Changes

==Constantine and Church Unity==

The Church in Constantine’s time was very divided. It was divided on theological issues and these had led to schisms in the Christian community. Constantine was to prove to be very interested in the unity of the Church after 312 AD. He held a series of Councils that was to be very important in the development of the Church and its doctrines. At these Constantine attempted to persuade the Bishops to come to an agreement on theological matters such as the nature of Christ, which was at the heart of the Arian controversy. He attempted to ensure that there were no breakaway Churches and he prevented the formation of independent Christians churches </ref> Eusebius, VI</ref>. Constantine constantly attempted to achieve unity in the Church and one that had a set of beliefs founded on the scriptures. These efforts would indicate that he had been genuinely converted at the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. Constantine was an autocratic ruler and he attempted to impose order on every aspect of Roman life, as indicated by his administrative reforms <ref> Cameron, p 112</ref>. The Christian Church was a very important part of the life of people in the Roman Empire. Its theological disputes could potentially destabilize the Empire <ref> Rapp, C., "Imperial Ideology in the Making: Eusebius of Caesarea on Constantine as Bishop", Journal of Theological Studies, 49 (1998): 684-95</ref>. Eusebius portrays Egypt as ungovernable because of the theological controversies that were dividing the church in that province <ref> Eusebius, IV</ref>. According to Eusebius in every city ‘bishops were engaged in obstinate conflict with bishops, and people rising against people’ <ref> Eusebius, Vita Constantini. Vi </ref>. The deep interest that Constantine had in the unity of the Christian Church cannot be construed as indicating that he was a full professed Christian.

==Constantine and Conversion==

To understand if Constantine did have a conversion experience at the time of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge there needs to be an understanding of what conversion meant at the time <ref> Rapp, p. 65</ref>. Constantine was not technically a Christian after 312 AD, or for many years afterward, because he had not been baptized and was therefore not a full member of the Church. However, the conversion process could be gradual <ref> Elliot, Thomas G., 'Constantine's Conversion; do we really need it?' Phoenix 41 (1987), 420-438 </ref> . Constantine only seems to have slowly accepted Christian doctrine. Before this, he probably still had some lingering faith in some of the pagan deities, especially the sun-god, whose worship was very popular <ref> Elliot, p. 430</ref>. Constantine was not suddenly converted to Christianity before the Milvian Bridge, but that episode was very important in his growing attachment to the Church and its doctrines. The growing relationship between Constantine and the Christian Church would indicate his growing commitment to Christianity, but that is was a long-drawn out process<ref> Smith, M.D., "The Religion of Constantius I", Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 38 (1997): 187-209</ref>. The ‘vision’ before the Milvian Bridge, that prompted him to order his soldiers to enter battle with a Christian sign was crucial in his early religious development. It seems that Constantine’s conversion was almost a life-long process and he was not a true Christian in 312 AD or for many years after. Indeed he was probably an old man before he was a true Christian. He only accepted baptism on his deathbed and perhaps only then could he be considered a Christian <ref> Smith, p. 189</ref>