Was Constantine Really the First Christian Emperor?

The controversial issue of Constantine's supposedevidence that this statue actually did exist but it is
conversion to Christianity has bedevilled seriousuncertain whether the symbol was the "Chi-Rho"
students of his age, ever since the time of Gibbonmonogram of Christ's name or the cross of his
(1737 - 1794). This historian, with the typicalpassion.
scepticism of the eighteenth century rationalist, firstLanctantius in his book "On the Deaths of the
confronted the conventional view of Constantine,Persecutors" - XLIV (DMP) (c318) was the earliest
portrayed as champion of the church and firstreference we have to Constantine's vision at the
Christian emperor. This traditional, over-simplified andMilvian Bridge, whereby Constantine was told in a
idealised picture of the emperor had its origins in thedream to inscribe [the sign of] Christ on the shields
writings of certain early church historians, who leftof his soldiers. Lactantius , who's language was Latin,
accounts contained references to miraculous "visions"states that the Greek letters were "Chi" intercepted
and "celestial signs". Obviously these types of eventsby a crooked form of "Ipsilon" which is similar, but
lie outside the legitimate realm of secularnot identical to the "Chi-Rho" monogram of Christ.
historiography. In any event it is quite impossible toThis has caused considerable dispute subsequently,
ascertain with any real degree of certainty that theamongst scholars who have derived extremely
purported religious conviction of anyone at all is trulydiverse and tenuous theories from this discrepancy.
genuine. Essentially this is always a private matterSome have tried strenuously to disprove the Christian
between each individual and his own god. Howeversymbolism. eg Henri Gregoire's theory of the X of
we may legitimately accept that a hypothesis for anythe "Vota". None of these arguments are convincing
motive or conviction, attributed to a historical figure,and the discrepancy remains unexplained. It may just
is proven historiographically, if all the established factshave been a simple error arising from Lactantius'
of that person's deeds and behaviour, as well as hisunfamiliarity with the Greek symbol, which was
surviving correspondence and reported utterances,familiar in the East but not in the Latin West, or
are consistent with this deduction, always providedequally plausibly, for those more cynical, an attempt
that the integrity of the sources for this informationby Constantine to unite his army under an ambiguous
can be verified with a high degree of certainty.symbol, acceptable to both pagan and Christian.
The direct results of the events surrounding thisEusebius subsequent work "Life of Constantine" (Vita
particular alleged conversion (whether true orConstantinus - VC) is believed to have been written
pretended) were absolutely pivotal for setting outaround 340, long after the alleged conversion, but
the future course for both the Roman Empire andthere is some dispute as to whether it was in fact
for the Christian Church, the joint foundation stoneswritten by Eusebius and not by some later writers.
of Western Civilisation, as we know it today. AnAs this is a matter that only experts can decide, the
examination of the motives that likely influencedcurrent acceptance of Eusebius as being the author,
Constantine in his rise to power and guided hisand also regarding the authenticity of the
subsequent acts is therefore essential, in order todocumentary transcripts included therein, is assumed
begin to understand his epoch, which brought aboutto be correct for the purposes of this essay. This
such fundamental changes to the philosophicalwork (VC) goes further than the previous two
concept of the state and particularly in its relationshipbooks (HE & DMP) regarding the revelations that
to the religious life of its people.were given to Constantine, virtually assigning him to
A critical examination of the integrity of the majorthe status of an Old Testament prophet and is
literary sources for Constantine's reign is therefore ofreminiscent of the epiphany on the road to
cardinal importance. By far the most importantDamascus. Whilst on his way to Italy (from Gaul)
sources, for this period and especially for the subjectaccording to Eusebius the Emperor stretched out his
of his apparent conversion, are the contemporaryarms and prayed to his father's god (Sol) he asked
Christian historians, Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 260 -him to reveal who he was and to assist him in his
340) and Lactantius (AD 250 - 320), who was apresent enterprise. He then saw a vision of "the
native of the province of Africa. If we can satisfytrophy of a cross of light, in the heavens above the
ourselves, from an analysis of these two primarysun" bearing the inscription "In this Conquer". His
sources, that their record of Constantine's behaviourwhole army was also supposed to have seen this
is consistent and plausible and moreover is compatiblesign. Later he was commanded by Christ in a dream
with the surviving documentary, numismatic,to make the likeness of this vision into a standard for
archaeological and other evidence, then on a stricthis troops (Laburnum) with the "Chi-Rho" monogram.
balance of probabilities we may legitimately acceptEusebius maintains that all this was revealed to the
(or reject) the proposition that he was an authenticwriter privately, much later, under oath. He also
convert. However should the literary record prove tostates that the emperor wore this same monogram
be flawed, containing sections that are substantiallyon his helmet later, numismatic evidence confirms this.
unfair as a result of bias, or to some degreeConstantine then took instruction by certain Christians
inconsistent with established facts, due to errors,about the mysteries he had observed and thereafter
untruths, illogical statements or unsubstantiatedled his soldiers to victory. He celebrated this victory
deductions, then the faulty material must be rejected.by erecting a statue of himself with the salutary sign
This may leave insufficient tested material remainingof a spear with a cross member as symbol of the
to give any certainty for resolving the issue. In thatrevelation given to him.
event, we must remain content with theThe critics of a sudden (or miraculous) conversion of
unsatisfactory conclusion that the issue is notthe emperor are quick to point out the huge
decidable, or at best, one point of view may bedifference between the brightly painted later story of
accepted, with qualifications, as a working hypothesis,Eusebius (VC) and that of the earlier versions told
for seeming the more probable of the two options.both by himself (HE) and Lactantius (DMP). Surely
The yardstick for assessing the validity of thesesuch momentous happenings as the celestial vision
sources will thus be the degree to which they canand Constantine's subsequent actions would not have
sustain a definitive answer to our proposition.escaped the earlier accounts, especially if witnessed
Eusebius, church historian and Christian theologian,by a whole army? Why did Constantine wait all those
was a renowned scholar and prolific writer. He was,years to declare his vision, and then only do it
inter alia, the author of "Ecclesiastical History (HE)"privately, long after he had openly embraced
written in 315 and revised ten years later. He is alsoChristianity in his public acts? The logic is not credible.
believed to be the author of "The life of ConstantineLactantius further in the DMP also reports on the
(VC)", which is a biography, containing invaluablemiraculous intervention of a angel who gave
transcripts of important official letters andassistance to Constantine's colleague Licinius in the
documents, relating to Constantine's reign (writtenbattle of Campus Ergenus (313 against the
c340 - if the authorship is allowed). He was alsopersecutor Maximin Daia). Jaques Moreau points out
known as Eusebius Pamphili, in commemoration of histhat Licinius is given equal weight with Constantine, as
martyred friend, colleague and literary collaborator,a champion of the Christians by Lactantius, who was
Pamphilus of Caesaraea. After Pamphilus' death hewriting in c318. Lactantius died in about 320 and
moved to Tyre, but fled to Egypt during theLicinius was subsequently shown by his acts clearly to
persecution initiated by the emperor Galerius in 304.be an unrepentant pagan at the time of his death in
Following the retraction of the persecution by the324. This definitely casts doubt on both his supposed
"Edict of Toleration", promulgated by Galerius atrevelation and by association also on that of
Nicomedia on 30 April 311 (ref: Ecclesiastical HistoryConstantine, as reported by Lactantius.
VIII. XVII. 6-10), he was able to return to Palestine,One of the strongest arguments against a sudden
becoming bishop of Caesarea in 314. He was the"miraculous" conversion for Constantine to the
confidant and adviser of Constantine from about 324Christian faith, as mooted by Eusebius and Lactantius
and tried to secure a moderate outcome from theis that for some considerable time after the victory
Council of Nicaea, in which he gave the openingat Milvian bridge Constantine continues to use the
address. His writing was in Greek.symbol of the sun in tandem with the use of
Lactantius was converted to Christianity late in lifeChristian symbols (eg on his victory arch in Rome and
and he lost his position as professor of rhetoric, as aalso on coins and medallions). He declared Sunday
result of it. He became an staunch defender of the(the day of the sun) to be a day of rest in such an
church at the time of the persecutions and foreverambiguous manner that both Christian or pagan could
remained critical of paganism. His major work, "Onparticipate with clear conscience. In all his early
the Deaths of the Persecutors" (DMP), was publishedcorrespondence there is no mention of Christ, but
in 318. He was the tutor of Constantine's eldest sononly of God [un-named]. There is a strong argument
Crispus. He wrote in elegant Latin and included(put up by A.Piganiol) that Constantine originally
valuable direct transcripts of official documents in thebelieved that Christianity could be assimilated with his
DMP, such as the "Edict of Toleration" previouslysolar religion in some sort of co-existence, not
mentioned (ref DMP xxxiv) and the "Edict of Milan"realising how exclusive was the "jealous god" of the
(ref DMP xlviii)Christians. If this was the case, Constantine evolved
Knowing something of the background of the twofrom this position slowly over the following decade
writers, we are immediately faced with a dilemma, ifand in the hands of his Christian advisers became
using them as our primary sources. Firstly, neithersteadily more orthodox in his faith. By the mid
author was actually attempting to produce a work oftwenties he was actively participating in church affairs
pure historiography and therefore was not subjectedand his correspondence shows that he no longer had
to the discipline that this form of writing implies. Insympathy for the pagans, although he scornfully
effect both were writing to celebrate the triumph ofpermits them to persist in their error. His late baptism
their faith over the pagan persecutors in the form ofin his final illness confirms his Christianity and the delay
"providential histories". In this genre, although historicalis understandable for a head of State who could
facts may be recorded with a fair degree ofneither afford the usual onerous three year
accuracy, however all events are analysed in termsapprenticeship of a proselyte, nor wished to close
of the preordained will of God and the directthe books until he was sure that his days of sinning
intervention by the deity is not only consideredwere over. His Christianity was certainly not of the
acceptable, but is central to the theme. Secondlymeek type, as his sins intensified and his reign
both authors were committed Christians, who hadbecame more bloody in later years (viz the murder
suffered personal loss in the recent persecutions andof his son Crispus)
therefore cannot reasonably be expected to be clearWhether his actual conversion to Christianity was
of pro-Christian and anti-pagan bias. Moreover by thesudden or gradual, the fact remains that, immediately
time the final editions of their work were published,after the battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine's
both men were firmly in Constantine's camp,behaviour towards the sect took a leap forwards.
Eusebius, becoming his trusted friend and advisor andThat he was sympathetic towards the church is
Lactantius the tutor to the emperor's son. It wasbeyond dispute. There is documentary evidence of
certainly in their interests, both in their personalwritten instructions to the Proconsul of Africa
capacities and also as representatives of their faith toAnullinus (313) and a letter to Cacaellian, Bishop of
portray Constantine as a "man of Providence".Carthage, at the same time, which serve to reverse
Norman Banes in his Raleigh Lecture of 1929,the effects of the previous persecutions. The
continues with this point, quoting an appropriateso-called "Edict of Milan" in 313 is further evidence of
extract, "It would be strange", Constantine proceeds,this trend, which continued until he had clearly and
"if the glory of the confessors should not be raisedopenly shown that he considered himself a Christian
to greater splendour and blessedness under the ruleby the time of the council at Nicaea in 325.
of the servant of God..." (VC 2.28 - 29). HoweverThe evidence of Eusebius and Lactantius, is
Henri Gregoire (Conversion of Constantine) goesinsufficiently strong to support a clear finding that
further and moots the discarding of the VCConstantine suddenly became a Christian, just prior to
completely, as "a romanticised panegyric", which is atthe battle of Milvian Bridge. That there was the use
odds with the earlier HE.of Christian symbols by individuals amongst his troops
Having taken cognisance of the potential danger thatduring the campaign seems most probable and
some of the content, presented by our sources,Constantine in all likelihood probably did attribute his
may well suffer from distortions, arising from ansuccess to assistance from the Christian god (or to
excess of zeal, we must now examine the sourcesthe Christians). This would not be inconsistent in a
and see how their record actually stands up to thesuperstitious age, especially for one who had belief in
yardstick proposed in the preamble to this essay. Fora syncretic religion, in which the sun was only a
this we shall concentrate on the key elementsdemi-urge or the principle aspect of the Creator, who
relating to Constantine's rise to become sole ruler ofcould manifest himself in many forms. The heavenly
the Roman world and his apparent relationship withrevelations, as reported by the two churchmen are
the Christian faith.not convincing and were probably the results of an
There is little controversy regarding the Constantine'sexcess in zeal on their part. Eusebius account in VC
pagan background before his quarrel with his fellowhas all the hallmarks of a fabrication and should be
Augustus Maxentius, and his subsequent invasion ofdiscarded. Lactantius also is suspect, when we
Italy in 312 and apparent conversion to Christianity.consider his Christianization of the pagan Licinius.
From about 310 it is generally taken that ConstantineUltimately Constantine appears to have been
was an adherent of the monotheistic worship of Solconverted in a less spectacular, but equally effective
Invicta - the Unconquered Sun. This cult had longway, which was facilitated by his syncretic solar
associations with his family, although there had beenreligion and in all probability his faith evolved over time
an politically motivated association with Hercules ininto orthodox Christianity. In fact the emperor's
the interim. The religion of Sol Invicta was a syncreticbackground in the cult of Sol Invicta and philosophical
solar cult, which enabled the various attributes ofpaganism clearly influenced the outcome of Nicene
polytheistic paganism to be assimilated into oneCouncil and hence the Christian Creed as we know it
universal deity. According to Jaques Moreau thistoday. The concept of the trinity with the central
syncretism was useful as a unifying medium fortenet of Homoousios (Christ being of the same
diverse cults of the empire and "was in no wayessence as the father-creator) seems to be
offensive to Christians", with whom it shared someconsistent with the belief structure of the more
common symbolism. Numismatic evidence stronglysophisticated or intellectual pagans. The synod of
supports the conclusion that Constantine was anAntioch were uncomfortable with this concept
adherent of Sol and the symbolism remains on thebecause it had originated in pagan Greek philosophy
coins of Constantine until the 320s. He was alsoWe must conclude that the two Christian sources are
reported to have had a dream of meeting the Sunacceptable as a valuable record of the actual events
God at a grove of Sol-Apollo in Gaul. There is noor happenings, but cannot stand up critical analysis
allegation of actual Christian sympathies before hiswhere they touch on Constantine's motives or
victory at the Malvinian Bridge, but Constantinebeliefs. The inconsistencies between the three
appears to have followed his father, Constantiusaccounts, with the remotest in time (VC) having the
Chlorus, in desisting from persecuting the sect in themost detail and requiring the greater faith in the
areas under his juristiction. Let us now examine whatwriter's bona fides, is suspicious and lead us to reject
the sources actually say regarding his conversion.the hypothesis of the emperor's sudden conversion.
Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History" (HE) was originallyThis conclusion is sustained by the record of the
written in 315 and revised ten years later. It was theevolution of Constantine's official acts towards the
earliest literary account of Constantine"s conversion.Christians, which seem to begin merely with a desire
According to him Constantine called "even on Jesusto redress past injustices after Milvian bridge and
Christ the Saviour of all, as his ally", at the battle offinally culminate in active participation, if not actual
Milvian Bridge and thereafter had a statue of himselfcontrol of the Church's affairs, by the emperor.
made with a Christian symbol in his hand. There is