從澤克（Seeck, 1850-1921）1891年發表〈所謂的米蘭敕令〉（“Das sogenannte Edikt von Mailand”）一文開始，學者們便對於敕令是否存在聚訟紛紛，並形成了三種觀點：否定論、肯定論和協議論。通過對勘拉克坦提烏斯（Lactantius, 250-325）和尤西比烏（Eusebius, 260/265-339/340）的文本可以發現，所謂的「尼科米底亞敕答」（Nicomedia rescript）絕非《米蘭敕令》（Edict of Milan）之原本。從兩大文本的核心規範——宗教信仰自由原則的確立，以及行文風格可以推知，君士坦丁（Constantinus, 272-337）應是《米蘭敕令》真正的制定者。該敕令在312年末擬定完畢，313年2月君士坦丁與李錫尼（Licinius, 265-325）聯合發布。而後，李錫尼在東方戰爭大局已定的前提下，對於神祗的表達做了偏向羅馬傳統多神教的修改，以表達其不再屈從於君士坦丁的獨立傾向。無論從法令形式、意義和必要性加以檢視，都說明《米蘭敕令》確實存在。

Ever since Otto Seeck published his article, “Das sogenannte Edikt von Mailand” late in the 19th century, scholars have disputed whether there really was an edict, and formed three views: nonexistent, existent, and agreement. By collating the texts of Lactantius and Eusebius, it can be noted that the so-called Nicomedia rescript is by no means the original “Edict of Milan.” Based on the core regulations of the two texts concerning the establishment of the principle of religious freedom as well as their writing styles, it can be inferred that Constantine was the actual author of the “Edict of Milan,” which was drafted at the end of 312; later he and Licinius jointly released it in February 313. Then, under the condition of the gradual conclusion of the Eastern War, Licinius modified the expression of “the gods” in favor of the traditional Roman polytheism to express his independent tendency and no longer succumb to Constantine. Whether it is evaluated in terms of its form as an edict, or purely its meaning and necessity, the “Edict of Milan” does exist.