CHAPTER VII

TRANSITION OF THE CHURCH UNDER CONSTANTINE

OUTLINE: I.--Condition of the Empire in 300. II.--How Constantine became Emperor. III.--Constantine's conversion to Christianity. IV.--Constantine's favours to Christianity. V.--Constantine's character. VI.--Constantine's historical significance. VII.--Sources.

To understand the great changes that took place in the Christian Church under Constantine, it is necessary to keep distinctly in mind both the status of Christianity, on the one hand, and the general conditions of the Empire, on the other.

In territorial extent the Empire still formed a huge fringe around the Mediterranean Sea and had lost but little of its vastness under Trajan (98-117). Under Diocletian (284-305) the Empire became an undisguised oriental despotism. The administration was divided between two Augusti, each of whom had an associate, called Cæsar. This division of rule, with its increased expense, aroused much jealousy and discontent, and greatly weakened the Empire. As many as six rival Emperors appeared at once, and out of the rivalry emerged Constantine the Great as the sole ruler of the Empire. Wars with the Persians in the east and with the barbarians on the north accelerated the declining political morality. At the same time social classes became more marked, and moral standards lower. Schools were neglected, literature became superficial, poetry lost its voice, and oratory declined. Paganism, largely a form of patriotism and national festivity, still numbered many adherents, but it was not deeply rooted in their hearts.

Christianity, in the face of outlawry and severe persecution, had spread steadily and marvellously, and particularly among the substantial people of the Empire.[113:1] It is difficult to estimate the number of Christians because few records were left and the number of real believers was much larger than the professed adherents. The earlier estimates are probably too low. After more careful investigation, 30,000,000 may be safely given as indicating the numerical strength of the new creed.[113:2] When Constantine the Great appeared, therefore, old pagan Rome was declining, while a new Christian Rome was rapidly rising. Christianity would undoubtedly have gained the victory sooner or later had Constantine not appeared as its champion.

Constantine was born about 274 at Naïssus, in Upper Moesia. His father was Constantius Chlorus, a nephew of Emperor Claudius, the conqueror of the Goths, who was selected as Cæsar of the West possibly because of his imperial connection. His mother was Helena, the daughter of an innkeeper, and not the fabled English princess. She was only a concubine, who, however, was made a legal wife after the birth of Constantine.[113:3] She was a Christian, it seems, and no doubt taught the new faith to both her husband and son.[114:1]

Constantine's education was gained mostly in court circles and on the battle-field. As a boy he was instructed in the schools of Drepanum in Cilicia, his mother's birthplace, later changed to Helenapolis. Little is known about this phase of his training, and there are reasons for believing that it was not very comprehensive. In 292, when Constantine was eighteen, his father became Cæsar of the West, divorced his mother, and sent him to be educated as a sort of hostage at the court of Diocletian at Nicomedia. There he acquired his preliminary military training and political education. With Diocletian he made an expedition to Egypt _via_ Palestine (296) and the next year joined Galerius in a campaign against the Persians. He soon won a reputation as a bold warrior, and became a popular leader. Indeed his superior ability aroused the jealousy of Galerius, who purposely exposed him to the gravest dangers, thus hoping to get rid of him. After his military success, he was made tribune of the first rank. Skilled in the art of politics at the court of the Eastern rulers, and having won his spurs in battle, he expected to be elevated to the office of Cæsar, when Diocletian resigned in 305, but was defeated by Galerius, who succeeded Diocletian as Augustus, and chose his own nephew as Cæsar. This was a keen disappointment to young Constantine.[114:2]

In 305, Constantius Chlorus succeeded Maximian, who had resigned by agreement with Diocletian, as Augustus of the West, and, since there was no reason why an Augustus should leave his son as hostage at the court of an equal, he demanded the return of Constantine. Galerius reluctantly consented, but before the official permit was executed, Constantine, fearing treachery, fled at night, maimed the post-horses to prevent pursuit, and reached Boulogne just in time to go with his father to Britain.[115:1]

After an easy conquest of Britain, Constantius Chlorus died at York (July, 306), having named his son as his successor, whereupon the soldiers immediately saluted Constantine as Augustus.[115:2] Although this was the ancient practice, and Constantine was eligible for the office both by heredity and by preparation, still, constitutionally, the nomination rested with Galerius, who, enraged at the usurpation, and also at Constantine's shrewd diplomatic letter, allowed him only the title of Cæsar.[115:3] No man in the Empire was better fitted by age, appearance, previous training, and ability, for the higher office. Backed by his army, Constantine continued his father's policy to defend the Gauls against the Franks and Germans, and to develop the prosperity of the country. He married Maximian's daughter (307) as a diplomatic precaution and was recognised by him as Augustus. Meanwhile Maxentius, the son of Maximian, who, discovered in conspiracy, had committed suicide, had assumed the imperial purple at Rome and now took his father's death as a pretext for war against Constantine.[115:4] Encouraged by a Roman embassy, Constantine at once hastily marched toward Rome and at Milvian Bridge defeated his rival, who was drowned in the Tiber (312). Constantine was now sole Emperor of the West. In 324 Licinius was defeated in the East and Constantine had become Emperor of the united Roman Empire.

Constantine's connection with Christianity marks a new epoch in the history of the Church. Under him the new faith was legalised, emancipated, protected, and given lands and buildings. Constantine's mother, who was a Christian, probably gave him his first favourable impressions of the outlawed religion. As a boy he must have heard it discussed as a topic for both light and serious conversation. At the court of Diocletian and Galerius he saw the edict of persecution proclaimed in 303 and must have witnessed the action of Christians under martyrdom, noticed their marvellous growth in the face of outlawry and punishment, and perhaps came to look with some favour upon their teachings. When he succeeded his father as Emperor of the West, he continued his father's policy of toleration and let Diocletian's edict of persecution fall as a dead letter.[116:1]

Tradition tells us that Constantine was converted to Christianity suddenly by a miracle. One day, during the conflict with Maxentius at Milvian Bridge, he and his whole army saw a bright cross in the heavens with this inscription in Greek on it: "In this sign, conquer." In a dream that night Christ appeared to him and commanded him to use the emblem of the cross as his battle ensign, and promised him victory in consequence. Constantine immediately had the costly _labarum_ made to be carried before his army and with it at Milvian Bridge, ten miles from Rome, he vanquished his foe.[117:1]

Three theories have been proposed to explain the spectacle of the cross: 1. That it was a genuine miracle, supported by the following facts: (a) Eusebius, who gives us the first account, had all the evidence directly from Constantine himself under oath; (b) Constantine's whole army "witnessed the miracle and put the emblem on their shields"[117:2]; (c) Socrates says the original standard could still be seen in his day.[117:3] The older historians all upheld the miracle, although few scholars to-day take that view.[117:4] 2. That it was a natural phenomenon coloured by Constantine's imagination, or an optical illusion, or a dream.[117:5] 3. That it was a pious fraud, deliberately invented either by Constantine, or by Eusebius.[117:6] Whatever the theories may be, the fact remains that for some reason Constantine invoked the aid of the Christian's God, and carried the Christian emblem in front of his troops to one victory after another until he became sole ruler of the Empire. If it was merely experimenting with the name and cross of Jesus, the experiment brought convincing belief, for the sacred emblem was employed in all later military campaigns.

The triumph over Maxentius at Milvian Bridge was a great victory for Christianity. Constantine had a statue of himself with a cross in his hands set up in Rome. An inscription on it stated that through Christianity the glory and freedom of Rome had been restored.[118:1] Henceforth Constantine extended imperial aid and protection to the Christians and a new era was opened in the history of the Christian Church. He endowed and enlarged Christian churches in Rome and later elsewhere[118:2]; he wrote letters in behalf of Christians in Africa[118:3]; he made Christian bishops, like Hosius, Lactantius, and Eusebius, his trusted political advisers; and he enacted laws legalising the new faith and protecting its adherents.

The edict of limited toleration passed by Galerius in 311, in conjunction with Constantine and Licinius, was very unsatisfactory. The Christians might rebuild their churches but were required to pray for the Emperor.[118:4] A decided preference was shown to paganism since no person was free to leave his own religion and join another. This was a great hardship, for many Romans were Christians at heart and were only waiting for permission to join the new Church openly.[118:5] To meet the new conditions and to afford the needed relief, Constantine, jointly with Licinius, in 313 issued the Edict of Milan, the Magna Charta of religious liberty. It was promulgated in Greek and Latin over the whole Empire as imperial law. It did not make Christianity the state religion, as is generally asserted, but only legalised it, and popularised it. Now people could and did openly desert the old and join the new faith. Persecutions were forbidden under severe penalties. Exiles were recalled. Confiscated property was restored with compensation to the possessor. All Romans were exhorted to worship the Christian God. This famous edict was significant, because it put Christianity on an equality with paganism; gave it opportunity for public organisation, thus paving the way for the Catholic hierarchy already begun; and marks a new era in the history of the Christian Church, because at last a great Roman Emperor and his conquering army had taken up the sword in defence of persecuted Christianity.[119:1]

The proclamation of emancipation and protection was followed by other acts which clearly show that Constantine meant to favour and control the new religion. The Christian clergy were exempted from military and municipal duties[119:2]--a favour already enjoyed by pagan priests and even Jewish rabbis (March, 313). The Church Council of Arles was convoked (314). The emancipation of Christian slaves was facilitated (315). Various customs and ordinances offensive to Christians were abolished (316). Bequests to churches were legalised (321). The cessation of civic business on Sunday was enjoined, but as a "dies Solis" (321).[120:1] The heathen symbols of Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, and Hercules were removed from imperial coins (323). In defeating Licinius (324), a bitter reactionist, Constantine felt that he was waging war in behalf of Christianity.[120:2] In 324 Constantine issued a general exhortation to all Romans to embrace the new creed for the common weal. The highest dignities were opened to Christians. Gifts and remission of taxes enriched their churches. A craze for buildings led to the erection of churches at various sacred spots in the Holy Land, at Nicomedia, in Constantinople, in Rome, and elsewhere. Fifty costly manuscripts of the Bible were ordered prepared for the leading churches. The Council of Nicæa was held in 325, the Arian schism healed, and the first written creed given the Church. Finally, by divine command, as it was said, Constantine removed his capital from old pagan Rome to Byzantium, the new Christian Rome, which was renamed Constantinople (326). This left Christianity in the West, already strong and active, to organise itself under the guidance of the Bishop of Rome, and powerfully aided the evolution of the papal hierarchy. In the East, under imperial protection, the spread and organisation of the popular belief was phenomenal.

Paganism was still legal, however; its institutions were not attacked and the privileges of its priests were confirmed. Nevertheless the triumphs of Christianity were all won at the expense of paganism. As the new faith arose the old sank, yet not without many a desperate and even noble effort to persist. Individual cults which were either immoral or offensive, like that of Venus in Phœnicia, Æsculapius at Ægæ, and the Nile-priests at Heliopolis, were prohibited.[121:1] Private haruspices were forbidden. There is even some evidence of a general edict against sacrifices.[121:2] All of these things indicate the passing away of the old order and the birth of the new.

Opinion about Constantine's character takes two extreme views. On the one hand it is held that in 312 Constantine, like Paul, was miraculously converted to Christianity and that from that day forth he was a saint incarnate. Eusebius, and later panegyrists like Mosheim, are responsible for this picture. To this day the Greek churches celebrate his memory as St. "Equal of the Apostles." On the other hand it is asserted that he was nothing but a shrewd politician, able to read the signs of the times, who assumed an outward connection with Christianity solely for political expediency. Zosimus, a pagan historian, gives the worst account, ascribing to him the basest motive for every deed. Keim calls him a political trickster, and Burckhardt styles him a "murdering egoist" and "politischer Rechner" without a spark of Christianity.[121:3]

Was Constantine a Christian? The query is a difficult one to answer because ten men would each give a different definition of the essentials of a Christian. The favourable evidence will be considered first. Constantine's activity in behalf of the new religion, already mentioned, shows at least his sympathy for it and no doubt his belief in it. His imperial laws, improving woman's condition, mitigating slavery, abolishing crucifixion as a method of punishment, and caring for the unfortunate, breathe forth the spirit of Christian justice and humanity.[122:1] He tried to convert his subjects to Christianity through Christian governors in the provinces, by letters and sermons, by rewarding towns for converting temples into churches, and by conforming to Christian worship. He diligently attended divine services, had a stated hour and place for prayer, fasted, kept Easter vigils with great devotion, and even invited his subjects to hear him preach on the folly of paganism and about the truth of Christianity. He exerted every effort to make Constantinople a Christian city--churches replaced altars, the imperial palace was adorned with biblical scenes,[122:2] gladiatorial combats were prohibited, and the smoke of public sacrifice never rose from the hills of New Rome.[122:3] The imperial treasury was lavishly used to support Christianity.[122:4] Constantine's sons were given a Christian education. He believed in the efficacy of baptism, even though he did postpone it to the end of his life--a common practice to wash away all sins. Besides he wished to be baptised in the river Jordan where Jesus himself was baptised. In 337 he was received into the Church as a catechumen, promised to live worthily as a follower of Jesus, was baptised, and wore the white baptismal robe till he died.[122:5]

The unfavourable evidence submitted leads to the conclusion, held by some historians, that Constantine's conversion was not genuine, but due to hypocrisy, superstition, or policy. He retained the title Pontifex Maximus, head of the old religion. The Edict of Milan protected paganism and he continued that policy. After defeating Maxentius at Milvian Bridge he had his triumphal arch erected. The original inscription said that he triumphed over his rival by the favour of Jupiter. But these words were later erased and the neutral phrase "instinctu Divinitas" substituted.[123:1] In Rome he restored pagan temples and said: "You who consider it profitable to yourselves, continue to visit the public altars and temples and to observe your sacred rites."[123:2] Even in Constantinople temples were erected to the gods. The laws of 319 show that sacrifice still existed--at least in private houses.[123:3] Pagan emblems were continued on imperial coins till 330. Constantine, as Pontifex Maximus, continued to attend the sacred games connected with the pagan religion,[123:4] and even used pagan rites along with Christian to dedicate his new capital.[123:5] In 321 he ordered that when lightning should strike the imperial palace, or any public building, the soothsayers should be consulted to determine the cause as of old. The same year he employed heathen magic to heal diseases, to protect crops, to prevent rain and hail, etc.[123:6] He retained many pagans at court and in public office, and was very intimate with pagan philosophers like Sopater.[124:1] In no document did he formally renounce paganism and declare himself a Christian. He was guilty of weakness and crimes inconsistent with a Christian life. He was vain, suspicious, despotic, and gained his ambitious ends through bloody wars. He was undoubtedly guilty of murdering Licinius, his brother-in-law, contrary to a sacred pledge; Licinius, the younger, his nephew, a boy of eleven; Crispus, his eldest son, on the ground of treasonable conspiracy; and Fausta, his wife, for adultery.[124:2] To wipe away these sins, and many others, he accepted at the close of his life the Christian rite of baptism. After his death the Senate voted to place him among the gods.[124:3]

After weighing all evidence, these historical conclusions may be drawn:

1. Constantine was primarily a statesman, and wisely used both paganism and Christianity to unite his Empire and to build up his autocratic power. He was Pontifex Maximus, not alone of paganism, but of all religions.[124:4] The grateful Christians heartily granted that leadership. Up to 323 he kept the two religions equally balanced, but to do so he was forced to favour Christianity most. After 323 he depressed paganism and exalted Christianity. Toward the end of his life he showed a tendency to forcibly suppress the old religion.

2. Constantine was a Christian, but not as a result of a miracle at Milvian Bridge. His conversion was a gradual result of many influences. Training at his Christian mother's knee, paternal instruction, his youthful observations at the Eastern imperial court, a growing belief in monotheism, his discontent with the faith of his fathers and a proneness toward sun-worship, and his religious philosophy, which led him to look at Christianity as a system of thought rather than a life creed--a law, not a faith--a world-force of purity and simplicity--all these factors produced within him a growing comprehension of the truth, power, and beauty of Christianity. The cross in the sky and the consequent victories led to a conviction that God had selected him as the champion of the new creed, "the bishop of bishops." Contact with the leading Christians in the Empire, men of heart and brains, greatly increased his admiration for Christianity and interest in it. Just when he became a Christian no one can say, but that he died a sincere believer one can hardly doubt.[125:1]

3. He was a product of his age. He was actuated by both religious and political motives and was not merely an artful politician. It was not an easy thing to be a Roman Emperor and at the same time a Christian. He was guilty of grave crimes, but they were the result of gusts of passion, like those of Peter the Great, and not of constitutional depravity. Nor do these sins appear so enormous when considered in the light of his long, useful career, the dynastic difficulties confronting him, and the morality of many Christian leaders of the day. It must not be forgotten that he was a converted heathen, that the Christian code had not yet become the moral code, and that the integrity of the Empire stood above family ties and even religious demands.

4. He made his age the beginning of a new era. He enabled Christianity to become the moulding spirit of Western civilisation. He was the first representative of that theoretical Christian theocracy which makes the Church and state two sides of God's government on earth. The Church and state were to remain united throughout all the succeeding ages to the present time. Even Protestant nations adopted the principle. Among the most noteworthy exceptions to-day are the United States, Italy, and, but recently, France. He founded the Byzantine Empire and bears the same relation to the East that Charles the Great does to the West. He gave the Church its first unity in organisation, its first universal council, and its first written creed. He stamped his own character on his age and made it greater and happier. He has continued to live through succeeding centuries by reason of what he was and what he did. For all these reasons, judged by achievement, the world unites in calling him "the Great."[126:1]

5. Historically, Constantine's significance lies not in the fact that he was a Christian, personally, but that he for the first time endowed the new religion with that worldly power which made it for over one thousand years the most powerful moral, social, and political agency the world has seen. Constantine the Great was succeeded by Charles the Great, and he in turn by Otto the Great. On the ruins of the Christianised Roman Empire arose the Roman Empire of the Germans, and in this the work of Constantine was really completed. Not until the Reformation and the Modern Age did the cry arise that the work of Constantine must be undone.

Constantine's three sons and successors continued his policy. Laws were passed favourable to Christianity. Paganism was still tolerated, but the tendency to suppress it had developed into a fixed policy. Sacrifices were forbidden on pain of death and confiscation in 352.[127:1] The persecuted, in turn, became the persecutors. "Emperors!" one of the Christian leaders advised, "the temples must be overthrown and utterly destroyed in order that the pernicious error may no longer pollute the Roman world. The Supreme God has committed the Government to you, so that you may cure this cancer." Pagan temples were converted into Christian churches. Unity of worship and unity of imperial rule were declared to be essential. Pagan opposition to religious unity under the Emperor was now interpreted as treason just as Christianity was so regarded before 311. Thus identified with the Empire, Christianity became the popular dominant faith. Rome and Alexandria alone clung to the old gods.[127:2]

Under Julian (361-363), a nephew of Constantine the Great, paganism made one last supreme effort for mastery. The reaction was inspired by Neo-Platonism, by the personal devotion of Julian to the classical faith, and by the hope of securing a stronger imperial unity through the supremacy of paganism. Julian did not openly persecute Christianity, but treated it very much as Constantine did paganism. Had he lived longer, nevertheless, harsher measures might have been employed. He seemed to feel that he was swimming against the tide, however, and fell in battle against the Persians (363) saying, "Thou hast conquered, Galilean."[128:1]

Julian's sudden death with one stroke precipitated the decline and fall of paganism. His successor, Jovian (363-364), a Christian, restored Christianity to imperial and popular favour.[128:2] The legal toleration of all religions continued under Valentinian I. (d. 375) and Valens (d. 378). Emperor Gratian (375-383) began the repression of paganism in the West, and Valentinian II. (383-392) continued it, while Theodosius I. (378-395) pursued the same policy in the East, and forcibly suppressed paganism.[128:3] The edict of 380 constituted Christianity the exclusive religion of the whole Empire. "We command all who read this law to embrace the name of Catholic Christians, deciding that all other idiots and madmen should bear the infamy attaching to their heretical opinions, and as they will first meet with the penalty of divine vengeance, so they will afterwards receive that condemnation at our hands which the Heavenly Judge has empowered us to administer."[128:4] The new faith had won a famous victory. Even the old Roman Senate, the last refuge of paganism, voted that the religion of Jesus was true.

SOURCES

A.--PRIMARY:

I.--CHURCH FATHERS:

1.--Eusebius, <i>Life of Constantine</i>. <i>Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, i., 472. Edited by McGiffert. Best edition. _Church History._ _Ib._

2.--Socrates, _Ecclesiastical History_. _Ib._, ii., bk. 1, 2.

3.--Sozomen, _Ecclesiastical History_. _Ib._, ii., bk. 1, 4.

4.--Theodoret, _Ecclesiastical History_. _Ib._, iii., bk. 1, 2.

5.--Lactantius, _Death of Persecutors_. _Ante-Nic. Christ. Lib._, xxi., 485; xxii., 186 _ff._

6.--Evagrius, _Ecclesiastical History_. Bohn, _Eccl. Lib._, 1851.

7.--St. Athanasius, _Works_. _Fathers of the Holy Cath. Ch._, viii., xiii., xix. _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, iv., 2d ser.

8.--St. Basil, _Letters_. _Ib._, viii., 109.

9.--St. Augustine, _Sermons on the New Testament_. _Fathers of the Holy Cath. Ch._, lv., ch. 12.

10.--St. Chrysostom, _Homilies_. _Ib._, xxi., ch. 11; _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, ix., 1st ser.

11.--St. Ambrose, _Letters_, No. 21, 23. _Fathers of the Holy Cath. Ch._, xlv.

12.--St. Cyril, _Catechetical Lectures_. _Ib._, xiv., ch. 22; _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, vii., 2d ser.

II.--PAGAN:

1.--Zosimus, _History_. Transl. by J. Davis, Lond., 1814.

2.--Emperor Julian, _Letters_. Transl. by E. J. Chinnock. Lond., 1901. _Sovereign Sun_ and _Mother of the Gods_, in King, _Julian the Emperor_. Lond., 1888.

III. COLLECTIONS:

1.--Henderson, _Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages_. Bohn Lib., 1892, p. 319.

2.--Univ. of Penn., _Translations and Reprints_. iv., No. 1, 2; vi., No. 4.

3.--Robinson, _Readings in European History_, i., 21.

B.--SECONDARY:

I.--SPECIAL:

1.--Carr, A., _The Church and the Roman Empire_. Lond., 1886.

2.--Chawner, W., _The Influence of Christianity upon the Legislation of Constantine the Great_. Lond., 1874.

3.--Cutts, E. L., _Constantine the Great_. Lond., 1881.

4.--Fletcher, J., _Life of Constantine the Great_. Lond., 1852.

5.--Gwatkin, H. M., _Studies of Arianism_. Camb., 1882. _The Arian Controversy._ N. Y., 1889.

6.--Hardy, E. G., _Christianity and the Roman Government_. Lond., 1894.

7.--Newman, J. H., _The Arians of the Fourth Century_. Lond., 1855.

8.--Saunders, G., _The State of the Christian Community before and after Constantine_. Glasg., 1882.

9.--Smith and Wace, _Dictionary of Christian Biography_. Art. on Constantine.

II.--GENERAL:

Allen, ch. 1-2. Alzog, i., § 96-100. Backhouse, pt. 2, ch. 10. Baur, ii., 225-228. Blunt, i., ch. 6. Bouzique, i., ch. 3; ii., ch. 1. Bright, 60 _ff._, 310. Butler, ch. 23-26. Cheetham, pt. ii., ch. 1. Coxe, ch. 3. Croke, ch. 12-16. Darras, i., pd. 2, ch. 1-2. Döllinger, ii., ch. 1, sec. 1. Duff, ch. 31, 37. Fisher, pd. 3, ch. 1. Foulkes, ch. 4. Gibbon, ch. 17-25. Gieseler, div. 3, pd. 2, ch. 1, sec. 75-77. Gilmartin, i., ch. 10. Guericke, sec. 61-63. Hase, sec. 93-95. Hore, ch. 5. Hurst, i., 410-426. Jackson, ch. 12-16. Jennings, i., ch. 4. Knight, ch. 6. Kurtz, i., § 42-43. Mahan, bk. 2, ch. 10. Milman, bk. 1, ch. 2. Milner, i., cent. 4, ch. 2-3. Moeller, i., 296-308. Mosheim, ii., 454-481. Neander, ii., 1-32. Newman, i., 305-319. Robertson, bk. 2, ch. 1. Schaff, ii., 1-37. Stanley, 281.

FOOTNOTES:

[113:1] Orr, _Neglected Factors_, 95-163; Ramsay, _Ch. in Rom. Emp._, 57.

[113:2] Orr, _Neglected Factors_, 23-91.

[113:3] Zosimus, ii., 8; St. Ambrose, Migne, iii., 1209. For the fable about the English princess read Geoffrey of Monmouth and Pierre de Langloft. This tale was used by Baronius. It must be remembered that concubinage was a state recognised by Roman law, and was by no means in itself a sign of depravity.

[114:1] Eusebius, _Life of Constantine_, iii., ch. 47, leads one to believe that Constantine converted his mother to Christianity. _Cf._ Hamza Ispaheus, p. 55.

[114:2] Lactantius, _Death of Persecutors_, ch. 24.

[115:1] Zos., ii., 8; Euseb., _Life of Const._, i., ch. 121.

[115:2] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, viii., ch. 13; _Life of Const._, ii., ch. 22.

[115:3] Lactantius, _Death of Persecutors_, ch. 25. Galerius recognised Severus as Augustus of the West.

[115:4] Galerius meanwhile was induced to recognise Constantine as Augustus in 308.

[116:1] Lactantius, _Death of Persecutors_, ch. 24; Euseb., _Life of Const._, i., ch. 14, 16, 17, 27.

[117:1] Euseb., _Life of Const._, i., ch. 28-31; Sozomen, i., ch. 3; Socrates, i., ch. 2; Lactantius, _Death of Persecutors_, ch. 44.

[117:2] Euseb., _Life of Const._, i., ch. 28; Sozomen, i., ch. 3.

[117:3] Socrates, i., ch. 2.

[117:4] Döllinger; J. H. Newman; Guericke, Uhlhorn, etc.

[117:5] Supported by best modern critical writers like Schroeck, Neander, Gieseler, Mansi, Milman, Keim, Heinicken, Schaff, Harnack, etc. For like examples see Whymper, _Scrambles among the Alps_, ch. 22; Gieseler, i., § 56; Stanley, 288; Peary, _Narrative of an Attempt to Reach the North Pole_, 99, 100; Seymour, _The Cross in Tradition_, 103 _ff._

[117:6] This theory is defended by Gibbon, Lardner, Waddington, Burckhardt, Hoornbeeck, Thomasius, Arnold, etc. They seem to ignore all proofs.

[118:1] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, ix., ch. 9; _Life of Const._, i., ch. 40. The triumphal arch was not set up till 315.

[118:2] Euseb., _Life of Const._, i., ch. 42.

[118:3] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, x., ch. 5, 7.

[118:4] Ibid., _Eccl. Hist._, viii., 17; edict given in _Transl. and Reprints_, iv., No. 1, p. 28. _Cf._ Lactantius, ch. 34, 35.

[118:5] Neander, ii., 12, 13.

[119:1] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, x., 5. The Edict of Milan is given in _Transl. and Reprints_, iv., No. 1, p. 29. It is thought by some that the Edict of Milan refers to an edict issued by Constantine in 312 but now lost. That possibility seems very doubtful. _Cf._ Lactantius, ch. 48.

[119:2] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, x., ch. 7; Sozom., i., 9; Cod. Theod., xvi., 2, 1, 2, 3.

[120:1] Cod. Justin., iii., tit. 12, 1, 3.

[120:2] Moeller, i., 298. He at once issued edicts of toleration for Christians in the East. Euseb., _Life of Const._, ii., ch. 24 _ff._

[121:1] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., ch. 55, 56, 58; iv., ch. 25, 37, 38.

[121:2] _Ibid._, ii., ch. 44, 45; iii., ch. 56, 58; iv., ch. 25.

[121:3] For further opinions of like character read Brieger, Flasch, Baur, etc.

[122:1] Sozom., i., 8; Cod. Theod. and Cod. Justin are full of these instances.

[122:2] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., ch. 3, 49; iv., ch. 15.

[122:3] _Ibid._, ii., ch. 44, 45; iii., ch. 48; iv., ch. 24.

[122:4] _Ibid._, ii., ch. 45; iii., 33-39, 41, 42, 43, 48, 58; iv., 28, 58-60.

[122:5] Brooks, _Date of the Death of Constantine_; Euseb., _Life of Const._, iv., 62-64.

[123:1] Dyer, _City of Rome_, 312.

[123:2] Cod. Theod., xii., i., 21; v., 2; Neander, ii., 20.

[123:3] _Ibid._, 19.

[123:4] Cod. Theod., ix., 16, 1, 2; Zos., ii., ch. 29.

[123:5] Zos., ii., ch. 31; Moeller, i., 299.

[123:6] Neander, ii., 20, 21.

[124:1] Euseb., _Life of Const._, ii., ch. 44.

[124:2] This last charge is now discredited by some authorities.

[124:3] Eutropius, _Breviarium_, x., 4.

[124:4] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iv., ch. 24.

[125:1] Cutts, _Const. the Great_, 419.

[126:1] See Cutts, _Const. the Great_, 128.

[127:1] Cod. Theod., xvi., 10, 4.

[127:2] Gieseler, i., § 75.

[128:1] Negri, _Julian the Apostate_, 2 vols., N. Y., 1905; King, _Julian the Emp._, Lond., 1888; Gardner, _Julian, Philosopher and Emp._, N. Y., 1895; Rendall, _The Emperor Julian_, Lond., 1879; Sozom., vi., 2; Theodoret, iii., 25.

[128:2] Sozom., vi., 3.

[128:3] Cod. Theod., xvi., 10, 12.

[128:4] Cod. Justin, i., 1, 1.

##