Under the sons of Constantine a harsher policy toward heathenism was

adopted. Laws were passed forbidding heathen sacrifices (_a__, __b_), and

although these were not carried out vigorously in the West, where there

were many heathen members of the leading families, they were more

generally enforced in the East, and heathenism was thereby much reduced,

at least in outward manifestations. As to heresy, the action of the

emperors and especially Constantius in his constant endeavor to set aside

the Nicene faith involved harsh measures against all who differed from the

approved theology of the court. Donatism called for special treatment. A

policy of conciliation was attempted, but on account of the failure to win

over the Donatists and their alliance with fierce revolutionary fanatics,

the Circumcellions, violent measures were taken against them which nearly

extirpated the sect.

(_a_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 10, 2; A. D. 341.

This edict of Constantius is of importance here as it seems to

imply that Constantine did more toward repressing heathen

sacrifices than to forbid those celebrated in private. It is,

however, the only evidence of his prohibiting sacrifice, and it

might have been due to misunderstanding that his example is here

cited.

Let superstition cease; let the madness of sacrifices be abolished. For

whoever, against the law of the divine prince, our parent [Constantine]

and this command of our clemency, shall celebrate sacrifices, let a

punishment appropriate to him and this present decision be issued.

(_b_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 10, 3; A. D. 342.

In the West Constans did not enforce the law against sacrifices

with great severity, but tolerated the existence and even use of

certain temples without the walls.

Although all superstition is to be entirely destroyed, yet we will that

the temple buildings, which are situated without the walls, remain intact

and uninjured. For since from some have arisen various sports, races, and

contests, it is not proper that they should be destroyed, from which the

solemnity of ancient enjoyments are furnished to the Roman people.

(_c_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 10, 4; A. D. 346.

It is our pleasure that in all places and in all cities the temples be

henceforth closed, and access having been forbidden to all, freedom to sin

be denied the wicked. We will that all abstain from sacrifices; that if

any one should commit any such act, let him fall before the vengeance of

the sword. Their goods, we decree, shall be taken away entirely and

recovered to the fisc, and likewise rectors of provinces are to be

punished if they neglect to punish for these crimes.

(_d_) Optatus, _De schismate Donatistarum_, III, §§ 3, 4. (MSL, 11:999.)

The principal historical writer treating the schism of the

Donatists is Optatus, Bishop of Mileve. His work on this sect was

written about 370 and revised and enlarged in 385. It is of

primary importance not merely for the history but for the dogmatic

discussions on the doctrine of the Church, Bk. II, the doctrine of

the sacraments, the idea of _opus operatum_ as applied to them,

Bk. V; in all of which he laid the foundation upon which Augustine

built. In addition to the passage from Optatus given here,

Epistles 88 and 185 by Augustine are accessible in translations

and will be found of assistance in filling in the account of the

Circumcellions. The latter is known as _De correctione

Donatistarum_ and is published in the anti-Donatist writings of

Augustine in PNF, ser. I, vol. IV; the most important passages are

§§ 15 and 25. It is probable that the party of the Circumcellions

was originally due to a revolt against intolerable agrarian

conditions and that their association with the Donatists was at

first slight.

§ 3. … The Emperor Constans did not send Paulus and Macarius primarily to

bring about unity, but with alms, that, assisted by them, the poor of the

various churches might be relieved, clothed, and fed. When they came to

Donatus, your father, and showed him why they had come, he was seized with

his accustomed furious anger and broke forth with these words: “What has

the Emperor to do with the Church.”…

§ 4. If anything, therefore, has been done harshly in bringing about

unity,(106) you see, brother Parmenianus, to whom it ought to be

attributed. Do you say that the military was sought by us Catholics; if

so, then why did no one see the military in arms in the proconsular

province? Paulus and Macarius came, everywhere to consider the poor and to

exhort individuals to unity; and when they approached Bagaja, then another

Donatus, bishop of that city, desiring to place an obstacle in the way of

unity and hinder the work of those coming, whom we have mentioned, sent

messengers throughout the neighboring places and all markets, and summoned

the Circumcellions, calling them Agonistici, to come to the said place.

And at that time the gathering of these was desired, whose madness a

little before had been seen by the bishops themselves to have been

impiously inspired. For when men of this sort before the unity(107)

wandered through various places, when Axido and Fasir were called by the

same mad ones the leaders of the saints, no one could be secure in his

possessions; written evidences of indebtedness lost their force; no

creditor was at liberty at that time to demand anything. All were

terrified by the letters of those who boasted that they were the leaders

of the saints, and if there was any delay in fulfilling their commands,

suddenly a furious multitude hurried up and, terror going on before,

creditors were surrounded with a wall of dangers, so that those who ought

to have been asked for their protection were by fear of death compelled to

use humble prayers. Each one hastened to abandon his most important

duties; and profit was thought to have come from these outrages. Even the

roads were no longer at all safe, because masters, turned out of their

carriages, ran humbly before their slaves sitting in the places of their

masters. By the judgment and rule of these the order of rank between

masters and servants was changed. Therefore when there arose complaint

against the bishops of your party, they are said to have written to Count

Taurinus, that such men could not be corrected in the Church, and they

demanded that they should receive discipline from the said count. Then

Taurinus, in response to their letters, commanded an armed body of

soldiers to go through the markets where the Circumcellions were

accustomed to wander. In Octavum very many were killed, many were beheaded

and their bodies, even to the present day, can be counted by the white

altars or tables.(108) When first some of their number were buried in the

basilicas, Clarus, a presbyter in Subbulum, was compelled by his bishop to

disinter those buried. Whence it is reported that what was done had been

commanded to be done, when it is admitted that sepulture in the house of

God is not granted. Afterward the multitude of these people increased. In

this way Donatus of Bagaja found whence he might lead against Macarius a

raging mob. Of that sort were those who were to their own ruin murderers

of themselves in their desire for a false martyrdom. Of these, also, were

those who rushed headlong and threw themselves down from the summits of

lofty mountains. Behold from what numbers the second Bishop Donatus formed

his cohorts! Those who were bearing treasure which they had obtained for

the poor were held back by fear. They decided in so great a predicament to

demand from Count Sylvester armed soldiery, not that by these they should

do violence to any one, but that they might stop the force drawn up by the

aforesaid Bishop Donatus. Thus it happened that an armed soldiery was

seen. Now, as to what followed, see to whom it ought or can be ascribed.

They had there an infinite number of those summoned, and it is certain

that a supply of provisions for a year had been provided. Of the basilicas

they made a sort of public granary, and awaited the coming of those

against whom they might expend their fury, if the presence of armed

soldiery had not prevented them. For when, before the soldiers came, the

metatores,(109) as was the custom, were sent, they were not properly

received, contrary to the apostolic precept, “honor to whom honor, custom

to whom custom, tribute to whom tribute, owe no man anything.” For those

who had been sent with their horses were smitten by those whose names you

have made public with malicious intent. They were the authors of their own

wrong; and what they could suffer they themselves taught by these

outrages. The soldiers who had been maltreated returned to their fellows,

and for what two or three suffered, all grieved. All were roused, and

their officers could not restrain the angered soldiers.

§ 68. Julian the Apostate

The reign of Julian the Apostate (361-363) is important in the history of

the Christian Church, in the first place, as indicating the slight hold

which heathenism had retained as a system upon the bulk of the people and

the impossibility of reviving it in any form in which it might compete

with the Church. Julian attempted to inject into a purified heathenism

those elements in the Christian Church which he was forced to admire. The

result was a fantastic mixture of rites and measures with which the

heathen would have nothing to do. In the second place, in the development

of the Church’s doctrinal system, and especially in the Arian controversy,

the reign of Julian gave the contestants, who were obliged to stand

together against a common enemy, reason for examining in a new way the

points they had in common, and enabled them to see that some at least

differed more over the expression than over the content of their faith.

The character of Julian has long been a favorite subject of study and

especially the motives that induced him to abandon Christianity for the

Neo-Platonic revival of heathenism.

Additional source material: Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, III: Ammianus

Marcellinus, _Roman History_, XVI-XXV, translated by C. D. Yonge

(Bohn’s Classical Library); _Select Works of Julian_, translated

by C. W. King (Bohn).

(_a_) Socrates. _Hist Ec._ III. 1. (MSG, 67:368.)

The Emperor Julian.

The account of the Emperor Julian as given by Socrates is probably

the best we have. It is, on the whole, a model of a fair

statement, such as is characteristic of the history of Socrates in

nearly all its parts. In spite of its length it is worthy of a

place in its entirety, as it explains the antecedents of a

character which the world has had difficulty in understanding.

Constantine, who gave Byzantium his own name, had two brothers born of the

same father but by a different mother, of these one was named Dalmatius,

the other Constantius. Dalmatius had a son of the same name as his own;

Constantius had two sons, Gallus and Julian. Now, as on the death of

Constantine, the founder of Constantinople, the soldiery had put the

younger brother Constantius to death, the lives of his two orphaned

children were also endangered; but a disease, apparently fatal, preserved

Gallus from the violence of his father’s murderers; and as to Julian, his

age—for he was only eight years old at the time—protected him. The

Emperor’s jealousy toward them having been subdued, Gallus attended

schools at Ephesus in Ionia, in which country considerable possessions had

been left them by their parents. Julian, however, when he was grown up

pursued his studies at Constantinople, going constantly to the palace,

where the schools then were, in simple attire and under the care of the

eunuch Mardonius. In grammar, Nicocles, the Lacedæmonian, was his

instructor; and Ecbolius, the sophist, who was at that time a Christian,

taught him rhetoric; for the Emperor Constantius had made provision that

he should have no pagan masters, lest he should be seduced to pagan

superstitions; for Julian was a Christian at the beginning. Since he made

great progress in literature, the report began to spread that he was

capable of ruling the Roman Empire; and this popular rumor becoming

generally spread abroad, greatly disquieted the Emperor. Therefore he

removed him from the great city to Nicomedia, forbidding him at the same

time to frequent the school of Libanius the Syrian sophist. For Libanius,

having been driven away by the teachers of Constantinople, had opened a

school at Nicomedia. Here he gave vent to his indignation against the

teachers in his treatise composed against them. Julian, however, was

interdicted from being his auditor, because Libanius was a pagan in

religion; nevertheless because he admired his orations, he procured them

and read them secretly and diligently. As he was becoming very expert in

the rhetorical art, Maximus the philosopher arrived in Nicomedia, not the

Byzantine, Euclid’s father, but the Ephesian whom the Emperor Valentinian

afterward caused to be executed as a practicer of magic. This took place

later; at that time the only thing that attracted him to Nicomedia was the

fame of Julian. Having obtained from him a taste for the principles of

philosophy, Julian began to imitate the religion of his teacher, who had

instilled into his mind a desire for the Empire. When these things reached

the ears of the Emperor, wavering between hope and fear, Julian became

very anxious to lull the suspicion that had been awakened, and he who was

at first truly a Christian then became one in pretence. Shaved to the very

skin, he pretended to live the monastic life; and while in private he

pursued philosophical studies, in public he read the sacred writings of

the Christian Church. Moreover, he was appointed reader of the church in

Nicomedia. Thus by these pretexts he escaped the Emperor’s displeasure.

Now he did all this from fear, but he by no means abandoned his hope;

telling many of his friends that times would be happier when he should

possess all. While his affairs were in this condition his brother Gallus,

who had been created Cæsar, when he was on his way to the East came to

Nicomedia to see him. But when Gallus was slain shortly after, Julian was

immediately suspected by the Emperor; therefore the latter directed that

he should be kept under guard; he soon found means, however, of escaping

from his guards, and fleeing from place to place he managed to be in

safety. At last Eusebia, the wife of the Emperor, having discovered him in

his retreat, persuaded the Emperor to do him no harm, and to permit him to

go to Athens to study philosophy. From thence—to be brief—the Emperor

recalled him and afterward created him Cæsar, and having given him his own

sister Helen in marriage, he sent him to Gaul against the barbarians. For

the barbarians whom the Emperor Constantius had hired as auxiliary forces

against Magnentius, being of no use against that usurper, were pillaging

the Roman cities. Inasmuch as he was young he ordered him to undertake

nothing without consulting the other military chiefs.… Julian’s complaint

to the Emperor of the inertness of his military officers procured for him

a coadjutor in the command more in sympathy with his ardor; and by their

combined efforts an assault was made upon the barbarians. But they sent

him an embassy, assuring him that they had been ordered by letters of the

Emperor to march into Roman territories, and they showed him the letters.

But he cast the ambassadors into prison, vigorously attacked the forces of

the enemy and totally defeated them; and having taken their king prisoner,

he sent him to Constantius. After these successes he was proclaimed

Emperor by the soldiers; and inasmuch as there was no imperial crown at

hand, one of the guards took the chain which he wore around his own neck

and placed it upon Julian’s head. Thus Julian became Emperor; but whether

he subsequently conducted himself as a philosopher, let my readers

determine. For he neither sent an embassy to Constantius, nor paid him the

least homage in acknowledgment of past favors; but conducted everything

just as it pleased him. He changed the rulers of the provinces, and he

sought to bring Constantius into contempt by reciting publicly in every

city the letters which Constantius had written to the barbarians. For this

reason the cities revolted from Constantius and attached themselves to

him. Then he openly put off the pretence of being a Christian; going about

to the various cities, he opened the pagan temples, offering sacrifices to

the idols, and designating himself “Pontifex Maximus”; and the heathen

celebrated their pagan festivals with pagan rites. By doing these things

he excited a civil war against Constantius; and thus as far as he was

concerned all the evils involved in war happened. For this philosopher’s

desire could not have been fulfilled without much bloodshed. But God, who

is the judge of His own counsels, checked the fury of these antagonists

without detriment to the State by the removal of one of them. For when

Julian arrived among the Thracians, it was announced that Constantius was

dead. And thus did the Roman Empire at that time escape the intestine

strife. Julian entered Constantinople and at once considered how he might

conciliate the masses and secure popular favor. Accordingly, he had

recourse to the following measures: he knew that Constantius was hated by

all the people who held the homoousian faith and had driven them from the

churches and had proscribed and exiled their bishops. He was aware, also,

that the pagans were extremely discontented because they had been

forbidden to sacrifice to their gods, and were anxious to get their

temples opened and to be at liberty to offer sacrifices to their idols.

Thus he knew that both classes secretly entertained hostile feelings

toward his predecessor, and at the same time the people in general were

exceedingly exasperated by the violence of the eunuchs, and especially by

the rapacity of Eusebius, the chief officer of the imperial bed-chamber.

Therefore he treated all with craftiness. With some he dissembled; others

he attached to himself by conferring obligations upon them, led by a

desire for vainglory; but to all he manifested how he stood toward the

heathen religion. And first, in order to slander Constantius and condemn

him as cruel toward his subjects among the people generally, he recalled

the exiled bishops and restored to them their confiscated estates. He next

commanded suitable agents to open the pagan temples without delay. Then he

directed that those who had been treated unjustly by the eunuchs should

receive back the property of which they had been plundered. Eusebius, the

chief officer of the imperial bed-chamber, he punished with death, not

only on account of the injuries he had inflicted on others, but because he

was assured that it was through his machinations his brother Gallus had

been killed. The body of Constantius he honored with an imperial funeral,

but he expelled the eunuchs, the barbers, and cooks from the palace.… At

night, remaining awake, he wrote orations which he afterward delivered in

the Senate, going thither from the palace, though in fact he was the first

and only Emperor since the time of Julius Cæsar who made speeches in that

assembly. He honored those who were eminent for literary attainments, and

especially those who taught philosophy; in consequence of which an

abundance of pretenders to learning of this sort resorted to the palace

from all quarters, men who wore their palliums and were more conspicuous

for their costume than for their erudition. These impostors, who

invariably adopted the religious sentiments of their prince, were inimical

to the welfare of the Christians; but since Julian himself was overcome by

excessive vanity he derided all his predecessors in a book which he wrote,

entitled “The Cæsars.” Led by the same haughty disposition, he composed

treatises against the Christians as well.

(_b_) Sozomenus, _Hist. Ec._, V, 3. (MSG, 67:1217.)

Julian’s restoration of heathenism.

When Julian was placed in sole possession of the Empire he commanded all

the temples throughout the East to be reopened; and he also commanded that

those which had been neglected to be repaired, those which had fallen into

ruins to be rebuilt, and the altars to be restored. He assigned

considerable money for this purpose. He restored the customs of antiquity

and the ancestral ceremonies in the cities and the sacrifices. He himself

offered libations openly and sacrificed publicly; and held in honor those

who were zealous in these things. He restored to their ancient privileges

the initiators and the priests, the hierophants and the servants of the

temples, and confirmed the legislation of former emperors in their favor.

He granted them exemption from duties and other burdens as they had

previously had had such exemption. He restored to the temple guardians the

provisions which had been abolished. He commanded them to be pure from

meats, and to abstain from whatever, according to pagan opinion, was not

befitting him who had announced his purpose of leading a pure life.

(_c_) Sozomenus, _Hist. Ec._, V, 5. (MSG, 67:1225.)

Julian’s measures against the Christians.

Among those who benefited by the recall of those who had been

banished for their religious beliefs were not only the orthodox

Christians who suffered under Constantius, but also the Donatists

and others who had been expelled from their homes by the previous

emperors.

Julian recalled all who, during the reign of Constantius, had been

banished on account of their religious beliefs, and restored to them their

property which had been confiscated by law. He charged the people not to

commit any act of injustice against any of the Christians, not to insult

them and not to constrain them to sacrifice unwillingly.… He deprived the

clergy, however, of their immunities, honors, and provisions which

Constantine had conferred, repealed the laws which had been enacted in

their favor, and reinforced their statutory liabilities. He even compelled

the virgins and widows, who on account of their poverty were reckoned

among the clergy, to refund the provision which had been assigned them

from the public treasury.… In the intensity of his hatred of the faith, he

seized every opportunity to ruin the Church. He deprived it of its

property, votive offerings, and sacred vessels, and condemned those who

had demolished temples during the reign of Constantine and Constantius to

rebuild them or to defray the expense of re-erection. On this ground,

since they were unable to repay the sum and also on account of the search

after sacred money, many of the priests, clergy, and other Christians were

cruelly tortured and cast into prison.… He recalled the priests who had

been banished by the Emperor Constantius; but it is said that he issued

this order in their behalf, not out of mercy, but that through contention

among themselves the churches might be involved in fraternal strife and

might fall away from their law, or because he wished to asperse the memory

of Constantius.

(_d_) Julian, _Ep._ 49, _ad Arsacium_; Julian, Imp., _Epistulæ_, ed.

Hertlein. Leipsic, 1875 _f._; also in Sozomenus, _Hist. Ec._, V, 16. (MSG,

67:1260.)

To Arsacius, High Priest of Galatia. Hellenism(110) does not flourish as

we would have it, because of its votaries. The worship of the gods,

however, is grand and magnificent beyond all our prayers and hopes. Let

our Adrastea be propitious to these words. No one a little while ago could

have dared to look for such and so great a change in a short time. But do

we think that these things are enough, and not rather consider that

humanity shown strangers, the reverent diligence shown in burying the

dead, and the false holiness as to their lives have principally advanced

atheism?(111) Each of these things is needful, I think, to be faithfully

practised among us. It is not sufficient that you alone should be such,

but in general all the priests, as many as there are throughout Galatia,

whom you must either shame or persuade to be zealous, or else deprive them

of their priestly office, if they do not come with their wives, children,

and servants to the temples of the gods, or if they support servants,

sons, or wives who are impious toward the gods and prefer atheism to

piety. Then exhort the priests not to frequent the theatres, not to drink

in taverns, nor to practise any art or business which is shameful or

menial. Honor those who comply, expel those who disobey. Establish

hostelries in every city, so that strangers, or whoever has need of money,

may enjoy our philanthropy, not merely those of our own, but also those of

other religions. I have meanwhile made plans by which you will be able to

meet the expense. I have commanded that throughout the whole of Galatia

annually thirty thousand bushels of corn and sixty thousand measures of

wine be given, of which the fifth part I order to be devoted to the

support of the poor who attend upon the priests; and the rest is to be

distributed by us among strangers and beggars. For if there is not one

among the Jews who begs, and even the impious Galileans, in addition to

their own, support also ours, it is shameful that our poor should be

wanting our aid.

(_e_) Sozomenus, _Hist. Ec._, V, 16. (MSG, 67:1260.)

Measures taken by Julian for the restoration of heathenism.

The Emperor, who had long since been eager that Hellenism should prevail

through the Empire, was bitterly grieved seeing it excelled by

Christianity. The temples, however, were kept open; the sacrifices and the

ancient festivals appeared to him in all the cities to come from his will.

He grieved that when he considered that if they should be deprived of his

care they would experience a speedy change. He was particularly chagrined

on discovering that the wives, children, and servants of many pagan

priests professed Christianity. On reflecting that the Christian religion

had a support in the life and behavior of those professing it, he

determined to introduce into the pagan temples everywhere the order and

discipline of the Christian religion: by orders and degrees of the

ministry, by teachers and readers to give instruction in pagan doctrines

and exhortations, by appointed prayers on certain days and at stated

hours, by monasteries both for men and for women who desired to live in

philosophical retirement, likewise hospitals for the relief of strangers

and of the poor, and by other philanthropy toward the poor to glorify the

Hellenic doctrine. He commanded that a suitable correction be appointed by

way of penance after the Christian tradition for voluntary and involuntary

transgressions. He is said to have admired especially the letters of

recommendation of the bishops by which they commended travellers to other

bishops, so that coming from anywhere they might go to any one and be

hospitably received as known and as friends, and be cared for kindly on

the evidence of these testimonials. Considering also these things, he

endeavored to accustom the pagans to Christian practices.

(_f_) Sozomenus. _Hist. Ec._, V, 18. (MSG, 67:1269.)

_Cf._ Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, III, 16.

Julian forbade the children of Christians to be instructed in the writings

of the Greek poets and authors, and to frequent the public schools.… He

did not permit Christians to be educated in the learning of the Greeks,

since he considered that only from them the power of persuasion was

gained. Apollinaris,(112) therefore, at that time employed his great

learning and ingenuity in the production of a heroic epic on the

antiquities of the Hebrews to the reign of Saul as a substitute for the

poem of Homer.… He also wrote comedies in imitation of Menander, and

imitated the tragedies of Euripides and the odes of Pindar.… Were it not

that men were accustomed to venerate antiquity and to love that to which

they are accustomed, the works of Apollinaris would be equally praised and

taught.

(_g_) Julian, _Epistula_ 42.

Edict against Christian teachers of the classics.

This is the famous decree prohibiting Christians from teaching the

Greek classics, and was quite generally understood by Christians

as preventing them from studying the same.

I think true culture consists not in proficiency in words and speech, but

in a condition of mind which has sound intentions and right opinions

concerning good and evil, the honorable and the base. Whoever, therefore,

thinks one thing and teaches those about him another appears to be as

wanting in culture as in honor. If in trifles there is a difference

between thought and speech, it is nevertheless an evil in some way to be

endured; but if in important matters any one thinks one thing and teaches

in opposition to what he thinks, this is the trick of charlatans, the act

not of good men, but of those who are thoroughly depraved, especially in

the case of those who teach what they regard as most worthless, deceiving

and enticing by flattery into evil those whom they wish to use for their

own purposes. All those who undertake to teach anything should be upright

in life and not cherish in their minds ideas which are in opposition to

those commonly received; most of all I think that such they ought to be

who converse with the young on learning, or who explain the writings of

the ancients, whether they are teachers of eloquence or of rhetoric, and

still more if they are sophists. For they aim to be not merely teachers of

words but of morals as well, and claim instruction in political science as

belonging to their field. Whether this be true, I will leave undetermined.

But praising them as those who thus strive for fine professions, I would

praise them still more if they neither lied nor contradicted themselves,

thinking one thing and teaching their pupils another. Homer, Hesiod,

Demosthenes, Herodotus, Thucydides, Isocrates, and Lysias were indebted to

the gods for all their science. Did they not think that they were under

the protection of Hermes and of the Muses? It seems to me, therefore,

absurd that those who explain their writings should despise the gods they

honored. But when I think it is absurd, I do not say that, on account of

their pupils, they should alter their opinions; but I give them the

choice, either not to teach what they do not hold as good, or, if they

prefer to teach, first to convince their pupils that Homer, Hesiod, or any

of those whom they explain and condemn, is not so godless and foolish in

respect to the gods as they represent him to be. For since they draw their

support and make gain from what these have written, they confess

themselves most sordidly greedy of gain, willing to do anything for a few

drachmas. Hitherto there were many causes for the lack of attendance upon

the temples, and overhanging fear gave an excuse for keeping secret the

right teaching concerning the gods. Now, however, since the gods have

granted us freedom, it seems to me absurd that men should teach what they

do not regard as good. If they believe that all those men are wise whose

writings they expound and as whose prophets they sit, let them first

imitate their piety toward the gods; but if they think that these writers

erred concerning the most honored gods, let them go into the churches of

the Galileans and expound Matthew and Luke, believing whom you forbid

attendance upon the sacrifices. I would that your ears and tongues were

born again, as you would say, of those things in which I always take part,

and whoever loves me thinks and does. This law is to apply to teachers and

instructors generally. Whoever among the youth wishes to make use of their

instruction is not forbidden. For it would not be fair in the case of

those who are yet youths and do not know which way to turn, to forbid the

best way, and through fear to compel them to remain unwillingly by their

ancestral institutions. Although it would be right to cure such people

against their wills as being insane, yet it is permitted all to suffer

under this disease. For it is my opinion that the ignorant should be

instructed, not punished.

Chapter III. The Triumph Of The New Nicene Orthodoxy Over Heterodoxy And

Heathenism

The Arian controversy was the most important series of events in the

internal history of the Christian Church in the fourth century, without

reference to the truth or error of the positions taken or the rightful

place of dogma within the Church. It roused more difficulties, problems,

and disputes, led to more persecutions, ended in greater party triumphs

than any other ecclesiastical or religious movement. It entered upon its

last important phase about the time of the accession of the Emperor

Julian. From that time the parties began to recognize their real

affiliations and sought a basis of union in a common principle. The effect

was that on the accession of Christian emperors the Church was able to

advance rapidly toward a definitive statement. Of the emperors that

followed Julian, Valentinian I (364-375), who ruled in the West, took a

moderate and tolerant position in the question regarding the existence of

heathenism alongside of the Church and heretical parties within the

Church, though afterward harsher measures were taken by his son and

successor (§ 69). In the East his colleague Valens (364-378) supported the

extreme Arian party and persecuted the other parties, at the same time

tolerating heathenism. This only brought the anti-Arians more closely

together as a new party on the basis of a new interpretation of the Nicene

formula (§ 70, _cf._ § 66, _c_). On the death of Valens at Adrianople,

378, an opportunity was given this new party, which it has become

customary to call the New Nicene party, to support Theodosius (379-395) in

his work of putting through the orthodox formula at the Council of

Constantinople, 381 (§ 71).

§ 69. The Emperors from Jovian to Theodosius and Their Policy toward

Heathenism and Arianism

The reign of Jovian lasted so short a time, June, 363, to February, 364,

that he had no time to develop a policy, and the assertion of Theodoret

that he extinguished the heathen sacrificial fires is doubtful. On the

death of Jovian, Valentinian was elected Emperor, who soon associated with

himself his brother Valens as his colleague for the East. The two were

tolerant toward heathenism, but Valens took an active part in favor of

Arianism, while Valentinian held aloof from doctrinal controversy. On the

death of Valentinian I, his sons Gratian (murdered at Lyons, 383) and

Valentinian II (murdered at Vienne by Arbogast, 392), succeeded to the

Empire. Under them the policy of toleration ceased, heathenism was

proscribed. In the East under Theodosius, appointed colleague of Gratian

in 379, the same policy was enforced. Arianism was now put down with a

strong hand in both parts of the Empire.

(_a_) Ammianus Marcellinus, _Roman History_, XXX, 9, § 5.

The religious policy of Valentinian I.

Ammianus Marcellinus is probably the best of the later Roman

historians, and is the chief authority for much of the secular

history from 353 to 378, in which period he is a source of the

first rank, writing from personal observation and first-hand

information. Ammianus was himself a heathen, but he seems not to

have been embittered by the persecution to which his faith had

been subjected. He was a man of a calm and judicial mind, and his

judgment is rarely biassed, even when he touches upon

ecclesiastical matters which, however, he rarely does.

Valentinian was especially remarkable during his reign for his moderation

in this particular—that he kept a middle course between the different

sects of religion, and never troubled any one, nor issued any orders in

favor of one kind of worship rather than another; nor did he promulgate

any threatening edicts to bow down the necks of his subjects to the form

of worship to which he himself was inclined; but he left these parties

just as he found them, without making any alterations.

(_b_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XII, 1, 75; A. D. 371.

In this edict Valentinian I confirms the immunities of the heathen

priesthood which had been restored by Julian. The heathen

priesthood is here shown to continue as still open to aspirants

after political honors and conferring immunities upon those who

attained it. The curial had to pass through the various offices in

fixed order before he attained release from burdens which had been

laid upon him by the State’s system of taxation.

Let those be held as enjoying immunity who, advancing by the various

grades and in due order, have performed their various obligations and have

attained by their labor and approved actions to the priesthood of a

province or to the honor of a chief magistracy, gaining this position not

by favor and votes obtained by begging for them, but with the favorable

report of the citizens and commendation of the public as a whole, and let

them enjoy the repose which they shall have deserved by their long labor,

and let them not be subject to those acts of bodily severity in punishment

which it is not seemly that _honorati_ should undergo.

(_c_) Theodoret. _Hist. Ec._, IV, 21; V, 20. (MSG, 82:1181.)

The following statement of Theodoret might seem to have been

inspired by the general hatred which was felt for the violent

persecutor and pronounced Arian, Valens. Nevertheless the

statement is supported by references to the conditions under

Valens made by Libanius in his _Oratio pro Templis_, addressed to

the Emperor Theodosius.

IV, 21. At Antioch Valens spent considerable time, and gave complete

license to all who under cover of the Christian name, pagans, Jews, and

the rest preached doctrines contrary to those of the Gospel. The slaves of

this error even went so far as to perform pagan rites, and thus the

deceitful fire which after Julian had been quenched by Jovian, was now

rekindled by permission of Valens. The rites of the Jews, of Dionysus and

Demeter were no longer performed in a corner as they would have been in a

pious reign, but by revellers running wild in the forum. Valens was a foe

to none but to them that held the apostolic doctrine.

V, 20. Against the champions of the apostolic decrees alone he persisted

in waging war. Accordingly, during the whole period of his reign the altar

fire was lit, libations and sacrifices were offered to idols, public

feasts were celebrated in the forum, and votaries initiated in the orgies

of Dionysus ran about in goatskins, mangling dogs in Bacchic frenzy.

(_d_) Symmachus, _Memorial to Valentinian II_; Ambrose, _Epistula_ 17.

(MSL, 16:1007.)

A petition for the restoration of the altar of Victory in the

Senate House at Rome.

Symmachus, prefect of the city, had previously appealed to Gratian

to restore the altar which had been removed. The following

petition, of which the more impressive parts are given, was made

in 384, two years after the first petition. The opening paragraph

refers to the former petition. The memorial is found among the

Epistles of Ambrose, who replies to it.

1. As soon as the most honorable Senate, always devoted to you, knew what

crimes were made amenable to law, and saw that the reputation of late

times was being purified by pious princes, following the example of a

favorable time, it gave utterance to its long-suppressed grief and bade me

be once again the delegate to utter its complaints. But through wicked men

audience was refused me by the divine Emperor, otherwise justice would not

have been wanting, my lords and emperors of great renown, Valentinian,

Theodosius, and Arcadius, victorious, triumphant, and ever august.

3. It is our task to watch on behalf of your clemency. For by what is it

more suitable that we defend the institutions of our ancestors, and the

rights and destiny of our country, than by the glory of these times, which

is all the greater when you understand that you may not do anything

contrary to the custom of your ancestors? We request, then, the

restoration of that condition of religious affairs which was so long of

advantage to the State. Let the rulers of each sect and of each opinion be

counted up; a late one [Julian] practised the ceremonies of his ancestors,

a later [Valentinian I], did not abolish them. If the religion of old

times does not make a precedent, let the connivance of the last

[Valentinian and Valens] do so.

4. Who is so friendly with the barbarians as not to require an altar of

Victory?…

5. But even if the avoidance of such an omen(113) were not sufficient, it

would at least have been seemly to abstain from injuring the ornaments of

the Senate House. Allow us, we beseech you, as old men to leave to

posterity what we received as boys. The love of custom is great. Justly

did the act of the divine Constantius last for a short time. All

precedents ought to be avoided by you, which you know were soon

abolished.(114)

6. Where shall we swear to obey your laws and commands? By what religious

sanctions shall the false mind be terrified, so as not to lie in bearing

witness? All things are, indeed, filled with God, and no place is safe for

the perjured, but to be bound in the very presence of religious forms has

great power in producing a fear of sinning. That altar preserves the

concord of all; that altar appeals to the good faith of each; and nothing

gives more authority to our decrees than that our order issues every

decree as if we were under the sanction of an oath. So that a place will

be opened to perjury, and my illustrious princes, who are defended by a

public oath, will deem this to be such.

7. But the divine Constantius is said to have done the same. Let us rather

imitate the other actions of that prince [Valentinian I], who would have

undertaken nothing of the kind, if any one else had committed such an

error before him. For the fall of the earlier sets his successor right,

and amendment results from the censure of a previous example. It was

pardonable for your clemency’s ancestor in so novel a matter not to guard

against blame. Can the same excuse avail us, if we imitate what we know to

have been disapproved?

8. Will your majesties listen to other actions of this same prince, which

you may more worthily imitate? He diminished none of the privileges of the

sacred virgins, he filled the priestly offices with nobles. He did not

refuse the cost of the Roman ceremonies, and following the rejoicing

Senate through all the streets of the Eternal City, he beheld the shrines

with unmoved countenance, he read the names of the gods inscribed on the

pediments, he inquired about the origin of the temples, and expressed

admiration for their founders. Although he himself followed another

religion, he maintained these for the Empire, for every one has his own

customs, every one his own rites. The divine Mind has distributed

different guardians and different cults to different cities. As souls are

separately given to infants as they are born, so to a people is given the

genius of its destiny. Here comes in the proof from advantage, which most

of all vouches to man for the gods. For, since our reason is wholly

clouded, whence does the knowledge of the gods more rightly come to us,

than from the memory and records of successful affairs? Now if a long

period gives authority to religious customs, faith ought to be kept with

so many centuries, and our ancestors ought to be followed by us as they

happily followed theirs.

9. Let us now suppose that we are present at Rome and that she addresses

you in these words: “Excellent princes, fathers of your country, respect

my years to which pious rites have brought me. Let me use the ancestral

ceremonies, for I do not repent of them. Let me live after my own fashion,

for I am free. This worship subdued the world to my laws, these sacred

rites repelled Hannibal from the walls, and the Senones from the capitol.

Have I been reserved for this, that when aged I should be blamed? I will

consider what it is thought should be set in order, but tardy and

discreditable is the reformation of old age.”

10. We ask, therefore, peace for the gods of our fathers and of our

country. It is just that what all worship be considered one. We look on

the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What

difference does it make by what paths each seeks the truth? We cannot

attain to so great a secret by one road; but this discussion is rather for

persons at ease; we offer now prayers, not conflict.(115)

(_e_) Ambrose, _Epistula_ 18. (MSL, 16:1013.)

Reply of Ambrose to the Memorial of Symmachus.

Immediately after the receipt of the Memorial of Symmachus by

Valentinian II, a copy was sent to Ambrose, who wrote a reply or

letter of advice to Valentinian, which might be regarded as a

counter-petition. In it he enters upon the arguments of Symmachus.

Although he could not present the same pathetic figure of an old

man pleading for the religion of his ancestors, his arguments are

not unjust, and dispose satisfactorily of the leading points made

by Symmachus. The line of reasoning represents the best Christian

opinion of the times on the matter of the relation of the State to

heathenism.

3. The illustrious prefect of the city has in a memorial set forth three

propositions which he considers of force—that Rome, he says, asks for her

rites again, that pay be given to her priests and vestal virgins, and that

a general famine followed upon the refusal of the priests’ stipends.…

7. Let the invidious complaints of the Roman people come to an end. Rome

has given no such charge. She speaks other words. “Why do you daily stain

me with the useless blood of the harmless herd? Trophies of victory depend

not upon the entrails of the flock, but on the strength of those who

fight. I subdued the world by a different discipline. Camillus was my

soldier who slew those who had taken the Tarpeian rock, and brought back

to the capitol the standards taken away; valor laid low those whom

religion had not driven off.… Why do you bring forward the rites of our

ancestors? I hate the rites of Neros. Why should I speak of emperors of

two months,(116) and the ends of rulers closely joined to their

commencements. Or is it, perchance, a new thing for barbarians to cross

their boundaries? Were they, too, Christians whose wretched and

unprecedented cases, the one a captive emperor(117) and under the

other(118) the captive world,(119) made manifest that their rites which

promised victory were false? Was there then no altar of Victory?…”

8. By one road, says he, one cannot attain to so great a secret. What you

know not, that we know by the voice of God. And what you seek by fancies

we have found out from the very wisdom and truth of God. Your ways,

therefore, do not agree with ours. You implore peace for your gods from

the Emperor, we ask peace for our emperors themselves from Christ.…

10. But, says he, let the ancient altars be restored to their images, and

their ornaments to the shrines. Let this demand be made of one who shares

in their superstitions; a Christian emperor has learned to honor the altar

of Christ alone.… Has any heathen emperor raised an altar to Christ? While

they demand the restoration of things which have been, by their own

example they show us how great reverence Christian emperors ought to pay

to the religion which they follow, since heathen ones offered all to their

superstitions.

We began long since, and now they follow those whom they excluded. We

glory in yielding our blood, an expense moves them.… We have increased

through loss, through want, through punishment; they do not believe that

their rites can continue without contribution.

11. Let the vestal virgins, he says, retain their privileges. Let those

speak thus who are unable to believe that virginity can exist without

reward, let those who do not trust virtue, encourage it by gain. But how

many virgins have their promised rewards gained for them? Hardly are seven

vestal virgins received. See the whole number whom the fillet and chaplets

for the head, the robes of purple dye, the pomp of the litter surrounded

by a company of attendants, the greatest privileges, immense profits, and

a prescribed time for virginity have gathered together.

12. Let them lift up the eyes of soul and body, let them look upon a

people of modesty, a people of purity, an assembly of virginity. Not

fillets are the ornament of their heads, but a veil common in use but

ennobled by chastity; the enticement of beauty not sought out, but laid

aside; none of those purple insignia, no delicious luxuries, but the

practice of fasts; no privileges, no gains; all other things, in fine, of

such a kind that one would think them restrained from desire whilst

practising their duties. But whilst the duty is being practised the desire

for it is aroused. Chastity is increased by its own sacrifice. That is not

virginity which is bought with a price, and not kept through a desire for

virtue; that is not purity which is bought by auction for money or which

is bid for a time.

16. No one has denied gifts to shrines and legacies to soothsayers; their

land only has been taken away, because they did not use religiously that

which they claimed in right of religion. Why did not they who allege our

example practise what we did? The Church has no possessions of her own

except the faith. Hence are her returns, her increase. The possessions of

the Church are the maintenance of the poor. Let them count up how many

captives the temples have ransomed, what food they have contributed for

the poor, to what exiles they have supplied the means of living. Their

lands, then, have been taken away, but not their rights.

23. He says the rites of our ancestors ought to be retained. But why,

seeing that all things have made a progress toward what is better?… The

day shines not at the beginning, but as time proceeds it is bright with

increase of light and grows warm with increase of heat.

27. We, too, inexperienced in age, have an infancy of our senses, but,

changing as years go by, lay aside the rudimentary conditions of our

faculties.

28. Let them say, then, that all things ought to have remained in their

first dark beginnings; that the world covered with darkness is now

displeasing because it has brightened with the rising of the sun. And how

much more pleasant is it to have dispelled the darkness of the mind than

that of the body, and that the rays of faith should have shone than that

of the sun. So, then, the primeval state of the world, as of all things,

has passed away that the venerable old age of hoary faith might follow.…

30. If the old rites pleased, why did Rome also take up foreign ones? I

pass over the ground hidden with costly buildings, and shepherds’ cottages

glittering with degenerate gold. Why, that I may reply to the very matter

which they complain of, have they eagerly received the images of captured

cities, and conquered gods, and the foreign rites of alien superstition?

Whence, then, is the pattern of Cybele washing her chariots in a stream

counterfeiting the Almo? Whence were the Phrygian prophets and the deities

of unjust Carthage, always hateful to the Romans? And he whom the Africans

worship as Celestis, the Persians as Mithra, and the greater number as

Venus, according to a difference of name, not a variety of deities?

31. They ask to have her altar erected in the Senate House of the city of

Rome, that is where the majority who meet together are Christians! There

are altars in all the temples, and an altar also in the Temple of Victory.

Since they delight in numbers, they celebrate their sacrifices everywhere.

To claim a sacrifice on this one altar, what is it but to insult the

faith? Is it to be borne that a heathen should sacrifice and a Christian

be present?… Shall there not be a common lot in that common assembly? The

faithful portion of the Senate will be bound by the voices of those who

call upon the gods, by the oaths of those who swear by them. If they

oppose they will seem to exhibit their falsehood, if they acquiesce, to

acknowledge what is a sacrilege.

(_f_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 10, 12; A. D. 392.

Decree of Theodosius prohibiting heathen worship as a crime of the

same character as treason.

The following decree may be said to have permanently forbidden

heathenism, at least in the East, though as a matter of fact many

heathen not only continued to practise their rites in defiance of

the law or with the connivance of the authorities, but also

received appointments at the court and elsewhere. The law was

never repealed. In course of time heathenism disappeared as a

religious system.

XVI, 10, 12. Hereafter no one of whatever race or dignity, whether placed

in office or discharged therefrom with honor, powerful by birth or humble

in condition and fortune, shall in any place or in any city sacrifice an

innocent victim to a senseless image, venerate with fire the household

deity by a more private offering, as it were the genius of the house, or

the Penates, and burn lights, place incense, or hang up garlands. If any

one undertakes by way of sacrifice to slay a victim or to consult the

smoking entrails, let him, as guilty of lese-majesty, receive the

appropriate sentence, having been accused by a lawful indictment, even

though he shall not have sought anything against the safety of the princes

or concerning their welfare. It constitutes a crime of this nature to wish

to repeal the laws, to spy into unlawful things, to reveal secrets, or to

attempt things forbidden, to seek the end of another’s welfare, or to

promise the hope of another’s ruin. If any one by placing incense

venerates either images made by mortal labor, or those which are enduring,

or if any one in ridiculous fashion forthwith venerates what he has

represented, either by a tree encircled with garlands or an altar of cut

turfs, though the advantage of such service is small, the injury to

religion is complete, let him as guilty of sacrilege be punished by the

loss of that house or possession in which he worshipped according to the

heathen superstition. For all places which shall smoke with incense, if

they shall be proved to belong to those who burn the incense, shall be

confiscated. But if in temples or public sanctuaries or buildings and

fields belonging to another, any one should venture this sort of

sacrifice, if it shall appear that the acts were performed without the

knowledge of the owner, let him be compelled to pay a fine of twenty-five

pounds of gold, and let the same penalty apply to those who connive at

this crime as well as those who sacrifice. We will, also, that this

command be observed by judges, defensors, and curials of each and every

city, to the effect that those things noted by them be reported to the

court, and by them the acts charged may be punished. But if they believe

anything is to be overlooked by favor or allowed to pass through

negligence, they will lie under a judicial warning. And when they have

been warned, if by any negligence they fail to punish they will be fined

thirty pounds of gold, and the members of their court are to be subjected

to a like punishment.

§ 70. The Dogmatic Parties and Their Mutual Relations

The parties in the Arian controversy became greatly divided in the course

of the conflict. Speaking broadly, there were still two groups, of which

one was composed of all those who regarded the Son as a creature and so

not eternal and not truly God; and the other, of those who regarded Him as

uncreated and in some real sense eternal and truly God, yet without

denying the unity of God. The former were the various Arian parties

tending to constant division. The latter can hardly yet be comprised under

one common name, and might be called the anti-Arian parties, were it not

that there was a positive content to their faith which was in far better

harmony with the prevailing religious sentiment of the East and was

constantly receiving accessions. In the second generation after Nicæa, a

new group of theologians came to the front, of whom the most important

were Eustathius of Sebaste, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the three

Cappadocians, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa, most of

whom had at least sympathized with the Homoiousian party. Already at the

synod of Ancyra, in 358, an approach was made toward a reconciliation of

the anti-Arian factions, in that, by a more careful definition, homoousios

was rejected only in the sense of identity of being, and homoiousios was

asserted only in the sense of equality of attributes in the not identical

subjects which, however, shared in the same essence. Homoiousios did not

mean mere similarity of being. (Anathemas in Hahn, § 162; Hefele, § 80.)

The line of development ultimately taken was by a precise distinction

between _hypostasis_ and _ousia_, whereby _hypostasis_, which never meant

person in the modern sense, which later is represented by the Greek

_prosopon_, was that which subsists and shares with other _hypostases_ in

a common essence or _ousia_.

Additional source material: Athanasius, _De Synodis_ (PNF); Basil,

_Epp._ 38, 52, 69, 125 (PNF, ser. II, vol. VIII); Hilary of

Poitiers, _De Synodis_, cc. 87-91 (PNF, ser. II, vol. IX);

Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, III, 25.

Council of Alexandria A. D. 362. _Tomus ad Antiochenos_. (MSG, 26:797.)

The Council of Alexandria, A. D. 362, was held by Athanasius in

the short time he was allowed to be in his see city at the

beginning of the reign of Julian. In the synodal letter or tome

addressed to the Nicene Christians at Antioch we have the

foundation of the ultimate formula of the Church as opposing

Arianism, one substance and three persons, one _ousia_ and three

_hypostases_. The occasion of the letter was an attempt to win

over the Meletian party in the schism among the anti-Arians of

Antioch. Meletius and his followers appear to have been

Homoiousians who were strongly inclined to accept the Nicene

confession. Their church was in the Old Town, a portion of

Antioch. Opposed to them was Paulinus with his party, which held

firmly to the Nicene confession. The difficulty in the way of a

full recognition of the Nicene statement by Meletius and his

followers was that it savored of Sabellianism. The difficulty of

the party of Paulinus in recognizing the orthodoxy of the

Meletians was their practice of speaking of the three hypostases

or subsistences, which was condemned by the words of the Nicene

definition.(120) The outcome of the Alexandrian Council in the

matter was that a distinction could be made between _ousia_ and

_hypostasis_, that the difference between the parties was largely

a matter of terminology, that those who could use the Nicene

symbol with the understanding that the Holy Ghost was not a

creature and was not separate from the essence of Christ should be

regarded as orthodox. Out of this understanding came the “New

Nicene” party, of which the first might be said to have been

Meletius, who accepted _homoousios_ in the sense of _homoiousios_,

and of which the “three great Cappadocians” became the recognized

leaders.

The Council of Alexandria, in addition to condemning the

Macedonian heresy, in advance of Constantinople, also anticipated

that assembly by condemning Apollinarianism without mentioning the

teacher by whom the heresy was taught. It is condemned in the

seventh section of the tome.

§ 3. As many, then, as desire peace with us, and especially those who

assemble in the Old Town, and those again who are seceding from the

Arians, do ye call to yourselves, and receive them as parents their sons,

and as tutors and guardians welcome them; and unite them to our beloved

Paulinus and his people, without requiring more from them than to

anathematize the Arian heresy and confess the faith confessed by the holy

Fathers at Nicæa and to anathematize also those who say that the Holy

Ghost is a creature and separate from the essence of Christ. For this is

in truth a complete renunciation of the abominable heresy of the Arians,

to refuse to divide the Holy Trinity, or to say that any part of it is a

creature.

§ 5. … As to those whom some were blaming for speaking of three

subsistences (hypostases), on the ground that the phrase is unscriptural

and therefore suspicious, we thought it right, indeed, to require nothing

beyond the confession of Nicæa, but on account of the contention we made

inquiry of them, whether they meant, like the Arian madmen, subsistences

foreign and strange and alien in essence from one another, and that each

subsistence was divided apart by itself, as is the case with other

creatures in general and those begotten of men, or like substances, such

as gold, silver, or brass; or whether, like other heretics, they meant

three beginnings and three Gods, by speaking of three subsistences.

They assured us in reply that they neither meant this nor had ever held

it. But upon our asking them “what, then, do you mean by it, or why do you

use such expressions?” they replied: Because they believe in a Holy

Trinity, not a trinity in name only, but existing and subsisting in truth,

both Father truly existing and subsisting, and a Son, truly substantial

and subsisting, and a Holy Ghost subsisting and really existing do we

acknowledge, said they, and that neither had they said there were three

Gods or three beginnings, nor would they at all tolerate such as said or

held so, but that they acknowledged a Holy Trinity, but one Godhead and

one beginning, and that the Son is co-essential with the Father, as the

Fathers said; and the Holy Ghost not a creature, nor external, but proper

to, and inseparable from, the essence of the Father and the Son.

§ 6. Having accepted, then, these men’s interpretation of their language

and their defence, we made inquiry of those blamed by them for speaking of

one subsistence, whether they use the expression in the sense of

Sabellius, to the negation of the Son and Holy Ghost, or as though the Son

was non-substantial, or the Holy Ghost without subsistence. But they in

their turn assured us that they neither said this nor had ever held it,

but, “we use the word subsistence thinking it the same thing to say

subsistence or essence.”(121) But we hold there is One, because the Son is

of the essence of the Father and because of the identity of nature. For we

believe that there is one Godhead, and that the nature of it is one, and

not that there is one nature of the Father, from which that of the Son and

of the Holy Ghost are distinct. Well, thereupon, they who had been blamed

for saying that there were three subsistences agreed with the others,

while those who had spoken of one essence, also confessed the doctrine of

the former as interpreted by them. And by both sides Arius was

anathematized as an adversary of Christ, and Sabellius, and Paul of

Samosata as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides as aliens from the

truth, and Manichæus as an inventor of mischief. And all, by God’s grace,

and after the above explanations, agreed together that the faith confessed

by the Fathers at Nicæa is better and more accurate than the said phrases,

and that for the future they would prefer to be content to use its

language.

§ 7. But since, also, certain seemed to be contending together concerning

the fleshly economy of the Saviour, we inquired of both parties. And what

the one confessed the others also agreed to: that not as when the word of

the Lord came to the prophets, did it dwell in a holy man at the

consummation of the ages, but that the Word himself was made flesh; and

being in the form of God, He took the form of a servant, and from Mary

after the flesh became man for us, and that thus in Him the human race is

perfectly and wholly delivered from sin and made alive from the dead, and

led into the kingdom of heaven. For they also confess that the Saviour had

not a body without a soul, nor without sense or intelligence;(122) for it

was not possible, when the Lord had become man for us, that His body

should be without intelligence; nor was the salvation, effected in the

Word himself, a salvation of the body only, but of the soul also. And

being Son of God in truth, He became also Son of Man; and being God’s only

begotten Son, He became also at the same time “first-born among many

brethren.” Wherefore neither was there one Son of God before Abraham,

another after Abraham: nor was there one that raised up Lazarus, another

that asked concerning him; but the same it was that said as man, “Where

does Lazarus lie?” and as God raised him up; the same that as man and in

the body spat, but divinely as Son of God opened the eyes of the man blind

from his birth; and while, as Peter says, in the flesh He suffered, as God

He opened the tomb and raised the dead. For which reasons, thus

understanding all that is said in the Gospel, they assured us that they

held the same truth about the Word’s incarnation and becoming man.

§ 71. The Emperor Theodosius and the Triumph of the New Nicene Orthodoxy

at the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381

The Emperor Theodosius was appointed colleague of Gratian and Valentinian

II, 378. He issued in conjunction with these emperors an edict (_Cod.

Theod._, XVI, 1, 2; _cf._ _Cod. Just._, I, 1, 1, _v. infra_, § 72, _b_,

_e_), requiring all subjects of the Empire to hold the orthodox faith in

the Trinity. He then called a council of Eastern bishops to meet at

Constantinople in 381 to settle the question as to the succession to the

see of that city and to confirm the creed of Nicæa as the faith of the

Eastern half of the Church. Gregory of Nazianzus was appointed bishop of

Constantinople, but was forced to resign, having formerly been bishop of

Sasima, from which he had been translated in violation of the Nicene

canons. As soon as it was apparent that the bishops would have to accept

the Nicene faith the thirty-six Macedonians withdrew. Their opinion as to

the Holy Spirit, that He was not divine in the same sense that the Son was

divine, was condemned, without express statement of the point condemned,

as was also the teaching of Apollinaris as to the nature of Christ. The

council was not intended to be an ecumenical or general council, and it

was not regarded as such even in the East until after the Council of

Chalcedon, A. D. 451, and then probably on account of the creed which was

then falsely attributed to the Fathers of Constantinople. In the West the

council was not recognized as an ecumenical council until well into the

sixth century. (See Hefele, § 100.) The council issued no creed and made

no additions to the Nicene creed. It published a tome, since lost, setting

forth the faith in the Trinity. It enacted four canons, of which only the

first three are of general application.

Additional source material: Percival, _Seven Ecumenical Councils_

(PNF); Theodoret, _Hist. Ec._, V, 6-9; Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, V,

8; Basil, _De Spiritu Sancto_ (PNF), Hefele, §§ 95-100.

(_a_) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, _Canons_, Bruns, I, 20. _Cf._

Kirch, nn. 583 _ff._

The text of the canons of the council may be found in Hefele, §

98, and also in Bruns. The _Translations and Reprints_ of the

University of Pennsylvania give translations. For the address of

the council to Theodosius, see § 72, _b_. The fourth canon is of a

merely temporary importance.

Canon 1. The faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers who were

assembled at Nicæa in Bithynia shall not be set aside but shall remain

dominant. And every heresy shall be anathematized, especially that of the

Eunomians or Anomœans, the Arians or Eudoxians, the semi-Arians or

Pneumatomachians, the Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and

Apollinarians.

Canon 2. The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying

outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on churches; but let the

bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the

affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone,

the privileges of the church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons

of Nicæa, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian diocese

administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic

matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian matters. And let not the

bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other

ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid

canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of

each province will administer the affairs of that particular province as

was decreed at Nicæa. But the churches of God in heathen nations must be

governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the time of the

Fathers.

Canon 3. The bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative

of honor after(123) the bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New

Rome.

(_b_) Cyril of Jerusalem, _Creed_. (_Cf._ MSG, 35:533.) _Cf._ Hahn, § 124.

The clauses which are here given are the headings of the sixth to

the eighteenth _Catechetical Lectures_ of Cyril of Jerusalem in

which the writer expounded the baptismal creed of Jerusalem. This

creed is approximately reconstructed by bringing together the

headings. Its date is circa 345. It should be compared with the

creed of the church of Salamis, in the next selection. They are

the precursors of what is now known as the Nicene creed,

incorrectly attributed to the Council of Constantinople A. D. 381.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and

of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten

of the Father, true God, before all the ages, through whom all things were

made;

Incarnate and made man; crucified and buried;

And rose again the third day;

And ascended into heaven;

And sat on the right hand of the Father;

And shall come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead, of whose

kingdom there shall be no end.

And in one Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, who spake by the prophets;

And in one baptism of repentance for remission of sins;

And in one holy Catholic Church;

And in the resurrection of the flesh;

And in the life eternal.

(_c_) Epiphanius, _Ancoratus_, chs. 119 _f._ (MSG, 43:252.) _Cf._ Hahn, §

125.

Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, was the most important of the

hereseologists of the Fathers, gathering to form his work on

heresies some scores of heterodox systems of teachings. His

passion for orthodoxy was taken advantage of by Theophilus of

Antioch to cause trouble for Chrysostom and others; see

Origenistic controversy, § 87. The _Ancoratus_, from which the

following creed is taken, is a statement of the Catholic faith

which, amidst the storms of the Arian controversy, should serve as

an anchor of salvation for the Christians. The date of the

following creed, which has come to be known as the Salaminium, is

374. It is evidently based upon that of Jerusalem given by Cyril.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and

of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of

the Father before all worlds, that is, of the substance of the Father,

light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one

substance [homoousios] with the Father; by whom all things were made, both

those in heaven and those on earth; who for us men and for our salvation

came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin

Mary, and was made man; He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and

suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the

Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the

Father; and He shall come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead;

of whose kingdom there shall be no end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the

Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and

glorified, who spake by the prophets; and in one holy Catholic and

Apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;

and we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to

come.

But those who say there was a time when He was not, and He was not before

He was begotten, or He was made of nothing, or of another substance or

essence [hypostasis or ousia], saying that the Son of God is effluent or

variable—these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

Chapter IV. The Empire And The Imperial State Church

In the period extending from the accession of Constantine (311 or 324) to

the death of Theodosius the Great (395), the characteristic features of

the Church’s organization took definite form, and its relations to the

secular authorities and the social order of the Empire were defined. Its

constitution with its hierarchical organization of clergy, of courts, and

synods, together with its intimate union, at least in the East, with the

imperial authority, became fixed (§ 72). As the Church of the Empire, it

was under the control and patronage of the State; all other forms of

religion, whether pagan or Christian, schismatical or heretical, were

severely repressed (§ 73). The Christian clergy, as officials in this

State Church, became a class by themselves in the society of the Empire,

not only as the recipients of privileges, but as having special functions

in the administration of justice, and eventually in the superintendence of

secular officials and secular business (§ 74). By degrees the Christian

spirit influenced the spirit of the laws and the popular customs, though

less than at first sight might have been expected; the rigors of slavery

were mitigated and cruel gladiatorial sports abandoned (§ 75). Meanwhile

popular piety was by no means raised by the influx of vast numbers of

heathen into the Church; bringing with them no little of their previous

modes of thought and feeling, and lacking the testing of faith and

character furnished by the persecutions, they lowered the general moral

tone of the Church, so that Christians everywhere were affected by these

alien ideas and feelings (§ 76). The Church, however, endeavored to raise

the moral tone and ideals and to work effectively in society by care for

the poor and other works of benevolence, and in its regulation of

marriage, which began in this period to be a favorite subject of

legislation for the Church’s councils (§ 76). In monasticism this striving

against the lowering forces in Christian society and for a higher type of

life most clearly manifested itself, and, beginning in Egypt, organized

forms of asceticism spread throughout the East and toward the end of the

period to the West as well (§ 78). But monasticism was not confined to the

private ascetic. The priesthood, as necessarily presenting an example of

higher moral life, began to be touched by the ascetic spirit, and in the

West this took the form of enforced clerical celibacy, though the custom

of the East remained far less rigorous (§ 79). In presenting these lines

of development, it is at times convenient to pass beyond the exact bounds

of the period, so that the whole subject may be brought together at this

point of the history.

§ 72. The Constitution of the State Church

The Church’s constitution received its permanent form in this period. The

conciliar system was carried to its logical completion in the ecumenical

council representing the entire Church and standing at the head of a

system which included the provincial and patriarchal councils, at least in

theory. The clergy were organized into a hierarchy which rested upon the

basis of the single bishop in his diocese, who had under him his clergy,

and culminated in the patriarchs placed over the great divisions of the

State Church, corresponding to the primary divisions of the Empire. The

Emperor assumed the supreme authority in the Church, and the foundation

was laid for what became under Justinian Cæsaropapism. By the institution

of the hierarchical gradation of authority and jurisdiction, for the most

part corresponding to the political and administrative divisions of the

Empire, the Church both assumed a rigidly organized form and came more

easily under the control of the secular authority.

(A) The Ecumenical Council

The Council of Nicæa was held before there was any definition of the place

of an ecumenical council. Many councils were held during the Arian

controversy that were quite as representative. It was taken for granted

that the councils were arranged in a scale of authority corresponding to

the extent of the Church represented. The first clear statement of this

principle is at the Council of Constantinople A. D. 382.

Council of Constantinople, A. D. 382, _Canon_ 2. Text, Hefele, § 98.

The so-called second general council was held in 381, but in the

next year nearly the same bishops were called together by

Theodosius (_cf._ Theodoret, _Hist. Ec._, V. 9). In a letter

addressed to the Western bishops at a council at Rome this council

speaks of their previous meeting at Constantinople in 381 as being

an ecumenical council. The query suggests itself whether,

considering the fact that it actually only represented the East

and did represent more than one patriarchate, “ecumenical” might

not be understood as being used in a sense similar to that in

which the African bishops spoke of their councils as

_universalis_. See Hefele, § 100, note.

The following canon is printed as the sixth canon of

Constantinople, A. D. 381, in Hefele and the other collections,

_e.g._, Bruns and Percival.

… If persons who are neither heretics, nor excommunicated, nor condemned,

nor charged with crime claim to have a complaint in matters ecclesiastical

against the bishop,(124) the holy synod commands such to bring their

charges first before all the bishops of the province, and to prove before

them the charges against the accused bishop. But should it happen that the

comprovincials be unable to settle the charges alleged against the bishop,

the complainants shall have recourse then to the larger synod of the

bishops of that diocese,(125) who shall be called together on account of

the complaint; and the complainants may not bring their complaint until

they have agreed in writing to take upon themselves the same punishment

which would have fallen upon the accused, in case the complainants in the

course of the matter should be proved to have brought a false charge

against the bishop. But if any one, holding in contempt these directions,

venture to burden the ear of the Emperor, or the tribunals of the secular

judges, or disturb an ecumenical synod,(126) dishonoring the bishops of

their patriarchal province, such shall not be admitted to make complaint,

because he despises the canons and violates the Church’s order.

(B) The Hierarchical Organization

(_a_) Council of Nicæa, A. D. 325, _Canons_. Text, Hefele, § 42. _Cf._

Kirch, nn. 364-368.

Canons of organization.

Canon 4 regulates the ordinations of bishops; Canon 5 orders that

excommunications in one diocese shall hold good everywhere; Canon

6 defines the larger provincial organization which eventually

resulted in the patriarchates; Canon 7 defines the position of the

bishopric of Jerusalem; Canons 15 and 16 place the bishops

permanently in their sees and the clergy under their own proper

bishop.

Canon 4. It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by

all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on

account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should

assemble, and the suffrages of the absent should also be given and

communicated in writing, and then the ordination should take place. But in

every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the

metropolitan.

Canon 5. Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have

been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provisions of the

canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by

some be not readmitted by others.… Nevertheless, inquiry should be made

whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or

contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishops.

And that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in

every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all

the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may be

thoroughly examined by them, that so those who have confessedly offended

against their bishop may be seen by all to be for just causes

excommunicated, until it shall appear fit to a general meeting of the

bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be

held, the one before Lent (that the pure gift may be offered to God after

all bitterness has been put away) and let the second be held about autumn.

Canon 6. Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail,

that the bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction in all these, since

the like is customary for the bishop of Rome also.(127) Likewise in

Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their privileges.

And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop

without the consent of his metropolitan, the great synod has declared that

such a man ought not to be bishop. If, however, two or three bishops

shall, from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of

the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical

law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Canon 7. Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the bishop

of Ælia [_i.e._, Jerusalem] should be honored, let him, saving its due

dignity to the metropolis, have the next place of honor.

Canon 15. On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it

is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the

canon must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor

deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of

the holy and great synod, shall attempt any such thing or continue in such

course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to

the church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.

Canon 16. Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among

the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor

regarding the ecclesiastical canon, shall recklessly remove from their own

church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but every

constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes;(128)

and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if one shall

dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own church ordain a man

belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop from

whom, although he was enrolled in the clergy list, he has seceded, let the

ordination be void.

(_b_) Synod of Antioch, A. D. 341. _Canons_, Bruns, I, 80 _f._, _Cf._

Kirch, nn. 439 _ff._

For the Council of Antioch, see § 65, _c_. These canons on

discipline were held in highest authority in the Church, although

enacted by Arians whose creed was rejected. They obtained this

position in the law of the Church because they carried further the

natural line of development long since taken in the ecclesiastical

system. _Cf._ Hefele, § 56.

Canon 2. All who enter the Church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but

do not communicate with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason

of some disorder, from the holy partaking of the eucharist, are to be cast

out of the Church until, after they shall have made confession, have

brought forth fruits of penance, and have made earnest entreaty, they

shall have obtained forgiveness; and it is unlawful to communicate with

excommunicated persons, or to assemble in private houses and pray with

those who do not pray in the Church; or to receive in one church those who

do not assemble with another church. And if any one of the bishops,

presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the canon shall be found

communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated,

as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.

Canon 3. If any presbyter or deacon or any one whatever belonging to the

priesthood shall forsake his own parish and shall depart, and, having

wholly changed his residence, shall set himself to remain for a long time

in another parish, let him no longer officiate; especially if his own

bishop shall summon and urge him to return to his own parish, and he shall

disobey. And if he persist in his disorder, let him be wholly deposed from

his ministry, so that no further room be left for his restoration. And if

another bishop shall receive a man deposed for this cause, let him be

punished by the common synod as one who nullifies the ecclesiastical laws.

Canon 4. If any bishop be deposed by a synod, or any presbyter or deacon,

who has been deposed by his bishop, shall presume to execute any part of

the ministry, whether it be a bishop according to his former function, or

a presbyter, or a deacon, he shall no longer have any prospect of

restoration in another synod, nor any opportunity of making his defence;

but they who communicate with him shall be cast out of the Church, and

particularly if they have presumed to communicate with the persons

aforementioned, knowing the sentence pronounced against them.

Canon 6. If any one has been excommunicated by his own bishop, let him not

be received by others until he has either been restored by his own bishop,

or until, when a synod is held, he shall have appeared and made his

defence, and, having convinced the synod, shall have received a different

sentence. And let this decree apply to the laity, and to the presbyters

and deacons, and all who are enrolled in the clergy list.

Canon 9. It behooves the bishops in each province to acknowledge the

bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought of the

whole province; because all men of business come together from every

quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence

in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him,

according to the ancient canon which prevailed from the time of our

fathers, or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes

and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his

own parish, both to manage it with piety, which is incumbent on every one,

and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent upon his

city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with

judgment. But let him not undertake anything further without the bishop of

the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

Canon 10. The holy synod decrees that those [bishops] living in village

and country districts, or those who are called chorepiscopi, even though

they have received ordination to the episcopate, shall regard their own

limits and manage the churches subject to them, and be content with the

care and administration of these; but they may ordain readers, subdeacons,

and exorcists, and shall be content with promoting these; but they shall

not presume to ordain either a presbyter or a deacon, without the consent

of the bishop of the city to which he and his district are subject. And if

he shall dare to transgress these decrees, he shall be deposed from the

rank which he enjoys. And a chorepiscopus is to be appointed by the bishop

of the city to which he is subject.

(_c_) Council of Sardica, A. D. 343 or 344, _Canons_, Bruns, I, 88. _Cf._

Mirbt, n. 113, and Kirch, nn. 448 _ff._

The Council of Sardica was intended to be composed of

representatives from the entire Empire who might be able to settle

once and for all the Arian question. It met at Sardica on the

boundary between the two divisions of the Empire as they were then

defined. The Eastern ecclesiastics, strongly Arian, found

themselves outnumbered by the Western bishops who supported

Athanasius and the Nicene definition of faith. The Eastern

representatives withdrew to Philippopolis near by, and held their

own council. The following canons were intended to provide a

system of appeal for cases like that of Athanasius, and although

they do not seem to have been acted upon enough to have become a

part of the Church’s system, yet they were of great importance

inasmuch as subsequently they were used as late as the ninth

century for a support to a wholly different system of appeals.

These canons were very early attributed to the Council of Nicæa A.

D. 325.

Canon 3. Bishop Hosius said: This, also, it is necessary to add—that

bishops shall not pass from their own province to another province in

which there are bishops, unless perchance they are invited by their

brethren, that we seem not to close the door to charity. But if in any

province a bishop have an action against his brother bishop, neither shall

call in as judge a bishop from another province. But if judgment shall

have gone against any bishop in a case, and he think that he has a good

case, in order that the question may be heard, let us, if it be your

pleasure, honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who

have tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall

decide that the case should be retried, let it be retried, and let him

appoint judges; but if he shall be satisfied that the case is such that

what has been done should not be disturbed, what has been decreed shall be

confirmed.

Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered: It is our pleasure.

Canon 4. Bishop Gaudentius said: If it please you, it is necessary to add

to this sentence, which full of sincere charity thou hast pronounced, that

if any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who

happened to be in the vicinity, and he asserts that he has fresh matter in

defence, a new bishop is not to be settled in his see, unless the bishop

of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.

_Latin Version of Canon 4._ Bishop Gaudentius said: If it please you,

there ought to be added to this sentence, which full of holiness thou hast

pronounced, that if any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those

bishops who dwell in the vicinity, and he asserts that the business ought

to be conducted by him in the city of Rome, another bishop should in

nowise be ordained in his see after the appellation of him who appears to

have been deposed, unless the cause shall have been determined by the

judgment of the bishop of Rome.

Canon 5.(129) Bishop Hosius said: Let it be decreed that if a bishop shall

have been accused and the assembled bishops of the same region shall have

deposed him from his office, and he, so to speak, appeals and takes refuge

with the bishop of the Roman Church and wishes to be heard by him, if

he(130) think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be

pleased to write to those of fellow-bishops who are nearest the province

that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give

their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any

one demand that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seems

good to the bishop of Rome to send presbyters from his own side, let it be

in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and

decides it to be right, that some be sent to be judges with the bishops

and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also

ordained. But if he thinks that they [the bishops] are sufficient for the

hearing and determining of the matter of the bishop, let him do what shall

seem good in his most prudent judgment.

The bishops answered: What has been said is approved.

(_d_) Gratian and Valentinian, _Rescript_; A. D. 378. (MSG, 13:586.)

Mirbt, nn. 118, _f._

This rescript was sent in answer to a petition addressed to the

emperors by a Roman council under Damasus. It is, therefore, found

connected with an epistle in the works of Damasus. It does not

seem to have been the foundation of any claim or to have played

any considerable part in the development of the Roman primacy. It

is of importance in the present connection as illustrating the

part emperors took in the internal affairs of the Church. For

Damasus and the disturbances in connection with his election, _v.

infra_, § 74, _a_. The rescript may be found in Mansi, III, 624;

Hardouin, I, 842; and in Gieseler, I, 380.

6. If any one shall have been condemned by the judgment of Damasus, which

he shall have delivered with the council of five or seven bishops, or by

the judgment or council of those who are Catholics, and if he shall

unlawfully attempt to retain his church,(131) in order that such a one,

who has been called to the priestly judgment, shall not escape by his

contumacy, it is our will that such a one be remitted by the illustrious

prefects of Gaul and Italy, either by the proconsul or the vicars, use

having been made of due authority, to the episcopal judgment, and shall

come to the city of Rome under an escort; or if such insolence of any one

shall appear in parts very far distant, the entire pleading of his case

shall be brought to the examination of the metropolitan of the province in

which the bishop is, or if he himself is the metropolitan, then of

necessity he shall hasten without delay to Rome, or to those whom the

Roman bishop shall assign as judges, so that whoever shall have been

deposed shall be removed from the confines of the city in which they were

priests. For we punish those who deserve punishment less severely than

they deserve, and we take vengeance upon their sacrilegious stubbornness

more gently than it merits. And if the unfairness or partiality of any

metropolitan, bishop, or priest is suspected, it is allowed to appeal to

the Roman bishop or to a council gathered of fifteen neighboring bishops,

but so that after the examination of the case shall have been concluded

what was settled shall not be begun over again.

(_e_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 1, 2; Feb. 27, A. D. 380. _Cf._ Kirch, n.

755.

The following edict was issued by Gratian, Valentinian and

Theodosius, requiring the acceptance of the orthodox faith by all

subjects. In other words, the emperors, following the example of

Constantius and Valens in enforcing Arianism, are now enforcing

the Nicene theology. Sozomenus, _Hist. Ec._, VII, 4, gives the

circumstances under which this edict was issued.

It is our will that all the peoples whom the government of our clemency

rules shall follow that religion which a pious belief from Peter to the

present declares the holy Peter delivered to the Romans, and which it is

evident the pontiff Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of

apostolic sanctity, follow; that is, that according to the apostolic

discipline and evangelical doctrine we believe in the deity of the Father

and the Son and the Holy Ghost of equal majesty, in a holy trinity. Those

who follow this law we command shall be comprised under the name of

Catholic Christians; but others, indeed, we require, as insane and raving,

to bear the infamy of heretical teaching; their gatherings shall not

receive the name of churches; they are to be smitten first with the divine

punishment and after that by the vengeance of our indignation, which has

the divine approval.

(_f_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 1, 3.

Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to Auxonius, proconsul of

Asia.

To enforce still further the principles of Nicene orthodoxy

certain bishops were named as teachers of the true faith,

communion with whom was a test of orthodoxy.

We command that all churches be forthwith delivered up to the bishops who

confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to be of one majesty and

power; of the same glory and of one splendor, making no distinction by any

profane division, but rather harmony by the assertion of the trinity of

the persons and the unity of the Godhead, to the bishops who are

associated in communion with Nectarius, bishop of the Church of

Constantinople, and with Timotheus in Egypt, bishop of the city of

Alexandria; in the parts of the Orient, who are in communion with

Pelagius, bishop of Laodicæa and Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus; in

proconsular Asia and in the diocese of Asia, who are in communion with

Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, and Optimus, bishop of Antioch; in the

diocese of Pontus, who are in communion with Helladius, bishop of Cæsarea,

and Otreius, bishop of Melitina, and Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, Terennius,

bishop of Scythia, Marmarius, bishop of Marcianopolis. Those who are of

the communion and fellowship of approved priests(132) ought to be admitted

to possess the Catholic churches; but all who dissent from the communion

of the faith of those whom the special list has named ought to be expelled

from the churches as manifest heretics; and no opportunity whatsoever

ought to be allowed them henceforth of obtaining episcopal churches(133)

that the priestly orders of the true and Nicene faith may remain pure and

no place be given to evil cunning, according to the evident form of our

precept.

(_g_) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. _Address to Theodosius._ See

Mansi, III, 557.

The following letter illustrates the relation of the councils in

the East to the imperial authority. The emperors called the

various general councils, directed their discussions and confirmed

the results. In this way their findings were given the force of

laws and authority throughout the Church. _V. infra_, §§ 90, 91.

To the most religious Emperor Theodosius, the holy synod of bishops

assembled in Constantinople out of different provinces.

We begin our letter to your Piety with thanks to God, who has established

the Empire of your Piety for the common peace of the churches and for the

support of the true faith. And, after rendering due thanks unto God, as in

duty bound, we lay before your Piety the things which have been done in

the holy synod. When, then, we had assembled in Constantinople, according

to the letter of your Piety, we first of all renewed our unity of heart

each with the other, and then we pronounced some concise definitions,

ratifying the faith of the Nicene Fathers, and anathematizing the heresies

which have sprung up contrary thereto. Besides these things, we also

framed certain canons for the better ordering of the churches, all which

we have subjoined to this our letter. We therefore beseech your Piety that

the decree of the synod may be ratified, to the end that as you have

honored the Church by your letter of citation, so you should set your seal

to the conclusion of what has been decreed. May the Lord establish your

Empire in peace and righteousness, and prolong it from generation to

generation; and may He add unto your earthly powers the fruition of the

heavenly kingdom also. May God, by the prayers of the saints, show favor

to the world, that you may be strong and eminent in all good things as an

Emperor most truly pious and beloved of God.

(_h_) Synod of Antioch, A. D. 341, _Canons_, Bruns, I, 80.

The following canons passed at Antioch are the first touching a

habit which they did little to correct. The so-called sixth canon

of Constantinople, 381, in reality a canon of the council of the

next year, took up the matter again. All through the great

controversies appeals were constantly made to the emperors

because, after all, they alone had the authority. _Cf._ Hefele, §

56.

Canon 11. If any bishop, or presbyter, or any one whatever of the canon

shall presume to betake himself to the Emperor without the consent and

letters of his bishop of the province and particularly of the bishop of

the metropolis, such a one shall be publicly deposed and cast out, not

only from the communion, but also from the rank which he happens to have

had; inasmuch as he dares to trouble the ears of our Emperor, beloved of

God, contrary to the law of the Church. But, if necessary business shall

require any one to go to the Emperor, let him do it with the advice and

consent of the metropolitan and other bishops in the province, and let him

undertake his journey with the letters from them.

Canon 12. If any presbyter or deacon deposed by his own bishop, or any

bishop deposed by a synod, shall dare trouble the ears of the Emperor,

when it is his duty to submit his case to a greater synod of bishops, and

to refer to more bishops the things which he thinks right, and to abide by

the examination and decision made by them; if, despising these, he shall

trouble the Emperor, he shall be entitled to no pardon, neither shall he

have opportunity of defence, nor any hope of future restoration.

§ 73. Sole Authority of the State Church

When Theodosius had successfully forced upon the East the theology of

Nicæa, his policy as to religious matters was manifest. No longer was

heresy to be allowed. Laws were to control opinion in the same way that

they did conduct. The old plea of the persecuted Christians under the

heathen Roman Empire, _religio non cogi potest_, was completely forgotten.

As Christianity was the one sole religion of divine character, based upon

the unique divine act of the incarnation, it was folly to allow men to

continue in heathenism—it might even be dangerous to the State to allow

them, as it might bring down the just vengeance of God. With this policy

the populace was completely in accord, especially when it led to the

plunder and destruction of heathen sanctuaries, and many of the more

zealous of the clergy were willing to lead in the assault. In these ways

the State Church obtained a two-fold exclusive authority: as regards

heathenism, and as regards heresy.

(_a_) _Codex Theodosianus._

Laws regarding heathenism.

XVI, 10, 14; A. D. 399.

Whatever privileges were conceded by the ancient laws to the priests,

ministers, prefects, hierophants of sacred things, or by whatsoever name

they may be designated, are to be abolished henceforth, and let them not

think that they are protected by a granted privilege when their religious

confession is known to have been condemned by the law.

XVI, 10, 16; A. D. 399.

If there are temples in the fields, let them be destroyed without crowd or

tumult. For when these have been thrown down and carried away, the support

of superstition will be consumed.

XVI, 10, 15; A. D. 399.

This law appears again in the _Cod. Just._, I, 13, 3, for it

appears to have been necessary even as late as the sixth century

to prevent unauthorized destructions of temples which were in the

cities and might be fairly regarded as ornaments to the city.

We prohibit sacrifices yet so that we wish that the ornaments of public

works to be preserved. And that those who attempt to overthrow them may

not flatter themselves that it is with some authority, if any rescript or,

perchance, law is alleged, let these documents be taken from their hands

and referred to our knowledge.

XVI, 10, 21; A. D. 416.

Those who are polluted by the error or crime of pagan rites are not to be

admitted to the army nor to receive the distinction and honor of

administrator or judge.

XVI, 10, 23; A. D. 423.

Although the pagans that remain ought to be subjected to capital

punishment if at any time they are detected in the abominable sacrifices

of demons, let exile and confiscation of goods be their punishment.

XVI, 10, 24; A. D. 423. (Retained in _Cod. Just._, I, 11, 16.)

The Manichæans and those who are called Pepyzitæ [Montanists] and also

those who by this one opinion are worse than all heretics, in that they

dissent from all as to the venerable day of the Easter festival, we

subject to the same punishment, viz.: confiscation of goods and exile, if

they persist in the same unreason. But this we especially demand of

Christians, both those who are really such and those who are called such,

that they presume not, by an abuse of religion, to lay hands upon the Jews

and pagans who live peaceably and who attempt nothing riotous or contrary

to the laws. For if they should do violence to them living securely and

take away their goods, let them be compelled to restore not merely what

they have taken away but threefold and fourfold. Let the rectors of

provinces, officials, and provincials know that if they permit these

things to be done, they themselves will be punished, as well as those who

do them.

(_b_) Theodoret, _Hist. Ec._, V, 29. (MSG, 82:1256.)

The destruction of temples.

The following passage is illustrative of the temper of those who

took part in the destruction of heathen sanctuaries. The imperial

edicts for these acts were obtained in 399. Chrysostom, the leader

in the movement, fairly represents the best thought and temper of

the Church.

On receiving information that Phœnicia was still suffering from the

madness of the demons’ rites, he [John Chrysostom] got together some monks

fired with divine zeal and despatched them, armed with imperial edicts,

against the idols’ shrines. He did not draw from the imperial treasury the

money to pay the craftsmen and their assistants who were engaged in the

work of destruction, but he persuaded certain faithful and wealthy women

to make liberal contributions, pointing out to them how great would be the

blessing their generosity would win. Thus the remaining shrines of the

demons were utterly destroyed.

(_c_) Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, VII, 15. (MSG, 67:768.)

The murder of Hypatia.

The fearful murder of Hypatia represents another aspect of the

opposition to heathenism, in which the populace seconded the

efforts of the authorities in a policy of extirpating paganism.

There was a woman in Alexandria named Hypatia. She was the daughter of the

philosopher Theon, and she had attained such a proficiency in literature

and science as to surpass by far all the philosophers of her own time.

Having succeeded to the Platonic school, which had come down from

Plotinus, she explained all the principles of philosophy to her auditors.

Therefore many from all sides, wishing to study philosophy, came to her.

On account of the self-possession and ease of manner which she had

acquired by her study, she not infrequently appeared with modesty in the

presence of magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in entering an

assembly of men. For all men, on account of her extraordinary dignity and

virtue, admired her the more. Against her envious hostility arose at that

time. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes [governor of

Alexandria] it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace that

it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop

[Cyril]. Some men of this opinion and of a hot-headed disposition, whose

leader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home. Dragging her

from her carriage they took her to the church called Cæsareum. There they

completely stripped her and murdered her with tiles. When they had torn

her in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and

there they burnt them. This affair brought no little opprobrium, not only

upon Cyril but also upon the whole Alexandrian Church. And surely murders,

fights, and actions of that sort are altogether alien to those who hold

the things of Christ. These things happened in the fourth year of the

episcopate of Cyril [415].

(_d_) Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, VII, 11. (MSG, 67:757.)

Novatians and the Church at the beginning of the fifth century.

Socrates is the principal authority for the later history of the

Novatians. It is probable that his interest in them and evident

sympathy for them were due to some connection with the sect,

perhaps in his early years, and he gives many incidents in their

history, otherwise unknown.

After Innocent [401-417], Zosimus [417-418] governed the Roman Church for

two years, and after him Boniface [418-422] presided over it for three

years. Celestinus [422-432] succeeded him, and this Celestinus took away

the churches from the Novatians at Rome and obliged Rusticula, their

bishop, to hold his meetings secretly in private houses. Until this time

the Novatians had flourished exceedingly in Rome, having many churches

there and gathering large congregations. But envy attacked them there,

also, as soon as the Roman episcopate, like that of Alexandria, extended

itself beyond the limits of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and degenerated

into its present state of secular domination. And for this cause the

bishops would not suffer even those who agreed with them in matters of

faith to enjoy the privileges of assembling in peace, but stripping them

of all they possessed, praised them merely for these agreements in faith.

The bishops of Constantinople kept themselves free from this sort of

conduct; in so much as in addition to tolerating them and permitting them

to hold their assemblies within the city, as I have already stated,(134)

they treated them with every mark of Christian regard.

(_e_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 5, 40; A. D. 407.

Edict of Arcadius and Honorius against the Manichæans and other

heretics. (Retained in _Cod. Just._, I, 5, 4.) _Cf._ Mirbt, n.

155.

What we have thought concerning the Donatists we have recently set forth.

Especially do we pursue, with well-merited severity, the Manichæans, the

Phrygians, and the Priscillianists,(135) since men of this sort have

nothing in common with others, neither in custom nor laws. And first we

declare that their crime is against the State, because what is committed

against the divine religion is held an injury of all. And we will take

vengeance upon them by the confiscation of their goods, which, however, we

command shall fall to whomsoever is nearest of their kindred, in ascending

or descending lines or cognates of collateral branches to the second

degree, as the order is in succession to goods. Yet it shall be so that we

suffer the right to receive the goods to belong to them, only if they

themselves are not in the same way polluted in their conscience. And it is

our will that they be deprived of every grant or succession from whatever

title derived. In addition, we do not leave to any one convicted of this

crime the right of giving, buying, selling, or finally of making a

contract. The prosecution shall continue till death. For if in the case of

the crime of treason it is lawful to attack the memory of the deceased,

not without desert ought he to endure condemnation. Therefore let his last

will and testament be invalid, whether he leave property by testament,

codicil, epistle, or by any sort of will, if ever he has been convicted of

being a Manichæan, Phrygian, or Priscillianist, and in this case the same

order is to be followed as in the grades above stated; and we do not

permit sons to succeed as heirs unless they forsake the paternal

depravity; for we grant forgiveness of the offence to those repenting. We

will that slaves be without harm if, rejecting their sacrilegious master,

they pass over to the Catholic Church by a more faithful service. Property

on which a congregation of men of this sort assemble, in case the owner,

although not a participator in the crime, is aware of the meeting and does

not forbid it, is to be annexed to our patrimony; if the owner is

ignorant, let the agent or steward of the property, having been punished

with scourging, be sent to labor in the mines, and the one who hires the

property, if he be a person liable to such sort of punishment, be

deported. Let the rectors of provinces, if by fraud or force they delay

the punishment of these crimes when they have been reported, or if

conviction have been obtained neglect punishment, know that they will be

subject to the fine of twenty pounds of gold. As for defensors and heads

of the various cities and the provincial officials, a penalty of ten

pounds is to compel them to do their duty, unless performing those things

which have been laid down by the judges in this matter, they give the most

intelligent care and the most ready help.

(_f_) Leo the Great, _Epistula_ 7. (MSL, 54:620.)

Manichæanism in Rome.

This epistle, addressed to the bishops throughout Italy, shows the

way in which zealous bishops could, and were expected to,

co-operate with the secular authorities in putting down heresy.

Leo the Great [440-461], the greatest of the popes before Gregory

the Great, was equally great as an ecclesiastical statesman, as

theologian, and universally acknowledged leader of the Roman

people in the times of the invasions of Attila and Genseric.

Without being the creator of the papal idea, he was able so to

gather up the elements that had been developed by Siricius,

Innocent, and others, as to give it a classical expression that

almost warrants one in describing him as the first of the popes in

the later sense of that term. His literary remains consist of

sermons, of which ninety-six are genuine, in which, among other

matters, he sets forth his conception of the Petrine prerogative

(see below, § 87, _b_), and letters in which he deals with the

largest questions of ecclesiastical politics, especially in the

matter of the condemnation of Monophysitism at the Council of

Chalcedon. See below, § 91.

Our search has discovered in the city a great many followers and teachers

of the Manichæan impiety, our watchfulness has proclaimed them, and our

authority and censure have checked them: those whom we could reform we

have corrected and driven to condemn Manichæus with his preachings and

teachings, by public confession in the Church, and by the subscription of

their own hands; and thus we have lifted those who have acknowledged their

fault from the pit of their impiety, by granting them opportunity for

repentance. But some who had so deeply involved themselves that no remedy

could assist them have been subjected to the laws, in accordance with the

constitutions of our Christian princes, and lest they should pollute the

holy flock by their contagion, have been banished into perpetual exile by

the public judges. And all the profane and disgraceful things which are

found, as well in their writings as in their secret traditions, we have

disclosed and clearly proved to the eyes of Christian laity, that the

people might know what to shrink from or avoid; so that he that was called

their bishop was himself tried by us and betrayed the criminal views which

he held in his mystic religion, as the record of our proceedings can show

you. For this, too, we have sent you for instruction; and after reading

them you will be able to understand all the discoveries we have made.

And because we know that some of those who are involved here in too close

an accusation for them to clear themselves have fled, we have sent this

letter to you, beloved, by our acolyte; that your holiness, dear brothers,

may be informed of this, and see fit to act more diligently and

cautiously, lest the men of Manichæan error be able to find opportunity of

hurting your people and of teaching these impious doctrines. For we cannot

otherwise rule those intrusted to us unless we pursue, with the zeal of

faith in the Lord, those who are destroyers and destroyed; and with what

severity we can bring to bear, cut them off from intercourse with sound

minds, lest this pestilence spread much wider. Wherefore I exhort you,

beloved, I beseech and warn you to use such watchful diligence as you

ought and can employ in tracking them out lest they find opportunity of

concealment anywhere.

(_g_) Leo the Great, _Epistula_ 15. (MSL, 54:680.)

An account of the tenets of the Priscillianists. Leo is answering

a letter sent him by Bishop Turribius of Asturia, in which that

bishop had given him statements about the faith of these

sectaries. It appears that these statements which Leo quotes and

refutes in brief are not wholly correct and that the

Priscillianists were far from being as heretical as they have been

commonly represented. See articles in the recent encyclopædias,

_e.g._, New Schaff-Herzog, and Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed.

The change in opinion is due to the discovery of writings of

Priscillian himself. Nevertheless, these statements, defective as

they may be, represent the opinion of the times as to these

heretics and the general attitude toward what was regarded as

heretical and savoring of Manichæanism.(136)

1. And so under the first head is shown what impious views they hold about

the divine Trinity; they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son,

and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now

Father, now Son, now Holy Ghost; and as if He who begat were not one, He

who was begotten another, and He who proceedeth from both yet another; but

an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, but

not consisting of three persons.…

2. Under the second head is displayed their foolish and empty fancy about

the issue of certain virtues from God which He began to possess, and which

were posterior to God in His own essence.…

3. Again the language of the third head shows that these same impious

persons assert that the Son of God is called “only begotten” for this

reason that He alone was born of a virgin.…

4. The fourth head deals with the fact that the birthday of Christ, which

the Catholic Church venerates as His taking on Him the true man, because

“the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” is not truly honored by these

men, but they pretend that they honor it, for they fast on that day, as

they do also on the Lord’s Day, which is the day of Christ’s resurrection.

No doubt they do this because they do not believe that Christ the Lord was

truly born in man’s nature, but maintain that by a sort of illusion there

was an appearance of what was not a reality.

5. Their fifth head refers to their assertion that man’s soul is a part of

the divine substance, and that the nature of our human state does not

differ from its Creator’s nature.…

6. The sixth points out that they say that the devil never was good and

that his nature is not God’s handiwork, but that he came forth of chaos

and darkness.…

7. In the seventh place follows that they condemn marriage and are

horrified at begetting children, in which, as in nearly all things, they

agree with the profanity of the Manichæans.

8. Their eighth point is that the formation of men’s bodies is the device

of the devil and that the seed of conception is shaped by the aid of

demons in the womb.…

9. The ninth notice declares that they say that the sons of promise are

born, indeed, of women, conceived by the Holy Spirit; lest the offspring

that is born of carnal seed should seem to share in God’s estate.…

10. Under the tenth head they are reported as asserting that the souls

which are placed in men’s bodies have previously been without a body and

have sinned in their heavenly habitation and for this reason have fallen

from their high estate to a lower one alighting upon ruling spirits of

divers qualities, and after passing through a succession of powers of the

air and stars, some fiercer, some milder, are enclosed in bodies of

different sorts and conditions, so that whatever variety and inequality is

meted out to us in this life, seems the result of previous causes.…

11. Their eleventh blasphemy is that in which they suppose that both the

souls and bodies of men are under the influence of fatal stars.…

12. The twelfth of these points is this: that they map out the parts of

the soul under certain powers and the limbs under others; and they suggest

the characters of the inner powers that rule the soul by giving them the

names of the patriarchs; and on the other hand, they attribute the signs

of the stars to those under which they put the body.

§ 74. The Position of the State Church in the Social Order of the Empire

The elevation of the Church exposed the Church to worldliness whereby

selfish men, or men carried away with partisan zeal, took advantages of

its privileges or contended fiercely for important appointments. The

clergy all too frequently ingratiated themselves with wealthy members of

their flocks that they might receive from them valuable legacies, an abuse

which had to be corrected by civil law; factional spirit occasionally led

to bloodshed in episcopal elections. But on the other hand the Church was

employed by the State in an important work which properly belonged to the

secular administration, viz., the administration of justice in the

episcopal courts of arbitration, for which see _Cod. Just._, I, tit. 3,

_de Episcopali Audientia_; _cf._ E. Loening, _Geschichte des deutschen

Kirchenrechts_, vol. I; and in the supervision of civil officials in the

expenditures of funds for public improvements. These are but instances of

their large public activity according to law.

(_a_) Ammianus Marcellinus, _Hist. Rom._, XXVII, 3, §§ 12 _ff._ _Cf._

Kirch, nn. 607 _ff._

Damasus and Ursinus.

The strife which attained shocking proportions in connection with

the election of Damasus seems to have been connected with the

schism at Rome occasioned by the attitude of Liberius in the Arian

controversy. Damasus proved one of the ablest bishops that Rome

ever had in the ancient Church. For aid in overcoming the

partisans of Ursinus a Roman council appealed to the Emperor

Gratian, whose answer is given in part above, § 72, _e_.

12. Damasus and Ursinus, being both immoderately eager to obtain the

bishopric, formed parties and carried on the conflict with great asperity,

the partisans of each carrying their violence to actual battle, in which

men were wounded and killed. And as Juventius, prefect of the city, was

unable to put an end to it, or even to soften these disorders, he was at

last by their violence compelled to withdraw to the suburbs.

13. Ultimately Damasus got the best of the strife by the strenuous efforts

of his partisans. It is certain that on one day one hundred and

thirty-seven dead bodies were found in the Basilica of Sicinus, which is a

Christian church. And the populace who had thus been roused to a state of

ferocity were with great difficulty restored to order.

14. I do not deny, when I consider the ostentation that reigns at Rome,

that those who desire such rank and power may be justified in laboring

with all possible exertion and vehemence to obtain their wishes; since

after they have succeeded, they will be secure for the future, being

enriched by offerings of matrons, riding in carriages, dressing

splendidly, and feasting luxuriously, so that their entertainments surpass

even royal banquets.

15. And they might be really happy if, despising the vastness of the city

which they excite against themselves by their vices, they were to live in

imitation of some of the priests in the provinces, whom the most rigid

abstinence in eating and drinking, and plainness of apparel, and eyes

always cast on the ground, recommend to the everlasting Deity and His true

worshippers as pure and sober-minded men.

(_b_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XVI, 2, 20; A. D. 370. _Cf._ Kirch, n. 759.

The following law is only one of several designed to correct what

threatened to become an intolerable abuse.

Ecclesiastics and those who wish to be known by the name of the

continent(137) are not to come into possession of the houses of widows and

orphan girls, but are to be put aside by public courts if afterward the

affines and near relatives of such think that they ought to be put away.

Also we decree that the aforesaid may acquire nothing whatsoever from the

liberality of that woman to whom privately, under the cloak of religion,

they have attached themselves, or from her last will; and all shall be of

no effect which has been left by one of these to them, they shall not be

able to receive anything by way of donation or testament from a person in

subjection. But if, by chance, after the warning of our law, these women

shall think something is to be left to them by way of donation or in their

last will, let it be seized by the fisc. But if they should receive

anything by the will of those women in succession to whom or to whose

goods they have the support of the _jus civile_ or the benefit of the

edict, let them take it as relatives.

(_c_) _Codex Theodosianus_, I, 27, 2; A. D. 408.

Edict of Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius II concerning the

_Audientia Episcopalis_.

According to Roman law many cases were frequently decided by an

arbitrator, according to an agreement between the litigants. The

bishops had long acted as such in many cases among Christians. As

they did not always decide suits on authorization by the courts,

their decisions did not have binding authority in all cases. But

after Constantine’s recognition of the Church they were given

authority to decide cases, and according to an edict of 333 their

decisions were binding even if only one litigant appealed to his

judgment. But this was reduced to cases in which there was an

agreement between the parties. The following law, the earliest

extant, though probably not the earliest, may be found, curtailed

by the omission of the second sentence, in _Cod. Just._, I, 4, 8.

An episcopal judgment shall be binding upon all who chose to be heard by

the priests.(138) For since private persons may hear cases between those

who consent, even without the knowledge of the judges, we suffer it to be

permitted them. That respect is to be shown their decisions which is

required to be shown your authority,(139) from which there is no appeal.

By the court and the officials execution is to be given the sentence, so

that the episcopal judicial examination may not be rendered void.

(_d_) _Codex Theodosianus_, II, 1, 10; A. D. 398.

Law of Arcadius and Honorius.

The following law is cited to show that in the legalization of the

_Audientia Episcopalis_ the legislation followed a principle that

was not peculiar to the position of the Church as the State

Church. The Jews had a similar privilege. The conditions under

which their religious authorities could act as arbitrators were

similar to that in which the bishops acted. This edict can also be

found in _Cod. Just._, I, 9, 8.