Constantine the Great and his Christian conscience

Dimitris Apostolidis

Kavala Greece

Without a doubt, the focal point of the “war” against Constantine the Great was the question of his Christian conscience. Just how sincere his relationship with the church was, and whether and to what extent the sincerity of his eventual admission of faith in Jesus Christ was, are topics that still continue to concern international bibliography . It has been correctly noted that few issues caused both endless and lively discussions on historical research and were as contradictory in their answers as the problem of the relationship between Constantine and Christianity."1

It has been argued, mostly in the West and in the former Marxist countries of Eastern Europe, that Constantine’s behaviour towards the Christian community and the 1 G. Ostrogorsky, History of Byzantine State, Αthens, 1979, p. 105.

protection he provided it with, was nothing more than the manifestation of a calculated political plan through which he hoped to benefit politically only.

Before exploring the relevant arguments, it would be very useful to determine the size of the Christian community at the time Constantine the Great entered public life in the empire. Despite the lack of sufficient information to lead us to a safe conclusion, it is certain that the Christians were a minority of the total population. The historian Alexander Vasiliev accepts the assessment of fellow church historian Vasily Vasilievich Bolotov, which also constitutes the dominant view in science. The latter, after investigations and calculations, concluded that the number of Christians in this period could not have exceeded one tenth of the empire’s population. He considers all other calculations that show the percentage of Christians as higher to be completely unfounded. Although it is not known what data Bolotov used to come to this conclusion, we should note that at the time of Constantine, Christianity had developed primarily in the East and only in the large urban centres. It should further be noted that the outcome of the terrible persecutions that had taken place was a reduction in the size of the Christian population.

The Christians, however, were not simply a numerical minority. Their position was even more unfavorable in Roman

society, since they had absolutely no involvement in the political process2. How deliberate was it then for Constantine the Great to invest his political plans in a marginalized minority? Alexander Vasiliev’s view on this question is outright: "A great statesman would not have allowed his grand political projects to be based on one-tenth of the people, which at that time did not take part in political affairs ... (therefore) …the notion that Constantine’s attitude towards Christianity was purely political collapses. "

But there is another serious parameter that would function as an inhibitor for every one of Constantine’s ideas or willingness to implement political strategies on the empire’s Christian population. The Christians at that time had serious problems of spiritual unity. Constantine may not have been fully aware of the magnitude of the problems. The experiences however that he gained through daily contact with the Church brought him closer and closer to the essence of the problem. Let us not forget that both the Arelatis synod, as well as the Nicean synod, were a result of his own initiative. So the topics of the day regarding the Donatists and Arianism were well known to him. In Nice, he even met personally with Bishop Akesio, the leader of the Novatians. Thus, he had the opportunity to acquire personal knowledge of yet another different view within the Church. It is indeed 2 Arnold Jones, Constantine and the conversion of Europe, Athens, p. 83.

certain that the friendships which he maintained at various times with several religious men enabled him to be introduced to the plurality of ecclesiastical problems. He personally witnessed the war waged against St. Athanasius, St. Eustatius, Marcellus Angora, etc.

All these lead us to the safe conclusion that the Christians constituted a distinguished social minority which, however, during this period, was unable to establish itself fully, in order to become the core of a serious political scheme.

Apart from these, the very structure of the Church itself did not favour political collaboration. In contrast to subsequent developments in the West, the Orthodox Church never found itself under the direction of an institutional leader with whom Constantine, as head of state, could reach political agreements with. Although the Church was structured on the basis of a democratically organised synodical system, it functioned in a segmented form. Though every bishop engaged in the pastoral care of his flock according to traditions, the rules of the Apostles and the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers, the element of personal interpretation by the bishop both in terms of doctrinal issues and management was more than obvious. The patriarchal throne of Constantinople had not yet been enacted, as well

as the metropolitan role of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, at least during that period, did not show any significant activity.

But even if we assumed that Constantine ignored all these inhibitory factors and dared to venture into the risky business of involving the Christians politically, what would be the expected political antikatallagma (exchange)? Or again, what kind of political advantage was he seeking which could not be offered by the pagans?

One opinion, for which there has already been much discussion, supports that Constantine wanted to use the Christian religion as the connecting link of the multinational empire. But if his intention was to use religion as a means of coupling the various ethnic groups of the state, it was safer to use the pagan deities. With the exception of the Jews, all the other peoples had religions related to mythical deities. Within the scope of communication amongst the peoples, it was a common phenomenon for the deities of one nation to be identified with or compared with the deities of another nation’s. Constantine the Great, therefore, had every opportunity to reinforce and promote this habit to a cultural tradition, but it is something that he did not do.

It is further equally certain that in his concern for ensuring the political unity of the empire, if he perceived Christianity as the dominant factor for this unity, he would take all the necessary measures that would lead to the numerical decline of the pagans. Neither did he do this.

Finally, political history teaches that all planning policies develop through the respective centres of power, whether expressed through palace courtyards or through other decision makers. Constantine the Great was obliged therefore, being consistent with his supposed political vision, to be the first of the pagans to officially enter the new religion, offering himself as a role model and example of behaviour to his subjects. Nor was this done. His baptism not only doesn’t coincide with the beginning of public life or with his empire, but instead takes place following intense skepticism and meditation nearing the end of his life.

Another view holds that Constantine the Great favoured the development of the Christian religion because it dictated submission to a worldly power, and didn’t encourage disputing or doubting political power.

Before any objection can be raised, it should be noted that this view has no foundation of truth. Starting the topic research based on the fundamentals of the Gospel word, we must restate Nicolas Berdiaeff’s thought in which “a Christian

is a constant rebel", as well as validation given to the philosophical literature by G. Hegel that "nowhere else have such revolutionary words been stated as in the Gospels."

The rebelliousness of the Christian truth comes from the fact that man was called on to release himself from his passions, and having the principles of our faith as protective armour, free to move towards the kingdom of Heaven. Unfortunately, this search for the heavenly kingdom was misunderstood by many who looked upon the Christians as a passive, inert, inactive social force, indifferent to earthly developments. Of course, these are excessive judgements. The Christian conscience would never tolerate human exploitation, corruption, social divisions and any other social reality that was in contradiction to the principles of the Gospel. This may not have interested the ruling class too much. What did cause terror to the central power of Rome was the refusal of the Christians to offer sacrifices to honor the gods and therefore the emperor. This then overthrew the emperor’s legal status, which rendered his every will valid, via divine origin and existence. For the Christians, dedicated to a single God, Jesus Christ, it was impossible to reconcile themselves with the idea of a god - emperor. Their attitude was considered a serious act of treachery against the regime. The consequences are known: ten bloody persecutions with millions of martyrs.

Having in mind the specific correlations, we consider the view that Constantine favoured the Christians to be incorrect, because in their space, he diagnosed a social group ready to submit to him. Until the time of Constantine, the Christians had submitted to any political power, despite the fact that they had not expressed rebellious tendencies and their future attitude was unclear. One would say that this subjection is a topic for the ensuing decades, when the Church will seek its natural protector in a Christian emperor, the institutional leader who, with his imperial prestige, is ready to safeguard its free, uninhibited and unhindered expression. In this way, the "leader" in the minds of the Christians not only acts as supreme state ruler, but also as a singular religious leader, since the providence of God has entrusted him with protecting the Church.

But all these acted as a natural evolution of sociopolitical relationships and not as a political design on Constantine’s part. Besides, Constantine had absolutely no reason to seek the submission of social groups to consolidate his power. In its millennium-long history, Rome never experienced serious risks from pagan rebel groups. Isolated and sporadic movements like that of Spartacus, from an objective and historical point of view, cannot be deemed a weakness of the political system. Constantine the Great, therefore, had no

reason to feel political insecurity, let alone reason to seek civil protection from the classes of Christians. What brought him closer and closer to Jesus Christ was something purer and higher which, unfortunately, the majority of Western writers, but also the Marxist literature as a whole, did not manage to comprehend. Such a lack of understanding for example is recorded in the views of Ernest Stein, who claims, unfoundedly, that Constantine wanted to integrate Christianity into the state system based on the prototype of Zoroastrian Persia3.

So, it is not confirmed by either the facts or the prevailing social bodies that which is suggested by G. Kordatou when he says "Constantine did not give privileges to the Church and support them with donations out of believe in the new religion. He was the first emperor who understood the role and influence exercised by the Church. On the one hand, the mutual and broad charity which the Christians showed influenced the masses both positively and negatively. Furthermore, their teachings of the afterlife, the resurrection of the dead and the establishment of the thousand-year earthly reign of the Christians were attractive and increasingly drew the masses to the Church. Constantine also did something else to show his favouritsm towards Christianity and make their leaders his associates: 3 Alexander Vasiliev, History of Byzantine Empire, Athens, 1977, p. 70.

Christianity required that its followers show full allegiance and recognition of the doctrine without question."4

There is no doubt that Kordatos was 'a prisoner of the Marxist faith ', as rightly pointed out by Paul Tzermias5. This is because, unlike the assertions made by G. Kordatos, the Church at that time had no influence whatsoever on the simple ground that it was under persecution and often showed an inability to express itself and even in its spiritual discourse. Besides that, Constantine had absolutely no need for a new ideology that would produce obedient citizens, after subjection to the Roman emperor - god was a given for the pagans, as already noted.

Consequently, Hans-Georg Beck’s view that Constantine the Great reluctantly and begrudgingly began to favour Orthodoxy because he realised that the latter should be a part of his political activity is beyond the realms of historical reality6. Beck indeed sees in the person of Constantine the union of "politics" and “Orthodoxy" and calls it "Political Orthodoxy ".

4 Ioannis Kordatos, History of Byzantine Empire, Athens, 1977, p. 89.

5 Das andere Byzanz. Konstantinopels Beitrag zu Europa, Fribourg, 1991, in hell. Edit. Athens, 1995, p. 30.

6 Das Byzantinische Jahrtausend, München, 1978, in hell. Edit. Athens, 1992, p. 126.

The first serious response to this argument is based on the conceptual correctness of the term "Political Orthodoxy". The term "politics" must, by definition, either describe the content of the term "Orthodoxy" or its properties, which in this case does not occur. Therefore, even if we assume that Orthodoxy was part of Constantine’s political activity, this is hardly enough to give a political dimension to Orthodoxy.

Secondly, we should note that the interventions of the emperors in ecclesiastical matters, more often than not, did not affect the fundamental element of our faith, namely Orthodoxy. We must accept Orthodoxy as a composition of doctrinal principles and spiritual values, immersed in the mystical nature of our faith, which are based on the word of Jesus Christ, confirmed at the Ecumenical Councils and interspersed through the teaching experiences of the Fathers. Church and Orthodoxy are not identical concepts, as many western writers incorrectly attempt to show. Historically, the Church is the spiritual and institutional shell under whose protection Orthodoxy develops and operates. And even if some emperors used the Church as a means of political designs, Orthodoxy, as the highest God-given revelation, does not get undermined or degraded as an absolute value and as a timeless spiritual measure.

Instead of "Political Orthodoxy", we could accept the word "Byzantine Theocracy" as an established term, which Steven Runciman introduces into modern scientific literature. In the minds of the Byzantines, the constitution, and the state itself survived under the auspices of God's providence. They had also dedicated their capital initially to the Lord himself and then to theTheotokos. The empire gradually Christianised as a whole and the emperor functioned as guarantor and protector of a society with an identical and homogeneous religious consciousness. This seems to have been Constantine’s vision. To lead, that is, an empire all of which would be committed to worshipping Jesus Christ. He accepted this mission as a position of responsibility and not as a relationship based on power. He did not impose his personal views, but rather took all necessary measures to help the Church to express itself in a sovereign and genuine manner. Let us not forget that the first Ecumenical Council opens the curtain for the so-called dogmatic vesting period of the Church.

Therefore, Hans-Georg Beck’s accusations that Constantine never wanted to nor ended up embracing the Church, and that he never went through the stage of humiliation and indoctrination, but rather accepted a particular mission for himself, that of carrier of this highest

worldly power which simultaneously represents the divine will, are without substantial grounding. This is because Constantine the Great, not only did not perceive himself as a “gift" for the Church, as Beck erroneously argues, but instead saw God’s trust in him as a heavy burden of responsibility and obligations towards the citizens the empire.He also publicly declared his acceptance of responsibility in both the Pre-Synod letters of Arelatis and Nice. It is indeed worthy of interest that he never included divine authenticity in his speeches. If that were the case, there was absolutely no reason to convene with the Church, sometimes locally and sometimes on a whole, to solve ecclesiastic problems. He would have solved them himself with the supposed authority of his divine speech. This would have happened more if Constantine perceived himself as “a superior of the Apostles and viceroy of God," as J.J. Norwich mistakenly argues7.

The above opinions are not shown as a simple misinterpretation of the relationship between Constantine and the Church. They distort and literally trivialize the Church’s interest in the Christian community and insult both Constantine and the Church. When did he truly give samples of his beliefs that he 'felt that God endowed the Church with himself "? Or again, when "did the Church show subservience to him while tolerating to be corrected"?7 A Short History of Byzantium, 1997, in hell. Edit. Athens, 1999, p. 70.

It is obvious that Beck distorts how Constantine accepted the mission and spiritual responsibility towards society which he ruled as emperor. Constantine may never have forgotten his imperial status in his relationship with God, but one would say that this constant reminder of his position was also a permanent additional responsibility to himself. In fact, in a certain edict towards the inhabitants of Palestine, he does not hesitate to admit that God chose him as "the good servant" and that it was his duty, starting with Britain, the country where the sun sets, to take any appropriate measures, so that the human race, along with his own contribution, could serve the "the most modest law", that is, the teachings of the Lord. Invoking his own participation therefore in God’s will prevailing, much to Beck’s surprise, is not at all contrary to our obligations as Christians, such as those arising from the missionary and confessionary nature of our faith. If Apostle Paul himself reminds us all unequivocally that "we are God’s accomplices”, then what is Constantine’s error, when all he did was to submit his bid, as emperor, in disseminating the principles of the Gospel? Constantine the Great may never have forgotten that he was the emperor, but at the same time, never forgot that he was "a servant and man of Almighty God”. It would be beneficial to all societies, if indeed all those who hold worldly power, had a sense of their moral responsibility, comparable to that of Constantine’s.

Beck’s negative assessment as to the authenticity of Constantine’s religious sentiments does not offer something new to historical science. It constitutes a varied reformulation of what has been argued in western literature from time to time. Before Beck, both the historian Jacob Burckhardt8 and the theologian Edward Schwartz9 argued that Constantine the Great, dominated by rampant political and personal ambitions, could only have been interested in his own personal promotion. The Christian Church, according to historians, was nothing but a rising world power and Constantine, "a cold and calculating opportunist" as it were, would not let the opportunity be lost. He would use the Church as a means of imposing global political domination. Such a "political adventurer" then could not be anything but "irreligious". Similar, but perhaps not as caustic as the aforementioned, are the teachings of the Protestant theologian, Adolf von Harnack10.

Along the same lines as the above critics is the contemporary historian, Mikhail Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff11. Christianity, according to Rostovtzeff, was nothing more than the foundation upon which Constantine would build despotic 8 Die Zeit Constantins des Grossen, Stuttgart, 1929, p. 325.

9 Caiser Constantin und die Christliche, Leipsing – Berlin, p. 2.

10 Die Mission und Asbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Leipsing, 1929.

11 A Roman History, Athens, 1984, p. 325.

and inherited power. In truth though, if Constantine’s intention was to establish sole political despotism based on inherited succession, how much did he actually need Christianity? What more did Christianity had to offer him compared to the paganism of the West or the East? If Constantine wanted to use religion as a personal springboard for his political projects, what he already had in front of him was the tried and tested pagan recipe and there was absolutely no reason to experiment on an uncertain breakaway religious society.

It is obvious that all of Constantine’s critics approached him with an apparent appetite for self- complacency and self-righteousness. Thus, they were unable to follow Constantine’s spiritual journey, as it was carried out through the peculiar social and religious contradictions of his time. With such a notion of critical inspection though, they are limited to the affirmed views without any historical and factual foundation. Constantine’s actual journey, however, is something completely different from what they describe in their works. Therefore, historian Manfrend Clauss’s opinion of Constantine the Great that "during his conversion, he simply changed the face of God, without departing substantially from the original faith, since he had no interest

in the doctrines of Christian faith" is unable to withstand severe criticism12.

There is no doubt that Constantine the Great was born into a completely pagan world. It was thus quite natural for him to accept the pagan influences of his social environment. Maternal warmth, however, steered him toward other orientations. Despite the fact that it was not always easy for Saint Helen to be at his side, we can hardly exclude Constantine’s religious education by his mother. But also his father’s attitude was not a deterrent for such freedom. He was never a fan of polytheism himself, but rather but followed the monotheistic mixture that declared the sun as a supreme deity. Thus, we can reasonably assume that Constantine’s heart vacillated between Christ and the sun, with Christ winning him over for good.

Following Constantine’s spiritual journey, we find that it is recorded as a continuous path of convergence towards Jesus Christ. His theoretical disentanglement from his father’s monotheistic idolatry is certified by the clashes at the Festivals of 310, 311 and 313 A.D., where God does not change just name, as some claim sarcastically, but in essence, Constantine the Great’s entire inner world is turned upside down. The sun-god finally sets for something new to

12 Konstantin der Grosse und seine zeit, München, 1996, p. 73.

dawn in his soul. His relationship with this new reality will be neither simple nor considered a given. But it will be a relationship that develop and grow continuously, so that his last day of the earthly life will also be the first official and formal admission to the body of the Church. The wasting away of his body while awaiting death is superseded by the spiritual climax, when he accepts the sacramental grace of baptism and ends with total identification with Christ . So, with every day that went by, Constantine was further removed from paganism, moving towards Jesus Christ more and more. His entire behavior was not a manifestation of simple cold policy, as perceived by some. On the contrary, with his stance, he publicly and continually proved that his actions were precise and an absolutely faithful imprint of his conscience.

There are very interesting facts presented by Professor Aikaterina Christophilopoulou13 in relation to the research done on the coins of the era. On the coins minted until 310, Constantine the Great is depicted with the god Mars or Hercules. But after that year, when the emperor came into conflict with the Maximinian Dynasty, the supreme deity shaped in the form of the sun was displayed along with the emperor. This composition also exists in a medal which circulated in 313. On one particular silver medal, the emperor 13 Byzantine History, Thessaloniki, 1992, p. 134 – J. Maurice, Numismatique constantienne, Paris, 1908.

appears to bear a helmet on whose front part is the Christian monogram, a composition of the letters X and P, which comprised the Christian symbol14.

From the surviving inscription on the triumphal arch outside the Colosseum in Rome, which was built in 315 by Constantine the Great to commemorate the victory over Maxentius , it seems clear that he has something to boast about how he was victorious due to divine inspiration. It is very important that the plural term "gods" was replaced by the abstract, singular term 'deity'. On the coins which were released in 320, the sun is completely eliminated, while the images of Concord, Nike, Faith and Hope are retained. Nike is represented either standing or sitting, or winged while holding a wreath and always with the engraved Christian monogram in it.But Constantine’s externalization of his religious consciousness is manifested with a set of important decisions to strengthen the religious feelings of Christians. For example:

• The establishment (early March 321) of Sunday as a public holiday and day of prayer and Friday as a day of remembrance of the Passions of the Lord15.14 Hans Lietzmann, Der Glaube Konstantins des Grossen, Berlin, 1937.

15 Eusebius, (P.G 20.1165 – IV.18) – Sosomenos, (P.G 67.876 – I.8) - Codex Theodosianus, (III.12), Nikiphoros Kallistos, (P.G 145.1316 – VII.46).

• He introduced the showing of Christian symbols in imperial garb, but also on military equipment (flags, banners, coins, etc.) e16.• He made donations to churches and even distributed free grain to the poor inhabitants of the empire17.

• He financially supported the local churches18, while simultaneously recognising the right of the Church to have its own property and to accept donations from third parties19, and relieving the clergy from public burdens20.

• He favored the presence of Christians in the military and general public hierarchy21.

• He gave the new capital of the empire, Constantinople, Christian sheathing (color), despite the fact that he had brought many pagan monuments from different parts of the country.• He issued a decree to return to the temples, all estate assets that had been removed from them , as well as all of the places where Martyrs of the Church had been tortured

16 Eusebius, (P.G 20.944 – I.30).

17 Eusebius, (P.G 20.1176 – IV.28) – Theodoritos, (P.G 82.937 – I.10).

18 Eusebius, (P.G 20.892 – X.6).

19 Cod. Th. (III.12).

20 Cod. Th. (XVI.2).

21 Eusebius, (P.G 20.907 – II.20).

and were therefore of particular value in the religious consciousness of the Christians22.

• He prohibited the worshipping of the emperor, as well as forbidding his image to be placed among the gods, while advising his citizens to have a deep respect for God and express proper worship and honour to Him23. At the same time he publicly showed his respect to the bishops in general and to the clergy who had been blinded during the persecutions. It is reported that he often called Bishop Panfoutio to the palace and kissed his dead eye24.

He inaugurated the church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem. It should be noted that the construction of this temple was a laborious task25. After the destruction of Jerusalem by Emperor Titus, a pagan temple had been built just above the Holy Sepulchre. So he had to demolish and then build the Christian church. But things were not so simple, since the church had to be configured to include both the point of crucifixion of the Lord in Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre.

22 Eusebius, (P.G 20.1016 – II.39 & 40).

23 Eusebius, (P.G 20.1017. – II.42).

24 Sokrates, (P.G 67.101 – I.11).

25 Eusebius, (P.G 20.1138 – IV.40) – Sosomenos, (P.G 67.1008 – II.26) – Sokrates, (P.G 67.117 – I.17) – Nikiphoros Kallistos, (P.G 146.112 – VIII.30).

• He erected as a sign of special honour to the twelve Apostles, the church in Constantinople26. In this temple he even made sure he and his successors deposited the relics of holy men, such as the Apostles Andrew, Luke , Thomas, Timothy , Lazarus the Martyr , the Prophet Elijah, etc. Both his mother, St. Helen and he himself were entombed in this temple27.• According to tradition, the first St. Peter's Basilica in Rome was his doing, as well as the Lateran Basilica and the "Octagon Kyriakon " in Antioch, and churches throughout the country28, since as was rightly pointed out by Konstantinos Giannakopoulos " from his position as the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine had a natural desire to immortalize the holiest shrines of Christianity with monumental religious buildings "29.

• He supported his mother's laborious efforts to find the True Cross30. The discovery of the Holy Cross was such a monumental event that the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Makarios, ascended the pulpit and raised it in front of the congregation.

26 Eusebius, (P.G 20.1209 – IV.58) – Theophanis, (P.G 108.114).

27 G. Kedrinos, (P.G 121.544) – I. Zonaras, (134.1141- XIII.11).

28 Sokratis, (P.G 67.121 I.18) – Theophanis, (P.G 108.115) – G. Kedrinos, (121.564).

29 Byzantium and West, Athens, 1985, p. 185.

30 Sosomenos, (P.G 67.929 – II.1) – Sokrates, (P.G 67.121 – I.17) – N. Kallistos, (P.G 146.118 – VIII.31) – Theophanis, (P.G 108.110).

• The temples at the cave of the Nativity and on the Mount of Olives are also attributed to him31, and with his encouragement to the Palestinian bishop, Makarios, a church was built amongst the oaks of Mamvri , since it was there that the Savior and the two angels were guests for the first time, and as a result, God began to reveal himself to the people32.• He adapted state legislation to the principles of the Gospel. By way of example: He prohibited cohabitation between an unmarried couple, as well as the custom of dueling. He abolished death by crucifixion and prohibited kopidermia , ie stigmatizing slaves in the face by slashing the skin. He improved the living conditions of prisoners who previously were not allowed to see sunlight. He took measures towards reinforcing the institution of the family. He gave severe penalties for the offenses of abduction of children and virgins, the crime of patrocide and offenses related to sexual relations. He took care to protect the socially weak , such as widows and orphans for example, etc33.• When organizing a campaign against the Persians and wanting to be able to worship, he asked that a transportable

31 Sosomenos, (P.G 67.933 – II.2) – Sokrates, (P.G 67.117. – I.17).

32 Eusebius, (P.G 20.1112 – III.51)

33 Cod. Th.

tent -shaped temple be built, so as to create the feeling that he was inside a church34.

Apart from this, however, it is worthy of special mention, the effort he made at times to support the Christians who found themselves beyond the Byzantine territory and at other times to assist in spreading the faith to people who lived outside the boundaries of the empire. Historical sources inform us that:

In a letter to the ruler of Persia, Sapor, he is concerned about the fate of his Christian subjects35. In this letter, however, he is not restricted to the benefit of introductions, but exhausts himself in one persistent confession of his faith in God. He writes about "By guarding the divine faith, I participate in the light of truth. Guided by the light of truth, I understand the divine faith. Therefore, as confirmed by things, I am privy to the most holy religion. My teacher in my awareness of God, I must confess is my worship of Him. I respect this God. I confess to this God. I invoke Him while kneeling. Because this God likes works of kindness and meekness, He loves the sweet-tempered, He does not tolerate the troublemakers, He loves faith,

34 Eusebius, (ΒΕΠ 24.494 – IV.56), Sokrates, (P.G 67.124) – Sosomenos, (P.G 67. 880) – Gelasios, (GCS 28.155).

35 Eusebius, (P.G 20.1157 – IV.8), Sokrates, (P.G 67.124) – Sosomenos, (P.G 67. 969) – Theodoritos, (P.G 82.973 – I.24) – N. Kallistos, (P.G 146.145 – VIII.38).

He punishes infidelity, He shatters every show of arrogance, He punishes the abusive behaviour of the proud, He shoots down from the pedestal those who hold it by arrogance, while He duly reciprocates to those who are humble and forgiving. In that way He respects the righteous kings also and He safeguards them to live peacefully. I do not think I am mistaken, my brother, by revealing my confession to the one God who is the leader and father of all”. It should be noted that Sapor II was a ruthless persecutor of the Christians, since he did not hesitate to send at least six thousand people to their death. The bishop of the Persians, even after being subjected to numerous tortures and after failing to attract anyone to the faith, fled the country any old how36.

What is noteworthy is not Constantine the Great’s correct course of theological approach, but his revealing confession of faith to God. What is also noteworthy is how he refers to the bloodiest persecutor of the Christians of Persia as “brother”. Constantine’s letter was an act of protection for the Christians of Persia, after having been informed about the persecution of Christians, he was displeased and sought solutions to safeguard them. The persecution which Sapor indeed unleashed on the Christians in 330 was

36 Sosomenos, (P.G 67.968 – II.4) – Theophanis, (P.G 108.72) – G. Kedrinos, (P.G 121.562).

unprecedented in brutality and barbarism. For example, he did not hesitate to submit to horrible torture the elderly (aged 95) Iliodoros and bishops Sadoth, Zadok and Simeon. His bloodthirsty feelings did not ease up even for his two children, Govdelaas and Kasdoa, his relative, Dada and their young spiritual companion, Goudelia, whom, after torturing for days on end, eventually beheaded some and burned others. Constantine’s letter apparently put a stop to Sapor’s criminal momentum, since the next great persecution will be several years later, during the reign of Emperor Theodosius, when the Christian community of Persia will enrich the Orthodox martyrology with a second round of martyrs.

• He provides honourable hospitality to the official delegation of the king of the Iberians, Mirian37 and responds willingly to the king’s request for a missionary group to be sent to Iberia for the declaration and dissemination of the Gospel. He therefore sent a group of priests led by the high priest, thus positively reinforcing St. Nina (Equal to the Apostles) of Cappadocia’s important work, who at that time had taken refuge in Iberia, after having passed through Armenia to sow the seed of the gospel speech. T Constantine the Great was not satisfied in merely sending human resources. He supplied the clergy with relics of saints and images of Christ 37 Theodoritos, (P.G 82.972) – Sosomenos, (P.G 67.949) – Sokrates, (P.G 67. 129 - I.20) - N. Kallistos, (P.G 146.125).

and the Virgin Mary. He reportedly even gave one of the nails that had pierced the Lord’s Holy Body, which had previously just been found along with the Cross of the Lord’s crucifixion. As a sign of recognition of Constantine’s contribution to the propagation of the Christian faith, the name Constantine soon prevailed in the Iberian book of names.

• He took an interest in the fate of the Christians in India, which at that time was not a single state entity, but was divided into kingdoms that occupied the entire Indian peninsula. We know that the word of the Lord was taught in this country, not only by Apostle Bartholomew, who handed the Indians the Gospel of Matthew, but also by Apostle Thomas. The historical texts, however, inform us that in the interior of India, the Gospel was still unknown38. During the reign of Constantine, therefore, Frumentius is ordained as bishop of the Indies in Alexandria by St. Athansius, and settles in India39.

• He concerns himself with the dissemination of the Gospel to the Armenians40, who at that time had been freed from the Persians. It is worth mentioning that the Armenians, during 38 Sokrates, (P.G 67.125 – I.19) – N. Kallistos, (P.G 146.132 – VIII.35) – Theophanis, (P.G 108.108).

39 Sokrates, (P.G 67.125 – I.19) – Theodoritos, (P.G 82.969 – I.22).

40 Sosomenos, (P.G 67.953 – II.8).

the reign of Tiridates III early in 301, had already embraced Christianity thanks to the martyred missionary work of St. Gregory the Enlightened and first bishop of the Armenians.

With an objective and comprehensive view of Constantine’s behavior, we realise that he has no intention to force Christianity on other peoples, and also his behavior, with the exception of his concern for the Christians of Persia, does not manifest itself as his own initiative, but as an eager response to assistance. There is therefore no suspicion of political calculation in his behaviour either. On this point, the judgemental literature simply keeps silent. While indeed, almost all critics use Zosimos as the source of their historical information, they simply overlook, obviously on purpose, that he never accused Constantine of political profitability.A completely different perspective than those already exposed is introduced into western literature by Arnold Jones, who believes that Constantine the Great does believe in God, but he perceives Him as being a God of power, a God of strength, but never as a God of love.

It should be observed that the subjective perception of the essence of God is connected on the one hand to the spiritual formation of each individual, and on the other hand to his mood at any particular time. Thus, the poor perceive him as a merciful God, the warring as a God of peace, the

sick as a God of healing, he who is conscious of his sins as a God of salvation and only a few souls, those who have passed all levels of mental exercise and have been consecrated in mystical life, understand the overriding status of God in its absolute dimension which is truly, love.

Throughout the most part of his historical journey, Constantine the Great has dubious theological education, in a particularly critical period of his life, he alternates between theological disputes. On the other hand, being a brilliant and invincible general, it was very natural for him to consider God to be his protector and assistant in his wars. That’s how "Mighty God " qualified in his conscience, without this meaning that he ignored the main attribute of God, love.In one of his prayers, Constantine the Great allegedly addressed God as follows: "You, therefore the greatest God, I implore, be gentle and amenable to your eastern people, who have been shattered by long-term disaster, and offer to them healing with me as your therapist. All these I ask for not without reason, Holy God, because with Your guidance, I planned and fulfilled acts of salvation, and showing Your steal everywhere, I commanded a brilliant army. That's why I have devoted my soul to You with pure love and respect. I have genuine love for You and stand reverently in front of Your

strength. Make your people have peace for the sake of the common good of all people”.

It is clear that Constantine confesses his love to God, while revealing that he considers Him as the reason for his achievements. At the same time, he proclaims peace and harmony among the people as the highest good and believes that disputes are nothing more than an illness. This is the reason that causes him to ask God to provide healing to the people using Constantine himself as his servant.

It should not escape our attention that in successive letters, Constantine the Great trusts God as a God of hope, but above all, as a God of salvation. That is why he ordered his soldiers to pray as follows: "Thee alone we know as God, You only we recognize as king, to thee we owe our victories, to thee we owe what we enjoyed in the past and to You we pin our hopes for the future”41.

Particularly noteworthy is the speech which he gave addressing a church congregation. At some point he addresses the Lord, saying: "You Christ who is the Savior of everyone, come and help me with this sacred effort. Decorate my speech to talk about your virtues and teach me how to praise you. Some foolish and wicked people say that our Christ was sentenced fairly and the one responsible for the life of the living lost his own life. It is no wonder that those 41 Eusebius, (P.G 20.1168 – IV.20).

who dared disrespect You once by saying such things have surpassed every sense of foolishness, because they have convinced themselves that the indestructible God has retreated in the face of human violence and cruelty prevailed over His charity. And, unfortunately, they do not realise that magnanimity and forbearance are neither altered by jeering nor are they diverted from their natural stability. This is because the charity of God decided to eliminate injustice and elevate justice and good behavior”42.

"For this reason, having gathered around him the wisest of men, namely the Apostles, he gave excellent and wonderful teachings. Who then can consider any commodity superior to this, to have God reward righteousness and to equate Himself with those worthy of His teachings, in order to have eternal happiness among people? This is the most brilliant victory, this is the truest power, this is the greatest project. And to Thee who art our Saviour, we award the winnings”.

So there is no doubt that Constantine the Great accepts the incarnation of the Lord as the greatest gift of God to man And this is why Christ came down to earth for a single purpose; to take man up to Heaven. By experiencing the Lord's teaching, man becomes God by His grace and this is exactly what Constantine the Great means, when he says 42 Eusebius, (P.G 20.1233).

that God "equates himself with those worthy of His teachings”. His speech truly has originality and beauty when he writes: "Since the Lord gave the world the gifts of modesty and prudence, He rose up to his paternal hearth and founded on earth a sacred temple of virtue, eternal and incorruptible, the Church”.

In the same text, he does not hesitate to make his confessional of assurances. He reveals that he began to praise God after he started repenting and taking pity on others, because he had not had the teachings of the Lord from his childhood. The synthesis of his speech is truly charming: "Because I think that the work of a virtuous man is to praise the Saviour, I remove everything, in whatever absurd way,misfortune has loaded us with, as these are symptoms of ignorance. For me, repentence is the greatest salvation. I wish I could have been gifted with this revelation in the past, since it is known that he is happy who from his youth was initiated into the knowledge of the divine rules and filled his soul with the beauty of virtue"!

In order not to have any qualms that his speech is the fruit of his conscience, I reassure his audience that "speech cannot have any elegance when the mood of the speaker is dubious”.

It is worthy at this point to refer to Marc Reuver’s thoughts, who, regardless of any distance he maintains, does not hesitate to observe that "Constantine saw himself as a servant of God, and executed His will with absolute obedience to divine providence. It was his duty to ensure the Christian faith, peace and harmony amongst the peoples. This divine call gave him the special duty to exercise imperial power on all the citizens entrusted to his care"43.

The view expressed in Western literature, namely that if Constantine had known how heavy the role of "servant of God" was going to be, he would never have taken it on, is completely hypothetical. Besides, whoever humbly ministered the Lord's will did not do it because they based it on their personal strengths, but because they believed that "everything if possible if you believe”. That was exactly what Constantine the Great did. Unfortunately, cold and suspicious logic, sometimes atheistic and sometimes a shade of Protestantism, deprived some of the ability to recognise Constantine’s true mood. It is the same logic that prevents them from understanding, for example, the saving grace of the Holy Cross, and thus perceiving it as a murder weapon, or again it is the same logic that does not allow them to understand why we Orthodox partake in the Holy Communion using the same spoon.43 Reqviem for Constantine Kampen, Holland, 1968, p. 30.

It may be difficult and practically useless to record all the critical literature, wherever it comes from, and provide answers. The answer given in 1891 by the historian Louis-Gaston Boissier, in his monumental work, "La fin du paganism", continues until today to emit glowing news: "Unfortunately, when dealing with great men who played an important role in history and when trying to study their life and actions, rarely are we satisfied by the most natural explanations. The fact that these people have something different from other people makes us not believe that they can function as ordinary people. We look for dark reasons behind even their simplest actions while we accuse them of having sensitivity and a depth of thoughts or infidelities that they never had imagined themselves. All this applies in the case of Constantine as well. What prevailed was the biased belief that the skilled politician wanted to fool us. The more passionately he devoted himself to religious matters, by highlighting him as a believer, the more intense our efforts became to prove that Constantine was indifferent to these issues and that he was a skeptic, who in fact did not bother with any religion, except the one that served him better”.

The relationship between Constantine and the Church therefore is not reflected as a manifestation of political calculation, but rather as an identification of consciousness, as it is particularly formed during its historical development.

The Church exudes an ever-growing spiritual attraction for Constantine and is completely different from the issue of the existence of political interest that could connect the emperor with the Church. He did not hesitate to openly confess the latter himself, when in one of his letters, he declared that he considers the unity of the Church as a prerequisite for the prosperity of the state. The future developments within the empire were indeed a constant affirmation of his political philosophy. When the Church was tested by intense conflicts - let us remember the period of iconoclasm - it was not without unfortunate consequences. The Church and society were not simply divided but totally locked away for entire decades. Then again, it is worth remembering that regions of the empire that succumbed to heresies, such as Egypt, Syria, Palestine, etc, easily disconnected themselves spiritually and emotionally from Constantinople with the tragic outcome of their relatively easy allegiance to the Arabs. In fact, the geographical borders of the empire shrank and were limited to those of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, so that the two could continue on together for centuries in a relationship of mutual experiences and mutual influence.

After what has already been described, it clearly shows that Constantine’s shift to Christianity was "clear and undisguised"44 and that his fundamental motivation and 44 I. Karayanopoulos, History of Byzantine State, Thessaloniki, 1988.

invincible point of contact with the Church was spiritual and not political, as Henri Gregoire unfoundedly claims45. Constantine the Great found himself at the crossroads of ideological conflict and when he had to choose, manages through an unprecedented vicious cycle of confusion and uncertainty to find his way to the Church.

Christ, writes Eberhald Horst, «was Constantine’s choice for religious conscience and not for political design. His conversion to Christianity was a process that lasted throughout his life. No other Esperian ruler received heavier and more serious consequences as a result of accusations”46. When his whole life then was a constant search for spiritual truth, which at that time was not at all clear, the assessment of Constantine as "the greatest actor in history" as Barbara Pastor47 claims groundlessly and provocatively sloppily, does not justify him and impermissibly distorts the personality in the history of civilization.In the preamble of this chapter, we accepted the estimate that when Constantine ascended the throne, the ratio of the Christian population did not exceed one tenth of the total population of the empire. It should be considered certain, however, that following the decisions of the Mediolians and 45 The Conversion de Constanttine, Bruxelles, 1931, p. 264.

46 Konstantine der Grosse, Eine Biographie, Berlin, 1984, hell. Edit. Athens, 1958, p.483.

47 Constantino, la invencion del cristianismo, Madrid, 2006.

especially after the victory of Constantine as monarch, the Christian population grew rapidly. Was this rapid numerical growth of Christians a challenge to Constantine in policy development plans that were based on the Christian community? In other words, does the increasing power of the Christian population and consequently the Church, lead Constantine the Great to a policy of deliberate and ulterior political benefits to the Church, while he himself remained steadfastly "irreligious", as some claim?

The crucial question that ultimately remains is if Constantine wanted to invest politically based on the religious beliefs of the society he ruled. If this were the case, for the reasons we have already set out, the most appropriate place for political planning would be in that of pagan polytheism. It has already been noted, however, that this environment repelled Constantine and created strong feelings of revulsion. His political designs therefore could not contrast with his religious consciousness. So when his religious beliefs began to be filled with the principles of the Gospel, when his heart began to beat more strongly on the frequency of Christian preaching, when he found the road to the Church, he did not hesitate to offer the support it needed in order to respond to the important work of its followers.

It is beyond any doubt, therefore, that his ecclesiastical policy was derived from his religious consciousness, and

there is no doubt that he behaved towards the Church with unusual tact for those times. He exhausted all his prestige in strengthening its intellectual and institutional role, though he never interfered in its internal affairs, except when it was needed in the institutional structuring. Much more than that, he never exhibited dominating tendencies towards the Church. Therefore all these are unproven allegations, which oddly enough, sometimes come from modern ecclesiastical writers regarding Constantine the Great’s involvement with caesarpappism, that is the church’s total submission to the state . The latter, addressing the bishops on the occasion of a reception, drew clear boundaries between his responsibility and that of the Synod. He said: "You are responsible for the interior of the Church, and I for what is found around, as if God has put me there as his bishop”48. He did not tell them that he is the administrative head of the Church, nor that he is responsible for the ecclesiastical affairs. Instead, he outlined his own responsibility as a legislative and managing body for consolidating Christianity and ensuring that the decisions of the First Ecumenical Synod prevailed.

In one area of this literature, Constantine’s stand seems to have been misunderstood. Both Arnold Jones and Steven Runciman interpret Constantine’s saying it is his responsibility for those who are outside the Church as him 48 Eusebius, (P.G 20.1172 – IV.24).

referring to the pagans, and more specifically to his responsibility towards them. This interpretation, however, is incorrect. Constantine the Great, at least from what is apparent from the wording in Eusebius’s text, does not refer to persons, but to things. And of course, it refers to issues that have true religious character, but that their understanding did not require his own assistance. This is why he gives himself the atypical role of bishop, something that he would not have done if he was referring to the pagans, since for them, he was Pontifex Maximus.

In what has been written in a positive light about Constantine the Great, one would say that the biggest surprise comes from a declared atheist, the Frenchman Paul Veyne49. Perhaps the best known of his works is the one that refers to the Christianisation of Europe and the conversion of Constantine. "I wrote a book against myself" he writes with disarming honesty, and continues: "I am a total atheist and the religion I tolerate the least is Christianity. As a historian, however, I must make every effort not to converge in one direction or another. What was the most difficult for me was to understand what happens in the heart and soul of a man when he becomes a Christian. Constantine hasn’t got a perfectly clear faith, but he definitely has an honest belief. This is proven in the fact that he had no need for the Church 49 Quanto l’ Europa e diventata Chridsiana (312 – 394), Constantino, la conversione, l’ impero, Milano, 2008.

in his conquests and it was not necessary for him to become a Christian in order to unify the empire. He was not indifferent, but can be considered an idealist. He just got lucky, never having to choose between faith and power". One could say that perhaps his faith fueled his power.