\u201d of \u201cHim who is our common Lord and Saviour.\u201d Another more considerable position is that all that indisputable external connection with Christianity was pure political expediency, that he was a shrewd politician who saw which way the wind was blowing, and had skill to take advantage of it. That Constantine was not a Christian in the strict sense even to the end of his life was the position of Keim. Burckhardt regards him as a pure politician, without a touch of Christian life. Brieger (1880) says we have not grounds to decide either way, whether he was \u201ca godless egoistic fatalist or had a more or less warm religious or even Christian interest,\u201d but that the fixed fact is, that it was not because of his inner belief in the Christian religion that he showed favor to the Christians. In a brief attempt to get some basis in the sources, the enthusiastic testimony of Eusebius and other writers, explicit as it is, may be quite disregarded, even the testimony to facts, such as his practice of giving thanks (V. C. 1. 39), of invoking Divine aid (Euseb. V. C. 2, 4, 6, 13; Soz. 2. 34), of his erecting a place of prayer in his palace (Soz. 1. 8), of his fasting (V. C. 2. 41), of his having a stated hour of prayer (V. C. 4. 22), although all these are interesting. The documents, however, unless by supremely uncritical rejection, can be regarded as fundamental sources. A brief analysis of these, even though imperfect, will furnish grounds on the basis of which those who apply various tests may apply them. Starting from his faith in Christ, surely the center of Christianity, he believed Christ to be Son of God, \u201cGod and the Son of God the author of every blessing\u201d (S. C.), the revealer of the Father, who has \u201crevealed a pure light in the person of Thy Son\u2026and hast thus given testimony concerning Thyself\u201d (S. C. 1), proceeding from the Father (S. C.), and incarnate, his incarnation having been prep. 433 dicted also by the prophets. He believed this Son of God to be his Saviour (Ad Tyr., Ad Ant., Ad Euseb., &c.) \u201cour common Lord and Saviour\u201d (Ad Euseb.), \u201cour Saviour, our hope, and our life\u201d (Ad eccl. Al.). He believed in his miraculous birth (S. C.) and in his death for our deliverance (Ad Nic.; cf. Ad Mac. &c.), \u201cthe path which leads to everlasting life\u201d (S. C. 1), \u201ca precious and toilsome\u201d work (Ad Euseb.), and in his ascension into heaven (S. C. 1). He believed in \u201cGod the Father\u201d (Ad Euseb. 2), \u201cAlmighty\u201d (Ad Euseb.), Lord of all (Ad Euseb. 2), and the Holy Ghost (Ad eccl. Al.; cf. S. C.). He believed in \u201cDivine Providence\u201d (Ad Eccl. Al.; Ad Alex. et Ar.; Ad. Euseb. 1), God the preserver of all men (Ad Alex. et Ar.), who sees all things (Ad Syn. Nic.), who is near us and the observer of all our actions (S. C.), and \u201cunder the guidance of whose Almighty hand\u201d he is (Ad Prov. Pal.), that all things are regulated by the determination of his will (Ad Euseb.). He believed in the existence of a personal devil (Ad Eccl. Al.). He believed in the future life (Ad Prov. Pal.), \u201cthe only true life\u201d (S. C. 12), the \u201cstrife for immortality\u201d (Ad Euseb.), to which those may aspire who know Him (S. C. 12). He believed in future rewards and punishments (Ad Prov. Pal.; S. C. 23). He believed in the inspiration of the Scriptures (Ad Eccl. Al.). He loved God (Ad Euseb. 2; V. C. 2. 55), and considered it his chief work in life to glorify Christ (S. C.). He loved his fellow-men, being disposed \u201cto love you with an enduring affection\u201d (Ad Ant.; V. C. 3. 60, &c.), and recognized it as virtue in others (8, c. 11). To him, God, in general, is the source of all blessings (Ad Prov. Pal.; S. C., &c.). \u201cI am most certainly persuaded,\u201d he says, \u201cthat I myself owe my life, my every breath, in short, my very inmost and secret thoughts to the favor of the Supreme God\u201d (Ad Prov. Pal.). He recognizes contrition as a requisite for pardon (Ad. Prov. Pal), and that it is the power of God which removes guilt (Ad Euseb.). In the conduct of life. \u201cOur Saviour\u2019s words and precepts are a model, as it were, of what our life should be\u201d (Ad. Ant.; V. C. 3. 60).\nExpositions of his doctrinal and ethical positions might be multiplied almost without end from the many and fruitful sources, but a few specimens in his own expression will best show the spirit of his religious life. A most suggestive and beautiful sketch of Christ\u2019s ministry on earth too long to quote here may be found in his Oration (ch. 15), but the following selections will give the idea:\nA description of the inner Christian life. \u201cFor the only power in man which can be elevated to a comparison with that of God is sincere and guiltless service and devotion of heart to Himself, with the contemplation and study of whatever pleases Him, the raising our affections above the things of earth, and directing our thoughts, as far as we may, to high and heavenly objects\u201d (S. C. 14).\nA description of the outer Christian life. \u201cCompare our religion with your own. Is there not with us genuine concord, and unwearied love of others? If we reprove a fault, is not our object to admonish, not to destroy; our correction for safety, not for cruelty? Do we not exercise not only sincere faith toward God, but fidelity in the relations of social life? Do we not pity the unfortunate? Is not ours a life of simplicity which disdains to cover evil beneath the mask of fraud and hypocrisy?\u201d (S. C. 23).\nA prayer. \u201cNot without cause, O holy God, do I prefer this prayer to Thee, the Lord of all. Under Thy guidance have I devised and accomplished measures fraught with blessing: preceded by Thy sacred sign, I have led Thy armies to victory: and still on each occasion of public danger, I follow the same symbol of Thy perfections while advancing to meet the foe. Therefore have I dedicated to Thy service a soul duly attempered by love and fear. For Thy name I truly love, while I regard with reverence that power of which Thou hast given abundant proofs, to the confirmation and increase of my faith\u201d (Ad prov. Or.).\nA confession of faith in God and in Christ. \u201cThis God I confess that I hold in unceasing honor and remembrance; this God I delight to contemplate with pure and guileless thoughts in the height of his glory.\u201d \u201cHis pleasure is in works of moderation and gentleness. He loves the meek and hates the turbulent spirit, delighting in faith. He chastises unbelief\u201d (Ad Sap.). p. 434 \u201cHe is the supreme judge of all things, the prince of immortality, the giver of everlasting life\u201d (S. C. 36).\nWas Constantine a Christian? Let each one apply his own test.\nIt seems to have been frequently accepted as such\u2014in the collections of councils, by the editor of Optatus, Ceillier, &c. It first appeared in the edition of Optatus, among the monuments relating to the Donatists gathered by him. These monuments are from one single though tolerably ancient ms. and no source for this is quoted, though the sources of others are given. In itself considered it is a surprise to find it at this stage of Constantine\u2019s life. Still, it is not unlike his later productions, and it is not impossible to think of its having been written in the enthusiasm of a successfully ended enterprise. It would seem (unless there be some confirmatory study of the letter, not now at hand) that a cautious criticism would base nothing on this letter alone.\n432:3045\nHis saying before baptism is discussed in the V. C. 4. 2, notes.","title":"Nicene and Ante-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol I: The Life of Constantine with Orations of Constantine and Eusebius.: Section 6","type":"page"}