With the release of Defending Constantine by Peter Leithart, there has been some discussion related to Constantine's contribution to the historic "Church and State" issue.
Robert Joustra reviews Defending Constantine and concludes "This book balances rather than exhausts Christian political theology... and sympathetically reads the plight of struggling Christians to make good..." The Notes from a Byzantine-Rite Calvinist blog asks for discussion here.
Perhaps my review of Life of Constantine by Eusebius would be a timely contribution to the discussion...
Review: Eusebius. Life of Constantine. Trans. Averil Cameron and Stuart Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Ancient History Series, 1999.
The value in this edition of Eusebius' Vita Constantini lay in the copious endnotes that accompany the new translation. The translators tell us in the introduction that Eusebius's Vita is the most important source for understanding Constantine's official relation to Christianity. I can certainly see its value. Still, as I read through the text, it becomes apparent that it is best understood when the reader is familiar with Eusebius' other works. This has me at a disadvantage, for I have not read them.
At the outset I should say I disagree with one point in the book summary provided by Facebook. It is a stretch to argue "much of what Eusebius wrote is false." Rather, the work is a mixture of Constantine's letters and Eusebius' selective explanation of the events surrounding those letters.
Whether Constantine's letters are embellished or the authentic work of an imperial scribe is an issue I will not attempt to solve here. It is enough that they are attributed to him. The Vita, or Life, was not written in the fashion of a news report. Like all public writers of the classical world, Eusebius used highly polemic and rhetorical language to describe the political opponents of Emperor Constantine and the fledgling Church.
Perhaps because of this, there is a general sense in modern culture that the official Church suppressed everyone else and tampered with the Scriptures in order to secure its dominance. Therefore, writings by “official” Christians are little more than propaganda, while writings by the “victims” tell us the real story. The Life of Constantine is problematic for this view. Eusebius held Arian views and as a result he was once declared a heretic by a synod of Greek-Syrian bishops. So does that mean we take him at face value? For a heretic he did a good job of painting Constantine as a valiant champion, sweeping into the empire, righting wrongs and fighting evil.
The translators say Eusebius has been judged too harshly, not for reasons of accuracy but out of a sheer academic bias against Christianity (p.5). What previous scholars assumed were interpolations, the translators argue, were actually edits made later by Eusebius himself.
Why would Eusebius go back and edit a previous work? There was a clear political interest. Constantine's sons (Crispus, Constantine II, Constantius II, and Constans) were set to inherit different regions of the empire, some Romans already addressing them with the honorific "Augusti". The translators argue that Eusebius edited his Vita in such a way that framed Constantine’s relation to the Church in such a way to characterize him as heroic and working in the interests of order and imperial unity.
By painting pro-Christian policy as an advance against political foes and sinister forces in general, Eusebius’ motive was to influence the emperor’s sons, knowing they would have a desire to walk in their father’s legacy. This was Eusebius’s effort to ensure the state's favor toward Christianity and, with multiple interests working against the cohesiveness of the empire, mitigate the possibility that a future emperor would sponsor another religion and send Christianity back to the catacombs.
Obviously there is much rhetoric concerning the older pagan society in the Life of Constantine, but there is a thread of consistency with other non-Christian writers such as Marcus Aurelius and Seneca, and it made me consider the possibility- a very politically incorrect one- that removing pagan practice from public life was a move towards a more stable and peaceful society. Laws regarding Jews and pagan temples seem oppressive to us but taken in context with the history of Imperial Rome, these were better than what existed before. Pagan practice wasn’t just another religious alternative (as it is in our culture), rather, its culture promoted blood-sports and a carefree attitude toward pedophilia(ref. Marcus Aurelius “Meditations”).
For the general good of the world and of all mankind I desire that your people be at peace and stay free from strife. Let those in error, as well as the believers, gladly receive the benefit of peace and quiet. For this sweetness of fellowship will be effective for correcting them and bringing them to the right way. May none molest another; may each retain what his soul desires, and practice it. …To us belongs the shining house of your truth, which you have given in accordance with nature. This we pray also for them, that by means of the general concord they too may enjoy what they desire. - Book II, Chapter 56
Christianity extended more benefit to pagans that it had received from them.
With Christianity now representing most of the population and with moral standards closer to the Stoic ideal than the Romans could have ever achieved, Constantine saw an opportunity to transform his empire and give patronage to a religion that offered a greater degree of imperial cohesiveness. Constantine would have preferred to remove all pagan temples but according to the letters provided, he felt restraint was necessary:
However let no one use what he has received by inner conviction as a means to harm his neighbor. …some persons are saying that the customs of the temples and the agency of darkness have been removed altogether. I would indeed have recommended that to all mankind, were it not that the violent rebelliousness of injurious error is so obstinately fixed in the minds of some, to the detriment of the common weal. - Book II, Chapter 60
Eusebius also gives us an account of the Council of Nicea, where long-standing doctrinal issues were allowed to surface after the removal of 300 years of oppression. Yes, Christianity offered political cohesion- but only if they could solve their disagreements. And if the bishops were not able, Constantine would make it happen himself.
I offer my modest services as a peaceful arbitrator between you in your dispute. (Book II, ch. 68)
In common parlance Constantine was saying, “Don’t make me come down there!” Well, he did. And what ideally should have been an internal matter was brought into the public square. We can decipher from the rhetoric that Constantine felt it imperative to press the Church into resolving its disputes.
… so many of God’s people, who aught to be subject to the direction of your minds, are at variance because you are quarreling with each other about small and quite minute points. (Book II, ch 71)
It could have been that he didn’t understand the theological implications of the disagreements of Nicea, but that didn’t matter to the emperor. He was not a theologian but a military man. Church division stood in the way of his success. We might paraphrase Constantine’s words to the bishops in this way:
“I don’t understand this theological hair-splitting. And I really don’t really care. I gave you guys a chance, so you better get your act together and speak with a common voice. Because if you don’t, not only will I lose face, but it will be that much harder for me to hold this unstable empire together. So I’m calling a council, and I’m going to sit there and watch you until you figure it out.”
I would like to re-read Constantine’s letters apart from Eusebius’ text. I believe that if Constantine’s letters are taken by themselves we might get an entirely different impression of the Emperor. But as it stands his letters are interspersed within the larger narrative, and that influences our perception of Constantine- exactly what Eusebius intended.
There is much more that could be said (and has been by legions of academics) about the “Life of Constantine” however I will close with my favorite passage attributed to Constantine (Book II, ch 72). It is almost poetic and seems out of character for a hard-bitten military man, who brought the empire together through toil and sweat, yet it rings true of a man who saw more than his share of violence:
Give me back therefore peaceful days and undisturbed nights, so that I too may still have some pleasure left in the clear light and happiness of a quite life. Otherwise I must weep and constantly break down in tears, and not even the face the rest of my life with equanimity.