p. 292 | Constantine by J. H. Waggoner

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Jul 22, 1875

Constantine.

By J. H. Waggoner

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."

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 Lucinius for soon afterwards, when Lucinius 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."—His. Com., p. 473.

There is great question among authors 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."—His. 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. His., 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 Sozomon 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."—Sozomon 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 Sozomon, nor Ruffin who wrote so soon after, make any mention of it. And it has been thought that Eusebius, hearing the emperor narrating 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 Movement of the Church, Note, p. 59.

Mosheim also concedes a dream as the origin of the story thus :—

"Nor do we think it sufficiently proved, that the divine power interposed here to confirm the wavering faith of Constantine by a stupendous miracle. The only hypothesis, then, which remains is that we consider this famous cross as a vision, represented to the emperor in a dream, with the remarkable inscription, Hac vince, i. e., In this conquer; and this opinion is maintained by authors of considerable weight."—Eccl. His., pp. 79, 80.

But the editor of Mosheim thinks that in the above, he has conceded more than the facts will warrant, and considers it quite incredible. There has evidently been made an effort to make the supposition of the dream conform as nearly as possible to the story of the vision. It is indeed hardly supposable that, if he had a dream, he saw the inscription given. That was doubtless an after thought. Maclaine's note to the above contains the following :—

"This whole story is attended with difficulties which render it both as a miracle and as a fact extremely dubious, to say no more. It will necessarily be asked, whence it comes to pass, that the relation of a fact, which is said to have been seen by the whole army, is delivered by Eusebius, upon the sole credit of Constantine? This is the more unaccountable as Eusebius lived and conversed with many who must have been spectators of this event, had it really happened. The sole relation of one man concerning a public appearance, is not sufficient to give complete conviction; nor does it appear that this story was generally believed by the Christians, or by others, since several Ecclesiastical historians, who wrote after Eusebius, particularly Ruffin and Sozomon make no mention of this appearance of a cross in the heavens.—Mosheim, Eccl. His.*, pp. 79, 80.

And so also Keightley admits the dream only :—

"This legion is related by Eusebius, on the authority of Constantine himself; but his narrative did not appear till after the death of the emperor; and in his earlier work, the Ecclesiastical History, he is silent respecting it. Another contemporary mentions only a dream, in which Constantine was directed, on the night before the battle with Maxentius, to inscribe the sacred monogram on the shields of his soldiers; and adds that his obedience was rewarded with victory. We take not on us to decide how much of fiction or of error there may be in the legend; but that no actual miracle was wrought we venture to affirm without hesitation, in accordance with our fixed opinions on the subject."—History of Rome, p. 315.

No doubt Sozomon believed there was a dream as above stated, but no more. And Mosheim, Historical Commentaries, page 476, says, "Neither had Rufinus heard anything of it, for he likewise speaks only of a dream." This renders it still more probable that a dream, by a fraud which was not considered sinful in those days and under those circumstances, was turned into a miraculous vision, to suit the purpose of the narrator.

Milman regards it in the same light in which it is presented by Socrates :—

"And so for the first time the meek and peaceful Jesus became a god of battle; and the cross,

the holy sign of Christian redemption, a banner of bloody strife. This irreconcilable incongruity between the symbol of universal peace and the horrors of war, in my judgment, is conclusive against the miraculous or supernatural character of the transaction.

"If at this time Christianity had obtained any hold upon his mind, it was now the Christianity of the warrior, as subsequently it was that of the statesman. It was the military commander who availed himself of the assistance of any tutelary deity who might insure success to his daring enterprise. Christianity, in its higher sense, appeared neither in the acts nor in the decrees of the victorious Constantine after the defeat of Maxentius."—Page 288.

This idea of adopting a "tutelary deity" who should be propitious in battle, was purely pagan. And there is sufficient evidence that Constantine did not renounce this pagan view while fighting under the labarum, or sign of the cross. It was not to him an emblem of peace, but a pledge of conquest, a token of victory.

We have said that such a dream was only probable, as furnishing an explanation of the origin of the story. But there is no certainty that even that was a fact of occurrence. Waddington thinks the emperor himself was deceived by some appearance which his enthusiasm, perhaps by the weakness of sickness or passion, or the excitement of events, converted into a miracle. Of this idea he says :—

"It is the only supposition which can save both the intention of the emperor, and the veracity of the historian."—Eccl. His., p. 83.

But this will be hard to accomplish, put whatever construction upon the story we will. For if Constantine and his army did not actually see this day vision, how was it possible for him to be deceived so as to believe that they did? It would hardly be possible to save the emperor's reputation, even allowing the fact of the dream. On the other hand if the vision was seen by Constantine and his whole army, how could it be that Eusebius should be ignorant of it for about twenty-five years from its occurrence, and then learn it only from Constantine? And how, then, should all his contemporaries be dependent on him for a knowledge of it? Look at it in any light we please it bears on its face the evidence of fraud on the part of Constantine, and great credulity if not duplicity on the part of Eusebius.

The reader may have noticed, in a quotation given from Waddington, that that historian says Eusebius "does not even profess those rigid rules of veracity which command universal credit." This is an impeachment of Eusebius which may surprise many who have been accustomed to regard the testimony of Eusebius as reliable beyond all question. But before blaming Waddington for this statement it would be well for the defender of Eusebius to consider well whether it is possible to extricate the eminent bishop from the dilemma in which he has placed himself by his version of the story of the vision of the cross. We do not ask merely what may be probable, but what view of it is possible by which he may be rescued from the reproach of having sacrificed the truth upon the shrine of his hero? And from this we turn to find other historians taking as strong ground against the reliability of Eusebius as does Waddington. Thus Gibbon, in a quotation already given, says :—

"And the courtly bishop who has celebrated in an elaborate work the virtues and piety of his hero, observes a prudent silence on the subject of these tragic events."

Certainly it is not the part of a faithful and candid chronicler of events to pass over such actions, and those so well known, as Constantine's unnatural slaughter of the members of his own family. Neander ascribes the course of Eusebius to the fact that he was so blinded by the favor of Constantine, and the splendor of his court, that he really believed the emperor was specially inspired! But he who is so blinded by pomps or favors that he cannot discern the criminality of such acts as Constantine was guilty of as late as 326, can scarcely be relied upon to guide in a just view of interesting and important events. Or, if he was not blind to the criminality of those things, he is still more worthy of blame in passing over the crimes in silence and lauding the perpetrator as a pure Christian and inspired warrior and statesman.

J. H. WAGGONER.

(To be Continued.)