Church policy of the Holy Emperor Constantine.

Circumstances of the edict

The original decree has not survived to us; it is not found in the Codex Theodosianus of 438. It is preserved only in the decree (litterae) of Licinius, given to the Nicomedia president on June 13, 313, and in Eusebius in a series of documents translated from Latin into Greek, located in the middle of the 10th book of his Ecclesiastical History as "a copy of the imperial decrees translated from the Roman language", as a decree written on behalf of Constantine and Licinius. But in the narrative about the events that took place after the victory over Maxentius, even in the stories about the emperors’ stay in Milan, there is no mention of the edict. Thus, Eusebius, narrating what happened immediately after the victory, writes: “After this, Constantine himself, and with him Licinius, considering God the author of all the blessings bestowed upon them, both unanimously and unanimously promulgated the most perfect and thorough law in favor of Christians ( νομον υπερ χριστιανον τελειωτατον πληρεστατον) and both the description of the miracles performed by God over them and the victory won over the tyrant, and the law itself, were sent to Maximinus (τον νομον αυτόν Μαξιμινω), who still ruled the eastern peoples and showed feigned friendship to his co-rulers. Maximin, as a tyrant, upon learning of this, was very upset, however, in order not to seem as if he was inferior to others and at the same time fearing to conceal the command (το κελευσθεν) of the emperors, of necessity, as if on his own behalf, wrote to the regional commanders subordinate to himself the following first charter in favor of Christians"; The following is the order of Maximinus to Sabinus (Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History IX, 9). Apparently, we are talking about the Edict of Milan, but the place of publication is not indicated, the time is not precisely determined (cf. επι τουτοις) and the very text of the “most perfect law” is not given, and by inference it is easy to come to the conclusion that the law mentioned here appeared back in 312. In fact, in 313, shortly before his death, Maximin promulgated another law in favor of Christians, where he called the rescript he issued in the name of Sabinus “last year,” i.e. appeared in 312 (το παρελθοντι ενιαυτω ενομοθετησομεν)… These are the ambiguities of Eusebius.

Lactantius talks about the stay of the rulers in Mediolanus. “Constantine, having finished his affairs in the city of Rome, withdrew during the coming winter to Mediolanus, where Licinius also came to receive a wife,” i.e. Constantine's sister Constantia (De mortibus persecutorum XLV, 9). The publication of the edict here is not mentioned in a single word by Lactantius. Given this rather sad state of historical data about the Edict of Milan, it is not surprising if, for example, the researcher of the Constantine era Seek denies its authenticity. According to Seeck, the document called the “Edict of Milan” is not an edict at all, was not issued in Milan or by Constantine, and does not establish the legal tolerance that Christians have long enjoyed. Seek is referring to the decree of Galerius of 311 and, along with it, the “so-called Edict of Milan” considers it completely unnecessary. The so-called Edict of Milan is only a letter from Licinius addressed to the President of Bithynia to abolish the restrictions that Maximinus made difficult the actions of the edict of Galerius in 311, and the document of Eusebius is a translation of the same letter from Licinius, sent to Palestine where Eusebius lived. However, it is impossible to agree with Zeek. Both sources - Eusebius and Lactantius - clearly speak of the stay of the two Augusti in Milan and the decree regarding religions that took place. One cannot be satisfied with the assumption that only an oral agreement took place in Milan and, accordingly, a rescript was issued by Licinius for the eastern provinces, while Christians lived freely in the western ones. Such a serious law as that on religious freedom could not help but be recorded in writing, especially since in the lists of Eusebius there are the words: “This will of ours should have been stated in writing,” in the legislative act of the rescript. Then, in the rescript to the president, Licinius does not at all present this legislative act as his own work; and such an act could not have been personally issued by Licinius, who remained a pagan at heart. On the other hand, Eusebius’s list cannot be considered as a translation from the same Licinian rescript, only sent to Palestine. Eusebius's list has an introduction that Licinius does not have. Where could Eusebius borrow it from? There are features in the text itself that make it hardly possible to consider Eusebius’ list as a translation of the Licinian Rescript. Namely, in Eusebius we read: “This will of ours was to be stated in writing, after the removal of all the restrictions that were contained in the decree sent by your honor earlier in our decree regarding Christians (Lactantius has no further words), and which seemed very unkind and inconsistent with our meekness, for this to be arranged." To explain his disposition towards Christians in such expressions and to recall in this way, probably, the edict of 311 could have been the only characteristic of Constantine. Licinius in this place could only understand the oppression of Maximin, and he speaks about them. To explain the deviation of Eusebius’ list from Lactantius’s, it seems necessary to assume that Eusebius had the original Edict of Milan at hand and translated from it, or someone else did it for him. And the very state of affairs is in favor of such an assumption. We said that in book 9 of Church History Eusebius mentions the law, but does not expound it. However, he thought to set out this and other laws at the end of Book IX, just as he ends Book VIII with the edict of 311. In the original (actually the second) edition, at the very end of Book IX, it was about legislation in favor of Christians, through which Constantine and Licinius proved their love for God. According to Eduard Schwartz, the edition of Eusebius’ Church History ending with Book IX (the first edition was in 312-313 and ended with Book VIII) appeared in 315 and consisted of a well-known collection of documents subsequently placed by Eusebius in the middle of Book X. Here, the first place belonged to the Edict of Milan, which took place at the beginning of 313. As for the conclusions from Maximin’s rescript that the Edict of Milan was issued in 312, then Maximin, as co-ruler, in all likelihood, was sent a draft in 312 edict and when he refused to sign it, Constantine and Licinius issued it in their own name only.

Church policy of the Holy Emperor Constantine.

After the publication of the Edict of Milan in 313 by Emperor Constantine and Licinius, the Christian Church entered a new period in its history. The cessation of persecution and support from the state, which seemingly created the most favorable conditions for Christianity and the churching of the entire ancient society.

The Edict of Milan by Constantine the Great is a very important document in world history. Since the very day when this legislative act was signed, the thought of the Christian has often turned to the Edict of Milan. It rightly indicates the basis of church policy in a Christian state[1]. Therefore, it is always useful to study this first [2] law on the freedom of the Christian religion in the state. It must be borne in mind that in our time political life brings to the fore the complex question of the relationship between church and state. To look back for guidance in this matter to the initial moment when the Roman state ceased to be purely pagan is very instructive in all respects.[3]

The Edict of Milan and its legal background

In the history of Greco-Roman legislation, the tolerant edict of Galerius, dated 311, marks the dawn of a completely new era. As you know, religion, according to Roman law, was divided into two categories. Historically, the known religions of the peoples that became part of the Roman Empire were called “permissible” religions. They were protected by law and protected by the established order of civil life. All other religions were prohibited. It was especially difficult for the Christian religion to acquire the title of “religio licita.” This is not the religion of any particular people, and at the same time it is a new religion. No people who professed Christianity capitulated to the power of the Roman sword. But now the time has come when the Roman government itself capitulated to the moral power of Christianity. According to the edict of Galerius, Christianity was declared a “permissible” religion in the Roman state. The bloody struggle with Christians was declared useless. “Let them be Christians (ut denuo sint Christiani),” the edict says. But the legislator still did not forget to call them fanatics and unreasonable people, and also prohibited Christians from propaganda. This shows that much hesitation and indecision was then overcome by the good influence of Christianity on Galerius and his co-rulers. But even that was already a big victory. If, after the tolerant edict of Galerius, the Edict of Milan had not appeared soon, history would have recorded on its pages the edict of Galerius as the first open recognition of Christianity as a “permissible” religion.[4]

Much that was unclear and perhaps deliberately ambiguous was hidden in Galerius’ edict. For example, it was stipulated that Christians could remain Christians as long as “nothing illegal was done by them.” Meanwhile, the pagan legislation of previous centuries often put Christians in a position where they were forced to break the law. Sacrificing to idols was sometimes required by law. But Christians did something illegal when they resolutely refused to do it. One might think that now the specified clause was included in the text of the law so that any ruler could, relying on it, persecute Christians if circumstances required it. The co-rulers of Galerius gave their signatures to the edict of 311. Maxentius, Maximinus and Licinius did this only out of discipline. Soon each of them showed how he understood the “permissibility” of the Christian religion proclaimed by the edict. They published a new law in their provinces, but did not change anything in their attitude towards Christians. Maxentius was the first to open the persecution of Christians. Maximin also did not hesitate to exercise his cruelty on the Christians of Egypt and Syria. Licinius adhered longest to the direct meaning of the tolerant edict; however, over time, he too began to persecute Christians.[5]

The death of Emperor Galerius, which followed in the same year 311, was a circumstance that contributed to the clarification of the further policy of the government. The surviving four co-rulers of the deceased Galerius were divided into two parties. Licinius first sided with Constantine, and Maxentius and Maximinus, on the contrary, united in their hostility to Christianity. The population of the entire empire remained indecisive. No one knew whether to adhere to the last edict of Galerius, or wait for new laws. And so, in the year 312, a religious act was issued. He signed only Constantine and Licinius. This edict again proclaims the freedom of the Christian religion from persecution. The reasons given are the same as in the edict of Galerius. So Constantine the Great, together with Licinius, dissociated themselves from other co-rulers. With their declaration, they announced their intention to support the last orders of the deceased Galerius. Both in the edict of 311 and in this declaration, the government did not express its heartfelt conviction in the correctness of the Christian religion, but only declared the futility of bloody persecution against Christians. The time had not yet come when Christianity would be declared the religion of the Caesars themselves. For this, it was not enough for an internal fracture to occur in the heart of Constantine the Great.[6]

The Christian religion and the church remained in a dangerous state after the edicts of 311 and 312. The legislators did not express their heartfelt devotion to Christianity. This is especially clear from the statement made later by Constantine the Great in the Edict of Milan in 313. Speaking of the edict of 312. Constantine the Great directly testifies to his subjects that the edict of 312 was intended to prevent the spread of the Christian religion. The government, therefore, allowed one to be a Christian, but not a convert. One could profess Christianity, but not otherwise than under the condition that it was the religion of one’s ancestors.[7]

Edict of Milan

The immediate result of the victory over Maxentius was the political unification of the entire West. Constantine the Great became the sole ruler in the west. The second equally immediate result of the brilliant victory of Constantine the Great was the triumph of Christianity. The emperor's new convictions encouraged him to declare something more than simple condescension towards “superstitious madmen” as Christians were treated in the tolerant edicts. They were given the right to exist in the Roman Empire. Now, out of the gratitude of a grateful heart, Constantine the Great is not content with this. While still in Rome, he is plotting to expand their rights. It is desirable for him that not only Christians would remain Christians, but that even the pagans would see the light and convert to Christianity. Therefore, Constantine the Great grants Christians the right of propaganda. In order to elevate the importance of the Christian Church in the eyes of the popular crowd, Constantine commands that the property taken from them during the previous persecution be returned to Christians. These are the guiding principles of the Edict of Milan.[8]

The Edict of Milan specifies the rights and privileges of the Christian Church. In the eyes of the legislator, this is a fully formed, properly organized community. His needs are taken into account. His goals are now recognized as completely legitimate. The original edict was signed in Milan by Constantine and Licinius, but the time when this was done is not indicated. In some expressions of the edict, important reservations are made, which force us to assert without doubt that it was issued no later than one year after the defeat of Maxentius, but not earlier than the beginning of the 313th year.

Constantine the Great, together with his son-in-law, established their power in the empire by proclaiming the principles of widespread religious tolerance. The very possibility of any injustice in relation to Christians has been uprooted. Greco-Roman legislation clearly took a new path. The whole country felt relieved. The pagans willingly accepted baptism. But even those of them who stubbornly adhered to superstition were calm about their fate. And Christianity, free from external persecution, rushed with all the fervor of renewed energy to improve the internal life of the church. This was the beginning of a new system of public and private life. The internal self-decomposition of the Greco-Roman pagan world was stopped. Against the barbarity of the savage peoples of northern Europe, a weapon was forged, transforming into mighty workers of progress those elements who had hitherto destroyed everything that crossed their path.

Of course, such a decisive step was taken by Constantine the Great not without serious reasons. He himself admits this. But as a man of his time, he did not foresee all the consequences of the new legislative act. Therefore, it seems to us deeply significant that Constantine the Great explains the moral essence of the Edict of Milan by the fact that the legislator took care of “reverence for the Divine.” It was a tribute from a grateful heart. Along with this, it is also significant that Constantine the Great is trying to calm the pagans. He is far from the idea of ​​repaying the persecutors with the same coin with which they paid the Christians. The pagans listened with a sense of relief to the definitions of the new legislation.[9]

The main issue was the place of the emperor in the Church. Previously, emperors could take part in church affairs. For example, Aurelius expelled Paul of Samosata from Antioch at the request of the Italian bishops,[10] but Constantine managed to convince Christians that he was serving their God and acting in their interests, not only ending the persecution, but also converting Europe to their faith. Constantine was greatly impressed by the words of Christians that the path to peace and prosperity lies through friendship with the only true God, and idolatry entails heavenly punishment. The inglorious death of the persecutors, together with their friends and allies, confirmed this, and their own victories in all battles finally convinced the young emperor.[11]

Consequences of the political line of the Edict of Milan.

Constantine's own beliefs reflect his position: God called him from the western lands to liberate and revive the Empire, and blessed him to reign. Victory in a new war with Licinius led in 324 to the conquest of Byzantium. Success was marked by the founding of the “new Rome”, or Constantinople (Constantinople), which for many years became the capital of the Christian empire. In 330 its consecration took place. Statues of gods were removed from pagan temples and the streets and buildings were decorated with them, giving the former idols worldly or even Christian names. The court and senate began to work in a new way, without the pagan rituals that were still followed in Rome. In solemn speeches, the emperor touched on issues of morality and religion, and his guards were required to attend Sunday services and march in salute to the God of victory.[12] The representative of the civil power was the emperor - the head of the state in which the meeting took place. By the way, bishops were invited to the Ecumenical Council by the emperor himself, and they were entrusted with the task of resolving issues that worried the Church.

Constantine sought to make Christianity the state religion. In 324, he sent a message to the eastern lands, where he explicitly advised the worship of one God (although he forbade coercion in this matter) and denied rumors of his decree against pagan sacrifices (although he added that he would like to abolish them). He allocated funds from the treasury for the construction of churches capable of accommodating the growing number of converts, and luxurious new temple buildings went up in Tyre, Nicomedia, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople and Rome. Now they were erected using the funds that had previously been allocated to pantheons. Thus the Empire merged with the Church, and the Church was absorbed into the Empire.[13]

On the day of the twenty-year anniversary of the reign of Emperor Constantine the Great, August 25, 325, the closing ceremony of the sessions of the First Ecumenical Council took place. Before this, the Christian Church did not know anything equal to what was in Nicaea. All meetings of bishops were previously only local in nature, limited to the boundaries of a diocese or province of the Roman Empire and were constrained by the threat of state power. Emperor Constantine the Great calls bishops to the Council of Nicaea[14] and addresses them with a welcoming speech, saying: “I rejoice at seeing your assembly; but I think that my desires will only be completely fulfilled when I see that you are all animated by one spirit and observe a common peaceful harmony, which you, as dedicated to God, must instill in others.”[15]

The policies of Constantine the Great and the division of the Roman Empire

Starting from the 4th century. The Church occupied a special position in the system of government and administrative division of the Roman Empire. This process could not but affect the system of church government. Emperor Constantine the Great at the beginning of the 4th century. divided the empire into four prefectures (East, Illyria, Italy, Gaul), which in turn were divided into dioceses, consisting of provinces. The lowest administrative-territorial unit was the parikia (which included several small towns, villages and hamlets). Dioceses were ruled by high-ranking dignitaries, called (usually in the East) exarchs, which also influenced the development of the process of centralization and consolidation in the system of church government. The process of uniting autocephalous metropolises into church dioceses or exarchates began. Already in the 4th century. Basil the Great ruled not only as the Metropolitan of Cappadocia, but also as the exarch of the entire Pontic diocese; similarly, the Metropolitan of Ephesus became the de facto exarch of the entire Asian diocese, the Metropolitan of Heraclian became the exarch of Thrace (before the Second Ecumenical Council the bishop of Constantinople was subordinate to him), and the Metropolitan of Antioch became the exarch of the Eastern diocese. [16]

When Constantine the Great chose Byzantium, which was insignificant at that time, as his capital, by this act he also decided the issue of separating the West from the East; at the same time, this outlined new paths for further historical development for the Western and Eastern empires. Although Constantine’s closest successors tried for some time to direct the policies of East and West towards the same goal, but already from the time of Arcadius and Honorius, that is, from 395, the Western and Eastern empires were no longer united under the rule of one emperor, but both went their own way and experienced different fates. The path followed by the Western Empire until 476 is marked by external defeats, internal disasters and unrest that brought the empire to the brink of destruction. The capital founded by Constantine on the Bosphorus quite successfully withstood the blows under which the world-ruling Rome fell, and gave birth to a rather strange political organism, called the Eastern or Byzantine Empire.

The question of the reasons that determined the different fates of the Eastern and Western empires requires resolution. If Rome inevitably had to fall under the influence of destructive forces, and new states were to arise in place of the Roman Empire, then why didn’t Byzantium suffer a similar fate, in which similar destructive forces acted with no less energy? When we talk about the fall of Rome, of course there is a historical revolution of enormous importance - the transition from the ancient world to the Middle Ages, accompanied by great upheavals in both the moral and material life of society.

The answer lies in the actions of Konstantin. The choice of the location for the new capital, the organization of Constantinople and the creation of a world-historical city from it constitute the integral merit of the political and administrative genius of Emperor Constantine the Great. His world merit does not lie in the edict on religious tolerance: not he, but his immediate successors would have been forced to grant dominance to Christianity, which would not have lost anything from it; meanwhile, by timely moving the capital of the world to Constantinople, he at the same time saved the ancient culture and created a favorable environment for the spread of Christianity. Throughout the entire known historical period, Constantinople played an incomparable role as a mediator of trade and generally cultural relations between East and West. Understanding the global significance of Byzantium, Constantine moved the capital of the empire here, and his choice is justified by history. Constantinople remained a trading center throughout the Middle Ages: its military significance is proven by its entire centuries-old destiny. Meanwhile, in view of the dark era that began in the 4th-5th centuries, when barbarian hordes surged into the weakening Roman Empire and destroyed all gains in the field of science, art and society, Byzantium, strengthened by nature and technology, gave shelter to culture and mental productivity. If she did not increase the acquisitions received from antiquity, then, in any case, she diligently protected them.

CONCLUSION

From that time on, the emperor's legislative activity was imbued with a high determination to counteract the moral laxity of the pagans. During this period in the life of the tsar, all his speeches on church affairs were distinguished by the same character. This is a time of enlightened moral state. Thus, he took up arms against sexual perversion.[17] So he assumes the responsibility of the bishop of the external affairs of the church. He declares that the task of the ruler is to serve God, in order to call the human race to serve the most sacred law and to grow the most blessed faith on earth[18]. Here he prohibits crucifixion, breaking the legs of those condemned to death, abolishes gladiatorial fights, softens laws hostile to virginity, gives the Church the right to free from slavery, and gives bishops the powers of the so-called intermediate court.[19]

With these events, Constantine the Great imprinted his deep devotion to the Christian principles of life. When the time came to finish earthly accounts and complete the exploits of temporary life, Constantine the Great worthily prepared for the transition to blissful eternity. In the Askviron Palace, which was built on the outskirts of Nicomedia, he received St. baptism at the hands of Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. This, unrepeatable, if performed correctly, sacrament was performed on him by a heretical bishop. But the great king was revived as a heretic not to strengthen his spirit in the errors of the Arian heresy, but to directly follow him to the heavenly abodes. In a blaze of spiritual delight, the great emperor departed to God on the day of Pentecost in the year 337.

[1] Kurganov F.A. Relations between church and civil authorities in the Byzantine Empire. - Kazan. 1880, p. 10.

[2] The tolerant edicts of previous reigns were not as significant in their consequences as the Edict of Milan in 313.

[3] See Uspensky F., priest. Edict of Milan by Constantine the Great. – Orthodox Interlocutor, 1913, II, p. 305-346.

[4] Uspensky F., priest. Edict of Milan by Constantine the Great. – Orthodox Interlocutor, 1913, II, p. 315.

[5] Uspensky F., priest. Edict of Milan by Constantine the Great. – Orthodox Interlocutor, 1913, II, p. 315 – 316.

[6] Uspensky F., priest. Edict of Milan by Constantine the Great. – Orthodox Interlocutor, 1913, II, p. 316 – 317.

[7] Uspensky F., priest. Edict of Milan by Constantine the Great. – Orthodox Interlocutor, 1913, II, p. 318.

[8] Uspensky F., priest. Edict of Milan by Constantine the Great. – Orthodox Interlocutor, 1913, II, p. 326 – 327.

[9] Uspensky F., priest. Edict of Milan by Constantine the Great. – Orthodox Interlocutor, 1913, II, p. 326 – 327.

[10] Eusebius of Caesarea. "Church History", 7.30.19

[11] See: Hall S. Doctrine and life of the early church. – Novosibirsk, “Staff”, 2000.

[12] See: Hall S. Doctrine and life of the early church. – Novosibirsk, “Staff”, 2000.

[13] See: Hall S. Doctrine and life of the early church. – Novosibirsk, “Staff”, 2000.

[14] Socrates. Church history. – Saratov, 1911. P. 28.

[15] Ibid. P. 38.

[16] Tsypin V., prot. Administrative structure of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2000. T. 1. P. 304 – 305.

[17] Eusebius of Caesarea. Life of Constantine, II, 28, pp. 129. III, 55-58: pp. 201-214. IV, 25; p. 245.

[18] Eusebius of Caesarea. Life of Constantine, II, 28, pp. 129. III, 55-58: pp. 201-214. IV, 25; p. 245.

[19] Sozomen. I, 8; R. p., pp. 35-36.

Priest Maxim Mishchenko

Text of the Edict of Milan

The text of the Edict of Milan reads as follows: “Even earlier, believing that freedom in religion should not be restricted, that, on the contrary, it is necessary to grant the right to take care of Divine objects to the mind and will of everyone, according to his own free will, we also commanded Christians to observe the faith according to their chosen religion. But since in the decree that granted them such a right, many different conditions were actually set, then perhaps some of them soon later encountered obstacles to such observance. When we arrived safely in Mediolan, I, Constantine-Augustus and Licinius-Augustus, discussed everything that related to public benefit and well-being, among other things that seemed useful to us for many people, in particular we recognized the need to make a resolution aimed to maintain fear and reverence for the Divine, namely, to grant Christians and everyone the freedom to follow the religion that everyone wishes, so that the Deity in heaven (Greek, so that the Deity, whatever it may be, and whatever is in heaven) may be merciful and is favorable to us and to everyone under our authority. So, we have decided, guided by sound and correct reasoning, to make such a decision so as not to deprive anyone of the freedom to follow and adhere to the faith observed by Christians, and that everyone is given the freedom to follow the religion that he considers best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, revered by us out of free conviction, could show ordinary mercy and favor towards us in everything.

Therefore, it behooves your honor to know that we wanted that, after the removal of all the restrictions that could be seen in the decree given to you earlier regarding Christians (Greek, “this will of ours should be stated in writing, so that after the elimination of all the restrictions that were contained in the decree sent to your honor earlier regarding Christians and who seemed very unkind and inconsistent with our meekness") - so that this would be eliminated, and now everyone who wants to support the religion of Christians could do this freely and unhindered, without any embarrassment or difficulty for themselves. We considered it necessary to announce this with all the thoroughness of your trusteeship, so that you know that we have also granted Christians the rights of free and unlimited content of their religion. Seeing that we have allowed this to them, your honor will understand that others have also been granted, for the sake of the peace of our times, similar complete freedom in observing their religion, so that everyone has the right to freely choose and worship what he pleases; We have decreed this so that it does not seem that we have caused any damage to any cult or religion (the Latin text is corrupted).

In addition, regarding Christians, we decree (Latin - decided to decree) that those places in which they previously usually had meetings, about which in the previous decree a well-known (Greek - other) decree was made to your honor, if they turn out to be bought in the previous time by some persons, either from the treasury, or from someone else - these persons would immediately and without hesitation return to the Christians without money and without demanding any payment; Likewise, those who received these places as a gift should give (them) to Christians as quickly as possible. At the same time, both those who bought these places and those who received them as a gift, if they seek anything from our favor (Latin - let them ask for an appropriate reward, - Greek - let them turn to the local eparch), so that they too our mercy was not left without satisfaction. All this must be transferred, with your assistance, to the Christian community immediately, without any delay. And since it is known that Christians owned not only the places where they usually gathered, but also others that were the property not of individuals, but of their societies (Latin - that is, churches; Greek - that is, Christians ) all this, by virtue of the law that we defined above, you will order to be given to Christians, i.e. society and their meetings, without any hesitation or contradiction, in compliance with the above rule, so that those who return them free of charge hope to receive a reward from our kindness.

In all this, you are obliged to provide the above-mentioned community of Christians with all possible assistance, so that our command is carried out as soon as possible, so that this expresses our mercy’s concern for public peace and then, in view of this, as noted above, the Divine will come to us the goodwill that we have already experienced to such a great extent will always remain, contributing to our successes and general well-being. And so that this merciful law of ours can become known to everyone, you must display what is written here everywhere in your public announcement and bring it to general knowledge, so that this law of our mercy does not remain unknown to anyone.”

The Edict of Milan and Christian Freedom

In 2013, the entire Christian world solemnly celebrates the 1700th anniversary of the publication of the Edict of Milan. I have just returned from the Serbian city of Nis, where the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine was born. There were inter-Orthodox celebrations dedicated to the anniversary of the document, which became fateful for the history of Christianity. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill took part in the celebrations along with the heads of other Local Orthodox Churches, including the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem and Serbia.

For the Russian Orthodox Church, the year of the 1700th anniversary of the Edict of Milan coincided with another significant anniversary - the 1025th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. This coincidence allows us to reflect on the historical path of the Church, to reflect on the ancient event that marked the beginning of a new Christian civilization, but at the same time to appreciate our own recent history. What we have experienced and what we continue to live with today can be confidently called the “second baptism of Rus'.” In my opinion, our era - the era of the revival of the Church - has something deeply similar to the era that followed the promulgation of the Edict of Milan. The connection between times is the concept of freedom. It is on the topic of Christian freedom that I would like to reflect today.

The Edict of Milan is, in fact, the first official state document in the Roman Empire, thanks to which the “Catholic Church” receives not only the right to exist, but also state and public recognition. If before this Christians were persecuted and exterminated, if they could only exist in the catacombs and deep underground, then thanks to the Edict of Milan, Christians for the first time, on an equal basis with pagans, received the right to openly profess and preach their faith, build churches, open monasteries and schools. A huge achievement of the Constantinian era was the recognition of the Church as a full-fledged participant in social processes, which allowed it not only to freely organize its internal life, but also to have a significant influence on the life of the state and society.

Many Christians of that time still remembered how the persecutors squeezed the Church out of public space and drove it into the ghetto. Many were confessors with destinies broken by violence and oppression. For many Christians of the early 4th century, the eloquent, but at the same time painful appeals of the apologists of the 2nd-3rd centuries to the state leaders of the Roman Empire remained the truth of their own lives.

We touch upon the worldview of Christians during the era of persecution by reading, for example, Tertullian's Apology. He exclaims: We have existed since yesterday, and have filled with ourselves all your places: cities, islands, fortresses, municipalities, meeting places, the very camps, tribes, decuries, palace, senate, forum. We left only your temples to you. For what open war we would not be capable, for what war we would not be ready, even if we were inferior to you in strength - we, who so willingly allow ourselves to be killed, if our teaching did not command us to be killed ourselves rather than kill others? We could fight you without weapons and without rebellion, separating from you as dissatisfied with you. For if we, being such a huge number of people, were to retire from you to some distant corner of the earth; then, of course, the loss of so many, whatever, citizens would not only be a disgrace for your rule, but at the same time a punishment (Tertullian. Apology, 37).

Christians in the era of persecution had to prove to the imperial authorities their loyalty and their suitability for full participation in the life of civil society. But the authorities remained deaf to this evidence. And suddenly the same generation of persecuted and oppressed Christians becomes witnesses to the recognition of the Church as an integral part of society. Moreover, within a few years after the publication of the Edict of Milan, Christianity transformed into a spiritual force that largely determined the course of the further history of the empire and the whole world.

As a result of the Milan Agreements, Emperors Constantine and Licinius asserted something completely new, unheard of for their contemporaries. They publicly declare: So, guided by common sense and right, we announce our following decision: no one is prohibited from freely choosing and observing the Christian faith, and everyone is given freedom to turn his mind to that faith which, in his opinion, suits him, so that the Divine may send in all cases, we receive immediate help and every good thing... From now on, everyone who has freely and simply chosen the Christian faith can observe it without any hindrance... [Christians] are given unlimited freedom... freedom is also given to others, if they wish, to observe their faith, which corresponds to our time of peace: let everyone freely, at their own discretion, choose their faith (quoted from: Eusebius. Church history 10, 5).

It is important to note that this document did not give freedom to Christianity to the detriment of other religions of the Roman Empire; followers of various pagan cults retained their rights and freedoms as before. However, the Edict of Milan essentially recognized the fact that the Church was not some marginal sect corrupting traditional social foundations. On the contrary, the authors of the document are convinced that Christians are capable of extending God’s mercy to all people. The godliness and usefulness of Christians for society is what the new edict relied on, expressing the hope that the “Divinity” will send down to the authorities and people of the empire “in all cases, first aid and every good thing.” These lines not only equalized Christians in rights and freedoms with pagans, but opened up the opportunity for them to declare themselves as a new force capable of positively influencing society and filling its existence with divine meaning.

Thanks to the Edict of Milan, Christians were faced with the need to think not only about their salvation and the good of their small community. The new situation in society forced them to think about the quality of this society, about their role in it - the role of active citizens, prayer workers for the fatherland, people of good will.

In the new conditions, Christians - bishops, theologians, monks and many laity - were not at a loss. A rapid flowering of Christian thought and culture began in the empire, Christian historiosophy was born, and a new attitude of the Church to the world around it was formed. The era, which began with the publication of the edict, went down in history as the golden age of Christianity, and for the empire this era became a time of changing ideological paradigms. The theology of the Church formed the basis for a new understanding of personal, social and state responsibility, influenced the renewal of all institutions of society, gave a new value foundation to family relationships, attitudes towards women, and led to the gradual elimination of the institution of slavery in the empire. The new empire combined the Roman culture of legal relations, the Greek art of graceful thought and the piety of Jerusalem. And Christianity became a new religion in him, the foundation of a new worldview capable of uniting all the diversity of races and peoples of the empire. Having received a historical chance, the Church took full advantage of it.

The principle of freedom of conscience, proclaimed in the Edict of Milan, formed the basis of the new attitude of the authorities towards their subjects. Over sixteen centuries, the Edict of Milan anticipated something that only fully became possible in the twentieth century, after centuries of war and discrimination. In a number of international documents that form the basis of modern world law (such as, for example, the International Bill of Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), the freedom to profess one’s faith and live in accordance with it is the main the idea of ​​the edict is postulated as one of the most important freedoms of the human person.

Something similar to what happened in the Roman Empire in 313 happened 25 years ago on the scale of the then Soviet Union. We witnessed how the Church in our country, after many trials and bloody sacrifices, suddenly emerged from the ghetto, rose from its knees and began its victorious march through cities and villages. A significant part of society regained its Christian identity. The Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Constitutions of other independent states that emerged in the post-Soviet space clearly expressed state recognition of freedom of religion. Of course, this freedom was declared earlier, but in fact only after 1988 did it take on real shape, and Christians again received a historical chance in the vast expanses of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Central Asia, and the Baltic countries.

It all started with the fact that in the mid-1980s, the issue of freedom of conscience arose at the center of public discussion in the USSR. The Church played an active role in this discussion. Once again, like sixteen centuries ago, by the very fact of its existence, contrary to the surrounding reality, the Church exposed the crisis of freedom, and at the same time it exposed the internal fragility of the previous order of things. In the collapsing system of values ​​there was no longer any political, economic, or semantic bond capable of uniting the people.

And so, quite unexpectedly, in the context of the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus', originally conceived as a purely church celebration, what is commonly called genetic memory, national or religious identity, awakened in the popular consciousness. Thousands and millions of people throughout the Soviet Union openly expressed their position by taking part in the celebrations, filling churches and squares during anniversary services. The authorities had no choice but to see and admit that the Church is not a museum exhibit or an animal in a cage, but the spiritual power of a people of many millions, capable of reviving and renewing it. Those events marked the beginning of the revival of the Church, which, not coincidentally, coincided with fundamental changes in the state and social system of our country.

Some events in the history of the Church cannot be explained except by a miracle of God. Such a miracle was the era that followed the Edict of Milan in 313. No less a miracle happened in our country in the late 1980s. Could people who just a few years earlier risked their well-being, and in some cases even their lives, for the sake of their faith, regard the freedom that suddenly fell on their heads as anything other than a miracle and a gift from God? Could they have expected that the godless ideology would collapse and be replaced by a different worldview, in which the Good News of the Church would again be seen as one of the foundations of society and the key to its success in the future? The countless believers who gathered for the celebrations in July 1988 could have repeated the words once spoken by Eusebius of Caesarea on the occasion of the general church celebrations that marked a new era: All the fear in which the tormentors formerly kept us has disappeared. Now the joyful and solemn days of crowded festivities have come: everything is filled with light (Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History, book 10).

In both cases, it was the granting of religious freedom that preceded the granting of other civil liberties, considered in our time as one of the main achievements of a democratic society. And this is not accidental, because it is in the Christian value system that the concept of freedom receives special content. We Christians are convinced that the gift of life is the gift of God, and that human life itself is not subject to anyone except the Creator of the human race. This conviction makes Christians free from the oppression of any political force and any ideology. It makes them capable of being martyrs and confessors when the Church is persecuted; witnesses of the truth and evangelists of the Kingdom of God, when the Church is recognized. No other religion or ideology has such a reverent attitude towards freedom. N. Berdyaev owns the following words: Freedom, first of all freedom - this is the soul of Christian philosophy and this is what is not given to any other, abstract and rationalistic philosophy (Berdyaev. Philosophy of Freedom. Part 1).

Christian freedom does not separate us from our families, from social ties, from our fatherland. On the contrary, in the very Christian understanding of freedom, in the recognition of the absolute and life-giving connection of man with God, there is enormous moral potential. Being the creation of a good God, sons and daughters of the Creator, we are called to cultivate the garden given to us, thereby bringing the Kingdom of God closer to the human race. It was this moral potential, rooted within the free human personality, that Emperor Constantine saw in Christianity, allowing this powerful positive creative charge to be released and influence the entire society.

This same potential for Christian freedom has been released in our people after decades of ideological oppression. I am convinced that our people overcame the colossal social and economic catastrophe of the 1990s and found the strength to rise from their knees precisely because Christian blood still flows in them and in the depths of our national consciousness the idea of ​​Christian freedom has not yet been erased.

Recently, more and more often we can observe how in Western countries, and some in our country, a different freedom is proclaimed: from moral principles, from universal human values, from responsibility for one’s actions. We see how destructive and aggressive this freedom is. Instead of respecting the feelings of other people, she preaches permissiveness, ignoring the beliefs and values ​​of the majority. Instead of a genuine affirmation of freedom, it affirms the principle of uncontrollable satisfaction of human passions and vices, which is far from elementary moral guidelines.

The aggressive attitude of such a falsely understood freedom brings it closer to the totalitarianism of the era of persecution and the godlessness of the twentieth century. “Totalitarian freedom,” based on human passions, takes us back to the times of the pagans, albeit in a more crafty and sophisticated form. Before our eyes, scenes familiar to us from the events of the godless decades of our country are unfolding again. Militant atheism, often in the most monstrous and grotesque forms, again raised its head and boldly declared itself in the vastness of Europe. Moral relativism and permissiveness are elevated to the basic principle of existence. And now we see buses driving around London with the inscriptions “There is no God, enjoy life” or “You are gay, be proud of it.” We hear about how in Paris, batons and tear gas are used to disperse a demonstration of supporters of traditional family values ​​who do not want same-sex couples to adopt children. We are witnessing how blasphemers appear on the pulpit of the main temple of Moscow, their actions arousing the approval of a certain part of society.

In this context, the historical lesson of the Edict of Milan becomes extremely valuable. He shows that a new round of development of civilization must be based on the freedom that rests on solid moral foundations. It is from such freedom that all other types of freedoms should grow, and from it also grows a state alien to totalitarianism. Otherwise, freedom again becomes only a declared abstract value, and liberal ideology enslaves and zombies a person, just as godless ideology did in the recent past.

In the 4th century, for the first time in its history, the Church began to integrate into civil society; Christians for the first time felt the opportunity to realize their faith and their beliefs for the benefit of their earthly fatherland. The power of Christian theology - the theology of atonement and resurrection, the theology of the Kingdom of God coming in power - was to be revealed in the lives of many peoples inhabiting the then ecumen.

Nowadays, the Church and its Sacred Tradition (Tradition) have become a revelation for our people. An entire generation of people cut off from the Church found faith again. The situation in which we find ourselves - the situation of finding a forgotten Tradition, the churching of society, the revival of the Church - has set us a task: to understand what the Christian Tradition with a capital C is and who we are in this Tradition. In addition, acquaintance with the history of Christian civilization, with the history of the Church, opened up for us an understanding of the role of the Church in completely different eras - prosperity and oppression, mistakes and trials. The Church did not know this in the era of Constantine, when it was just taking its first steps as a recognized social institution.

We can say today that the Church over the past seventeen centuries has become more mature, more sophisticated. The historical experience of the Church does not allow us, having received freedom, not to use it wisely. Today, special wisdom is required from the hierarchy of the Church, because we have received such a historical chance that we have no right to miss. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill accepted this mission, making one of the priorities of his ministry the building of relations between the Church and the state, institutions of civil society and with every citizen capable of hearing the word of the Church. On the day of his accession to the patriarchal throne, he spoke of a unique historical opportunity for Russia to realize the ancient Christian idea of ​​a “symphony” of church-state relations. According to the Patriarch, one of the main ideas of the ever-memorable Patriarch Alexy that “the Church is separated from the state, but not separated from society,” should in our time receive its logical continuation and development.

While not yet a Patriarch, the then chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Kirill, spoke about freedom and responsibility as two absolute values, without interaction between which it is impossible to build a just society. Today, such thoughts are increasingly heard from the lips of statesmen. Today, the Church and the state in Russia, as well as in some other countries of the post-Soviet space, are able to speak with a single voice and express a single position.

I recently had to take part in a meeting of the Valdai Club, a discussion group created 10 years ago by Russian President Vladimir Putin. At this meeting, the President spoke about what our Church has been talking about over the past years - about the conscious rejection of European countries from their Christian identity: “We see how many Euro-Atlantic countries have actually taken the path of abandoning their roots, including Christian values ​​that form the basis of Western civilization. Moral principles and any traditional identity are denied: national, cultural, religious or even gender. A policy is being pursued that puts large families and same-sex partnerships, faith in God or faith in Satan on the same level... And they are trying to aggressively impose this model on everyone, the whole world. I am convinced that this is a direct path to degradation and primitivization, a deep demographic and moral crisis.”

Continuing his thought, the Russian President emphasizes: “Without the values ​​​​embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the norms of morality and ethics that have been formed over thousands of years, people will inevitably lose human dignity. And we consider it natural and correct to defend these values. The right of any minority to be different must be respected, but the right of the majority must not be questioned.”

What path does Putin propose for Russia? What values ​​does he consider key for the development of our society? “You need to be strong militarily, technologically, economically, but still the main thing that will determine success is the quality of people, the intellectual, spiritual, moral quality of society. After all, in the end, economic growth, well-being, and geopolitical influence are derived from the state of society itself, from how citizens of a particular country feel like a single people, how rooted they are in their history, in values ​​and in traditions, whether they share common goals and responsibilities. In this sense, the issue of acquiring and strengthening national identity is truly of a fundamental nature for Russia.”

It is no coincidence that I dwelled in such detail on Putin’s Valdai speech. It seemed iconic to me. It testifies that the position of the Russian Orthodox Church and other traditional confessions of our country was not just heard, not just taken into account. It seems that we have finally reached the time when the voice of government leaders can be heard in unison with the voice of people of faith. Is this not eloquent evidence that the “symphony” that the Patriarch spoke about on the day of his enthronement is taking on real shape?

Consonance between the Church and the state in assessing social processes cannot in any way be considered a sign of a “merger” between them. The principle of mutual non-interference between the Church and the state in each other’s internal affairs must be and is being preserved. But this principle must be balanced by another, no less important principle: cooperation between the Church and the state in all those areas in which this cooperation is possible and necessary. And it turns out to be necessary in a variety of areas related to the sphere of public morality.

Today, both the state and representatives of religious denominations, as well as non-religious people who unexpectedly find themselves in the minority, can take full part in the discussion about the value guidelines of social development. We must create a society in which no one will be uncomfortable, in which everyone can realize their God-given freedom. But at the same time, freedom should not turn into permissiveness. Each member of society should feel responsible not only for himself, but also for his fatherland, for the entire world around him.

Today we cannot view society as a soulless mechanism governed by legal norms. Society is also a spiritual organism that is governed by spiritual laws. It is not for nothing that we talk about a moral and immoral society, about a sick society and a healthy society. The state’s ability to influence the spiritual sphere of human life is very limited, while the Church has enormous opportunities here. In order for the interests of society to be fully realized, it is necessary that civil freedom, which the state can and should ensure, be coupled with religious freedom. Because it is freedom that is the connecting link between two spheres of public life: civil and spiritual.

This topic is complex and multifaceted; it provokes discussions and requires discussions. Throughout Christian history, ever since the historical edict was signed in Milan, which granted the Church freedom, the Church has been in continuous dialectical development: on the one hand, it must preserve its freedom, bought at the price of blood, on the other hand, it is called implement it.

Any freedom is valuable when it is associated with responsibility and sacrifice. To have freedom means for the Church to remain the “salt of the earth,” the leaven of the Gospel, the spiritual strength and conscience of the people. Realizing your freedom means acting, using the opportunities that the Lord gives for service and preaching. This is how the world works that freedom is a condition for decisive but deliberate action. Freedom is a means, a condition for creativity. And creativity is involvement in the life of society with all its internal contradictions.

We are destined to live in a time when in our hands, in the hands of Christians, is the precious gift of freedom - the same gift that Christians received in the era of Emperor Constantine the Great. This gift of Divine Providence opens up enormous opportunities for us. However, the gift of freedom also places enormous responsibility on us. The ability to use the gift of freedom requires special wisdom from the older generation of people of the Church, and colossal dedication from young workers in God’s field.

Speaking about the idea of ​​Christian freedom as a thread that connects the era of Constantine with our era, I turn my thoughts to the feat of the apostles and martyrs, apologists and holy fathers of the 4th and subsequent centuries, right up to the new martyrs and confessors of the Russian Church. From the very moment of its inception, through all generations, thanks to the feat of heroes of the spirit, the Church guarded its freedom like the apple of its eye. And no matter what researchers say about church-state relations in Byzantium and Rus', at its very core the Church remained free, regardless of the external political situation. The freedom to confess Christ as Lord and to live according to His commandments will remain a constant for the life of the Church and for the life of every Christian until the moment when “the heavens pass away with a noise, and the elements burn with fire and are destroyed, the earth and all the works on it are burned up” (2 Pet. 3). :10).

I would like to wish all of you, and in your person the entire future generation of the Church, to preserve the spirit of that Christian freedom, which considers as vanity everything that does not bow its head before the living God and before the Savior of the world Jesus Christ. While maintaining this inner freedom, do not be afraid of creativity, do not be afraid of the risk of creativity. For the Lord calls us to be His co-workers in this world, and co-working cannot but be creativity in the highest sense of the word.

And one more wish that I would like to address to all of us today: while bringing the word of Christ to the world, let us not forget that the best testimony has always been and will be the example of our own lives. Let our creativity begin in our souls, in our families, parishes and monastic communities, in theological schools, in dioceses and metropolises. Then the power of our testimony will reach the entirety of society and each of its members. Then we will be able to thank God with our lives lived worthily for the precious gift of freedom that He gives to us, Christians, and which no one has the right to take away from us.

Speech at the annual event of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy on October 9, 2013 mospat.ru

The meaning of the Edict of Milan

To understand the meaning of the Edict of Milan, you need to compare it with the Edict of 311. The Nicomedia Law wants to ensure the life of Christians: “Let there be Christians again and build places of assembly.” This tolerant edict tolerates Christians as a necessary evil. Granting them life, he demands: “that they do nothing against public order,” and promises: “by other decrees we will notify the judges that they are obliged to observe.” What the publisher of the edict is so afraid of on the part of Christians is almost certainly the propaganda of Christianity, which was forbidden to Judaism under penalty of death. It is this cause of Christianity “against public order” that Galerius wants to suppress “with other decrees.” In all likelihood, he failed to issue new decrees; but it is quite possible that they nevertheless saw the light, perhaps thanks to the executive will of Augustus Licinius, for the Edict of Milan at the very beginning indicates, as a reason for its appearance, the elimination of restrictions that were restrictive for Christians in the previous decree. What does the Edict of Milan give? It is very conveniently divided into two parts: the first deals with freedom of religious confession, the second deals with the property and social rights of Christians, i.e. as corporations, and private or personal rights. In the first respect, the words are characteristic: “everyone has the right to freely choose and honor what he pleases; We have decreed this so that it does not seem that we have caused any damage to any cult or religion.” From this it is clear that the Edict of Milan establishes the so-called parity, the equality of all religions and the free right of every citizen to follow any religion without hindrance. Professor Lebedev’s opinion that by this edict “Christianity was declared to be at the head of all religions, proclaimed the only religion ...” does not correspond to the text of the Edict of Milan, nor to the circumstances of its origin. Professor Brilliantov rightly emphasizes that the edict comes not only from Constantine, but also from Licinius; Maximin was probably also involved in signing it. But how could one think that Licinius, and even more so Maximinus, could sign an edict proclaiming the dominance of the Christian religion?

Chapter II. Persecution of Christianity and martyrdom of Christians

Sources

Ignatius: Epistolae. Martyrium Polycarpi.

Tertullian:
Ad Martyres.
Origen:
Exhortatio ad martyrium
(λόγος εις μαρτύριον).
Cyprian: Er.
11
ad mart.
Prudentius: Περ'ι στεφάνων
hymni
XIV. See the list of references to § 12.

Proceedings

Sagittarius: De mart, cruciatibus,

1696.

H. Dodwell: De paucitate martyrum – Dissertationes Cyprianicae.

Lond. 1684.

Ruinart (Catholic): Praefatio generalis in Acta Martyrum.

FW Gass: Das christl. Märtyrerthum in den ersten Jahrhunderten,

in
Niedner's
“Zeitschrift f. hist. Theol." 1859-'60.

E. de Pressense: The Martyrs and Apologists.

Translation from French. London and N. Y. 1871. (Ch. II p. 67 sqq.).

Chateaubriand: Les martyrs ou le triomphe de la rel. chrét.

2 vols.
Paris 1809 and many other editions (best translation into English by O. W. Wight,
N. York 1859.) Has no critical or historical value, only poetic.

See also Jameson: Sacred and Legendary Art

. Lond. 1848. 2 vols.

The church responded to these long and cruel persecutions not with revolutionary violence, not with carnal resistance, but with the moral heroism of suffering and death for the truth. However, this heroism was its brightest adornment and its most effective weapon. With this heroism, the church proved that it was worthy of its divine Founder, Who accepted death on the cross for the salvation of the world and even prayed for the forgiveness of His murderers. The patriotic virtues of Ancient Greece and Rome were manifested here in the most sublime form, in self-denial for the sake of the heavenly country, for the sake of a crown that never fades. Even children became heroes and rushed towards death with sacred enthusiasm. In these difficult times, people were guided by the words of the Lord: “Whoever does not bear his cross and follow Me cannot be My disciple”75; “Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me.”76 And every day the promises came true: “Blessed are those who were persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven”77; “He who saves his life will lose it; but he who loses his life for My sake will save it.”78 These words applied not only to the martyrs themselves, who exchanged a restless life on earth for the bliss of heaven, but also to the church as a whole, which became purer and stronger from each persecution, thereby demonstrating its indestructible vitality.

This virtue of suffering is one of the sweetest and noblest fruits of the Christian faith. Our admiration is not so much the scale of suffering, although it was quite terrible, but the spirit with which the first Christians endured it. Men and women of all ranks of society, noble senators and learned bishops, illiterate artisans and penniless slaves, loving mothers and tender maidens, gray-haired shepherds and innocent children, endured their torments, not with callous indifference and stubborn determination, but, like their Divine Master, with calm self-control , humble self-denial, gentle meekness, joyful faith, triumphant hope and forgiving charity. Such sights were often capable of moving even inhuman killers. “Continue,” Tertullian mockingly addresses the pagan rulers, “drag us on the rack, torture us, grind us into powder: the more you mow us down, the more we become. The blood of Christians is the seed of their harvest. Your very persistence is instructive. For who, watching him, would not wonder what the problem is? And who, having joined us, does not want to suffer?”79.

No doubt, even at this time, especially after periods of relative calm, there were many Christians whose faith was superficial or insincere; the storm of persecution swept them away, as if separating the straw from the grain; they either burned incense to the gods (thurificati, sacrificatï),

either they obtained false evidence of their return to paganism
(libellatici,
from
libellum),
or handed over sacred books
(traditores).
Tertullian relates with righteous indignation that entire communities led by clerics sometimes resorted to dishonest bribery to avoid persecution by pagan magistrates.
But, of course, these were rare exceptions. In general, apostates (lapsi)
of all three types were immediately excommunicated, and in many churches, although it was excessive severity, they were even refused restoration.

Those who joyfully declared their faith in Christ before the pagan magistrates, risking their lives, but were not executed, were revered as confessors

81
.
Those who suffered for the faith, enduring torture and accepting death, were called
martyrs
or
witnesses of blood
82
.
Among the confessors and martyrs there were many in whom the pure and calm fire of enthusiasm grew into the wild flame of fanaticism, whose zeal was perverted by impatience and haste, by conceit to provoke the pagans, and by ambition. These include the words of Paul: “And if I... give my body to be burned, and do not have love, it profits me nothing.” They handed themselves over to the pagan authorities and strove in every possible way for the crown of martyrdom in order to receive merit in heaven and be revered on earth as saints. Tertullian talks about a group of Christians from Ephesus who asked the pagan ruler for martyrdom, and he, having executed several, sent the rest away with the words: “Unhappy creatures, if you really want to die, there are enough cliffs and ropes around.” Although this error was much less shameful than its opposite (cowardly fear of men), it was nevertheless contrary to the precepts and example of Christ and the apostles83 and to the spirit of true martyrdom, which consists in the combination of sincere meekness and strength, and has divine power through the very consciousness of human weakness. Accordingly, the wise teachers of the church condemned such impetuous, uncontrollable zeal. The Smyrna Church says this: “We do not praise those who are asking for martyrdom, for the Gospel does not teach this.” Clement of Alexandria says: “The Lord himself told us to flee to another city if we were pursued; not because persecution is evil; not because we are afraid of death, but so that we do not cause or contribute to an evil deed.” According to Tertullian, martyrdom is perfected in divine patience; for Cyprian, this is a gift of God’s grace, which cannot be hastily grabbed, but must be patiently waited for.

However, despite instances of treason and deviation, the martyrdom of the first three centuries remains one of the greatest phenomena in history, as well as a testament to the indestructible and divine nature of Christianity.

No other religion could have resisted so long the combined attacks of Jewish fanaticism, Greek philosophy, and Roman politics and power; no other religion would ultimately defeat so many enemies by purely moral and spiritual force, without resorting to any carnal weapons. This comprehensive and prolonged martyrdom is the special crown and glory of the early church; his spirit permeated all the literature of that time and gave it a predominantly apologetic character; he penetrated deeply into the organization and discipline of the church and influenced the development of Christian teaching; it influenced public worship and private prayer; it gave birth to legendary poetry; and at the same time it has unconsciously given rise to many superstitions and an undue exaltation of human merit; this same spirit underlies the veneration of saints and relics in the Catholic Church.

Skeptical authors tried to downplay the moral impact of martyrdom, pointing to the ferocious and cruel episodes of the papal crusades against the Albigensians and Waldensians, the massacre of the Huguenots in Paris, the Spanish Inquisition and other later persecutions. Dodwell expresses the opinion, recently authoritatively confirmed by the impartial scholar Niebuhr, that the persecution of Diocletian is nothing in comparison with the persecution of Protestants in the Netherlands under the Duke of Alba, who championed Spanish fanaticism and despotism. Gibbon goes even further, boldly stating that "the number of Protestants executed by the Spaniards in one province alone during one reign greatly exceeds the number of martyrs of the first three centuries throughout the Roman Empire." It is also said that the number of victims of the Spanish Inquisition exceeds the number of victims of the Roman emperors84.

Although we acknowledge these sad facts, they do not justify skeptical conclusions. For those crimes and cruelties that were committed in the name of Christianity by unworthy believers and which were the result of the unholy union of politics and religion, Christianity is no more responsible than the Bible is responsible for all the nonsense that people have put into it, or God is responsible for the daily and hourly abuse His gifts. The number of martyrs should be judged in comparison with the total number of Christians, who constituted a minority of the population. The lack of specific information from the authors of that era does not allow us to establish the number of martyrs, even approximately. Dodwell and Gibbon, of course, underestimate it, as does Eusebius; folk legends from the era of Constantine and the legendary poetry of the Middle Ages overestimate. This is a conclusion from recent discoveries and research, which is fully accepted by authors such as Renan. Indeed, Origen wrote in the middle of the 3rd century that the number of Christian martyrs was small and could easily be counted, and God would not allow this kind of people to disappear85. But these words should be attributed mainly to the reigns of Caracalla, Elagabalus, Alexander Severus and Philip the Arab, who did not persecute Christians. Soon after this, the terrible persecution of Decius broke out, when Origen himself was thrown into prison and subjected to cruel treatment. As for previous centuries, his statements should be compared with the equally valuable testimonies of Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria (the teacher of Origen) and the even earlier Irenaeus, who clearly says that the church, out of love for God, “everywhere and at all times sends to the Father many martyrs "86. Even the pagan Tacitus speaks of an “immense multitude” (ingens multitudo)

Christians killed in Rome only during the persecutions of Nero in 64. To this should be added the silent but very eloquent testimony of the Roman catacombs, which, according to the calculations of Markey and Northcote, had a length of 900 English miles87 and concealed, according to some estimates, almost seven million graves, most of which contained the remains of martyrs, as indicated by countless inscriptions and instruments of death. Moreover, the suffering of the church during this period should, of course, be measured not only by the number of actual executions, but also by the much larger number of insults, accusations, lawsuits and tortures, a thousand times worse than death, which the cruelty of the heartless pagans and barbarians could invent or whatever could be subjected to the human body.

Finally, although Christian believers have always suffered in some degree from persecution from the wicked world, bloody or bloodless, and have always been ready to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their service, at no other period than these first three centuries has the entire church denied the right to a peaceful legal existence, never again was faith in Christ itself declared a political crime and punished as such. Before Constantine, Christians were a helpless and outcast minority in an essentially pagan world under a pagan government. They died not just for some teachings, but for the very fact of faith in Christ. This was a war not against any church or sect, but against Christianity in general. The significance of ancient martyrdom is connected not so much with the number of victims and the cruelty of their suffering, but with the great confrontation and its final result, which saved the Christian faith for all times to come. Consequently, the first three centuries are the classic period of pagan persecution and Christian martyrdom. The martyrs and confessors of the ante-Nicene period suffered for the common cause of Christians of all churches and denominations, therefore all Christians rightfully treat them with respect and gratitude.

NOTES

Dr. Thomas Arnold, not given to superstition and the idolatrous costs of the veneration of saints, remarks on a visit to the church of San Stefano in Rome: “No doubt many of the particular stories thus embellished do not stand up to critical examination; it is also likely that Gibbon is right to call the generally accepted claims exaggerated. But it's a thankless job. Divide the total number of martyrs by twenty - by fifty, if you like; after all, in all centuries believers have endured cruel torment and went to death for the sake of their conscience and for the sake of Christ; and their sufferings were blessed by God, which ensured the victory of the gospel of Christ. I don't think we even half sense the splendor of this spirit of martyrdom. I don't think pleasure is a sin; but, although pleasure is not sinful, suffering for Christ's sake is, without a doubt, the most necessary thing for us in these days, when suffering seems so far from our daily life. God's grace enabled rich and refined men, women, and even children to endure extreme pain and reproach in times past, and that grace is no less powerful now; if we do not close ourselves off from it, it can manifest itself no less gloriously in us in times of trial.”

Leckie, a very able and impartial historian, rightly criticizes Gibbon's chapter on persecution as insensitive. “Total absence,” he says (History of European Morals,

I. 494 sqq.), - whatever sympathy there may be for the heroic courage shown by the martyrs, and the cold, truly unphilosophical severity with which the historian judges the words and actions of people who suffered in mortal combat must be unpleasant to every magnanimous nature, while the obstinacy with which he evaluates persecutions on the basis of the number of deaths, and not the degree of suffering, does not allow the mind to realize the truly unprecedented cruelty of pagan persecutions... Indeed, in one Catholic country a terrible custom has been introduced to stage a spectacle of burning people alive during public holidays for their religious opinions.
Indeed, the vast majority of the acts of the martyrs are obvious inventions of false monks; but it is also true that among the authentic records of pagan persecution there are stories that testify, perhaps more clearly than anything else, both to the depths of cruelty to which human nature can fall, and to the heroism of resistance of which it is capable . There was a time when the Romans rightly boasted that their harsh but simple criminal code did not allow unnecessary cruelty and prolonged torture. But the situation has changed. The cruel influence of the games, which made the spectacle of human suffering and death into an amusement for all classes of society, spread wherever the name of the Romans was known, and millions of people became completely indifferent to the sight of human suffering; Many people living in the very center of advanced civilization have awakened a taste and passion for torture, delight and excitement at the sight of extreme agony, which only African or American savages experience. The most terrible tortures described were usually inflicted either by the population themselves or in their presence, in the arena. We read about how Christians were shackled in red-hot chains and the stench of burning flesh rose to the sky like a suffocating cloud; about how their flesh was torn to the bones with tongs or iron hooks; about holy virgins given over to the lust of a gladiator or to the mercy of a pimp; about two hundred and twenty-seven converts sent to the mines after each of them had the tendons of one of their legs torn apart with a hot iron and one of their eyes gouged out; about such a slow fire that the agony of the victims lasted for hours; about bodies whose limbs were torn off or which were sprinkled with molten lead; about various tortures that lasted for days. Out of love for their Divine Teacher, for the sake of a cause that they considered right, men and even weak girls bore all this without flinching, while one word was enough to free them from suffering. Whatever our opinion about the behavior of the clergy in subsequent centuries, it will not prevent us from bowing with respect before the grave of the martyr

. "

Russian Orthodox Church

On October 9, 2013, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, spoke at the annual event of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy.

This year, the entire Christian world is solemnly celebrating the 1700th anniversary of the publication of the Edict of Milan. I have just returned from the Serbian city of Nis, where the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine was born. There were inter-Orthodox celebrations dedicated to the anniversary of the document, which became fateful for the history of Christianity. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill took part in the celebrations along with the heads of other Local Orthodox Churches, including the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem and Serbia.

For the Russian Orthodox Church, the year of the 1700th anniversary of the Edict of Milan coincided with another significant anniversary - the 1025th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. This coincidence allows us to reflect on the historical path of the Church, to reflect on the ancient event that marked the beginning of a new Christian civilization, but at the same time to appreciate our own recent history. What we have experienced and what we continue to live with today can be confidently called the “second Baptism of Rus'.” In my opinion, our era - the era of the revival of the Church - has something deeply similar to the era that followed the promulgation of the Edict of Milan. The connection between times is the concept of freedom. It is on the topic of Christian freedom that I would like to reflect today.

The Edict of Milan is, in fact, the first official state document in the Roman Empire, thanks to which the “Catholic Church” receives not only the right to exist, but also state and public recognition. If before this Christians were persecuted and exterminated, if they could only exist in the catacombs and deep underground, then thanks to the Edict of Milan, Christians for the first time, on an equal basis with pagans, received the right to openly profess and preach their faith, build churches, open monasteries and schools. A huge achievement of the Constantinian era was the recognition of the Church as a full-fledged participant in social processes, which allowed it not only to freely organize its internal life, but also to have a significant influence on the life of the state and society.

Many Christians of that time still remembered how the persecutors squeezed the Church out of public space and drove it into the ghetto. Many were confessors with destinies broken by violence and oppression. For many Christians of the early 4th century, the eloquent, but at the same time painful appeals of the apologists of the 2nd-3rd centuries to the state leaders of the Roman Empire remained the truth of their own lives.

We touch upon the worldview of Christians during the era of persecution by reading, for example, Tertullian's Apology. He exclaims: “We have existed since yesterday, and we have filled all your places: cities, islands, fortresses, municipalities, meeting places, the very camps, tribes, decuries, palace, senate, forum. We left only your temples to you. For what open war we would not be capable, for what war we would not be ready, even if we were inferior to you in strength - we, who so willingly allow ourselves to be killed, if our teaching did not command us to be killed ourselves rather than kill others? We could fight you without weapons and without rebellion, separating from you as dissatisfied with you. For if we, being such a huge number of people, were to retire from you to some distant corner of the earth; then, of course, the loss of so many, whatever citizens, would not only be a disgrace for your rule, but at the same time a punishment” (Tertullian. Apology, 37).

Christians in the era of persecution had to prove to the imperial authorities their loyalty and their suitability for full participation in the life of civil society. But the authorities remained deaf to this evidence. And suddenly the same generation of persecuted and oppressed Christians becomes witnesses to the recognition of the Church as an integral part of society. Moreover, within a few years after the publication of the Edict of Milan, Christianity transformed into a spiritual force that largely determined the course of the further history of the empire and the whole world.

As a result of the Milan Agreements, Emperors Constantine and Licinius asserted something completely new, unheard of for their contemporaries. They publicly declare: “Therefore, guided by common sense and justice, we announce our following decision: no one is prohibited from freely choosing and observing the Christian faith, and everyone is given freedom to turn his mind to that faith which, in his opinion, suits him, so that the Divinity sent down to us in all cases quick help and every good thing... From now on, everyone who freely and simply chooses the Christian faith can observe it without any hindrance... [Christians] are granted unlimited freedom... freedom is given to others, if they wish, to observe their faith , which corresponds to our time of peace: let everyone freely, according to his own desire, choose his own faith” (quoted from: Eusebius. Church history. 10, 5).

It is important to note that this document did not give freedom to Christianity to the detriment of other religions of the Roman Empire; followers of various pagan cults retained their rights and freedoms as before. However, the Edict of Milan essentially recognized the fact that the Church was not some marginal sect corrupting traditional social foundations. On the contrary, the authors of the document are convinced that Christians are capable of extending God’s mercy to all people. The godliness and usefulness of Christians for society is what the new edict relied on, expressing the hope that the “Divinity” will send down to the authorities and people of the empire “in all cases, first aid and every good thing.” These lines not only equalized Christians in rights and freedoms with pagans, but opened up the opportunity for them to declare themselves as a new force capable of positively influencing society and filling its existence with divine meaning.

Thanks to the Edict of Milan, Christians were faced with the need to think not only about their salvation and the good of their small community. The new situation in society forced them to think about the quality of this society, about their role in it - the role of active citizens, prayer workers for the fatherland, people of good will.

In the new conditions, Christians - bishops, theologians, monks and many laity - were not at a loss. A rapid flowering of Christian thought and culture began in the empire, Christian historiosophy was born, and a new attitude of the Church to the world around it was formed. The era, which began with the publication of the edict, went down in history as the golden age of Christianity, and for the empire this era became a time of changing ideological paradigms. The theology of the Church formed the basis for a new understanding of personal, social and state responsibility, influenced the renewal of all institutions of society, gave a new value foundation to family relationships, attitudes towards women, and led to the gradual elimination of the institution of slavery in the empire. The new empire combined the Roman culture of legal relations, the Greek art of graceful thought and the piety of Jerusalem. And Christianity became a new religion in him, the foundation of a new worldview capable of uniting all the diversity of races and peoples of the empire. Having received a historical chance, the Church took full advantage of it.

The principle of freedom of conscience, proclaimed in the Edict of Milan, formed the basis of the new attitude of the authorities towards their subjects. Over sixteen centuries, the Edict of Milan anticipated something that only fully became possible in the twentieth century, after centuries of war and discrimination. In a number of international documents that form the basis of modern world law (such as, for example, the International Bill of Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), the freedom to profess one’s faith and live in accordance with it is the main the idea of ​​the edict is postulated as one of the most important freedoms of the human person.

Something similar to what happened in the Roman Empire in 313 happened 25 years ago on the scale of the then Soviet Union. We witnessed how the Church in our country, after many trials and bloody sacrifices, suddenly emerged from the ghetto, rose from its knees and began its victorious march through cities and villages. A significant part of society regained its Christian identity. The Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Constitutions of other independent states that emerged in the post-Soviet space clearly expressed state recognition of freedom of religion. Of course, this freedom was declared earlier, but in fact only after 1988 did it take on real shape, and Christians again received a historical chance in the vast expanses of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Central Asia, and the Baltic countries.

It all started with the fact that in the mid-1980s, the issue of freedom of conscience arose at the center of public discussion in the USSR. The Church played an active role in this discussion. Once again, like sixteen centuries ago, by the very fact of its existence, contrary to the surrounding reality, the Church exposed the crisis of freedom, and at the same time it exposed the internal fragility of the previous order of things. In the collapsing system of values ​​there was no longer any political, economic, or semantic bond capable of uniting the people.

And so, quite unexpectedly, in the context of the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus', originally conceived as a purely church celebration, what is commonly called genetic memory, national or religious identity, awakened in the popular consciousness. Thousands and millions of people throughout the Soviet Union openly expressed their position by taking part in the celebrations, filling churches and squares during anniversary services. The authorities had no choice but to see and admit that the Church is not a museum exhibit or an animal in a cage, but the spiritual power of a people of many millions, capable of reviving and renewing it. Those events marked the beginning of the revival of the Church, which, not coincidentally, coincided with fundamental changes in the state and social system of our country.

Some events in the history of the Church cannot be explained except by a miracle of God. Such a miracle was the era that followed the Edict of Milan in 313. No less a miracle happened in our country in the late 1980s. Could people who just a few years earlier risked their well-being, and in some cases even their lives, for the sake of their faith, regard the freedom that suddenly fell on their heads as anything other than a miracle and a gift from God? Could they have expected that the godless ideology would collapse and be replaced by a different worldview, in which the Good News of the Church would again be seen as one of the foundations of society and the key to its success in the future? The countless believers who gathered for the celebrations in July 1988 could have repeated the words once spoken by Eusebius of Caesarea on the occasion of the general church celebrations that marked a new era: “All the fear in which the tormentors formerly kept us has disappeared. Now the joyful and solemn days of crowded festivities have come: everything is filled with light” (Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History. Book 10).

In both cases, it was the granting of religious freedom that preceded the granting of other civil liberties, considered in our time as one of the main achievements of a democratic society. And this is not accidental, because it is in the Christian value system that the concept of freedom receives special content. We Christians are convinced that the gift of life is the gift of God, and that human life itself is not subject to anyone except the Creator of the human race. This conviction makes Christians free from the oppression of any political force and any ideology. It makes them capable of being martyrs and confessors when the Church is persecuted; witnesses of the truth and evangelists of the Kingdom of God, when the Church is recognized. No other religion or ideology has such a reverent attitude towards freedom. N. Berdyaev owns the following words: “Freedom, first of all freedom - this is the soul of Christian philosophy and this is what is not given to any other, abstract and rationalistic philosophy” (Berdyaev. Philosophy of Freedom. Part 1).

Christian freedom does not separate us from our families, from social ties, from our Fatherland. On the contrary, in the very Christian understanding of freedom, in the recognition of the absolute and life-giving connection of man with God, there is enormous moral potential. Being the creation of a good God, sons and daughters of the Creator, we are called to cultivate the garden given to us, thereby bringing the Kingdom of God closer to the human race. It was this moral potential, rooted within the free human personality, that Emperor Constantine saw in Christianity, allowing this powerful positive creative charge to be released and influence the entire society.

This same potential for Christian freedom has been released in our people after decades of ideological oppression. I am convinced that our people overcame the colossal social and economic catastrophe of the 1990s and found the strength to rise from their knees precisely because Christian blood still flows in them and in the depths of our national consciousness the idea of ​​Christian freedom has not yet been erased.

Recently, more and more often we can observe how in Western countries, and some in our country, a different freedom is proclaimed: from moral principles, from universal human values, from responsibility for one’s actions. We see how destructive and aggressive this freedom is. Instead of respecting the feelings of other people, she preaches permissiveness, ignoring the beliefs and values ​​of the majority. Instead of a genuine affirmation of freedom, it affirms the principle of uncontrollable satisfaction of human passions and vices, which is far from elementary moral guidelines.

The aggressive attitude of such a falsely understood freedom brings it closer to the totalitarianism of the era of persecution and the godlessness of the 20th century. “Totalitarian freedom,” based on human passions, takes us back to the times of the pagans, albeit in a more crafty and sophisticated form. Before our eyes, scenes familiar to us from the events of the godless decades of our country are unfolding again. Militant atheism, often in the most monstrous and grotesque forms, again raised its head and boldly declared itself in the vastness of Europe. Moral relativism and permissiveness are elevated to the basic principle of existence. And now we see buses driving around London with the inscriptions “There is no God, enjoy life” or “You are gay, be proud of it.” We hear about how in Paris, batons and tear gas are used to disperse a demonstration of supporters of traditional family values ​​who do not want same-sex couples to adopt children. We are witnessing how blasphemers appear on the pulpit of the main temple of Moscow, their actions arousing the approval of a certain part of society.

In this context, the historical lesson of the Edict of Milan becomes extremely valuable. He shows that a new round of development of civilization must be based on the freedom that rests on solid moral foundations. It is from such freedom that all other types of freedoms should grow, and from it also grows a state alien to totalitarianism. Otherwise, freedom again becomes only a declared abstract value, and liberal ideology enslaves and zombies a person, just as godless ideology did in the recent past.

In the 4th century, for the first time in its history, the Church began to integrate into civil society; Christians for the first time felt the opportunity to realize their faith and their beliefs for the benefit of their earthly fatherland. The power of Christian theology - the theology of atonement and resurrection, the theology of the Kingdom of God coming in power - was to be revealed in the lives of many peoples inhabiting the then ecumen.

Nowadays, the Church and its Sacred Tradition (Tradition) have become a revelation for our people. An entire generation of people cut off from the Church found faith again. The situation in which we find ourselves - the situation of finding a forgotten Tradition, the churching of society, the revival of the Church - has set us a task: to understand what the Christian Tradition with a capital C is and who we are in this Tradition. In addition, acquaintance with the history of Christian civilization, with the history of the Church, opened up for us an understanding of the role of the Church in completely different eras - prosperity and oppression, mistakes and trials. The Church did not know this in the era of Constantine, when it was just taking its first steps as a recognized social institution.

We can say today that the Church over the past seventeen centuries has become more mature, more sophisticated. The historical experience of the Church does not allow us, having received freedom, not to use it wisely. Today, special wisdom is required from the hierarchy of the Church, because we have received such a historical chance that we have no right to miss. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill accepted this mission, making one of the priorities of his ministry the building of relations between the Church and the state, institutions of civil society and with every citizen capable of hearing the word of the Church. On the day of his accession to the Patriarchal throne, he spoke of a unique historical opportunity for Russia to realize the ancient Christian idea of ​​a “symphony” of church-state relations. According to the Patriarch, one of the main ideas of the ever-memorable Patriarch Alexy that “the Church is separated from the state, but not separated from society,” should in our time receive its logical continuation and development.

While not yet a Patriarch, the then chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Kirill, spoke about freedom and responsibility as two absolute values, without interaction between which it is impossible to build a just society. Today, such thoughts are increasingly heard from the lips of statesmen. Today, the Church and the state in Russia, as well as in some other countries of the post-Soviet space, are able to speak with a single voice and express a single position.

Recently I had to take part in a meeting of the Valdai Club, a discussion group created 10 years ago by Russian President Vladimir Putin. At this meeting, the President spoke about what our Church has been talking about over the past years - about the conscious renunciation of European countries from their Christian identity: “We see how many Euro-Atlantic countries have actually taken the path of renouncing their roots, including Christian values ​​that form the basis of Western civilization. Moral principles and any traditional identity are denied: national, cultural, religious or even gender. A policy is being pursued that puts large families and same-sex partnerships, faith in God or faith in Satan on the same level... And they are trying to aggressively impose this model on everyone, the whole world. I am convinced that this is a direct path to degradation and primitivization, a deep demographic and moral crisis.”

Continuing his thought, the President of Russia emphasizes: “Without the values ​​​​embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the norms of morality and ethics that have been formed over thousands of years, people will inevitably lose human dignity. And we consider it natural and correct to defend these values. The right of any minority to be different must be respected, but the right of the majority must not be questioned.”

What path does Putin propose for Russia? What values ​​does he consider key for the development of our society? “You need to be strong militarily, technologically, economically, but still the main thing that will determine success is the quality of people, the intellectual, spiritual, moral quality of society. After all, in the end, economic growth, well-being, and geopolitical influence are derived from the state of society itself, from how citizens of a particular country feel like a single people, how rooted they are in their history, in values ​​and in traditions, whether they share common goals and responsibilities. In this sense, the issue of acquiring and strengthening national identity is truly of a fundamental nature for Russia.”

It is no coincidence that I dwelled in such detail on Putin’s Valdai speech. It seemed iconic to me. It testifies that the position of the Russian Orthodox Church and other traditional confessions of our country was not just heard, not just taken into account. It seems that we have finally reached the time when the voice of government leaders can be heard in unison with the voice of people of faith. Is this not eloquent evidence that the “symphony” that the Patriarch spoke about on the day of his enthronement is taking on real shape?

Consonance between the Church and the state in assessing social processes cannot in any way be considered a sign of a “merger” between them. The principle of mutual non-interference between the Church and the state in each other’s internal affairs must be and is being preserved. But this principle must be balanced by another, no less important principle: cooperation between the Church and the state in all those areas in which this cooperation is possible and necessary. And it turns out to be necessary in a variety of areas related to the sphere of public morality.

Today, both the state and representatives of religious denominations, as well as non-religious people who unexpectedly find themselves in the minority, can take full part in the discussion about the value guidelines of social development. We must create a society in which no one will be uncomfortable, in which everyone can realize their God-given freedom. But at the same time, freedom should not turn into permissiveness. Each member of society should feel responsible not only for himself, but also for his fatherland, for the entire world around him.

Today we cannot view society as a soulless mechanism governed by legal norms. Society is also a spiritual organism that is governed by spiritual laws. It is not for nothing that we talk about a moral and immoral society, about a sick society and a healthy society. The state’s ability to influence the spiritual sphere of human life is very limited, while the Church has enormous opportunities here. In order for the interests of society to be fully realized, it is necessary that civil freedom, which the state can and should ensure, be coupled with religious freedom. Because it is freedom that is the connecting link between two spheres of public life: civil and spiritual.

This topic is complex and multifaceted; it provokes discussions and requires discussions. Throughout Christian history, ever since the historical edict was signed in Milan, which granted the Church freedom, the Church has been in continuous dialectical development: on the one hand, it must preserve its freedom, bought at the price of blood, on the other hand, it is called implement it.

Any freedom is valuable when it is associated with responsibility and sacrifice. To have freedom means for the Church to remain the “salt of the earth,” the leaven of the Gospel, the spiritual strength and conscience of the people. Realizing your freedom means acting, using the opportunities that the Lord gives for service and preaching. This is how the world works that freedom is a condition for decisive but deliberate action. Freedom is a means, a condition for creativity. And creativity is involvement in the life of society with all its internal contradictions.

We are destined to live in a time when in our hands, in the hands of Christians, is the precious gift of freedom - the same gift that Christians received in the era of Emperor Constantine the Great. This gift of Divine Providence opens up enormous opportunities for us. However, the gift of freedom also places enormous responsibility on us. The ability to use the gift of freedom requires special wisdom from the older generation of people of the Church, and colossal dedication from young workers in God’s field.

Speaking about the idea of ​​Christian freedom as a thread that connects the era of Constantine with our era, I turn my thoughts to the feat of the apostles and martyrs, apologists and holy fathers of the 4th and subsequent centuries, right up to the new martyrs and confessors of the Russian Church. From the very moment of its inception, through all generations, thanks to the feat of heroes of the spirit, the Church guarded its freedom like the apple of its eye. And no matter what researchers say about church-state relations in Byzantium and Rus', at its very core the Church remained free, regardless of the external political situation. The freedom to confess Christ as Lord and to live according to His commandments will remain a constant for the life of the Church and for the life of every Christian until the moment when “the heavens pass away with a noise, and the elements burn with fire and are destroyed, the earth and all the works on it are burned up” (2 Pet. 3). :10).

I would like to wish all of you, and in your person the entire future generation of the Church, to preserve the spirit of that Christian freedom, which considers as vanity everything that does not bow its head before the living God and before the Savior of the world Jesus Christ. While maintaining this inner freedom, do not be afraid of creativity, do not be afraid of the risk of creativity. For the Lord calls us to be His co-workers in this world, and co-working cannot but be creativity in the highest sense of the word.

And one more wish that I would like to address to all of us today: while bringing the word of Christ to the world, let us not forget that the best testimony has always been and will be the example of our own lives. Let our creativity begin in our souls, in our families, parishes and monastic communities, in theological schools, in dioceses and metropolises. Then the power of our testimony will reach the entirety of society and each of its members. Then we will be able to thank God with our lives lived worthily for the precious gift of freedom that He gives to us, Christians, and which no one has the right to take away from us.

DECR Communications Service/ Patriarchia.ru

2.1. Edict of Milan 313 and its church-historical significance

The Edict of Milan, issued by Augustus Constantine and Licinius in 313, is an important milestone in the history of relations between church and state, dividing two eras that were completely different in nature. Assessments of its content, legal and church-historical significance among historians have always been ambiguous, since they served as an expression of a whole complex of scientific views. In the most direct connection, the assessment of the Edict of Milan is with the definition of the legal and actual position of Christians in the pagan empire at the beginning of the 4th century, the characteristics of the religious policy of Constantine the Great and his successors, and finally, with the general ideas of historians about the norm and ideal of church-state relations. From a research point of view, the Edict of Milan of 313 is primarily a source study problem. Its original text has not been preserved. The idea of ​​it was based on the decree cited by Lactantius addressed to the Presidus of Nicomedia dated June 13, 313, as well as on the translation of the text of the “decree of the emperors Constantine and Licinius” in the tenth book of Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History.” Some features of the texts cast doubt on their authenticity. Researchers were also bewildered by the fact that neither Eusebius nor Lactantius mentioned the publication of the edict when talking about the emperors’ stay in Milan. This state of the sources called into question the very existence of the Milan Decree. In Western European historiography by the beginning of the 20th century. Several directions for solving the problem of the Edict of Milan have emerged. Some researchers considered it real, but lost, others identified either the Latin or only the Greek version with its original text. The most “revolutionary” opinion about the problem of the Edict of Milan was expressed at the end of the 19th century. German historian O. Seeck, who categorically denied the fact of its existence: the document called the “Edict of Milan” is not an edict at all, was not issued in Milan, not by Constantine, and does not establish the legal tolerance that Christians have long enjoyed (meaning the decree of Galerius in 311 .). Seeck considered the text taken to be the “Edict of Milan” to be a letter from Licinius, explaining the application of the Edict of Galerius of 311. Russian historiography also presented a contradictory range of solutions to the problem of the Edict of Milan. The most skeptical view, close to Zeeck’s concept, is expressed in the work of the Byzantine historian A.A., which was quite late for the period of historiography under consideration. Vasilyeva. He believed that the document signed in Milan by Constantine and Licinius was a letter addressed to the heads of the provincial administrations of Asia Minor and the East with an explanation of how Christians should be dealt with in pursuance of the edict of toleration of Galerius in 311. Another prominent representative of Byzantine studies is F. .AND. Uspensky, on the contrary, considered the authenticity of the Edict of Milan to be undoubted. Church historians generally recognized the existence of the Edict of Milan as indisputable. The difference of opinion concerned the assessment of the credibility of the sources reporting on it. F. Ternovsky and P.V. The Gidulyans believed that the full text of the edict has not been preserved, but its general provisions are reflected in the decree cited by Lactantius. A.P. Lebedev, judging by his quotations, identified the text cited by Lactantius with the Edict of Milan. V.V. Bolotov, as can be seen from the course of 1884-1885 and lithographed notes of lectures of 1898-1899, considered the edict to be preserved in its entirety in the translation of Eusebius. In lectures of 1899-1900, saying that the noise of Seeck’s “discovery” that there was no “very cheap nature” of the Edict of Milan, he explained: “The Edict was preserved only in the form of a message to the President of Bithynia, the matter concerns only the form of the Edict, and not its content. All the presidents, and not just the Bithynian one, received the message in this form.” Obviously, only a minor change in the document in terms of form is recognized, but in what exact form it could have been published in Milan is not explained. In the text of the published lectures, this controversial source study issue is completely omitted. A.A. Spassky, who did not address the study of the problem of the Edict of Milan, quoted it from the text cited by Eusebius. The only serious source study of the Edict of Milan in Russian historiography was undertaken by A.I. Diamonds. He carried out internal and external criticism of Eusebius’s “History”, resolving the issue of the identity of the “decree” he cited with the text of the Edict of Milan; examined the chronology of the document in comparison with reliable historical facts; carried out an analysis of the text itself to explain its form as conveyed by Eusebius. As a result, the historical context for the issuance of the edict “with more or less probability” was as follows. The text of the document given by Eusebius is a translation of a document drawn up in Milan, where it was issued as a law for the region of Licinius, and in this form was sent to Maximinus. The latter rejected it, but after Licinius became the ruler of the entire East in 313, the edict was promulgated and received general significance. That is why Eusebius places it in the middle of the tenth book. The form of the letter to the magistrate is explained by the fact that it was intended primarily only for the region of Licinius, and for Maximin it served as a draft resolution for his region. From Brilliantov’s explanation it follows that the law on Christians was not only drawn up by Constantine and Licinius in Milan, but was set out in writing there and sent to the East, “whatever its actual form.” Having clarified some of A.I.’s assumptions. Brilliantov in the light of new research in the second quarter of the 20th century; M.E. came to the same conclusion in his work. Posnov. Thus, Russian historians proved the very fact of the publication of the Edict of Milan in 313 by Constantine and Licinius, and the full compliance with it of the text found in the tenth book of Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History”. The central place in the historiography of the problem of the Edict of Milan was occupied by the question of its legal meaning and historical significance. In the content of the edict, the following provisions attract attention: - Christians and followers of all other cults are given complete freedom to adhere to their chosen religion; - it is ordered to return to Christian communities the places of liturgical meetings and other property that passed into the hands of private individuals during persecution - through purchase or donation at the expense of the treasury; - Christian society is called “corpus christianorum”. Historians have interpreted these provisions of the edict differently, which affected assessments of its legal meaning. Within the framework of the traditional church-historical concept, the Edict of Milan was considered the proclamation of Christianity as the state religion with a significant violation of other cults (A.P. Lebedev, N. Grossu, F. Uspensky). From the second half of the 19th century. historians formulate more objective assessments of the Edict of Milan as a manifesto of religious tolerance (V.V. Bolotov, A.A. Spassky) or universal freedom of religion (V. Kiparisov, F.A. Kurganov, N.F. Chernyavsky, A.I. Brilliantov , M.E. Posnov), with which the church acquires the status of a legal entity, and Christianity is equalized in rights with other religions. A.P. Lebedev scientifically substantiated the first version of the assessment of the Edict of Milan. He based his evidence of the fact that the edict elevates Christianity to the dignity of the state religion on a fairly free interpretation of the text of the document: Christianity is the “main object” that the emperor has the goal of “blessing”; he “only tolerates” other cults. Giving Christianity a “primary position” among other religions is done, according to the historian, with a noticeable violation of the rights and privileges of the latter, which radically changes the state point of view on religion. Constantine legislates the universal nature of the Christian religion. The new concept is expressed in a new term - corpus christianorum, which includes all Christians, without distinction of denominational shades. This act opened up wide scope for civilizing activities for Christianity “as the universal church.” Constantine's actions in favor of Christianity after 313 served for Lebedev as the second line of evidence of the Christian orientation of the Edict of Milan. The development of this line is characteristic in the article dedicated to Constantine the Great, which emphasizes that the “solid foundations for the triumph of Christianity and the church over paganism” laid by the Edict of Milan were finally realized by 323, when Constantine, “having become the sole ruler, completed the work of establishing Christianity that he had begun.” in the Greco-Roman world." The emphasis on the origin and consistent implementation of the idea of ​​the Edict of Milan in the religious policy of Constantine the Great reflects the principled position of the historian. The historical process seems to be a logical sequence of events: the conversion of Constantine - the Edict of Milan - the religious policy of Constantine, which determined the triumph of Christianity. It is in this form that the justified A.P. Lebedev’s concept of the Edict of Milan took a dominant position in Russian church historiography until the 80-90s. XIX century In official articles dedicated to the celebration of the 1600th anniversary of the Edict of Milan, in the “Orthodox Interlocutor” and “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy,” the church-historical significance of the Edict of Milan was determined not by “the equalization of religions, but by the exaltation of Christianity.” Works by A.P. Lebedev for the authors of the articles served as an example of the scientific substantiation of this fundamental position. The scientific basis for the assessment of the Milan Document as an edict of religious tolerance in Russian historiography was first presented in the lectures of V.V. Bolotova. Emphasizing that the “clear and precise” text of the edict does not make it possible to talk about the proclamation of Christianity as the state religion, the historian pointed out that the edict gave freedom to the entire population of the empire to adhere to their religion, while not restricting the privileges of pagans and opened up the possibility of converting not only to Christianity, but and other pagan cults. The fact that the edict paid special attention to Christianity is explained by the need to create equal rights for it with paganism after the persecution suffered. This dictated the order of Constantine - to return the seized property to Christians and secure the rights to own them. The Edict, according to Bolotov, did not promise anything to Christianity, “except equality with other religions, except freedom of confession,” and this does not mean that Constantine took the side of Christianity. Of course, paganism inevitably suffered a loss: now it was impossible to involve persons who did not want to do so in the performance of religious pagan duties. But Constantine limited the freedom of the pagans only in some of its manifestations. Thus, the position of religion under Constantine the Great on the basis of the Edict of Milan is regarded by Bolotov as “Paritat” - equality between religions. The same view on the meaning of the Edict of Milan was held by A.A. Spassky. The policy of “religious parity,” in his opinion, was based on Constantine’s desire to create a new worldview, rising above paganism and Christianity, reconciling and keeping them in legal parity. It should be noted that V.V. Bolotov and A.A. Spassky did not share the legal meaning of the concepts of “tolerance” and “freedom of conscience” when determining the legal nature of the Edict of Milan, probably implying that one is impossible without the other. The fundamental separation of these concepts in connection with the problem of the Edict of Milan was carried out in the work of professor of church law I.S. Berdnikov, who used the historical example of the first legislative act of religious tolerance to criticize the bills of the Russian government at the beginning of the 20th century. on religious issues. The main idea of ​​this article is that the principle of “freedom of conscience” is not acceptable for Russia, since its legislation defines Orthodox Christianity as the dominant religion, and the main principle of attitude towards other religious confessions is religious tolerance. The Edict of Milan, according to the author, is an expression of the policy of religious tolerance with the elevation of Christianity to the level of a state religion. The system of religious policy founded by Constantine the Great underwent changes in the direction of restricting paganism, heresies and sects, but in general continued to operate in Byzantium, and subsequently in Russia until the 18th century. as the most reasonable means of regulating attitudes towards other faiths in the conditions of Christian statehood. It is characteristic that the main scientific authority on the issue of the Edict of Milan for I.S. Berdnikova is A.P. Lebedev. The journalistic nature of the work, of course, did not imply a serious penetration into the problem of the Edict of Milan, but demonstrated its relevance not only for the scientific and academic environment, but also for the socio-political consciousness of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Let's return to the sphere of strictly scientific interests. In the foreign scientific literature of the period under review, the assessment of the Edict of Milan as a manifesto of freedom of religion, or more broadly, of freedom of conscience, was substantiated by the French researchers Begnot and Chatel. In domestic historiography of the late 19th century. this opinion was directly followed by V. Kiparisov, F.A. Ternovsky, P. Lashkarev, F.A. Kurganov. From historians of the early 20th century. N.F. Chernyavsky assessed the Edict of Milan as a proclamation of freedom of conscience and the beginning of parity of religions. It should be noted that the named authors did not set out to study the problem of the Edict of Milan; they limited themselves to stating certain provisions, selectively quoting the text of the document and footnotes to authoritative foreign studies. The most fundamental solution to the problem of the Edict of Milan in Russian church historiography is presented in the monograph by A.I. Brilliantov “Emperor Constantine the Great and the Edict of Milan of 313”, which can still be considered an unsurpassed study of the religious policies of Constantine the Great in depth and thoroughness. The problem of the Edict of Milan occupies a central place here and is subject to systematic study. First of all, the issue of publication and the true appearance of the Milan Law is considered. Then the problem of its legal meaning and historical significance is formulated, divided into two components: a) the Milanese law from the point of view of its relation to the previous era (in order to establish what was the de jure and de facto position in the empire of Christianity before the issuance of the edict: “ then you can see what new was introduced by its publication"); b) The Edict of Milan from the point of view of its relationship “to further legislative acts and, in general, actions of state power relating to the position of the church.” Thanks to this methodological approach, the research was carried out in a broad historical and genetic manner. As a result, an authoritative conclusion was formulated about the meaning and significance of the Edict of Milan in the context of the historical situation of its appearance, implementation and results. Before us is a classic solution to a historical problem using historical methods (historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological, historical-analytical). Let us recall that the mentioned sections were preceded by a historiographical review, a detailed source study and a chapter on the conversion of Constantine the Great to Christianity. The significance of the Edict of Milan in relation to the era preceding it is determined against the backdrop of the disenfranchised position of Christianity in the Roman Empire: if the Edict of Galerius (311) gave Christians the right to exist with significant restrictions, then the Milan Law eliminated them, giving everyone the freedom to “follow that religion, who wants which one." A.I. Brilliantov focused on analyzing the legal content of the document, emphasizing that it is not limited to the declaration of freedom of conscience, but includes a definition of the legal status of the church. From the point of view of Roman law, the question of the legal status of a Christian was resolved through his affiliation with the church, i.e. the question of the personal freedom of Christians is directly related to the question of the relationship of the state to the church. It was this aspect that was not brought into the realm of legislation until the Edict of Milan. The Edict of Galerius, having permitted Christianity, did not recognize the church as a legal entity, which was quite consistent with his intention not to create convenient conditions for its further development. From a legal point of view, the key significance for determining the church-historical significance of the Edict of Milan was the legal qualification in which the fact of the return of their property to Christian communities was represented. By using such legal terms as “persona”, “corpus”, “jus corpus eorum” to name Christian communities, the legislator asserts the legal capacity of Christians as a corporation to own property. This recognizes the legal existence of the church in the empire - in the person of its constituent communities based on the norms of Roman corporate law. Legal recognition of Christianity is committed by the Milan edict against the background of the proclamation of religious freedom (but not religious). This is a very special, non -ancient, Christian essentially beginning to eliminate the state religion. Konstantin patronizes Christianity, but the widespread opinion that the Christian religion was elevated by him to the degree of state, diamonds considered the diamonds insolvent. Under Konstantin, a “thinly thought -out parity system” was established, with the private patronage of his church. That is why in the Edict there is no difference between the catholic church and sects. In the conditions of the proclamation of universal religious freedom, it would be "inconsistently and untimely insisting on such a distinction." Hence the question of sects goes beyond the “Milan Constitution”, although Konstantin himself, speaking of the Christian church, probably had in mind the Kafolic Church. Thus, the recognition of the Christian church of the status of a legal entity along with the proclamation of religious freedom created a completely new position for Christianity in the empire. Consequently, the definition of Milan Edict as the boundaries of two historical periods fully reflects its historical significance. By the time of the appearance of the monograph A.I. In Russian historiography, there was already an understanding of the Milan Edict as a new to the ancient world of the principle of relations between the state and religion (A.P. Lebedev, V.V. Bolotov, A.A. Spassky). But in the study under consideration, the justification of the church-historical significance of the Milan Edict acquired a real scientific weight due to the thoroughness and systematicity, supported by the analysis of the legal content of the document. The main feature of Milan legislation was determined the principle of “religious freedom”, unknown to the ancient world, which contained a much wider legal significance, in comparison with the concept of “religious religion”, which entailed fundamental changes in the relations of the church and the state. M.E. Savorns in the assessment of the Milan Edict fully joined the concept of A.I. Brilliantova. The opinion of A.P. Lebedev, that this edict of “Christianity is declared at the head of all religions, is proclaimed the only religion”, he considered it not corresponding to the text of the Milan Edict and the circumstances of its origin. Thus, in Russian church historiography, the very judgment of the Milan edict, which V.V. began to develop Bolotov. In the study of his student and successor A.I. It has gained a durable scientific status. It is impossible not to note the example of the study of the problem of the Milan edict of the eloquent development of the development of the historical method in church historiography: from the semi -prosperous interpretation of the text of Edict Lebedev, through the disclosure of his direct content by swamp, - to the study of Bronyantov, where deep source -history analysis and contextual approach made it possible to determine his legal and churchly church. -historical meaning. Vizantinist historians have not given so much space in their writings to analyze the Milan resolution, although they recognized its world-historical significance. F.I. The Assumption concisely evaluated the Milan edict as the proclamation of religion, by virtue of which "Christianity is declared equal with paganism and all the Diocletianic resolutions were destroyed." A.A. Vasiliev, as mentioned above, denied the existence of the Milan Edict as a separate document. However, referring to the work of A.I. It was with the initiative and activity of Constantine that the Brilliantova associated the equation of the rights of Christianity with paganism and, as a result, giving him a new legal status. Thus, secular historians in this matter joined the most authoritative scientific opinion developed in church historiography. So, the Milan Edict was the most important stage in the religious policy of the first Christian emperor. The software content of this document was largely determined in the understanding of historians by the further religious policy of Konstantin the Great.

General Edict of Tolerance. 324

The conquest of Italy led to the issuance of a general edict of toleration, and as soon as the defeat of Licinius made Constantine the sole ruler of the Roman world, he immediately addressed all his subjects with circular messages in which he exhorted them to immediately follow the example of their sovereign and accept the divine truth of Christianity.

The conviction that the rise of Constantine was closely connected with the purposes of Providence inspired the Christians with two convictions which contributed in different ways to the fulfillment of their predictions. Their ardent and active devotion had exhausted in his favor all the resources of human enterprise, and they confidently expected that their strenuous efforts would find support in some divine and supernatural assistance. The enemies of Constantine attributed to selfish motives the alliance which he entered into with the Catholic Church and which, apparently, contributed to the success of his ambitious plans. At the beginning of the fourth century the number of Christians was still very small in comparison with the population of the empire; but among an immoral people, who looked at the change of their overlords with the indifference of slaves, a courageous and united religious party could provide significant assistance to the leader, for whose benefit, out of conviction, it was ready to sacrifice both life and fortune.

The example of his father taught Constantine to value and reward the services of Christians, and in the distribution of public offices he strengthened his government by the appointment of such ministers and generals on whose devotion he could rely with thorough and boundless confidence. Thanks to the influence of these high-ranking missionaries, the number of adherents of the new teaching was supposed to increase both at court and in the army; the Germanic barbarians who filled the ranks of the legions were of a carefree nature, submitting without resistance to the religion of their commander, and it may be reasonably assumed that when these legions crossed the Alps a considerable number of soldiers had already dedicated their sword to the service of Christ and Constantine. The customs of the whole human race and the interests of religion gradually weakened that aversion to war and bloodshed, which had so long prevailed among Christians, and at the councils that met under the benevolent patronage of Constantine, the authority of the bishops was very opportunely used to confirm the duties imposed by the military oath. , and to excommunicate soldiers who abandoned military service during the prevailing calm within the church. While Constantine was increasing within his own dominions the number and zeal of his faithful adherents, he could also count on the support of an influential party in those provinces which were not yet under the rule or illegal possession of his opponents. A secret displeasure spread between the Christian subjects of Maxentius and Licinius, and the anger, which the latter did not try to hide, only served to incline the Christians even more in favor of his rival. A constant correspondence between the bishops of the most distant provinces enabled them to freely communicate their desires and intentions to each other and safely forward useful information or pious offerings to Constantine, who publicly announced that he had taken up arms to liberate the church.

The enthusiasm that animated the troops and, perhaps, the emperor himself, gave them extraordinary courage and at the same time satisfied their conscience. They went to battle with full confidence that the same God who once opened the way for the Israelites through the waters of the Jordan and overthrew the walls of Jericho at the sound of the trumpets of Joshua would clearly demonstrate his greatness and power in favor of Constantine. According to the testimony of church writers, these expectations were justified by a remarkable miracle, to which everyone almost unanimously attributes the conversion of the first emperor to Christianity. The real or imagined cause of so important an event deserves and demands the attention of posterity, and I will endeavor to impartially evaluate the famous vision of Constantine; For this purpose I will consider separately the banner, the dream and the heavenly sign, and will isolate from this extraordinary story its historical, natural and miraculous components, which, in composing a plausible argument from them, were skillfully mixed into one brilliant and fragile mass.

I. The instrument of torture, to which only slaves and foreigners were subjected, became an object of disgust in the eyes of Roman citizens, and the concepts of crime, suffering and shame were closely associated with the concept of the cross. It was not so much the love of mankind as the piety of Constantine that soon destroyed in his dominions the punishment that the Savior of the human race was pleased to endure, but the emperor had to learn to despise the prejudices of both his upbringing and his people before erecting his own statue in the middle of Rome with a cross in the right hand and with an inscription that attributed the triumph of his arms and the liberation of Rome to the dignity of this beneficial sign - a true symbol of strength and courage. The same symbol overshadowed the weapons of Constantine's soldiers; the cross glittered on their helmets, was carved on their shields, was sewn on their banners, and the sacred emblems that adorned the person of the emperor himself were distinguished only by richer material and more elegant workmanship. But the main banner, testifying to the triumph of the cross, was called Laborum - an incomprehensible, although famous name, the root of which was sought in vain in almost all languages ​​of the globe. It is said to have been a long pike crossed by a crossbar. On the silk fabric hanging from the crossbar, images of the reigning monarch and his children were skillfully woven. The upper end of the lance supported a golden crown with a mysterious monogram, representing at the same time both the shape of a cross and the initial letters of the name of Christ. The security of the Laborum was entrusted to fifty guardsmen of proven courage and devotion; their service brought special distinctions and pecuniary benefits, and some happy accidents strengthened the opinion that while the guardians of the Laboratory were in the performance of their duties, their lives were safe from the enemy's arrows.

II. In dangers and misfortunes, primitive Christians used to strengthen their mental and physical strength with the sign of the cross, which they used in all their church rituals and in all everyday difficulties as a sure protective remedy against all spiritual and worldly adversity. The authority of the church alone would have been quite sufficient to explain such a pious practice in Constantine, who with the same prudence and the same gradualness adopted both the truths of Christianity and its symbol. But the testimony of one modern writer, who had already stood up for the cause of religion in a previously composed treatise, gives the emperor’s piety a more impressive and sublime character. He asserts with full confidence that on the night that preceded the last battle with Maxentius, Constantine was ordered in a dream to inscribe on the shields of his soldiers the heavenly sign of God, the sacred monogram of the name of Christ, that he carried out this will of heaven and that his courage and obedience were awarded with a decisive victory at the Milvian Bridge. But certain considerations give reason to the skeptical mind to suspect the sagacity or truthfulness of a rhetorician who, from zeal or personal interest, has devoted his pen to the service of the dominant party. He published in Nicomedia his essay on the death of the persecutors of the church, as it seems, almost three years after the victory under the walls of Rome; but the interval of a thousand miles and a thousand days presented a wide field for the inventions of the reciters, for the gullibility of the triumphant party and for the silent approval of the emperor himself, who could listen without indignation to a wonderful story that increased his fame and contributed to the success of his plans. Licinius, who at that time was still concealing his enmity towards Christians, was given by the same author a similar vision in the form of a prayer, which was communicated by an angel and repeated by the whole army before it entered into battle with the legions of the tyrant Maximinus. The frequent repetition of miracles irritates the human mind when it fails to enslave it; but if we consider in particular the dream of Constantine, we find that it can be explained either by the policy or by the enthusiasm of the emperor. While worries about the morrow, which was to decide the fate of the empire, were interrupted by a short and restless sleep, the imposing appearance of Christ and the well-known symbol of his religion could of themselves present themselves to the excited imagination of a monarch who revered the name of the Christian God and, perhaps, secretly appealed to Him for help. A skillful politician could also use one of those military tricks, one of those pious deceptions, which Philip and Sertorius resorted to with such skill and success. All ancient peoples believed in the supernatural origin of dreams, and a significant part of the Gallic army was already prepared to place their hopes on the saving symbol of the Christian religion. Constantine's secret vision could only be refuted by the unfortunate outcome of the war, and the undaunted hero, who crossed both the Alps and the Apennines, could treat the consequences of defeat under the walls of Rome with the carelessness of despair. The Senate and the people, rejoicing at the occasion of their deliverance from the hated tyrant, recognized that Constantine’s victory surpassed the exploits of mortals, but did not dare to assert that it was achieved thanks to the patronage of the gods. The triumphal arch, which was erected nearly three years after this event, announces in equivocal terms that Constantine saved and avenged the Roman Republic through the greatness of his own soul and the inspiration or impulse emanating from the Divinity. The pagan orator, who earlier than others took advantage of a convenient pretext to praise the virtues of the conqueror, believes that he alone was admitted to secret and intimate intercourse with the Supreme Being, who entrusted the care of the rest of mortals to the deities subordinate to him; in this way he gives Constantine's subjects a very plausible excuse for refusing to accept the new religion of their sovereign.

III. A philosopher who examines with cool disbelief the dreams and omens, the miracles and wonders of secular or even ecclesiastical history, will probably come to the conclusion that, while the eyes of spectators have sometimes been misled by deceit, the reason of readers has been much more often insulted by fables. Every incident, every appearance, and every unexpected accident, apparently deviating from the ordinary order of nature, was rashly attributed to the direct action of the deity, and the amazed imagination of the crowd sometimes gave a definite form and color, a voice and a conscious direction to the extraordinary meteors flying through the air. Nazarius and Eusebius were the two most famous orators who, in carefully crafted panegyrics, tried to exalt the glory of Constantine. Nine years after the victory under the walls of Rome, Nazarius described an army of divine warriors as if suddenly descended from heaven; he spoke of their beauty, of their courage, of their gigantic forms, of the stream of light that poured from their divine armor, of the patience with which they spoke to mortals and allowed themselves to be examined, and finally of their claim that they were sent and flew to the aid of the great Constantine. As proof of the authenticity of this miracle, the pagan speaker refers to all the Gauls in whose presence he then spoke, and, apparently, hopes that this recent and public incident will make people believe in the ancient visions.

The Christian plot of Eusebius, which appeared twenty-six years after the dream from which, perhaps, it arose, is distinguished by a more correct and more elegant form. He says that during one of his campaigns, Constantine saw with his own eyes in the air above the midday sun a brilliant sign of the cross with the following inscription: “With this conquer.” This amazing celestial phenomenon amazed both the entire army and the emperor himself, who was still hesitant in choosing a religion; but his surprise turned into faith due to the vision of the next night. Christ appeared before him and, showing the same sign of the cross that Constantine had seen in heaven, told him to make such a banner and go with confidence in victory against Maxentius and all his enemies.

Protestants and philosophers of our time will perhaps find that in the matter of his conversion to Christianity, Constantine reinforced a premeditated lie with a clear and deliberate perjury. They will, perhaps, without hesitation, assert that Constantine was guided only by his own interests in choosing religion, and that, as one wicked poet expressed it, he made altars into the footstool of the imperial throne. But such a strict and unconditional sentence is not confirmed either by the properties of human nature, or by the character of Constantine, or by the character of the Christian religion. It has often been observed that in centuries of religious enthusiasm the most skillful politicians themselves were partly carried away by the enthusiasm which they endeavored to inspire, and that the most pious men arrogated to themselves the dangerous privilege of defending the cause of truth by cunning and deceit. Self-interest is as often the guide to our beliefs as to our course of action, and the same worldly calculations which may have influenced the public acts and pronouncements of Constantine may have insensibly disposed him to adopt a religion so favorable to his glory. , and for his elevation. His vanity was satisfied by the flattering assurance that he had been chosen by heaven to reign over the earth; success justified the divine origin of his rights to the throne, and these rights were based on the truth of Christian revelation. Just as real virtue sometimes arises from undeserved praise, so Constantine’s piety, perhaps, was only feigned at first, but then gradually matured into serious faith and ardent devotion to it under the influence of praise, habit and example.

The awe-inspiring mystery of the Christian faith and Christian worship was hidden from the eyes of strangers and even from the eyes of catechumens with a feigned modesty that aroused wonder and curiosity in them. But the strict rules of discipline, established by the prudence of the bishops, were relaxed by the inspiration of the same prudence in favor of the crowned follower, whom it was so necessary to attract into the bosom of the church by any lenient concessions, and Constantine was allowed, at least by tacit permission, — to enjoy the greater part of the privileges of a Christian, before he has assumed any of the duties of that calling. Instead of leaving the meeting of believers when the voice of the deacon invited all outsiders to leave, he prayed with the believers, entered into disputes with bishops, preached sermons on the most sublime and most intricate theological topics, performed the sacred rites of the eve of the Holy Resurrection and publicly admitted that he was not only a participant in the Christian mysteries, but to some extent even their clergyman and high priest. Constantine's pride, perhaps, demanded extraordinary distinctions, to which the services he rendered to the Christian Church entitled him to; inappropriate sophistication could completely destroy the not yet fully ripened fruits of his conversion to Christianity, and if the gates of the church were tightly locked before the monarch, who abandoned the altars of the gods, then the ruler of the empire would be left without any form of religious cult. During his last stay in Rome, out of piety, he rejected and insulted the superstition of his ancestors, refusing to go at the head of the military procession of the equestrian class and publicly offer prayers to Jupiter Capitolinus. Many years before his baptism and his death, Constantine publicly announced that no one would ever see either his person or his image inside the walls of a pagan temple; at the same time, he ordered the distribution of various medals and portraits in the provinces, in which the emperor was depicted in a humble and supplicating pose of Christian piety.

It is not easy to explain or justify the feeling of pride in Constantine that prompted him to renounce the privileges of a catechumen; but the delay of baptism is easily explained by ancient church principles and customs. The sacrament of baptism was usually performed by the bishops themselves and their clergy in the diocesan cathedral church during the fifty days that separate the solemn celebration of Easter from Trinity, and during this sacred period of time the church received a significant number of children and adults into its fold. Prudent parents often postponed the baptism of their children until such time as they were able to understand the obligations assumed; the severity of the ancient bishops required two or three years of preparation from the converts, and the catechumens themselves - for various worldly or spiritual reasons - rarely rushed to assimilate the character of people who were fully initiated into Christianity. The sacrament of baptism was believed to lead to complete and unconditional cleansing from sins; it instantly returned the human soul to its primitive purity and gave it the right to expect eternal salvation. Among the followers of Christianity there were many who found it unwise to rush into the performance of a saving rite that could not be repeated, who found it unwise to deprive themselves of an unvalued right that could never be restored. By postponing their baptism, they could satisfy their passions in worldly pleasures, and yet in their own hands there was always a sure and easy means of obtaining remission of all their sins. The lofty gospel teaching made a much weaker impression on the heart of Constantine than on his mind. He strove for the main goal of his ambition through the dark and bloody paths of war and politics, and after his victory he began to immoderately abuse his power. Instead of demonstrating his undeniable superiority over the imperfect heroism and over the worldly philosophy of Trajan and the Antonines, Constantine in his mature years did not maintain the reputation that he had acquired in his youth. As he advanced in the knowledge of the truth, he deviated from the rules of virtue, and in the very year of his reign, when he called a council at Nicaea, he stained himself with the execution, or rather the murder, of his eldest son. This comparison of years alone is enough to refute the ignorant and malicious hints of Zosimus, who claims that after the death of Crispus, remorse forced his father to accept from the ministers of the Christian Church that cleansing from sin, which he vainly asked from the pagan high priests. At the time of Crispus's death, the emperor could no longer hesitate any longer in his choice of religion; at that time he could no longer help but know that the church possessed a sure means of purification, although he preferred to postpone the use of this means until the approach of death eliminated the temptations and dangers of new falls. The bishops who were called to the palace at Nicomedia during his last illness were fully satisfied with the zeal with which he wished and accepted the sacrament of baptism with the solemn declaration that the rest of his life would be worthy of a follower of Christ, and with his humble refusal to wear the imperial scarlet thereafter as he put on the white robe of a convert. The example and reputation of Constantine seem to have encouraged the habit of postponing baptism, and to have inspired the tyrants who reigned after him with the conviction that the innocent blood which they would shed during a long reign would be instantly washed away from them by the waters of rebirth; Thus the abuse of religion dangerously undermined the foundations of morality and virtue.

The gratitude of the Church exalted the virtues and excused the weaknesses of the magnanimous patron who raised Christianity to dominate the Roman world, and the Greeks who celebrate the day of the holy emperor rarely pronounce the name of Constantine without the subtitle "Equal of the Apostles." If such a comparison were an allusion to the character of these divine preachers, it would have to be attributed to the extravagance of impious flattery. But if the comparison is limited to the size and number of their evangelical victories, then the successes of Constantine can perhaps be equal to the successes of the apostles themselves. By his edicts of toleration he removed the worldly disadvantages which had hitherto retarded the progress of Christianity, and the active and numerous preachers of the new doctrine received unlimited permission and generous encouragement to spread the saving truths of revelation by means of all those arguments that can influence the mind or the piety of the human race.

The irresistible power of the Roman emperors was revealed in an important and dangerous change in the national religion. The fear instilled in their military forces drowned out the weak and unsupported murmurs of the pagans, and there was every reason to expect that readiness for obedience would be the result of a sense of duty and gratitude on the part of both the Christian clergy and the Christians themselves. The Roman constitution had long established the fundamental rule that all orders of citizens were equally subject to the laws, and that the care of religion was both the right and the duty of the highest civil official. Constantine and his successors were not easily persuaded that by their conversion to Christianity they had deprived themselves of one part of their imperial prerogatives, or that they had no right to prescribe the laws of such a religion as they protected and preached. The emperors never ceased to exercise supreme jurisdiction over the clergy, and the sixteenth book of the Code of Theodosius describes under various titles the influence they assumed over the government of the Catholic Church.

But the distinction between powers, spiritual and secular, with which the independent mind of the Greeks and Romans was never forced to become acquainted, was introduced and strengthened by the legal establishment of Christianity. The office of chief pontiff, which from the time of Numa to the time of Augustus had always been filled by one of the most worthy senators, was finally united with the title of emperor. Formerly the first dignitary of the republic performed the priestly duties with his own hand whenever superstition or politics required it, and neither in Rome nor in the provinces was there any ecclesiastical class that laid claim to a more sacred character among men or to a closer communion with the gods. But in the Christian Church, which entrusts the service of the altars to a continuous succession of specially consecrated persons, the monarch, who in spiritual rank is inferior to the last of the deacons, sat near the bars of the sanctuary and mingled with the mass of the rest of the faithful. The emperor could be considered the father of his people, but he was obliged to show filial obedience and respect to the fathers of the church, and the pride of the episcopal rank soon began to demand from Constantine the same marks of respect that he showed to saints and confessors. The secret struggle between the jurisdictions, civil and ecclesiastical, hampered the actions of the Roman government, and the pious emperor did not allow a criminal and dangerous thought to be laid on the ark of the covenant. In fact, the division of people into two classes, into clergy and laity, existed among many ancient peoples, and the clergy in India, Persia, Assyria, Judea, Ethiopia, Egypt and Gaul attributed divine origin to both the temporal power they acquired and the property they acquired. These venerable institutions gradually adapted themselves to local manners and forms of government; but the practices of the primitive church were based on resistance to or contempt of civil authority. The Christians were obliged to elect their own officers, to raise and spend their own special revenues, and to regulate the internal government of their republic by a code of laws which had been established by the consent of the people and three centuries of practice. When Constantine accepted the Christian faith, he seemed to have entered into an eternal union with a separate and independent society, and the privileges which were granted or confirmed by this emperor and his successors were accepted, not as evidence of the fragile favor of the court, but as recognition of the just and inalienable rights of the clergy. .

The Catholic Church was governed by the spiritual and legal jurisdiction of one thousand eight hundred bishops, of whom one thousand were in the Greek provinces of the empire, and eight hundred in the Latin provinces. The space and boundaries of their diocese changed in accordance with the zeal and success of the first missionaries, in accordance with the desires of the people and with the spread of the Gospel. Episcopal churches were located in close proximity to each other along the banks of the Nile, on the African coast, in the Asian proconsulate and in the southern provinces of Italy. The bishops of Gaul and Spain, Thrace and Pontus were in charge of vast territories and entrusted their rural vicars with secondary pastoral duties. A Christian diocese could embrace an entire province or be limited to one village, but all bishops enjoyed the same rights, inseparable from their rank: they all received the same power and the same privileges from the apostles, from the people and from the laws. While Constantine's policy separated the civil professions from the military, a new and permanent class of ecclesiastical officials arose in both church and state, always respectable and sometimes dangerous.