Constantine the Great: Who Was He? by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 22, 1875

Constantine the Great: Who Was He?

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

CONSTANTINE.—NO. 1.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

There are few names which have been favored with greater celebrity for a thousand years past than the name of Constantine. Almost all classes have united in styling him “the great,” though they have not always agreed as to the reasons why he should bear the title, yet all agree that he was a man of no ordinary ability, a brave and successful general, and a shrewd and politic statesman. Some have also given him credit for the qualities of a sincere and earnest Christian, but in this there is little agreement. The number of authors, that is, of creditable historians, who account him a Christian is by no means large.

Constantine was born in A. D. 272. He was proclaimed emperor upon the death of his father in 306, at the age of thirty-four. For six years he was not fully established in the empire. Maxentius claimed or usurped dominion in Italy. He was defeated in 312, after which Constantine had sole authority. He died in 337, aged 65. Hence “the age of Constantine” properly dates from 306 to 337—a period of thirty-one years.

His father was at least lenient toward Christianity, if not favorable to it, and enacted laws of toleration. His mother was a believer in the Christian religion, which fact may have had much to do with the mild and tolerant course of his father. His mother has by some been esteemed as a devout and intelligent Christian; while others have considered her a religious enthusiast or bigoted fanatic, full of the superstition of those times. The times in which she lived, and especially the court influences by which she was surrounded, were not favorable to the development of a high type of Christianity; and the manner in which she treated the supposed “relics” which she found in Jerusalem, or pretended to find there, shows that she was easily deceived, or tried to deceive others. She is also supposed to have molded the mind of Constantine in favor of Christianity. But that is to be doubted, as he appears to have been actuated entirely by State policy in his first efforts in favor of the Christian religion. Or, if he was at all influenced by her position as a believer, it was no more than to this extent, that he was willing to place Christ among the gods, without according to him any supremacy. That Constantine did, for a long time, hold the Saviour in this relation, is testified by many historians.

There is no room to doubt that, in the minds of many religious theorists, Constantine has occupied a position which does not at all belong to him. This false view has been aided by a few authors of the fourth century. A man is not always most correctly judged in his own day. In the case of Constantine, some, of those whose writings concerning him have come down to us, were his flatterers, and were dazzled by the splendor of his court or by the richness of his favors. But they were mostly blinded by the benefit which they supposed he conferred on the cause of Christianity. Some of them held him up as worthy to be classed with the apostles! When such senseless adulation is indulged in we must use judgment to glean the truth from a field fruitful of error.

After ages, beholding the consequences of his course, the formality and hypocrisy which were introduced by his adopting Christianity as the religion of the empire, and being beyond the influence of the gaudy tinsel which he threw over that religion, by which its loveliness was obscured instead of being increased, others have been better able to discern the motives which led to many of his acts; and they have discovered that he was not so much the adherent to real Christianity as the patron of a religious system which was likely to give strength to his empire and to add glory to his reign.

It must not, however, be inferred that it was left altogether to after ages to settle the question that he was not a true Christian. Some in his own day were amazed at the extent of his crimes. But we can easily believe it was not considered prudent to say much to disparage a monarch so illustrious, and so jealous of his fame and reputation. It is a truth learned from observation of all ages that they who exert the greatest influence in molding public opinion are generally the interested ones, who are the most likely to mislead, and by reason of whom the more candid are held in check, or, as is often the case, the testimony of the latter class is withheld for a time from view. Also, in judging of the merits of powerful monarchs we must remember that flatterers and sycophants are the only ones who are generally admitted to their presence. They who are too upright to dissemble soon give offense, and are dismissed from the courts in disgrace, if not condemned to death as criminals, or as men dangerous to the peace of the State.

In offering historical evidence of the character of Constantine, instead of being crippled for want of testimony, we may need to apologize for offering so much. We desire the reader to bear in mind that the name and influence of Constantine have been used to give weight to certain innovations in the church, and there may be some who will be interested to bring in question the facts presented. Inasmuch as we have taken upon us to give a historical view of these things, we have deemed it fitting our purpose to cite authorities to such an extent that it may appear to all that we are moving on safe ground, and that our statements are not to be disputed as the opinions of a few, or of a minority.

As a man fitted to govern an empire, or, in a worldly view, merely, Constantine would not stand much behind the first rulers of Rome. Mercy, and even justice, was not often to be found in the breasts of emperors, not even for their own kindred and families, when they stood in the way of their ambitious schemes. Constantine, instead of being an exception in this respect, was jealous, cold, and vindictive. His own wife and offspring were sacrificed, apparently without compunction, to his selfishness and ambition. Even the heathen were shocked at his crimes, especially at the causeless murder of an amiable son, and considered him beyond the reach of pardon.

But our chief interest in Constantine is in regard to his relation to the cause of the Christian religion. Were we to confine ourselves to the best accredited facts of his profession of Christianity, we should notice his life only from 323 to 337, a period of fourteen years. But there has been made a strong effort to present him as a conscientious disciple, as well as the courtly patron of Christianity, from the time of his battle with Maxentius. And it has been claimed that the most remarkable event of his life took place at that time, which directly led to his reception of Christianity. We refer to the reputed vision of the cross. There is, however, no need to distinguish between particular periods in his life; as historians are well agreed that his selfishness and his crimes were increased rather than diminished, after his profession of Christianity.

Eusebius, bishop and historian, is more than all others relied upon to prove the excellent character of Constantine, and the great service rendered to the cause of Christianity. But it will be shown by unquestionable testimony and evident considerations that he was biased by court favors, and, like most of the eminent men of the church of that day, considered the favors shown to himself as so much in favor of the cause he professed. Passing from an age of bitter persecution, none of them seemed to realize that there could be any motive but to glorify God which could lead to the toleration, not to say to the upholding, of a religion which had been so deeply despised. The Scripture says, A gift blindeth the wise. Constantine was not slow to attach to his court eminent dignitaries by such means. Nor were the ambitious bishops, who were already full of jealousy against each other, slow to accept the favor of the emperor and turn it to their own advantage. Eusebius was a favorite of Constantine, and in turn became his adulatory. He could not, indeed, be blind to his faults, nor ignorant of his crimes; but in some instances he passed over the more flagrant of them without notice, showing more of the politician and courtier than of the faithful historian. To such a degree did he manifest this disposition to gloss the character of his hero, as to greatly damage his writings as historical evidence, and to bring upon himself the condemnation of just and discriminating minds.

Lest the readers who have not extensively examined this subject should think we are speaking in strong terms, we will at once proceed to lay before them some statements which we have gathered from credible and reputable sources. Without pretending to exhaust the evidence we shall present enough to satisfy all that we have good reason for the remarks which we have here made.

It will be remembered that Constantine fought the decisive battle with Maxentius in 312 under the banner of the cross. Yet there are few who pretend to think that he had any faith as a Christian at that time. It was a superstitious notion with him, believing as he did in a diversity of gods, among whom he reckoned Christ. And thus Mosheim viewed him, as the following from his Historical Commentaries will show:—

“If that man is a Christian who thinks the Christian’s manner of worshiping God is a good and holy one, then I have no doubt that Constantine was, at that time, a Christian. But if no man should be called a Christian, unless he believes that Christianity is the only true religion, and that all other religions are false, then I suppose Constantine became a Christian at a later period.” —Pages 459.

There is strong reason to doubt that Constantine ever became a Christian in that sense unless it was a short time before his death. Stanley has the following striking passage:—

“We may remember the striking remarks of Niebuhr: ‘Many judge of Constantine by too severe a standard, because they regard him as a Christian; but I cannot look upon him in that light. The religion which he had in his head must have been a strange jumble indeed. * He was a superstitious man, and mixed up his Christian religion with all kinds of absurd superstitions and opinions. When certain oriental writers call him equal to the apostles, they do not know what they are saying; and to speak of him as a saint is a profanation of the word.’” —Pages 292.

Mosheim was not wont to speak harshly of Constantine, yet he speaks as follows of his favors to the Christians, for which a few have been willing to think that he was a true believer in their religion:—

“Constantine, therefore, in obedience to the commands of his father, as he himself admits in his edict preserved by Eusebius, wished to be accounted a worshiper of the one God. And yet, when occasion seemed to require it, and lest he should alienate the minds of the people and soldiers from him, he supplicated the gods, gave thanks to them, and offered them sacrifices and gifts. Such being the character of Constantine, before his conversion to Christianity, I fully believe that the favors he conferred on the Christians, from the very commencement of his reign, did not proceed either from his humanity and justice, or from any love for the Christian religion, but were owing solely to his desire to establish his own authority in the empire.—Hist. Com.*, p. 450.”},{