TRANSITION OF THE CHURCH UNDER CONSTANTINE
OUTLINE: I.--Condition of the Empire in 300. II.--How
Constantine became Emperor. III.--Constantine's conversion to
Christianity. IV.--Constantine's favours to Christianity.
V.--Constantine's character. VI.--Constantine's historical
significance. VII.--Sources.
To understand the great changes that took place in the Christian Church
under Constantine, it is necessary to keep distinctly in mind both the
status of Christianity, on the one hand, and the general conditions of
the Empire, on the other.
In territorial extent the Empire still formed a huge fringe around the
Mediterranean Sea and had lost but little of its vastness under Trajan
(98-117). Under Diocletian (284-305) the Empire became an undisguised
oriental despotism. The administration was divided between two Augusti,
each of whom had an associate, called Cæsar. This division of rule, with
its increased expense, aroused much jealousy and discontent, and greatly
weakened the Empire. As many as six rival Emperors appeared at once, and
out of the rivalry emerged Constantine the Great as the sole ruler of
the Empire. Wars with the Persians in the east and with the barbarians
on the north accelerated the declining political morality. At the same
time social classes became more marked, and moral standards lower.
Schools were neglected, literature became superficial, poetry lost its
voice, and oratory declined. Paganism, largely a form of patriotism and
national festivity, still numbered many adherents, but it was not deeply
rooted in their hearts.
Christianity, in the face of outlawry and severe persecution, had spread
steadily and marvellously, and particularly among the substantial people
of the Empire.[113:1] It is difficult to estimate the number of
Christians because few records were left and the number of real
believers was much larger than the professed adherents. The earlier
estimates are probably too low. After more careful investigation,
30,000,000 may be safely given as indicating the numerical strength of
the new creed.[113:2] When Constantine the Great appeared, therefore,
old pagan Rome was declining, while a new Christian Rome was rapidly
rising. Christianity would undoubtedly have gained the victory sooner or
later had Constantine not appeared as its champion.
Constantine was born about 274 at Naïssus, in Upper Moesia. His father
was Constantius Chlorus, a nephew of Emperor Claudius, the conqueror of
the Goths, who was selected as Cæsar of the West possibly because of his
imperial connection. His mother was Helena, the daughter of an
innkeeper, and not the fabled English princess. She was only a
concubine, who, however, was made a legal wife after the birth of
Constantine.[113:3] She was a Christian, it seems, and no doubt taught
the new faith to both her husband and son.[114:1]
Constantine's education was gained mostly in court circles and on the
battle-field. As a boy he was instructed in the schools of Drepanum in
Cilicia, his mother's birthplace, later changed to Helenapolis. Little
is known about this phase of his training, and there are reasons for
believing that it was not very comprehensive. In 292, when Constantine
was eighteen, his father became Cæsar of the West, divorced his mother,
and sent him to be educated as a sort of hostage at the court of
Diocletian at Nicomedia. There he acquired his preliminary military
training and political education. With Diocletian he made an expedition
to Egypt _via_ Palestine (296) and the next year joined Galerius in a
campaign against the Persians. He soon won a reputation as a bold
warrior, and became a popular leader. Indeed his superior ability
aroused the jealousy of Galerius, who purposely exposed him to the
gravest dangers, thus hoping to get rid of him. After his military
success, he was made tribune of the first rank. Skilled in the art of
politics at the court of the Eastern rulers, and having won his spurs in
battle, he expected to be elevated to the office of Cæsar, when
Diocletian resigned in 305, but was defeated by Galerius, who succeeded
Diocletian as Augustus, and chose his own nephew as Cæsar. This was a
keen disappointment to young Constantine.[114:2]
In 305, Constantius Chlorus succeeded Maximian, who had resigned by
agreement with Diocletian, as Augustus of the West, and, since there
was no reason why an Augustus should leave his son as hostage at the
court of an equal, he demanded the return of Constantine. Galerius
reluctantly consented, but before the official permit was executed,
Constantine, fearing treachery, fled at night, maimed the post-horses to
prevent pursuit, and reached Boulogne just in time to go with his father
to Britain.[115:1]
After an easy conquest of Britain, Constantius Chlorus died at York
(July, 306), having named his son as his successor, whereupon the
soldiers immediately saluted Constantine as Augustus.[115:2] Although
this was the ancient practice, and Constantine was eligible for the
office both by heredity and by preparation, still, constitutionally, the
nomination rested with Galerius, who, enraged at the usurpation, and
also at Constantine's shrewd diplomatic letter, allowed him only the
title of Cæsar.[115:3] No man in the Empire was better fitted by age,
appearance, previous training, and ability, for the higher office.
Backed by his army, Constantine continued his father's policy to defend
the Gauls against the Franks and Germans, and to develop the prosperity
of the country. He married Maximian's daughter (307) as a diplomatic
precaution and was recognised by him as Augustus. Meanwhile Maxentius,
the son of Maximian, who, discovered in conspiracy, had committed
suicide, had assumed the imperial purple at Rome and now took his
father's death as a pretext for war against Constantine.[115:4]
Encouraged by a Roman embassy, Constantine at once hastily marched
toward Rome and at Milvian Bridge defeated his rival, who was drowned in
the Tiber (312). Constantine was now sole Emperor of the West. In 324
Licinius was defeated in the East and Constantine had become Emperor of
the united Roman Empire.
Constantine's connection with Christianity marks a new epoch in the
history of the Church. Under him the new faith was legalised,
emancipated, protected, and given lands and buildings. Constantine's
mother, who was a Christian, probably gave him his first favourable
impressions of the outlawed religion. As a boy he must have heard it
discussed as a topic for both light and serious conversation. At the
court of Diocletian and Galerius he saw the edict of persecution
proclaimed in 303 and must have witnessed the action of Christians under
martyrdom, noticed their marvellous growth in the face of outlawry and
punishment, and perhaps came to look with some favour upon their
teachings. When he succeeded his father as Emperor of the West, he
continued his father's policy of toleration and let Diocletian's edict
of persecution fall as a dead letter.[116:1]
Tradition tells us that Constantine was converted to Christianity
suddenly by a miracle. One day, during the conflict with Maxentius at
Milvian Bridge, he and his whole army saw a bright cross in the heavens
with this inscription in Greek on it: "In this sign, conquer." In a
dream that night Christ appeared to him and commanded him to use the
emblem of the cross as his battle ensign, and promised him victory in
consequence. Constantine immediately had the costly _labarum_ made to
be carried before his army and with it at Milvian Bridge, ten miles from
Rome, he vanquished his foe.[117:1]
Three theories have been proposed to explain the spectacle of the cross:
1. That it was a genuine miracle, supported by the following facts: (a)
Eusebius, who gives us the first account, had all the evidence directly
from Constantine himself under oath; (b) Constantine's whole army
"witnessed the miracle and put the emblem on their shields"[117:2]; (c)
Socrates says the original standard could still be seen in his
day.[117:3] The older historians all upheld the miracle, although few
scholars to-day take that view.[117:4] 2. That it was a natural
phenomenon coloured by Constantine's imagination, or an optical
illusion, or a dream.[117:5] 3. That it was a pious fraud, deliberately
invented either by Constantine, or by Eusebius.[117:6] Whatever the
theories may be, the fact remains that for some reason Constantine
invoked the aid of the Christian's God, and carried the Christian emblem
in front of his troops to one victory after another until he became sole
ruler of the Empire. If it was merely experimenting with the name and
cross of Jesus, the experiment brought convincing belief, for the sacred
emblem was employed in all later military campaigns.
The triumph over Maxentius at Milvian Bridge was a great victory for
Christianity. Constantine had a statue of himself with a cross in his
hands set up in Rome. An inscription on it stated that through
Christianity the glory and freedom of Rome had been restored.[118:1]
Henceforth Constantine extended imperial aid and protection to the
Christians and a new era was opened in the history of the Christian
Church. He endowed and enlarged Christian churches in Rome and later
elsewhere[118:2]; he wrote letters in behalf of Christians in
Africa[118:3]; he made Christian bishops, like Hosius, Lactantius, and
Eusebius, his trusted political advisers; and he enacted laws legalising
the new faith and protecting its adherents.
The edict of limited toleration passed by Galerius in 311, in
conjunction with Constantine and Licinius, was very unsatisfactory. The
Christians might rebuild their churches but were required to pray for
the Emperor.[118:4] A decided preference was shown to paganism since no
person was free to leave his own religion and join another. This was a
great hardship, for many Romans were Christians at heart and were only
waiting for permission to join the new Church openly.[118:5] To meet the
new conditions and to afford the needed relief, Constantine, jointly
with Licinius, in 313 issued the Edict of Milan, the Magna Charta of
religious liberty. It was promulgated in Greek and Latin over the whole
Empire as imperial law. It did not make Christianity the state religion,
as is generally asserted, but only legalised it, and popularised it. Now
people could and did openly desert the old and join the new faith.
Persecutions were forbidden under severe penalties. Exiles were
recalled. Confiscated property was restored with compensation to the
possessor. All Romans were exhorted to worship the Christian God. This
famous edict was significant, because it put Christianity on an equality
with paganism; gave it opportunity for public organisation, thus paving
the way for the Catholic hierarchy already begun; and marks a new era in
the history of the Christian Church, because at last a great Roman
Emperor and his conquering army had taken up the sword in defence of
persecuted Christianity.[119:1]
The proclamation of emancipation and protection was followed by other
acts which clearly show that Constantine meant to favour and control the
new religion. The Christian clergy were exempted from military and
municipal duties[119:2]--a favour already enjoyed by pagan priests and
even Jewish rabbis (March, 313). The Church Council of Arles was
convoked (314). The emancipation of Christian slaves was facilitated
(315). Various customs and ordinances offensive to Christians were
abolished (316). Bequests to churches were legalised (321). The
cessation of civic business on Sunday was enjoined, but as a "dies
Solis" (321).[120:1] The heathen symbols of Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, and
Hercules were removed from imperial coins (323). In defeating Licinius
(324), a bitter reactionist, Constantine felt that he was waging war in
behalf of Christianity.[120:2] In 324 Constantine issued a general
exhortation to all Romans to embrace the new creed for the common weal.
The highest dignities were opened to Christians. Gifts and remission of
taxes enriched their churches. A craze for buildings led to the erection
of churches at various sacred spots in the Holy Land, at Nicomedia, in
Constantinople, in Rome, and elsewhere. Fifty costly manuscripts of the
Bible were ordered prepared for the leading churches. The Council of
Nicæa was held in 325, the Arian schism healed, and the first written
creed given the Church. Finally, by divine command, as it was said,
Constantine removed his capital from old pagan Rome to Byzantium, the
new Christian Rome, which was renamed Constantinople (326). This left
Christianity in the West, already strong and active, to organise itself
under the guidance of the Bishop of Rome, and powerfully aided the
evolution of the papal hierarchy. In the East, under imperial
protection, the spread and organisation of the popular belief was
phenomenal.
Paganism was still legal, however; its institutions were not attacked
and the privileges of its priests were confirmed. Nevertheless the
triumphs of Christianity were all won at the expense of paganism. As the
new faith arose the old sank, yet not without many a desperate and even
noble effort to persist. Individual cults which were either immoral or
offensive, like that of Venus in Phœnicia, Æsculapius at Ægæ, and the
Nile-priests at Heliopolis, were prohibited.[121:1] Private haruspices
were forbidden. There is even some evidence of a general edict against
sacrifices.[121:2] All of these things indicate the passing away of the
old order and the birth of the new.
Opinion about Constantine's character takes two extreme views. On the
one hand it is held that in 312 Constantine, like Paul, was miraculously
converted to Christianity and that from that day forth he was a saint
incarnate. Eusebius, and later panegyrists like Mosheim, are responsible
for this picture. To this day the Greek churches celebrate his memory as
St. "Equal of the Apostles." On the other hand it is asserted that he
was nothing but a shrewd politician, able to read the signs of the
times, who assumed an outward connection with Christianity solely for
political expediency. Zosimus, a pagan historian, gives the worst
account, ascribing to him the basest motive for every deed. Keim calls
him a political trickster, and Burckhardt styles him a "murdering
egoist" and "politischer Rechner" without a spark of Christianity.[121:3]
Was Constantine a Christian? The query is a difficult one to answer
because ten men would each give a different definition of the essentials
of a Christian. The favourable evidence will be considered first.
Constantine's activity in behalf of the new religion, already mentioned,
shows at least his sympathy for it and no doubt his belief in it. His
imperial laws, improving woman's condition, mitigating slavery,
abolishing crucifixion as a method of punishment, and caring for the
unfortunate, breathe forth the spirit of Christian justice and
humanity.[122:1] He tried to convert his subjects to Christianity
through Christian governors in the provinces, by letters and sermons, by
rewarding towns for converting temples into churches, and by conforming
to Christian worship. He diligently attended divine services, had a
stated hour and place for prayer, fasted, kept Easter vigils with great
devotion, and even invited his subjects to hear him preach on the folly
of paganism and about the truth of Christianity. He exerted every effort
to make Constantinople a Christian city--churches replaced altars, the
imperial palace was adorned with biblical scenes,[122:2] gladiatorial
combats were prohibited, and the smoke of public sacrifice never rose
from the hills of New Rome.[122:3] The imperial treasury was lavishly
used to support Christianity.[122:4] Constantine's sons were given a
Christian education. He believed in the efficacy of baptism, even though
he did postpone it to the end of his life--a common practice to wash
away all sins. Besides he wished to be baptised in the river Jordan
where Jesus himself was baptised. In 337 he was received into the Church
as a catechumen, promised to live worthily as a follower of Jesus, was
baptised, and wore the white baptismal robe till he died.[122:5]
The unfavourable evidence submitted leads to the conclusion, held by
some historians, that Constantine's conversion was not genuine, but due
to hypocrisy, superstition, or policy. He retained the title Pontifex
Maximus, head of the old religion. The Edict of Milan protected paganism
and he continued that policy. After defeating Maxentius at Milvian
Bridge he had his triumphal arch erected. The original inscription said
that he triumphed over his rival by the favour of Jupiter. But these
words were later erased and the neutral phrase "instinctu Divinitas"
substituted.[123:1] In Rome he restored pagan temples and said: "You who
consider it profitable to yourselves, continue to visit the public
altars and temples and to observe your sacred rites."[123:2] Even in
Constantinople temples were erected to the gods. The laws of 319 show
that sacrifice still existed--at least in private houses.[123:3] Pagan
emblems were continued on imperial coins till 330. Constantine, as
Pontifex Maximus, continued to attend the sacred games connected with
the pagan religion,[123:4] and even used pagan rites along with
Christian to dedicate his new capital.[123:5] In 321 he ordered that
when lightning should strike the imperial palace, or any public
building, the soothsayers should be consulted to determine the cause as
of old. The same year he employed heathen magic to heal diseases, to
protect crops, to prevent rain and hail, etc.[123:6] He retained many
pagans at court and in public office, and was very intimate with pagan
philosophers like Sopater.[124:1] In no document did he formally
renounce paganism and declare himself a Christian. He was guilty of
weakness and crimes inconsistent with a Christian life. He was vain,
suspicious, despotic, and gained his ambitious ends through bloody wars.
He was undoubtedly guilty of murdering Licinius, his brother-in-law,
contrary to a sacred pledge; Licinius, the younger, his nephew, a boy of
eleven; Crispus, his eldest son, on the ground of treasonable
conspiracy; and Fausta, his wife, for adultery.[124:2] To wipe away
these sins, and many others, he accepted at the close of his life the
Christian rite of baptism. After his death the Senate voted to place him
among the gods.[124:3]
After weighing all evidence, these historical conclusions may be drawn:
1. Constantine was primarily a statesman, and wisely used both paganism
and Christianity to unite his Empire and to build up his autocratic
power. He was Pontifex Maximus, not alone of paganism, but of all
religions.[124:4] The grateful Christians heartily granted that
leadership. Up to 323 he kept the two religions equally balanced, but to
do so he was forced to favour Christianity most. After 323 he depressed
paganism and exalted Christianity. Toward the end of his life he showed
a tendency to forcibly suppress the old religion.
2. Constantine was a Christian, but not as a result of a miracle at
Milvian Bridge. His conversion was a gradual result of many influences.
Training at his Christian mother's knee, paternal instruction, his
youthful observations at the Eastern imperial court, a growing belief in
monotheism, his discontent with the faith of his fathers and a proneness
toward sun-worship, and his religious philosophy, which led him to look
at Christianity as a system of thought rather than a life creed--a law,
not a faith--a world-force of purity and simplicity--all these factors
produced within him a growing comprehension of the truth, power, and
beauty of Christianity. The cross in the sky and the consequent
victories led to a conviction that God had selected him as the champion
of the new creed, "the bishop of bishops." Contact with the leading
Christians in the Empire, men of heart and brains, greatly increased his
admiration for Christianity and interest in it. Just when he became a
Christian no one can say, but that he died a sincere believer one can
hardly doubt.[125:1]
3. He was a product of his age. He was actuated by both religious and
political motives and was not merely an artful politician. It was not an
easy thing to be a Roman Emperor and at the same time a Christian. He
was guilty of grave crimes, but they were the result of gusts of
passion, like those of Peter the Great, and not of constitutional
depravity. Nor do these sins appear so enormous when considered in the
light of his long, useful career, the dynastic difficulties confronting
him, and the morality of many Christian leaders of the day. It must not
be forgotten that he was a converted heathen, that the Christian code
had not yet become the moral code, and that the integrity of the Empire
stood above family ties and even religious demands.
4. He made his age the beginning of a new era. He enabled Christianity
to become the moulding spirit of Western civilisation. He was the first
representative of that theoretical Christian theocracy which makes the
Church and state two sides of God's government on earth. The Church and
state were to remain united throughout all the succeeding ages to the
present time. Even Protestant nations adopted the principle. Among the
most noteworthy exceptions to-day are the United States, Italy, and, but
recently, France. He founded the Byzantine Empire and bears the same
relation to the East that Charles the Great does to the West. He gave
the Church its first unity in organisation, its first universal council,
and its first written creed. He stamped his own character on his age and
made it greater and happier. He has continued to live through succeeding
centuries by reason of what he was and what he did. For all these
reasons, judged by achievement, the world unites in calling him "the
Great."[126:1]
5. Historically, Constantine's significance lies not in the fact that he
was a Christian, personally, but that he for the first time endowed the
new religion with that worldly power which made it for over one thousand
years the most powerful moral, social, and political agency the world
has seen. Constantine the Great was succeeded by Charles the Great, and
he in turn by Otto the Great. On the ruins of the Christianised Roman
Empire arose the Roman Empire of the Germans, and in this the work of
Constantine was really completed. Not until the Reformation and the
Modern Age did the cry arise that the work of Constantine must be
undone.
Constantine's three sons and successors continued his policy. Laws were
passed favourable to Christianity. Paganism was still tolerated, but the
tendency to suppress it had developed into a fixed policy. Sacrifices
were forbidden on pain of death and confiscation in 352.[127:1] The
persecuted, in turn, became the persecutors. "Emperors!" one of the
Christian leaders advised, "the temples must be overthrown and utterly
destroyed in order that the pernicious error may no longer pollute the
Roman world. The Supreme God has committed the Government to you, so
that you may cure this cancer." Pagan temples were converted into
Christian churches. Unity of worship and unity of imperial rule were
declared to be essential. Pagan opposition to religious unity under the
Emperor was now interpreted as treason just as Christianity was so
regarded before 311. Thus identified with the Empire, Christianity
became the popular dominant faith. Rome and Alexandria alone clung to
the old gods.[127:2]
Under Julian (361-363), a nephew of Constantine the Great, paganism made
one last supreme effort for mastery. The reaction was inspired by
Neo-Platonism, by the personal devotion of Julian to the classical
faith, and by the hope of securing a stronger imperial unity through the
supremacy of paganism. Julian did not openly persecute Christianity, but
treated it very much as Constantine did paganism. Had he lived longer,
nevertheless, harsher measures might have been employed. He seemed to
feel that he was swimming against the tide, however, and fell in battle
against the Persians (363) saying, "Thou hast conquered,
Galilean."[128:1]
Julian's sudden death with one stroke precipitated the decline and fall
of paganism. His successor, Jovian (363-364), a Christian, restored
Christianity to imperial and popular favour.[128:2] The legal toleration
of all religions continued under Valentinian I. (d. 375) and Valens (d.
378). Emperor Gratian (375-383) began the repression of paganism in the
West, and Valentinian II. (383-392) continued it, while Theodosius I.
(378-395) pursued the same policy in the East, and forcibly suppressed
paganism.[128:3] The edict of 380 constituted Christianity the exclusive
religion of the whole Empire. "We command all who read this law to
embrace the name of Catholic Christians, deciding that all other idiots
and madmen should bear the infamy attaching to their heretical opinions,
and as they will first meet with the penalty of divine vengeance, so
they will afterwards receive that condemnation at our hands which the
Heavenly Judge has empowered us to administer."[128:4] The new faith had
won a famous victory. Even the old Roman Senate, the last refuge of
paganism, voted that the religion of Jesus was true.
SOURCES
A.--PRIMARY:
I.--CHURCH FATHERS:
1.--Eusebius, <i>Life of Constantine</i>. <i>Nic. and Post-Nic.
Fathers_, i., 472. Edited by McGiffert. Best edition.
_Church History._ _Ib._
2.--Socrates, _Ecclesiastical History_. _Ib._, ii., bk. 1,
2.
3.--Sozomen, _Ecclesiastical History_. _Ib._, ii., bk. 1, 4.
4.--Theodoret, _Ecclesiastical History_. _Ib._, iii., bk. 1,
2.
5.--Lactantius, _Death of Persecutors_. _Ante-Nic. Christ.
Lib._, xxi., 485; xxii., 186 _ff._
6.--Evagrius, _Ecclesiastical History_. Bohn, _Eccl. Lib._,
1851.
7.--St. Athanasius, _Works_. _Fathers of the Holy Cath. Ch._,
viii., xiii., xix. _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, iv., 2d
ser.
8.--St. Basil, _Letters_. _Ib._, viii., 109.
9.--St. Augustine, _Sermons on the New Testament_. _Fathers of
the Holy Cath. Ch._, lv., ch. 12.
10.--St. Chrysostom, _Homilies_. _Ib._, xxi., ch. 11; _Nic.
and Post-Nic. Fathers_, ix., 1st ser.
11.--St. Ambrose, _Letters_, No. 21, 23. _Fathers of the Holy
Cath. Ch._, xlv.
12.--St. Cyril, _Catechetical Lectures_. _Ib._, xiv., ch. 22;
_Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, vii., 2d ser.
II.--PAGAN:
1.--Zosimus, _History_. Transl. by J. Davis, Lond., 1814.
2.--Emperor Julian, _Letters_. Transl. by E. J. Chinnock.
Lond., 1901. _Sovereign Sun_ and _Mother of the Gods_, in
King, _Julian the Emperor_. Lond., 1888.
III. COLLECTIONS:
1.--Henderson, _Select Historical Documents of the Middle
Ages_. Bohn Lib., 1892, p. 319.
2.--Univ. of Penn., _Translations and Reprints_. iv., No. 1,
2; vi., No. 4.
3.--Robinson, _Readings in European History_, i., 21.
B.--SECONDARY:
I.--SPECIAL:
1.--Carr, A., _The Church and the Roman Empire_. Lond., 1886.
2.--Chawner, W., _The Influence of Christianity upon the
Legislation of Constantine the Great_. Lond., 1874.
3.--Cutts, E. L., _Constantine the Great_. Lond., 1881.
4.--Fletcher, J., _Life of Constantine the Great_. Lond.,
1852.
5.--Gwatkin, H. M., _Studies of Arianism_. Camb., 1882. _The
Arian Controversy._ N. Y., 1889.
6.--Hardy, E. G., _Christianity and the Roman Government_.
Lond., 1894.
7.--Newman, J. H., _The Arians of the Fourth Century_. Lond.,
1855.
8.--Saunders, G., _The State of the Christian Community before
and after Constantine_. Glasg., 1882.
9.--Smith and Wace, _Dictionary of Christian Biography_. Art.
on Constantine.
II.--GENERAL:
Allen, ch. 1-2. Alzog, i., § 96-100. Backhouse, pt. 2, ch. 10.
Baur, ii., 225-228. Blunt, i., ch. 6. Bouzique, i., ch. 3;
ii., ch. 1. Bright, 60 _ff._, 310. Butler, ch. 23-26.
Cheetham, pt. ii., ch. 1. Coxe, ch. 3. Croke, ch. 12-16.
Darras, i., pd. 2, ch. 1-2. Döllinger, ii., ch. 1, sec. 1.
Duff, ch. 31, 37. Fisher, pd. 3, ch. 1. Foulkes, ch. 4.
Gibbon, ch. 17-25. Gieseler, div. 3, pd. 2, ch. 1, sec. 75-77.
Gilmartin, i., ch. 10. Guericke, sec. 61-63. Hase, sec. 93-95.
Hore, ch. 5. Hurst, i., 410-426. Jackson, ch. 12-16. Jennings,
i., ch. 4. Knight, ch. 6. Kurtz, i., § 42-43. Mahan, bk. 2,
ch. 10. Milman, bk. 1, ch. 2. Milner, i., cent. 4, ch. 2-3.
Moeller, i., 296-308. Mosheim, ii., 454-481. Neander, ii.,
1-32. Newman, i., 305-319. Robertson, bk. 2, ch. 1. Schaff,
ii., 1-37. Stanley, 281.
FOOTNOTES:
[113:1] Orr, _Neglected Factors_, 95-163; Ramsay, _Ch. in Rom. Emp._,
57.
[113:2] Orr, _Neglected Factors_, 23-91.
[113:3] Zosimus, ii., 8; St. Ambrose, Migne, iii., 1209. For the fable
about the English princess read Geoffrey of Monmouth and Pierre de
Langloft. This tale was used by Baronius. It must be remembered that
concubinage was a state recognised by Roman law, and was by no means in
itself a sign of depravity.
[114:1] Eusebius, _Life of Constantine_, iii., ch. 47, leads one to
believe that Constantine converted his mother to Christianity. _Cf._
Hamza Ispaheus, p. 55.
[114:2] Lactantius, _Death of Persecutors_, ch. 24.
[115:1] Zos., ii., 8; Euseb., _Life of Const._, i., ch. 121.
[115:2] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, viii., ch. 13; _Life of Const._, ii., ch.
22.
[115:3] Lactantius, _Death of Persecutors_, ch. 25. Galerius recognised
Severus as Augustus of the West.
[115:4] Galerius meanwhile was induced to recognise Constantine as
Augustus in 308.
[116:1] Lactantius, _Death of Persecutors_, ch. 24; Euseb., _Life of
Const._, i., ch. 14, 16, 17, 27.
[117:1] Euseb., _Life of Const._, i., ch. 28-31; Sozomen, i., ch. 3;
Socrates, i., ch. 2; Lactantius, _Death of Persecutors_, ch. 44.
[117:2] Euseb., _Life of Const._, i., ch. 28; Sozomen, i., ch. 3.
[117:3] Socrates, i., ch. 2.
[117:4] Döllinger; J. H. Newman; Guericke, Uhlhorn, etc.
[117:5] Supported by best modern critical writers like Schroeck,
Neander, Gieseler, Mansi, Milman, Keim, Heinicken, Schaff, Harnack, etc.
For like examples see Whymper, _Scrambles among the Alps_, ch. 22;
Gieseler, i., § 56; Stanley, 288; Peary, _Narrative of an Attempt to
Reach the North Pole_, 99, 100; Seymour, _The Cross in Tradition_, 103
_ff._
[117:6] This theory is defended by Gibbon, Lardner, Waddington,
Burckhardt, Hoornbeeck, Thomasius, Arnold, etc. They seem to ignore all
proofs.
[118:1] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, ix., ch. 9; _Life of Const._, i., ch. 40.
The triumphal arch was not set up till 315.
[118:2] Euseb., _Life of Const._, i., ch. 42.
[118:3] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, x., ch. 5, 7.
[118:4] Ibid., _Eccl. Hist._, viii., 17; edict given in _Transl. and
Reprints_, iv., No. 1, p. 28. _Cf._ Lactantius, ch. 34, 35.
[118:5] Neander, ii., 12, 13.
[119:1] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, x., 5. The Edict of Milan is given in
_Transl. and Reprints_, iv., No. 1, p. 29. It is thought by some that
the Edict of Milan refers to an edict issued by Constantine in 312 but
now lost. That possibility seems very doubtful. _Cf._ Lactantius, ch.
48.
[119:2] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, x., ch. 7; Sozom., i., 9; Cod. Theod.,
xvi., 2, 1, 2, 3.
[120:1] Cod. Justin., iii., tit. 12, 1, 3.
[120:2] Moeller, i., 298. He at once issued edicts of toleration for
Christians in the East. Euseb., _Life of Const._, ii., ch. 24 _ff._
[121:1] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., ch. 55, 56, 58; iv., ch. 25, 37,
38.
[121:2] _Ibid._, ii., ch. 44, 45; iii., ch. 56, 58; iv., ch. 25.
[121:3] For further opinions of like character read Brieger, Flasch,
Baur, etc.
[122:1] Sozom., i., 8; Cod. Theod. and Cod. Justin are full of these
instances.
[122:2] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., ch. 3, 49; iv., ch. 15.
[122:3] _Ibid._, ii., ch. 44, 45; iii., ch. 48; iv., ch. 24.
[122:4] _Ibid._, ii., ch. 45; iii., 33-39, 41, 42, 43, 48, 58; iv., 28,
58-60.
[122:5] Brooks, _Date of the Death of Constantine_; Euseb., _Life of
Const._, iv., 62-64.
[123:1] Dyer, _City of Rome_, 312.
[123:2] Cod. Theod., xii., i., 21; v., 2; Neander, ii., 20.
[123:3] _Ibid._, 19.
[123:4] Cod. Theod., ix., 16, 1, 2; Zos., ii., ch. 29.
[123:5] Zos., ii., ch. 31; Moeller, i., 299.
[123:6] Neander, ii., 20, 21.
[124:1] Euseb., _Life of Const._, ii., ch. 44.
[124:2] This last charge is now discredited by some authorities.
[124:3] Eutropius, _Breviarium_, x., 4.
[124:4] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iv., ch. 24.
[125:1] Cutts, _Const. the Great_, 419.
[126:1] See Cutts, _Const. the Great_, 128.
[127:1] Cod. Theod., xvi., 10, 4.
[127:2] Gieseler, i., § 75.
[128:1] Negri, _Julian the Apostate_, 2 vols., N. Y., 1905; King,
_Julian the Emp._, Lond., 1888; Gardner, _Julian, Philosopher and Emp._,
N. Y., 1895; Rendall, _The Emperor Julian_, Lond., 1879; Sozom., vi., 2;
Theodoret, iii., 25.
[128:2] Sozom., vi., 3.
[128:3] Cod. Theod., xvi., 10, 12.
[128:4] Cod. Justin, i., 1, 1.