The Sword of Constantine Unified Both Church and State

For Egar, a professor of ecclesiastical history, the conversion of Constantine meant the very beginning of both the church and state becoming united, and Egar even goes so far as to point out that "...it could not be otherwise..." (Egar, 6) Going along with this idea Litfin describes and opposes what he calls a 'fall historiography', and he summarizes this view as a belief that the church experienced a fall after the New Testament time period as true believers had been thought to have gone underground and to have been a very small faithful community marked out by a "trail of blood" (Litfin, 25). Litfin supports his opposition to the fall historiography by describing that if someone had actually lived in the time of Constantine, then they would view his actions as a tremendous positive effort for the church and not a negative one. (Litfin, 26) Unfortunately, some people that would disagree with Litfin on principle, may falsely conclude that Constantine did not competently unite both Church and state under one common umbrella, and many of these people thus would argue the case that the church only prevailed in rebellion to the unity that Constantine established. Overall, the purpose of this paper is to show that the work of Constantine to unite both church and state was perhaps the most important positive topic to ever be covered by history since the work of Jesus Christ, and for Carroll the work of Constantine was in fact the most important work since Jesus Christ (Carroll, 171).

First Council of Nicaea

The historian Lactantius in his personal evaluation of Constantine as a contemporary makes very clear that Constantine promoted the Christian God. Lactantius thus writes the following about the person of Constantine,
...the fist of the Roman princes to repudiate errors, and to acknowledge and honor the majesty of the one and only true God. For when that most happy day had shone upon the world, in which the most high God raised you to the prosperous height of power, you entered upon a dominion which was salutary and desirable for all, with an excellent beginning, when, restoring justice which had been overthrown and taken away, you expiated the most shameful deeds of others... (Lactantius, 3) Christian historians like Lactantius thus show a very firm loyalty to Constantine as a figure that introduced Christianity into the affairs of the state, but to truly understand the most impacting element to accompany such an introduction a person must turn their attention to the Creed of Nicaea.

Ferguson describes how Constantine called together the bishops that had been mangled from previous persecutions (Ferguson, 193-194) so that the Council of Nicaea may take place. Ferguson describes the Council of Nicaea as the first universal council of the church (Ferguson, 196), the first council to give favor and publicity to the church from the emperor despite the previous marks of persecution among the bishops attending (Ferguson, 197), and the first council to develop a creed that differed from previous confessions of faith in that it developed a, "test of fellowship." (Ferguson, 197) The point is that all three developments of the Council of Nicaea (the universal gathering, state favor, and development of a test for fellowship) all combined in time to make Christianity into the official state religion of the Roman empire.

Although Christianity had historically attempted to reach the political heads of state such as in the case of Paul in chains attempting to evangelize king Agrippa (Acts 26:28-29), the result of these efforts could hardly be determined successful. The fact thus that Constantine developed a pro Christian politic for state administration demonstrates that the church had accomplished something that the church had been working toward for centuries (namely the conversion of the state in this case). Although some may argue that the developments of the Council of Nicaea did not directly constitute the conversion of the state, the fact however remains that church and state unity only increased ever since the Council of Nicaea.

Matthew 23:36-38 shows that even Jesus Christ grieved over Jerusalem as he desired to gather the children of Jerusalem together like a hen gathering its children under its wings, and although this desire was never yet realized by Christ in Jerusalem, the Council of Nicaea gathered every element of the Roman empire together (basically this was the entire known civilized world for the most part) and the long term results of the council had been that it made the empire into something affirming of Christianity and openly Christian. The question that someone may ask at this point is, "how could anyone possibly ever believe that the Council of Nicaea caused Christianity to experience a time of persecution to 'true Christianity'?" The possibility for state enforcement of the Creed of Nicaea (Ferguson, 197) became the historic hallmark for aggression from parties representing disagreeable and conflicting views, nevertheless according to Ferguson, "The Nicene Creed was designed to comprehend all who wanted to be comprehended..." (Ferguson, 199) Overall, a point that can be made is that the only people that would have called themselves true Christians in rejection of the work of Constantine would have likely always been people historically opposed to the institution of the church to begin with (as these people would have opposed its unity).

Those that would be in support of and in favor of the teachings of the Nicene Creed and later creeds of the universal gatherings of Christians would be termed by church history as orthodox, and all those that would oppose the Nicene Creed and later creeds developed by representation of all Christians would be known as heretics. For example, among the establishment of the Nicene Creed the teaching of Arianism emerged as a vile to the Nicene Creed (See Ferguson, 200). Overall, the point is that Constantine established the responsibility of the power of the state to administer justice for keeping the unity of both church and state together under the historic creeds of faith that had been established to cover all of Christianity, and this was a very good thing for the unity of the church as it promoted the ultimate survival of the institution.

Establishment of Christendom

Despite the fact that as early as 313 Constantine issued the Edict of Milan that gave universal reconnection to freedom of worship for Christians, Jews, and pagans (Carroll, 182-183), the fact however remains that the government of Constantine favored Christianity. According to Kreider Constantine began the unification of church and state as this caused the church to consider new possibilities for its mission (Kreider, 159), and in this regard the church was able to lower the requirements necessary to become a Christian and was able to use wealth as a way of attracting more people into being baptized into Christianity (Kreider, 162). In this regard the church would have changed much of its mission from brining the gospel of Jesus Christ to others in other locations to instead demonstrate the tangible evidence of the good things that God had done, and this change in mission would have signified a change in public belief that Christians had transformed from a group of persecuted restless wanderers looking for converts into people with the full support of the state looking to permanently settle down. Overall, a powerful point to thus be made is that before Constantine, the persecuted Christians could flee to anther location, could go underground, or could suffer the consequence of persecution, but after the state support of Christianity the power of the protection of government meant that Christians would live in prosperity and gain much more converts from their own neighbors than had ever before been realized.

The historical value of Constantine to permanently impact the history of the entire world through establishing a land affirming and supporting of Christianity (Christendom) cannot be under estimated in its lasting consequences because even today plays are written and performed for the public that reflect upon the glory of the achievements of Constantine for Christianity while trying to take local credit for those accomplishments even in a land where they did not directly take place (Note: Constantine in a local British play performed to accent local legend - See Harbus, 88). The point is that when contemporary fiction performed for local public interest groups begins to demonstrate a romance for themes of Christian history that make a sort of fictional fantasy about taking local credit for Constantine, then what the historical point to be made is that the perception of the work of Constantine among many people cannot and does not in any way suggest a fall in Christianity but instead a uprising of Christendom as a new period and focus of Christianity in the fourth century. In general the interpretation of historians to weigh the value of the contribution of Constantine in establishing Christendom is likely to be very cultural in nature because a government like that of Britain that would hold onto the historical legacy of the union of church and state would want to hold the story of Constantine in high esteem while other groups of historians representing democratic revolutionary secular governments may write about Constantine from a standpoint of being repulsed from the idea of the union of church and state.

A ecclesiastical historian, named John Egar, that reflected upon the first four great councils noted that, "...unless the Church had been Catholic from the beginning, the different schools of Christian thought would have diverged from one another according to the national or sectional characteristics of various peoples..." (Egar, 16) The point is that the work of Constantine to have a land under Christian dominion that was centrally organized banished the possibility of the fragmentation of the Christian people as long as the union of church and state would center around the creeds to continually maintain Christendom in the Roman empire. Overall, the church history of the work of Constantine thus would come in two forms; moreover, the first form would be that of anti-Christendom history that sees the fourth century as a fall to Christianity and the second form would be that of pro-Christendom history that sees the fourth century as like a new dawn of Christianity emerging out of the darkness.

When making a historical evaluation between the anti-Christendom school of history and the pro-Christendom school of history, what is important to note is that both schools would read history according to their values and what is at stake. For example it would be a great embarrassment for the people of Great Britain to have a national church with a long standing history beginning in the work of Constantine but yet have crowds of British historians that all denounce the work of Constantine as something done only out of greedy secular motives. In a similar way it could be a incredible embarrassment if every church historian in the United States argued that Constantine established the kingdom of God on earth in Rome that Christ always desired for Jerusalem because America formed itself out of rejection and rebellion to the established authority of nations that had a national church with a legacy rooted in the work of Constantine. Overall, the point is that for many groups church history can be less of a black and white science and more of a cultural view supported by facts and good arguments, but the reason for bringing these points to light for this paper is so that a person may be aware of the motivations that drive the authors of the secondary source material.

Questioning the Motivation of Constantine

Although Constantine was clearly Christian and became baptized on his death bed in order to maximize forgiveness of sins that baptism would account for (Walker, 34), Walker questions the motives of Constantine by explaining that the real reason why Constantine sanctioned Christianity was just for the unification of the state to have one law, one ruler (so to speak), one citizenship, and one religion (Walker, 48). Questioning the motives of Constantine or reducing the work of Constantine down to secular explanations has a way of eliminating the credibility of Christianity to have a positive impact on a person's life as is the case with Constantine. The primary sources however speak powerful contrast against contemporary historians that try to secularize Christianity away from history, and this is true because both Lactantius and Eusebius confirm the same story that either through a dream or through looking into the sky Constantine saw a symbol referring to Christ that was used for a turning point for Constantine to enter into much greater political power. (Ferguson, 182-183)

Not only have church historians had to deal with the secularization of history to interpret the motives of Constantine, but also they have had to deal with the claim that Constantine somehow had purely Christian motives that had been zealous for the institution of the papacy. The Donation of Constantine has been attested to have Constantine as author, and in this work the following statement exists about the Bishop of Rome, "...his most holy Roman Church and the sacred see of blessed Peter shall be gloriously exalted above our empire and earthly throne." (Constantine, 109) Although the document has now been discovered to have emerged in the eighth century, it was not fully disproved until the fifteenth century (See Constantine, 107). The point is that motives of Constantine have been historically understood and interpreted both as if he had no care for Christianity (as in the first example) and as if he was so passionately Christian and favoring of the pope (as in the second example) that he had given his entire kingdom to the pope for all eternity.

A very sensible history of Constantine would be to suggest that he may have had motives that had been not at all pro Christian, but one day he had a experience (like in the example of seeing the symbol for Christ in the sky) and he like many people of similar supernatural experiences of personal revelation had been transformed by it. In fact Christian scripture states that if the dead are never raised, then we should eat and drink because tomorrow we die. (1 Corinthians 15:32) The point regarding the resurrection in this verse is that this was something that the apostles had personally known to be true (1 Corinthians 15:13-15), and so what is intrinsic to Christianity is that some people have personal experiences or an encounter of faith that confirm the teaching of Christianity. The point regarding Constantine is that if church historians try to discredit him from having a personal transformation of faith to believe in the Christian doctrine from personal revelation, then they might as well also disqualify Paul as an apostle to Jesus Christ. Overall, a Christian view of church history would support the idea that Constantine could have had a life changing experience all of the sudden (like Paul had) that would make him favorably disposed to Christianity for the rest of his life, and this could explain his motives very well.

The Bad About Constantine. Some people seriously question the motives and sincerity of Constantine to be a good Christian emperor because of some of the bad things that Constantine did during his time of power. For example Constantine had Licinius and his nine year old son put to death as a way of securing the empire for himself, and being at Nicaea helped to bring attention away from this political death of the former Caesar. (Barnes, 214) Another bad thing that Constantine did was to have his own son Crispus put to death without even a trial. (Guthrie, 325) Although some people would use such details to try to explain away any good motives that Constantine may have had, historians are not exactly certain why Constantine did such seemingly bad things as well as other things that would appear to be moral character flaws.
One must remember that even the best heroes of the faith such as Solomon and David had been involved in killing people in ways that would not be deemed appropriate to most people today. For example David killed Uriah (2 Samuel 11:15) to acquire his wife, and Solomon killed many people in order to secure his ruling power. The point is that Constantine should not be put on any higher of a standard of expectation than the heroes of the Christian scripture, and a person should except that everyone has problems with sin including emperors. Given these examples a person could easily conclude that the motives of Constantine may have been a mixture of both good and bad (like most people), and thus to only look at either the good or the bad would be to miss the fundamental point of human nature and to put Constantine either on a pedestal as like God or into the same condemnation as the devil.

Conclusion

Prior to Constantine taking power, pagan rule had dominated, and Christians had been persecuted in tremendous ways from time to time. Speaking in general, Constantine winning the battle of Milvian Bridge and eventually becoming the emperor of the entire Roman empire caused Christians to never have to worry about state sponsored persecution again as long as Christians followed creed. Although some may speculate that Constantine may not have cared what religion that Roman was practicing as long as it unified the state, enough good reason exists in the account of the battle of Milvian Bridge along with the political sponsorship of Christianity that Constantine did care what he and his empire believed in and worshipped. Going along with this idea Eusebius describes Constantine as "relying upon the assistance of God" as Eusebius recounts the battle of Milvian Bridge as he describes the work of Constantine to be like Moses in the parting of the Red Sea, but in this case the pagan Romans drowned in the sea because the bridge had collapsed (Eusebius, 209).

Constantine established Christendom in that for the first time ever Christians had the backing of government to practice Christianity as laws supported them, the emperor unified them, and the persecutions stopped. This meant that Christianity changed many of its views toward establishing itself more in the local areas that Christians lived in (evangelists also had more open range of the entire empire to reach those that had previously been unreached). Overall, the advent of Christendom caused a tremendous paradigm shift that had not been prevalent since the time of Jesus Christ, and this sort of caused Christianity to enter into a second great stage of development.

The way that Constantine revolutionized the entire world is through getting the bishops together from all over the known world (the Roman empire) to discuss the basic doctrine of Christianity. The council that established the Nicene Creed could have been the first gathering since the time of Jesus Christ that involved such a large percentage of church heads that had gotten together for any purpose; moreover, the odds of such an event ever taking place hundreds of years after the early ministry of Jesus Christ would suggest divine providence. Overall, just the fact that the bishops trusted the emperor not to kill them when all assembled suggests that they knew that Constantine was a safe and sincere emperor that would end the persecution.

Although some people might think that Christianity was completely ushered in from the time that Constantine took office, it nevertheless was implemented into the empire into stages. Regardless of this fact, the fact remains that Constantine was the single human person responsible for the change in government that allowed for Christianity to be ushered in to the affairs of the state. Overall, Constantine was successful in using the power of legal administration of government (his sword) to unify both church and state under one single umbrella.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnes, Timothy. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1981.

Carroll, James. Constantine's Sword: the Church and the Jews. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001.

Constantine. "The Donation of Constantine." In Documents of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. edited by Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, 107-110. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Eusebius. The History of the Church. Translated by Arthur McGiffert. Stilwell, Kansas: Digireads.com Publishing, 2005.

Egar, John. Christendom: Ecclesiastical and Political, From Constantine to the Reformation. New York, New York: James Pott and Company Publishers, 1887.

Ferguson, Everett. Church History: From Christ to Pre-Reformation, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

Guthrie, Patrick. "The Execution of Crispus." Phoenix vol. 20 no. 4 (Winter 1966): 325-331.

Kreider, Alan. "Beyond Bosch: The Early Church and the Christendom Shift." Mission Focus: Annual Review vol. 11 (2003): 158-177.

Lactantius. "The Works of Lactantius", vol I. Translated by William Fletcher. In Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol XXI. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2007

Litfin, Bryan. Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2007.

Harbus, Antonina. "Colchester's Legend on State: The Emperor Constantine by Dorothy Sayers." Modern Drama: world drama from 1850 to the present, 48, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 87-107.

Walker, Williston. Great Men of the Christian Church. Edited by Ernest Burton, Shailer Mathews, and Theodore Soares. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1922.