Constantine-No. 2 by John H. Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 29, 1875

CONSTANTINE.—NO. 2.

BY J. H. WAGGONER.

Neander, the justly celebrated church historian, is not a whit behind Gibbon in his condemnation of the life of Constantine. He does not hesitate to ascribe his acts in favor of Christianity to deception and a lust for power. He says:—

“Constantine must indeed have been conscious that he was striving, not so much for the cause of God, as for the gratification of his own ambition and love of power; and that such acts of perfidy, mean revenge, or despotic jealousy, as occurred in his political course, did not well befit an instrument and servant of God, such as he claimed to be considered; but there was here the same lamentable self-deception, the same imposition upon one’s own conscience, which is so often to be seen in the mighty of the earth who wear religion as their motto, and which, in their case, so easily insinuates itself and gains the mastery, because it is so difficult for truth to find its way through the trappings of pomp which surround them; because they are approached by so many who, blinded themselves, dazzled by this splendor, blind them still more in return; and because no one has ever got access to them, who had the impartiality or the courage to discover to them the cheat, and teach them how to distinguish between outward show and truth. Thus was it with Constantine. And what wonder that he should proceed under such a delusion, when even Eusebius, one of the best among the bishops at his court, is so dazzled by what the emperor had achieved for the outward extension and splendor of the church as to be capable of tracing to the purest motives of a servant of God all the acts which a love of power that would not brook a rival had, at the expense of truth and humanity, put into the heart of the emperor in the war against Lucius; and of even going, so far as to represent him as giving out the orders of battle by a special divine inspiration, bestowed in answer to his prayers, in a war that beyond all question had been undertaken on no other grounds than those of a selfish policy.”—Pages 22, 23, vol. ii.

The testimonies thus far presented speak of his life in such general terms as to cover the periods both before and after his reputed conversion. We now offer a few which speak more particularly of the latter part of his life, after his profession of faith in Christianity. Neander relates as a fact, what many have referred to, that he embraced the faith of the Christians because his bishops offered him that consolation which the pagan priests, on account of the enormity of his crimes, refused to give him. These are the words of Neander:—

“When at length he began to feel the reproaches of conscience, he inquired of the Platonic philosopher, Sopatros, or according to others, of heathen priests, what he could do to atone for his crimes. It was replied to him that there was no lustration for such atrocious conduct. At that time an Egyptian bishop from Spain became known at the palace, through the ladies of the court. He said to the emperor that in the Christian faith he could find a remedy for every sin; and this promise, which soothed the conscience of Constantine, first led him to declare decidedly in favor of Christianity.”

With these facts before us, we do not wonder at the estimate put upon his Christianity by Neander in the following words:—

“It is most probable that, carrying his heathen superstition into Christianity, he looked upon baptism as a sort of rite for the magical removal of sin, and so delayed it, in the confidence that although he had not lived an exemplary life, he might yet in the end be enabled to enter into bliss, purified from all his sins.”—Church History, p. 29.

The superstitious nature of his religion is shown by such testimony as the following. Theodoret’s history contains the emperor’s letter to Sapor, king of Persia, in which he said:—

“My soldiers believe in this God; they bear his standard, and through him they gain the most famous victories.”—Theodoret, p. 76.

Another ancient writer speaks as follows:—

“Moreover Constantine caused the nails, with which Christ’s hands were fastened to the cross, to be converted into bridle bits and a helmet, which he used in his military expeditions.”—Socrates’ Eccl. Hist., p. 48.

These, as the labarum, or standard of the cross, were superstitiously regarded as charms, by which victory was to be gained in battle.

A very interesting article was recently published in the Christian Union, being an extended notice of a book of “Voyage and Travaill, which treated of the way to Hierusalem, and marvayles of Ynde, with other Llands and Contrees.” It was written by a Sir John Mandevil, in which he describes the place where the nails were found, and gives us to understand that virtue was ascribed to them in procuring victory. The following is an extract verbatim:—

“Also, within the Mount of Calvarye on the right side, is an Awter, wher the piler lyeth that our Lord Jhesu was bound to whan he was scourged, and ther besyde iij fote, ben iij pilers of ston that alweys dropen water. And summe seyn that thei wepen for our Lordes deth! And nygh that Awtier is a place under erthe, xliij degrees of deepnesse, where the only croys was founden by the wytt of Seynte Elyne, under a roche wher the Jewes hadde hide it. And that was the verray croys assayed. For thei founden iij crosses, on of oure Lord and ij of the ij thefes. And Seynte Elyne preved hem on a ded bodye that aros from death to lyve whan that it was leyd on it that our Lord dyed on! And there by in the wall is the place where the iiij nayles of oure Lord were hidd; . . . and one of these the Emperour of Constantinople made a brydill to his hors, to ber him in bataylle, and thorgh vertue thereof he overcam his enemyes and wan all the land of Asye the lesse.”

Without pretending to be versed in such literature, we will venture a rendering of the above, as it will be necessary for some readers to enable them to discover the point of the historian’s statement:—

“Also, within the Mount of Calvary on the right side, is an altar, where the pillar lieth that our Lord Jesus was bound to when he was scourged, and there beside four feet, are four pillars of stone, that always drop water. And some say that they weep for our Lord’s death. And nigh that altar is a place under earth, forty-four degrees (steps, probably) deep, where the true cross was found by the wit of Saint Helena, under a rock where the Jews had hid it. And that was the true cross proved (identified). For they found three crosses, one of our Lord and two of the thieves. And Saint Helena proved it on a dead body that arose from death to life when it was laid on it that our Lord died on. And near there in the wall is the place where the four nails of our Lord were hid. And of one of these the emperor of Constantinople made a bridle to his horse, to bear him in battle, and through virtue thereof he overcame his enemies and won all the land of Asia the less.”

The “Saynte Elyne,” here mentioned was no other than Helena, the mother of Constantine. Some historians say she caused the nail to be made into a bridle bit, and had the others wrought into his helmet for the benefit of her son.

Thus one testifies:—

“She gave orders that some of the nails should be driven into the royal helmet, in order that the head of her child might be preserved from the darts of his enemies; and she ordered some of the other nails to be fixed in the bridle of his horse, not only to insure the safety of the emperor, but also to fulfill an ancient prophecy.”—Theodoret, p. 63.

It appears evident that the mother and son were infected with the same spirit of superstition; and that much of Constantine’s regard for Christianity sprung from the benefit which he supposed he had received in battle from the sign or standard of the cross, and from the nails of the crucifixion found by his mother at Jerusalem.

Waddington speaks of his character thus:—

“The year which followed the final success of Constantine was disgraced by the execution of his eldest son; and it is not disputed that the progress of his career was marked by the usual excesses of intemperate and worldly ambition. Some of his laws were severe even to cruelty, and the general propriety of his moral conduct cannot with any justice be maintained.”—Church History, p. 83.

Dr. Carl Hase speaks emphatically of his character and life after his profession of Christianity:—

“The emperor still remained Pontifex Maximus, and some of his enactments indicate that he honored, or at least feared, the magical arts of the old paganism. Political interests seemed imperatively to require that Christianity should be established as the religion of the State, that those religious questions which were then producing innumerable divisions might be decided. . . . The same sign which has originally given him the victory (Labarum 312) has also conducted him to universal dominion, and he therefore regarded himself as the favorite of Heaven, called to secure an equal dominion for the cross of Christ. And yet he was not restrained from desecrating that very cross by hands deeply imbued with blood—the blood of his own son (326).”—History, pp. 103, 104, sec. 93.

That he retained throughout his life the title of Pontifex Maximus, or high priest of the pagan rites, is worthy of note. It certainly leads to the conclusion, which some writers have boldly declared, that he never came to consider the Christian religion as the only true one, or the God of the Christians as the only one worthy of being worshiped. But that, while he worshiped the gods, or at least honored them, he selected Christ as his “tutelary god,” and honored him above the rest. Thus Gibbon says:—

“His liberality restored and enriched the temples of the gods; the medals which issued from his imperial mint are impressed with the figures of Jupiter and Apollo, of Mars and Hercules; and his filial piety increased the council of Olympus by the solemn apotheosis [deifying] of his father Constantine.”—Page 251.

It is also to be noted that, while he retained the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus, he also took upon himself the office of a minister of the gospel of Christ, and preached in the congregations, as well as presided over a Christian Council. It is needless to say that he was flattered by his Christian courtiers on account of his wonderful discourses! Dr. Schaff says one of his sermons “is still extant, in which he recommends Christianity in a characteristic strain, and in proof of its divine origin, cites especially the fulfillment of prophecy, including the Sibylline books and the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil.”—Church History, vol. ii., p. 34.

This gives us at once an idea of his ministry and the character of his religion.

We have always been surprised that Christian people of this day, with all the facts within their reach, persist in styling Constantine a “Christian emperor.” But our wonder has been greatest to hear them speak of the happy time when “the empire became Christian.” So far from the empire becoming Christian the church in that day became anti-Christian. Dr. Dowling, in examining the rise of the great apostasy, says:—

“Many of the errors, indeed, of several centuries, the fruit of vain philosophy, paved the way for the events which followed; but the hindrance was not effectually removed until Constantine the emperor, on professing himself a Christian, undertook to convert the kingdom of Christ into a kingdom of this world, by exalting the teachers of Christianity to the same state of affluence, grandeur, and influence in the empire, as had been enjoyed by pagan priests and secular officers in the State. The professed ministers of Jesus having now a wide field opened to them for gratifying their lust of power, wealth, and dignity, the connection between the Christian faith and the cross was at an end.”—History of Romanism, p. 29.

Neander informs us distinctly that this state of things was brought around by Constantine’s influence, who planned the condition of the church to conform to his own ideas for the peace and strength of his empire. In his remarks on Constantine and the Council of Nice, he says:—

“The heathen, he said, would be most easily led to salvation, if the condition of the Christians were made to appear to them in all respects enviable. They should consider that the advantage to be derived from preaching could not belong to all. Some, he said, might be drawn to the faith by being seasonably supplied with the means of subsistence; others were accustomed to repair to that quarter where they found protection and intercession (alluding to the intercession of the bishops); others would be won by an affable reception; others, by being honored with presents. There were but few who loved the exhibitions of religious doctrine; but few who were the friends of truth (therefore, few sincere conversions). For this reason, they should accommodate themselves to the characters of all, and, like skillful physicians, give to each man that which might contribute to his cure, so that in every way the saving doctrine might be glorified in all. A course of proceeding upon such principles must naturally have thrown open a wide door for all manner of hypocrisy. Even Eusebius, panegyrist of Constantine, blinded as he was by the splendor which the latter had cast over the outward church, although he would gladly say nothing but good of his hero; yet even

he is obliged to reckon among the grievous evils of this period, of which he was an eye-witness, the indescribable hypocrisy of those who gave themselves out as Christians merely for temporal advantage, and who, by their outward show of zeal for the faith, contrived to win the confidence of the emperor, which he suffered them to abuse.”—History, p. 28.

Nothing can be added to the above words of Neander to make them impressive. Nothing more should be needed to put us on our guard against trusting to that age for any just decisions of truth. Gibbon says Constantine carried out the policy which he advised before the Council by offering valuable presents to those who would embrace Christianity. It was an age of great moral and religious darkness. The following words fitly describe it:—

“The simplicity of the gospel was corrupted; pompous rites and ceremonies were introduced; worldly honors and emoluments were conferred on the teachers of Christianity, and the kingdom of Christ in a great measure converted into a kingdom of this world.”—McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia, Art., Constantine.

And unfortunately the influence of that time and of those events is not lost upon the world and the church unto this day. As long as men praise Constantine and his works, and count the Roman Empire of the fourth century a Christian empire, so long are they guilty of putting darkness for light and evil for good; so long are they paying homage to a gross perversion and abuse of Christianity. Another eminent church historian says:—

“It were to be wished that there had been as much zeal at this time to support the doctrines and realize the power of the cross as there was to honor its formalities. But this was far from being the case. “For neither in Constantine, nor in his favorite bishops, nor in the general appearance of the church, can we see much of the spirit of godliness. Pompous apparatus, augmented superstitions, and unmeaning forms of piety, much show and little substance, appear.” This is the impression which the account given by Eusebius has left on my mind.

“External piety flourished, monastic societies in particular places were also growing; but faith, love, heavenly mindedness appear very rare; yet among the poor and obscure Christians I hope there was far more godliness than could be seen at courts, and among bishops and persons of eminence. The doctrine of real conversion was very much lost, or external baptism was placed in its stead; and the true doctrine of justification by faith, and the true practical use of a crucified Saviour for troubled consciences, were scarce to be seen at this time. There was much outward religion, but this could not make men saints in heart and life. The worst part of the character of Constantine is, that as he grew older he grew more culpable, oppressive in his own family, oppressive to the government, oppressive by eastern superfluous magnificence; and the facts to be displayed will show how little true humility and charity were now known in the Christian world, while superstition and self-righteousness were making vigorous shoots, and the real gospel of Christ was hidden from men who professed it.”—Milner, pp. 210, 211.

And thus again Dr. Hase:— “As fast as he could wisely do so, and by all the means which an absolute monarch can bring to bear upon his favorite plans, Constantine gradually bestowed upon the church security, wealth, privileges, and everything which could make it attractive.”—Page 103.