TD Barnes has vigorously contested popular ideas of the Edict of Milan: It was not issued in Milan and didn’t affect Italy; it didn’t legalize Christianity, which was already legal; it was not an edict.
This can leave the impression that the declaration of Licinius on June 13, 313 was no big deal. Though recognizing that Barnes is right about details, Potter thinks that it truly was “the official beginning of a new era in the relationship between church and state” ( Constantine the Emperor , 148-9).
He continues, “it expresses a message of inclusion that goes far beyond the edicts of Galerius and Maximinus [both pagans who legalized Christianity in West and East, respectively]. While these two emperors had promised that they would no longer persecute the Christians for the good of the state as a whole, in this edict Licinius and Constantine state that the Christians are protected by the Highest God, who has aided them in their victories. All who worshipped the gods were therefore to be treated equally. It is a stunning assertion by a Roman emperor that freedom of thought is a good thing, and it remains such even though neither Licinius nor Constantine would always follow through on this point.”
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from History
Continue reading related articles
Realness of Things Past
Greg Anderson began thinking about the thesis of his Realness of Things Past while working on a book on the “state” in classical Greece. He discovered there was no such thing as an Athenian “state,” and that conclusion led him to question the way historians do history. Instead of running…
The Power of the Margins
David Martin (1929-2019) was a secularization skeptic. He acknowledged that modern societies typically undergo a process of "differentiation," in which various sectors of social and political life free themselves from the oversight of religious authority. He acknowledged that in many modern societies religious institutions and values are "marginalized." But he…
Zwinglian Symbolism
Nathan Mitchell (writing in the Oxford History of Christian Worship , 324) denies that Zwingli taught a "mere symbolist" according to which the Supper "simply served to remind believers of the great benefits bestowed on them through Christ's passion and death." Zwingli wasn't a symbolist "in any modern sense." Mitchell…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.