Emperor Constantine the Great (306 – 337)

The Importance of His Faith in the History of the Church

V. Rev. Fr. Thaddaeus Hardenbrook

History & Principles of the Orthodox Church 101

Fr. Martin Swanson, PhD.
January 22, 2009
 Emperor Constantine the Great (306 – 337)
The Importance of His Faith in the History of the Church

St. Constantine the Great, Equal to the Apostles, First Christian Emperor of
Rome, builder of Constantinople and founder the Byzantine Empire. He is a military
victor, effective ruler and glorified saint. There is no doubt that his contribution to world
history and that of the Orthodox Church is indeed spectacular. Eusebius describes him as
“such an emperor as all history records not”1 and Ware places him “at a watershed in the
history of the Church.”2 As Meyendorff asserts, “No single human being in history has
contributed…to the conversion of so many to the Christian faith.”3 Norwich reiterates
this opinion on a global scales stating that “No ruler in all of history…has ever more fully
merited his title of ‘the Great’….[Constantine has] serious claim to be considered…the
most influential man in all of history.4 Among Constantine’s most significant acts and
initiatives of importance in church history are his legal initiation of freedom for
Christianity with the Edict of Milan (313), his calling of the first Ecumenical Council at
Nicaea (325), and moving the capital of the empire from pagan encrusted Rome to
Constantinople (330).
However, popular and academic loyalty regarding his status as ‘first Christian
emperor’ and ‘saint of the Church’ has wavered over time. Dominant opinions have
ebbed and flowed in their evaluation of Constantine’s role specifically as a Christian. A
religious role of importance that, as Schmemann describes it, no one denies but the
evaluators of which are “diametrically opposed.”5
On the one hand, hagiography and hymnography of the Orthodox Church
guilelessly distills down the historical perspective on Constantine to that of a great saint

1
Eusebius. 1994. Life of Constantine. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc: 484.
2
Ware, Timothy. 1964. Byzantium I. In The Orthodox Church. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books: 26.
3
Meyendorff, John. 1989. Church and Empire. In Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions. Crestwood, NY:
St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: 7.
4
Norwich, John Julius. 1996. Byzantium: The Early Centuries. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf: 32.
5
Schmemann, Alexander. 1977. The Triumph of Christianity. In Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: 62.

2
called explicitly to an apostleship directly by God. “Like Paul, he received a call not from
men,”6 reads the troparion for his feast. Eusebius, who personally associated with
Constantine, insists that he was “adorned with every virtue of religion.”7 In the Prologue
of Ochrid, compiled by the newly glorified St. Nikolai Velimirovich, Constantine
conquers Maxentius having followed an iron processional cross (rather than the Chi-Rho
symbol on shields) and is immediately afterward, rather than on his death-bed, catechized
and baptized by a Bishop Sylvester prior even to the Council of Nicaea! 8 Confident that
his role in Church history is divinely inspired and pleasing to God, the Orthodox Church,
with Christ-blessed childlike faith glorifies Constantine and joyfully overlooks all
personal weaknesses he may have had. He is our brother in Christ and, knowing our own
sinfulness and spiritual sloth; we gladly disregard his faults and remember his virtue in
hope of the same merciful treatment.
On the other hand, Constantine has been attacked consistently by those
considering his personal flaws as proof of his manipulation of Christianity for personal
and political gain. We see this occurring as early as 498 with the publication of that
“implacable enemy of the Christian name”9 Zosimus’ Historia Nova and continuing until
today. “For a long time scholars interpreted [the panegyrist of 310] to mean that
Constantine had professed some sort of Apolline faith…the strongest indication that
Constantine was pagan….”10 Many Christian historians and authors themselves seem to
approach Constantine’s conversion with such uncertainty that he is either glossed over
quickly, as do Ware (five paragraphs),11 Meyendorff (beginning only with the Edict of
Milan),12 and Chadwick (“It was a military matter.”)13 Of contemporary Orthodox
authors, Schmemann appears to make the greatest effort to synthesize the ambiguities of

6
Troparion for Constantine the Great. In The Menaion. May 21.
7
Eusebius. 1964. Ecclesiastical History. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.438
8
Velomirovic, Nikolai. 1999. St. Constantine, Equal to the Apostles. In The Prologue of Ochrid. Serbian
Orthodox Church Diocese of Western America: May 21.
9
Gilles, Pierre. 1988. Antiquities of Constantinople. New York, NY: Italica Press: 12.
10
Elliott, Thomas G. 1990. The Language of Constantine's Propaganda. In Transactions of the American
Philological Association. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press: 349.
11
Ware, Timothy. 1964. The Beginnings. In The Orthodox Church. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books: 24 –
27.
12
Meyendorff: 7.
13
Chadwick, Henry. 1993. Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. In The Early Church. New York, NY:
Penguin Books: 125.

3
Constantine’s conversion. Without an accurate context, many of Constantine’s words and
actions are easily criticized.
Yet careful study of forth-century Roman culture and the fledgling socio-cultural
structure of persecution-era Christianity suggests otherwise. Constantine was forced by
circumstance to balance the complexities between a newly legalized Christianity, that he
adamantly supported, and the well-established, pagan expectations of the imperial throne
that were in direct conflict with Christian moral ideology. Schmemann concludes,
“However many mistakes and perhaps even crimes there may have been in his life…it is
hard to doubt that this man had striven unwaveringly toward God.”14 However,
Meyendorff almost flippantly labels him as “an adept of solar monotheism” probably
having “some sort of conversion experience” and changing “practically nothing” but
rather ordered the execution of his own son, Crispus, and wife, Fausta15, while
sponsoring the council of Nicaea. He goes on to conclude that “it is perhaps misleading to
call Constantine ‘the first Christian emperor’”.16 Chadwick concurs, stating, as if it were
a well-documented fact, that Constantine “was not aware of any mutual exclusiveness
between Christianity and his faith in the Unconquered Sun.”17

A Defense of His Faith

In presenting the importance of Constantine’s role in the history of the Orthodox

Christian Church, it appears most essential to defend that aspect of Constantine’s role in
Christian history that is most vulnerable to criticism; his faith. The great historic events
of his life and reign are relatively indisputable. Yet a defense of the virtue of his character
must be renewed for the preservation of his rightful place as neither a theoria-dwelling
saint of the highest degree of holiness, nor a politically manipulative dictator, but as a
servant of Christ, clay in the hands of the Master, willing to be formed according to His
will; a man “under the protection of the Cross and in direct dependence upon Christ.”18

14
Schmemann: 80.
15
This is the slander of Julian the Apostate propagated by Zosimus.
16
Meyendorff: 6.
17
Chadwick: 126.
18
Schmemann: 66.

4
 Therefore, the focus of this study regarding the context of Constantine’s life and
faith remains on his relation to the Church as catechumen and his primary spiritual
obligation being the perseverance of faith against demonic attack. We now take up the
topic of his personal faith, recalling that “one must treat with caution the contradictory
evaluations of the age of Constantine, indiscriminate condemnation as well as
unconditional justification.”19

Conversion: The Milvian Bridge or Before?

Historically, Constantine’s battle with Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge marks the
beginning of a reunified Roman empire and the end of an era fraught with much political
division and competition between numerous Augustuses and Caesars. The event, for both
Christians and pagans, was filled with divine symbolism and content. “Constantine’s
victory at the Milvian Bridge seemed a signal manifestation of celestial favor.”20 The
Roman senate erected a commemorative arch with a depiction of the battle and the
inscription, “by the prompting of the deity”.21 Pagans believed this deity to be the
Unconquered Sun, while Christians believed it to be Christ, the Son. Most scholars of
Christian history today, especially that of Klaus M. Girardet, agree that Constantine had
converted to Christianity by this time (312). For the Chi-Rho inscription was already on
the shields of his soldiers (it would appear on his coins as well in 315) and, most
dramatically, he did not follow the established tradition of traveling the via sacra to the
Capitol in order to make pagan sacrifice to Jupiter.
For the next two and a half months, Constantine would “generously subsidize
from his private purse twenty-five already existing titular churches and established
several new ones; he also instructed his provincial governors to do likewise throughout
his dominions.”22 Girardet documents that, “No Roman Emperor before Constantine had
ever done this. Eusebius of Caesarea was to see in Constantine the first emperor who was

19
Schmemann: 62.
20
Chadwick: 125.
21
Ibid.
22
Norwich: 40.

5
a "friend of God" and thus chosen to proclaim his message to the world. Girardet sees no
reason to contradict Constantine's historian.”23
There is not doubt that from 312 onwards that Constantine “saw himself as
supreme guardian of the Christian Church.”24 But, as has been suggested from the time of
Lactantius (240 – 320), Constantine’s conversion may have taken place even earlier. A
conservative estimation is that of at least a year earlier (311) when, as reported by
Eusebius, he first saw the Chi-Rho in the sky inscribed with the phrase “By this [sign]
conquer.”25 However, given that his mother was of Britain and may have converted to
Christianity before her son, exposure to Christianity, its influences, and perhaps even his
own conversion, began in Constantine’s youth. This is not documentable, but certainly
probable.
The oral tradition of Great Britain claims that Helena was a daughter of the King
of Britain, Cole of Camulodunum, who allied with Constantius to avoid more war
between the Britons and Rome.26 Her image in the form of a stature atop a very tall
column stands in the center of Colchester to this day. “Constantine, the flower of
Britain,” writes Huntingdon, “of British stock and origin, whose equal Britain has not
produced before or since.”27 It is known for certain that Britain was missionized by the
time of Helen and Constantine. The first British martyr, Alban, may have suffered as
early as 208. Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, and Jerome all infer that there were indeed
Christians in Roman Britain, perhaps as early as 200.28 Others however, such as
Sozomen, do not claim that Helen was British, but do assert that Constantine embraced
Christianity while ruling there and in Western Europe. “[Constantine’s] dispute with
Maxentius, the governor of Italy, had created so much dissension in the Roman
dominions, that it was then no easy matter to dwell in Gaul, in Britain, or in the
neighboring countries, in which it is universally admitted Constantine embraced the

23
Shlosser, Franziska E. 2006. Klaus M. Girardet: Die Konstantinische Wende. In Bryn Mawr Classical
Review. Bryn Mawr, PA. Bryn Mawr Press: 2.
24
Norwich: 42.
25
Eusebius. Life of Constantine: 490.
26
Huntingdon, Henry. 1996. Historia Anglorum: The History of the English People. Oxford: Oxford
University Press: 61.
27
Ibid.
28
Hayes, Alan L. 2008. Early Christianity (to A.D. 843). Toronto, CA: Toronto School of Theology: 19.

6
religion of the Christians, previous to his war with Maxentius, and prior to his return to
Rome and Italy: and this is evidenced by the dates of the laws which he enacted in favor
of religion.”29
All of this evidence weighs in favor of the opinion that Constantine was exposed
to Christianity early in life, that he was tolerant of Christianity, if not promoting it, in his
early rule. And that his apparent ‘delay’ in making Christianity the imperial religion, and
postponement of baptism, are not evidence that he was a pagan with mere affections for
Christianity. Conversely, they are evidence that he was deeply convinced of the truth of
Christ from early on and worked diligently for its assertion within the empire, step by
step, as allowed by the providence of God.
Schmemann similarly asserts confidence in Constantine’s personal faith, stating,
“One point is beyond question: the sign he saw and under which he won his decisive
victory was in his own mind a Christian symbol, and from that time on he counted
himself a Christian.”30 Then, in consistency with the complexity of this topic, he
simultaneously opens an avenue for doubt, speculating, “Did he actually become one?
Not until his deathbed, twenty-five years after the battle of the Milvian Bridge, did he
receive baptism, the only symbol the Church accepts of becoming a Christian. (It had
been his dream to be baptized in the Jordan, perhaps a reason for his long postponement).
Then what had he been before?”31
Yet how can he have ‘counted himself a Christian’ and yet not be one ‘until his
deathbed’? A ‘Christian’ is one who believes in and follows Christ. It is the thoroughly
Orthodox point of view that even those joined to heretical bodies of heterodox are not
stripped of their title as Christians, even though they have not received Orthodox baptism
and are not members of the Apostolic Church; the only repository of the fullness of grace.
Though they may far from Christ and His Church, they are not necessarily rejecting the
truth of Christ but are pursuing Him from within the circumstances in which they find

29
Sozomen. 1994. Historia Ecclesiastica. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol.2.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc: 243.
30
Schmemann: 65.
31
Ibid: 65 - 66.

7
themselves.32 Neither is salvation, by extreme economia, restricted to only those who
received the actual rite of baptism. This is demonstrated clearly by the many lives of
martyred saints who were baptized, not in the Orthodox rite, but in their own blood. An
example of this is found in the account of the holy martyr Polyeuctus (January 9) who
experienced wonders as a catechumen but never baptized.
Constantine was indeed a “Christian emperor”, as Schmemann cannot avoid
eventually titling him.33 But Schmemann seems to have overlooked the actual spiritual
and official state of Constantine’s relationship to the Church. He concludes brilliantly
that, “All the difficulties and distinctive qualities of Byzantium, all the ambiguity of the
‘age of Constantine’ in Church history, result from the primary, initial paradox that the
first Christian emperor was a Christian outside the Church, and the Church silently but
with full sincerity and faith accepted and recognized him. In the person of the emperor,
the empire became Christian without passing through the crisis of the baptismal trial.”34
True, a full member of the Orthodox Church is one who has been baptized. And baptism
had not been received by Constantine, nor the empire as a whole, an imperial example
that would not be followed by Vladimir and the Slavs. But as to Schmemann’s assertion
that Constantine is a Christian ‘outside the Church,’ and his unanswered question of
‘what had he been before?’, the spiritual, if not technical, answer is certainly ‘a
catechumen’. The validity of this statement we will explore shortly.

Apostle Among Kings

Constantine’s role in church history is three-fold: historical, political, and

spiritual. And in many ways, his role parallels both the three-fold process of ‘spiritual
status’ in Church membership: catechumens, baptized member, and glorified saint, and
the three-fold process of deification: purification, illumination, perfection. All speculative
criticism of his personal faith and relationship with the Church are reduced to ‘slander

32
Drozdov, Metropolitan Philaret. 1984. Will the Non-Orthodox Be Saved? In Orthodox Life, Vol. 34, No.
6: Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery Press: 2.
33
Schmemann: 70.
34
Ibid: 65 – 66.

8
and propaganda’35 once the observer has submitted to the accurate historical, political and
spiritual context of Constantine’s life.
Even the ‘executions’ of his son and wife have an authentic context. The context
cannot dispel the sorrow of the events, but it does mitigate their often-embellished horror.
In 326, Constantine ordered a trial at the local court of Pola in Istria, where his son
Crispus was condemned to death and executed. Soon after, Constantine reportedly had
his wife Fausta, daughter of Maximian and sister of Maxentius, killed by suffocation in
an over-heated bath. In addition, there is general agreement that efforts were made at the
time to obscure details.
Critiques of Constantine’s character often cite these deaths as proof of his utter
depravity. However, recent scholarship, such Alessio Torino’s The Cripus Tragedy, has
returned decisively to the opinion that the degree of intrigue culminating in the deaths of
Crispus and Fausta was of such offense that an obscuring effort is to be expected. In
hindsight, Zosimus himself, an outright enemy of Constantine’s faith, and the Byzantine
historian Ioannes Zonaras, provide the most compelling account36. Fausta, wife and
daughter of Constantine’s enemies, apparently viewed her stepson Crispus with extreme
jealousy since he competed with her sons for imperial favor. Conspiring against Crispus
only a month after Constantine had decreed adultery punishable by death37, Fausta
feigned impassioned love for her stepson and the idea of an illicit relationship. Crispus,
like Joseph tempted by the Egyptian woman, denied her. Fausta retaliated by reporting to
Constantine that Crispus had disgraced him in an attempt to rape her. Trusting the false
testimony of Fausta, and being personally shamed so soon after his decree against such
things, Constantine gave his beloved son over to trial and execution. Shortly afterwards,
Constantine discovered the terrible truth and Fausta dies; perhaps by the will of
Constantine, perhaps in suicide, neither is known with certainty. Constantine’s personal
grief and shame over the deceit-ridden tragedy puts an immediate end to any chronicling
of the events.

35
Schmemann, Alexander. 1994. The Church Year. In Celebration of Faith. Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press: 50.
36
Drijvers, Jan Willem. 1992. Helena Augusta. Boston, MA: Brill Publishers: 61.
37
Metallinos, Fr. George. 2008. Constantine the Great & Historical Truth (Audio transcription). Athens,
Greece. University of Athens School of Theology: 8.

9
 Although without doubt horrific, an objective view of the historical context
admits that these events are not outside the sphere of an emperor’s experiences and
duties; let alone an emperor who is burdened practically and spiritually with the complete
transformation of a pagan empire. Historically, Constantine is a great military conqueror
with all the violence and heavy-handed domination that is absolutely inherent to ancient
Roman roles and society. Politically he is an ‘apostle among kings’38 and in submission
to all the realities of developing and defending an Orthodox social world-view (which
itself was relatively undeveloped at the time) within the precarious context of Roman
imperial government. Spiritually, he was a catechumen: one devoted to the Christ and
whose primary spiritual focus is that of demonic warfare for the preservation of faith.

Historical, Political & Spiritual Context

Detailed research and authorship has been developed regarding Constantine’s role
in history and politics. Objective reading quickly establishes that one’s willingness to
practice a wide variety of actions that are far from the Christian ideal is an inescapable
reality of the culture and society of Constantine’s era. Examples of such historical-
political circumstances can be readily found in the lives of such great saints as Alexander
Nevsky, Stephan, first Christian king of Serbia, Vladimir, enlightener of Russia, and
many others who, in their god-given conviction to bring a people to Christ, found
violence and political manipulation to be essential, necessary evils given the context of
their lives: that is, “the time, the place, and the persons involved”. Orthodox Christians
must not shy away from the ability of God’s will being done, even amidst such
unchristian circumstances. Consider, if only for a moment, the martyrdom of Nestor
(October 27), who asked a blessing from spiritual guide, St. Demetrios, to slay another
man, and was granted it. To deny the possibility of God’s hand in the midst of violence
and political machination is to prefer historical tidiness and a blind eye to fallen human
nature over the power of God in Trinity, and to disregard that “the kingdom of God

38
Holy Transfiguration Monastery. 1997. Constantine, Equal to the Apostles (May 21). In The Great
Horologion. Boston, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery Press: 489.

10
suffers violence and the violent take it by force.” This is a difficult reality for a weak and
fearful generation.
However, the Orthodox student of history must come to peace with the reality that
Constantine was both a God-appointed apostle to the Roman empire, and, more difficult
to grasp, a convert to Christianity at a time when there was no Christian culture or nation.
His seeming defiance of Christian morality in such actions as the execution of Licentius,
and that of his son Crispus and wife Fausta, are in fact actions that are arguably not only
acceptable within the society and culture that formed Constantine as a person, but are
dutiful actions in defense of the pagan, imperial throne which he inherited and is trying to
sanctify. Both the apostolic and persecution eras of the Church had included the growth
and development of Christian community. But the coexistence of Christianity within
Judaism of the first era, and its subjugation to the catacombs of the second, rendered the
development of distinct Christian society and culture unessential and impossible
respectively.
Therefore, Constantine’s burden from the moment of his conquest over
Maxentius, and for which there is no precedent for him to follow, is to discover a way of
infusing Roman culture and society with Christianity, without rioting the pagan majority,
and without compromising the dogmas of Orthodox society and culture as it existed in its
undeveloped state. “He was anxious not to alarm those of this subjects who still clung to
the old gods. But he certainly did not hesitate refusing to take part in the traditional
sacrifice to Jupiter.”39 This is the context for interpreting such actions as his continuing to
use the Unconquered Sun on his coinage, the inclusion of pagan symbolism and art, even
in Constantinople (although he places the pagan goddess Cybeles in a posture of
Christian prayer and infuriates her devotees40). These points of potential criticism, when
combined with his unending use of the Chi-Rho on the shields of his soldiers, his
immediate, personal, financial support of the churches, and his constant increasing of
Christian rights from the expansion of religious tolerance to the eventual extreme of
persecuting Christian heretics, all collaborate as a whole to demonstrate his methodical
conversion of Roman culture and society from paganism to Orthodoxy. His is the era of

39
Norwich: 42 – 43.
40
Chadwick: 127.

11
emerging, not established, Christian society and culture. And like all births, it is violence
and blood for the sake of new life.

Constantine: The Catechumen

Schmemann assertion that Constantine is a Christian ‘outside the Church,’ is

understandable but unnecessary. It also reflects the fact that, historically, the awareness
of the catechumenate as a specifically defined membership to the Church degenerated, in
general (as did the deaconate as a specific and permanent priestly calling), with the
thorough institutionalization of the Church that occurred with its successful
enculturalization (and later nationalization) after the era of Constantine. “During the first
centuries of Christianity those who wished to become members of the Church were first
subjected to a long preparation….Later on, the class of Catechumens dropped out owing
to the prevailing custom of infant baptism.”41 And yet what history demonstrates is that
the entire empire itself, along with Constantine as a person, will be effectively catechized,
baptized, and established as it follows the same steps of conversion as does each person.
In the Age of Martyrs (100 – 312), the catechumenate had already developed
beyond its simple form of the Apostolic era. “In the ages of persecution it became
necessary to exercise great caution in admitting persons to membership in the Church.
The danger of falling away, or even of betrayal, must be guarded against by a careful
doctrinal and moral training. Hence the institution of the catechumenate and the
Discipline of the Secret. The work of the Apologists had been to remove prejudices
against Christianity, and to set forth its doctrines and practices in such a way as to appeal
to the fair-minded pagan. If anyone was moved to embrace the true religion, he was not at
once admitted, as in the days of the Apostles. At first he was treated as an inquirer, and
only the fundamental doctrines were communicated to him. As soon as he had given
proof of his knowledge and fitness he was admitted to the catechumenate proper, and was
further instructed. After some years spent in this stage he was promoted to the ranks of
the Competentes, i.e. those ready for baptism. As might be expected, he was now

41
Callinicos, Constantine. 1960. The Greek Orthodox Catechism. New York, NY: Greek Archdiocese of
North and South America: 3.

12
instructed more especially in the rites for this purpose. Even when he had been initiated,
his instruction was not yet at an end. During the week after Easter, while the grace of first
fervor was still upon him, the various rites and mysteries in which he had just participated
were more fully explained to him.”42
By the second ecumenical council (Constantinople, 381), the existing office and
protocol of the catechumenate was canonically recognized. “On the first day we make the
Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing
thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend time in
the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.” (Canon viii)43 Vlachos
points out with enthusiasm that “the fact that they were first called Christians and then
Catechumens is quite remarkable.”44 He goes on to document that the purpose of being
made a Christian, made a Catechumen, and then baptized is to struggle against the devil
and the passions, begin spiritual therapy, and be illumined respectively.45 One’s purpose
as a catechumen was “to overcome the final assaults of the demons, while catechumens,
and to be pried little by little from their iron grip.”46 In some local traditions, the names
of un-enrolled initiates and catechumen were inscribed in a special book listing those
membered to the Church “That is why they were regarded as Christians, though they had
not yet received baptism.”47
Within a hundred years of Constantine’s death, the catechumenate would clearly
depict two methods of approaching baptism: 1) those who, tracing their practice directly
to Constantine, postponed baptism until late in life or the deathbed, and 2) those
‘preparing for holy illumination’ by baptism at Pascha.48 Constantine clearly belongs to
the first group. While establishing the Church by the power and influence of the imperial
throne, he is himself being ‘pride from the demons iron grip’ as he moves toward
42
Scannell, T. 1909. Christian Doctrine. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton
Company.
43
Vlachos, Hierotheos. 2004. Catechism in the Tradition of the Church. In Entering the Orthodox Church.
Levadia, Greece: Apostolic Diakonia: 20.
44
Ibid: 21.
45
Ibid: 22.
46
Field, Anne. 1978.The Meaning of the Exorcisms. In From Darkness to Light. Ann Arbor, MI. Servant
Publications: 78.
47
Kucharek, Casimir. 1976. The Sacramental Mysteries: A Byzantine Approach. Allendale, NJ: Alleluia
Press: 92.
48
Meyendorff: 71.

13
baptism. Given the nature of Roman law, the common practice of capital punishment, and
the brutality of hereto un-Christianized Roman culture which was the indisputable
context of Constantine’s struggle, combined with his open support of the Church, it is
most probable that he put off baptism, not for a lack of faith, but as it was discerned to be
good by him and his Christian counselors, and as it was common “to postpone baptism
especially if one’s official duties included the torture and execution of criminals.”49 The
Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (c. 215) states clearly, “If someone is a military
governor, or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease [his occupation] or he
shall be rejected [from Baptism].”50
Historians consistently interpret this postponement of baptism as a sign of weak
faith, but does not the mind of the Church interpret it as a sign of reverence? Inspired to
victory by mystical Christian signs, and presiding over the hundreds of holy bishops at an
ecumenical council, would not even the simplest of men have learned to approach
baptism and the faith of the martyrs with fear and trembling? Baptism was to be a
complete transformation of one’s life unto sinlessness and the practice of paenitentia una
permitted “only one penance and pardon in a lifetime.”51 This early rigorism created a
spiritual atmosphere within which “many deferred baptism until their deathbed, since
baptism bestowed pardon of all sins and eternal life.”52
Would Constantine be considered a greater saint if he had received baptism earlier
in life and then continued to fulfill the imperial duties that were in conflict with the
developing Christian social morality of his era, perhaps ending his days in
excommunication? The only satisfactory explanation for his prolonged catechumenate is
that his understanding of Christianity was thorough, hence his delay, and that he was
profoundly aware that the establishment of holy Orthodoxy demanded that he fulfill the
duties of a hereto pagan throne with all its dark complexities and compromises. His goal
was not spiritual self-satisfaction or even purification (hesychia, stillness, and the idea of
withdrawal from the world had not yet even developed), it was the conversion of a pagan,
multi-national empire.

49
Chadwick: 127.
50
Hippolytus: 16: 10.
51
Kucharek: 235.
52
Ibid.: 247.

14
 Schmemann excels in synthesizing the historical and personal dynamics of
Constantine’s conversion, saying, “In Constantine’s mind the Christian faith, or rather,
faith in Christ, had not come to him through the Church, but had been bestowed
personally and directly for his victory over the enemy — in other words, as he was
fulfilling his imperial duty. Consequently the victory he had won with the help of the
Christian God had placed the emperor — and thereby the empire as well — under the
protection of the Cross and in direct dependence upon Christ. This also meant, however,
that Constantine was converted, not as a man, but as an emperor. Christ Himself had
sanctioned his power and made him His intended representative, and through
Constantine’s person He bound the empire to Himself by special bonds. Here lies the
explanation of the striking fact that the conversion of Constantine was not followed by
any review or re-evaluation of the theocratic conception of empire, but on the contrary
convinced Christians and the Church itself of the emperor’s divine election and obliged
them to regard the empire itself as a consecrated kingdom, chosen by God.53

What Do We Know For Certain?

John Julius Norwich, throughout his trilogy Byzantium, sets a splendid example of
checking historical inquiries with rhetorical safeguards such as “But what actually
happened?” or “What do we know for certain?” We must ask ourselves the same. As
Orthodox Christian students of history, what do we know for certain in regards to
Constantine’s faith? We know for certain that Constantine was exposed to monotheism
and religious tolerance from an early age by way of his father, Constantius, whom he
emulated in many ways. Constantius was a strict adherent to Sun-God worship and
Constantine, having considered the systematic failure of those who practiced polytheism,
“felt it incumbent on him to honor his father’s God alone”.54 And according to
Lactantius, Constantine consistently followed his father’s use of tolerant policy towards
Christianity from his proclamation as Augustus.

53
Schmemann: 65 – 66.
54
Eusebius. Life of Constantine: 490.

15
 We know for certain that Constantine had the opportunity to encounter
Christianity early in life while in Britain, Western Europe and the Middle East where he
met Eusebius of Caesarea. We know for certain that he accounted himself, at the absolute
minimum, obligated to Christ, if not fully converted, from before his victory over
Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge (312). We know for certain that he avoided pagan rites
and supported the Church financially and legally immediately upon his taking the
imperial throne. We know for certain that by 325 he was personally presiding over the
First Ecumenical Council, hearing the greatest minds and souls of Orthodoxy defend the
faith and sacrifice for truth. We know for certain that by 330 he had moved the capital of
the empire to Constantinople and required participants in government to be Christian. We
know for certain that Constantine liberated and established the Church completely, even
erring in the extreme by persecuting heretics and pagans.
We know for certain that one does not have to be baptized in the Orthodox
Church to be referred to as a Christian. But this fact is overlooked in most historical
commentary whether it is an Orthodox, heterodox or secular source. We know for certain
that in making a complete conversion to Christ there can be a significant duration of time
between first identifying with being a Christian and the culminating act of receiving holy
baptism. Examples of this are seen in the lives of Martin of Tours (who had a vision of
Christ as a catechumen), Augustine of Hippo, and the much more recent conversion of
Seraphim Rose. We know for certain that during Constantine’s era it was common to
defer baptism due to the rigors of full membership’s purity and that the mystery of
repentance was available only once in a lifetime.
We also know for certain that, having spent thirty years (half his life) as a
functional, if not literal, catechumen he received baptism immediately upon believing
that his opportunity to do so was at its end. “He was baptized…he now longer put on
imperial robes…and the joyous certainty of the nearness of Christ and His eternal light
never again left him….And the greatest earthly hope of the Church, and the dream of the
triumph of Christ in the world, became associated with his name.”55 We know that he
was blessed to repose on Pentecost, May 22, 337. What better day, than the birthday of
the Church in this world, to receive a man into the bosom of Abraham who have given

55
Schmemann: 80.

16
birth to the Church in civilization? And lastly, we know for certain that no compilation of
facts, historical criticism, or faithless speculation has ever reversed his acceptance in
Christ’s holy Church as the highly venerated Constantine, the Great, Equal to the
Apostles. Poorly documented events and persons in history are common targets of both
dreamily legendary or manipulatively hostile speculation. Yet viewed objectively, great
confidence may be taken in titling Constantine the ‘first Christian emperor.’

Epilogue

Imagine how difficult would it be for a soul seeking salvation to also rule
Byzantium? Could our weak souls even endure a visit there? One day St. Anthony
received a letter from the Emperor Constantius, asking him to come to Constantinople,
and he wondered whether he ought to go or not. So he said to St. Paul, his disciple,
“Ought I to go?” The other replied, “If you go, you will be called Anthony, but if you
stay here, you will be called Saint Anthony.”56 If such is the challenge to a monk visiting
the capitol, how much greater would be the spiritual pitfalls for the empire’s ruler? If the
United States was converted to Orthodoxy in only 18 years, would anyone consider that
‘slow’ or ‘timid’ product of Christian leadership? God’s call to Constantine was great, as
was the man.

56
Ward, Benedicta. 1975. The Desert Christian. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing: 8.

17
 Bibliography

Barns, Timothy. 1981. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

— 1982. The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

— 1984. Early Christianity and the Roman Empire. London: Variorum Reprints.

Callinicos, Constantine. 1960. The Greek Orthodox Catechism. New York, NY: Greek
Archdiocese of North and South America.

Chadwick, Henry. 1993. The Early Church. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Drijvers, Jan Willem. 1992. Helena Augusta. Boston, MA: Brill Publishers.

Drozdov, Metropolitan Philaret. 1984. Will the Non-Orthodox Be Saved? In Orthodox

Life, Vol. 34, No. 6: Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery Press.

Elliott, Thomas G. 1990. The Language of Constantine's Propaganda. In Transactions of

the American Philological Association. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press:
349-353.

Eusebius. 1964. Ecclesiastical History. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.

— 1994. Life of Constantine. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc.

Field, Anne. 1978.The Meaning of the Exorcisms. In From Darkness to Light. Ann
Arbor, MI. Servant Publications.

18
Gilles, Pierre. 1988. Antiquities of Constantinople. New York, NY: Italica Press.

Hayes, Alan L. 2008. Early Christianity (to A.D. 843). Toronto, CAN: Toronto School of
Theology.

Holy Transfiguration Monastery. 1997. Constantine, Equal to the Apostles (May 21). In
The Great Horologion. Boston, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery Press.

Huntingdon, Henry. 1996. Historia Anglorum: The History of the English People.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kucharek, Casimir. 1976. The Sacramental Mysteries: A Byzantine Approach. Allendale,

NJ: Alleluia Press.

Metallinos, Fr. George. 2008. Constantine the Great & Historical Truth (Audio
transcription). Athens, Greece. University of Athens School of Theology.

Meyendorff, John. 1989. Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions. Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Norwich, John Julius. 1996. Byzantium: The Early Centuries. New York, NY: Alfred A.
Knopf.

Schmemann, Alexander. 1977. Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy. Crestwood, NY:

St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

— 1994. The Church Year. In Celebration of Faith. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press.

Shlosser, Franziska E. 2006. Klaus M. Girardet: Die Konstantinische Wende. In Bryn

Mawr Classical Review. Bryn Mawr, PA. Bryn Mawr Press.

19
Sozomen. 1994. Historia Ecclesiastica. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second
Series, Vol.2. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc.

Staniloae, Dumitru. 2002. Orthodox Spirituality. South Canaan, PA. St. Tikhon’s
Seminary Press.

Torino, Alessio. 2008. The Crispus Tragedy. Rome, Italy: National Academy.

Vlachos, Hierotheos. 2004. Catechism in the Tradition of the Church. In Entering the
Orthodox Church. Levadia, Greece: Apostolic Diakonia.

Ward, Benedicta. 1975. The Desert Christian. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing.

Ware, Timothy. 1964. The Orthodox Church. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.

Zosimus 1814. New History (Four Vols.) London, England: Green & Chaplin.

20