Constantine The Great
Overview of Life
Constantine The Great (Flavius Valerius Constantinus Agustus Ceasar) (b272–d337), was a Roman emperor from AD 306 to 337 and the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity. He played a pivotal role in elevating the status of Christianity in Rome, decriminalizing Christian practice and ceasing Christian persecution in a period referred to as the Constantinian shift. This initiated the Christianization of the Roman Empire.
Born in Naissus, in Dardania within Moesia Superior (now Niš, Serbia), Constantine was the son of Flavius Constantius I, a Roman army officer of Illyrian origin who had been one of the four rulers of the Tetrarchy. His mother, Helena, was a Greek woman of low birth, probably from Asia Minor in modern Turkey. Later canonized as a saint, she is traditionally credited for the conversion of her son although early sources state that she favored paganism, then Judaism and later converted around 65 years of age. when Constantine was in his early 30s, he was sent to the east and resided in the courts of emperors Diocletian and Galerius in the eastern provinces. Constantine was held captive in these courts for several years. He witnessed the persecution of Christians including the execution of Saint George in either Lydia or Nicodimia. after Diocletian stepped down in 305 and was replaced by Galerius, he was sent on several suicide missions in the war with the Persians and was forced to fight lions for Galerius’s amusement. After Galerius approved his departure (likely while in an inebriated state), Constantine fled to Brittan and fought in a campaign alongside his father in Britannia. After his father’s death on July 25, 306, Constantine was proclaimed as Augustus (emperor) by his army at Eboracum (York, England). He then engaged in and emerged victorious in several civil wars against emperors Maxentius and Licinius to become the sole ruler of the Roman Empire by 324.
Although Constantine lived much of his life as a pagan, he began to favor Christianity beginning in 312 after his vision of the cross and subsequent victory over Maxentius at the battle of the Milvian Bridge, he was allegedly baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop on his deathbed. the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church reject this and maintain that he was baptized by Pope Sylvester I. He played an influential role in the proclamation of the Edict of Milan in 313, which declared tolerance for Christianity in the Roman Empire. He convoked the First Council of Nicaea in 325 which produced the Nicene Creed. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built on his orders site of Jesus’ tomb that was covered in that time by a temple of Aphrodite. He has historically been referred to as the “First Christian Emperor”. He is venerated as a saint in Eastern Catholicism and orthodox Christianity, and he did much to push Christianity towards the mainstream of Roman culture.
The Donation of Constantine
The “Donation Of Constantine” was a 8th century document that alleges that Constantine donated all temporal power of the western roman empire to the pope. although many parts of this document are false as exposed by Lorenzo Valla. this was exposed due to the use of modern Latin in the document which didn’t exist in early 300s. it is also undeniable that giving possession of half the know world to someone else who has no military expertise is increadibly stupid. However, Lorenzo also condemns another work named the Acts of the Blessed Sylvester in his book. This document, however, he dismisses not because of its content but because its “Papist”. this document describes Constantine’s baptism in Rome (instead of Nicomedia) and also describes several “lesser” donations that Constantine gave to the Church. The forged 8th century document pulls much inspiration from the earlier 4th century document named Acts of Sylvester which is linked below(both online or download).
Acts of Sylvester
Acts of Sylvester + life of Constantine (not Eusbius’s version)
Acts of Sylvester (350-400) tells a very different story then the one reported by Eusebius of Caesarea in his book “Life Of Constantine” (339AD) and claims to be a correction to it. in Acts, a pagan Constantine contracts leprosy and after refusing to sacrifice children is converted by pope Sylvester and then is baptized. Constantine then gives a large list donations to the church. This is in contrast to the story told by Eusebius which states doesn’t mention some of the donations and alleges that Constantine was baptized in Nicomedia to an unnamed bishop. about 45 years later, saint Jerome allegedly stated (more on this later) that the bishop who baptized Constantine was Eusebius of Nicomedia. so what we have is 2 competing stories that directly contradict one another. most historians have taken Eusebius’s and Jerome’s positions at face value and have rejected the acts of Sylvester as a result of its the incredible exaggerated nature (ex. Sylvester slaying a dragon, St Helena converting to Judaism and then later Christianity).
however I feel it unfair to fully discredit acts as a whole over its fantastical elements. the document was written about 20-60 years after the death of Constantine and all of the alleged donations present in the acts where in effect by that time (450). as well almost all of the donations can be independently verified.
i am not trying to prove the acts as a completely literal sequence of events. the story is obviously not completely literal and i think it was not supposed to be considered as such even for its original audience and was meant to be allegorical in many respects. the acts were written within living memory of the events in question and in some places blatantly contradict them in some places (sol worship in 324, human sacrifice which was illegal in Rome, literally being cured of leprosy ect…). In my view, the act was meant to be a legend describing real underlying events but fitting them into the biblical narrative of pauls conversion. this is much like how eusbius’s biography lies about Constantine to make him appear more similar to Moses (ex. he was a child in Diocletian’s court, he died on easter Sunday which is unlikely, he never was complicit in persecuting the church, implies he was Christian from birth, portrays Maxentius like the pharaoh despite ignoring key differences. etc…)
What I’m trying to display here is that there is a historical basis for the acts and combine with errors in the other sources shouldn’t be thrown out on its own due to its fantastical and contradicting elements.
It should also be noted that much scholarship on this subject is written by either protestants, atheists or orthodox. almost all scholarship (at least that which i have read in English or have translated) presupposes that complete falsity of the text on what in most cases is purely anti catholic canards. these can be boiled down to several key trash arguments that include a denial of historical foundation for legitimacy of papacy, Constantine was an Arian, Constantine was a pagan, Constantine created catholic church, logical fallacy related to Constantine’s silence in Eusbius’s account on the papacy, and arguments that catholic church is corrupt and untrustworthy.
In my view, it is clear that the scriptures states that Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter and established his church on him and promised that the gates of Hell shall never prevail against the church and that the church has the power to loose and bind (see my in-depth study of the Greek text). therefore i find it irrational to discard offhand the apostolic teaching guided by the holy spirit on this matter, which has been passed down through the church for 1700 years and which was never officially discarded as a teaching by the only church established by Christ, without solid reasoning and not the result of conjecture or unsound reasoning.
The Donations provided in Acts Of Sylvester and their probability are provided below:
- Makes persecution of Christians illegal. definitely true; as explained by edict of Milan in 313.
- bans the blaspheming of Christ’s name. somewhat true; Constantine suppressed pagan cults especially within Constantinople.
- Tithing of government funds to support church: Definitely true
- Donation of lands to the church: Definitely true; edict of Milan returned land seized from church. Constantine personally donated other lands including the the Lateran Palace and Vatican Hill.
- Law of Sanctuary: probable; was already a well known custom in Greece and Rome, probable that Constantine granted right to church in some circumstances
- Recognition of Papal supremacy specifically in appointment of bishops. complicated see below
- Pope not seen as subject to the emperor and is recognized as having primacy. complicated see below
Donations 1-5 are not that controversial. 6 and 7 on the other hand are very controversial. this brings us too how much should we trust Eusebius as a source. papal primacy had already been firmly established by 339 when Eusebius died.
well start with #7 and then go to #6. the recognition of the pope as an equal or at minimum highly favored is recognized in the primary sources. Eusebius, a primary source, describes Constantine meeting with the bishops at Rome (Pope Miltiades or Sylvester)and sitting at a table with them in a way that implies a level of distinction that does not fit into the master slave dynamic typical of roman society. “The emperor also personally inviting the society of God’s ministers, distinguished them with the highest possible respect and honor, showing them favor in deed and word as persons consecrated to the service of his God. Accordingly, they were admitted to his table, though mean in their attire and outward appearance; yet not so in his estimation, since he thought he saw not the man as seen by the vulgar eye, but the God in him” (Eusebius 339). The exact nature of this relationship is unknown as Eusebius did not elaborate upon this further but the general principal is at least sound. in addition by the second half of the 400s, the two swords theory (pope has complete authority over spiritual matters and emperor retains control of temporal power) was firmly established. in that time pope Gelasius I wrote a letter to the current emperor. He stated that the religious power which he retains is greater than the temporal power the emperor retains. Gelasius was not rebuked by the emperor for this, showing that it was accepted at this time by the emperor. it is not unreasonable to assume that the emperors acceptance of this could have originated 100 years prior with Constantine and was then passed down by oral tradition.
going on to #6, papal primacy was firmly established by the 4th century.
Here is a list of pre-Constantine sources affirming papal primacy.
Pope Clement I
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
Hermas
“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).
Dionysius of Corinth
“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).
“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).
The Martyrs of Lyons
“And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])
“And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1–2).
Irenaeus
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Eusebius the Unreliable Narrator
Eusebius himself affirms these statements. he describes favorably a conversation that pope victor had about his power to excommunicate heretics outside of his geographical jurisdiction. Eusbius however was not totally orthodox in his beliefs And was himself Arian leaning, being excommunicated in 325 before being exonerated, hesitantly signing the Nicaean creed. essentially what happens is that the pope delegates to the council forced his hand into renouncing Arianism although this renouncement was likely done in bad faith. it is interesting to mention that while Constantine mentions many popes and other bishops that were his contemporaries, he never mentions Silvester in any of his writings. it is likely that Eusbius was salty over Nicaea and may have even misstated the pope who oversaw the council of the Lateran. this discussion will be continued below on the section on Sylvester’s day of coronation.
In addition he finished his writings about Constantine during the reign of his Arian son, Constantinius II. Constantinius II was know for trying to form the church in his own image, convening several councils in an attempt to affirm semi-arianism. it is not out of the realm of possibility that he had influence over the writings of Eusebius.
Acts of Sylvester was also written within living memory of these events and alleges that eusbius’s account was tampered with. the beginning of the acts in fact state depending on the version that it is either a correction to eusbius viva or the original unedited version that wasn’t tainted by constanius ii or Arians.
Writing in the 800s, a certain writer who wrote a revised version of the story (called the guida vita) stated this
ἀλλ’ ἄπαγε τῆς ματαίας αὐτῶν καὶ διαβολικῆς φρονήσεως τὸν ληρώδη σκοπόν· οὐκ ἐξει οὕτως ἡ ἀλήθεια, ἄφρονες καὶ ἀνόητοι. ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀληθέστερον φαίνεται τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ μακαρίου Σιλβέστρου ἐν ̔Ρώμῃ τᾔ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βεβαπτίσθαι αὐτόν, ὅπερ καὶ ἀληθείας ἔχεται,
“Those who dwell in the East are of corrupt belief, having Arian tendencies. But away with their vain and devilish opinions and their senseless views! The truth is not as they say, you foolish and senseless ones. It seems to me more truthful that he (Constantine) was baptized by the blessed Sylvester in elder Rome — which is also in accordance with the truth — and I accept this and believe it without hesitation as more secure and certain. I testify this to all: that the decrees said to have been issued in his name to Miltiades were fabricated by the Arians, seeking thereby to acquire prestige for themselves. These same Arians also wish to malign the most pious emperor Constantine, claiming he was unbaptized, which is both unbelievable and false. For if he had not been baptized, he would not have partaken of the divine mysteries at the Council of Nicaea, nor would he have assembled with the holy fathers — a thing which is absurd both to think and to say.”
- Of note it is interesting that this author writes of a tradition alleging that Constantine ate the eucharist which would necessitate baptism and confirmation.
All of these give reason to be doubtful of the accuracy of some of Eusebius’s accounts. the Arians other schismatic-adjacent eastern bishops were opposed to the papacy after the delegates sent by pope Sylvester to Nicaea where the driving force behind the creed and the excommunication of Arius. It also doesn’t help that all of the eyewitness accounts of Constantine’s baptism were from Arians.
Proof of Recognition of Primacy
going back to Constantine’s conversion in 312 we should ask the question: did Constantine meet with Pope Miltiades or his successor Sylvester. the answer is yes, Eusebius infers that he met with Pope Miltiades and/or Silvester after the battle of Milvian Bridge although he leaves details to a minimum. it would not have been out of place for Constantine to recognize the popes authority within the church as most of the church, with the exception of the schismatics like the Arians, excepted this. in addition recognition of a high priest was a social norm in roman society. the priesthood in Rome although not delineated the same way as with the jews or Catholicism had a hierarchical structure with a supreme pontiff. Constantine himself was the high priest of the roman religion and retained the position after he converted to Christianity. this was not out of a continued belief or attachment to the old god as some have said, but was instead a tool for evangelization and ecumenicalism with the people of the old religion. in his speech given to the senate he expresses this. the bishop of Rome also claimed the title since 294 and the title was held exclusively by him after 376. The title however was not officially recognized by the state or some of the eastern bishops and fell out of use in late antiquity until it was revived during the counter reformation. In retrospect, Constantine retaining the title was most likely not the greatest of ideas as Constantius II and Valens effectively tried to use the position to exert control over the church and install Arianism as the state religion. The title was eventually abandoned in 376 after the empire had become Christianized and the title was no longer politically useful. Constantine would have likely viewed the bishop of Rome as the high priest of the Christian religion as his predecessors such as Aurelian did.
Constantine and Sol Invictus
One of the most contentious parts of Constantine’s reign was his relationship with the god Apollo/Mithras/Sol. the cult of sol Invictus which was created under arilian, stemmed from two primary sources. the first was the Greek tradition which infact had 2 sun gods. the first was Sol who was a titan (Brother of Kratos, Zues’s father). Accourding to legend, Zeus spared him due to his necessity as the literal sun, and sol flew every day from sun rise to sunset across the sky before resting. after the Greeks philosopher Eratosthenes proved the flat earth model wrong in 255bc, this changed to him continually flying his chariot around the globe although some areas kept the flat earth model. in later times however, apollo also came to be associated with the sun. apollo was orignialy the god of healing and music, but over time started being associated with light. eventually, apollo became recognized as the sun, and in some versions was the rider of the chariot instead of Sol.
The other origin of Sol Invictus was Mithras. this god came from the east, possibly from Arabia or Persia or beyond. he was very similar to the roman god of Sol. in legend Mithras wore a Phrygian cap, fought and cornered a sacred bull in a cave that has the 12 zodiac symbols inscribed on the ground. He then kills the sacred Bull in the cave in the presence of Sol and then feasts with him.
in the 270s, the emperor Aurelian has started to see problems with roman religion. it is disorganized, contradictory and ununified. this causes Aurelian to look for ways to reform the religion. during these years Aurelian had much contact with Christianity. he showed interest in the religion and did not actively persecute it. he involved himself in theological debates and tried to resolve them to try to ensure unity in the empire. during this time he started to appreciated certain parts of the Christian religion. he liked the institution of the sacraments as well as Christianity’s monotheistic nature and its approach to orthodoxy. it was then that he started to devised a way to create a new religion that would unify Rome. he implemented this in 274 when he ruled the Cult of the Unconquerable Sun (Sol Invictus) was the official Cult of Rome. he instituted a from of Eucharist in this new religion drawing from Mithras’s feast story (he copied this from the Christians), he declared that the birthday of Sol was on the 25th of December and not the 21 of December (copied from Christians), and he effectively made Sol Invictus the highest and official god of Rome (this was also copied from jews/Christians. Also a good comparison would be that Sol was God and that the other cults were Angels in the way he setup the hierarchy). Aurelian ordered that Sol be put at the forefront of the emperor and be inscribed on Currency. Aurelian had essentially made a “ripoff” of Christianity which was disguised as sun worship.
During the next 30-40 years, this cult remained incredibly popular. Constantine was an avid adherent during his early years. in fact, during his reported vision in 310 he was sleeping in the temple of Sol and was advised by the people there that his vision was that of Sol. Sol appeared on Constantine’s coins until 323 and was a major symbol employed by him during his reign.
However, the roman religion was not what we think of today as religion. it shares almost nothing in common with the Abrahamic religions with the exception of animal sacrifice. in fact it resembled Hinduism more than any other modern religion. the roman religion was almost entirely based off of superstitions. they worshiped gods who they believed interacted with humans directly in the golden age and then slowly disassociated themselves over time. now I myself have several theories of how this relates to the Nephilim and the watchers which can be seen here, but for the sake of this discussion we will assume that these men (whether angel, demi angel, alien or human kings) lived long ago and stories were passed down. the gods of the romans and Greeks performed no miracles and showed no signs. the romans would worship them and then when their transactional sacrifices would not prove successful they would pivot and make an excuse. in addition many people in Rome, especially those of the Epicureanism persuasion, questioned how much influence these gods actually exerted. In addition many in the educated elite thought that many of the things associated with the gods could be explained by natural phenomenon and not by divine intervention (ex. Sol riding Chariot across sky, Zeus throwing lighting, etc….)
This brings us to who Sol Invictus was as a god. Sol was unconquerable. No one could prevent the sun from rising in the east and setting in the west. the emperors used Sol as a symbol of their dominance; they were unstoppable (It is kind of ironic that Aurelian who created the religion was killed by Praetorian Guard). This symbolism continued through out the decades with every emperor including Diocletian, Constantius I, and Maxentius, putting Sol on their coins as a symbol of his protection.
it is also clear that Sol was Constantine’s original patron god although Constantine may have had doubts about his power. it is quite clear from sources that Constantine did not began to worship Christ before October 28 312. He began issuing coinage with Sol in July of 306 when he became emperor. he then continued to worship sol and during a dream incubation in the temple of Sol in 310 he received a vision. however what is interesting is that Constantine himself did not identify the god in the vision. he consulted mystics to reveal the identity of the deity which they identified based of the description Constantine gave to be the god apollo. while this may sound obvious, in my opinion Constantine’s inability to identify the deity implies that he must not have resembled apollo in some way, which resulted in Constantine’s doubt. never the less, after talking with the mystics, Constantine felt reassured and continued to worship Sol until the eve of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. it was in this dream that god revealed who he was to Constantine and told him to conquer in his name.
this is the time that Constantine started favoring really favoring the Christians. before this him and his father had token part in the Diocletian persecution but from a distance. Constantius 1, did not martyr the Christians like in the east and instead only confiscated property. During Constantine’s early reign he followed in the footsteps of his father. in 313 he signed the edict of Milan which guaranteed religious freedom for Christians in the empire (only Constantine upheld the agreement). He then gave the Lateran palace to the Papacy and ordered the construction of St. Peters Basilica with government funds. If one is to believe the early date for baptism he also came fully into the church at this time.
so how do we explain the continued use of pagan imagery on Constantine’s coins. I will offer two different argument.
argument 1 is that Constantine fully converted to Christianity and used Sol Invictus as a symbol of power and a form of appeasement to the pagan elite. as stated before Sol was considered a symbol of power. by putting Sol on his coins, Constantine was showing that he had the favor of the most powerful god and that he was undefeatable. in addition Constantine was not well versed in Christian theology especially before the Council of Nicaea. because of Aurelian’s theft of theology from Christianity, it is likely that Constantine saw Sol as an inferior incomplete version of the Christian god. Much like how the Jews had a flawed understanding of Jehovah/El in Christian theology, Sol was a flawed understanding of Jesus. Portraying Sol in this way allows for Constantine to bridge the gap between paganism (the extremely dominant religion in west) and Christianity (a minority religion) without causing chaos. Constantine didn’t view putting Sol on a coin as heresy, but merely a transitional step that showed his power that he later eliminated over time.
argument 2 is that Constantine still practiced some form of polytheism into the late 310s and early 320s. I view this argument as more unlikely due to the fact that no contemporary source (Eusebius and Lactantius) supports this, however i think there is a chance it is true, since the contemporary sources are somewhat unclear in this area and have high Christian bias. in this view Constantine adopted Christ as his patron god in 312 but later continued worshiping other gods in addition to him. Then after experiences some form of disease, he rejects all other gods but Christ and joins in full orthodoxy. This view is supported by later date interpretations of Acts of Sylvester as well as the pagan accounts of his baptism. in this argument, after his full conversion he rejects Sol as a deity and removes him from his coinage.
Architecture and Statues
Another overlap with Constantine and Sol Invictus is the Arch of Constantine.
there is a popular theory among atheists and some protestants that when originally built, the arch stood Infront of the colossus of Nero so that the colossus stood over it while viewed from a distance. While i learned of this theory this from a absolutely terrible and ahistorical “Real History” documentary, I feel it is important to discuss. While there is a good chance it is coincidence, the Colossus of Nero which had been converted to a statue of Sol, stood right behind the arch, and stood over it when viewed from a distance. First of all we must discuss the construction of the arch. the arch was commissioned by order of the senate, not Constantine. it was constructed primary when Constantine was away fighting a civil ware with Licinius. this means it is likely Constantine had very little oversight into the project. the arch also reused frescos from other roman projects. this is why it contains several murals showing sacrifice to Jupiter and other gods. its also unclear whether Constantine even knew that these frescos were on the arch as they are not clearly visible from the ground. in addition i doubt that Constantine would purposefully align his arch with the statue of the highly unpopular emperor and arch nemesis of Christendom.
going back to the Sol statue theory, it doesnt have much evidence. many credible reconstructions place the statue offset of the arch. In addition even if the two were aligned, the framing would be substandard. one would have to be within 38 yards for the framing to be correct when looking through cutout which is actually very close in person (its in the middle of the old roundabout). then to see it from far away one must be around 262 yards away or around 800 ft away to be able to see a tiny head of statue in the distance. compare this to the slightly smaller gold driller statue in Tulsa and adjusting for the size distance, the head is barley visible from an equivalent distance. in my opinion this theory holds no water.
For the sake of the argument, however, lets assume this theory true. In my opinion it still doesn’t matter that the arch frames the statue. Sol represented Rome and the unconquerable nature of the emperor and the empire itself as stated previously. In my opinion the framing would have been symbolic if anything and not a expression of a support of paganism especially since Constantine had limited involvement in the project.
Finally we move to the statue of Constantine in Constantinople.
What exactly it looked like has been debated, but it is generally agreed upon that it depicts Constantine with a crown of light, holding a cross/relic of the true cross. the fact that he is holding a cross or relic is good evidence that it is not a pagan statue, but many attribute the crown of light to be evidence that it was pagan. while it is true the statue used tradition roman style, the appearance of a halo/crown of light/glowing head is not exclusive to the pagan gods. light being emitted from the head is mention in Revelation 10:1 in regards to an angel, Matthew 17:2 describing Jesus during transfiguration, Ezekiel 1:28 describing god, and finally Exodus 34:29-35 which describes Moses as having a crown of light after descending from Mount Sinai. Nothing about sun rays in and of itself proves pagan origins and the use of contemporary art styles does not either.
Conflicting Visions
Vision of Deity (Apollo?)
(unknown pagan 310)
The first vision attested to by Constantine which was made around 310 took place sometime after Constantine’s coronation in 306 while he was incubating a vision. The text is as follows:
For on the day after that news had been received and you had undertaken the labor of double stages on your journey, you learnt that all the waves had subsided, and that the all-pervading calm which you had left behind had been restored. Fortune herself so ordered this matter that the happy outcome of your affairs prompted you to convey to the immortal gods what you had vowed at the very spot where you had turned aside toward the most beautiful temple in the whole world, or rather, to the deity made manifest, as you saw. For you saw, I believe, O Constantine, your Apollo, accompanied by Victory, offering you laurel wreaths, each one of which carries a portent of thirty years. For this is the number of human ages which are owed to you without fail—beyond the old age of a Nestor. And—now why do I say “I believe”?—you saw, and recognized yourself in the likeness of him to whom the divine songs of the bards had prophesied that rule over the whole world was due. And this I think has now happened, since you are, O Emperor, like he, youthful, joyful, a bringer of health and very handsome. Rightly, therefore, have you honored those most venerable shrines with such great treasures that they do not miss their old ones, any longer. Now may all the temples be seen to beckon you to them, and particularly our Apollo, whose boiling waters punish perjuries—which ought to be especially hateful to you.
Immortal gods, when will you grant that day on which this most manifestly present god, with peace reigning everywhere, may visit those groves of Apollo as well, both sacred shrines and steaming mouths of springs? Their bubbling waters cloudy with gentle warmth seem to wish to smile, Constantine, at your gaze, and to insert themselves within your lips.
You will certainly marvel at that seat of your divinity too, and its waters warmed without any trace of soil on fire, which has no bitterness of taste or exhalation, but a purity of draught and smell such as you find in icy springs. And there you will grant favors, and establish privileges, and at last restore my native place because of your veneration of that very spot.
most have looked at this vision as proof of a pattern of Constantine lying about visions. however the accuracy of the vision outside of identity of apollo as the god seen is impressive (text doesn’t state this definitely, it could have been an angel, saint, or the Christian god for all we know. what is definite is that Constantine did not know who it was with certainty.) It states that Constantine was given 30 wreaths each representative of a full year of reign. the accuracy of this is uncanny. Constantine officially reign 30 years, 9 months, 27 days which is almost 30 full years. If we count the time he was acting emperor as his fathers vicar it comes even closer. they had to suspend campaign in spring of 306 due to Constantius 1 becoming ill and bed ridden. this means Constantine likely acted as Augustus for potently up to 2 months preceding his fathers death. this brings his entire acting reign to 30 years 12 months or a complete 30 years.
Another uncanny truth is that Constantine was told he would rule the entire world. in antiquity this was usually used as a way to state they controlled all the land of value that wasn’t inhabited by savages or that was desert. This came true in 324 when Constantine defeat Licinius and finally controlled, Gaal, Britannia, Iberia, Western Germany, Italy, Africa, Greece, Asia minor, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa. this included every city west of Persia. he then campaigned against Persia and took everything preceding the great deserts of modern Iraq.
It is also interesting that the deity described closely resembles the traits of the Christ. he is youthful (he is compared to Constantine who was 33 years old, the exact age of christ at his death (luke 3:23)), joyful (John 15:11), a bringer of health (Exodus 15:26,Matthew 4:23) and very handsome (kind of a stretch because of Isiah 53:2 description of earthly body but the vision would likely have been his divine person so Revelation 1:16 supports this as well as descriptions of angels as being perfect stunning and beautiful as the preincarnate christ appeared in the form of the angel of the lord to Abraham).
Now i am not saying that Christ himself was the bearer of this prophecy for it could also have came from an angel or a saint or might have simply been a dream, but i do believe in the possibility of divine origin for this vision because of these reasons.
Visions at Ponte Milvio
(Eusbius 330s)
eusebius description of Constantine’s visions is as follows:
Chapter 28. How, while he was praying, God sent him a Vision of a Cross of Light in the Heavens at Mid-day, with an Inscription admonishing him to conquer by that.
Accordingly he called on him with earnest prayer and supplications that he would reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of after-time has established its truth? He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, Conquer by this. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.
Chapter 29. How the Christ of God appeared to him in his Sleep, and commanded him to use in his Wars a Standard made in the Form of the Cross.
He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.
Chapter 30. The Making of the Standard of the Cross.
At dawn of day he arose, and communicated the marvel to his friends: and then, calling together the workers in gold and precious stones, he sat in the midst of them, and described to them the figure of the sign he had seen, bidding them represent it in gold and precious stones. And this representation I myself have had an opportunity of seeing.
Chapter 31. A Description of the Standard of the Cross, which the Romans now call the Labarum.
Now it was made in the following manner. A long spear, overlaid with gold, formed the figure of the cross by means of a transverse bar laid over it. On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones; and within this, the symbol of the Saviour’s name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter P being intersected by X in its centre: and these letters the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later period. From the cross-bar of the spear was suspended a cloth, a royal piece, covered with a profuse embroidery of most brilliant precious stones; and which, being also richly interlaced with gold, presented an indescribable degree of beauty to the beholder. This banner was of a square form, and the upright staff, whose lower section was of great length, bore a golden half-length portrait of the pious emperor and his children on its upper part, beneath the trophy of the cross, and immediately above the embroidered banner.
The emperor constantly made use of this sign of salvation as a safeguard against every adverse and hostile power, and commanded that others similar to it should be carried at the head of all his armies.
Chapter 32. How Constantine received Instruction, and read the Sacred Scriptures.
These things were done shortly afterwards. But at the time above specified, being struck with amazement at the extraordinary vision, and resolving to worship no other God save Him who had appeared to him, he sent for those who were acquainted with the mysteries of His doctrines, and enquired who that God was, and what was intended by the sign of the vision he had seen. They affirmed that He was God, the only begotten Son of the one and only God: that the sign which had appeared was the symbol of immortality, and the trophy of that victory over death which He had gained in time past when sojourning on earth. They taught him also the causes of His advent, and explained to him the true account of His incarnation. Thus he was instructed in these matters, and was impressed with wonder at the divine manifestation which had been presented to his sight. Comparing, therefore, the heavenly vision with the interpretation given, he found his judgment confirmed; and, in the persuasion that the knowledge of these things had been imparted to him by Divine teaching, he determined thenceforth to devote himself to the reading of the Inspired writings.
Moreover, he made the priests of God his counselors, and deemed it incumbent on him to honor the God who had appeared to him with all devotion. And after this, being fortified by well-grounded hopes in Him, he hastened to quench the threatening fire of tyranny.
this is the most complete version of the story which is said to have been directly written down by Eusebius after hearing it directly from Constantine. it is likely that the events concerning exact timing of seeking out bishops is not in sequential as Lactantius account which was written much closer to the event states that the dream was the night before the battle. this account shares almost nothing in common with the pagan account, the pagan mentions no sign or banner and this vision features no promises of age or territory outside that of Maxentius. it is unlikely that these accounts are describing the same event.
Vision at Ponte Milvio
(Lactantius 314)
And now a civil war broke out between Constantine and Maxentius. Although Maxentius kept himself within Rome, because the soothsayers had foretold that if he went out of it he should perish, yet he conducted the military operations by able generals. In forces he exceeded his adversary; for he had not only his father’s army, which deserted from Severus, but also his own, which he had lately drawn together out of Mauritania and Italy. They fought, and the troops of Maxentius prevailed. At length Constantine, with steady courage and a mind prepared for every event, led his whole forces to the neighbourhood of Rome, and encamped them opposite to the Milvian bridge. The anniversary of the reign of Maxentius approached, that is, the sixth of the kalends of November, and the fifth year of his reign was drawing to an end. Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter Χ, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of CHRIST. Having this sign (ΧР ), his troops stood to arms. The enemies advanced, but without their emperor, and they crossed the bridge. The armies met, and fought with the utmost exertions of valour, and firmly maintained their ground. In the meantime a sedition arose at Rome, and Maxentius was reviled as one who had abandoned all concern for the safety of the commonweal; and suddenly, while he exhibited the Circensian games on the anniversary of his reign, the people cried with one voice, “Constantine cannot be overcome!”
Dismayed at this, Maxentius burst from the assembly, and having called some senators together, ordered the Sibylline books to be searched. In them it was found that:— “On the same day the enemy of the Romans should perish.” Led by this response to the hopes of victory, he went to the field. The bridge in his rear was broken down. At sight of that the battle grew hotter. The hand of the Lord prevailed, and the forces of Maxentius were routed. He fled towards the broken bridge; but the multitude pressing on him, he was driven headlong into the Tiber. This destructive war being ended, Constantine was acknowledged as emperor, with great rejoicings, by the senate and people of Rome.
This account is very similar to the Eusbius’s with the exception of Constantine seeking priests before the battle. this account also doesn’t state that the entire army saw the symbol although stating that he saw the heavenly sign in a dream might imply that he had saw it previously in the heavens.
Vision at Rome
(Acts of Sylvester)
That night, after the day had passed in this manner, silence fell, and as the emperor slept, behold, Saints Peter and Paul appeared to him in a vision, saying:
“We are Peter and Paul. Because you have put an end to these crimes and shuddered at the shedding of innocent blood, we have been sent by Christ Jesus, our Lord, to bring you counsel for your healing. Listen, therefore, to our instructions and follow them exactly. Sylvester, the bishop of Rome, has fled your persecution and is hiding in caves among the rocks with his clerics on Mount Soracte. Summon him to you, and he will show you the pool of mercy. When he immerses you in it three times, the affliction of leprosy will leave you. And when this is accomplished, repay your Savior by restoring all the churches of the Roman world by your decree. Purify yourself, forsake all idolatry, and worship the one true God alone.”
Rising from sleep, Constantine immediately summoned his attendants and, according to his dream, sent for Sylvester.
The bishop, believing he was being taken to martyrdom, exhorted his clergy:
“the time has come in which he has taught us to assign the class of our works fruit Behold, the Lord again walks spiritually among men: if anyone wants to follow him: he will deny himself to himself: and take up his cross: and follow him“
And saying this, he made a prayer and fulfilled every mystery, commending the soul and giving peace to all, he departed. 50 clerics from all over the world followed him with thirty priests and five deacons desiring to succumb to the passion together
thinking it better to die with him for Christ than to be feasted in his absence: for he was always calm in mind and serene: so do all clerics: and like chickens exhorting his own: that he might show his dear love to all around him: and every hour he admonishes them
he would train them Whence it came to pass: that all the sages of learning renewed passion they would rather love than fear: and at the same time they would hasten eagerly with him. He went on therefore, as has been said: he reached the king. Then immediately rising up before him he saluted, saying: We congratulate you that you have come well:
Saint Syluester answered: Peace May victory be granted to you from heaven.
When the king received this message with a cheerful spirit and a most pleasant expression, he explained to him everything that had happened and had been revealed, according to the previously mentioned text.
At the end of his narration, he inquired about who these gods, Peter and Paul, were, who had visited him and why they had revealed the hidden path to his salvation. To this, Saint Sylvester replied:
“There is only one God, whom we worship, who created the whole world from nothing—that is, heaven and earth and all things in them. Peter and Paul are not gods but servants of God. By pleasing Him through faith, they attained such holiness that they became the foremost among all saints and were made apostles by God.
Thus, they were the first to preach the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to the nations, and from them, the entire Church took its beginning. After completing their apostolic mission, they achieved the crown of martyrdom and are now friends of Almighty God.“
When the emperor heard this and similar things with great joy, he asked: “Do there exist any images of these apostles, so that I may recognize in their likenesses those who were revealed to me and who told me that they were sent by God?“
Then Saint Sylvester ordered his deacon to bring forth an image of the apostles. When the emperor beheld it, he cried out with a great voice, “There is nothing in this image that differs from the faces of those whom I saw in my vision. They told me: ‘Send for Sylvester, the bishop, and he will show you the pool of mercy, in which, when you are washed, you will receive healing from all your wounds.‘”
Saint Sylvester replied: “Listen to me, O King, and seek the necessary pool of salvation in this way: First, believe that Christ, the Son of God, came down from heaven and dwelt among men to reveal this pool to those who believe in Him.”
The emperor answered, “Had I not believed, I would not have sent for you at all.“
Then Saint Sylvester said: “Impose upon yourself a week of fasting. Set aside your purple robes and enter your chamber, put on humble garments, lay down sackcloth, and confess that out of ignorance you persecuted Christians. Proclaim not only with your words but also with your heart that He is the Savior of both body and soul. Repent for having killed many of God’s saints. And during this week, command the temples to be closed and all sacrifices to idols to cease. Release the poor from their debts, order prisoners to be set free, grant indulgence to those in exile or suffering in mines or other tribulations. Throughout the week, command almsgiving and acts of charity, ensuring there are trustworthy individuals to carry out these tasks.“
Then Emperor Constantine said: “It is evident that all men devoted to various cults cling to their superstitions, and where falsehoods about God exist, divine glory cannot be found. But if He is invisible, and when invoked through water grants this power to cleanse sins and heal bodies, then it is certain that He is the true God, whose apostles deemed me worthy to visit and instruct me to believe in the one true God as my Savior.“
As Constantine spoke these things, Saint Sylvester laid his hands upon the emperor’s head, blessed him, and made him a catechumen before departing.
this account has similarities with both the pagan version and the eusbius version. like the eusebius version, after his dream he calls for the clergy and recieves them and elevates their place. unlike it however there is no mention of battle or signs. it also has a slight similarities to the pagan version being that he admits to being unable to distinguish what god visited him. it is likely the corolation with the pagan version is simply coincidence. the similarities with the eusbius account are very interesting however.
Heres one line of thought on this.
The similarities are not surprising considering Acts is supposed to be a correction of Eusebius’s account. If the two visions are the same as some later chronologies say, then the eusebius acount is definitly the more accurate portrayal of it. human sacrafice had been illegal in rome since the monarchy and it is niegh impossible that constantines priests would have encouraged its use. its also niegh impossible that the author did not know this, as it was written within living memory of pagan control of rome.
one way to look at it is that it isn’t really about the details — it’s more about what it represents. It mirrors something real: Constantine’s dramatic shift away from old Roman traditions (that are highly exaggerated aka human sacrifice) and toward Christianity mirrors pauls. in a way the author is in fact presenting Constantine as the new Paul, a persecutor to a believer, much like eusbius makes him the new Moses by having him destroy the pharaoh through water. Constantine is portrayed as turning away from traditional pagan practices—whether child sacrifice or reliance on pagan gods—and embracing a new faith through jesus christ. looking at it another way; Instead of taking the old, pagan path that leads to death, he chooses a new way, which leads to the romes emancipation from sin. seeing it in this way it aligns with eusbius’s account the vision is a moment that convinced him to fight under the Christian God’s protection. In both cases, he’s shown at a crossroads and in both cases he choses Christ and sends for the pope, who then makes him a chatechumen.
Here is another line of though
Constantine witnessed the vision described by Eusebius but continued some form of paganism (worshiping Christ and other gods) until he was stricken with disease and had this vision and then came into full orthodox belief around 324.
Constantine’s Baptism Overview
Who baptized Constantine is a much less clear answer than the donations. the support of Eusebius of Nicomedia preforming the baptism has large support among historians on account of it being the only contemporary source that is readably available. however the source that we draw this from is incredibly biased and pro Arian. the only non Arian source of the time period was Jerome. this gives credence to the story being true as Jerome was born and raised in Italy. however, Jerome also lived in Palestine for large span of time before writing on this topic which restricts its definiteness. it has been alleged that Arians in Constantinople who distributed his works added in the line which states “Constantine, baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia at the very end of his life, falls into the dogma of Arius, and from that time until now seizures of churches and discord of the whole world have followed.”
There are several sources with different accounts however. As stated above, acts of Sylvester tells the story of him converting sometime after 312, probably after 324 as he defeated Licinius (Acts of Sylvester states he was sole roman emperor). The problem with this source is that it alleges that Constantine was actively persecuting Christians in 326 (when he returned to Rome from the east) despite the fact he had commissioned St. Peters Basilica in 318 and issued the edict of Milan in 312. this results in it being a unreliable account.
Pagan Account of Baptism
There is also another account that conflicts with Eusebius, which was written in the 360s, much closer to the actual event. in the mid fourth century there are accounts of polytheists stating that Constantine’s baptism was linked with the murder of his son.
In around the year 326, Constantine ordered his first son Crispus to be put to death (Im not completely convinced by the accuracy of dating methods used by researchers with dating coins of Fausta to July 326, they seem to be a stretch although i agree the year must be close to 326 being at most +- 2 years). in the years proceeding this, Crispus was considered by Constantine to be his favorite son. So what happened? The generally excepted theory is that Constantine’s wife at the time (Fausta) accused Crispus of raping her in a plot to ensure her bloodline would inherit the throne. Constantine in a rage ordered Crispus to be killed. Later after realizing his wife’s betrayal, she was also executed. later that year he passed some extreme for the times adultery laws. He also decreed that any historians who recorded the murders would be punished severely.
The pagan accounts state that since the romans found this sin to be unforgivable, Constantine turned to the church and was baptized in 326 to forgive this sin.
I am not unaware [Sozomen writes] that the Hellenes tell how Constantine, after slaying certain members of his closest family circle and conniving at the death of his own son Crispus, repented and enquired of Sopater the philosopher, who was at that time the foremost representative of the succession (btacoXj) of Plotinus, concerning the means by which he might be purified. He [Sopater] replied that such sins admit no purification. The king, dismayed at this ban, happened to encounter some bishops, who promised that he would be cleansed from sin through repentance and baptism. These words found their mark, and he [Constantine] was delighted with them. He admired the doctrine [of the Church], and became a Christian, and led his subjects to the same faith ( http://www.jstor.org/stable/300874 .)
Although some of the events heir in are fabrications on account of this account being an anti Constantine account (romans didn’t believe murdering family was unforgivable, and Constantine had relations with the church), the basic idea may be true. The fact that Constantine had murdered his family was completely omitted by Eusebius of Caesarea as it was would portray the emperor in a negative light. If it was true that Constantine was baptized as a result of this event it would follow that Eusebius would lie and move the baptism date to his death bed to protect the emperors good name as well as give imperial support to his own semi-Arian ideals.
Sylvester’s Date of Pontificate
An interesting fact i discovered while researching this topic is that there are conflicting dates on Sylvester’s pontificate. there are 4 sources of dates which all contradict. here is my general view on the dates according to sources. all sources agree on a date of January 1st but differ in year, Jerome in his chronicle wrote the date as 310, the liber ponticate has the date as either 311 , the libre catalogue has the date at 314 and eusbius and other sources that derive from his works have it after October 313.
what’s interesting is that Jerome who is the earliest write to write an exact date puts it in 310. this has lead some to believe including the author of the guida vita to say that pope Sylvester oversaw the first Lateran council and had his work misattributed to Mitildas because of Eusebius’s dislike of Sylvester. later authors than copied eusbiuses account and that is why they state that Mitildes oversaw the council
I decided to analyze this data to see if any interesting patterns immerged. I weighted each date and calculated the weighted average. if sources are weighted based off of their orthodoxy the date comes before the battle of Milvian Bridge with a probability of 84 percent chance that it was before the council. if sources are weighted based off of pure dates and reliability of author from agnostic perspective it comes to early 313 which is still before the the first Lateran council. doing a analysis based off of time decay (oldest source has most weight and decays as time passes) gave similar results. This is also the same if you weight the sources only in 4th century with time decay (i thought about a higher weight for Jerome since he was a native of Rome and Eusebius was not, but decided against it because it was unnecessary as even with a 7/8 weight for Eusebius it is still below 3.68 (3.5)). in addition time decay without Jerome’s data is still before the council with a date of 313.4. then looking at probabilities the trend is that that of a lower number for before the battle for regular time decay and orthodox average while 4th century TD and Agnostic average had after as more probable. While these numbers are interesting they do not calculate a actual date and are not incredibly precise due to several assumptions made while creating the model. All they do is show a loose trend that the data for Sylvester’s pontificate trends towards being before the council as well as that more trusted orthodox sources point to a lower date than viewing the sources from a more agnostic logical view and that time decay models rest in the middle of these two.
Theories of How Constantine Was Baptized
As a result of all of these conflicting sources i have no faith in any of them being completely accurate. i have therefore presented several theories which i think probable that do not align with the Eusbius account.
Sylvester Account in 312 (Early)
in the year 312 constantine prepares for war with maxentius, he has been stricken with a skin ailment after misidentifying an angel or saint or god as apollo in 306 after his coronation. he consults mystics and is told to do a disturbing sin offering. he refuses, and then receives vision of the cross, defeats Maxentius, calls on pope to explain vision. is informed of theology by Sylvester (could also be Mitildes but i think Sylvester is more likely) and becomes catechumen. he then parades into Rome, refuses sacrifice at temple of Jupiter. he then is either immediately baptized by Sylvester(assuming 311 is when Sylvester became pope) he then donates the Lateran and starts construction of St Peters. (if Sylvester became pope in 313 than Constantine is baptized after these events.)
Sylvester Account in 312 (Late)
in the year 312 constantine enters rome, his evil wife fausta convinces him to abondon the cross and he has then been stricken with a skin ailment. he consults mystics and is told to do a disturbing sin offering. he refuses, and then receives vision from paul, and calls on pope to explain vision. is informed of theology by Sylvester (could also be Mitildes but i think Sylvester is more likely) and becomes catechumen. he then gives a speach and is baptized by Sylvester(assuming 311 is when Sylvester became pope) he then donates the Lateran and starts construction of St Peters. (if Sylvester became pope in 313 than Constantine is baptized after these events.)
Sylvester Account in 324
In the year of our lord 324 Constantine defeats Licinius and returns to Rome. his wife being an evil women has him do a mild persecution of the clergy. Constantine, who believes in the Christian god but still ignorant of theology and still somewhat practices polytheism (worships Christian god as well as others) is stricken with some form of skin disease. He then is told to do some kind of obscene ritual by the roman mistics and refuses and then consults the pope who affirms that he should not continue to believe in superstitions. he is then baptized with Cyprus and his skin problem goes away.
324 is supported by reports that he received the eucharist in Nicaea, aligns closely with date alleged by pagans, and fits with later accounts and is not dependent on the date Sylvester became pope. this is also the date inscribed on the stone in the Lateran basilica. which dates from the early 400s and is the catholic traditional date.
Pagan Account in 326
In the year of our lord 326, Constantine, having believed in Christ last 14 years (but adverse to baptism for social, political and religious reasons) and presided over the council of Nicaea the previous year; orders the murders his wife and son. St the time, he is in Rome to celebrate the 20th jubilee of his reign and is currently in a deep state of grief. Filled with grief he consults the pope and the other bishops on how he can be escape damnation to the fires of Hell on account of this vile act. The Pope replies saying that the only way ensure his salvation is to have this sin washed away by baptism. then as the accounts above states he was baptized in Rome in the Lateran palace (which he had donated 10 years prior to the Holy See) and became a member of the body of Christ. this baptism is kept quite as to avoid scandal.
Then 10 years later in 337 Constantine dies in Nicomedia, wanting to protect Constantine’s good name and further his own Arian goals (with perhaps pressure from the Arian Constantanius II to portray his father as sympathetic to Arians), Eusebius of Caesarea writes in his “Vivi Constantini” that Constantine was baptized in Nicomedia and imply it was done by Eusebius of Nicomedia.
This theory of around the year 326 as his date of baptism also has several other pieces of evidence. It is a undisputed fact that this is almost the exact time (325-326) when Constantine removed all pagan imagery from his coins. In addition he seemed to be moving deeper into his faith during this period. He ordered the pilgrimage to Jerusalem to destroy the pagan temples and find the true cross in the year 326, as well as overseeing the construction of his pagan free city: Constantinople. in addition this theory can better explain Jerome’s and Eusbius’s comments (if legitimate) as the death bed conversion would have been a coverup and would have been the only story known by the masses. again 326 could be slightly off however as i question the accuracy of the dating methods of coins employed by those who decided on that date.
Conclusion
In conclusion it is likely that the majority of donations presented in Acts Of Sylvester are supported by church history. these include the tithing of government funds, donation of large amounts of land and special recognition of the status of the church. their is good evidence that Constantine recognized the primacy of the pope as well.
The true story of what exactly happened with Constantine’s baptism might be lost to time. However as seen from above there is evidence that their may have been a baptism in Rome in 312, 324, or maybe even a baptism in 326 that was stricken from the history books both to support the Arian cause as well as to coverup the murder of his son from the historical record.
Regardless of how and when Constantine’s baptism occurred, it is never the less remarkable. let me present a parallel with both the apostle Paul and Peter. After the establishment of the church at Pentecost, a man named Saul persecuted the Christians. He watched in approval as the Jews stoned Stephen and dragged Christians out of there homes and imprisoned them. Then while traveling to Damascus, he received a vision, converted, became a Christian, and was renamed Paul. Similarly, Constantine oversaw the persecution of the Christians and the burning of scripture under his father Constantius and Diocletian during the persecutions. Then after being chosen by God to do his will, he received 2 visions. The first telling him it was his destiny to be the ruler of the whole world and the second telling him to do this under the sign of the cross. He then converted; but just as Peter denied Jesus 3 times, Constantine denied God by violating the Fifth Commandment and murdering his son. But the Lord our God is a merciful God. for as it is written “The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him”. for God will not forgive a mans sins just once or twice, but 77 times. In this way, even a man that was responsible for the persecution of Christ’s body and the murder of his own posterity can be saved. for the words of Paul are fitting, “Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy.” “The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.”
To conclude, I shall share this poem.
And so, in this way, Constantine’s baptism shines
For if he, who held the scepter high
Above Rome’s empire, far and wide,
Who burned the churches, tore the scrolls,
And cast the faithful to the lions’ hold
If he can be redeemed, then so can we.
For as the famous hymn confers:
Amazing grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
Historical Sources
Jerome‘s Chronicle Exerpt
Eusebius Life of Constantine