EDICT OF MILAN. – After the victory over Maxentius in 312, the emperors Constantine and Licinius met in Milan in the first months of 313. Their good accord was further strengthened by ties of kinship, since Licinius married Constantia, the sister of Constantine. And among the liberal and munificent measures adopted at that meeting there were certainly also some relating to the Christian question. Eusebius (Hist. ecl., X, 5) and Lactantius (De mort. persec., 48) report, with slight variations, a letter from Licinius to the governors of the provinces subject to him, a letter written in the name of both emperors, which modern writers very improperly called the Edict of Milan, whereas at most it presupposes a legislative act and explains II. The essential passages of the document are these: “While I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, were fortunately assembled at Milan and discussing together everything that concerns the interest and security of the State, among the matters that seemed useful to the multitude we believed that first place should be assigned to that which concerns the worship of the divinity, granting to Christians and to all the freedom to follow the religion they wish, so that whatever is divine in heaven might be favorable and propitious to us, as well as to all those subject to our authority... Moreover, as regards the Christians, we have decided that the places where they used to assemble—in regard to which letters of instruction had already been addressed to your offices—if anyone has purchased them from our treasury or from anyone else, must restore them to the Christians without payment or demanding a price, without seeking pretexts or raising disputes; those who have received them as a gift shall likewise restore them as soon as possible to the same Christians. Those, moreover, who have purchased or received them as a donation, if they desire to obtain something from our benevolence, shall apply to the vicar (of the diocese), so that our clemency may diligently provide for their requests. You shall take care that all this be restored to the community of the Christians (corpori Christianorum) and without delay...” (Fliche-Martin-Fruta, III, p. 22).
The document, therefore, is neither a profession of Christian faith nor does it create a privileged situation for Christians; rather, it recognizes for them, as for the followers of every other religion, freedom of worship. The State no longer considers an act of homage to the divinities of the official religion necessary; the great conquest of freedom of religious thought has been accomplished, and consequently the previous policy of persecution is repudiated and condemned. This is a great advance over Galerius’s edict of toleration of 311; whereas Galerius reproves and condemns those who have abandoned the religion of their fathers in order to follow the doctrine of Christ and, solely for reasons of expediency and, as he says, clemency, brings the persecutions to an end, the document of Milan repudiates the entire persecutory policy of his predecessors. Once the principle was established that following the Christian religion was no longer a crime against the State, the restitution of the property confiscated from Christians followed as its legitimate consequence.
It is noteworthy in any case that the restitutions were made to the communities (contentiulis, as the text of Lactantius says), so that the Christian communities were recognized as entities capable of possessing property.
Given the fame of the imperial document, to which Christian writers attributed greater significance than it actually possessed, thereby leaving both the edict of Galerius and the participation of Licinius in the shadows in order to confer upon Constantine alone all the credit for the measures favorable to Christians, it is understandable that a reaction arose among critics during the last fifty years. Some have gone so far as to attack the entire document as a Christian forgery; this cannot be the case, because the two writers who report it were contemporaries of the events, and if they had invented an act of the imperial chancery, they would have exposed their writings to triumphant refutation. Others, less radical, are closer to the truth: O. Seeck demonstrated that the preserved text cannot be called an edict; H. Grégoire added the demonstration that the act was not promulgated at Milan, but at Nicomedia in June, not in February, of 313. He wished to draw from this the conclusion that it was owed not to Constantine but solely to Licinius, who should therefore be credited with priority in the measures favorable to Christianity. This is perhaps too much, and it has been rebutted by J.-B. Palanque.