Response to neville on Christmas tree.. Not my prime reason for being here, but I will dispense replies as necessary.. I hope we can eventually get more into geocentrism.. Neville, History of any kind is biased. It is difficult to assess which is truth. I knew nothing but a name. I decided to look up Constantine, and as far as I see, he was not baptised till his death bed, after being persued and converted by the persistence of his mother, a very holy Christian woman. Se attached history. Not only that, but in life , he fought only to maintain order, and defended all religions , so long as they were peacful. His Christianity was superstition, based upon fate or God's will. (the first battle he won using the cross insignia) It seems to me he was a modern ecuemanist , which true Cathholicism condemns. His Christianity ( he was never baptised till near death) was very much tainted. He called the council to get all the different heresies to form a unity in diversity.. The Council rejected his wishes.....but did achieve unity under Pope Sylvester. "Probably many of the more noble-minded recognized the truth contained in Judaism and Christianity, but believed that they could appropriate it without being obliged on that account to renounce the beauty of other worships. Such a man was the Emperor Alexander Severus; another thus minded was Aurelian, whose opinions were confirmed by Christians like Paul of Samosata. Not only Gnostics and other heretics, but Christians who considered themselves faithful, held in a measure to the worship of the sun. Leo the Great in his day says that it was the custom of many Christians to stand on the steps of the church of St. Peter and pay homage to the sun by obeisance and prayers (cf. Euseb. Alexand. in Mai, "Nov. Patr. Bibl.", 11, 523; Augustine, Enarration on Psalm 10; Leo I, Sermon 26). When such conditions prevailed it is easy to understand that many of the emperors yielded to the delusion that they could unite all their subjects in the adoration of the one sun-god who combined in himself the Father-God of the Christians and the much-worshipped Mithras; thus the empire could be founded anew on unity of religion. Even Constantine, as will be shown farther on, for a time cherished this mistaken belief. It looks almost as though the last persecutions of the Christians were directed more against all irreconcilables and extremists than against the great body of Christians. The policy of the emperors was not a consistent one; Diocletian was at first friendly towards Christianity; even its grimmest foe, Julian, wavered. Caesar Constantius, Constantine's father, protected the Christians during a most cruel persecution. " I see Augustine more as a tool of God, rather than the other way around. I know you do not like the history, even Biblical of a God who allows violence as part of His plans, and I respect your opinion, however it has to be admitted that had not Christ been Crucified and thousands of others later persecuted and martyred, there would have been no Bible, or Christianity, and maybe no love at all in the world.. A love we see disappearing as fast as the name of Jesus is disappearing except in universal blasphemy. The apex is coming. The First Council of Nicaea tt=83 First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held in 325 on the occasion of the heresy of Arius (Arianism). As early as 320 or 321 St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria at which more than one hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya anathematized Arius. The latter continued to officiate in his church and to recruit followers. Being finally driven out, he went to Palestine and from there to Nicomedia. During this time St. Alexander published his "Epistola encyclica", to which Arius replied; but henceforth it was evident that the quarrel had gone beyond the possibility of human control. Sozomen even speaks of a Council of Bithynia which addressed an encyclical to all the bishops asking them to receive the Arians into the communion of the Church. This discord, and the war which soon broke out between Constantine and Licinius, added to the disorder and partly explains the progress of the religious conflict during the years 322-3. Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius deprecating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay. It was evident that the emperor did not then grasp the significance of the Arian controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an ecumenical council. The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement (see POPE ST. SYLVESTER I). In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members. ........... The emperor began by making the bishops understand that they had a greater and better business in hand than personal quarrels and interminable recriminations. Nevertheless, he had to submit to the infliction of hearing the last words of debates which had been going on previous to his arrival. Eusebius of Caesarea and his two abbreviators, Socrates and Sozomen, as well as Rufinus and Gelasius of Cyzicus, report no details of the theological discussions. Rufinus tells us only that daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his opinions were seriously discussed and the opposing arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius. (For the part played by the Eusebian third party, see EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA. For the Creed of Eusebius, see EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA.) St. Athanasius assures us that the activities of the Council were nowise hampered by Constantine's presence. The emperor had by this time escaped from the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and was under that of Hosius, to whom, as well as to St. Athanasius, may be attributed a preponderant influence in the formulation of the symbol of the First Ecumenical Council, of which the following is a literal translation: We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes. The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria. The lists of the signers have reached us in a mutilated condition, disfigured by faults of the copyists. Nevertheless, these lists may be regarded as authentic. Their study is a problem which has been repeatedly dealt with in modern times, in Germany and England, in the critical editions of H. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, and O. Contz on the one hand, and C.H. Turner on the other. The lists thus constructed give respectively 220 and 218 names. With information derived from one source or another, a list of 232 or 237 fathers known to have been present may be constructed. So I guess if you hate the Trinity idea, this will all support your antagonism.. Which goes to prove that those whom the Council kicked out, did not die and fade away.. always in the woodwork for millenia, Full dissertation, at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: Neville Jones To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 9:23 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: What went wrong to cause it. My family and I have just had our first tree since 1992. It is an artificial tree, bought for £2 in the Woolworths closing down sale, and was adorned with a few baubles and a small set of lights. This was not a Christmas tree, but a Yule tree. The Sun reaches its lowest elevation in the northern hemisphere on the winter solstice, usually 21st December, stays there for three days, before showing signs of resurrection on the 25th December. Hence, the gnostics and pagans would have viewed 25th December as the start of a new year and would have given thanks to God for the solar cycle, which life is based upon, via a celebration of lights at this time of hope and 're-birth'. This has nothing to do with worshipping the Sun, as we have been (mis)led to believe. However, it has everything to do with why the vile, murderous Emperor Constantine, via the Council of Nicea, declared 25th December to be "Christ Mass Day," with the death, descent into the earth (grave, hades, sheol, hell) for 3 days and resurrection of the 'Godman' Jesus. All you Christians do is keep arguing amongst yourselves, whilst the real enemy - the instrument of and offspring of the Devil - rejoices in all this bloodshed and mendacity. Come along. Wake up. Jesus himself tells you what the children of the Devil do and always have done. Look at Palestine. Neville www.realityreviewed.com -----Original Message----- From: bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx Sent: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:46:55 -0800 (PST) "The first religious use of a cross was for Tammuz, the Babylonian Son of the Sun. Catholics still celebrate his birthday every Christmas. http://sabbathrock.com/cross.aspx WHERE DID THE CROSS COME FROM? see the skull and crossbones? --- On Thu, 1/8/09, PETER CHARLTON <peter.nambo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: PETER CHARLTON <peter.nambo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: What went wrong to cause it. To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thursday, January 8, 2009, 9:18 AM I read that when the Jews where kicked out of Spain, the Sanhedrin told Jews to convert to Catholisism, in order to subvert it. The current Pope looks rather Jewish with his skull cap, ephod for the 12 tribes of Israel, and notice that his crucifix is now a blatent " T ", not even pretening to be a cross but the sacred T of the Sun God Tammuz who the Jewish Women used to weep over. Pete Charlton ----- Original Message ----- From: philip madsen To: geocentrism list Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:57 AM Subject: [geocentrism] What went wrong to cause it. The betrayal and apostasy of the Roman Hierarchy... a commonly held view: I can think of at least two things. (1) The infiltraton of the Church by communsits and Jews. It has frequently been alleged that Pope Pius VI was a Jew and that the maternal grandmother of Pope John Paul II was a jewess. (2) The take over of Vatican Council II by the incredibe intellectual pride of periti such as Rahner, Kung, Von Balthasar, de Luba, de Chardin, Chenu, Ratzinger, Wojtyla, von Balthasar, Maritain, etc. OK, Your right maybe, but the question was rhetorical.. But what really went wrong, was the great mass of ordinary Catholics becoming Sunday Catholics, preferring the allures of the world for the rest of the week and even Sunday as they escaped the Mass and off to the footy or whatever... .. It had to follow that out of these the vocations would have to be dangerous as clerics. or popes..What goes around comes around. . And what has Grandma got to do with it.. Mine was an athiest, Angligan, thats worse than a God fearing Jew, yet I'm still Catholic. Philip.Title: Constantine the Great
Constantine the Great
tt=29 Life
His coins give his
name as M., or more frequently as C., Flavius Valerius Constantinus. He was
born at Naissus, now Nisch in Servia Nis,
Serbia --Ed.,
the son of a Roman officer, Constantius, who later became Roman Emperor, and St. Helena, a woman of humble extraction but
remarkable character
and unusual ability. The date
of his birth is not certain,
being given as early as 274 and as late as 288. After his father's elevation to the
dignity of Caesar we find him at the court of Diocletian and later
(305) fighting under Galerius
on the Danube. When, on the resignation of his father, Constantius was
made Augustus, the new Emperor of the West asked Galerius, the Eastern
Emperor, to let Constantine, whom he had not seen for a long time, return to his father's court. This was
reluctantly granted. Constantine joined his father, under whom he had
just time to
distinguish himself in Britain
before death carried off Constantius (25 July, 306). Constantine was
immediately proclaimed Caesar by his troops, and his title was acknowledged by Galerius somewhat
hesitatingly. This event was the first break in Diocletian's scheme of a
four-headed empire (tetrarchy) and was soon followed by the proclamation in Rome of Maxentius, the son of Maximian, a tyrant and
profligate, as Caesar, October, 306. During the wars
between Maxentius and
the Emperors Severus and Galerius,
Constantine remained inactive in his provinces. The attempt which the old
Emperors Diocletian
and Maximian made, at
Carmentum in 307, to restore order in the empire having failed, the promotion
of Licinius to the position of Augustus, the assumption of the imperial title
by Maximinus Daia, and
Maxentius' claim to be
sole emperor (April, 308), led to the proclamation of Constantine as Augustus.
Constantine, having the most efficient army, was acknowledged as such by Galerius, who was
fighting against Maximinus
in the East, as well as by Licinius. So far Constantine, who was at this time defending his own frontier against
the Germans, had taken
no part in the quarrels of the other claimants to the throne. But when, in 311,
Galerius, the eldest
Augustus and the most violent
persecutor of the Christians, had died a
miserable death, after cancelling his edicts against the Christians, and when Maxentius, after throwing
down Constantine's statues,
proclaimed him a tyrant, the latter saw that war was inevitable.
Though his army was far inferior to that of Maxentius, numbering
according to various statements from 25,000 to 100,000 men, while Maxentius disposed of
fully 190,000, he did not hesitate to march rapidly into Italy (spring of 312).
After storming Susa
and almost annihilating a powerful army near Turin, he continued his
march southward. At Verona
he met a hostile army under the prefect of Maxentius' guard,
Ruricius, who shut himself up in the fortress. While besieging the city
Constantine, with a detachment of his army, boldly assailed a fresh force of
the enemy coming to the relief of the besieged fortress and completely defeated
it. The surrender of Verona
was the consequence. In spite of the overwhelming numbers of his enemy (an
estimated 100,000 in Maxentius'
army against 20,000 in Constantine's army) the emperor confidently marched
forward to Rome. A vision
had assured him that he should conquer in the sign of the Christ, and his warriors
carried Christ's monogram
on their shields, though the majority of them were pagans. The opposing
forces met near the bridge over the Tiber called the Milvian Bridge, and here Maxentius' troops
suffered a complete defeat, the tyrant himself losing his life in the Tiber (28
October, 312). Of his gratitude to the God of the Christians the victor
immediately gave convincing proof;
the Christian worship was
henceforth tolerated throughout the empire
(Edict of Milan, early in 313). His enemies he treated with the greatest
magnanimity; no bloody executions
followed the victory of the Milvian Bridge. Constantine stayed in Rome but a short time
after his victory. Proceeding to Milan (end of 312, or
beginning of 313) he met his colleague the Augustus Licinius, married
his sister to him, secured his protection for the Christians in the East,
and promised him support against Maximinus Daia. The last, a bigoted pagan and a cruel tyrant,
who persecuted the Christians even after Galerius' death, was now
defeated by Licinius, whose soldiers, by his orders, had invoked the God of the Christians on the
battle-field (30 April, 313). Maximinus, in his turn, implored the God of the Christians, but died of a
painful disease in the following autumn. Of all Diocletian's
tetrarchs Licinius was now the only survivor. His treachery soon compelled Constantine
to make war on him.
Pushing forward with his wonted impetuosity, the emperor struck him a decisive
blow at Cibalae (8 October, 314). But Licinius was able to recover himself, and
the battle fought between the two rivals at Castra Jarba (November, 314) left
the two armies in such a position that both parties thought it best to make
peace. For ten years the peace lasted, but when, about 322, Licinius, not
content with openly professing paganism, began to persecute the Christians, while at the
same time he treated with contempt Constantine's undoubted rights and privileges, the outbreak
of war was certain,
and Constantine gathered an army of 125,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry,
besides a fleet of 200 vessels to gain control of the Bosporus. Licinius, on
the other hand, by leaving the eastern boundaries of the empire undefended
succeeded in collecting an even more numerous army, made up of 150,000 infantry
and 15,000 cavalry, while his fleet consisted of no fewer than 350 ships. The
opposing armies met at Adrianople,
3 July, 324, and Constantine's well-disciplined troops defeated and put to
flight the less disciplined forces of Licinius. Licinius strengthened the
garrison of Byzantium so that an attack seemed
likely to result in failure and the only hope of taking the fortress lay in a
blockade and famine. This required the assistance of Constantine's fleet, but
his opponent's ships barred the way. A sea fight at the entrance to the
Dardanelles was indecisive, and Constantine's detachment retired to Elains,
where it joined the bulk of his fleet. When the fleet of the Licinian admiral
Abantus pursued on the following day, it was overtaken by a violent storm which
destroyed 130 ships and 5000 men. Constantine crossed the Bosporus, leaving a
sufficient corps to maintain the blockade of Byzantium,
and overtook his opponent's main body at Chrysopolis, near Chalcedon.
Again he inflicted on him a crushing defeat, killing 25,000 men and scattering
the greater part of the remainder. Licinius with 30,000 men escaped to Nicomedia. But he now saw
that further resistance was useless. He surrendered at discretion, and his
noble-hearted conqueror spared his life. But when, in the following year (325),
Licinius renewed his treacherous practices he was condemned to death by the
Roman Senate and executed.
Henceforth, Constantine was sole master of the Roman Empire. Shortly after
the defeat of Licinius, Constantine determined to make Constantinople
the future capital of the empire, and with his usual energy he took every
measure to enlarge, strengthen, and beautify it. For the next ten years of his
reign he devoted himself to promoting the moral, political, and economical
welfare of his possessions and made dispositions for the future government of
the empire. While he placed his nephews, Dalmatius and Hannibalianus in charge
of lesser provinces, he designated his sons Constantius, Constantine,
and Constans as the future rulers of the empire. Not long before his end, the
hostile movement of the Persian
king, Shâpûr, again summoned him into the field. When he was about to march
against the enemy he was seized with an illness of which he died in May, 337,
after receiving baptism.
Historical appreciation
Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned
the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until
then had suffered bloody persecution,
the religion of the State. It is true that the deeper
reasons for this change are to be found in the religious
movement of the time, but these reasons were hardly imperative, as the Christians formed only a
small portion of the population, being a fifth part in the West and the half of
the population in a large section of the East. Constantine's decision depended
less on general conditions
than on a personal act;
his personality,
therefore, deserves careful consideration. Long before this, belief
in the old polytheism
had been shaken; in more stolid natures, as Diocletian, it showed its
strength only in the form of superstition, magic, and divination. The world was
fully ripe for monotheism
or its modified form, henotheism, but this monotheism offered itself
in varied guises, under the forms of various Oriental
religions: in the
worship of the sun, in the veneration of Mithras, in Judaism, and in Christianity. Whoever
wished to avoid making a violent break with the past and his surroundings
sought out some Oriental form of worship which
did not demand from him too severe a sacrifice; in such cases Christianity naturally
came last. Probably many of the more noble-minded recognized the truth contained in Judaism and Christianity, but
believed that they could appropriate it without being obliged on that account
to renounce the beauty of other worships. Such a man was the Emperor Alexander Severus;
another thus minded was Aurelian,
whose opinions were confirmed by Christians like Paul of Samosata. Not
only Gnostics and
other heretics, but Christians who considered
themselves faithful,
held in a measure to the worship of the sun. Leo the Great in his day
says that it was the custom of many Christians to stand on
the steps of the church of St. Peter and pay
homage to the sun by obeisance and prayers (cf. Euseb. Alexand. in Mai, "Nov. Patr.
Bibl.", 11, 523; Augustine, Enarration on Psalm 10;
Leo I, Sermon 26). When such conditions prevailed it
is easy to understand that many of the emperors yielded to the delusion that
they could unite all their subjects in the adoration of the one sun-god who
combined in himself the Father-God
of the Christians and
the much-worshipped Mithras;
thus the empire could be founded anew on unity of religion.
Even Constantine, as will be shown farther on, for a time cherished this
mistaken belief. It
looks almost as though the last persecutions of the Christians were directed
more against all irreconcilables and extremists than against the great body of Christians. The policy of
the emperors was not a consistent one; Diocletian was at first
friendly towards Christianity;
even its grimmest foe, Julian,
wavered. Caesar Constantius, Constantine's father, protected the Christians during a most
cruel persecution. Constantine grew up under the influence of his father's ideas. He was the son of
Constantius Chlorus by his first, informal marriage,
called concubinatus, with Helena, a woman of inferior birth.
For a short time
Constantine had been compelled to stay at the court of Galerius, and had
evidently not received a good impression from his surroundings there. When Diocletian retired,
Constantius advanced from the position of Caesar to that of Augustus, and the
army, against the wishes of the other emperors, raised the young Constantine to
the vacant position. Right here was seen at once how unsuccessful would be the
artificial system of division of the empire and succession to the throne by
which Diocletian
sought to frustrate the overweening power of the Praetorian Guard. Diocletian's personality is full of
contradictions; he was just as crude in his religious
feelings as he was shrewd and far-seeing in state affairs; a man of autocratic
nature, but one who, under certain circumstances, voluntarily set bounds to
himself. He began a reconstruction of the empire, which Constantine completed.
The existence of the empire was threatened by many serious evils, the lack of
national and religious unity, its financial and
military weakness. Consequently the system of taxation had to be accommodated
to the revived economic
barter system. The taxes bore most heavily on the peasants, the peasant
communities, and the landed proprietors; increasingly heavy compulsory service
was also laid on those engaged in industrial pursuits, and they were therefore
combined into state guilds.
The army was strengthened, the troops on the frontier being increased to
360,000 men. In addition, the tribes living on the frontiers were taken into
the pay of the State as allies, many cities were fortified, and new fortresses
and garrisons were established, bringing soldiers and civilians more into
contact, contrary to the old Roman axiom. When a frontier was endangered the household
troops took the field. This body of soldiers, known as palatini,
comitatenses, which had taken the place of the Praetorian Guard, numbered
not quite 200,000 men (sometimes given as 194,500). A good postal service
maintained constant communication between the different parts of the empire.
The civil and military administration were, perhaps, somewhat more sharply
divided than before, but an equally increased importance was laid on the
military capacity of all state officials. Service at court was termed militia,
"military service". Over all, like to a god, was enthroned the emperor,
and the imperial dignity was surrounded by a halo, a sacredness, a ceremonial,
which was borrowed from the Oriental theocracies. The East
from the earliest times had been a favourable soil for theocratic government;
each ruler was believed
by his people to be in direct communication with the godhead, and the law of the State was
regarded as revealed law. In the same manner
the emperors allowed themselves to be venerated as holy oracles and deities, and everything
connected with them was called sacred. Instead of imperial, the word sacred
had now always to be used. A large court-retinue, elaborate court-ceremonials,
and an ostentatious court-costume made access to the emperor more difficult.
Whoever wished to approach the head of the State must first pass through many
ante-rooms and prostrate himself before the emperor as before a divinity. As
the old Roman population had no liking for such ceremonial, the emperors
showed a constantly increasing preference for the East, where monotheism held almost
undisputed sway, and where, besides, economic conditions were better. Rome was no longer able
to control the whole of the great empire with its peculiar civilizations. In all directions new and vigorous national forces began to show themselves.
Only two policies were possible: either to give way to the various national movements,
or to take a firm stand on the foundation of antiquity, to revive old Roman
principles, the ancient military severity, and the patriotism of Old Rome. Several emperors
had tried to follow this latter course, but in vain. It was just as impossible
to bring men back to the old simplicity as to make them return to the old pagan beliefs and to the
national form of worship. Consequently, the empire had to identify itself with
the progressive movement, employ as far as possible the existing resources of
national life, exercise tolerance,
make concessions to the new religious
tendencies, and receive the Germanic tribes into the empire. This conviction
constantly spread, especially as Constantine's father had obtained good results
therefrom. In Gaul, Britain, and Spain, where Constantius
Chlorus ruled, peace and contentment prevailed, and the prosperity of the
provinces visibly increased, while in the East
prosperity was undermined by the existing confusion and instability. But it was
especially in the western part of the empire that the veneration of Mithras predominated.
Would it not be possible to gather all the different nationalities around his altars? Could not Sol
Deus Invictus, to whom even Constantine dedicated his coins for a long time, or
Sol Mithras Deus Invictus, venerated by Diocletian and Galerius, become the
supreme god of the empire? Constantine may have pondered over this. Nor had he
absolutely rejected the thought even after a miraculous event had
strongly influenced him in favour of the God of the Christians. In deciding for Christianity
he was no doubt also influenced by reasons of conscience--reasons
resulting from the impression made on every unprejudiced person both by the Christians and by the moral force of Christianity, and from
the practical knowledge
which the emperors had of the Christian military
officers and state officials. These reasons are, however, not mentioned in history,
which gives the chief prominence to a miraculous event. Before
Constantine advanced against his rival Maxentius, according to
ancient custom he summoned the haruspices, who prophesied disaster; so
reports a pagan
panegyrist. But when the gods would not aid him, continues this writer, one
particular god urged him on, for Constantine had close relations with the
divinity itself. Under what form
this connection with the deity manifested itself is told by Lactantius (How the Persecutors Died
44) and Eusebius (Life of Constantine
I.26-31). He saw, according to the one in a dream, according to the
other in a vision, a heavenly manifestation, a
brilliant light in which he believed he descried the cross
or the monogram of Christ.
Strengthened by this apparition,
he advanced courageously
to battle, defeated his rival and won the supreme power. It was the result that
gave to this vision its full importance, for
when the emperor afterwards reflected on the event it was clear to him that the
cross bore the inscription: HOC VINCES (in this
sign wilt thou conquer). A monogram combining the first letters, X and P, of
the name of Christ
(CHRISTOS), a form that cannot be proved to have been used
by Christians before,
was made one of the tokens of the standard and placed upon the Labarum. In
addition, this ensign was placed in the hand of a statue of the emperor at Rome, the pedestal of
which bore the inscription: "By the aid of this salutary token of strength
I have freed my city from the yoke of tyranny and restored to the Roman Senate
and People the ancient splendour and glory." Directly after his victory
Constantine granted tolerance
to the Christians and
next year (313) took a further step in their favour. In 313 Licinius and he
issued at Milan the
famous joint edict of tolerance.
This declared that the two emperors had deliberated as to what would be
advantageous for the security and welfare of the empire and had, above all,
taken into consideration the service which man owed to the
"deity". Therefore they had decided to grant Christians and all others
freedom in the exercise of religion. Everyone
might follow that religion which he considered
the best. They hoped
that "the deity enthroned in heaven" would grant
favour and protection to the emperors and their subjects. This was in itself
quite enough to throw the pagans
into the greatest astonishment. When the wording of the edict is carefully
examined there is clear evidence of an effort to express the new thought in a
manner too unmistakable to leave any doubt. The edict contains
more than the belief,
to which Galerius at
the end had given voice, that the persecutions were
useless, and it granted the Christians
freedom of worship, while at the same time it
endeavoured not to affront the pagans. Without doubt the term deity
was deliberately chosen, for it does not exclude a heathen interpretation.
The cautious _expression_ probably originated in the imperial chancery, where pagan conceptions and pagan forms of _expression_
still lasted for a long time. Nevertheless the change from the bloody persecution of Christianity to the toleration of it, a step
which implied its recognition, may have startled many heathens and may have
excited in them the same astonishment that a German
would feel if an emperor who was a Social Democrat were to seize the reins of
government. The foundations of the State would seem to such a one to rock. The Christians also may have
been taken aback. Before this, it is true, it had occurred to Melito
of Sardes (Eusebius,
Church History
IV.33) that the emperor might some day become a Christian, but Tertullian had thought
otherwise, and had written (Apology
21) the memorable sentence: "Sed et Caesares credidissent super
Christo, si aut Caesares non essent saeculo necessarii, aut si et Christiani
potuissent esse Caesares" (But the Caesars also would have believed in Christ,
if either the Caesars had not been necessary to the world or
if Christians too
could have been Caesars). The same opinion was held by St. Justin (I, xii, II,
xv). That the empire should become Christian seemed to Justin and many others an
impossibility, and they were just as little in the wrong as the optimists were in the
right. At all events, a happy
day now dawned for the Christians.
They must have felt as did the persecuted in the time of
the French Revolution
when Robespierre finally fell and the Reign of Terror was over. The feeling of
emancipation from danger is touchingly expressed in the treatise ascribed to Lactantius (How the Persecutors Died),
concerning the ways in which death overtook the persecutors. It says:
"We should now give thanks to the Lord, Who
has gathered together the flock that was devastated by ravening wolves, Who has
exterminated the wild beasts which drove it from the pasture. Where is now the
swarming multitude of our enemies, where the hangmen of Diocletian and Maximian? God has swept them from
the earth; let us therefore celebrate His triumph with joy; let us observe the
victory of the Lord with songs of praise, and honour Him with prayer day and night, so
that the peace which we have received again after ten years of misery may be
preserved to us." The imprisoned
Christians were
released from the prisons
and mines, and were received by their brethren in the Faith with acclamations
of joy; the churches
were again filled, and those who had fallen away
sought forgiveness. For a time it seemed as if merely tolerance and equality
were to prevail. Constantine showed equal favour to both religious.
As pontifex maximus he watched over the heathen worship and
protected its rights.
The one thing he did was to suppress divination and magic;
this the heathen
emperors had also at times sought to do. Thus, in 320, the emperor forbade the diviners
or haruspices to enter a private house under pain of death.
Whoever by entreaty or promise of payment persuaded a haruspex to break this law, that man's property should be
confiscated and he himself should be burned to death. Informers were to be
rewarded. Whoever desired to practise heathen usages must do so
openly. He must go to the public altars and sacred
places, and there observe traditional forms of worship. "We do not
forbid", said the emperor, "the observance of the old usages in the light
of day." And in an ordinance of the same year, intended for the Roman city
prefects, Constantine directed that if lightning struck an imperial palace, or
a public building, the haruspices were to seek out according to ancient custom
what the sign might signify, and their interpretation was to be written down
and reported to the emperor. It was also permitted to private individuals to make use
of this old custom, but in following this observance they must abstain from the
forbidden sacrificia domestica. A general prohibition of the family sacrifice cannot be deduced from this,
although in 341 Constantine's son Constantius refers to
such an interdict by his father
(Cod. Theod., XVI, x, 2). A prohibition of this kind would have had the most
severe and far-reaching results, for most sacrifices were private
ones. And how could it have been carried out while public sacrifices were still
customary? In the dedication
of Constantinople in 330 a ceremonial half pagan, half Christian was used. The
chariot of the sun-god was set in the market-place, and over its head was
placed the Cross of Christ, while the Kyrie Eleison was sung.
Shortly before his death Constantine confirmed the privileges of the priests of the ancient
gods. Many other actions of his have also the
appearance of half-measures, as if he himself had wavered and had always held
in reality to some form of syncretistic
religion. Thus he commanded the heathen troops to make
use of a prayer in
which any monotheist
could join, and which ran thus: "We acknowledge thee alone as god and
king, we call upon thee as our helper. From thee have we received the victory,
by thee have we overcome the foe. To thee we owe that good
which we have received up to now, from thee do we hope for it in the
future. To thee we offer our entreaties and implore thee that thou wilt
preserve to us our emperor Constantine and his god-fearing sons for many years
uninjured and victorious." The emperor went at least one step further when
he withdrew his statue
from the pagan temples, forbade the
repair of temples that
had fallen into decay, and suppressed offensive forms of worship. But these
measures did not go beyond the syncretistic tendency
which Constantine had shown for a long time. Yet he must have perceived more
and more clearly that syncretism
was impossible. In the same way religious freedom and tolerance could not
continue as a form of equality, the age was not ready for such a conception. It
is true that Christian writers
defended religious liberty; thus Tertullian said that religion
forbids religious compulsion (Non est religionis
cogere religionem quae sponte suscipi debet non vi.--To Scapula, near
the close); and Lactantius,
moreover, declared: "In order to defend religion
man must be willing to
die, but not to kill."
Origen also took up
the cause of freedom. Most probably oppression and persecution had made men realize that to have
one's way of thinking, one's conception of the world and of life,
dictated to him was a mischief-working compulsion. In contrast to the
smothering violence of
the ancient State, and to the power and custom of public opinion, the Christians were the
defenders of freedom, but not of individual subjective
freedom, nor of freedom of conscience
as understood today. And even if the Church had recognized
this form of freedom, the State could not have remained tolerant.
Without realizing the full import of his actions,
Constantine granted the Church
one privilege after
another. As early as 313 the Church obtained immunity for its ecclesiastics, including
freedom from taxation and compulsory service, and from obligatory state
offices--such for example as the curial dignity, which was a heavy burden. The Church further obtained
the right to inherit property, and Constantine
moreover placed Sunday
under the protection of the State. It is true that the believers
in Mithras also
observed Sunday as
well as Christmas.
Consequently Constantine speaks not of the day of the Lord,
but of the everlasting day of the sun. According to Eusebius, the heathen also were obliged on this day to go
out into the open country and together raise their hands and repeat the prayer already mentioned,
a prayer without any
marked Christian
character (Life of
Constantine IV.20). The emperor granted many privileges to the Church for the reason
that it took care of the
poor and was active in benevolence. Perhaps he showed his Christian tendencies most
pronouncedly in removing the legal disabilities
which, since the time
of Augustus, had
rested on celibacy,
leaving in existence only the leges decimarioe, and in recognizing an
extensive ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. But it should not be forgotten that the Jewish communities had
also their own jurisdiction,
exemptions, and immunities, even if in a
more limited degree. A law
of 318 denied the competence of civil courts if in a suit an appeal was made to the
court of a Christian
bishop. Even after a suit had begun before the civil court, it would still
be permissible for one of the parties to transfer it to the bishop's court. If both
parties had been granted a legal hearing, the
decision of the bishop
was to be binding. A law
of 333 commanded the state officials to enforce the decisions of the bishops, a bishop's testimony should
be considered sufficient by all judges and no witness was to be
summoned after a bishop
had testified. These concessions were so far-reaching that the Church itself felt the
great increase of its jurisdiction
as a constraint. Later emperors limited this jurisdiction to cases of voluntary submission by
both parties to the episcopal court. Constantine did much for children, slaves, and women, those weaker
members of society
whom the old Roman law
had treated harshly. But in this he only continued what earlier emperors, under
the influence of Stoicism,
had begun before him, and he left to his successors the actual work of their
emancipation. Thus some emperors who reigned before Constantine
had forbidden the exposure of children, although without success, as exposed
children or foundlings
were readily adopted, because they could be used
for many purposes. The Christians
especially exerted themselves to get possession of such foundlings, and
consequently Constantine issued no direct prohibition of exposure, although the
Christians regarded
exposure as equal to murder;
he commanded, instead, that foundlings
should belong to the finder, and did not permit the parents to claim the
children they had exposed. Those who took such children obtained a property right in them and could
make quite an extensive use of this; they were allowed to sell and enslave foundlings, until Justinian prohibited such
enslaving under any guise. Even in the time of St. Chrysostom parents mutilated their
children for the sake of gain. When suffering from famine or debt, many parents could only obtain
relief by selling their children if they did not wish to sell themselves. All
later laws against
such practices availed as little as those against emasculation and pandering. St. Ambrose vividly
depicts the sad spectacle of children being sold by their fathers, under
pressure of creditors, or by the creditors themselves. All the many forms of
institutions for feeding and supporting children and the poor were of little
avail. Constantine himself established asylums for
foundlings; yet he recognized the right of parents to sell their
children, and only excepted older children. He ruled that children who had been
sold could be bought back in contradistinction to children who had been
exposed; but this ruling was of no avail if the children were taken into a
foreign country. Valentinian,
therefore, prohibited the traffic in human beings with foreign
lands. The laws
forbidding such practices continually multiplied, but the greater part of the
burden of saving the children fell on the Church. Constantine was the first to prohibit the abduction of girls. The abductor
and those who aided him by influencing the girl were threatened with severe
punishment. In harmony with the views of the Church, Constantine
rendered divorce more
difficult, he made no changes where the divorce was agreed to by
both parties, but imposed severe conditions when the
demand for separation came from one side only. A man could put away his wife
for adultery,
poisoning, and pandering, and retain her dowry, but if he discarded her for any
other cause, he was to return the dowry and was forbidden to marry again. If,
nevertheless, he remarried, the discarded wife
had the right to enter
his house and take everything which the new wife had brought him. Constantine
increased the severity of the earlier law forbidding the concubinage of a free woman with a slave, and the Church did not regard
this measure with disfavour. On the other hand, his retention of the
distinctions of rank in the marriage law was clearly contrary
to the views of the Church.
The Church rejected
all class distinctions in marriage, and regarded
informal marriages (the so-called concubinatus)
as true marriages, in so far as
they were lasting and monogamous. Constantine, however, increased the
difficulties of the concubinatus, and forbade senators and the higher
officials in the State and in the pagan priesthoods
to contract such unions with women of lower rank (feminoe
humiles), thus making it impossible for them to marry women belonging to the
lower classes, although his own mother was of inferior rank. But in other
respects the emperor showed his mother, Helena, the greatest
deference. Other concubinatus besides those mentioned were placed at a
disadvantage in regard to property,
and the rights of
inheritance of the children and the concubines were
restricted. Constantine, however, encouraged the emancipation of slaves and enacted that
manumission in the church should have the same
force as the public manumission before State officials and by will (321).
Neither the Christian
nor the heathen
emperors permitted slaves
to seek their freedom without authorization of law, the Christian rulers sought
to ameliorate slavery
by limiting the power of corporal punishment; the master was allowed only to
use a rod or to send a slave
to prison, and the
owner was not liable to punishment even if the slave died under these
circumstances. But if death resulted from the use of clubs, stones, weapons or
instruments of torture, the person
who caused the death
was to be treated as a murderer.
As will be seen below, Constantine was himself obliged to observe this law when he sought to get
rid of Licinianus. A criminal was no longer to be branded in the face, but only
on the feet, as the human
face was fashioned in the likeness of God. When these laws are
compared with the ordinances of those earlier emperors who were of humane
disposition, they do not go far beyond the older regulations. In everything not
referring to religion Constantine followed in
the footsteps of Diocletian.
In spite of all unfortunate experiences, he adhered to the artificial division
of the empire, tried for a long time to avoid a breach with Licinius, and
divided the empire among his sons. On the other hand, the imperial power was
increased by receiving a religious consecration. The Church tolerated
the cult of the emperor under many forms. It was permitted to speak of the
divinity of the emperor, of the sacred palace, the sacred chamber and of the altar of the emperor,
without being considered on this account an idolater. From this point
of view Constantine's religious change was
relatively trifling; it consisted of little more than the renunciation of a
formality. For what his predecessors had aimed to attain by the use of all
their authority and at the cost of incessant bloodshed, was in truth only the
recognition of their own divinity; Constantine gained this end, though he
renounced the offering
of sacrifices to
himself. Some bishops,
blinded by the splendour of the court, even went so far as to laud the emperor
as an angel of God, as
a sacred being, and to prophesy
that he would, like the Son
of God, reign in heaven.
It has consequently been asserted that Constantine favoured Christianity merely from
political motives, and he has been regarded as an enlightened despot who made
use of religion only to advance his policy. He
certainly cannot be acquitted of grasping ambition. Where the
policy of the State required, he could be cruel. Even after his conversion he caused the execution of his
brother-in-law Licinius, and of the latter's son, as well as of Crispus his own
son by his first marriage, and of his wife
Fausta. He quarrelled with his colleague Licinius about their religious
policy, and in 323 defeated him in a bloody battle; Licinius surrendered on the
promise of personal safety; notwithstanding this, half a year later he was
strangled by order of Constantine. During the joint reign Licinianus, the son
of Licinius, and Crispus, the son of Constantine, had been the two Caesars.
Both were gradually set aside; Crispus was executed
on the charge of immorality
made against him by Constantine's second wife, Fausta. The charge was false, as Constantine
learned from his mother, Helena,
after the deed was done. In punishment Fausta
was suffocated in a superheated bath. The young Licinianus was flogged to
death. Because Licinianus was not the son of his sister, but of a slave-woman,
Constantine treated him as a slave. In this way
Constantine evaded his own law
regarding the mutilation of slaves
After reading these cruelties it is hard to believe that the same
emperor could at times have mild and tender impulses; but human nature is full of
contradictions. Constantine was liberal to prodigality, was generous in almsgiving, and adorned
the Christian churches
magnificently. He paid more attention to literature and art
than we might expect from an emperor of this period, although this was partly
due to vanity, as is proved
by his appreciation of the dedication of literary works to him. It is likely
that he practiced the fine
arts himself, and he frequently preached to those around him. No doubt he was endowed with
a strong religious sense, was sincerely pious, and delighted to
be represented in an attitude of prayer, with his eyes
raised to heaven. In
his palace he had a chapel
to which he was fond of retiring, and where he read the Bible and prayed. "Every day",
Eusebius tells us,
"at a fixed hour he shut himself up in the most secluded part of the
palace, as if to assist at the Sacred Mysteries, and
there commune with God
alone ardently beseeching Him, on bended knees, for his
necessities". As a catechumen
he was not permitted to assist at the sacred Eucharistic
mysteries. He remained a catechumen to the end of
his life, but not because he lacked conviction nor because, owing to his
passionate disposition, he desired to lead a pagan life. He obeyed as strictly as
possible the precepts
of Christianity,
observing especially the virtue
of chastity, which his parents
had impressed upon him; he respected celibacy, freed it from legal
disadvantages, sought to elevate morality, and punished
with great severity the offenses against morals which the pagan worship bad
encouraged. He brought up his children as Christians. Thus his life
became more and more Christian,
and thus gradually turned away from the feeble syncretism which at times
he seemed to favour. The God
of the Christians was
indeed a jealous God who tolerated no
other gods beside him. The Church
could never acknowledge that she stood on the same plane with other religious
bodies, she conquered for herself one domain after another. Constantine himself preferred the company of Christian bishops to that
of pagan priests. The emperor
frequently invited the bishops
to court, gave them the use of the imperial postal service, invited them to his
table, called them his brothers, and when they had suffered for the Faith, kissed their scars. While
he chose bishops for
his counsellors, they, on the other hand, often requested his intervention--
e.g. shortly after 313, in the Donatist dispute. For
many years he worried himself with the Arian trouble, and in
this, it may be said, he went beyond the limits of the allowable, for example,
when he dictated whom Athanasius
should admit to the Church
and whom he was to exclude. Still he avoided any direct interference with dogma, and only sought to
carry out what the proper authorities--the synods--decided. When he
appeared at an oecumenical
council, it was not so much to influence the deliberation and the decision
as to show his strong interest
and to impress the heathen.
He banished bishops
only to avoid strife and discord, that is, for reasons of state. He opposed Athanasius because he was
led to believe that Athanasius desired to
detain the corn-ships which were intended for Constantinople;
Constantine's alarm can be understood when we bear in mind how powerful the patriarchs eventually
became. When at last he felt the approach of death he received baptism, declaring to the
bishops who had
assembled around him that, after the example of Christ, he had desired to
receive the saving seal
in the Jordan, but
that God had ordained otherwise, and
he would no longer delay baptism.
Laying aside the purple, the emperor, in the white robe of a neophyte, peacefully and
almost joyfully awaited the end. Of Constantine's sons the eldest, Constantine II, showed decided leanings to
heathenism, and his coins bear many pagan emblems; the second
and favourite son, Constantius,
was a more pronounced Christian,
but it was Arian
Christianity to which he adhered. Constantius was an
unwavering opponent of paganism;
he closed all the temples
and forbade sacrifices
under pain of death. His maxim was: "Cesset superstitio; sacrificiorum
aboleatur insania" (Let superstition cease; let
the folly of sacrifices
be abolished). Their successors had recourse to religious persecution
against heretics and pagans. Their laws (Cod. Theod., XVI,
v) had an unfavourable influence on the Middle Ages and were the
basis of the much-abused Inquisition.
(See PERSECUTIONS; CONSTANTINOPLE.) |