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 worship 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 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 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.

(_b_) Alexander of Alexandria. _Ep. ad Alexandrum_, in Theodoret, _Hist.

Ec._, I, 3. (MSG, 88:904.)

A statement of the position of Alexander made to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople.

This extract is to be found at the end of the letter; it is evidently based upon the creed which is reproduced with somewhat free glosses. The omissions in the extract are of the less important glosses and proof-texts. For the position of Alexander the letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia given below (_c_) should also be examined.

We believe as the Apostolic Church teaches, In one unbegotten Father, who of His being has no cause, immutable and invariable, and who subsists always in one state of being, admitting neither of progression nor diminution; who gave the law and the prophets and the Gospel; of patriarchs and Apostles and all saints, Lord; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of G.o.d, begotten not out of that which is not, but of the Father, who is; yet not after the manner of material bodies, by severance or emanation, as Sabellius and Valentinus taught, but in an inexpressible and inexplicable manner. We have learned that the Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, lacking only His unbegottenness. He is the exact and precisely similar image of His Father. And in accordance with this we believe that the Son always existed of the Father. Therefore His own individual dignity must be reserved to the Father as the Unbegotten One, no one being called the cause of His existence: to the Son, likewise, must be given the honor which befits Him, there being to Him a generation from the Father which has no beginning. And in addition to this pious belief respecting the Father and the Son, we confess as the sacred Scriptures teach us, one Holy Spirit, who moved the saints of the Old Testament, and the divine teachers of that which is called the New. We believe in one and only Catholic and Apostolic Church, which can never be destroyed even though all the world were to take counsel to fight against it, and which gains the victory over all the impious attacks of the heterodox. After this we receive the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; who bore a body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary, the mother of G.o.d [theotokos] in the fulness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His G.o.dhead. He rose from the dead, was taken into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

(_c_) Arius, _Ep. ad Eusebium_, in Theodoret, _Hist. Ec._, I, 4. (MSG, 88:909.)

A statement in the words of Arius of his own position and that of Alexander addressed to Eusebius of Nicomedia.

To his very dear lord, the man of G.o.d, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius unjustly persecuted by Alexander the Pope, on account of that all-conquering truth of which you are also the champion, sendeth greeting in the Lord.

Alexander has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches; namely, G.o.d is always, the Son is always; as the Father so the Son; the Son coexists unbegotten with G.o.d; He is everlastingly begotten; He is the unbegotten begotten; neither by thought nor by any interval does G.o.d precede the Son; always G.o.d, always the Son; the Son is of G.o.d himself. To these impieties we cannot listen even though heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the Unbegotten; nor from any substance [hypokeimenon],(99) but that of His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time and before ages, as perfect G.o.d only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten or created or purposed or established He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that G.o.d is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise because we say that He is of that which is not.(100) And this we say because He is neither part of G.o.d, nor of any substance [hypokeimenon]. For this we are persecuted; the rest you know. I bid thee farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist and true Eusebius [_i.e._, pious].

(_d_) Arius, _Thalia_, in Athanasius, _Orat. contra Arianos_, I, 2. (MSG, 26:21.)

The following extracts from the _Thalia_, although given by Athanasius, the opponent of Arius, are so in harmony with what Arius and his followers a.s.serted repeatedly that they may be regarded as correctly representing the work from which they profess to be taken.

G.o.d was not always Father; but there was when G.o.d was alone and was not yet Father; afterward He became a Father. The Son was not always; for since all things have come into existence from nothing, and all things are creatures and have been made, so also the Logos of G.o.d himself came into existence from nothing and there was a time when He was not; and that before He came into existence He was not; but He also had a beginning of His being created. For G.o.d, he says, was alone and not yet was there the Logos and Wisdom. Afterward He willed to create us, then He made a certain one and named Him Logos and Wisdom and Son, in order that by Him He might create us. He says, therefore, that there are two wisdoms, one proper to, and existing together with, G.o.d; but the Son came into existence by that wisdom, and was made a partaker of it and was only named Wisdom and Logos.

For Wisdom existed by wisdom and the will of G.o.ds wisdom. So, he says, that there is another Logos besides the Son in G.o.d, and the Son partaking of that Logos is again named Logos and Son by grace. There are many powers; and there is one which is by nature proper to G.o.d and eternal; but Christ, again, is not the true power of G.o.d, but is one of those which are called powers, of whom also the locust and the caterpillar are called not only a power but a great power [Joel 2:2], and there are many other things like to the Son, concerning whom David says in the Psalms: The Lord of Powers;(101) likewise the Logos is mutable, as are all things, and by His own free choice, so far as He wills, remains good; because when He wills He is able to change, as also we are, since His nature is subject to change. Then, says he, G.o.d foreseeing that He would be good, gave by antic.i.p.ation to Him that glory, which as a man He afterward had from His virtue; so that on account of His works, which G.o.d foresaw, G.o.d made Him to become such as He is now.

(_e_) Council of Alexandria, A. D. 320, _Epistula encyclica_, in Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 6. (MSG, 67:45.) _Cf._ Kirch, nn. 353 _ff._

The encyclical of the Council of Alexandria under Alexander, in which Arius and his sympathizers were deposed, was possibly composed by Athanasius. It is commonly found in his works, ent.i.tled _Depositio Arii_. It is also found in the _Ecclesiastical History_ of Socrates. For council, see Hefele, 20.

Those who became apostates were Arius, Achillas, ithales, Carpones, another Arius, and Sarmates, who were then presbyters; Euzoius, Lucius, Julia.n.u.s, Menas, h.e.l.ladius, and Gaius, who were then deacons; and with them Secundus and Theonas, then called bishops. And the novelties which they have invented and put forth contrary to the Scriptures are the following: G.o.d was not always a Father, but there was a time when He was not a Father. The Logos of G.o.d was not always, but came into existence from things that were not; wherefore there was a time when He was not; for the Son is a creature and a work. Neither is He like in essence to the Father. Neither is He truly by nature the Logos of the Father; neither is He His true Wisdom; but He is one of the things made and created, and is called the Logos and Wisdom by an abuse of terms, since He himself originated by G.o.ds own logos and by the wisdom that is in G.o.d, by which G.o.d has made not only all things but Him also. Wherefore He is in His nature subject to change and variation as are all rational creatures. And the Logos is foreign, is alien and separated from the being [_ousia_] of G.o.d. And the Father cannot be(102) described by the Son, for the Logos does not know the Father perfectly and accurately, neither can He see Him perfectly. Moreover, the Son knows not His own essence as it really is; for He was made on account of us, that G.o.d might create us by Him as by an instrument; and He would not have existed had not G.o.d willed to create us.

Accordingly some one asked them whether the Logos of G.o.d is able to change as the devil changed, and they were not afraid to say that He can change; for being something made and created, His nature is subject to change.

(_f_) Eusebius of Csarea, _Creed_, in Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 8. (MSG, 67:69.) _Cf._ Hahn, 188.

This creed was presented at the Council of Nica by the historian Eusebius, who took the lead of the middle party at the council. He stated that it had long been in use in his church.