Eusebius cites afterwardsin extenso, and to which we now turn; there, the
notion of calendrical unity receives its most complete treatment:^98
...I have judged it appropriate for me that my aim before all else should be that
among the most blessed congregations of the universal Church a single faith and
a pure love and a religion that is unanimous about Almighty God be observed
...(3. 17. 1)
Thereupon, since a controversy had broken out on the subject of the most holy
day of Easter, it was unanimously decided that it would be best for everyone
everywhere to celebrate it on the same day. For what could be better for us, and
more reverent, than that this festival, from which we have acquired our hope of
immortality, should be observed invariably in every community according to one
arrangement^99 and declared principle? (3. 18. 1)
It is furthermore easy to see that in such an important matter, and for such a
religious feast, it is wrong that there should be a discrepancy. Our Saviour has
passed on the day of our liberation as one, the day, that is, of his holy passion, and
it is his purpose that his universal Church be one...But let your Holiness’s good
sense reflect how dreadful and unseemly it is, that on the same days some should
be attending to their fasts while others are holding drinking parties...(3. 18. 5–6)
You ought now to accept and institute the stated principle^100 and the strict
observance of the most holy day, so that when I come...I may be able to
celebrate the holy festival with you on one and the same day...(3. 20. 2)In these passages Constantine develops the notion, implicit already at Arles,
that the unity of Christ should be emulated at Easter with a united Church. But
for thefirst time in the history of Christianity, calendar unity is explicitly
associated with the notion of‘the universal (katholike) Church’and treated as
an end in itself, a self-validating purpose.
The second resolution, that Christians no longer follow the Jews for the date
of Easter, is explained in detail in the letter but sufficiently vaguely to be open
to a range of interpretations:^101
In thefirst place it was decreed unworthy to observe that most sacred festival in
accordance with the practice of the Jews; having sullied their own hands with a
heinous crime, such bloodstained men are as one might expect mentally blind. It(^98) VC 17 – 20. The same letter is cited, with negligible textual variation, in SocratesHE1. 9
and TheodoretHE1. 9; their source is almost certainly Eusebius. Constantine’s letter is long and
repetitive; I shall only cite a selection of passages, the contents of which are frequently repeated. 99
Cameron and Hall (1999) translateìØfiA ôÜîåØas‘on one system’(and similarly below), but
perhaps this is reading too much into Constantine’s text and intentions.
(^100) Cameron and Hall (1999) translateºüªïíhere as‘method of computation’(whereas at 3.
- 1, cited above, they render it more accurately as‘principle’). Again, this is reading too much
in a letter that—for reasons to be discussed below—does not really express awareness of systems
of computation.
(^101) Note that what I refer to, for my own convenience, as the‘second’resolution is actually
presented in Constantine’s letter‘in thefirst place’.
Sectarianism andHeresy 399