The Sermon by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, Cal. · Jul 1, 1875

The Sermon.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

CONSTANTINE.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

THERE are few names which have been favored with greater celebrity for a thousand years past, than that of Constantine. Almost all classes have united in styling him "the great," though they have not always agreed as to the reasons why he should bear the title, yet all agree that he was a man of no ordinary ability; a brave and successful general, and a shrewd and politic statesman. Some have also given him credit for the qualities of a sincere and earnest Christian, but in this there is little agreement. The number of authors, that is, of credible historians, who account him a Christian is by no means large.

Constantine was born in A. D. 272. He was proclaimed Emperor, upon the death of his father, in 306, at the age of thirty-four. For six years he was not fully established in the Empire. Maxentius claimed or usurped dominion in Italy. He was defeated in 312, after which Constantine had sole authority. He died in 337, aged 65. Hence "the age of Constantine" properly dates from 306 to 337 — a period of 31 years.

His father was at least lenient toward Christianity, if not favorable to it, and enacted laws of toleration. His mother was a believer in the Christian religion, which fact may have had much to do with the mild and tolerant course of his father. His mother has by some been esteemed as a devout and intelligent Christian; while others have considered her a religious enthusiast or bigoted fanatic, full of the superstition of those times. The times in which she lived, and especially the court influences by which she was surrounded, were not favorable to the development of a high type of Christianity; and the manner in which she treated the supposed "relics" which she found in Jerusalem, or pretended to find there, shows that she was easily deceived, or tried to deceive others. She is also supposed to have molded the mind of Constantine in favor of Christianity. But that is to be doubted, as he appears to have been actuated entirely by State policy in his first efforts in favor of the Christian religion. Or, if he was at all influenced by her position as a believer, it was no more than to this extent, that he was willing to place Christ among the gods, without according to him any supremacy. That Constantine did, for a long time, hold the Saviour in this relation, is testified by many historians.

There is no room to doubt that, in the minds of many religious theorists, Constantine has occupied a position which does not at all belong to him. This false view has been aided by a few authors of the fourth century. A man is not always most correctly judged in his own day. In the case of Constantine, some of those whose writings concerning him have come down to us, were his flatterers, and were dazzled by the splendor of his court or by the richness of his favors. But mostly they were blinded by the benefit which they supposed he conferred on the cause of Christianity. Some of them held him up as worthy to be classed with the apostles! When such senseless adulation is indulged in we must use judgment to glean the truth from a field fruitful of error.

After ages, beholding the consequences of his course, the formality and hypocrisy which were introduced by his adopting Christianity as the religion of the empire, and being beyond the influence of the gaudy tinsel which he threw over that religion by which its loveliness was obscured instead of being increased, others have been better able to discern the motives which led to many of his acts; and they have discovered that he was not so much the adherent to real Christianity as the patron of a religious system which was likely to give strength to his empire and to add glory to his reign.

It must not, however, be inferred that it was left altogether to after ages to settle the question that he was not a true Christian. Some, in his own day, were amazed at the extent of his crimes. But we can easily believe it was not considered prudent to say much to disparage a monarch so illustrious, and so jealous of his fame and reputation. It is a truth learned from observation of all ages that they who exert the greatest influence in molding public opinion are generally the interested ones, who are the most likely to mislead, and by reason of whom the more candid are held in check, or, as is often the case, the testimony of the latter class is withheld for a time from view. Also, in judging of the merits of powerful monarchs we must remember that flatterers and sycophants are the only ones who are generally admitted to their presence. They who are too upright to dissemble soon give offence, and are dismissed from the courts in disgrace, if not condemned to death as criminals, or as men dangerous to the peace of the State.

In offering historical evidence of the character of Constantine, instead of being crippled for want of testimony, we may need to apologize for offering so much. We desire the reader to bear in mind that the name and influence of Constantine have been used to give weight to certain innovations in the church, and there may be some who will be interested to bring in question the facts presented. Inasmuch as we have taken upon us to give a historical view of these things, we have deemed it fitting our purpose to cite authorities to such an extent that it may appear to all that we are moving on safe ground, and that our statements are not to be disputed as the opinions of a few, or of a minority.

As a man fitted to govern an empire, or, in a worldly view, merely, Constantine would not stand much behind the first rulers of Rome. Mercy, and even justice, was not often to be found in the breasts of emperors, not even for their own kindred and families, when they stood in the way of their ambitious schemes. Constantine, instead of being an exception in this respect, was jealous, cold, and vindictive. His own wife and offspring were sacrificed, apparently without compunction, to his selfishness and ambition. Even the heathen were shocked at his crimes, especially at the causeless murder of an amiable son, and considered him beyond the reach of pardon.

But our chief interest in Constantine is in regard to his relation to the cause of the Christian religion. Were we to confine ourselves to the best accredited facts of his profession of Christianity we should notice his life only from 323 to 337, a period of 14 years. But there has been made a strong effort to present him as a conscientious disciple, as well as the courtly patron of Christianity from the time of his battle with Maxentius. And it has been claimed that the most remarkable event of his life took place at that time which directly led to his reception of Christianity. We refer to the reputed vision of the cross. There is, however, no need to distinguish between particular periods in his life; as historians are well agreed that his selfishness and his crimes were increased rather than diminished, after his profession of Christianity.

Eusebius, bishop and historian, is more than all others relied upon to prove the excellent character of Constantine, and the great service he rendered to the cause of Christianity. But it will be shown by unquestionable testimony and evident considerations that he was biased by court favors, and, like most of the eminent men of the church of that day, considered the favors shown to himself as so much in favor of the cause he professed. Passing from an age of bitter persecution, none of them seemed to realize that there could be any motive but to glorify God which could lead to the toleration, not to say to the upholding, of a religion which had been so deeply despised. The scripture says, A gift blindeth the wise. Constantine was not slow to attach to his court eminent dignitaries by such means. Nor were the ambitious bishops, who were already full of jealousy against each other slow to accept the favor of the Emperor and turn it to their own advantage. Eusebius was a favorite of Constantine, and in turn became his adulator. He could not, indeed, be blind to his faults nor ignorant of his crimes; but in some instances he passed over the more flagrant of them without notice, showing more of the politician and courtier than of the faithful historian. To such a degree did he manifest this disposition to gloss the character of his hero, as to greatly damage his writings as historical evidence and to bring upon himself the condemnation of just and discriminating minds.

Lest the readers who have not extensively examined this subject, should think we are speaking in strong terms, we will at once proceed to lay before them some statements which we have gathered from credible and reputable sources. Without pretending to exhaust the evidence we shall present enough to satisfy all that we have good reason for the remarks which we have here made.

It will be remembered that Constantine fought the decisive battle with Maxentius in 312 under the banner of the cross. Yet there are few who pretend to think that he had any faith as a Christian at that time. It was a superstitious notion with him, believing as he did in a diversity of gods, among whom he reckoned Christ. And thus Mosheim viewed him, as the following from his Historical Commentaries will show:

"If that man is a Christian who thinks the Christian's manner of worshiping God is a good and holy one, then I have no doubt that Constantine was, at that time, a Christian. But if no man should be called a Christian, unless he believes that Christianity is the only true religion, and that all other religions are false, then I suppose Constantine became a Christian at a later period."

—Page 459.

There are strong reason to doubt that Constantine ever became a Christian in that sense unless it was a short time before his death. Stanley has the following striking passage:

"We may remember the striking remarks of Niebuhr: 'Many judge of Constantine by too severe a standard, because they regard him as a Christian; but I cannot look upon him in that light. The religion which he had in his head must have been a strange jumble indeed. * He was a superstitious man and mixed up his Christian religion with all kinds of absurd superstitions and opinions. When certain oriental writers call him equal to the apostles, they do not know what they are saying; and to speak of him as a saint is a profanation of the word.'"

Page 292.

Mosheim was not wont to speak harshly of Constantine, yet he speaks as follows of his favors to the Christians for which a few have been willing to think that he was a true believer in their religion:

"Constantine, therefore, in obedience to the commands of his father, as he himself admits, in his edict, preserved by Eusebius, wished to be accounted a worshiper of the one God. And yet, when occasion seemed to require it, and lest he should alienate the minds of the people, and soldiers from him, he supplicated the gods, gave thanks to them, and offered them sacrifices and gifts. Such being the character of Constantine, before his conversion to Christianity, I fully believe that the favors he conferred on the Christians, from the very commencement of his reign, did not proceed either from his humanity and justice, or from any love for the Christian religion, but were owing solely to his desire to establish his own authority in the empire.—His. Com.*, p 450.

Stanley, in harmony with his quotation from Niebuhr, makes this excuse, that Constantine's life "describes the religion of many in that time;" yet this affords no great relief to the dark picture which his life presents, for it was his patronage of the church, his secularization of Christianity, hiding its inherent simplicity under the pomp of his court, and enforcing conformity with all the weight of imperial power, which led to the very things to be condemned in the bishops as well as in himself. For it cannot be shown that this was the state of the church before he made Christianity subservient to his own ambition. And Stanley himself proves all this as the following shows:

"His leading idea was to restore peace to the church, as he had restored it to the Empire. [His object was to preserve the peace of the Empire].

In the execution of this idea two courses of action presented themselves to him, as they have to all ecclesiastical statesmen ever since. . . . In him both the latitudinarian and the persecutor may find their earliest precedents. . . . No scheme of comprehension has been broader, on the one hand, than that put forward in his letter of advice to Alexander and Arius; and on the other, when this failed, he still pursued the same end, with the same tenacity, by the directly opposite means of enforcing uniformity, to us long familiar, but first introduced by him into the church, the hitherto unknown practice of subscription to the articles of a written creed, and the infliction of civil penalties on those who refused to conform."—Stanley, pp. 294-295.

This testimony makes Constantine the instigator of the Nicene creed, and goes to show that the Inquisition was built upon the foundation laid by him. Certainly the legacy which he left to the church does not entitle him to the reverence of those who love Christianity in its purity, and we are led to marvel at the credulity of those who style him "the first Christian Emperor." Had his life been marked with the practice of Christian morals we could give him credit for sincerity of heart even in introducing such roots of evil into the church. Marsh speaks as follows:

"The sincerity of the man, who in a short period effected such amazing changes in the religious world, is best known to him who searches the heart. Certain it is that his subsequent life furnished no evidence of conversion to God. He waded without remorse through seas of blood, and was a most tyrannical prince."—Marsh's Eccl. Hist., period 3, chap. 5.

It will not be considered out of place to give the testimony of Gibbon who speaks only in harmony with that of so many reliable Christian authors:

"Crispus, the eldest son of Constantine, and the presumptive heir of the empire, is represented, by impartial historians, as an amiable and accomplished youth. . . . He deserved the esteem, and he engaged the affections of the court, the army, and the people.

"This dangerous popularity soon excited the attention of Constantine, who, both as a father and as a king, was impatient of an equal. Instead of attempting to secure the allegiance of his son by the generous ties of confidence and gratitude, he resolved to prevent the mischiefs which might be apprehended from dissatisfied ambition. . . . By all the allurements of honors and rewards, he invites informers of every degree to accuse without exception his magistrates or ministers, his friends or his most intimate favorites, protesting with a solemn assertion, that he himself will listen to the charge, that he himself will revenge his injuries.

"The informers, who complied with so liberal an invitation, were sufficiently versed in the arts of courts to select the friends and adherents of Crispus as the guilty persons: nor is there any reason to distrust the veracity of the emperor, who had promised an ample measure of revenge and punishment. The policy of Constantine maintained, however, the same appearance of regard and confidence toward a son, whom he began to consider as his most irreconcilable enemy. . . . . The time was now arrived for celebrating the august ceremony of the twentieth year of the reign of Constantine; and the emperor, for that purpose, removed his court from Nicomedia to Rome, where the most splendid preparations had been made for his reception. Every eye, and every tongue, affected to express their sense of the general happiness, and the veil of ceremony and dissimulation was drawn for a while over the darkest designs of revenge and murder. In the midst of the festival, the unfortunate Crispus was apprehended by order of the emperor, who laid aside the tenderness of a father, without assuming the equity of a judge. The examination was short and private; and it was thought decent to conceal the fate of the young prince from the eyes of the Roman people; he was sent under a strong guard to Pola, in Istra, where soon afterward he was put to death, either by the hand of the executioner, or by the more gentle operation of poison. The Cæsar Licinius, a youth of amiable manners, was involved in the ruin of Crispus; and the stern jealousy of Constantine was unmoved by the prayers and tears of his favorite sister, pleading for the life of a son, whose rank was his only crime, and whose loss she did not long survive. The story of these unhappy princes, the nature and evidences of their guilt, the forms of their trial, and the circumstances of their death, were buried in mysterious obscurity; 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." pp. 158-161, Chap. 18.

The following remark of Gibbon is neither harsh nor uncharitable considering the occasion of it:

"According to the strictness of ecclesiastical language, the first of the Christian emperors was unworthy of that name." pp. 249.

(To be Continued.)