1-7. The Donatist Contraversy
But after all, the Church was not quite what Constantine wanted it to be. He was not more attracted to it by its lofty monotheism than by the imposing unity which promised new life to the weary State. For six hundred years the world had been in quest of a universal religion. Stoicism was no more than a philosophy for the few, the worship of the emperor was debased by officialism, and by this time quite outworn, and even Mithraism had never shown such living power as Christianity. Here then was something that could realise the religious side of the Empire in a nobler form than Augustus or Hadrian had ever dreamed of — a universal Church that could stand beside the universal Empire and worthily support its labours for the peace and welfare of the world. But for this purpose unity was essential.
If the Church was divided against itself, it could not help the Empire. Worse than this; it could hardly be divided against itself without being also divided against the Empire. One of the parties was likely to appeal to the emperor; and then he would have to decide between them and make an enemy of the defeated party; and if he tried to enforce his decision, they were likely to resist him as stubbornly as the whole Church had resisted the heathen emperors. This would bring back the whole difficulty of the persecutions, though possibly on a smaller scale. To put it shortly, the Christians had a conscience in matters of religion, and sometimes mistook self-will for conscience.
Constantine had experience of Christian self-will in Africa soon after the defeat of Maxentius. When Diocletian commanded the Christians to give up their sacred books, all parties agreed in refusing to obey. Those who did obey were called traditores. But the officers did not always care what books they took: might apocryphal books be given up? So thought Mensurius of Carthage, while others counted it apostasy to give up any books at all. The controversy became acute at the death of Mensurius in 311, when Felix of Aptunga consecrated his successor Caecilian. But that right was claimed by Secundus of Tigisis, the senior bishop of Numidia, who consecrated a rival bishop of Carthage. It was some time before the Donatists (as they soon came to be called) got their position clear. They held that Felix was a traditor, that the ministrations of a traditor are null and void, and that a church which has communion with a traditor is apostate.
After the battle of Saxa Rubra Constantine sent money to Caecilian for the clergy "of the catholic church"; and as he "had heard that some evil-disposed persons were troubling them," he directed Caecilian to refer them to the civil authorities for punishment. Thereupon they appealed to him. Constantine seems to have contemplated a small court to try the case — Miltiades of Rome, three Gaulish bishops, and apparently the archdeacon of Rome: but a small council met instead (Oct. 313) at Rome, which pronounced for Caecilian. The Donatists were furious, and appealed again. This time Constantine summoned as many bishops as he could, directing each to bring so many clergy and servants with him, and giving him power to use the state post (curavs publicus) for the journey.
So a large council of the Western churches met at Aries in August 314 (possibly 315). Even Britain sent bishops from London, York, and some other place. It destroyed the Donatist contention by deciding that Felix was not a traditor. It also settled some more outstanding controversies, in favour of the Roman date of Easter, and the Roman custom of not repeating heretical baptism, if it had been given in the name of the Trinity. The decisions were sent to Sylvester of Rome for circulation — not for confirmation. We can recognise in Aries the pattern of the Nicene Council. Still the Donatists were not satisfied. They asked the emperor to decide the matter himself, and he unwillingly consented. He heard them at Milan (Nov. 316) and once more decided against them.
Then they turned round and said, What business has the emperor to meddle with the Church? A vigorous persecution was begun, but with small success. A band of Donatist fanatics called Circumcelliones ranged the country, committing disorders and defying the authorities to make martyrs of them. Even in 317 Constantine ordered that their outrages were not to be retaliated; and when they sent him a message in 321 that they would in no way communicate with "that scoundrel, his bishop," he stopped the persecution as useless, and frankly gave them toleration. Africa was fairly quiet for the rest of his reign.
After the defeat of Licinius, Constantine found several disputes in the Eastern churches. The old Easter question was still unsettled, the Meletian schism was dividing Egypt, and there was no knowing how far the Arian controversy would spread. Unity must be restored at once, and that by the old plan of calling a council The churches had long been in the habit of conferring together when difficulties arose. They could refuse to recognise an unsatisfactory bishop; and circa 269 a council ventured to depose Paul of Samosata, and Aurelian had enforced its decision. The weak point of this method was that rival councils could be got up, so that every local quarrel had an excellent chance of becoming a general controversy. Arianism in particular was setting council against council.
Constantine determined to go a step beyond these local meetings. As he had summoned the Western bishops to Aries, so now he summoned all the bishops of Christendom. If he could bring them to a decision, it was not likely to be disputed; and in any case he could safely give it the force of law. An oecumenical council would be a grand demonstration, not only of the unity of the Church, but of its close alliance with the Empire. So he issued invitations to all Christian bishops to meet him at Nicaea in Bithynia in the summer of 325, to make a final end of all the disputes which rent the unity of Christendom. The programme was even wider than at Aries; but the Donatists were not included in it. Constantine could let sleeping dogs lie.
We note here the choice of Nicaea for its auspicious name — the city of victory — and convenience of access; and we see in it one of many signs that the true centre of the Empire was settling down somewhere near the Bosphorus.
To obtain a deluxe leatherbound edition of THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE, subscribe to Castalia History.