Part 34 (1/2)
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 t.i.tle. But if this should not seem good to him, then shall the bishop provide for him a place as ch.o.r.episcopus, 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 Theodosia.n.u.s_, XVI, 5, 2; A. D. 326.
With the generous treatment of the Novatians by the Council of Nica 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 sanct.i.ty.
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 Nica (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 Nica ( 63).
2. From the Council of Nica to the death of Constantine (325-337). In this stadium, without the setting aside of the formula of Nica, 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-Nican party is victorious in the East ( 65), but as it included all those who for any reason were opposed to the definition of Nica, it fell apart on attaining the annulment of the decision of Nica. There arose, on the one hand, an extreme Arian party and, on the other, a h.o.m.oiousian 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 att.i.tude 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 G.o.d which dwelt in the man Jesus. Arianism distinguished between a Logos uncreated, an eternal impersonal reason in G.o.d, and a personal Logos created in time, making the latter, the personal Logos, only in a secondary sense G.o.d. 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 wors.h.i.+p of a being created and temporal, and to avoid the a.s.sertion 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 distinguis.h.i.+ng 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 Irenus. 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 formul of the councils.
63. The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy and the Council of Nica, A.
D. 325
The Arian controversy began in Alexandria about 318, as related by Socrates (_a_). The positions of the two parties were defined from the beginning both by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria (_b_), and Arius himself (_c_), who by appealing to Eusebius of Nicomedia, his fellow-student in the school of Lucian of Antioch, enlisted the support of that able ecclesiastical politician and courtier and at once extended the area of the controversy throughout the East. By means of poems of a somewhat popular character ent.i.tled the _Thalia_, about 322 (_d_), Arius spread his doctrines still further, involving others than the trained professional theologian. In the meanwhile Arius and some other clergy sympathizing with him in Egypt were deposed about 320 (_e_). Constantine endeavored to end the dispute by a letter, and, failing in this, sent Hosius of Cordova, his adviser in ecclesiastical matters, to Alexandria in 324. On the advice of Hosius, a synod was called to meet at Nica in the next year, after the pattern of the earlier synod for the West at Arles in 314. Here the basis for a definition of faith was a non-committal creed presented by Eusebius of Csarea, the Church historian (_f_). This was modified, probably under the influence of Hosius, so as to be in harmony at once with the tenets of the party of Alexander and Athanasius, and with the characteristic theology of the West (_g_).
Additional source material: J. Chrystal, _Authoritative Christianity_, Jersey City, 1891, vol. I; _The Council of Nica: The Genuine Remains_; H. R. Percival, _The Seven Ec.u.menical Councils_ (PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV); Athanasius, _On the Incarnation_ (PNF, ser. II, vol. IV).
(_a_) Socrates. _Hist. Ec._, I, 5. (MSG, 67:41.)
The outbreak of the controversy at Alexandria circa 318.
After Peter, who was bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, Achillas succeeded to the episcopal office, and after Achillas, Alexander succeeded in the period of peace above referred to.
Conducting himself fearlessly, he united the Church. By chance, one day, in the presence of the presbyters and the rest of his clergy, he was discussing too ambitiously the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, teaching that there was a unity in the Trinity. But Arius, one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, a man of no inconsiderable logical ac.u.men, imagining that the bishop was subtly introducing the doctrine of Sabellius the Libyan, from the love of controversy took the opposite opinion to that of the Libyan, and, as he thought, vigorously responded to the things said by the bishop. If, said he, the Father begat the Son, He that was begotten had a beginning of existence; and from this it is evident that there was a time when the Son was not. It follows necessarily that He had His subsistence [hypostasis] from nothing.