was to restore the unity of the Church in Africa, which had been

endangered by the disputes culminating in the Donatist schism; and when he

became sole ruler of the Empire a new task of a similar character was to

restore unity to the Church of the East, endangered by the Meletian schism

in Egypt [v. supra, § 57, a], the Arian controversy in its first stage

[v. infra, § 63], and the estrangement of the Asia Minor churches, due

to the Easter controversy [v. supra, § 38]. It was a master-stroke of

policy on the part of Constantine to use the Church's conciliar system on

an enlarged scale to bring about this unity. The Church was made to feel

that the decision was its own and to be obeyed for religious reasons; at

the same time the Emperor was able to direct the thought and action of the

assembly in matters of consequence and to give to conciliar action legal

and coercive effect. The two great assemblies summoned to meet the

problems of the West and of the East were respectively the Councils of

Arles, A. D. 314, and of Nicaea, A. D. 325.





I. The Council of Arles A. D. 314





(a) Constantine, Convocatio concilii Arelatensis, in Eusebius, Hist.

Ec., X, 5. (MSG, 20 :888.) Cf. Kirch, nn. 321 f.; Mirbt, nn. 89,

93-97.





For the Council of Arles, see Hefele, §§ 14, 15.





Constantine Augustus to Chrestus, Bishop of Syracuse. When some began

wickedly and perversely to disagree among themselves in regard to the holy

worship and the celestial power and Catholic doctrine, I, wishing to put

an end to such disputes among them, formerly gave command that certain

bishops should be sent from Gaul, and that the opposing parties, who were

contending persistently and incessantly with each other, should be

summoned from Africa; that in their presence and in the presence of the

bishop of Rome the matter which appeared to be causing the disturbance

might be examined and decided with all care. But since, as it happens,

some, forgetful both of their own salvation and of the reverence due to

the most holy religion, do not even yet bring hostilities to an end, and

are unwilling to conform to the judgment already passed, and assert that

those who expressed their opinions and decisions were few, or that they

had been too hasty and precipitate in giving judgment, before all the

things which ought to have been accurately investigated had been

examined--on account of all this it has happened that those very ones who

ought to hold brotherly and harmonious relations toward each other are

shamefully, or rather abominably, divided among themselves, and give

occasion for ridicule to those men whose souls are alien as to this most

holy religion. Wherefore it has seemed necessary to me to provide that

this dissension, which ought to have ceased after the judgment had been

already given, by their own voluntary agreement, should now, if possible,

be brought to an end by the presence of many. Since, therefore, we have

commanded a number of bishops from a great many different places to

assemble in the city of Arles, before the calends of August, we have

thought proper to write to thee also that thou shouldest secure from the

most illustrious Latronianus, Corrector of Sicily, a public vehicle, and

that thou shouldest take with thee two others of the second rank whom thou

thyself shalt choose, together with three servants, who may serve you on

the way, and betake thyself to the above-mentioned place before the

appointed day; that by thy firmness and by the wise unanimity and harmony

of the others present, this dispute, which has disgracefully continued

until the present time, in consequence of certain shameful strifes, after

all has been heard, which those have to say who are now at variance with

one another, and whom we have likewise commanded to be present, may be

settled in accordance with the proper faith, and that brotherly harmony,

though it be but gradual, may be restored. May Almighty God preserve thee

in health many years.





(b) Synodal Epistle addressed to Sylvester, Bishop of Rome, Bruns, II,

107. Cf. Kirch, nn. 330-337.





The following extracts give the canons of most importance in the

history of the times. The exact wording of the canons has not been

retained in the letter, which is the only record extant of the

action of the council. The text from which the following is

translated is that given by the monks of St. Maur in their

Collectio Conciliorum Galliae, reprinted by Hefele, § 15, and

Bruns, Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum, II, 107 ff. It is

to be preferred to the text of Mansi and the older collections.





The first canon settled for the West the long-standing question as

to the date of Easter. The Roman custom as to the day of the week

and computation of the time of year should be followed everywhere;

the same decision was reached at Nicaea for the East (v. § 62,

II, a). As a matter of fact, however, the computation customary

at Alexandria eventually prevailed as the more accurate.





The eighth and thirteenth canons touch upon North African

disputes. The former overrules the contention of Cyprian and his

colleagues, that heretical or schismatical baptisms were invalid.

It also laid down a principle by which Novatianism stood

condemned. The thirteenth applied a similar principle to

ordination; the crimes of the bishop who gave the ordination

should not invalidate the ordination of a suitable person, as was

claimed in the case of the ordination of Caecilianus by Felix of

Aptunga, accused as a traditor; further it ruled out the

complaints against Felix until more substantial proof be brought,

the official documents that he had made the tradition required by

the edict of persecution.





Marinus and the assembly of bishops, who have come together in the town of

Arles, to the most holy lord and brother Sylvester. What we have decreed

with general consent we signify to your charity that all may know what

ought to be observed in the future.



1. In the first place, concerning the observation of the Lord's Easter, we

have determined that it be observed on one day and at one time throughout

the world by us, and that you send letters according to custom to all.



8. Concerning the Africans, because they make use of their own law, to the

effect that they rebaptize, we have determined that if any one should come

from heresy to the Church they should ask him the creed; and if they

should perceive that he had been baptized in the name of the Father and of

the Son and of the Holy Ghost, hands only should be laid upon him that he

might receive the Holy Ghost. That if when asked he should not reply this

Trinity, let him be baptized.



9. Concerning those who bring letters of the confessors, it pleased us

that these letters having been taken away, they should receive other

letters of communion.



13. Concerning those who are said to have given up the Holy Scriptures or

the vessels of the Lord or the name of their brethren, it has pleased us

whoever of them shall have been convicted by public documents and not by

mere words, should be removed from the clerical order; though if the same

have been found to have ordained any, and those whom they have ordained

are worthy, it shall not render their ordination invalid. And because

there are many who are seen to oppose the law of the Church and think that

they ought to be admitted to bring accusation by hired witnesses, they are

by no means to be admitted, except, as we have said above, they can prove

their accusations by public documents.





II. The Council of Nicaea





For the Council of Nicaea, see Hefele, §§ 18-44. All church

histories give large space to the Council of Nicaea. V. infra, §§

63 ff., 72, a.





(a) Council of Nicaea, 325. Synodical Letter, Socrates, Hist. Ec. I,

9. (MSG, 67 :77.) Text in Kirch, nn. 369 ff.; Mirbt, n. 107.





To the holy and, by the grace of God, great Church of the Alexandrians,

and to our beloved brethren throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, the

bishops assembled at Nicaea constituting the great and holy synod, send

greetings in the Lord.



Since by the grace of God, a great and holy synod has been convened at

Nicaea, our most pious sovereign Constantine having summoned us out of

various cities and provinces for that purpose, it appeared to us

indispensably necessary that a letter should be written also to you on the

part of the sacred synod; in order that you may know what subjects were

brought under consideration, what rigidly investigated, and also what was

eventually determined on and decreed. In the first place, the impiety and

guilt of Arius and his adherents were examined into, in the presence of

our most pious Emperor Constantine: and it was unanimously decided that

his impious opinion be anathematized, with all the blasphemous expressions

and terms he has blasphemously uttered, affirming that the Son of God

sprang from nothing, and that there was a time when He was not; saying,

moreover, that the Son of God was possessed of a free will, so as to be

capable either of vice or virtue; and calling Him a creature and a work.

All these the holy synod has anathematized, having scarcely patience to

endure the hearing of such an impious or, rather, bewildered opinion, and

such abominable blasphemies. But the conclusion of our proceedings against

him you must either have heard or will hear; for we would not seem to

trample on a man who has received the chastisement which his crime

deserved. Yet so strong is his impiety as to involve Theonas, Bishop of

Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais; for they have suffered the same

condemnation as himself. But the grace of God freed us from this false

doctrine, impiety, and blasphemy, and from those persons who have dared to

cause discord and division among the people previously at peace; and there

still remained the contumacy of Meletius to be dealt with, and those who

had been ordained by him; and we shall now state to you, beloved brethren,

what resolution the synod came to on this point. Acting with more clemency

toward Meletius, although, strictly speaking, he was wholly undeserving of

favor, the council permitted him to remain in his own city, but decreed

that he should exercise no authority either to ordain or nominate for

ordination; and that he should appear in no other district or city on this

pretence, but simply retain a nominal dignity; that those who had received

appointments from him, after having been confirmed by a more legitimate

ordination, should be admitted to communion on these conditions: that they

should continue to hold their rank and ministry, but regard themselves as

inferior in every respect to all those who had been previously ordained

and established in each place and church by our most honored

fellow-minister Alexander. In addition to these things, they shall have no

authority to propose or nominate whom they please, or to do anything at

all without the concurrence of a bishop of the Catholic Church, who is one

of Alexander's suffragans. Let such as by the grace of God and your

prayers have been found in no schism, but have continued in the Catholic

Church blameless, have authority to nominate and ordain those who are

worthy of the sacred office, and to act in all things according to

ecclesiastical law and usage. Whenever it may happen that any of those

placed in the Church die, then let such as have been recently admitted

into orders be advanced to the dignity of the deceased, provided that they

appear worthy, and that the people should elect them, and the bishop of

Alexandria confirm their choice. This is conceded to all the others,

indeed, but as for Meletius personally we by no means grant the same, on

account of his formerly disorderly conduct; and because of the rashness

and levity of his character he is deprived of all authority and

jurisdiction, as a man liable again to create similar disturbances. These

are things which specially affect Egypt and the most holy Church of the

Alexandrians; and if any other canon or ordinance should be established,

our lord and most honored fellow-minister and brother Alexander being

present with us, will on his return to you enter into more minute details,

inasmuch as he is not only a participator in whatever is transacted, but

has the principal direction of it. We have also to announce the good news

to you concerning the unanimity as to the holy feast of Easter: that this

by your prayers has been settled so that all the brethren in the East, who

have hitherto kept this festival with the Jews, will henceforth conform to

the Romans and to us, and to all who from the earliest times have observed

our period of celebrating Easter. Rejoicing, therefore, on account of a

favorable termination of matters and in the extirpation of all heresy,

receive with the greater honor and more abundant love our fellow-minister

and your bishop, Alexander, who has greatly delighted us by his presence,

and even at his advanced age has undergone extraordinary exertions in

order that peace might be re-established among you. Pray on behalf of us

all, that the decisions to which we have so justly come may be inviolably

maintained through Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ, together with

the Holy Spirit to whom be glory forever. Amen.





(b) Council of Nicaea, Canon 8, On the Novatians, Bruns. I, 8.





The Church recognized the substantial orthodoxy of the Novatians,

and according to the principles laid down at Arles (cc. 8, 13, §

62 I, b) the ordination of the Novatians was regarded as valid.

The following canon, although a generous concession on the part of

the Church, did not bring about a healing of the schism which

lasted several centuries. The last mention of the Novatians is

contained in the 95th canon of the second Trullan Council, known

as the Quinisext, A. D. 692.





Canon 8. Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, who come over to

the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy synod decrees that

they who are ordained shall continue as they are among the clergy. But

before all things it is necessary that they should profess in writing that

they will observe and follow the teachings of the Catholic and Apostolic

Church; that is, that they will communicate with those who have been twice

married and with those who have lapsed during the persecution, and upon

whom a period of penance has been laid and a time for restoration fixed;

so that in all things they will follow the teachings of the Catholic

Church. Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or in cities, only these

are found who have been ordained, let them remain as found among the

clergy and in the same rank. But if any come over where there is a bishop

or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the bishop of the

Church must have the dignity of a bishop, and he who was named bishop by

those who are called Cathari shall have the honor of a presbyter, unless

it seem fit to the bishop to share with him the honor of the title. But if

this should not seem good to him, then shall the bishop provide for him a

place as chorepiscopus, or as presbyter, in order that he may be evidently

seen to be of the clergy, and that in one city there may not be two

bishops.





(c) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 5, 2; A. D. 326.





With the generous treatment of the Novatians by the Council of

Nicaea should be compared the mild and generous treatment of

Constantine, who distinguished them from other heretics.





We have not learned that the Novatians have been so condemned that we

believe that to them should not be granted what they claim. Therefore we

prescribe as to the buildings of their churches and places suitable for

burial that they are to possess, without any molestation, those buildings

and lands, namely, which on ground of long possession or from purchase or

claim for any sound reason they may have. It will be well looked out for

that they attempt to claim nothing for themselves of those things which

before their secession belonged evidently to the churches of perpetual

sanctity.







Chapter II. The Arian Controversy Until The Extinction Of The Dynasty Of

Constantine





The Arian controversy may be divided into four periods or stadia:



1. From the outbreak of the Arian controversy to the Council of Nicaea

(318-325). In this stadium the positions of the parties are defined, and

the position of the West, in substantial agreement with that of Alexander

and Athanasius, forced through by Constantine and Hosius at Nicaea (§ 63).



2. From the Council of Nicaea to the death of Constantine (325-337). In

this stadium, without the setting aside of the formula of Nicaea, an

attempt is made to reconcile those who in fact dissented. In this period

Constantine, now living in the East, inclines toward a position more in

harmony with Arianism and more acceptable in the East than was the

doctrine of Athanasius. This is the period of the Eusebian reaction (§

64).



3. From the death of Constantine to the death of Constantius (337-361). In

this stadium the anti-Nicaean party is victorious in the East (§ 65), but

as it included all those who for any reason were opposed to the definition

of Nicaea, it fell apart on attaining the annulment of the decision of

Nicaea. There arose, on the one hand, an extreme Arian party and, on the

other, a homoiousian party which approximated closely to the Athanasian

position but feared the Nicene terminology.



4. From the accession of Julian to the council of Constantinople

(361-381). Under the pressure brought against Christianity by Julian (§

68), parties but little removed from each other came closer together (§

70). A new generation of theologians took the lead, with an interpretation

of the Nicene formula which made it acceptable to those who had previously

regarded it as Sabellian. And under the lead of these men, backed by the

Emperor Theodosius, the reaffirmation of the Nicene formula at

Constantinople, 381, was accepted by the East (§ 71).



In the period in which the Arian controversy is by far the most important

series of events in Church history, the attitude of the sons of

Constantine toward heathenism and Donatism was of secondary importance,

but it should be noticed as throwing light on the ecclesiastical policy

which made the Arian controversy so momentous. In their policy toward

heathenism and dissent, the policy of Constantine was carried to its

logical completion in the establishment of Christianity as the only lawful

religion of the Empire (§ 67).



Arianism may be regarded as the last attempt of Dynamistic Monarchianism

(v. supra, § 40) to explain the divinity of Jesus Christ without

admitting His eternity. It was derived in part from the teaching of Paul

of Samosata through Lucian of Antioch. Paul of Samosata had admitted the

existence of an eternal but impersonal Logos in God which dwelt in the man

Jesus. Arianism distinguished between a Logos uncreated, an eternal

impersonal reason in God, and a personal Logos created in time, making the

latter, the personal Logos, only in a secondary sense God. This latter

Logos, neither eternal nor uncreated, became incarnate in Jesus, taking

the place in the human personality of the rational soul or logos. To guard

against the worship of a being created and temporal, and to avoid the

assertion of two eternal existences, the anti-Arian or Athanasian

position, already formulated by Alexander, made the personal Logos of one

essence or substance with the Father, eternal as the Father, and thereby

distinguishing between begetting, or the imparting of subsistence, and

creating, or the calling into being from nothing, a distinction which

Arianism failed to make; and thus allowing for the eternity and deity of

the Son without detracting from the monotheism which was universally

regarded as the fundamental doctrine of Christianity as a body of

theology. In this controversy the party of Alexander and Athanasius was

animated, at least in the earlier stages of the controversy, not so much

by speculative interests as by religious motives, the relation of Jesus to

redemption, and they were strongly influenced by Irenaeus. The party of

Arius, on the other hand, was influenced by metaphysical interests as to

the relation of being to creation and the contrast between the finite and

the infinite. It may be said, in general, that until the council of

Chalcedon, and possibly even after that, the main interest that kept alive

theological discussion was intimately connected with vital problems of

religious life of the times. After that the scholastic period began to set

in and metaphysical discussions were based upon the formulae of the

councils.