Ah, so Mr. Miller writing in the 1800s. Any specific passage of his you want me to comment on?
Meanwhile, let’s think about this logically here. Where does a historian like Miller get his information? From historians that went before him. And where do they get the information? From even earlier historians.
These are what we call secondary sources.
So let’s just cut right to the chase and go to the primary sources, which are the sources that *every* historian relies on to make these conclusions, because in many cases they were the people who were actually there.
Eusebius, for example, know Constantine personally. So I think he’s got a little more weight to his opinion than Mr. Miller writing 1500 years later.
So I say again, where might we find this little historical “fact” in the primary sources?
Why not rely on the one source we should all be able to agree on for accuracy, Scripture.
Rome as the center of power in the early church only emerged later.