Chapter V. The Last Great Persecution

The last of the persecutions was closely connected with the increased

efficiency of the imperial administration after a period of anarchy, and

was more effective because of the greater centralization of the government

which Diocletian had introduced (§ 55). It was preceded by a number of

minor persecuting regulations, but broke forth in its full fury in 303,

raging for nearly ten years (§ 56). It was by far the most severe of all

persecutions, in extent and duration and severity surpassing that of

Decius and Valerian. As in that persecution, very many suffered severely,

still more lapsed, unprepared for suffering, as many were in the previous

persecution, and the Church was again rent with dissensions and schisms

arising over the question of the administration of discipline.

§ 55. The Reorganization of the Empire by Diocletian

After a period of anarchy Diocletian (284-305) undertook a reorganization

of the Empire for the sake of greater efficiency. Following a precedent of

earlier successful emperors, he shared (285) the imperial authority with a

colleague, Maximianus, who in 286 became Augustus of the West. As the

greatest danger seemed to lie in the East, Diocletian retained the Eastern

part of the Empire, and having already abandoned Rome as the imperial

residence (284), he settled in Nicomedia in Bithynia. To provide for a

succession to the throne more efficient than the chance succession of

natural heirs, two Cæsars were appointed in 293, Constantius Chlorus for

the West, and Galerius, the son-in-law of Diocletian, for the East.

Constantius at once became the son-in-law of Maximianus. These Cæsars were

to ascend the throne when the _Augusti_ resigned after twenty years’

reign. The scheme worked temporarily for greater efficiency, but ended in

civil war as the claims of natural heirs were set aside in favor of an

artificial dynasty. At the same time the system bore heavily upon the

people and the prosperity of the Empire rapidly declined.

Bibliography in _Cambridge Medieval History_, London and New York,

1911, vol. I.

Lactantius, _De Mortibus Persecutorum_, 7. (MSL, 7:204.)

When Diocletian, the author of crimes and deviser of evils, was ruining

all things, not even from against God could he withhold his hand. This

man, partly by avarice and partly by timidity, overturned the world. For

he made three persons sharers with him in the government. The Empire was

divided into four parts, and armies were multiplied, since each of the

four princes strove to have a much larger military force than any emperor

had had when one emperor alone carried on the government. There began to

be a greater number of those who received taxes than of those who paid

them; so that the means of the husbandmen were exhausted by enormous

impositions, the fields were abandoned, and cultivated grounds became

woodlands, and universal dismay prevailed. Besides, the provinces were

divided into minute portions and many presidents and prefects lay heavy on

each territory, and almost on every city. There were many stewards and

masters and deputy presidents, before whom very few civil causes came, but

only condemnations and frequent forfeitures, and exactions of numberless

commodities, and I will not say often repeated, but perpetual and

intolerable, wrongs in the exacting of them.

§ 56. The Diocletian Persecution

The last great persecution was preceded by a number of laws aimed to annoy

the Christians. On March 12, 295, all soldiers in the army were ordered to

offer sacrifice. In 296 sacred books of the Christians were sought for and

burnt at Alexandria. In 297 or 298 Christian persecutions began in the

army, but the great persecution itself broke out in 303, as described

below. Among other reasons for energetic measures in which Galerius took

the lead, appears to have been that prince’s desire to establish the unity

of the Empire upon a religious basis, which is borne out by his attempts

to reorganize the heathen worship immediately after the cessation of the

persecution. In April, 311, the edict of Galerius, known as the Edict of

the Three Emperors, put an official end to the persecution. In parts of

the Empire, however, small persecutions took place and the authorities

attempted to attack Christianity without actually carrying on

persecutions, as in the wide-spread dissemination of the infamous “Acts of

Pilate,” which were posted on walls and spread through the schools. In the

territories of Constantius Chlorus the persecution had been very light,

and there was none under Constantine who favored Christians from the

first.

Additional source material: Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, VIII, and IX,

9; his little work _On the Martyrs of Palestine_ will be found

after the eighth book. Lactantius, _De Mortibus Persecutorum_. The

principal texts will be found in Preuschen’s _Analecta_, I, §§ 20,

21; see also R. Knopf, _Ausgewählte Märtyreracten_.

(_a_) Lactantius. _De Mortibus Persecutorum_, 12 _ff_. (MSL. 7:213.)

The outbreak of the persecution.

A fit and auspicious day was sought for the accomplishment of this

undertaking [_i.e._, the persecution of the Christians]; and the festival

of the great god Terminus, celebrated on the seventh calends of March

[Feb. 23], was chosen, to put an end, as it were, to this religion,

“That day the first of death, was first of evil’s cause” (Vergil),

and cause of evils which befell not only the Christians but the whole

world. When that day dawned, in the eighth consulship of Diocletian and

seventh of Maximianus, suddenly, while it was hardly light, the prefect,

together with the chief commanders, tribunes, and officers of the

treasury, came to the church [in Nicomedia], and when the gates had been

forced open they sought for an image of God. The books of the Holy

Scriptures were found and burnt; the spoil was given to all. Rapine,

confusion, and tumult reigned. Since the church was situated on rising

ground, and was visible from the palace, Diocletian and Galerius stood

there as if on a watch-tower and disputed long together whether it ought

to be set on fire. The opinion of Diocletian prevailed, for he feared

lest, when so great a fire should once be started, the city might be

burnt; for many and large buildings surrounded the church on all sides.

Then the prætorian guard, in battle array, came with axes and other iron

instruments, and having been let loose everywhere, in a few hours they

levelled that very lofty building to the ground.

Ch. 13. Next day the edict was published ordaining that men of the

Christian religion should be deprived of all honors and dignities; and

also that they should be subjected to torture, of whatsoever rank or

position they might be; and that every suit of law should be entertained

against them; but they, on the other hand, could not bring any suit for

any wrong, adultery, or theft; and finally, that they should have neither

freedom nor the right of suffrage. A certain person, although not

properly, yet with a brave soul, tore down this edict and cut it up,

saying in derision: “These are the triumphs of Goths and Samaritans.”

Having been brought to judgment, he was not only tortured, but was burnt

in the legal manner, and with admirable patience he was consumed to ashes.

Ch. 14. But Galerius was not satisfied with the terms of the edict, and

sought another way to gain over the Emperor. That he might urge him to

excess of cruelty in persecution, he employed private agents to set the

palace on fire; and when some part of it had been burnt the Christians

were accused as public enemies, and the very appellation of Christian grew

odious on account of its connection with the fire in the palace. It was

said that the Christians, in concert with the eunuchs, had plotted to

destroy the princes, and that both the emperors had well-nigh been burnt

alive in their own palace. Diocletian, who always wanted to appear shrewd

and intelligent, suspecting nothing of the deception, but inflamed with

anger, began immediately to torture all his domestics.

(_b_) Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, VIII, 2; 6: 8. (MSG, 20:753.)

The edicts of Diocletian.

The first passage occurs, with slight variations, in the

introduction to the work _On the Martyrs of Palestine._

Ch. 2. It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, in the

month Dystus, called March by the Romans, when the feast of the Saviour’s

passion was near at hand, that royal edicts were published everywhere

commanding that the churches be levelled to the ground, the Scriptures be

destroyed by fire, and all holding places of honor be branded with infamy,

and that the household servants, if they persisted in the profession of

Christianity, be deprived of their freedom.

Such was the original edict against us. But not long after other decrees

were issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches everywhere

should be first thrown into prison, and afterward compelled by every means

to sacrifice.

Ch. 6:8. Such things occurred in Nicomedia at the beginning of the

persecution. But not long after, as persons in the country called Melitina

and others throughout Syria attempted to usurp the government, a royal

edict commanded that the rulers of the churches everywhere be thrown into

prison and bonds. What was to be seen after this exceeds all description.

A vast multitude were imprisoned in every place; and the prisons

everywhere, which had long before been prepared for murderers and

grave-robbers, were filled with bishops, presbyters and deacons, readers

and exorcists, so that room was no longer left in them for those condemned

for crimes. And as other decrees followed the first, directing that those

in prison, if they sacrificed, should be permitted to depart from the

prison in freedom, but that those who refused should be harassed with many

tortures, how could any one again number the multitude of martyrs in every

province, and especially those in Africa and Mauretania, and Thebais and

Egypt?

(_c_) Edict of Galerius, A.D. 311. Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, VIII. 17. (MSG,

20:792.) _Cf._ Preuschen, _Analecta_, I, § 21:5.

This may also be found in Lactantius. _De Mortibus Persecutorum_,

ch. 34. It is known as the “Edict of Three Emperors,” as it was

issued from Nicomedia in the name of Galerius, Constantine, and

Licinius. The date is April 30, 311. By it the persecution was not

wholly ended. Galerius died in the next month, but Maximinus Daza

resumed the persecution. There was for six months, however, some

mitigation of the persecutions in the East, granted at the request

of Constantine.

Amongst our other measures, which we are always making for the use and

profit of the commonwealth, we have hitherto endeavored to bring all

things into conformity with the ancient laws and public order of the

Romans, and to bring it about also that the Christians, who have abandoned

the religion of their ancestors, should return to sound reason. For in

some way such wilfulness has seized the Christians and such folly

possessed them that they do not follow those constitutions of the

ancients, which peradventure their own ancestors first established, but

entirely according to their own judgment and as it pleased them they were

making such laws for themselves as they would observe, and in different

places were assembling various sorts of people. In short, when our command

was issued that they were to betake themselves to the institutions of the

ancients, many of them were subdued by danger, many also were ruined. Yet

when great numbers of them held to their determination, and we saw that

they neither gave worship and due reverence to the gods nor yet regarded

the God of the Christians, we therefore, mindful of our most mild clemency

and of the unbroken custom whereby we are accustomed to grant pardon to

all men, have thought that in this case also speediest indulgence ought to

be granted to them, that the Christians might exist again and might

establish their gatherings, yet so that they do nothing contrary to good

order. By another letter we shall signify to magistrates how they are to

proceed. Wherefore, in accordance with this our indulgence, they ought to

pray their God for our good estate, for that of the commonwealth, and for

their own, that the commonwealth may endure on every side unharmed and

that they may be able to live securely in their own homes.

(_d_) Constantine, _Edict of Milan_, A. D. 313, in Lactantius, _De

Mortibus Persecutorum_, 48. (MSL, 7:267.) See also Eusebius. _Hist. Ec._,

X, 5:2. (MSG, 20:880.)

The so-called Edict of Milan, granting toleration to the

Christians, is not the actual edict, but a letter addressed to a

prefect and referring to the edict, which probably was much

briefer. The following passage is translated from the emended text

of Lactantius, as given in Preuschen, _op. cit._, I, § 22:4.

When I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, had happily met

together at Milan, and were having under consideration all things which

concern the advantage and security of the State, we thought that, among

other things which seemed likely to profit men generally, we ought, in the

very first place, to set in order the conditions of the reverence paid to

the Divinity by giving to the Christians and all others full permission to

follow whatever worship any man had chosen; whereby whatever divinity

there is in heaven may be benevolent and propitious to us, and to all

placed under our authority. Therefore we thought we ought, with sound

counsel and very right reason, to lay down this law, that we should in no

way refuse to any man any legal right who has given up his mind either to

the observance of Christianity or to that worship which he personally

feels best suited to himself; to the end that the Supreme Divinity, whose

worship we freely follow, may continue in all things to grant us his

accustomed favor and good-will. Wherefore your devotion should know that

it is our pleasure that all provisions whatsoever which have appeared in

documents hitherto directed to your office regarding Christians and which

appeared utterly improper and opposed to our clemency should be abolished,

and that every one of those men who have the same wish to observe

Christian worship may now freely and unconditionally endeavor to observe

the same without any annoyance or molestation. These things we thought it

well to signify in the fullest manner to your carefulness, that you might

know that we have given free and absolute permission to the said

Christians to practise their worship. And when you perceive that we have

granted this to the said Christians, your devotion understands that to

others also a similarly full and free permission for their own worship and

observance is granted, for the quiet of our times, so that every man may

have freedom in the practice of whatever worship he has chosen. And these

things were done by us that nothing be taken away from any honor or form

of worship. Moreover, in regard to the Christians, we have thought fit to

ordain this also, that if any appear to have bought, either from our

exchequer or from others, the places in which they were accustomed

formerly to assemble, and concerning which definite orders have been given

before now, and that by letters sent to your office, the same be restored

to the Christians, setting aside all delay and dispute, without payment or

demand of price. Those also who have obtained them by gift shall restore

them in like manner without delay to the said Christians; and those,

moreover, who have bought them, as well as those who have obtained them by

gift, if they request anything of our benevolence, they shall apply to the

deputy that order may be taken for them too by our clemency. All these

must be delivered over at once and without delay by your intervention to

the corporation of the Christians. And since the same Christians are known

to have possessed not only the places where they are accustomed to

assemble, but also others belonging to their corporation, namely, to the

churches and not to individuals, all these by the law which we have

described above you will order to be restored without any doubtfulness or

dispute to the said Christians—that is, to their said corporations and

assemblies; provided always, as aforesaid, that those who restore them

without price, as we said, shall expect a compensation from our

benevolence. In all these things you must give the aforesaid Christians

your most effective intervention, that our command may be fulfilled as

soon as may be, and that in this matter also order may be taken by our

clemency for the public quiet. And may it be, as already said, that the

divine favor which we have already experienced in so many affairs, shall

continue for all time to give us prosperity and successes, together with

happiness for the State. But that it may be possible for the nature of

this decree and of our benevolence to come to the knowledge of all men, it

will be your duty by a proclamation of your own to publish everywhere and

bring to the notice of all men this present document when it reaches you,

that the decree of this our benevolence may not be hidden.

§ 57. Rise of Schisms in Consequence of the Diocletian Persecution

The Diocletian persecution and its various continuations, on account of

the severity of the persecution and its great extent, seriously strained

the organization of the Church for a time, and in at least three important

Church centres gave rise to schisms, of which two were of some duration.

The causes for these schisms, as in the case of the schisms connected with

the Decian persecution, are to be found in the confusion caused by the

enforced absence of bishops from their sees and in the administration of

discipline. In the latter point the activity of the confessors no longer

plays any part, as the authority of the bishops in the various communities

is now undisputed by rival. It was a question of greater or less rigor in

readmitting the lapsed to the communion of the Church. For the canons of

discipline in force in Alexandria, see the _Canonical Epistle of Peter of

Alexandria_, ANF, VI, 269 _ff._ (MSG, 18:467.) They were regarded by the

rigorist party in Alexandria as too lax. Of the three schisms known to

have arisen from the Diocletian persecution, that in Alexandria is known

as the Meletian schism, and three selections are given bearing on it. For

the proposals of the Council of Nicæa to bring about a settlement and

union, see the _Epistle of the Synod of Nicæa_, Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I,

9 (given below, § 61, _II_, _b_). The schism continued until the fifth

century. The schism at Rome, known as the schism of Heraclius, was much

less important. It was caused by the party advocating greater laxity in

discipline, and was for a time difficult to deal with on account of long

vacancies in the Roman episcopate. The duration of the schism could not

have been long, but the solution of the questions raised by it is unknown.

In fact, the history of the Roman church is exceedingly obscure in the

half-century preceding the Council of Nicæa. The third schism, that of the

Donatists in North Africa, which broke out in Carthage, was the most

considerable in the Church before the schisms arising from the

christological controversies. For the Donatist schism, see §§ 61, 67, 72.

(_a_) _Epistle of Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas to

Meletius_. (MSG, 10:1565.)

The Meletian schism.

The following epistle was written in the name of these four

bishops, probably by Phileas, bishop of Thmuis, one of the number,

to Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis. The four were in prison when it

was written. It is the most important document bearing on the

schism, and is important as setting forth the generally accepted

legal opinion of the time regarding ordination and the authority

of bishops. The document exists only in a Latin translation from a

Greek original, and appears to form, with the two following

fragments, a continuous narrative, possibly a history of the

Church, but nothing further is known of it. For an account of the

Meletian schism see Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, 1, 6 _ff._ The text of

these selections bearing on the Meletian schism is to be found in

Routh, _op. cit._, IV, 91 _ff._

Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas to Meletius, our friend and

fellow-minister in the Lord, greeting. In simple faith, regarding as

uncertain the things which have been heard concerning thee, since some

have come to us and certain things are reported foreign to divine order

and ecclesiastical rule which are being attempted, yea, rather, which are

being done by thee, we were not willing to credit them when we thought of

the audacity implied by their magnitude, and we thought that they were

uncertain attempts. But since so many coming to us at the present time

have lent some credibility to these reports, and have not hesitated to

attest them as facts, we, greatly astonished, have been compelled to write

this letter to thee. And what agitation and sadness have been caused to us

all in common and to each of us individually by the ordination performed

by thee in parishes not pertaining to thee, we are unable sufficiently to

express. We have not delayed, however, by a short statement, to prove thy

practice wrong.

In the law of our fathers and forefathers, of which thou also art not

thyself ignorant, it is established, according to the divine and

ecclesiastical order (for it is all for the good pleasure of God and the

zealous regard for better things), that it has been determined and settled

by them that it is not lawful for any bishop to perform ordinations in

other parishes than his own. This law is exceedingly important and wisely

devised. For, in the first place, it is but right that the conversation

and life of those who are ordained should be examined with great care;

and, in the second place, that all confusion and turbulence should be done

away with. For every one shall have enough to do in managing his own

parish, and in finding, with great care and many anxieties, suitable

subordinates among those with whom he has passed his whole life, and who

have been trained under his hands. But thou, considering none of these

things, nor regarding the future, nor considering the law of our holy

Fathers and those who have put on Christ in long succession, nor the honor

of our great bishop and father, Peter,(89) on whom we all depend in the

hope which we have in the Lord Jesus Christ, nor softened by our

imprisonments and trials, and daily and multiplied reproaches, nor the

oppressions and distress of all, hast ventured on subverting all things at

once. And what means will be left for thee for justifying thyself with

respect to these things?

But perhaps thou wilt say, I did this to prevent many from being drawn

away with the unbelief of many, because the flocks were in need and

forsaken, there being no pastor with them. Well, but it is most certain

that they were in no such destitution; in the first place, because there

were many going among them and able to visit them; and, in the second

place, even it there were some things neglected by them, representation

should have come from the people, and we should have duly considered the

matter. But they knew that they were in no want of ministers, and

therefore they did not come to seek thee. They knew that either we were

wont to warn them from such complaint or there was done, with all

carefulness, what seemed profitable; for it was done under correction and

all was considered with well-approved honesty. Thou, however, giving such

careful attention to the deceits of certain men and their vain words,(90)

hast, as it were, stealthily leaped forward to the performance of

ordinations. For if, indeed, those accompanying thee constrained thee to

this and compelled thee and were ignorant of the ecclesiastical order,

thou oughtest to have followed the rule and have informed us by letter;

and in that way what seemed expedient would have been done. And if

perchance some persuaded thee to credit their story, who said to thee that

it was all over with us—a matter which could not have been unknown to

thee, because there were many passing and repassing by us who might visit

thee—even if this had been so, yet oughtest thou to have waited for the

judgment of the superior father and his allowance of this thing. But

thinking nothing of these matters, and hoping something different, or

rather having no care for us, thou hast provided certain rulers for the

people. For now we learn that there are also divisions, because thy

unwarrantable ordination displeased many.

And thou wert not readily persuaded to delay such procedure or restrain

thy purpose, no, not even by the word of the Apostle Paul, the most

blessed seer and the man who put on Christ, the Apostle of us all; for he,

in writing to his dearly loved Timothy, says: “Lay hands suddenly on no

man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins.” [I Tim. 5:22.] And thus he

at once shows his own consideration of him, and gives his example and

exhibits the law according to which, with all carefulness and caution,

candidates are chosen for the honor of ordination. We make this

declaration to thee, that in the future thou mayest study to keep within

the safe and salutary limits of the law.

(_b_) _Fragment on the Meletian Schism_. (MSG, 10:1567.)

For the connection of the Meletians with Arianism, see Socrates,

_Hist. Ec._, I, 6. Text in Routh, _op. cit._, IV, 94.

Meletius received and read this epistle, and he neither wrote a reply, nor

repaired to them in prison, nor went to the blessed Peter [bishop of

Alexandria]. But when all these bishops, presbyters, and deacons had

suffered in the prison,(91) he at once entered Alexandria. Now in that

city there was a certain person, Isidorus by name, turbulent in character,

and possessed with the ambition of being a teacher. And there was also a

certain Arius, who wore the habit of piety and was in like manner

possessed with the ambition of being a teacher. And when they discovered

the object of Meletius’s passion and what it was he sought, hastening to

him and regarding with malice the episcopal authority of the blessed

Peter, that the aim and desire of Meletius might be made manifest, they

discovered to Meletius certain presbyters, then in hiding, to whom the

blessed Peter had given authority to act as diocesan visitors for

Alexandria. And Meletius, recommending them to improve the opportunity

given them for rectifying their error, suspended them for a time, and by

his authority ordained two persons in their places, one of whom was in

prison and the other in the mines. On learning these things, the blessed

Peter, with much endurance, wrote to the people of Alexandria in the

following terms. [See next selection.]

(_c_) Peter of Alexandria. _Epistle to the Church in Alexandria._ (MSG,

18:510.)

For Peter of Alexandria, see DCB. Peter was in hiding when he

wrote the following to the Alexandrian church in 306. He died 312

as a martyr.

Peter to the brethren in the Lord, beloved and established in the faith of

God, peace. Since I have discovered that Meletius acts in no way for the

common good, for he does not approve the letter of the most holy bishops

and martyrs, and invading my parish, has assumed so much to himself as to

endeavor to separate from my authority the priests and those who had been

intrusted with visiting the needy, and, giving proof of his desire for

pre-eminence, has ordained in the prison several unto himself; now take ye

heed to this and hold no communion with him, until I meet him in company

with some wise men, and see what designs they are which he has thought

upon. Fare ye well.

(_d_) _Epitaph of Eusebius, Bishop of Rome._ _Cf._ Kirch, n. 534.

Schism of Heraclius.

The following epitaph was placed on the tomb of Eusebius, bishop of Rome

(April 18 to August 17, 310 A. D.), by Damasus, bishop of Rome (366-384.)

I, Damasus, have made this:

Heraclius forbade the fallen to lament their sin,

Eusebius taught the wretched ones to weep for their crimes.

The people was divided into parties by the increasing madness.

Sedition, bloodshed, war, discord, strife arose.

At once they were equally smitten by the ferocity of the tyrant.(92)

Although the guide of the Church(93) maintained intact the bonds of peace.

He endured exile joyful under the Lord as judge,

And gave up this earthly life on the Trinacrian shore.(94)

THE SECOND DIVISION OF ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY: THE CHURCH UNDER THE

CHRISTIAN EMPIRE: FROM 312 TO CIRCA 750

The second division of the history of ancient Christianity, or

Christianity under the influence of the Græco-Roman type of culture,

begins with the sole rule of Constantine, A. D. 324, or his sole reign in

the West, A. D. 312, and extends to the beginning of the Middle Ages, or

that period in which the Germanic nations assumed the leading rôle in the

political life of western Europe. The end of this division of Church

history may be placed, at the latest, about the middle of the eighth

century, as the time when the authority of the Eastern Empire ceased to

affect materially the fortunes of the West. But it is impossible to name

any year or reign or political event as of such outstanding importance as

to make it a _terminus ad quem_ for the division which will command the

suffrages of all as the boundary between the ancient and the mediæval

epochs of history.

The second division of ancient Christianity may be subdivided into three

periods:

I. The Imperial State Church of the Undivided Empire, or until the Death

of Theodosius the Great, or to 395.

II. The Church in the Divided Empire until the Collapse of the Western

Empire and the Schism between the East and the West arising out of the

Monophysite Controversies, or to circa 500.

III. The Dissolution of the Imperial Church of the West and the Transition

to the Middle Ages.

In the third period are to be placed the beginnings of the Middle Ages, as

the German invaders had long before 500 established their kingdoms and had

begun to dominate the affairs of the West. But the connection of the

Church of the West, or rather of Italy, with the East was long so close

that the condition of the Church is more that of a dissolution of the

ancient imperial State Church than of a building up of the mediæval

Church. At the same time, the transition to the Middle Ages, so far as the

Church is concerned at least, takes place under the influence of the

ancient tradition, and institutions are established in which the leading

elements, taken from ancient life, are not yet transformed by Germanic

ideas. The East knew no Middle Age. For a history of the Eastern Church

other divisions would have to be made, but in a history in which, for

practical reasons, the development is traced in Western Christianity, the

affairs of the Eastern Church must be treated as subordinate to those of

Western Christianity.

For the second division of the history of ancient Christianity, the

principal sources available in English are the translations in _A Select

Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church_.

Edited by Ph. Schaff and H. Wace. The _First Series_ of this collection

(PNF, ser. I) contains the principal works of Augustine and Chrysostom.

The _Second Series_ (PNF, ser. II) is for historical study even more

valuable, and gives, generally with very able introductions and excellent

bibliographies, the most important works of many of the leading patristic

writers, including the principal ecclesiastical historians, as well as

Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Cyril

of Jerusalem, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Rufinus, Cassian, Vincent of

Lérins, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, and others. These translations

are in part fresh versions, and in part older versions but slightly, if at

all, revised, taken from the _Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic

Church anterior to the Division of the East and West_, Oxford, 1838, _et

seq._

For the period before the outbreak of the great christological

controversies, the ecclesiastical historians are of great value. There are

no less than four continuations of the _Ecclesiastical History_ of

Eusebius accessible: the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, 324-439

(ed. R. Hussey, Oxford, 1853); of Sozomen, 324-425 (ed. R. Hussey, Oxford,

1860); of Rufinus, 324-395, which is appended to a Latin version or rather

revised and “edited” Latin version of Eusebius; of Theodoret, 323-428 (ed.

Gaisford, Oxford, 1854). Fragments of the _Ecclesiastical History_ of the

Arian Philostorgius, from the appearance of Arius as a teacher until 423,

have been translated and are to be found in Bohn’s _Ecclesiastical

Library_. For the period after the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, there is

no such abundance, but Evagrius, of whose history (ed. Parmentier and

Bidez, London, 1898) there is a translation in Bohn’s _Ecclesiastical

Library_, though not in PNF, is of great value as he gives many original

documents; and a portion of the _Ecclesiastical History_ of John of

Ephesus (trans. by R. P. Smith, Oxford, 1860) carries the history to about

600. There are also works devoted to the history of the West by Gregory of

Tours, the Venerable Bede, and Paulus Diaconus, and others of the greatest

value for the third period of this division. They will be mentioned in

their place.

As the series of the great church councils begins with the Christian

Empire, the _History of the Councils_, by Hefele, becomes indispensable to

the student of ecclesiastical history, not only for its narrative but for

the sources epitomized or given in full. It has been translated into

English as far as the close of the eighth century, or well into the

beginnings of the history of the mediæval Church. The new French

translation should be used if possible as it contains valuable additional

notes. In connection with Hefele may be used:

Percival, _The Seven Ecumenical Councils_, in PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV.

Wm. Bright, _Notes on the Canons of the First Four General __ Councils_,

1882, should be consulted for this period. Bruns, _op. cit._, and

Lauchert, _op. cit._, give texts only.

The two great collections of secular laws are:

_Codex Theodosianus_, ed. Mommsen and Meyer, Berlin, 1905.

_Corpus Juris Civilis_, ed. Krüger, Mommsen, Schoell, and Knoll, Berlin,

1899-1902.

_The Cambridge Medieval History_, vol. I, 1912, covers the period

beginning with Constantine and extending to the beginning of the fifth

century. It contains valuable bibliographies of a more discriminating

character than those in the _Cambridge Modern History_, and render

bibliographical references unnecessary. To this the student is accordingly

referred for such matters. The second volume of this work will cover the

period 500-850.

Period I: The Imperial State Church Of The Undivided Empire, Or Until The

Death Of Theodosius The Great, 395

The history of the Church in the first period of the second division of

the history of ancient Christianity has to deal primarily with three lines

of development, viz.: first, the relation of the Church to the imperial

authority and the religious forces of the times, whereby the Church became

established as the sole authorized religion of the Empire, and heathenism

and heresy were prohibited by law; secondly, the development of the

doctrinal system of the Church until the end of the Arian controversy,

whereby the full and eternal deity of the Son was established as the

Catholic faith; thirdly, the development of the constitution, the fixation

of the leading ecclesiastical conceptions, and the adaptation of the

system of the Church to the practical needs of the times. The entire

period may be divided into two main parts by the reign of Julian the

Apostate (361-363); and the reign of Constantine as Emperor of the West

(312-324) may be regarded as a prelude to the main part of the history. On

the death of Theodosius the Great in 395, the Empire became permanently

divided, and though in the second period the courses of the Church in the

East and in the West may be treated to some extent together, yet the

fortunes, interests, and problems of the two divisions of the Church begin

to diverge.

Chapter I. The Church And Empire Under Constantine

Constantine was the heir to the political system of Diocletian. The same

line of development was followed by him and his sons, and with increasing

severity the burden pressed upon the people. But the Church, which had

been fiercely persecuted by Diocletian and Galerius, became the object of

imperial favor under Constantine. At the same time in many parts of the

Empire, especially in the West, the heathen religion was rooted in the

affections of the people and everywhere it was bound up with the forms of

state. The new problems that confronted Constantine on his accession to

sole authority in the West, and still more when he became sole Emperor,

were of an ecclesiastical rather than a civil character. In the

administration of the Empire he followed the lines laid down by Diocletian

(§ 58). But in favoring the Church he had to avoid alienating the heathen

majority. This he did by gradually and cautiously extending to the Church

privileges which the heathen religion had enjoyed (§ 59), and with the

utmost caution repressing those elements in heathenism which might be

plausibly construed as inimical to the new order in the state (§ 60). At

the same time, Constantine found in the application of his policy to

actual conditions that he could not favor every religious sect that

assumed the name of Christian. He must distinguish between claimants of

his bounty. He must also bring about a unity in the Church where it had

been threatened (§ 61), and repress what might lead to schism. Accordingly

he found himself, immediately after his accession to sole authority,

engaged in ecclesiastical discussions and adjudicating by councils

ecclesiastical cases (§ 62).

§ 58. The Empire under Constantine and His Sons

Constantine became sole Emperor of the West, 312, and by the defeat of

Licinius, July 23, 324, sole ruler of the entire Roman Empire. On his

death, May 22, 337, his three sons divided between them the imperial

dignity: Constantine II (337-340), taking Gaul, Spain, and Britain;

Constans (337-350), Italy, Africa, and Illyria, and in 340 receiving the

share of Constantine II; Constantius (337-361), taking the East, including

Egypt. Of these three the ablest was Constantius who, after the renewed

Persian war (337-350), became, on the death of Constans, sole Emperor.

Although the imperial authority was divided and the ecclesiastical policy

of each Emperor followed the religious condition and theological

complexion of his respective portion of the Empire, the social conditions

were everywhere much the same. There were under Constantine and also under

his sons the continuation of that centralization which had already been

carried far by Diocletian, the same court ceremonial and all that went

with it, and the development of the bureaucratic system of administration.

The economic conditions steadily declined as the imperial system became

constantly more burdensome (_v. supra_, § 55), and the changes in the

distribution of wealth and the administration of landed property affected

disastrously large sections of the populace. A characteristic feature of

Roman society, which affected the position of the Church not a little, was

the tendency to regard callings and trades as hereditary, and by the

fourth century this was enforced by law. The aim of this legislation was

to provide workmen to care for the great public undertakings for the

support of the populace of the cities and for the maintenance of the

public business. This policy affected both the humble artisan and the

citizen of curial rank. The former, although given various privileges, was

crushed down by being obliged to continue in what was often an

unprofitable occupation; the latter was made responsible for the taxes and

various public burdens which custom, gradually becoming law, laid upon

him. Constant attempt was made by great numbers to escape these burdens

and disabilities by recourse to other occupations, and especially to the

Christian ministry with its immunities (see § 59, _c_). Constant

legislation endeavored to prevent this and restore men to their hereditary

places. The following extracts from the Theodosian Code are enactments of

Constantine, and are intended to illustrate the condition, under that

Emperor, of the law as to hereditary occupations and guilds, and the

position of the curiales, so as to explain the law as to admission to the

priesthood.

(_a_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XIII, 5, 1; A. D. 314.

The Theodosian Code was a collection of law made at the command of

Theodosius II, A. D. 438. See § 80. It was intended to comprise

all the laws of general application made since the accession of

Constantine and arranged under appropriate titles.

If a shipman shall have been originally a lighterman, none the less he

shall remain permanently among those among whom it shall appear that his

parents had been.

(_b_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XIII, 5, 3; A. D. 319.

If any shipman shall have obtained surreptitiously or in any other way

immunity, it is our will that he be not at all admitted to plead any

exemption. But also if any one possess a patrimony liable to the duties of

a shipman, although he may be of higher dignity, the privileges of honor

shall be of no avail to him in this matter, but let him be held to this

duty either by the whole or in proportion. For it is not just that when a

patrimony liable to this public duty has been excused all should not bear

the common burden in proportion to ability.

(_c_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XIV, 4, 1; A. D. 334.

Because the guild of swineherds has fallen off to but few, we command that

they plead in the presence of the Roman people, for the defence should be

made to them for whom the burden was established.… Therefore let them know

that the personal property of the swineherds is liable to public burdens

and let them choose one of two courses: either let them retain the

property which is liable to the functions of swineherd, and let themselves

be held to the duty of swineherd, or let them name some suitable person

whom they will, who shall satisfy the same requirement. For we suffer no

one to be exempt from the obligation of this thing, but whether they have

advanced in honors, or by some fraud have escaped, we command that they be

brought back and the same thing performed, the Roman people being present

and witnessing, and we are to be consulted, that we may take note of those

who make use of these shifts; as for further avoidance of public duties,

it is by no means to be granted any, but he who shall have been able to

escape shall run danger of his safety, the privilege having been taken

away from him.

(_d_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XII, 1, 11; A. D. 325.

The following laws illustrate the attempts of the curiales to

escape their burdens.

Because some have forsaken the curiæ and have fled to the camps of the

soldiery, we prescribe that all who shall be found not yet indebted to the

chief centurion, are to be dismissed from the soldiery and returned to the

same curiæ; those only are to remain among the soldiery who are retained

on account of the necessities of the place or the troop.

(_e_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XII, 1, 12; A. D. 325.

If any one belongs in a larger or smaller town and desiring to avoid the

same, betakes himself to another for the sake of dwelling there, and shall

have attempted to make petitions concerning this or shall have relied upon

any sort of fraud that he may escape the birth from his own city, let him

bear the burden of the decurionate of both cities, of one because it was

his choice, of the other because of his birth.

(_f_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 2, 3, cf. XVI, 2, 6; A. D. 326.

Since a constitution that has been issued prescribes that thereafter no

decurion nor child of a decurion or person with suitable wealth and able

to support the public burdens shall have recourse to the name and duties

of the clergy, but only those shall be called to the place of the deceased

who are of small fortune and are not held liable to civil burdens, we have

learned that some have been molested, who before the promulgation of the

said law had joined themselves to the company of the priests. Therefore we

decree that these shall be free from all annoyance, but those who after

the promulgation of the law, to avoid their public duties took recourse to

the number of the clergy, shall be separated from that body and restored

to their curial rank and made liable for their civil duties.

§ 59. Favor Shown the Church by Constantine

Neither on his conversion nor on his attainment of the sole rule of the

Empire did Constantine establish the Church as the one official religion

of the State. The ruler himself professed the Christian religion and

neither abolished the former religion of the State nor disestablished it.

But he granted to his own religion favors similar to those enjoyed by the

heathen religious systems (_a-d_), though these privileges were only for

the Catholic Church, and not for heretics (_e_); and he passed such laws

as would make it possible for Christians to carry out their religious

practices, _e.g._, that Christians should not be compelled to sacrifice

when the laws prescribed sacrifices (_f_), that Sunday be observed (_g_),

and that celibacy might be practised (_h_).

Additional source material: Eusebius, _Vita Constantini_ (PNF,

ser. II, vol. I), II, 24-42. 46; IV, 18-28. Sozomen, _Hist. Ec._

(PNF, ser. II, vol. II), I, 9.

(_a_) Constantine, _Ep. ad Cæcilianum_, in Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, X, 6.

(MSG, 20:892.)

The probable date of this epistle is A. D. 313, though there is

uncertainty. Text in Kirch, nn. 323 _f_.

Constantine Augustus to Cæcilianus, Bishop of Carthage. Since it is our

pleasure that something should be granted in all the provinces, namely,

Africa and Numidia and Mauritania, to certain ministers of the legitimate

and most holy Catholic religion, to defray their expenses, I have given

written instructions to Ursus, the illustrious finance minister of Africa,

and have directed him to make provision to pay to thy firmness three

thousand folles.(95) Do thou, therefore, when thou hast received the above

sum of money, command that it be distributed among all those mentioned

above, according to the brief sent unto thee by Hosius. But if thou

shouldest find that anything is wanting for the fulfilment of this my

purpose in regard to all of them, thou shalt demand without hesitation

from Heracleides, our treasurer, whatever thou findest to be necessary.

For I commanded him, when he was present, that if thy firmness should ask

him for any money, he should see to it that it be paid without any delay.

And since I have learned that some men of unsettled mind wish to turn the

people from the most holy and Catholic Church by a certain method of

shameful corruption, do thou know that I gave command to Anulinus, the

proconsul, and also to Patricius, vicar of the prefects, when they were

present, that they should give proper attention not only to other matters,

but also, above all, to this, and that they should not overlook such a

thing when it happened. Wherefore if thou shouldest see any such men

continuing in this madness, do thou without delay go to the

above-mentioned judges and report the matter to them; that they may

correct them as I commanded them when they were present. The divinity of

the great God preserve thee many years.

(_b_) Constantine, _Ep. ad Anulinum_, in Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, X, 7.

(MSG, 20:893.)

The following epistle, of the same year as the preceding to

Cæcilianus, is the basis of exemptions of the clergy from public

duties. The extension of these exemptions was made by the decree

of 319, given below. Text in Kirch, n. 325.

Greeting to thee, our most esteemed Anulinus. Since it appears from many

circumstances that when that religion is despised in which is preserved

the chief reverence for the most celestial Power, great dangers are

brought upon public affairs; but that when legally adopted and observed it

affords most signal prosperity to the Roman name and remarkable felicity

to all the affairs of men, through the divine beneficence, it seemed good

to me, most esteemed Anulinus, that those men who give their services with

due sanctity and with constant observance of this law to the worship of

the divine religion should receive recompense for their labors. Wherefore

it is my will that those within the province intrusted to thee, in the

Catholic Church over which Cæcilianus presides, who give their services to

this holy religion, and who are commonly called clergymen, be entirely

exempted from all public duties, that by any error or sacrilegious

negligence they may not be drawn away from the service due to the Deity,

but may devote themselves without any hindrance to their own law. For it

seems that when they show greatest reverence to the Deity the greatest

benefits accrue to the State. Farewell, our most esteemed and beloved

Anulinus.

(_c_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 2, 2; A. D. 319.

By the following law the exemption of the clergy from public

burdens was made universal. As many availed themselves of the

clerical immunities to escape their burdens as curiales, a law was

soon afterward passed limiting access to the ministry to those in

humbler social position. _V. supra_, § 58 _f._

Those who in divine worship perform the services of religion—that is,

those who are called clergy—are altogether exempt from public obligations,

so that they may not be called away from their sacred duties by the

sacrilegious malice of certain persons.

(_d_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 2, 4; A. D. 321.

The Church is hereby permitted to receive legacies. This was a

recognition of its corporate character in the law, and indirectly

its act of incorporation.

Every one has permission to leave when he is dying whatsoever goods he

wishes to the most holy Catholic Church.…

(_e_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 5, 1; A. D. 326.

Privileges were granted only to the clergy of the Catholic or

great Church as distinguished from heretics and schismatics. The

State was, accordingly, forced by its exemptions and privileges

granted the Church to take up a position as to heresy and schism.

See for Constantine’s policy toward heresy, Eusebius, _Vita

Constantini_, III. 64 _ff._ (PNF, ser. II, vol. I.)

Privileges which have been bestowed in consideration of religion ought to

be of advantage only to those who observe the Catholic law. It is our will

that heathen and schismatics be not only without the privileges but bound

by, and subject to, various political burdens.

(_f_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 2, 5; A. D. 323.

This and the following laws were passed to enable the Christians

to escape from disadvantages in the carrying out of their

religion. This law, that Christians should not be compelled to

sacrifice, was enacted just before the final encounter with

Licinius.

Because we have heard that ecclesiastics and others belonging to the

Catholic religion are compelled by men of different religions to celebrate

the sacrifices of the lustrum, we, by this decree, do ordain that if any

one believes that those who observe the most sacred law ought to be

compelled to take part in the rites of a strange superstition, let him, if

his condition permits, be beaten with staves, but if his rank exempts him

from such rigor, let him endure the condemnation of a very heavy fine,

which shall fall to the State.

(_g_) _Codex Justinianus_; III, 12, 3; A. D. 321. _Cf._ Kirch, n. 748.

Sunday is to be observed.

For the Justinian Code see below, § 94, Introduction.

All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable

Day of the Sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the

cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other

days are better adapted for planting the grain in the furrows or the vines

in trenches. So that the advantage given by heavenly providence may not

for the occasion of a short time perish.

(_h_) _Codex Theodosianus_. VIII, 16, 1. _Cf._ Kirch, n. 750.

Celibacy was favored by the Church. By the _Lex Julia et Papia

Poppea_ it had been forbidden under a fine and loss of rights

under wills. Childless marriages also rendered the parties liable

to disabilities.

Those who are held as celibates by the ancient law are freed from the

threatened terrors of the laws, and let them so live as if by the compact

of marriage they were among the number of married men, and let all have an

equal standing as to taking what each one deserves. Neither let any one be

held childless; and let them not suffer the penalties set for this. The

same thing we hold regarding women, and freely to all we loose from their

necks the commands which the law placed upon them as a certain yoke. But

there is no application of this benefit to husbands and wives as regards

each other, whose deceitful wiles are often scarcely restrained by the

appointed rigor of the law, but let the pristine authority of the law

continue between such persons.

§ 60. The Repression of Heathenism under Constantine

Constantine’s religious policy in respect to heathenism may have been from

the first to establish Christianity as the sole religion of the Empire and

to put down heathenism. If so, in the execution of that policy he

proceeded with great caution, especially in the period before his victory

over Licinius. It looks at times as if for a while he aimed at a parity of

religions. Certain is the fact that only as conditions became more

favorable to active measures of repression he increased the severity of

his laws against what was of doubtful legality in heathenism, though he

was statesman enough to recognize the difference in the religious

conditions between the East and the West, especially as to the hold which

Christianity had upon the mass of the people. While his measures in the

East became constantly harsher, in the West he tolerated heathenism. The

commonly received theory is that Constantine changed his policy. All the

facts can be as easily understood on the hypothesis that as a statesman he

had constant regard to the advisability of drastic execution of a policy

which he in theory accepted and would have carried out in its entirety

everywhere if he had been able.

Additional source material: Eusebius, _Vita Constantini_ (PNF),

II. 44 _f._, 47 _f._, 54 _ff._

(_a_) _Codex Theodosianus_, IX, 16, 2; A. D. 319.

Private sacrifices forbidden.

Haruspices and priests and those accustomed to serve this rite we forbid

to enter any private house, or under the pretence of friendship to cross

the threshold of another, under the penalty established against them if

they contemn the law.(96) But those of you who regard this rite, approach

the public altars and shrines and celebrate the solemnities of your

custom; for we do not indeed prohibit the duties of the old usage to be

performed in broad daylight.

(_b_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 10, 1; A. D. 320-321.

Haruspicia in certain circumstances to be observed.

If any part of our palace or other public buildings should be struck by

lightning let the custom be retained of the ancient observance as to what

it signifies, and let it be examined by the haruspices and very carefully

written down, collected, and brought to our attention; to others also the

permission of practising this custom is conceded, provided they refrain

from domestic sacrifices, which are expressly forbidden.

(_c_) _Codex Theodosianus_. XV, 1, 3; A. D. 326.

Unfinished heathen temples need not be completed.

We direct that the judges of the provinces be warned not to give orders

for any new work before they complete the buildings left incomplete by

their predecessors, the erection of temples only being excepted.

§ 61. The Donatist Schism under Constantine

The Donatist schism arose in connection with the Diocletian persecution,

in part over the policy of Mensurius of Carthage regarding the fanatical

desire for martyrdom and the delivery of the sacred books according to the

edict of persecution. Combined with this were the personal ambitions of

the Archdeacon Cæcilianus, the offended dignity of the Primas of Numidia,

Bishop Secundus of Tigisi, and the pique of a wealthy female devotee,

Lucilla. It was mixed up with the customs of the North African church,

whereby the Primas of Numidia exercised a leading authority in the conduct

of the election of the bishop of Carthage, and also with the notion

prevalent in the same church, for which also Cyprian contended in the

controversy on the baptism of heretics [see § 52], that the validity of a

sacrament depended in some way upon the personal character of the minister

of that sacrament. It was asserted by the partisans of Secundus, who

elected Majorinus bishop of Carthage, that Felix of Aptunga, the

consecrator of Cæcilianus, who had been elected by the other party, had

delivered the sacred books to the heathen officials, and was therefore

guilty as a traditor. A schism, accordingly, arose in Carthage which

spread rapidly throughout North Africa. The party of Majorinus soon came

under the lead of Donatus the Great, his successor in the schismatical see

of Carthage. The Donatist schism became of importance almost at once, and

as it was inconsistent with Constantine’s religious policy, which called

for Church unity,(97) it presented an immediate difficulty in the

execution of laws granting favors to the Catholic Church.(98) On account

of the interests involved, the schism was of long duration, lasting after

the conquest of North Africa by the Vandals, and even to the Saracen

conquest, though long since of no importance.

Anulinus. _Ep. ad Constantinum_, in Augustine, _Ep._ 88. (MSG, 33:303.)

To Constantine Augustus from Anulinus, a man of proconsular rank,

proconsul of Africa.

The welcome and adored celestial writings sent by your Majesty to

Cæcilianus, and those who act under him and are called clergy, I have

devoutly taken care to record in the archives of my humility, and have

exhorted those parties that when unity has been made by the consent of

all, since they are seen to be exempt from all other burdens by your

Majesty’s clemency, and having preserved the Catholic unity, they should

devote themselves to their duties with the reverence due the sanctity of

the law and to divine things. After a few days, however, there arose some,

to whom a crowd of people joined themselves, who thought that proceedings

should be taken against Cæcilianus and presented me a sealed packet

wrapped in leather and a small document without seal, and earnestly

requested that I should transmit them to the sacred and venerable court of

your divinity, which your Majesty’s most humble servant has taken care to

do, Cæcilianus continuing meanwhile as he was. The acts pertaining to the

case have been subjoined, in order that your Majesty may be able to make a

decision concerning the whole matter. I have sent two documents, one in a

leathern envelope entitled “A Document of the Catholic Church, the Charges

against Cæcilianus, Furnished by the Party of Majorinus”; the other

attached without a seal to the same leathern envelope. Given on the 17th

day before the calends of May, in the third consulship of our Lord

Constantine Augustus [April 15, 313].

§ 62. Constantine’s Endeavors to Bring about the Unity of the Church by

Means of General Synods: The Councils of Arles and Nicæa

One of the intentions of Constantine in his support of Christianity seems

to have been the employment of the Christian religion as a basis for

imperial unity. The policy of several earlier emperors in reviving

heathenism, and Galerius in his persecution of the Christians, seems

likewise to have been to use religion as a basis of unity. One of the

first tasks Constantine encountered after he became sole ruler of the West

was to restore the unity of the Church in Africa, which had been

endangered by the disputes culminating in the Donatist schism; and when he

became sole ruler of the Empire a new task of a similar character was to

restore unity to the Church of the East, endangered by the Meletian schism

in Egypt [_v. supra_, § 57, _a_], the Arian controversy in its first stage

[_v. infra_, § 63], and the estrangement of the Asia Minor churches, due

to the Easter controversy [_v. supra_, § 38]. It was a master-stroke of

policy on the part of Constantine to use the Church’s conciliar system on

an enlarged scale to bring about this unity. The Church was made to feel

that the decision was its own and to be obeyed for religious reasons; at

the same time the Emperor was able to direct the thought and action of the

assembly in matters of consequence and to give to conciliar action legal

and coercive effect. The two great assemblies summoned to meet the

problems of the West and of the East were respectively the Councils of

Arles, A. D. 314, and of Nicæa, A. D. 325.

I. The Council of Arles A. D. 314

(_a_) Constantine, _Convocatio concilii Arelatensis_, in Eusebius, _Hist.

Ec._, X, 5. (MSG, 20 :888.) _Cf._ Kirch, nn. 321 _f._; Mirbt, nn. 89,

93-97.

For the Council of Arles, see Hefele, §§ 14, 15.

Constantine Augustus to Chrestus, Bishop of Syracuse. When some began

wickedly and perversely to disagree among themselves in regard to the holy

worship and the celestial power and Catholic doctrine, I, wishing to put

an end to such disputes among them, formerly gave command that certain

bishops should be sent from Gaul, and that the opposing parties, who were

contending persistently and incessantly with each other, should be

summoned from Africa; that in their presence and in the presence of the

bishop of Rome the matter which appeared to be causing the disturbance

might be examined and decided with all care. But since, as it happens,

some, forgetful both of their own salvation and of the reverence due to

the most holy religion, do not even yet bring hostilities to an end, and

are unwilling to conform to the judgment already passed, and assert that

those who expressed their opinions and decisions were few, or that they

had been too hasty and precipitate in giving judgment, before all the

things which ought to have been accurately investigated had been

examined—on account of all this it has happened that those very ones who

ought to hold brotherly and harmonious relations toward each other are

shamefully, or rather abominably, divided among themselves, and give

occasion for ridicule to those men whose souls are alien as to this most

holy religion. Wherefore it has seemed necessary to me to provide that

this dissension, which ought to have ceased after the judgment had been

already given, by their own voluntary agreement, should now, if possible,

be brought to an end by the presence of many. Since, therefore, we have

commanded a number of bishops from a great many different places to

assemble in the city of Arles, before the calends of August, we have

thought proper to write to thee also that thou shouldest secure from the

most illustrious Latronianus, Corrector of Sicily, a public vehicle, and

that thou shouldest take with thee two others of the second rank whom thou

thyself shalt choose, together with three servants, who may serve you on

the way, and betake thyself to the above-mentioned place before the

appointed day; that by thy firmness and by the wise unanimity and harmony

of the others present, this dispute, which has disgracefully continued

until the present time, in consequence of certain shameful strifes, after

all has been heard, which those have to say who are now at variance with

one another, and whom we have likewise commanded to be present, may be

settled in accordance with the proper faith, and that brotherly harmony,

though it be but gradual, may be restored. May Almighty God preserve thee

in health many years.

(_b_) _Synodal Epistle addressed to Sylvester, Bishop of Rome_, Bruns, II,

107. _Cf._ Kirch, nn. 330-337.

The following extracts give the canons of most importance in the

history of the times. The exact wording of the canons has not been

retained in the letter, which is the only record extant of the

action of the council. The text from which the following is

translated is that given by the monks of St. Maur in their

_Collectio Conciliorum Galliæ_, reprinted by Hefele, § 15, and

Bruns, _Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum_, II, 107 _ff._ It is

to be preferred to the text of Mansi and the older collections.

The first canon settled for the West the long-standing question as

to the date of Easter. The Roman custom as to the day of the week

and computation of the time of year should be followed everywhere;

the same decision was reached at Nicæa for the East (_v. __§ 62,

II, a_). As a matter of fact, however, the computation customary

at Alexandria eventually prevailed as the more accurate.

The eighth and thirteenth canons touch upon North African

disputes. The former overrules the contention of Cyprian and his

colleagues, that heretical or schismatical baptisms were invalid.

It also laid down a principle by which Novatianism stood

condemned. The thirteenth applied a similar principle to

ordination; the crimes of the bishop who gave the ordination

should not invalidate the ordination of a suitable person, as was

claimed in the case of the ordination of Cæcilianus by Felix of

Aptunga, accused as a _traditor_; further it ruled out the

complaints against Felix until more substantial proof be brought,

the official documents that he had made the tradition required by

the edict of persecution.

Marinus and the assembly of bishops, who have come together in the town of

Arles, to the most holy lord and brother Sylvester. What we have decreed

with general consent we signify to your charity that all may know what

ought to be observed in the future.

1. In the first place, concerning the observation of the Lord’s Easter, we

have determined that it be observed on one day and at one time throughout

the world by us, and that you send letters according to custom to all.

8. Concerning the Africans, because they make use of their own law, to the

effect that they rebaptize, we have determined that if any one should come

from heresy to the Church they should ask him the creed; and if they

should perceive that he had been baptized in the name of the Father and of

the Son and of the Holy Ghost, hands only should be laid upon him that he

might receive the Holy Ghost. That if when asked he should not reply this

Trinity, let him be baptized.

9. Concerning those who bring letters of the confessors, it pleased us

that these letters having been taken away, they should receive other

letters of communion.

13. Concerning those who are said to have given up the Holy Scriptures or

the vessels of the Lord or the name of their brethren, it has pleased us

whoever of them shall have been convicted by public documents and not by

mere words, should be removed from the clerical order; though if the same

have been found to have ordained any, and those whom they have ordained

are worthy, it shall not render their ordination invalid. And because

there are many who are seen to oppose the law of the Church and think that

they ought to be admitted to bring accusation by hired witnesses, they are

by no means to be admitted, except, as we have said above, they can prove

their accusations by public documents.

II. The Council of Nicæa

For the Council of Nicæa, see Hefele, §§ 18-44. All church

histories give large space to the Council of Nicæa. _V. infra, §§

__63__ ff., __72, a_.

(_a_) Council of Nicæa, 325. _Synodical Letter_, Socrates, _Hist. Ec._ I,

9. (MSG, 67 :77.) Text in Kirch, nn. 369 _ff._; Mirbt, n. 107.

To the holy and, by the grace of God, great Church of the Alexandrians,

and to our beloved brethren throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, the

bishops assembled at Nicæa constituting the great and holy synod, send

greetings in the Lord.

Since by the grace of God, a great and holy synod has been convened at

Nicæa, our most pious sovereign Constantine having summoned us out of

various cities and provinces for that purpose, it appeared to us

indispensably necessary that a letter should be written also to you on the

part of the sacred synod; in order that you may know what subjects were

brought under consideration, what rigidly investigated, and also what was

eventually determined on and decreed. In the first place, the impiety and

guilt of Arius and his adherents were examined into, in the presence of

our most pious Emperor Constantine: and it was unanimously decided that

his impious opinion be anathematized, with all the blasphemous expressions

and terms he has blasphemously uttered, affirming that the Son of God

sprang from nothing, and that there was a time when He was not; saying,

moreover, that the Son of God was possessed of a free will, so as to be

capable either of vice or virtue; and calling Him a creature and a work.

All these the holy synod has anathematized, having scarcely patience to

endure the hearing of such an impious or, rather, bewildered opinion, and

such abominable blasphemies. But the conclusion of our proceedings against

him you must either have heard or will hear; for we would not seem to

trample on a man who has received the chastisement which his crime

deserved. Yet so strong is his impiety as to involve Theonas, Bishop of

Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais; for they have suffered the same

condemnation as himself. But the grace of God freed us from this false

doctrine, impiety, and blasphemy, and from those persons who have dared to

cause discord and division among the people previously at peace; and there

still remained the contumacy of Meletius to be dealt with, and those who

had been ordained by him; and we shall now state to you, beloved brethren,

what resolution the synod came to on this point. Acting with more clemency

toward Meletius, although, strictly speaking, he was wholly undeserving of

favor, the council permitted him to remain in his own city, but decreed

that he should exercise no authority either to ordain or nominate for

ordination; and that he should appear in no other district or city on this

pretence, but simply retain a nominal dignity; that those who had received

appointments from him, after having been confirmed by a more legitimate

ordination, should be admitted to communion on these conditions: that they

should continue to hold their rank and ministry, but regard themselves as

inferior in every respect to all those who had been previously ordained

and established in each place and church by our most honored

fellow-minister Alexander. In addition to these things, they shall have no

authority to propose or nominate whom they please, or to do anything at

all without the concurrence of a bishop of the Catholic Church, who is one

of Alexander’s suffragans. Let such as by the grace of God and your

prayers have been found in no schism, but have continued in the Catholic

Church blameless, have authority to nominate and ordain those who are

worthy of the sacred office, and to act in all things according to

ecclesiastical law and usage. Whenever it may happen that any of those

placed in the Church die, then let such as have been recently admitted

into orders be advanced to the dignity of the deceased, provided that they

appear worthy, and that the people should elect them, and the bishop of

Alexandria confirm their choice. This is conceded to all the others,

indeed, but as for Meletius personally we by no means grant the same, on

account of his formerly disorderly conduct; and because of the rashness

and levity of his character he is deprived of all authority and

jurisdiction, as a man liable again to create similar disturbances. These

are things which specially affect Egypt and the most holy Church of the

Alexandrians; and if any other canon or ordinance should be established,

our lord and most honored fellow-minister and brother Alexander being

present with us, will on his return to you enter into more minute details,

inasmuch as he is not only a participator in whatever is transacted, but

has the principal direction of it. We have also to announce the good news

to you concerning the unanimity as to the holy feast of Easter: that this

by your prayers has been settled so that all the brethren in the East, who

have hitherto kept this festival with the Jews, will henceforth conform to

the Romans and to us, and to all who from the earliest times have observed

our period of celebrating Easter. Rejoicing, therefore, on account of a

favorable termination of matters and in the extirpation of all heresy,

receive with the greater honor and more abundant love our fellow-minister

and your bishop, Alexander, who has greatly delighted us by his presence,

and even at his advanced age has undergone extraordinary exertions in

order that peace might be re-established among you. Pray on behalf of us

all, that the decisions to which we have so justly come may be inviolably

maintained through Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ, together with

the Holy Spirit to whom be glory forever. Amen.

(_b_) Council of Nicæa, Canon 8, _On the Novatians_, Bruns. I, 8.

The Church recognized the substantial orthodoxy of the Novatians,

and according to the principles laid down at Arles (cc. 8, 13, §

62 _I, b_) the ordination of the Novatians was regarded as valid.

The following canon, although a generous concession on the part of

the Church, did not bring about a healing of the schism which

lasted several centuries. The last mention of the Novatians is

contained in the 95th canon of the second Trullan Council, known

as the Quinisext, A. D. 692.

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 title. But if

this should not seem good to him, then shall the bishop provide for him a

place as chorepiscopus, 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 Theodosianus_, XVI, 5, 2; A. D. 326.

With the generous treatment of the Novatians by the Council of

Nicæa 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

sanctity.

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 Nicæa

(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 Nicæa (§ 63).

2. From the Council of Nicæa to the death of Constantine (325-337). In

this stadium, without the setting aside of the formula of Nicæa, 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-Nicæan party is victorious in the East (§ 65), but

as it included all those who for any reason were opposed to the definition

of Nicæa, it fell apart on attaining the annulment of the decision of

Nicæa. There arose, on the one hand, an extreme Arian party and, on the

other, a homoiousian 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 attitude 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 God which dwelt in the man

Jesus. Arianism distinguished between a Logos uncreated, an eternal

impersonal reason in God, and a personal Logos created in time, making the

latter, the personal Logos, only in a secondary sense God. 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

assertion 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 Irenæus. 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 formulæ of the

councils.

§ 63. The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicæa, 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 entitled 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 Nicæa 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 Cæsarea, 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 Nicæa:

The Genuine Remains_; H. R. Percival, _The Seven Ecumenical

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 acumen, 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 God, 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 God [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 Godhead. 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 God, 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, “God is always, the Son is

always; as the Father so the Son; the Son coexists unbegotten with God; He

is everlastingly begotten; He is the unbegotten begotten; neither by

thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always

the Son; the Son is of God 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 God 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 God 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 God, 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 asserted repeatedly that they may be

regarded as correctly representing the work from which they

profess to be taken.

God was not always Father; but there was when God 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 God 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 God, 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, God; 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 God’s wisdom. So, he says,

that there is another Logos besides the Son in God, 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 God and eternal; but

Christ, again, is not the true power of God, 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, God foreseeing that He would be good, gave by

anticipation to Him that glory, which as a man He afterward had from His

virtue; so that on account of His works, which God foresaw, God 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,

entitled _Depositio Arii_. It is also found in the _Ecclesiastical

History_ of Socrates. For council, see Hefele, § 20.

Those who became apostates were Arius, Achillas, Æithales, Carpones,

another Arius, and Sarmates, who were then presbyters; Euzoius, Lucius,

Julianus, Menas, Helladius, 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: God was not always a Father, but there was a time when He was

not a Father. The Logos of God 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 God’s own logos and by the wisdom that is in God, by which

God 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

God. 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 God might create us by Him as by an

instrument; and He would not have existed had not God willed to create us.

Accordingly some one asked them whether the Logos of God 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 Cæsarea, _Creed_, in Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 8. (MSG,

67:69.) _Cf._ Hahn, § 188.

This creed was presented at the Council of Nicæa 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.

We believe in one God, Father Almighty, the maker of all things visible

and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Logos of God, God of God,

Light of Light, Life of Life, only begotten Son, the first-born of all

creation, begotten of His Father before all ages, by whom, also, all

things were made, who for our salvation became flesh, who lived among men,

and suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father,

and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe

also in one Holy Spirit. We believe that each of these [_i.e._, three] is

and subsists;(103) the Father truly Father, the Son truly Son; the Holy

Spirit truly Holy Spirit; as our Lord also said, when He sent His

disciples to preach: “Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of

the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” [Matt. 28:19].

(_g_) Council of Nicæa A. D. 325, _Creed_, in Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 8.

(MSG, 67:68.) _Cf._ Hahn, § 142.

The creed of Nicæa is to be carefully distinguished from what is

commonly called the Nicene creed. The actual creed put forth at

the council is as follows. The discussion by Loofs,

_Dogmengeschichte_, § 32, is brief but especially important, as he

shows that the creed was drawn up under the influence of the

Western formulæ.

We believe in one God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and

invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of His

Father, only begotten, that is of the _ousia_ of the Father, God of God,

Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, of one

substance(104) with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things

in heaven and things in earth, who for us men and for our salvation, came

down from heaven and was made [became] flesh and was made [became] man,

suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens and

comes to judge living and dead. And in the Holy Ghost.

But those who say there was when He was not, and before being begotten He

was not, and He was made out of things that were not(105) or those who say

that the Son of God was from a different substance [hypostasis] or being

[_ousia_] or a creature, or capable of change or alteration, these the

Catholic Church anathematizes.

§ 64. The Beginnings of the Eusebian Reaction under Constantine

Shortly after the Council of Nicæa, Constantine seems to have become aware

of the fact that the decision at that council was not acceptable in the

East as a whole, representing, as it did, what was generally felt to be an

extreme position. In coming to this opinion he was much influenced by

Eusebius of Nicomedia who, by powerful court interest, was soon recalled

from exile and even became the leading ecclesiastical adviser of

Constantine. The policy of this bishop was to prepare the way for the

revocation of the decree of Nicæa by a preliminary rehabilitation of Arius

(_a_), and by attacking the leaders of the opposite party (_b_).

Constantine, however, never consented to the abrogation of the creed of

Nicæa.

Additional source material: Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 8 (letter of

Eusebius to his diocese), 14, 28 ff. _Eusebius, Vita Constantini_,

III, 23; Athanasius, _Historia Arianorum_, §§ 4-7.

(_a_) Arius, _Confession of Faith_, in Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 26. (MSG,

67:149.)

As a part of the process whereby Arius should be rehabilitated by

being received back into the Church he was invited by Constantine

to appear at the court. He was there presented to the Emperor and

produced a confession of faith purposely vague and general in

statement, but intended to give the impression that he held the

essentials of the received orthodoxy. The text is that given by

Hahn, § 187.

Arius and Euzoius to our most religious and pious Lord, the Emperor

Constantine.

In accordance with the command of your devout piety, sovereign lord, we

declare our faith, and before God we profess in writing that we and our

adherents believe as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty; and in the Lord Jesus Christ

His Son, who was made by Him before all ages, God the Word, through whom

all things were made, both those which are in heaven and those upon earth;

who descended, and became incarnate, and suffered, and rose again,

ascended into the heavens, and will again come to judge the living and the

dead. Also in the Holy Spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and

in the life of the coming age, and in the kingdom of the heavens, and in

one Catholic Church of God, extending from one end of the earth to the

other.

This faith we have received from the holy gospels, the Lord therein saying

to His disciples: “Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the

Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” If we do not so believe

and truly receive the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the whole Catholic

Church and the Holy Scriptures teach (in which we believe in every

respect) God is our judge both now and in the coming judgment. Wherefore

we beseech your piety, most devout Emperor, that we who are persons

consecrated to the ministry, and holding the faith and sentiments of the

Church and of the Holy Scriptures, may by your pacific and devoted piety

be reunited to our mother, the Church, all superfluous questions and

disputings being avoided; that so both we and the whole Church may be at

peace and in common offer our accustomed prayers for your tranquil reign

and on behalf of your whole family.

(_b_) Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 23. (MSG, 67:140.)

The attack of the Arians upon Athanasius and his party.

The partisans of Eusebius and Theognis having returned from their exile,

they received again their churches, having expelled, as we observed, those

who had been ordained in their stead. Moreover they came into great

consideration with the Emperor, who honored them exceedingly, as those who

had returned from error to the orthodox faith. They, however, abused the

license granted them by exciting commotions in the world greater than

before; being instigated to this by two causes—on the one hand, the Arian

heresy with which they had been previously infected, and on the other

hand, by animosity against Athanasius because in the synod he had so

vigorously withstood them in the discussion of the articles of the faith.

And in the first place they objected to the ordination of Athanasius, not

only as of one unworthy of the episcopate, but also as of one not elected

by qualified persons. But when he had shown himself superior to this

calumny (for having assumed direction of the Church of the Alexandrians,

he ardently contended for the Nicene creed), then the adherents of

Eusebius exerted themselves to cause the removal of Athanasius and to

bring Arius back to Alexandria; for thus only did they think they should

be able to cast out the doctrine of consubstantiality and introduce

Arianism. Eusebius therefore wrote to Athanasius to receive Arius and his

adherents; and when he wrote he not only entreated him, but he openly

threatened him. When Athanasius would by no means accede to this he

endeavored to persuade the Emperor to receive Arius in audience and then

permit him to return to Alexandria; and how he accomplished these things I

shall tell in its proper place.

Meanwhile, before this, another commotion was raised in the Church. In

fact those of the household of the Church again disturbed her peace.

Eusebius Pamphilius says that immediately after the synod Egypt became

agitated by intestine divisions; but he does not give the reason for this.

From this he has gained the reputation of being disingenuous and of

avoiding the specification of the causes of these dissensions from a

determination on his part not to give his sanction to the proceedings at

Nicæa. Yet as we ourselves have discovered from various letters which the

bishops wrote to one another after the synod, the term homoousios troubled

some of them. So that while they occupied themselves about it,

investigating it very minutely, they roused the strife against each other.

It seemed not unlike a contest in the dark; for neither party appeared to

understand distinctly the grounds on which they calumniated one another.

Those who objected to the word homoousios conceived that those who

approved it favored the opinion of Sabellius and Montanus; they therefore

called them blasphemers, as subverting the existence of the Son of God.

And again those who defended the term, charging their opponents with

polytheism, inveighed against them as introducers of heathen

superstitions. Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius Pamphilius

of perverting the Nicene creed; Eusebius again denies that he violates

that exposition of the faith, and accuses Eustathius of introducing the

opinion of Sabellius. Therefore each of them wrote as if contending

against adversaries; but both sides admitted that the Son of God has a

distinct person and existence, confessing that there is one God in three

persons (hypostases) yet they were unable to agree, for what cause I do

not know, and could in no way be at peace.

§ 65. The Victory of the Anti-Nicene Party in the East

When Constantine died in 337 the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia was

completely in the ascendant in the East. A council at Antioch, 339,

deposed Athanasius, and he was expelled from Alexandria, and Gregory of

Cappadocia was consecrated in his place. Athanasius, with Marcellus of

Ancyra and other supporters of the Nicene faith, repaired to Rome where

they were supported by Julius, bishop of Rome, at a well-attended local

council in 340 (_a__, __b_). In the East numerous attempts were made to

formulate a confession of faith which might take the place of the Nicene

creed and prove acceptable to all parties. The most important of these

were produced at the Council of Antioch, 341, at which no less than four

creeds were formulated (_c__, __d_).

Additional source material: Percival, _The Seven Ecumenical

Councils_ (PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV); Socrates, _Hist. Ec._ (PNF,

ser. II, vol. II), II, 19 (Formula Macrostichos); Athanasius, _De

Synodis_ (PNF, ser. II, vol. IV).

(_a_) Athanasius, _Apologia contra Arianos_, 20. (MSG, 25:280.)

Athanasius and his allies in exile in the West are exonerated at

Rome.

The Eusebians wrote also to Julius, thinking to frighten me, requesting

him to call a council, and Julius himself to be the judge if he pleased.

When, therefore, I went up to Rome, Julius wrote to the Eusebians, as was

suitable, and sent moreover two of his presbyters, Elpidius and

Philoxenus. But when they heard of me they became confused, because they

did not expect that we would come up; and they declined, alleging absurd

reasons for so doing, but in truth fearing lest the things should be

proved against them which Valens and Ursacius afterward confessed.

However, more than fifty bishops assembled in the place where the

presbyter Vito held his congregation, and they acknowledged my defence and

gave me the confirmation both of their communion and their love. On the

other hand, they expressed great indignation against the Eusebians and

requested that Julius write to the following effect to them who had

written to him. And he wrote and sent it by Count Gabienus.

(_b_) Julius of Rome, _Epistula_, in Athanasius. _Apologia contra

Arianos_, §§ 26 _ff._ (MSG, 25:292.)

Julius to his dearly beloved brethren, Danius, Flacillus, Narcissus,

Eusebius, and Matis, Macedonius, Theodorus, and their friends, who have

written him from Antioch, sends health in the Lord.

§ 26. … It is necessary for me to inform you that although I alone wrote,

yet it was not my opinion only, but of all the bishops throughout Italy

and in these parts. I, indeed, was unwilling to cause them all to write,

lest they might have weight by mere numbers. The bishops, however,

assembled on the appointed day, and agreed in these opinions, which I

again write to signify to you; so that, dearly beloved, although I alone

address you, yet you may know it is the opinion of all.…

§ 27. That we have not admitted to our communion our fellow-bishops

Athanasius and Marcellus either hastily or unjustly, although sufficiently

shown above, it is but fair to set briefly before you. The Eusebians first

wrote against Athanasius and his fellows, and you have also written now;

but many bishops out of Egypt and other provinces wrote in his favor. Now

in the first place, your letters against him contradict each other, and

the second have no sort of agreement with the first, but in many instances

the former are refuted by the latter, and the latter are impeached by the

former.…

§ 29. Now when these things were thus represented, and so many witnesses

appeared in his behalf, and so much advanced by him in his own

justification, what did it become us to do? Or what did the rule of the

Church require except that we should not condemn the man, but rather

receive him and hold him as a bishop as we have done.…

§ 32. With respect to Marcellus, forasmuch as you have written concerning

him also as impious in respect to Christ, I am anxious to inform you that,

when he was here, he positively declared that what you had written

concerning him was not true; but, being nevertheless requested by us to

give an account of his faith, he answered in his own person with the

utmost boldness, so that we recognize that he maintains nothing outside of

the truth. He confessed that he piously held the same doctrine concerning

our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Catholic Church holds; and he

affirmed that he had held these opinions not merely now but for a very

long time since; as indeed our presbyters, who were at a former time at

the Council of Nicæa, testified to his orthodoxy, for he maintained both

then and now his opposition to the heresy of Arius; on which point it is

right to admonish you, that none of you admit such heresy, but instead

abominate it as alien from the wholesome doctrine. Since he professed

orthodox opinions and offered testimony to his orthodoxy, what again ought

we in his case to have done except to treat him as a bishop, as we did,

and not reject him from our communion?…

§ 33. For not only the bishops Athanasius and Marcellus and their fellows

came here and complained of the injustice that had been done them, but

many other bishops, also, from Thrace, from Cœle-Syria, from Phœnicia, and

Palestine; and presbyters, not a few, and others from Alexandria and from

other parts were present at the council here and, in addition to their own

statements, lamented bitterly before all the assembled bishops the

violence and injustice which the churches had suffered; and they affirmed

that outrages similar to those which had been committed in Alexandria had

occurred not in word only but in deed in their own churches and in others

also.

(_c_) _Second Creed of Antioch_, A. D. 341, in Athanasius, _De Synodis

Arimini et Seleuciæ_, ch. 23. (MSG, 26:721.) Also in Socrates, _Hist.

Ec._, II, 10. (MSG, 67:201.) _Cf._ Hahn, § 154.

The Council of Antioch in 341 was gathered ostensibly to dedicate

the great church of that city, in reality to act against the

Nicene party. It was attended by ninety or more bishops of whom

thirty-six were Arians. The others seem to have been chiefly

members of the middle party. The dogmatic definitions of this

council have never been accepted by the Church; on the other hand,

the canons on discipline have always enjoyed a very high place in

the esteem of later generations. The following creed, the second

of the Antiochian creeds, is traditionally regarded as having been

composed originally by Lucian of Antioch, the master of Arius.

Hence it is known as the creed of Lucian.

We believe in accordance with evangelic and apostolic tradition in one God

the Father Almighty, the creator, the maker and provider of all things.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, God, through whom are

all things, who was begotten of His Father before all ages, God of God,

whole of whole, only one of only one, perfect of perfect, king of king,

lord of lord, the living word, living wisdom, true light, way, truth,

resurrection, shepherd, door, unchangeable, unalterable, and immutable,

the unchangeable likeness of the Godhead, both of the substance, and will

and power and glory of the Father, the first-born of all creation, who was

in the beginning with God, God Logos, according to what is said in the

Gospel: “and the word was God,” through whom all things were made, and “in

whom all things consist,” who in the last days came down from above, and

was born of a virgin, according to the Scriptures, and became man, the

mediator between God and man, and the apostle of our faith, and the prince

of life; as He says, “I have come down from heaven, not to do mine own

will, but the will of Him that sent me”; who suffered for us, and rose the

third day and ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of the

Father, and comes again with glory and power to judge the living and the

dead. And in the Holy Spirit given for consolation and sanctification and

perfection to those who believe; as also our Lord Jesus Christ commanded

his disciples, saying, “Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the

name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” clearly of the

Father who is really a Father, and of the Son who is really a Son, and of

the Holy Spirit who is really a Holy Spirit; these names being assigned

not vaguely nor idly, but indicating accurately the special subsistence

[hypostasis], order, glory of those named, so that in subsistence they are

three, but in harmony one.

Having then this faith from the beginning and holding it to the end,

before God and Christ we anathematize all heretical false doctrines. And

if any one contrary to the right faith of the Holy Scriptures, teaches and

says that there has been a time, a season, or age, or being or becoming,

before the Son of God was begotten, let him be accursed. And if any one

says that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures, or generated as

one of the things generated, or made as one of the things made, and not as

the divine Scriptures have handed down each of the forenamed statements;

or if a man teaches or preaches anything else contrary to what we have

received, let him be accursed. For we truly and clearly both believe and

follow all things from the Holy Scriptures that have been transmitted to

us by the prophets and Apostles.

(_d_) _Fourth Creed of Antioch_, Socrates, _Hist._ Ec., II, 18. (MSG,

67:221.) _Cf._ Hahn, § 156.

This creed is an approximation to the Nicene creed but without the

use of the word of especial importance, homoousios. Valuable

critical notes on the text of this and the preceding creed are to

be found in Hahn; as these creeds are to be found both in the work

of Athanasius on the councils of synods of Ariminum and Seleucia,

in the ecclesiastical history of Socrates and elsewhere, there is

a variety of readings, but of minor significance so far as the

essential features are concerned.

We believe in one God, Father Almighty, the creator and maker of all

things, of whom the whole family in heaven and upon earth is named; and in

his only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the

Father before all ages; God of God, light of light, through whom all

things in the heavens and upon earth, both visible and invisible were

made: who is the word, and wisdom, and power, and life, and true light:

who in the last days for our sake was made [became] man, and was born of

the holy Virgin; was crucified, and died; was buried, arose again from the

dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven, is seated at the right

hand of the Father, and is coming at the consummation of the age to judge

the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works:

whose kingdom, being perpetual, shall continue to infinite ages (for He

shall sit at the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also

in that which is to come). And in the Holy Spirit; that is, in the

comforter, whom the Lord, according to His promise, sent to His Apostles

after His ascension into the heavens, to teach and bring all things to

their remembrance: by whom, also, the souls of those who have sincerely

believed in Him shall be sanctified; and those who assert that the Son was

made of things which are not, or of another subsistence [hypostasis], and

not of God, or that there was a time or age when He did not exist the holy

Catholic Church accounts as aliens.

§ 66. Collapse of the Anti-Nicene Middle Party; the Renewal of Arianism;

the Rise of the Homoousian Party

When Constantius became sole Emperor, on the death of his brother Constans

in 350, there was no further need of considering the interests of the

Nicene party. Only the necessity of establishing his authority in the West

against usurpers engaged his attention until 356, when a series of

councils began, designed to put an end to the Nicene faith. Of the

numerous confessions of faith put forth, the second creed of Sirmium of

357 is important as attempting to abolish in connection with the

discussion the use of the term _ousia_ and likewise _homoousios_ and

_homoiousios_ (_a_). At Nice in Thrace a still greater departure from

Nicæa was attempted in 359, and a creed was put forth (_b_), which is of

special significance as containing the first reference in a creed to the

_descensus ad inferos_ and to the fact that it was subscribed by the

deputies of the West including Bishop Liberius of Rome. For the discussion

of this act of Liberius, see J. Barmby, art. “Liberius” in DCB; see also

_Catholic Encyclopædia_, art. “Liberius.” It was also received in the

synod of Seleucia in the East. On these councils see Athanasius, _De

Synodis_ (PNF). It was in reference to this acceptance of the creed of

Nice that Jerome wrote “The whole world groaned and was astonished that it

was Arian.” See Jerome, _Contra Luciferianos_, §§ 18 _ff._ (PNF. ser. II,

vol. VI).

Inasmuch as the anti-Nicene opposition party was a coalition of all

parties opposed to the wording of the Nicene creed, as soon as that creed

was abolished the bond that held them together was broken. At once there

arose an extreme Arianism which had remained in the background. On the

other hand, those who were opposed to Arianism sought to draw nearer the

Nicene party. These were the Homoiousians, who objected to the term

homoousios as savoring of Sabellianism, and yet admitted the essential

point implied by it. That this was so was pointed out by Hilary of

Poitiers (_c_) who contended that what the West meant by homoousios the

East meant by homoiousios. The Homoiousian party of the East split on the

question of the deity of the Holy Spirit. Those of them who denied the

deity of the Spirit remained Semi-Arians.

(_a_) _Second Creed of Sirmium_, in Hilary of Poitiers, _De Synodis_, ch.

11. (MSL, 10:487.) _Cf._ Hahn, § 161.

The Council of Sirmium in 357 was the second in that city. It was

attended entirely by bishops from the West. But among them were

Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, leaders of the opposition to the

Nicene creed. Hosius under compulsion signed the following; see

Hilary, _loc cit._ The Latin original is given by Hilary.

It is evident that there is one God, the Father Almighty, according as it

is believed throughout the whole world; and His only Son Jesus Christ our

Saviour, begotten of Him before the ages. But we cannot and ought not to

say there are two Gods.…

But since some or many persons were disturbed by questions as to

substance, called in Greek _ousia_, that is, to make it understood more

exactly, as to _homoousios_ or what is called _homoiousios_, there ought

to be no mention of these at all, nor ought any one to state them; for the

reason and consideration that they are not contained in the divine

Scriptures, and that they are above man’s understanding, nor can any man

declare the birth of the Son, of whom it is written: “Who shall declare

His generation?” For it is plain that only the Father knows how He begat

the Son, and the Son how He was begotten of the Father. There is no

question that the Father is greater. No one can doubt that the Father is

greater than the Son, in honor, dignity, splendor, majesty and in the very

name Father, the Son himself testifying, He that sent Me is greater than

I. And no one is ignorant that it is Catholic doctrine that there are two

persons of Father and Son; and that the Father is greater, and that the

Son is subordinated to the Father, together with all things which the

Father hath subordinated to Him; and that the Father has no beginning and

is invisible, immortal, and impassible, but that the Son has been begotten

of the Father, God of God, light of light, and of this Son the generation,

as is aforesaid, no one knows but His Father. And that the Son of God

himself, our Lord and God, as we read, took flesh or a body, that is, man

of the womb of the Virgin Mary, as the angel announced. And as all the

Scriptures teach, and especially the doctor of the Gentiles himself. He

took of Mary the Virgin, man, through whom He suffered. And the whole

faith is summed up and secured in this, that the Trinity must always be

preserved, as we read in the Gospel: “Go ye and baptize all nations in the

name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Complete and

perfect is the number of the Trinity. Now the Paraclete, or the Spirit, is

through the Son: who was sent and came according to His promise in order

to instruct, teach, and sanctify the Apostles and all believers.

(_b_) _Creed of Nice_ A. D. 359, Theodoret, _Hist. Ec._, II, 16. (MSG,

82:1049.) _Cf._ Hahn, § 164.

The deputies from the Council of Ariminum were sent to Nice, a

small town in Thrace, where they met the heads of the Arian party.

A creed, strongly Arian in tendency, was given them and they were

sent back to Ariminum to have it accepted. See Theodoret, _loc.

cit._, and Athanasius, _De Synodis_.

We believe in one and only true God, Father Almighty, of whom are all

things. And in the only begotten Son of God, who before all ages and

before every beginning was begotten of God, through whom all things were

made, both visible and invisible; begotten, only begotten, alone of the

Father alone, God of God, like the Father that begat Him, according to the

Scriptures, whose generation no one knoweth except only the Father that

begat Him. This only begotten Son of God, sent by His Father, we know to

have come down from heaven, as it is written, for the destruction of sin

and death; begotten of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, as it is

written, according to the flesh. Who companied with His disciples, and

when the whole dispensation was fulfilled, according to the Father’s will,

was crucified, dead and buried, and descended to the world below, at whom

hell itself trembled; on the third day He rose from the dead and companied

with His disciples, and when forty days were completed He was taken up

into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of His Father, and is

coming at the last day of the resurrection, in His Father’s glory, to

render to every one according to his works. And in the Holy Ghost, which

the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, both God and Lord, promised to

send to the race of men, the comforter, as it is written, the spirit of

truth, and this Spirit He himself sent after He had ascended into the

heavens and sat at the right hand of the Father, from thence He is coming

to judge both the quick and the dead.

But the word “substance,” which was simply inserted by the Fathers and not

being understood was a cause of scandal to the people because it was not

found in the Scriptures, it hath seemed good to us to remove, and that for

the future no mention whatever be permitted of “substance,” because the

sacred Scriptures nowhere make any mention of the “substance” of the

Father and the Son. Nor must one “subsistence” [hypostasis] be named in

relation to the person [prosopon] of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And we

call the Son like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call Him and teach.

But all heresies, both those already condemned, and any, if such there be,

which have arisen against the document thus put forth, let them be

anathema.

(_c_) Hilary of Poitiers. _De Synodis_, §§ 88, 89, 91. (MSL, 10:540.)

That the Homoiousian party meant substantially the same by their

term homoiousios as did the Homoousians or the Nicene party, by

their term homoousios.

Hilary was of great importance in the Arian controversy in

bringing the Homoiousian party of the East and the Nicene party of

the West to an agreement. The Eastern theologians, who hesitated

to accept the Nicene term, were eventually induced to accept,

understanding by the term homoousios the same as homoiousios. See

below, § 70.

§ 88. Holy brethren, I understand by homoousios God of God, not of an

unlike essence, not divided, but born; and that the Son has a birth that

is unique, of the substance of the unknown God, that He is begotten yet

co-eternal and wholly like the Father. The word homoousios greatly helped

me already believing this. Why do you condemn my faith in the homoousios,

which you cannot disapprove by the confession of the homoiousios? For you

condemn my faith, or rather your own, when you condemn its verbal

equivalent. Does somebody else misunderstand it? Let us together condemn

the misunderstanding, but not take away the security of your faith. Do you

think that one must subscribe to the Samosetene Council, so that no one

may make use of homoousios in the sense of Paul of Samosata? Then let us

subscribe to the Council of Nicæa, so that the Arians may not impugn the

word homoousios. Have we to fear that homoiousios does not imply the same

belief as homoousios? Let us decree that there is no difference between

being of one and being of a similar substance. But may not the word

homoousios be understood in a wrong sense? Let it be proved that it can be

understood in a good sense. We hold one and the same sacred truth. I

beseech you that the one and the same truth which we hold, we should

regard as sacred among us. Forgive me, brethren, as I have so often asked

you to do. You are not Arians; why, then, by denying the homoousios,

should you be thought to be Arians?

§ 89. … True likeness belongs to a true natural connection. But when the

true natural connection exists, the homoousios is implied. It is likeness

according to essence when one piece of metal is like another and not

plated.… Nothing can be like gold but gold, or like milk that does not

belong to that species.

§ 91. I do not know the word homoousios or understand it unless it

confesses a similarity of essence. I call God of heaven and earth to

witness, that when I heard neither word, my belief was always such that I

should have interpreted homoiousios by homoousios. That is I believed that

nothing could be similar according to nature unless it was of the same

nature.

§ 67. The Policy of the Sons of Constantine Toward Heathenism and Donatism