p. 196 | Constantine.-V by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Mar 26, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 13.

Constantine.—V.

By Editor

Of the story of Constantine having seen the cross in the sky, Milman says:—

“The silence not only of all contemporary history, but of Eusebius himself, in his Ecclesiastical History, gives a most dangerous advantage to those who altogether reject the story.” —History, p. 287.

Neander takes the same view of the case that is given by Whelpley above:—

“But the supposition of a miracle here, is one which has in itself nothing to recommend it, especially when we consider that the conversion, as it is called, of the Roman emperor, such as it really was, could in no wise possess the same significance in the sight of God, who respected not the person, but looked upon the heart alone, as an acceptable sacrifice, as it had in the eyes of men dazzled and deceived by outward show. In this particular way it is scarcely possible to conceive that a change of heart, which is the only change which deserves to be called a conversion, could have been wrought. Much rather might we presume that, in this way, the emperor would be misled to combine pagan superstition with a mere coloring of Christianity. And were we to judge of the end which this miracle was designed to subserve, by the general consequences of the emperor’s conversion on the Christian church within the Roman empire, it might be questioned whether these consequences were really so benign in their influence on the progress of the kingdom of God, as they were imagined to be, by those persons who, dazzled by outward show, saw in the external power and splendor of the Christian church a triumph of Christianity.”

And in this connection he gives an additional fact which is of great importance, namely, that the story was varied to suit the different tastes of the different classes in his army:—

“Pagans saw, in this case, the gods of the eternal city engaged to deliver them from the disgraceful yoke. Among them, accordingly, was circulated the legend of a heavenly army, seen in the air, and sent by the gods to the succor of Constantine. Among the Christians, on the other hand, the story was propagated of an appearance of the cross.”—Neander, vol. 2, p. 9.

This proves that it was not an appearance which the soldiers professed to see, but merely the story of an appearance, varied to suit the various superstitions of the parties and to give them confidence in their leader in battle.

Waddington gives a view of the question as comprehensive as it is concise:—

“In the first place, the story which we have shortly given, is related by no contemporary author except Eusebius; next it is related in his ‘Life of Constantine,’ and not in his ‘Ecclesiastical History;’ it is related in the year 338, or six and twenty years after the supposed appearance; it is related on the authority of Constantine alone, though it must have been witnessed by his whole army, and notorious throughout his whole empire; and lastly it was published after the death of Constantine. In an age wherein pious frauds had already acquired some honor, by a writer, who, respectable as he undoubtedly is, and faithful in most of his historical records, does not even profess those rigid rules of veracity which command universal credit; in a book which rather wears the character of a partial panegyric than of exact and scrupulous history—a flattering fable might be published and believed; but it can claim no place among the authentic records of history; and by writers whose only object is truth, it may very safely be consigned to contempt and oblivion.”—Church History, pp. 82, 83.

It should be noted that the influence of “Eusebius, the great church historian,” is brought to bear in favor of the story, but it is not related by Eusebius in his history, but only in his eulogy of Constantine, which is generally regarded as not worthy of credit.

Dr. Dowling, whose subject led him to a careful examination of this and other events in connection with Constantine’s career, says:—

“For my part I have no hesitation in regarding the whole as a fable. It was not till many years after it was said to have occurred, that Constantine related the story to Eusebius, and, in all probability, he did it then by the instigation of his superstitious mother, Helena, the celebrated discoverer of the wood of the true cross at Jerusalem, some 250 years after the destruction of that city, and all that it contained, and the disappearance of the identity of its very foundations, under the plowshare of the Roman conqueror, Vespasian. The subsequent life of Constantine furnished no evidence that he was a peculiar favorite of Heaven; and the results of his patronage of the church, eventually so disastrous to its purity and spirituality, are sufficient to prove that God would never work a miracle to accomplish such a purpose.”—History of Romanism, p. 31.

The story of the vision of the cross not only rests on the authority of Constantine alone, and was varied to suit different parties, but he said the vision was seen by his army, which is beyond all question a fabrication. No writer ever mentions such a thing; it was not a matter of current report, as says Mosheim:—

“For though Constantine says that his soldiers saw what he saw, yet Eusebius derived his information solely from the emperor, and he names no other witness. In his Ecclesiastical History, which afforded the fairest opportunity for introducing so important a matter, there is no mention of it whatever. This shows that when he wrote his history, that is, prior to the year 324, he was ignorant on the subject; and that it was not then generally a subject of conversation. Again, in his ‘Life of Constantine,’ he frankly acknowledges that this prodigy seems almost incredible; but that it would be wrong to question the emperor’s veracity, which is as much as saying, ‘I believe the facts were as I have stated, because my most gracious lord bids me believe them; but if another person had told them to me, I would not believe them.’”—Hist. Com., p. 475.

Eusebius professed to receive it from the emperor accompanied by an oath which Stanley does not consider of sufficient weight to prove it true:—

“That the emperor attested it on oath, as the historian tells us, is indeed no additional guarantee for the emperor’s veracity; because, like princes professing piety in modern times, he appears to have been in the constant habit of adding an oath to almost every asseveration.”

That the estimate which Stanley put upon Constantine’s oath is just, is shown by the following: He gave his solemn promise, and confirmed it by an oath, that if Licinius would resign his claims to the purple, he should be permitted to pass the remainder of his life in peace. And this promise and this oath were made not alone to Licinius, but also to his wife, Constantine’s own sister, in behalf of her husband. Yet for all this, only a little while after Licinius reached Thessalonica, the place appointed for his abode, he was foully murdered by Constantine’s order. And the crime was aggravated in its cruelty and perfidy by the circumstance that Licinius had already reached the allotted three score and ten years of age.—See Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, chapter 14, paragraph 38; and Encyc. Brit., art. Constantine.

And Mosheim further informs us that the artifice of inspiring the soldiers with confidence by means of pretended prodigies, was not peculiar to Constantine. Thus he says:—

“At the time the cross is said to have appeared to him, Constantine’s great solicitude most certainly was not to establish and extend the Christian religion, but to vanquish Maxentius. Besides, Constantine was not then himself a Christian; and he used this vision, not to aid the Christians, but to animate the soldiers.”

That it was “a military wile or stratagem,” he says, “receives some countenance from the example of a similar artifice employed by Licinius, for soon afterwards, when Licinius was about to engage in battle with Maximin, he pretended that an angel appeared to him by night and taught him a form of prayer, which, if his soldiers would repeat it, they would certainly gain the victory.”—Hist. Com., p. 473.

There is great question among authors as to whether there was any foundation at all for the story; some, willing to spare the reputation of Constantine and Eusebius, think that a dream or freak of a disordered imagination might have given rise to the report of the vision. Thus Mosheim:—

“Constantine was a vain man, and greedy of praise and glory, as his conduct shows; nor do his friends wholly deny it. I therefore think it will not be temerity to suppose he added somewhat to the truth; and perhaps he changed a mental and nocturnal vision into a day vision with the bodily eyes, for the sake of appearing great and favored of God in the estimation of the citizens, and particularly the bishops.”—Hist. Com., p. 476.

Socrates, who gives some credit to Eusebius, for it was easy to palm off such things in that age of “pious frauds,” states that Constantine was in great perplexity of mind when the vision was received:—

“While his mind was occupied on this subject, and he was hesitating what divinity’s aid he would invoke for the successful conduct of the war, it occurred to him that Diocletian had profited but little by the pagan deities, whom he had so sedulously sought to propitiate; but that his own father, Constantius, who had renounced the idolatrous worship of the Greeks, had passed through life far more prosperously. In this state of uncertainty, a preternatural vision, which transcends all description, appeared to him.”—Socrates’ Eccl. Hist., p. 3.

This statement of Socrates certainly gives an air of probability to the suggestion of Mosheim, in which others have concurred, that in his trouble and uncertainty the emperor had a dream, or that he was so highly wrought upon that the cross which the Christians so highly regarded was presented to his imagination as the means of triumph. And we can only reconcile the statements of historians with the supposition that a dream, which was supposed to be supernaturally given, was afterward converted into a miraculous vision. Thus Sozomen speaks as follows:—

“He regarded the cross with peculiar reverence, on account both of the power which it conveyed to him in war, and also of the divine manner in which the symbol had appeared to him.”—Sozomen History, p. 16.

These words are quite consistent with the idea that the cross was presented in a dream, which was supposed to be specially given of the Lord to lead him to reverence that cross. And on no other supposition can we understand the following testimonies:—

“Eusebius gives the narration on the sole authority of Constantine, who imagined that he had seen this cross; it was natural that in the troubled sleep of the emperor, on the eve of so eventful a battle, his dreams should be vivid, and their impression strong; but it is remarkable that Eusebius gives no evidence from the thousands of persons in the army, who must have seen it if it were really a miraculous display of divine power; neither Sozomen nor Ruffinus, who wrote so soon after, make any mention of it. And it has been thought that Eusebius, hearing the emperor narrate his dream, mistook him as narrating a fact, for Constantine always stated that he was influenced by a dream, in making use of the sign of the cross in his army.”—Foxe’s Acts and Movements of the Church, note, p. 59.