The Continental Monthly, Vol. 6, No 2, August, 1864

V >> Various >> The Continental Monthly, Vol. 6, No 2, August, 1864

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

The first public evidence of a positive leaning toward the Christian
religion he gave in his contest with the pagan Maxentius, who had
usurped the government of Italy and Africa, and is universally
represented as a cruel, dissolute tyrant, hated by heathens and
Christians alike. Called by the Roman people to their aid, Constantine
marched from Gaul across the Alps with an army of ninety-eight thousand
soldiers of every nationality, and defeated Maxentius in three battles;
the last in October, 312, at the Milvian bridge, near Rome, where
Maxentius found a disgraceful death in the waters of the Tiber.

Here belongs the familiar story of the miraculous cross. The precise day
and place cannot be fixed, but the event must have occurred shortly
before the final victory over Maxentius in the neighborhood of Rome. As
this vision is one of the most noted miracles in church history, and has
a representative significance, it deserves a closer examination. It
marks for us on the one hand the victory of Christianity over paganism
in the Roman empire, and on the other the ominous admixture of foreign,
political, and military interests with it. We need not be surprised that
in the Nicene age so great a revolution and transition should have been
clothed with a supernatural character.

The occurrence is variously described, and is not without serious
difficulties. Lactantius, the earliest witness, some three years after
the battle, speaks only of a dream by night, in which the emperor was
directed (it is not stated by whom, whether by Christ, or by an angel)
to stamp on the shields of his soldiers 'the heavenly sign of God,' that
is, the cross with the name of Christ, and thus to go forth against his
enemy. Eusebius, on the contrary, gives a more minute account, on the
authority of a subsequent private communication of the aged Constantine
himself under oath--not, however, till the year 338, a year after the
death of the emperor, his only witness, and twenty-six years after the
event. On his march from Gaul to Italy (the spot and date are not
specified), the emperor, while earnestly praying to the true God for
light and help at this critical time, saw, together with his army, in
clear daylight toward evening, a shining cross in the heavens above the
sun, with the inscription: '_By this conquer;_' and in the following
night Christ himself appeared to him while he slept, and directed him to
have a standard prepared in the form of this sign of the cross, and with
that to proceed against Maxentius and all other enemies. This account of
Eusebius, or rather of Constantine himself, adds to the night dream of
Lactantius the preceding vision of the day, and the direction concerning
the standard, while Lactantius speaks of the inscription of the initial
letters of Christ's name on the shields of the soldiers. According to
Rufinus, a later historian, who elsewhere depends entirely on Eusebius,
and can therefore not be regarded as a proper witness in the case, the
sign of the cross appeared to Constantine in a dream (which agrees with
the account of Lactantius), and upon his awaking in terror, an angel
(not Christ) exclaimed to him: '_Hoc vince._' Lactantius, Eusebius, and
Rufinus are the only Christian writers of the fourth century, who
mention the apparition. But we have besides one or two heathen
testimonies, which, though vague and obscure, still serve to strengthen
the evidence in favor of some actual occurrence. The contemporaneous
orator Nazarius, in a panegyric upon the emperor, pronounced March 1,
321, apparently at Rome, speaks of an army of divine warriors and a
divine assistance which Constantine received in the engagement with
Maxentius; but he converts it to the service of heathenism by recurring
to old prodigies, such as the appearance of Castor and Pollux.

This famous tradition may be explained either as a real miracle implying
a personal appearance of Christ, or as a pious fraud, or as a natural
phenomenon in the clouds and an optical illusion, or finally as a
prophetic dream.

The propriety of a miracle, parallel to the signs in heaven which
preceded the destruction of Jerusalem, might be justified by the
significance of the victory as marking a great epoch in history, namely,
the downfall of paganism and the establishment of Christianity in the
empire. But even if we waive the purely critical objections to the
Eusebian narrative, the assumed connection, in this case, of the gentle
Prince of peace with the god of battle, and the subserviency of the
sacred symbol of redemption to military ambition, is repugnant to the
genius of the gospel and to sound Christian feeling, unless we stretch
the theory of divine accommodation to the spirit of the age and the
passions and interests of individuals beyond the ordinary limits. We
should suppose, moreover, that Christ, if he had really appeared to
Constantine either in person (according to Eusebius) or through angels
(as Rufinus and Sozomen modify it), would have exhorted him to repent
and be baptized rather than to construct a military ensign for a bloody
battle. In no case can we ascribe to this occurrence, with Eusebius,
Theodoret, and older writers, the character of a sudden and genuine
conversion, as to Paul's vision of Christ on the way to Damascus; for,
on the one hand, Constantine was never hostile to Christianity, but most
probably friendly to it from his early youth, according to the example
of his father, and, on the other, he put off his baptism quite five and
twenty years, almost to the hour of his death.

The opposite hypothesis of a mere military stratagem or intentional
fraud is still more objectionable, and would compel us either to impute
to the first Christian emperor, at a venerable age, the double crime of
falsehood and perjury, or, if Eusebius invented the story, to deny to
the 'father of church history' all claim to credibility and common
respectability. Besides, it should be remembered that the older
testimony of Lactantius, or whoever was the author of the work on the
Deaths of Persecutors, is quite independent of that of Eusebius, and
derives additional force from the vague heathen rumors of the time.
Finally the _Hoc vince_, which has passed into proverbial significance
as a most appropriate motto of the invincible religion of the cross, is
too good to be traced to sheer falsehood. Some actual fact, therefore,
must be supposed to underlie the tradition, and the question only is
this, whether it was an external, viable phenomenon or an internal
experience.

The hypothesis of a natural formation of the clouds, which Constantine
by an optical illusion mistook for a supernatural sign of the cross,
besides smacking of the exploded rationalistic explanation of the New
Testament miracles, and deriving an important event from a mere
accident, leaves the figure of Christ and the Greek or Latin
inscription, '_By this sign thou shalt conquer!_' altogether
unexplained.

We are shut up, therefore, to the theory of a dream or vision, and an
experience within the mind of Constantine. This is supported by the
oldest testimony of Lactantius, as well as by the report of Rufinus and
Sozomen, and we do not hesitate to regard the Eusebian cross in the
skies as originally a part of the dream, which only subsequently assumed
the character of an outward objective apparition, either in the
imagination of Constantine or by a mistake of the memory of the
historian, but in either case without intentional fraud. That the vision
was traced to supernatural origin, especially after the happy success,
is quite natural and in perfect keeping with the prevailing ideas of the
age. Tertullian and other ante-Nicene and Nicene fathers attributed many
conversions to nocturnal dreams and visions. Constantine and his friends
referred the most important facts of his life, as the knowledge of the
approach of hostile armies, the discovery of the holy sepulchre, the
founding of Constantinople, to divine revelation through visions and
dreams. Nor are we disposed in the least to deny the connection of the
vision of the cross with the agency of Divine Providence, which
controlled this remarkable turning point of history. We may go farther
and admit a special providence, or what the old divines call a
_providentia specialissima_; but this does not necessarily imply a
violation of the order of nature or an actual miracle in the shape of an
objective personal appearance of the Saviour. We may refer to a somewhat
similar, though far less important, vision in the life of the pious
English Colonel James Gardiner. The Bible itself sanctions the general
theory of providential or prophetic dreams and nocturnal visions through
which divine revelations and admonitions are communicated to men.

The facts, therefore, may have been these: Before the battle,
Constantine, leaning already toward Christianity as probably the beat
and most hopeful of the various religions, seriously sought in prayer,
as he related to Eusebius, the assistance of the God of the Christians,
while his heathen antagonist, Maxentius, according to Zosimus, was
consulting the sibylline books and offering sacrifice to the idols.
Filled with mingled fears and hopes about the issue of the conflict, he
fell asleep, and saw in a dream the sign of the cross of Christ with a
significant inscription and promise of victory. Being already familiar
with the general use of this sign among the numerous Christians of the
empire, many of whom no doubt were in his own army, he constructed the
_labarum_,[A] afterward so called, that is, the sacred standard of the
Christian cross with the Greek monogram of Christ,[B] which he had also
put upon the shields of the soldiers. To this cross-standard, which now
took the place of the Roman eagles, he attributed the decisive victory
over the heathen Maxentius.

Accordingly, after his triumphal entrance into Rome, he had his statue
erected upon the forum with the labarum in his right hand, and the
inscription beneath: 'By this saving sign, the true token of bravery, I
have delivered your city from the yoke of the tyrant.' Three years
afterward the senate erected to him a triumphal arch of marble, which to
this day, within sight of the sublime ruins of the pagan Colosseum,
indicates at once the decay of ancient art and the downfall of
heathenism; as the neighboring arch of Titus commemorates the downfall
of Judaism and the destruction of the temple. The inscription on this
arch of Constantine, however, ascribes his victory over the hated
tyrant, not only to his master mind, but indefinitely also to the
impulse of Deity; by which a Christian would naturally understand the
true God, while a heathen, like the orator Nazarius, in his eulogy on
Constantine, might take it for the celestial guardian power of the _urbs
aeterna_.

At all events the victory of Constantine over Maxentius was a military
and political victory of Christianity over heathenism; the intellectual
and moral victory having been already accomplished by the literature and
life of the church in the preceding period. The emblem of ignominy and
oppression[C] became thenceforward the badge of honor and dominion, and
was invested in the emperor's view, according to the spirit of the
church of his day, with a magic virtue. It now took the place of the
eagle and other field badges, under which the heathen Romans had
conquered the world. It was stamped on the imperial coin, and on the
standards, helmets, and shields of the soldiers. Above all military
representations of the cross the original imperial labarum shone in the
richest decorations of gold and gems; was intrusted to the truest and
bravest fifty of the body guard; filled the Christians with the spirit
of victory, and spread fear and terror among their enemies; until, under
the weak successors of Theodosius II., it fell out of use, and was
lodged as a venerable relic in the imperial palace at Constantinople.

Before this victory at Rome (which occurred October 27, 312), either in
the spring or summer of 312, Constantine, in conjunction with his
Eastern colleague, Licinius, had published an edict of religious
toleration, now not extant, but probably a step beyond the edict of the
still anti-Christian Galerius in 311, which was likewise subscribed by
Constantine and Licinius as co-regents. Soon after, in January, 313, the
two emperors issued from Milan a new edict (the third) on religion,
still extant both in Latin and Greek, in which, in the spirit of
religious eclecticism, they granted full freedom to all existing forms
of worship, with special reference to the Christian. This religion the
edict not only recognized in its existing limits, but also--what neither
the first nor perhaps the second edict had done--allowed every heathen
subject to adopt it with impunity. At the same time the church buildings
and property confiscated in the Diocletian persecution were ordered to
be restored, and private property-owners to be indemnified from the
imperial treasury.

In this notable edict, however, we should look in vain for the modern
Protestant and Anglo-American theory of religious liberty as one of the
universal and inalienable rights of man. Sundry voices, it is true, in
the Christian church itself, at that time and even before, declared
firmly against all compulsion in religion. But the spirit of the Roman
empire was too absolutistic to abandon the prerogative of a supervision
of public worship. The Constantinian toleration was a temporary measure
of state policy, which, as indeed the edict expressly states the motive,
promised the greatest security to the public peace and the protection of
all divine and heavenly powers, for emperor and empire. It was, as the
result teaches, but the necessary transition step to a new order of
things. It opened the door to the elevation of Christianity, and
specifically of Catholic hierarchical Christianity, with its
exclusiveness toward heretical and schismatic sects, to be the religion
of the state. For, once put on an equal footing with heathenism, it must
soon, in spite of numerical minority, bear away the victory from a
religion which had already inwardly outlived itself.

From this time Constantine decidedly favored the church, though without
persecuting or forbidding the pagan religions. He always mentions the
Christian church with reverence in his imperial edicts, and uniformly
applies to it, as we have already observed, the predicate of catholic.
For only as a catholic, thoroughly organized, firmly compacted, and
conservative institution did it meet his rigid monarchical interest, and
afford the splendid state and court dress he wished for his empire. So
early as the year 313 we find the bishop Hosius of Cordova among his
counsellors, and heathen writers ascribe to the bishop even a magical
influence over the emperor. Lactantius, also, and Eusebius of Caesarea
belonged to his confidential circle. He exempted the Christian clergy
from military and municipal duty (March, 313); abolished various customs
and ordinances offensive to the Christians (315); facilitated the
emancipation of Christian slaves (before 316); legalized bequests to
catholic churches (321); enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though
not as _dies Domini_, but as _dies Solis_, in conformity to his worship
of Apollo, and in company with an ordinance for the regular consulting
of the haruspex (321); contributed liberally to the building of churches
and the support of the clergy; erased the heathen symbols of Jupiter and
Apollo, Mars and Hercules from the imperial coins (323); and gave his
sons a Christian education. This mighty example was followed, as might
be expected, by a general transition of those subjects who were more
influenced in their conduct by outward circumstances than by inward
conviction and principle. The story, that in one year (324) twelve
thousand men, with women and children in proportion, were baptized in
Rome, and that the emperor had promised to each convert a white garment
and twenty pieces of gold, is at least in accordance with the spirit of
that reign, though the fact itself, in all probability, is greatly
exaggerated.

Constantine came out with still greater decision, when, by his victory
over his Eastern colleague and brother-in-law, Licinius, he became sole
head of the whole Roman empire. To strengthen his position, Licinius had
gradually placed himself at the head of the heathen party, still very
numerous, and had vexed the Christians first with wanton ridicule, then
with exclusion from civil and military office, with banishment, and in
some instances perhaps even with bloody persecution. This gave the
political strife for the monarchy between himself and Constantine the
character also of a war of religions; and the defeat of Licinius in the
battle of Adrianople, in July, 321, and at Chalcedon, in September, was
a new triumph of the standard of the cross over the sacrifices of the
gods; save that Constantine dishonored himself and his cause by the
execution of Licinius and his son.

The emperor now issued a general exhortation to his subjects to embrace
the Christian religion, still leaving them, however, to their own free
conviction. In the year 325, as patron of the church, he summoned the
council of Nice, and himself attended it; banished the Arians, though he
afterward recalled them; and, in his monarchical spirit of uniformity,
showed great zeal for the settlement of all theological disputes, while
he was blind to their deep significance. He first introduced the
practice of subscription to the articles of a written creed and of the
infliction of civil punishments for non-conformity. In the years
325-329, in connection with his mother, Helena, he erected magnificent
churches on the sacred spots in Jerusalem.

As heathenism had still the preponderance in Rome, where it was hallowed
by its great traditions, Constantine, by divine command as he supposed,
in the year 330, transferred the seat of his government to Byzantium,
and thus fixed the policy, already initiated by Domitian, or
orientalizing and dividing the empire. In the selection of the
unrivalled locality he showed more taste and genius than the founders of
Madrid, Vienna, Berlin, St. Petersburg, or Washington. With incredible
rapidity, and by all the means within reach of an absolute monarch, he
turned this nobly situated town, connecting two seas and two continents,
into a splendid residence and a new Christian Rome, 'for which now,' as
Gregory of Nazianzen expresses it, 'sea and land emulate each other, to
load it with their treasures, and crown it queen of cities.' Here,
instead of idol temples and altars, churches and crucifixes rose; though
among them the statues of patron deities from all over Greece, mutilated
by all sorts of tasteless adaptations, were also gathered in the new
metropolis. The main hall in the palace was adorned with representations
of the crucifixion and other Biblical scenes. The gladiatorial shows, so
popular in Rome, were forbidden here, though theatres, amphitheatres,
and hippodromes kept their place. It could nowhere be mistaken, that the
new imperial residence was, as to all outward appearance, a Christian
city. The smoke of heathen sacrifices never rose from the seven hills of
New Rome, except during the short reign of Julian the Apostate. It
became the residence of a bishop, who not only claimed the authority of
the apostolic see of neighboring Ephesus, but soon outshone the
patriarchate of Alexandria, and rivalled for centuries the papal power
in ancient Rome.

The emperor diligently attended divine worship, and is portrayed upon
medals in the posture of prayer. He kept the Easter vigils with great
devotion. He would stand during the longest sermons of his bishops, who
always surrounded him, and unfortunately flattered him only too much.
And he even himself composed and delivered discourses to his court, in
the Latin language, from which they were translated into Greek by
interpreters appointed for the purpose. General invitations were issued,
and the citizens flocked in great crowds to the palace to hear the
imperial preacher, who would in vain try to prevent their loud applause
by pointing to heaven as the source of his wisdom. He dwelt mainly on
the truth of Christianity, the folly of idolatry, the unity and
providence of God, the coming of Christ, and the judgment. At times he
would severely rebuke the avarice and rapacity of his courtiers, who
would loudly applaud him with their mouths and belie his exhortations by
their works. One of these productions is still extant, in which he
recommends Christianity in a characteristic strain, and in proof of its
divine origin cites especially the fulfilment of prophecy, including the
sibylline books and the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil, with the contrast
between his own happy and brilliant reign and the tragical fate of his
persecuting predecessors and colleagues.

Nevertheless he continued in his later years true, upon the whole, to
the toleration principles of the edict of 313, protected the pagan
priests and temples in their privileges, and wisely abstained from all
violent measures against heathenism, in the persuasion that it would in
time die out. He retained many heathens at court and in public office,
although he loved to promote Christians to honorable positions. In
several cases, however, he prohibited idolatry, where it sanctioned
scandalous immorality, as in the obscene worship of Venus in Phenicia;
or in places which were especially sacred to the Christians, as the
sepulchre of Christ and the grove of Mamre; and he caused a number of
deserted temples and images to be destroyed or turned into Christian
churches. Eusebius relates several such instances with evident
approbation, and praises also his later edicts against various heretics
and schismatics, but without mentioning the Arians. In his later years
he seems, indeed, to have issued a general prohibition of idolatrous
sacrifice; Eusebius speaks of it, and his sons in 341 refer to an edict
to that effect; but the repetition of it by his successors proves that,
if issued, it was not carried into general execution under his reign.

With this shrewd, cautious, and moderate policy of Constantine, which
contrasts well with the violent fanaticism of his sons, accords the
postponement of his own baptism to his last sickness. For this he had
the further motives of a superstitious desire, which he himself
expresses, to be baptized in the Jordan, whose waters had been
sanctified by the Saviour's baptism, and no doubt also a fear that he
might by relapse forfeit the sacramental remission of sins. He wished to
secure all the benefit of baptism as a complete expiation of past sins,
with as little risk as possible, and thus to make the best of both
worlds. Deathbed baptisms then were to half Christians of that age what
deathbed conversions and deathbed communions are now. But he presumed to
preach the gospel, he called himself the bishop of bishops, he convened
the first general council, and made Christianity the religion of the
empire, long before his baptism! Strange as this inconsistency appears
to us, what shall we think of the court bishops who, from false
prudence, relaxed in his favor the otherwise strict discipline of the
church, and admitted him, at least tacitly, to the enjoyment of nearly
all the privileges of believers, before he had taken upon himself even a
single obligation of a catechumen?

When, after a life of almost uninterrupted health, he felt the approach
of death, he was received into the number of catechumens by laying on of
hands, and then formally admitted by baptism into the full communion of
the church in the year 337, the sixty-fifth year of his age, by the
Arian (or properly Semi-Arian) bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom he had
shortly before recalled from exile together with Arius! His dying
testimony then was, as to form, in favor of heretical rather than
orthodox Christianity, but merely from accident, not from intention. He
meant the Christian as against the heathen religion, and whatever of
Arianism may have polluted his baptism, was for the Greek Church fully
neutralized by the orthodox canonization. After the solemn ceremony, he
promised to live thenceforth worthily of a disciple of Jesus; refused to
wear again the imperial mantle of cunningly woven silk, richly
ornamented with gold; retained the white baptismal robe; and died a few
days after, on Pentecost, May 32, 337, trusting in the mercy of God, and
leaving a long, a fortunate, and a brilliant reign, such as none but
Augustus, of all his predecessors, had enjoyed. 'So passed away the
first Christian emperor, the first defender of the faith, the first
imperial patron of the papal see, and of the whole Eastern Church, the
first founder of the holy places, pagan and Christian, orthodox and
heretical, liberal and fanatical, not to be imitated or admired, but
much to be remembered, and deeply to be studied.'

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18