“Constantine has long been a whipping boy, and still is today,”[1] wrote Peter Leithart, author of Defending Constantine. This testimony is true; for throughout the centuries, many Christian historians, theologians, pastors and scholars have blamed Constantine for corrupting the Church and slandered him as a false convert who only pretended to be a Christian for political gain. However, notable Christians of Constantine’s day, such as the Church historian Eusebius, had a very different impression of the Roman Emperor. According to these persons, Constantine was a sincere convert to the Christian faith, a lover of the true God and someone who had the best interest of the Church in mind. Hence the question is, who is correct? Was Constantine a deceitful monarch who pretended to convert to Christianity for selfish reasons? Or was he a sincere convert to Christianity, who had benevolent intentions toward the Church and sought its benefit? Where does the evidence point?
If Constantine was a true Christian, he must have had a conversion experience – a time when Christ became real to him and he decided to give his life unreservedly to God – for every Christian has had such an experience. As it turns out, Constantine did claim to have had such an experience; for he told the following story, which he confirmed with an oath: Just before engaging with Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in the year 312, he prayed earnestly that God would reveal who he was and provide him with assistance in the upcoming battle. About midday, he saw the sign of a cross of light appear in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription: CONQUER BY THIS. He was struck by amazement, along with his whole army, for they followed him and witnessed the miracle. Some may doubt the truth of this story, but there are at least three reasons to believe it: First, it helps explain why Constantine showed such favor to the Christians after this time. Second, Constantine, when relating the story to Eusebius, used an oath to affirm he was telling the truth, which (even if this does not prove that his story was true) at least is evidence he was not making things up. Third, the entire army had seen the miracle, so there were many witnesses who could verify Constantine’s assertion.
That night, Constantine was arguing within himself about the exact meaning of the sign. After he fell asleep, Christ appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the sky and commanded him to make a copy of it and carry it into battle. Constantine obeyed the heavenly mandate, for at dawn he arose and told the marvel to his friends. Then, calling together workers of gold and gems, he described what he had seen so they could replicate it. The item produced at his command was called the labarum. It was a long spear made into the form of a cross with a perpendicular bar attached, on top of which there was a wreath of gold and precious stones, in the midst of which was inscribed the first two letters of Christ’s name.[2] The Christian writer and scholar Lactantius, who later became a counselor to Constantine and a tutor to one of his sons, confirmed this story and also added some other details: “Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded.”[3] Now after these things had occurred, Constantine called for Christians to explain the things that had happened to him. After hearing from them the details of the Christian faith, he determined, in the words of Eusebius, “to worship no other God save him who had appeared to him”[4]
Constantine not only had a conversion experience, but he held to the tenets of orthodox Christianity. In the Oration of Constantine given to an assembly of believers, Constantine alludes to his belief in all three persons of the Trinity when he mentions “the worship due to the supreme Father,”[5] “Christ, the author of every blessing, who is God, and the Son of God…”[6] and “…the Divine Spirit”[7] He further mentions that Christ put on flesh when he was born of the Virgin “apart from marriage”[8] and that he is also the “Savior of mankind.”[9] He further expressed belief in the judgment to come: “The actions of our lives,” Constantine said, “shall pass under his review, and when those who are clear in that account shall receive the reward of everlasting life, while the wicked shall be visited with the penalties due to their crimes.”[10] In regard to the practical matters of Christianity, Constantine accurately described the Christian life of virtue: “Is there not with us genuine concord, and unwearied love of others? If we reprove a fault, is not our object to admonish, not to destroy; our correction for safety, not for cruelty? Do we not exercise not only sincere faith toward God, but fidelity in the relations of social life? Do we not pity the unfortunate? Is not ours a life of simplicity which disdains to cover evil beneath the mask of fraud and hypocrisy?”[11] Thus Constantine demonstrated he held to the teachings of the orthodox Christian faith.
Nor did Constantine hold these beliefs in secret, pronouncing them only to select fellow Christians. Rather, he demonstrated his sincerity in adhering to the Christian faith by doing something no other sovereign had ever done before him: He publicly gave glory to the God of the Christians. When he entered Rome after defeating Maxentius, he was greeted by a large crowd including senators and common people, who came to him with continuous shouts of great joy. However, Constantine “being sensible that he had received help from God, he immediately rendered a thanksgiving to him as the Author of his victory.”[12] Furthermore, Constantine erected a statue of himself in the most public place in Rome with the cross of Christ in his hand, along with this inscription: “By this salutary sign, the true proof of bravery, I have saved and freed your city from the yoke of the tyrant…” thereby giving glory to Christ and recognizing his victory was not simply the result of military prowess, but due to the intervention of God – something no other Roman emperor had ever done before.[13]
It took Constantine a long time to get baptized (due to reasons that are debated among scholars), but eventually he did demonstrate the validity of his faith by getting baptized. This occurred after Constantine had grown very sick. After offering many prayers to God, Constantine became convinced he would not recover. He then went to Nicomedia, where he was received the sign of baptism in one of the suburbs, having requested it of the bishops in that place. After he was baptized, Constantine became exceedingly joyful and gave thanks to God.[14] Symbolically, he laid aside his purple robes and only wore white garments from that time forth. He also poured out words of thanksgiving to God and said, “Now I know that I am truly blessed: now I feel assured that I am accounted worthy of immortality, and am made a partaker of Divine light.”[15]
Besides the emperor himself, there are many who have testified that Constantine was a true believer in Jesus – both in the days of his reign and afterward. First of all, the church historian Eusebius said of Constantine: “He maintained a continual testimony to his Christianity, with all boldness and before all men, and so far was he from shrinking from an open profession of the Christian name, that he rather desired to make it manifest to all that he regarded this as the highest honor.”[16] Of course, it is possible that Eusebius’ opinion of Constantine may have been biased due to his friendship with the Emperor. But even after the death of Constantine in 337, the church historian Sozomen (c. 380 – c. 450) expressed a similar view when he wrote, “It is universally admitted Constantine embraced the religion of the Christians previous to his war with Maxentius and prior to his return to Rome and Italy.”[17]
Even if we put aside the testimony of these two great historians, there were numerous bishops from all over the world who attested to Constantine’s sincere piety and devotion to God; for the hundreds of bishops who had gathered for the Council of Nicaea composed a letter to the churches scattered throughout the earth, in which they declared their decision regarding the divinity of Christ and also made mention of the emperor, who they described as “our most pious sovereign Constantine,”[18] thus demonstrating their belief in the sincerity of the emperor’s profession of faith. Furthermore, during the reign of Constantine’s son, a synod of bishops was held at Ariminum, who composed a letter and sent it by the hand of twenty bishops. This letter also mentions Constantine, who they spoke of as “of worthy memory, who maintained it [that is, the faith set forth at Nicaea] throughout his life, and at his baptism, and when he departed to enjoy the merited peace of heaven.”[19] This was again the opinion of the leaders of churches throughout the Christian world, and it should not be taken lightly.
This being said, the following question should be asked: What was it about Constantine’s life that caused church leaders from all around the world to view him as a sincere convert to Christianity? The answer is, he not only professed Christ, but exemplified (both in private and public) a transformed lifestyle, driven by what appeared to be a sincere love for God and the Church. In his private life, as soon as he was convinced of the truth of Christianity, Constantine “determined thenceforth,” in the words of Eusebius, “to devote himself to the reading of the inspired writings.”[20] In other words, Constantine spent time reading the Bible. In addition, he was also a man of prayer. According to the historian Sozomen, when Constantine went to war, he ordered that a tent be sent before him, in which prayer and praise was lifted to God and communion was taken. This tent was attended by priests and deacons. Additionally, Constantine caused a house of prayer to be built inside his palace at home.[21] At a particular time each day, the emperor would go away by himself into the inner chambers of his palace and spend time with God, praying and making requests of the Almighty, while kneeling humbly before him.[22] Sometimes Constantine would also discipline himself by fasting and practicing bodily mortification.[23]
Besides having a good devotional life, Constantine also had many admirable character traits, which again are evidences of a life transformed by Jesus. First, unlike the Emperor Diocletian, who in the not-too-distant past had claimed to be equivalent to the Roman god Jupiter – and unlike the other Western Emperors, who were known as Heracleans – Constantine refused to take on to himself these overly ostentatious titles associated with Greco-Roman mythology. And this was during a time when even the smallest alteration from tradition might have been viewed as a great offense.[24] Second, Constantine was a man of humility, for during the church council he called together, he did not think it beneath himself to sit in the midst of the leaders of the churches, as one individual among many, dismissing his bodyguards and soldiers.[25] Third, Constantine proved himself to be one who was not given to taking personal vengeance on those who expressed exasperation toward him. Rather, he bore their malicious conduct with grace and patience, interpreting their deeds as being inspired by the evil one.[26] Fourth, Constantine treated his prisoners humanely, sparing their lives. He even prevented his soldiers from killing their foes whenever possible by offering a certain amount of gold to anyone in his army who saved the life of one of their enemies, rather than killing them.[27] Thus he demonstrated love even for the enemies of his empire.
There is yet more evidence that Constantine was a sincere believer in Christ and only had the best interest of the Church in mind. There is a saying, “You can know a man by his friends.” And who were Constantine’s friends? According to Eusebius, shortly after Constantine had the vision of the blazing cross, he surrounded himself with church leaders as his counselors.[28] And even though many of these church leaders were poor and thus could not afford to wear expensive clothing, Constantine invited them to eat at his own royal table and treated them with the utmost honor. He also made them his traveling companions.[29] Also, the majority of the people Constantine appointed to as rulers of the empire were Christians. Even when he occasionally appointed non-believers to positions of power within the empire, he forbade them (at least during the later years of his reign) to offer sacrifices to idols. However, he made it clear that Christians were free to worship God as they saw fit.[30]
Constantine further evidenced his sincere devotion for God by publishing laws and issuing decrees that benefited the Church. For instance, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 312, which offered religious freedom to everyone within his empire, “Christians as well as others.” He also ordered that all church buildings that had been taken away from the Christians during previous persecutions should be immediately restored to them by their present owners, without demanding any money. However, if the present owners desired money, they were permitted to go the district judge where they could receive government compensation.[31] Constantine also wrote several epistles to Anulinus, the proconsul of Africa, in which he ordered the proconsul to cause all items stolen from the churches to be immediately restored to the Christians[32] and to exempt the clergy from all the political duties that normal citizens would be required to perform, so they could attend continually to sacred matters and procure the favor of God.[33] Constantine even outlawed pagan diviners and gladiatorial shows, along with many other morally corrupt practices of the day.[34]
In addition to issuing laws and decrees on behalf of Christians, Constantine rebuilt Christian meeting places and gave enormous amounts of money to the churches. This is confirmed by the church historian Socrates: “Now Constantine, the emperor, having thus embraced Christianity, conducted himself as a Christian of his profession, rebuilding the churches, and enriching them with splendid offerings.”[35] Constantine also issued an imperial Epistle to Caecilianus, bishop of Carthage, in which he expressed his decision to financially support church leaders with a salary.[36] Furthermore, Constantine “gave from his own private resources costly benefactions to the churches of God, both enlarging and heightening the sacred edifices, and embellishing the august sanctuaries of the church with abundant offerings.”[37]
It should be noted that Constantine was not only concerned with the physical state of the Church, but also its spiritual state. Hence, on several occasions when a heresy or schism was threatening to divide or damage the church, he urged the clergy to gather in councils and settle the issues. The most famous instance of this occurred at Nicaea in 325, when the emperor Constantine invited hundreds of bishops from nations around the world to convene at his palace and settle the dispute over Christ’s divinity originating with the heretic Arius. The conflict had become so heated that it was threatening to divide and perhaps destroy the Church. The council, however, successfully overthrew the Arian heresy and produced the famous Nicene Creed, which is still recited in many churches today. With time the council also brought about restored unity in the Church.[38] Although the Church could have been saved from division without Constantine’s help, just as God could have saved the ancient Jews from Haman without Esther’s assistance, the fact that Constantine took the initiative to call such a great assembly together is evidence of his sincere love and concern for the Church of God.
Constantine’s concern for the spiritual state of the Church and his empire bore good fruit. For during his reign, Christianity grew exponentially. In the words of Sozomen, “Under the government of Constantine the churches flourished and increased in numbers daily, since they were honored by the good deeds of a benevolent and well-disposed emperor, and otherwise God preserved them from the persecutions and harassments which they had previously encountered.”[39] Now this of course does not mean that all who came to the Church were sincere and permanent converts, but that has always been the case in great revivals of the Christian religion.
In spite of this mountain of evidence pointing to the sincerity of Constantine’s faith in Christ and love for the Church, some still view Constantine as a counterfeit convert who selfishly manipulated the Church for his political purposes. One of the most popular objections leveled against Constantine is that he merged the church and state together and made Christianity the state religion. However, this view is a falsehood that has no historical basis. Constantine legalized Christianity and later in his reign outlawed some forms of abuse present in pagan religions, but he did not make Christianity the state religion and outlaw all other forms of belief.
Others object that Constantine must have been a false Christian because even after he professed Christianity, he continued to issue coins with pagan symbolism, including the sun god. However, it is important to note that pagan symbolism decreased drastically during Constantine’s reign, and Christian emblems such as the cross and Chi-Rho symbol began to replace the previous symbols. According to writer and scholar Peter Leithart, even the pagan symbols that remained appear to have taken on a new meaning compatible with Christianity and to have been utilized more as meaningful metaphors than figures from heathen mythology.[40] With this in mind, if the fact that coins with pagan symbolism were minted during Constantine’s reign proves that he was a false believer, it would only be reasonable to assume that all modern Christians who mention the days of the week (which include names derived from Norse gods) or use the Western calendar system (which includes names derived from Roman gods) must also be spurious believers.
Still others will object that Constantine could not have been a true Christian because he performed the immoral act of executing two close relatives. This situation was briefly described by the Roman historian Sextus Aurelius Victor, when he wrote, “Constantine, when mastery of the entire Roman empire had been obtained through the wondrous good fortune of his wars, with his wife, Fausta, inciting him, so men think, ordered his son Crispus put to death. Then, when his mother, Helena, as a result of excessive grief for her grandson, chastised him, he killed his own wife, Fausta, who was thrown into hot baths.”[41] In answer to this objection, it should be noted that little is known about the circumstances surrounding these executions. Crispus and Fausta may have deserved execution by law. But even if they did not, and Constantine committed the crime of murder, does that prove that the emperor was always a false convert and a manipulator of the church? This can only be true if it is also true that David was never truly a follower of God because he committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband Uriah. But once again, it should be noted that so little is known about the circumstances surrounding the execution of Constantine’s wife and son, that it is impossible to make a conclusive moral assessment of the emperor’s actions.
In conclusion, there is a mountain of evidence that Constantine was a sincere convert to the Christian faith, a lover of the true God and someone who had in mind the best interest of the Church. This evidence includes his conversion experience, his confession of the orthodox Christian faith, his public worship of the true God, the testimonies of hundreds of bishops and other honorable men during and after his lifetime, his devotional life (which was full of Scripture reading, prayer and fasting), his godly character traits (including mercy, humility and love), his surrounding himself with Christian friends and counselors, his God-honoring laws and decrees (such as declaring the legalization of Christianity and ordering the restoration of church property, among other things) and his concern for the Church exhibited in calling councils of bishops when the Christian community was in danger of being devastated by dispute. These things being put in mind, it is the opinion of the author that it would be fitting for Christians to stop slandering Constantine as a false convert, and cease using him as a “whipping boy” on whom we place blame for all the problems of the Church since his time, and instead accept him as being most likely a true spiritual brother in the faith, who boldly accepted Christianity and used his position to greatly bless the Church during his time.
NOTES
1 Peter Leithart, Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010), p. 9.
2 Eusebius, Life of Constantine, trans. Arthur McGiffert, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 1.29–31, p. 490–491.
3 Lactantius, Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, trans. William Fletcher, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 44, p. 318.
4 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 1.32, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.491.
5 Constantine, The Oration of Constantine, trans. Ernest Richardson, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series 2, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 1, p. 561.
6 Constantine, Oration 11, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.568.
7 Constantine, Oration 20, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.576
8 Constantine, Oration 11, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.569.
9 Constantine, Oration 11, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.568.
10 Constantine, Oration 23, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.579.
11 Constantine, Oration 23, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.579.
12 Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 1.39, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.493.
13 Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History, trans. Arthur McGiffert. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 9.9.11, p. 364.
14 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, revised by Chester D. Hartranft, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.), 2.34, p. 282. Accessed November 21, 2024. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.html
15 Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 4.61-63; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.551-556.
16 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.2, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.520.
17 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.5, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.2.243.
18 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, trans. A. C. Zenos. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library), 1.9, p. 12. Accessed November 21, 2024. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.html
19 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 4.18, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.2.313.
20 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 1.32, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.491.
21 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.8, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.2.245.
22 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 4. 22, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.545.
23 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2.14, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.503-504.
24 Leithart, Defending Constantine ch. 4, p. 77
25 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 1.44, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.494-495.
26 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 1.45, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.495.
27 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2.13, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.503.
28 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 1.32, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.491.
29 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 1.42, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.494.
30 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2.44, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.511.
31 Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 10.5, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.379
32 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 10.5, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.380.
33 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 10.7, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.383.
34 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 4.25, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.546
35 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.2.2.
36 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 10.6, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.382.
37 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 1.42, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.494.
38 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.7, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.1.521.
39 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.6, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2.2.243.
40 Leithart, Defending Constantine, ch. 4, p. 76.
41 Sextus Aurelius Victor, Epitome De Caesaribus Victor, Aurelius. De Caesaribus. Translated by Thomas M. Banchich. 3rd ed. (Buffalo, New York: Canisius College, 2018.), 41.11-12. Accessed November 21, 2024, https://web.archive.org/web/20220311020340/http://www.roman-emperors.org/epitome.htm