Constantine.-IX by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Apr 23, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 17.

Constantine.—IX.

By Editor

IN regard to the length of time in which Constantine retained his inconsistent position as a professed Christian, and, at the same time, a pagan high priest, Dr. Schaff further says:—

“When at last on his death bed he submitted to baptism, with the remark, ‘Now let us cast away all duplicity,’ he honestly admitted the conflict of two antagonistic principles which swayed his private character and public life.”—Hist., vol. 2, p. 18.

It appears beyond all denial that, had not the bishops become ambitious, selfish, and worldly; had they not valued the personal favors bestowed by the emperor above the purity of the church, they would never have recognized him as the leader and head of the church, as he actually was at the council of Nice. But this was a dark day for the church, as the extracts we have given conclusively show. Most of the testimony respecting it comes to us through the “orthodox” or Roman side. But the picture is dark enough. Athanasius, a man of indomitable will and determination, took the lead of the Trinitarians, or orthodox, as they were finally called, while Arius headed the opposition. Strong charges were preferred against Athanasius, concerning whose trial Sozomon thus speaks:—

“After several sessions, when the synod was filled with tumult and confusion, and the accusers and a multitude of persons around the tribunal were crying aloud that Athanasius ought to be deposed as a sorcerer and a ruffian, and a being utterly unworthy of the priesthood, the officers, who had been appointed by the emperor to maintain order in the synod, compelled the accused to quit the judgment hall secretly; for they feared that he might be torn to pieces by the mob.”—Eccl. Hist., p. 86.

But Athanasius triumphed; his party was decided to be orthodox, and Arius was denounced as a heretic. Constantine, in keeping with his vacillating policy, espoused the cause of Arius, but afterward opposed him in the most determined manner. Socrates gives the following as an edict published by the emperor for the destruction of the writings of Arius:—

“If any treatise composed by Arius should be discovered, let it be consigned to the flames, in order that not only his depraved doctrine may be suppressed, but also that no memorial of him may be by any means left. This therefore I decree, that if any one shall be detected in concealing a book composed by Arius, and shall not instantly bring it forward and burn it, the penalty for this offense shall be death; for immediately after conviction the criminal shall suffer capital punishment.”—Socrates’ Eccl. Hist., B. 1, chap. 9, p. 31.

With such a decree in regard to his writings, with enemies ever alert to see that it was carried into effect, it is not surprising that the world knows absolutely nothing of the actual teachings of Arius. So far as Arius himself was concerned, the controversy was closed by his sudden death in a fit of purging and retching; the orthodox declaring that God had smitten him for perverting the faith, and his friends as persistently declaring that he died of poison from the hands of his orthodox enemies. And their statement does not appear unreasonable when we consider the spirit in which the warfare was waged against him by the “orthodox” party.

By the testimony which has been herein produced it has been seen that the judicious have always looked upon Constantine’s espousal of the cause of the church as of doubtful utility to the church and to Christianity. But the full extent of his legacy to the church is appreciated by very few. Himself a high priest of the pagan rites, with nothing whatever to recommend him as a follower of Christ, presiding over a council of Christian bishops, alluring them by flattery and presents, set an example which the ambitious prelates were not slow to follow.

Of his influence and the results Eugene Lawrence speaks as follows:—

“Constantine became emperor, and the bishops of Rome emerged from the Catacombs to become one of the ruling powers of the world. This sudden change was followed by an almost total loss of the simplicity and purity of the days of persecution. Magnificent churches were erected by the emperor in Rome, adorned with images and pictures, where the bishop sat on a lofty throne, encircled by inferior priests, and performing rites borrowed from the splendid ceremonial of the pagan temple. The bishop of Rome became a prince of the empire, and lived in a style of luxury and pomp that awakened the envy or the just indignation of the heathen writer, Marcellinus. The church was now enriched by the gifts and bequests of the pious and the timid; the bishop drew great revenues from his farms in the Campagna and his rich plantations in Sicily; he rode through the streets of Rome in a stately chariot and clothed in gorgeous attire; his table was supplied with a profusion more than imperial; the proudest women of Rome loaded him with lavish donations, and followed him with their flatteries and attentions; and his haughty bearing and profuse luxury were remarked upon by both pagans and Christians, as strangely inconsistent with the humility and simplicity enjoined by the faith which he professed. The bishopric of Rome now became a splendid prize, for which the ambitious and unprincipled contended by force or fraud.”—Historical Studies, art. Bishops of Rome.

He adorned the churches “with images and pictures,” and Gibbon says it was from his erecting the cross as a symbol to be reverenced that “the Catholic Church, both of the East and of the West, has adopted a prodigy which favors, or seems to favor, the popular worship of the cross.”—Dec. and Fall, chap. 20, § 13.

It is well to bear in mind that he never used the “labarum” or symbol of the cross until over ten years after he professed to have seen the vision! See Gibbon, chap. 20, ¶ 11; and Ency. Brit., art. Constantine.

Although the gorgeous rites of the pagan worship were introduced into the worship of the churches, there was found an excuse (as there always is) for the innovation. They were put to a “pious use.” Thus Gibbon says:—

“The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. It must ingenuously be confessed that ministers of the Catholic Church imitated the profane model which they were impatient to destroy.”—Dec. and Fall, chap. 28, § 16.

No one can fail to see from these statements, the origin of image worship, and of the gaudy ceremonials of the Catholic Church, as seen even in this day. The progress and success of this step is thus described by the same historian:—

“At first the experiment was made with caution and scruple; and the venerable pictures were discreetly allowed to instruct the ignorant, to awaken the cold, and to gratify the prejudices of the heathen proselytes. By a slow though inevitable progression, the honors of the original were transferred to the copy; the devout Christian prayed before the image of a saint; and the pagan rites of genuflection, luminaries, and incense again stole into the Catholic Church. The scruples of reason or piety were silenced by the strong evidence of visions and miracles; and the pictures which speak, and move, and bleed must be endowed with a divine energy, and may be considered as the proper objects of religious adoration.”—Dec. and Fall, chap. 49, § 2.

Another part of Constantine’s legacy to the church, which has ever since his day occupied an important place in the Catholic faith, is the pontificate and primacy of Rome, and with it the union of church and State, or the uniting of civil and ecclesiastical power in one officer. The papacy owes both its origin and power to this emperor.

In conformity to his polytheistic religion, and his policy of favoring all whose influence could strengthen his authority, “he exempted the Christian clergy from municipal duty” as early as 313. [Schaff, vol. 2, p. 3.] An early historian has left us a very important testimony on this subject:—

“Constantine likewise enacted a law in favor of the clergy, permitting judgment to be passed by the bishops when litigants preferred appealing to them rather than to the secular court; he enacted that their decrees should be valid, and as far superior to that of other judges as if pronounced by the emperor himself; that the governor and subordinate military officers should see to the execution of these decrees; and that sentence, when passed by them, should be irreversible.”—Sozomon, Eccl. Hist., p. 11.

Thus the clergy were not only permitted to exercise the functions of a civil magistrate, but they were given authority above that of the civil magistrates. From their decisions there was no appeal. It takes but little knowledge of the laws of courts to perceive how readily corruption would be introduced and fostered by such an arrangement. In fact, every step tended toward binding the church and the State together as really as if that had been the only object in view. The tendency to worldliness as the result of such action is thus set forth by Hallam:—

“It was among the first effects of the conversion of Constantine, to give not only a security but a legal sanction to the territorial acquisitions of the church. The edict of Milan, in 313, recognizes the actual estates of ecclesiastical corporations. Another, published in 321, grants to all the subjects of the empire the power of bequeathing their property to the church. His own liberality and that of his successors, set an example which did not want imitators. Passing rapidly from a state of distress and persecution to the summit of prosperity, the church degenerated as rapidly from her ancient purity, and forfeited the respect of future ages in the same proportion as she received the blind veneration of her own. Covetousness, especially, became almost a characteristic vice.”—Hallam, Middle Ages, p. 261.

It is a mistake, however, to place these actions as the “effects of the conversion of Constantine,” as there is no proof that he considered the Christian religion better than other religions at the time of these decrees. He was aware of the firmness and constancy of the Christians under persecution, and as a politic statesman he thought best to attach the bishops and the churches to himself, to draw their influence toward the empire rather than to increase divisions among his subjects. By uniting the Christian and pagan systems he hoped to strengthen the empire; and to this end he used every means to give influence to the ambitious prelates, especially to the bishop of Rome. The following statement of the “Encyclopædia Britannica” is pointed and truthful:—

“It has been frequently remarked that Christianity did as much for Constantine as he did for it, and the history of the time amply justifies the observation. Whatever be the truth about the sincerity of his conversion, it is undoubted that he, from first to last, looked at the church from a political point of view, and made use of it accordingly for his own political aggrandizement.”—Enc. Brit., art. Christianity.