In a book called Royal Readers, the following appears relative to Constantine the Great: "When going to fight one of his rivals, the vision of a cross appeared to him in the sky, with a Greek legend signifying, 'In this conquer.' He became a Christian after this, and always used the cross as his standard. He encouraged Sabbath observance, rebuilt Christian churches, and called the General Council of Nicaea (in Bithynia) in 325, when the Nicene creed was adopted. His murder of Crispus, his son, in a fit of jealousy, casts a stain on his memory," etc.
This does not agree with the statements that appear in Bible Readings for the Home Circle. Will you help me to an understanding of the difficulty?
It is a matter of very small moment whether there is agreement between the statements in two books, or not; if we can ascertain the truth, it is all we want; so without entering into any comparison of authors we will go directly to the standard histories, and see what they say.
I might say, however, that the paragraph which you quote sounds like a passage from a child's story book, but one who had heard some talk about Constantine, but had not read enough to have definite information. An author writing to give information would not speak of the alleged vision as taking place when Constantine was "going to fight one of his rivals," but would have named Maxentius. But let us see what basis there is for the story of Constantine and the cross.
Constantine and the Cross
The story rests on the sole authority of Eusebius, who wrote as the eulogist of Constantine, rather than as a historian. Moreover Eusebius does not tell of it as something that he himself knew, but says that Constantine told it to him "long afterwards." I will give the words of Eusebius, taken from his Life of Constantine, book 1, chapter 28: While he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who would hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of aftertime has established its truth? He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eye the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, Conquer by This. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.
The story of Eusebius is sufficient in itself to stamp the whole thing as a fabrication. He says that the whole army "witnessed a miracle;" yet nobody ever knew anything about it until Constantine related it to him with an oath "long afterwards." The story is utterly destitute of plausibility, but Eusebius had infantile credulity wherever Constantine was concerned.
Then after saying that it would have been "hard to believe" if it had been related by anyone else, he adds that "the testimony of aftertime has established its truth"! But how could "the testimony of aftertime" establish the truth of a thing which no one knew except by hearsay? A story does not become established by passing from mouth to mouth, although it is a sad fact, that many so-called Christian customs, and much that is called "Church history," has no better foundation.
Dr. Murdock, the translator and editor of Mosheim's Ecclesiastical Commentaries, says on this point: I think, if there is any measure of truth in this famous vision (which I will not take upon me to deny) it all pertains to the dream. But Constantine, long time afterwards, to procure for himself greater influence with the bishops, and to gain the reputation of being in high favor with God, added from his invention all the rest; and Eusebius recorded the whole just as he stated. Such frauds, in that age, were common among Christians; nor were they deemed unlawful.--Century 4, Section 7, Note.
If Protestants accept the story of Constantine's vision of the cross, and the use he is said to have made of it, why do they not also make the same use of the cross the Catholics do? Why should they make so much of Constantine's Christianity, and his services to the church, when all that he did to build up "the Church" was to support Catholicism, as will presently appear?
But leaving this myth, let us have a few words about Constantine's relation to Catholicism.
Constantine's Relation to Catholicism
Upon this point we need do no more than quote two of Constantine's own letters. The following is from a letter directing that the clergy should be exempt from political services, and shows incidentally the policy of the emperor: "Greeting to you, our most esteemed Anulinus. Since it appears from many circumstances that when their religion is despised, and which is preserved the chief reverence for the celestial power, great dangers are brought upon public affairs; but that when legally adopted and observed it affords the most signal prosperity to the Roman name and remarkable felicity to all the affairs of men, through the Divine beneficence--it has seemed good to me, most esteemed Anulinus, that those men who give their services with due sanctity and constant observance of this law, to the worship of the Divine religion, should receive recompense for their labors. Wherefore it is my will that those within the province entrusted to you, in the Catholic Church, over which Cecilianus presides, who give their services to this holy religion, and who are commonly called clergymen, be entirely exempted from all public duties, that they may not by any error or sacrilegious negligence be drawn away from the service due to the Deity, but may devote themselves without any hindrance to their own law. For it seems that when they show their greatest reverence to the Deity, the greatest benefits accrue to the State."--Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, book 10, chapter 7.
From another letter to those whom he styled "heretics," we take the following: "Forasmuch then as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together, we have directed accordingly that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies; and our care in this respect extends so far as to forbid beholding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house our place whatever. But those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering the Catholic Church in uniting with it in holy fellowship, whereby you will be able to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. In any case the illusions of your perverted understandings must entirely cease to mingle with and mar the felicity of our present times. ... And in order that this remedy may be applied with effectual power, we have commanded, as before said, that you be positively deprived of every gathering point for your superstitious meetings, I mean all the houses of prayer, if such be worthy of the name, which belong to heretics, and that these be made over without delay to the Catholic Church; that any other places be confiscated to the public service, and no facility whatever be left for any future gathering."--Life of Constantine, book 3, chapter 64.
That he was a zealous and consistent Catholic is shown by the fact that he not only proscribed Arius and his followers, but commanded that all his books should be burned, and ordered that whoever should be found secreting any of his writings should be put to death. Thus, by the way, it happens that nobody in the world knows what were the real teachings of Arius himself, since his views have come down to us only as manifestly distorted by his enemies.
Constantine, the State, and the Church
The order of this heading should be strictly noted, for it accurately expresses the proper order of things as they existed in the mind of Constantine. All that he did for the church was solely with a view to its effect on the State, and he regarded himself as the State. The eminent church historian, Dr. Philip Schaff, says: Constantine ... was the first representative of the imposing idea of a Christian theocracy, or of that system of policy which assumes all subjects to be Christians, connects civil and religious rites, and regards Church and State as two arms of one and the same Divine Government on earth. ... At the same time, however, Constantine stands also as the type of an undiscriminating and harmful conjunction of Christianity with politics, of the holy symbol of peace with the horrors of war, of the spiritual interests of the kingdom of heaven with the earthly interests of the State.--Church History, Third Period, Section 2.
Dr. Draper, in the Intellectual Development of Europe (chapter 10) also sums up the result of Constantine's policy: The policy of Constantine the Great inevitably tended to the paganization of Christianity. An incorporation of its pure doctrines with decaying pagan ideas was the necessary consequence of the control that had been attained by unscrupulous politicians and placemen. The faith, thus contaminated gained a more general and ready popular acceptance, but at the cost of a new lease of life to these ideas. So thorough was the adulteration, that it was not until the Reformation, a period of more than a thousand years, that a separation of the true from the false could be accomplished.
And even then the separation was only begun; for the Reformation is not by any means yet complete. Time and space would fail us even to make reference to the mass of testimony to be found in the various histories concerning Constantine and his work; for it is a fact that he contributed more than any other one man, to the union of Church and state, that is, the union of Christianity with Paganism, which, when completed, constituted the Papacy.
Thus it was, as Schaff says, that ... He enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though not as Dies Domini, but as dies Solis, in conformity to his worship of Apollo, and in company with an ordinance for the regular consulting of the haruspex, a piece of heathen jugglery. Remembering that none of the writers from whom we have quoted were prejudiced against Constantine, we will let Dr. Schaff sum up his character: It must, with all regret, be conceded, that his progress in the knowledge of Christianity was not a program in the practice of its virtues. His love of display and his prodigality, his suspiciousness and his despotism, increased with his power. The very brightest period of his reign is stained with gross crimes, which even the spirit of the age and the policy of an absolute monarch cannot excuse. After having reached, upon the bloody path of victor, the goal of his ambition, the sole possession of the empire, yea, in the very year in which he summoned the great council of Nicea, he ordered the execution of his conquered rival and brother-in-law, Licinius, in breach of a solemn promise of mercy. Not satisfied with this, he caused soon afterwards, from political suspicion, the death of the young Licinius, his nephew, a boy of hardly eleven years. But the worst of all is the murder of his eldest son Crispus, in 326.
This is the man who regarded himself as a Bishop of bishops, and who "established" the Church. A sad day it was for the Church when his eye lighted upon it. And sad is it that even yet men have not learned that: "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes." (Psalm 118:9)
However much "the Church" may boast of Constantine, Christians will make their boast in the Lord, (Psalm 34:2) upon whose word and power alone Christianity rests.--Present Truth, November 7, 1901.