First the peace in empire and after other: Constantine and the Arianism

The Christianity has had very controversies, the last through Martin Luther(1483-1546), for mere politic motives, as the Catholic Church has defended its position for likewise politic interest, also because the north Europe was by now Protestant, the England was Protestant, and the ecclesiastic power was halved, hence the power that again hold have to jealously kept; these are alone controversies and in modern age, this is during the 16^th century and in Europe, but also in ancient time, in fact the first, or alleged so, Christian imperator proved his political nature, because he was a politic for the controversy between the Arian(a. Ch.256-336), a theologian man that thought that Christ was alone a subaltern to God and not certainly consubstantial to God; hence Christ has a human nature and a human biography; this polemic discussion between the bishop Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, and his presbyter Arian, in the 4^th century a.Ch., that to start was a lone a theological controversy and a simple discussion between two theological men, but after it became a problem, that it was condemned in the Nicaea council(a.Ch.325); but why this importance so great that Constantine have to intervened? Simple because he wanted that this controversy not compromised the peace in empire, and some step of his letters, regard this controversy, are very important because proof the political sensibility of Constantine for a question that was alone theological but it could determine the political confusion, and riots in Empire; the letters are copy from Eusebius from Cesarea(a.Ch.265-339), the first letter says: “I call for witness, how I can, God that is aid for my efforts and the conservator of everymen…My design then was, first, to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity; and, secondly, to restore to health the system of the world, then suffering under the malignant power of a grievous distemper. Keeping these objects in view, I sought to accomplish the one by the secret eye of thought, while the other I tried to rectify by the power of military authority. For I was aware that, if I should succeed in establishing, according to my hopes, a common harmony of sentiment among all the servants of God, the general course of affairs would also experience a change correspondent to the pious desires of them all.”, and the following step of this letter is more important, above all for the last lines: “I understand, then, that the origin of the present controversy is this. When you, Alexander, demanded of the presbyters what opinion they severally maintained respecting a certain passage in the Divine law, 1 or rather, I should say, that you asked them something connected with an unprofitable question, then you, Arius, inconsiderately insisted on 2 what ought never to have been conceived at all, or if conceived, should have been buried in profound silence. Hence it was that a dissension arose between you, fellowship was withdrawn, 3 and the holy people, rent into diverse parties, no longer preserved the unity of the one body. Now, therefore, do ye both exhibit an equal degree of forbearance, 4 and receive the advice which your fellow-servant righteously gives. What then is this advice? It was wrong in the first instance to propose such questions as these, or to reply to them when propounded. For those points of discussion which are enjoined by the authority of no law, but rather suggested by the contentious spirit which is fostered by misused leisure, even though they may be intended merely as an intellectual exercise, ought certainly to be confined to the region of our own thoughts, and not hastily produced in the popular assemblies, nor unadvisedly entrusted to the general ear. For how very few are there able either accurately to comprehend, or adequately to explain subjects so sublime and abstruse in their nature? Or, granting that one were fully competent for this, how many people will he convince? Or, who, again, in dealing with questions of such subtle nicety as these, can secure himself against a dangerous declension from the truth? It is incumbent therefore on us in these cases to be sparing of our words, lest, in case we ourselves are unable, through the feebleness of our natural faculties, to give a clear explanation of the subject before us, or, on the other hand, in case the slowness of our hearers' understandings disables them from arriving at an accurate apprehension of what we say, from one or other of these causes the people be reduced to the alternative either of blasphemy. Let therefore both the unguarded question and the inconsiderate answer receive your mutual forgiveness. 1 For the cause of your difference has not been any of the leading doctrines or precepts of the Divine law, nor has any new heresy respecting the worship of God arisen among you. You are in truth of one and the same judgment: 2 you may therefore well join in communion and followship.”; this controversy certainly interested very slow Constantine that was pagan and so he has died, but for to him the importance was for the peace in empire, and the example, that can show to us what would be the effects for a religious controversy, is the European war of thirteen years that seen the war of Catholic States against the Protestant States, that lasted 30 years; hence Constantine known perfectly that a very irrelevant discussion could determine very division in empire, and for to him the peace was the principal matter.

Alessandro Lusana