At the time of Constantine's accession to the purple (306 A. D.), one part of the Roman populace was trying to exterminate another by the persecutions of Diocletian against the Christians. Political rivalry and civil war were gnawing out the vitals of the empire within, while formidable barbarian enemies threatened it from without. In the meantime a similar state existed among the churches. The seeds of corrupt doctrine were bearing a bountiful harvest of confusion, schism, and discord. The persistent arrogant claims of the Roman bishops added to the increase. Eusebius describes the situation thus:
"When by reason of too much liberty we had sunk into indolence and negligence, envying and railing upon one another; and as it were almost at the point of taking up arms against each other; and with words, as if they were spears and battle-axes, prelates were assailing prelates, and people were taking sides against people, and unutterable hypocrisy and dissimulation having reached the height of malignity, the divine judgment, with leniency as usual, while the factions are clashing, gently and moderately starts its visitation, a beginning of persecution, because of the brethren in war.
And as if destitute of sensibility, we were unwilling to promptly placate the kind and gracious Deity; but as some atheists, considering our deeds unheeded and unobserved (by Provi
dence) , we added one wickedness to another." 1This state of things was attributed to "too much liberty." Victor I (about 198), and other Roman bishops had decreed, but they were powerless to compel obedience to their decrees, or to bring about the much-desired conformity to their scheme of a universal church under a spiritual dictator. The apostasy was ready for the appearance of a friendly civil power to supply the wanting force of coercion. Says M. Rostovtzeff:
"The time was ripe for a reconciliation of state and church, each of which needed the other. It was a stroke of genius in Constantine to realize this and act upon it. He offered peace to the church, provided she would recognize and support the imperial power." 2
The household god of Constantine's family had been Apollo, the sun-god of Greek and Roman mythology. After quelling a rebellion of Franks (308 A. D.), he repaired to the temple
of Apollos with offerings of gratitude for the victory. In 310 A. D. he was reminded, on an occasion of great solemnity, by the orator Bumenius of his hereditary god, "Apollinum tuum." 3
The inhabitants of Italy, galled by the government of Maxentius, sent a secret mission to Constantine beyond the Alps to come to their rescue. He himself had personal feelings of
enmity against Maxentius, and the invitation was accepted. It must have been intimated to Constantine that he would find an ally among the Christians if he would proceed rightly
toward them. Ere he met the enemy in battle, he professed conversion to Christianity. The circumstances, as they were afterward told, were these:
As he prayed toward the declining sun, he declared he saw a fiery cross above the solar disk, and an inscription which said: "In this (sign) conquer." On the following night, he
said, a heavenly being visited him and repeated the command of the daylight vision. Word was sent to the clergy, who explained that Christ Himself was the celestial visitor, and inter
preted other things relative to the vision.
Constantine immediately put himself under their spiritual direction, and "made the priests of God his counselors." *
Maxentius lost the day at the Milvian Bridge (312 A. D.), and his life in the waters of the Tiber. The clergy hailed Constantine as a second Moses, comparing the defeat of Maxentius, and his drowning, to the destruction of Pharaoh's host in the Red Sea.5
"Whatever may have been the circumstances or the motives which led Constantine to make the cross his standard," says Myers, "this act of his constitutes a turning point in the history
of the Roman Empire, and especially in that of the Christian church." 6
By virtue of his office as the chief magistrate of the people, Constantine was the pontifex maximus of the state cult, Mithraism. Hence, the vision of the cross and the sun did really
represent what was effected in his person, a reconciliation of the interests of sun worship and apostate Christianity. While he was the high priest of "the invincible sun-god Mithra" to his heathen subjects, he was at the same time princeps teatissimws [most blessed prince] and "servant of God" to Christians. He must have had this in mind when he said to the clergy:
"While you are bishops of those within the church; and I, having been appointed by God, might be bishop of those outside the church."'
The ecclesiastics looked upon Constantine's profession of Christianity as a godsend, and hailed it with joy. The triumph of Sunday observance was seen to be secured by his intervention. Speaking of Constantine's aid in settling the Easter controversy in favor of Sunday, Eusebius wrote:
"It was impossible to find among men a remedy for this evil, the controversy being equally balanced between the two sides. But for God alone it was easy to cure even this evil, and
Constantine alone of those upon earth appeared an assistant for good in this." 8 Not only did he "make the priests of God his counselors," but he also appointed deacons and
ministers as custodians of all his house.9 Early in the fourth century, Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, Spain, was employed to communicate the imperial will of Constantine to Csecilian, bishop
of Carthage, relative to the distribution of a grant of money. A law, in 321 A. D., was addressed to Hosius, which he promulgated, sanctioning the freedom of slaves emancipated in
the presence of clergymen." Eusebius of Geesarea was one of his closest spiritual advisers at this time, and wrote in defense of Sunday as praising the emperor's Sunday laws. Many
similar acts might be cited to show that Constantine's legislation in religious matters was done under the direction of clerical advisers and counselors.
The first law ever promulgated among men forbidding labor on Sunday was issued by Constantine on March 7, 321 A. D. It says:
"Let all judges and townspeople and all occupations of trade rest on the venerable day of the sun; nevertheless, let those who are situated in the rural districts freely and with full liberty attend to the cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other day may be so fitting for the planting of grain and setting out of vineyards, lest at the time the commodities conceded by the provision of Heaven be lost. Given the seventh day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls, each of them, for the second time:""
On the next day, March 8, he promulgated another decree, ordering the heathenish consultation of the haruspices, those who divined by examining the entrails of animals offered for sacrifice. He said:
"That whenever the lightning should strike the imperial palace or any other public edifice, the haruspices, according to ancient usage, should be consulted as to what it might signify, and a careful report of the answer should be drawn up for our use." 12
Gibbon sarcastically remarks:
"His ministers were permitted to signify the intentions of their master in' the various language which was best adapted to their respective principles; and he artfully balanced the hopes and fears of his subjects, by publishing in the same year two edicts, the first of which enjoined the solemn observance of Sunday, and the second directed the regular consultation of the [h]aruspices." 13
In the following June, of the same year, an other law recommended the use of Sunday for religious purposes rather than for litigation:
"As it should seem most improper that the day of the sun, noted for its veneration, be occupied in wrangling discussions and obnoxious contentions of parties, so it is agreeable and
pleasing to be performed on that day what is principally vowed; and also all may have liberty on this festive day for emancipation and manumission, and acts concerning these matters may not be prohibited." 14
(To tbe continued)
References and Footnotes
1 Eusebius, "Historia Ecclesiastica" (Ecclesiastical History), book 8, chap. 1. The quotations from this writer are based on the Greek text of his works found in the editions of Migne's "Patrologia Graeca," Vol. 20, and of Henry Valesius, Paris, 1678.
2 "The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire," p. 456, Oxford University Press, 1924.
3 "Panegyric! Veteres" (Old Panegyrics), edition of Joannes LivJueius, Antwerp, 1599, pp. 204, 205.
4 Eusebius, "De Vita Constantini" (The Life of Constantine), book 1, chaps. 28, 32. See note 1, above.
5 Id., book 1, chap. 38; "Eccl. Hist.," book 9, chap. 9.
6 "Ancient History," edition of 1904, p. 524.
7 Eusebius, "Tie Life of Constantine," book 4, chap. 24. See notes 1 and 4, above.
8 Id., book 3, chap. 5.
9 Id., booE 4, chap. 18.
10 Eusebius, "Eccl. Hist," book 10, chap. 6; "Life of Constantine," book 2, chap. 46; and P. Meyrick, "The Church in Spain," New York, 1892, pp. 66, '67.
11 "Codex Justiniani" (Justinian's Code), edition of Jacobi Analli de Bottis, Venice, 1621, book 3, title 12, law 3.
12 "Codex Theodosiani" (Code of Theodosius), edition of Jacobi Gothofredi, Lyons, 1655, book 16, title 10, law 1.
13 "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Gibbon, Vol. II, p. 250, Milman's edition, 1875.
14 "Codes Theodosiani," book 2, title 8, law 1. See note 12, above.