Why Did Constantine Favour Christianity?

Here's a copy of one of my first essays for Divinity, I'd appreciate any advice Thanks.


There were many reasons for Constantine to favour Christianity. His reasons range from political, to military, to personal with other advantages to favouring Christianity present also. We first have to take into account the political arena Constantine was surrounded with, an East/West divide had formed in the Empire and this needed to be dealt with as soon as possible for the Empire to function as normal. The military was also split at this moment, the military being inseparable from politics. Constantine seems to have a personal experience with Christianity after victory in a political and military battle. His personal beliefs stemming from this victory are the main focus of the essay. The downfall of pagan religions is also an issue that will be touched on briefly. These are the main points are going to be discussed in order to answer this question.

One must have some understanding of the complex political arena Constantine was entering. After the death of Constantine’s father ‘The troops proclaimed Constantine emperor, and he inherited Britain, Gaul and Spain. Maxentius seized Italy and Africa’ . To sustain the focus of this essay I will focus mostly on this competition between Constantine, in the West, and Maxentius, in the East. There were many other men, with various positions in the Empire, involved in the political skirmish, they do not however contribute greatly to our study of the question ‘Why did Constantine favour Christianity?’

After seven years of political turmoil Constantine decided to make a decisive move. There are many accounts of this military action, for the purpose of this essay one must look for the accounts that are historically correct and detailed; both F.X. Murphy’s and Chadwick’s descriptions are good examples to discuss. Murphy states, “Constantine came to an agreement with the co-Emperor Licinius and suddenly marched into Italy with 30,000 soldiers… He defeated Maxentius on the right bank of the Tiber near the Milvian bridge” . Chadwick writes in more depth of Constantine’s manoeuvre, “In 312 with inferior forces and against all prudence he made a rapid invasion of Italy and attacked his rival Maxentius in Rome. Instead of remaining secure behind Aurelian’s walls, Maxentius chose to come out and fight with the Tiber behind him” . It is possible to derive certain facts from the above quotations; Constantine is recorded to have 30,000 troops march into Italy (Maxentuis’ territory); the battle took place in the year 312CE, Constantine’s army was inferior (we are not however sure if this relates to size of army, quality of training, health of men, etc.); the advance was ‘rapid’ and ‘sudden’; Maxentius gave up his advantageous position in the city; the battle was won on the right bank of the Tiber, behind Maxentius and near the Tiber bridge.

Using the above observations it is possible to understand why Chadwick proceeded to write, “It was such unaccountable folly that Constantine’s victory at the Milvian Bridge (312) seemed a signal manifestation of celestial favour” . Of course the ‘unaccountable folly’ was Maxentius’ decision to leave the safety of the city and fight on the banks of the Tiber, in a position that proved difficult to defend.

At this point it is difficult to understand the significance of this battle in relation to Christianity; therefore one must examine the pre-battle ceremonies, tradition at the time. In Murphy’s essay, Constantine, two accounts of the preparation for battle have very similar content. Lactantius and Eusebius, both close to the Emperor, attribute Constantine’s ‘dream’ to ‘Christ’. Murphy states, “In reporting Constantine’s preparation for the battle of the Milvian bridge, Lactantius claimed that the Emperor saw Christ in a dream and was told to paint on his army’s shields an inverted ‘X’ with one stem curved over” . Of Eusebius’ account Murphy writes, “Eusebius maintains that at noon, before the battle, Constantine and his army, while he was praying to the god of his father, saw a cross over the sun with the inscription “In this sign, conquer” that night Christ appeared to him and told him to paint the cross on the shields of his soldiers… Eusebius described this sign as the Labarum” .

Eusebius seems to give a more detailed description, Lactantius does however support Eusebius’ account. The sign is described ‘the Labarum’ which we are told in Chadwick’s The Early Church had at least two known meanings at the time. He says the ‘labarum’ ‘was a monogram of the name of Christ’ . He then counters this with suggestion that ‘Its name and shape might suggest an echo of the double-axe (mabrys) which was an ancient cult-symbol of Zeus’ . He then thwarts these connotations by stating the chief reason for the understanding of its universal Christian meaning ‘But that its meaning was universally understood to be Christian is shown by the fact that under Julian it was abolished’ .

It is now possible to identify Constantine’s victory with his dream that one is told, on at least two accounts, to involve ‘Christ’ and involving a symbol that was ‘universally understood to be Christian’. From these findings we can conclude that Constantine may have attributed this victory to Christ. This is a suitable point to observe what has been covered thus far in seeking to answer the question ‘Why did Constantine favour Christianity?’ The political arena has been studied and we are now aware that Constantine became Emperor over both East and West in 312 when he defeated Maxentius. The military aspect of this political victory has been highlighted, concentrating on the battle at Milvian Bridge. The political and military features of the essay have been linked to religion through the study of Constantine’s dream involving Christ and the Labarum. I will now move on to examine how this political, military and religious event affected Constantine’s person.

After 312 Constantine’s religious views seem to change, although there is some speculation as to his understanding of Christian doctrine. After 312 many theologians would hesitate to call Constantine a Christian, it is now useful to study their reasoning. J.W. Eadie writes, “In 312 he may well have considered the God of the Christians simply another heavenly patron, demonstrably more powerful than others but not necessarily incompatible” . It is already obvious that Constantine’s view of the gods involved himself having gods protecting or supporting him. Murphy writes, “In 310 his panegyrist proclaimed Mars in association with the Sol Invictus as Constantine’s divine protector” . This ‘Sol Invictus’ appears to be a source of confusion for Constantine and seems to be mistaken for the God of the Christians on occasion. Over the next twelve years Constantine would appear to grasp aspects of the Christian doctrine, represented by certain actions and sayings attributed to him. Many of these changes seemed to take place immediately after 312, however some took until 324 when he had complete, unchallenged rule in the Empire to surface.

Eadie writes of one of the most obvious changes in Constantine’s life stating, “he refused to participate after 312 in distinctly pagan ceremonies” . This is in direct contrast to his participation in ‘praying to the god of his father’ . The personal change within Constantine surface’s in the ‘vocation’ he is suggested as having. Murphy suggests Constantine “claimed a divine vocation to protect Christians in the Orient and in the West” . This ‘vocation’ or ‘mission’ is also highlighted in Hall’s Doctrine and Practise in the Early Church, “Constantine encouraged the idea at least among Christians that he served their God, and was his agent not only for ending persecution, but for liberating and converting the Empire” . Later Hall comments, ‘Constantine’s personal theology reveals a sense of vocation: God had called him from the western fringe to liberate and restore the Empire, and prospered his way’ . This concept of God prospering Constantine may have been related to God as his ‘heavenly patron’, however, Constantine did understand Christian doctrine in that ‘the way to peace and prosperity was through friendship with the one true God’ . Constantine’s belief that his prosperity was due to his ‘friendship’ with the Christian God appears to be genuine. After study it is evident that Constantine’s conversion was most likely genuine, Murphy stating “His conversion to Christianity in 312 is now almost universally acknowledged” , would suggest most academics accept this conversion as genuine.

From 324 Constantine makes life substantially harder for the Pagans, and supports the Christians in an even more visible manner. Eadie writes, ‘after 324 he did not hesitate to use his office to condemn pagan beliefs and practices and to promote the christianization of the empire’ . This is supported in Williamson’s ‘Who’s who in Eusebius?’ as it gives examples of Constantine’s generosity to the Christians, ‘he supported the Christian Church with gifts, legal exemptions for its clergy, etc’ . Constantine at this point is obviously supporting Christian mission and Eadie suggests that he in fact has his own ‘emerging sense of mission’ .
This mission is further highlighted as Hall states he wishes to share this with all men, “A letter to the Eastern provinces in 324 made it plain that he wanted all men to worship the one true God, and only forbade compulsory conversion; he denies the rumour that he was forbidding sacrifice in the temples, but admits that he would like to” . The effect of this on the Empire’s religion is huge and cannot be underestimated. B.J. Kidd highlights Christianity’s position as candidate for ‘religion of the state’ by writing, “Nominally, both paganism and Christianity were placed on an equality; but actually, Constantine, by lending imperial favour to the Christians, set the Church on the way to take that rank [as religion of the state]” . At this point it is possible to view Constantine’s favour of Christianity on a purely personal level, spawning from his political and military victory at Milvian Bridge. One must also however consider the other religion Constantine’s favour had rested with (in his public role at least), Paganism.

Pagan religions were still the religion favoured by the majority of the Roman Empire at this stage in time; they were very much the only creditable alternative to Christianity. Sanders highlights the downturn in Pagan religion and other positive aspects of Christianity, attractive to both Constantine and his Empire, “paganism as a whole had faded in the ‘age of anxiety’, leaving Christianity as the most appealing alternative. That appeal resided first of all in Christian martyrdoms, so that ‘Christianity…was judged to be worth living for because it was seen to be world dying for’. Beyond this, it was also exclusive, an approach that in an anxious age ‘exerts a powerful attraction’; and, second, it ‘was open to all’, as were none of the other alternatives” . These are very important factors to consider in relation both to Constantine’s own ‘conversion’ and his desire for Christianity to become the equivalent of the state religion. Paganism seemed to have served its purpose in keeping the Empire relatively religiously vague. In an age where certainty was desired Constantine needed a religion that was more powerful, more hopeful, a religion that gave the whole Empire a sense of security. Christianity was the most apt religion to meet these requirements. This may have been a factor in Constantine’s favour of Christianity, however, this is most likely to have been on a personal level.

In conclusion, after studying differing propositions for Constantine’s favour of Christianity the conclusion may be drawn that Constantine’s personal Faith, born in 312 after the military and political victory over Maxentius , was the chief reason for his favour of Christianity and the Christian Church. The Christian Church may not have recognised the irony at the time, however Bulloch summarises rather artistically, ‘the wheel had come full circle and the Church, which looked back to Pontius Pilate as the representative of the state which had crucified her Lord, looked up to Constantine, the head of that state, as her deliverer and protector’ .


Bibliography

Bulloch, James. Pilate to Constantine. Edinburgh: The Saint Andrews Press, 1981.

Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. London: Penguin Books, 1967.

Eadie, J.W. “Constantine”. In The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1987.

Hall, Stuart G. Doctrine and Practise in the Early Church. London: SPCK, 1991.

Kidd, B.J. A History of The Church to A.D. 661, Volume II A.D. 313-408. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922.

Murphy, F.X. “Constantine”. In New Catholic Encyclopedia: Volume IV Com to Dys. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.

Sanders, Jack T. Charisma, Converts, Competitors: Societal and Sociological Factors in The Success of Early Christianity. London: SCM Press, 2000.

Williamson, G.A. “Who’s who in Eusebius”. In Eusebius: The History of the Church. London: Penguin Books, 1989.