The attitude of Constantine toward the church.-But Constantine did more than merely grant equal rights to Christianity as a definite religious doctrine.

The Christian clergy (clerici) were given all the privileges granted to the pagan priests. They were exempted from state taxation and duties as well as from the holding of any office which might divert them from the performance of their religious obligations (the right of immunity). Any man had a right to bequeath his property to the church, which thereby acquired the right of inheritance. Thus, simultaneously with the declaration of religious freedom, the Christian communities were recognized as legal juridical entities; from a legal point of view, Christianity was placed in an entirely new position.

Very important privileges were given to episcopal courts. Any man had the right, after an agreement with his opponent, to carry a civil suit to the episcopal court, even after proceedings in that suit had already been started in the civil court. Toward the end of Constantine's reign the authority of the episcopal courts was enlarged still more in the following manner: (1) The decision of a bishop had to be accepted as final in cases concerning people of any age; (2) any civil case could be transferred to the episcopal court at any stage of the proceedings, even if the opposing side refused to do so; (3) the decisions of the episcopal courts had to be sanctioned by civil judges. All these judicial privileges increased the authority of the bishops in society, but added at the same time a heavy burden to their responsibilities and created many complications. The losing side, in view of the illegality of appealing a bishop's decision, which could not always be correct, often remained dissatisfied and irritated. These additional duties introduced too many worldly interests into the lives of the bishops.

The church was at the same time growing in material wealth through gifts from state resources, of landed property, or of money and grain. Christians could not be forced to participate in pagan festivals. At the same time Christian influence brought about some mitigations in the punishment of criminals.

In addition to all this, Constantine's name is connected with the

erection of many churches in all parts of his immense empire. The erection of the basilica of St. Peter and the basilica of the Lateran in Rome is ascribed to him. His attention in this respect was directed particularly to Palestine, where his mother, Helena, supposedly found the true cross. In Jerusalem, in the place where Christ was buried, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was erected, and on the Mount of Olives he built the Church of the Ascension, and at Bethlehem the Church of the Nativity was erected. The new capital, Constantinople, and its suburbs were also adorned with many churches, the most prominent of them being the Church of the Apostles and the Church of St. Irene; it is possible that Constantine laid the foundations of St. Sophia, which was completed by Constantine's successor, Constantius. Many churches were being constructed during Constantine's reign in other places, for example, at Antioch, at Nicomedia, in North Africa,26 etc.

After the reign of Constantine three important Christian centers developed: the early Christian Rome in Italy, where pagan sympathy and tradition continued to exist for some time; Christian Constantinople, which very soon became a second Rome in the eyes of the Christians of the East, and finally, Christian Jerusalem, which was called to new life from the period of Constantine. We must not forget that after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Emperor Titus in 70 A.D. and the formation in its place of the Roman colony, Aelia Capitolina, during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian in the second century A.D., old Jerusalem lost its significance, although it was the mother church of Christendom and the center of the first apostolic preaching. Politically, Caesarea, and not Aelia, was the capital of that province. The churches built during this period in the three centers before named stood as symbols of the triumph of the Christian church on earth. This church soon became the state church. The new idea of the kingdom on earth was in direct contrast with the original conception of Christianity as a kingdom "not of this world," and of the rapidly approaching end of the world.27

26 See, for example, S. Gsell, Les Monuments antiques de l'Algérie (Paris, 1901), II, 239.

27 V. Barthold, in the Zapiski (Transactions) of the Oriental College (Leningrad, 1925), I, 463 (in Russian).

ARIANISM AND THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

Because of the new conditions created in the early part of the fourth century, the Christian church was experiencing a period of intense activity, which manifested itself particularly in the field of dogma. In the fourth century not only did problems of dogma preoccupy individual men, as was the case in the third century with Tertullian or Origen, but entire parties, consisting of large wellorganized groups of individuals, took part in the disputes concerning questions of religion.

In the fourth century councils became a common occurrence and they were considered the only effective means for settling debatable church problems.

But in the council movement of the fourth century a new element is noticed in the relations between the church and the state; this new attitude was highly significant for the subsequent history of the relation between the spiritual and temporal powers. Beginning with Constantine the Great, the state takes part in the religious disputes and directs them as it sees fit. In many cases the interests of the state did not coincide with those of the church.

For many centuries the cultural center of the East was the Egyptian city, Alexandria, where intellectual activity rushed forth in a powerful stream. Quite naturally, the new dogmatical movements originated in Alexandria, which, according to Professor A. Spassky, "became the center of theological development in the East and attained in the Christian world the particular fame of a philosophical church which never tired of studying higher problems of religion and science."28 Arianism, the most significant "heretical" teaching of Constantine's period, originated in Alexandria.

The founder of this teaching was the Alexandrian presbyter, Arius, the first one to express openly the idea that the Son of God was a created being. This idea formed the basis of the Arian heresy. Arius' teaching spread quickly, not only in Egypt, but far beyond its boundaries. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, and Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, sided with Arius. In spite of the efforts of the adherents of Arius, Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, refused to give

28 A. Spassky, The History of the Dogmatic Movements during the Period of Ecumenical Councils (Sergiev Posad, 1906), p. 137 (in Russian).

Arius communion. Efforts to pacify the disturbances in the church by various local means did not produce the desired results.

Constantine, who had just defeated Licinius and had become sole Emperor, arrived in 324 at Nicomedia, where he received numerous complaints from both the adherents and the opponents of Arius. Desiring above all to maintain religious peace in the empire, and not realizing the full significance of the dogmatic dispute, the Emperor sent a letter to bishops Alexander and Arius, urging them to come to an agreement. He pointed out as an example the philosophers, who had their disputes, yet lived in peace. He also indicated in his letter that it should not be difficult for them to come to an agreement, since both of them believed in Divine Providence and Jesus Christ. "Restore me then my quiet days, and untroubled nights, that the joy of undimmed light, the delight of a tranquil life, may henceforth be my portion,"29 wrote Constantine in his letter.

This letter was delivered to Alexandria by bishop Hosius (Osius) of Cordova (Spain), who was held by Constantine in great esteem. He delivered the letter, examined the matter on the spot, and explained to the Emperor upon his return the full significance of the Arian movement. It was only then that Constantine decided to call a council.

The first Ecumenical Council was called together by imperial edicts in the Bithynian city, Nicaea. The exact number of people who came to this council is not known; the number of Nicaean Fathers is estimated at 318. Most of them were Eastern bishops. The aged bishop of Rome sent in his place two presbyters. Among the matters to be taken up by the council the most important one was the Arian dispute. The Emperor presided at the council and sometimes even led the discussions.

The acts of the Council of Nicaea have not been preserved. Some people doubt if any written records of the proceedings were kept at all. Our information about the council comes from the writings of those who participated in it as well as from some historians.30

20 Eusebii, Vita Constantini, II, 72 (ed. Heikel, p. 71). English translation in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, I, 518.

30 S. A. Wikenhauser, "Zur Frage der Existenz von Nizänischen Synodalprotocolen," in Dölger, op. cit., pp. 122-42.

After heated discussions the council condemned the heresy of Arius, and upon introducing some corrections and additions, it adopted the Creed, in which, contrary to the teachings of Arius, Jesus Christ was recognized as the Son of God, unbegotten, and consubstantial (of one essence) with his Father.

The most enthusiastic and skilful opponent of Arius was the archdeacon of the Alexandrian church, Athanasius. The Nicene Creed was signed by many of the Arian bishops. The more persistent of them, including Arius himself, were subjected to exile and confinement. The Council ended after passing its decision on other questions which were raised there. The solemn proclamation of the Council announced to all communities the new state of harmony and peace within the church. Constantine wrote: "The devil will no longer have any power against us, since all that which he had malignantly devised for our destruction has been entirely overthrown from the foundations. The Splendor of Truth has dissipated at the command of God those dissensions, schisms, tumults, and so to speak, deadly poisons of discord."81

Reality did not fulfil these bright hopes. The Council of Nicaea, by its condemnation of Arianism, not only failed to put an end to Arian disputes, but caused many new similar movements and complications. In the attitude of Constantine himself there came to be a marked change in favor of the Arians. A few years after the council, Arius and his most fervent followers were recalled from exile.32 Their place in exile was taken by the leaders of the Nicene Creed. And while the Nicene Creed was never officially repealed and condemned, it was purposely forgotten and partly replaced by other forms.

It is very difficult to explain how the strong opposition to the Nicene Council originated, and what caused the change in Constantine's attitude. Perhaps among the many varied explanations, such as court influences, intimate family relations, etc., we ought to point out the following one. When Constantine first attempted to solve

Socratis, Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 9. See Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, II, 13. 33 See very interesting articles of N. H. Baynes, "Athanasiana," Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, XI (1925), 58–69; and "Alexandria and Constantinople: A Study in Ecclesiastical Diplomacy," ibid., XII (1926), 149.