THE COUNCIL OF NICÆA AND ITS RESULTS
OUTLINE: I.--Diversion of Christian thought in the early
Church. II.--The Arian controversy. III.--The Council of Nicæa
and its actions. IV.--Later history of Arianism. V.--Sources.
Early Christianity was characterised by a remarkable intellectual
activity, which was chiefly theological and philosophical. Speculative
discussions were rife, particularly in the East, where the different
philosophical systems were prominent. Jesus left no definite creed,
which all could understand alike.[131:1] The Ante-Nicene period was full
of sharp and bitter theological and ecclesiastical antagonisms. Such an
epoch of dissension and division the world was not to witness again
until the dawn of the Protestant Revolt.
Christian converts came from Judaism, and from various types of
paganism, hence at the very outset there was a tendency to create two
distinct types of Christianity--the Jewish and the non-Jewish. This lack
of unity and uniformity was clearly seen and sneered at by the pagan
scholars.[131:2] This was Origen's significant explanation:
Seeing that Christianity appeared an object of veneration to
men, and not to the labouring and serving classes alone, but
also to many among the Greeks who were devoted to literary
pursuits, there necessarily originated sects, not at all as a
result of faction and strife, but through the earnest desire
of many literary men to enter more profoundly into the truths
of Christianity. The consequence was, that understanding
differently those things which were considered divine by all,
there arose sects, which received their names from men who
admired Christianity in its fundamental nature, but from a
variety of causes reached discordant views.
Among the heretical sects of the Ante-Nicene period were:
1. The Ebionites,[132:1] who were Judaising Christians as shown in the
book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles. They desired to be both Jews and
Christians, and ended by being neither. They soon divided up into many
sects.[132:2] They lived in and about Palestine for the first three
centuries of the Christian era. They believed that God made the world
and gave the Mosaic law, which was still essential to salvation; that
Jesus was the Messiah, though not divine, only a great man like Moses
and David; but they denounced Paul and heroised James and Peter. They
observed the Jewish Sabbath, retained the rite of circumcision, and
observed the law. In the minds of the great body of orthodox Christians
they were regarded as heretics.
2. The Gnostics[132:3] embraced various factions, mostly pagan converts
to Christianity, which flourished in Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt
chiefly during the second century. Their ideas can be traced back to
Philo's Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy, to Buddhism and Zoroastrianism,
and to the old Egyptian religion. Knowledge, above all else, was the one
thing desired. Believing in the inherent evil of matter, they sought to
account for a bad world without compromising God. Jehovah of the Old
Testament was rejected as the Supreme Being. They cast aside all the New
Testament except the Pauline Epistles and parts of the Gospels. They
professed to apprehend the divine mysteries. Some advocated asceticism,
and others gave the utmost license to the flesh. All believed in the
idea of the evolution of the world, through Christ, to an ideal state.
Although denounced as heretics, they left a marked influence on
Christianity. Gnosticism was so speculative, however, that it gave rise
to many leaders and creeds.
3. The Manichæans[133:1] accepted Gnosticism minus true Christianity and
adopted Oriental dualism under Christian names. Manichæism originated
with Mani about 238 in Persia and spread westward over the Christian
Church. Its leading principle was absolute dualism--a kingdom of light
and one of darkness in eternal opposition, yet brought together by a
sort of pantheism. Christianity was accepted, but explained in terms of
this dualism. The Old Testament was wholly rejected as well as parts of
the New. The elevated priesthood celebrated the secret rites of baptism
and communion with solemn pomp, lived as ascetics, possessed no
property, and abstained from wine and animal food. This system, claiming
to be true Christianity, had a marked influence on both the doctrines
and organisation of the Church.[134:1]
4. The Monarchians[134:2] denied the doctrine of the Trinity, but were
divided into a number of groups. The Alogoi in the second century
rejected all of the Apostle John's works and denied the eternity of the
Logos as a person of the Godhead. Theodatus, a leather dealer of
Byzantium, went to Rome in 190 and taught that Jesus was a "mere man"
till baptism gave him divine attributes. Paul of Samosata, Bishop of
Antioch, was excommunicated in 269 for advocating the doctrine that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person, God. He maintained that
Jesus was a divinely begotten man exalted to divine dignity by the Holy
Spirit or Logos--an attribute of God. Praxeas of Asia Minor visited Rome
about 195 and later preached in Carthage. He held that the Father and
Christ were one and attributed the "Passion" to God, hence his party
were called the Patripassians. Sabellianism was simply another form of
this heresy and helped to precipitate the Arian controversy.
In addition to these four heretical sects there were three distinct
reactionary and reforming parties:
1. Montanism[135:1] originated, like so many radical movements, in Asia
Minor (150?). Montanus professed to have received a message from the
"Paraclete" to reform the growing worldliness and the lax ecclesiastical
discipline of the Church. Montanists denounced the innovations
introduced into the Church, and sought to return to the simpler and
purer doctrines and organisation of the early Church. They preached a
universal priesthood of all believers. In exalting virginity, widowhood,
and martyrdom, in professing a contempt for the world with all its
excesses, and in insisting upon an arbitrary holiness, Montanism was a
force paving the way for ascetic Christianity. They accepted all the
fundamental principles of the Church, but professed to receive special
divine revelations from the "Paraclete," as the Holy Ghost was called.
They lived in constant expectation of the coming of the end of the
world. Tertullian was their greatest apologist. But both the Christian
hierarchy and the imperial power were turned against these reforming
puritans. Under Justinian Montanism disappeared (532).
2. The Novatianists[135:2] withdrew from the Church protesting against
the readmission of those who through fear deserted the Church in the
Decian persecution (249-251). They were strong in North Africa and Asia
Minor, and continued until the sixth century, absorbing most of the
Montanists. In doctrine and organisation they did not differ from the
regular Church, but only on the question of discipline. They also laid
unusual stress on the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Their churches
were still found in the fifth century in Rome till closed by Innocent I.
3. The Donatists[136:1] grew out of the Montanist opposition to laxity
and innovation in the Church and Novatian strictness of discipline. The
Donatists denounced the Christians who during the Diocletian persecution
delivered up the Scriptures, and tried to drive them out of the Church.
The party centred in Carthage and was led by Bishop Donatus. They
believed in ecclesiastical purism, held the Church to be an exclusive
society of saved sinners, emphasised inner holiness as a qualification
of membership, asserted the necessity of baptismal regeneration and
infant baptism, said unholy priests could not administer the sacraments,
advocated rigid discipline, resisted the union of Church and state, and
were organised as a hierarchy. They were very active in the early
part of the fourth century, and attempted to secure the support of
Constantine. He decided against them and tried to quiet them. Emperor
Julian favoured them, but Augustine sought their overthrow. Finally the
Vandals swept them away.
The Arian controversy was a natural product of the early differences
about the nature of the Godhead and was distinctly connected with the
Ebionites, Gnostics, Montanists, and Sabellians. In the Eastern
speculation about the mystery of the Holy Trinity, one faction of
theorists tended to "refine the Deity into a mental conception"; another
to "impersonate Him into a material being." Between these extremes arose
the discussion about "the nature and relation between the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost."[137:1] Tertullian and Origen both attempted to solve
the problem. Dionysius of Alexandria (260), in a contest with the
Sabellians, is reported to have declared: "The Son of God is a work and
a creature, not appertaining to Him by nature, but as regards His
essence, as foreign to the Father as the husbandman to the vine . . .
For as a creature, he did not exist before he was produced."[137:2]
Dionysius of Rome, backed up by a synod, repudiated that proposition and
clearly stated the orthodox Trinitarian view. Origen widened the breach
by asserting the eternal divinity of Christ, but at the same time
maintaining also His subordination to the Father as a "secondary God."
The conflicting schools of theology at Alexandria and Antioch were ready
to take sides in the controversy, which reached a crisis at the end of
the third century, when all theological thought was focused on this one
question.
The controversy broke out in Alexandria in 318.[137:3] Bishop Alexander
in a public address insisted on the interpretation of the eternity of
the Son. Arius, a presbyter, charged the bishop with Sabellianism, which
advocated an undivided Godhead, and held that Christ was a creature of
God, hence not coexistent and eternal.[138:1] He and his followers held
that God alone was eternal; that He created the Son, or Logos, by His
_fiat_, hence the Son is different in essence and finite; that the Son
was created before time was and in turn made the universe and rules it;
that the Son is Logos in soul, stands between God and man, and is to be
worshipped as the most exalted of creatures, the creator and ruler of
the world, and the Redeemer of men. It was contended that all these
propositions could be proved beyond dispute from the Bible.[138:2]
Alexander, in a personal interview, sought to stop Arius,[138:3] who was
an old priest in control of the most influential church in the city,--a
proud, learned, ambitious, and fascinating man,[138:4] who, defeated in
his candidacy for the arch-episcopacy of Alexandria,[138:5] began to
foment social and religious circles by attacking Alexander. Failing to
quiet him, Alexander called a synod to discuss the disputed points, but
Arius seemed to carry the day and continued his agitation. Then the
bishop commanded Arius and his followers to renounce their
"impiety."[138:6] Refusing to obey, Arius was called before a local
council in 320 and there excommunicated.[138:7] But Arius now spread his
views all the more zealously by conversation, by letters, by sermons,
and later, while an exile, in a poetic work called _The Banquet_. His
doctrines pleased the wide-spread rationalism, and hence became very
popular. They were put into popular songs and sung everywhere, and
became the chief topic of conversation in all social circles. Arius,
however, was forced to flee[139:1] to Palestine and thence to Nicomedia,
while Alexander drew up his encyclic to all Christian Bishops
(323)[139:2] giving the history of the controversy and defending the
Trinitarian position.
The eastern part of the Empire broke up into two powerful parties: the
Arians and the Trinitarians or Athanasians. "In every city bishops were
engaged in obstinate conflict with bishops and people rising against
people."[139:3] Theology became mere technology. Staunch partisans came
forth as champions on both sides--Eusebius, the Church historian,
Eusebius, the Bishop of Nicomedia, Chrysostom, Theodore, and Ephraëm
stood for Arianism; while Athanasius, Marcellus, Basil, Cyril, and Blind
Didymus became Alexander's supporters. In a short time the whole Eastern
Church became a "metaphysical battle-field." Finally both sides appealed
to Constantine, who, viewing the contest as a war of words, wrote a
common letter and sent it by his court-bishop to both leaders in which
he said that the quarrel was childish and unworthy such churchmen; that
moreover it was displeasing to him personally, hence they were asked to
stop it.[139:4] When this imperial request failed, Constantine summoned
the Council of Nicæa to settle the dispute.[139:5]
The Council of Nicæa was summoned by the Emperor for the summer of 325.
Constantine's purpose in convening it was to settle by compromise or
otherwise religious disputes which might easily become a political
danger to the Empire. It was the first universal council of Christendom.
Of the two thousand persons in attendance more than three hundred were
bishops.[140:1] All of the thirteen provinces in the Empire except
Britain were represented.[140:2] All the West, however, sent but six
representatives--good proof that the Arian controversy was an Eastern
question. The Bishop of Rome was too old to go so he sent two presbyters
to represent him.[140:3] Even a few pagan philosophers were attracted to
the Council, and actually took part in the discussions.[140:4]
In organising the Council the bishops were seated according to
rank.[140:5] Discussions occurred for some time before Constantine
arrived. Then the Emperor entered "as a messenger from God, covered with
gold and precious stones, a magnificent figure, tall and slender, and
full of grace and majesty." He opened the Council with these words:
"When I was told of the division amongst you, I was convinced that I
ought not to attend to any business before this; and it is from the
desire of being useful to you that I have convened you without delay;
but I shall not believe my end to be attained until I have united the
minds of all, until I see that peace and that union reign amongst you
which you are commissioned as the anointed of the Lord to preach to
others."[141:1] He took part in the deliberations also and acted as the
real head of the Council, though the Spanish Bishop Hosius probably
served as the spiritual president.[141:2] Only bishops or their
accredited proxies had a vote.
Three distinct parties immediately appeared in the Council: (1) The
Arians led by Arius. Twenty bishops with Eusebius of Nicomedia at their
head constituted the voting party. (2) The Semi-Arians were led by
Eusebius of Cæsarea, the Church historian. They had a majority and were
inclined partly to the Arians and partly to the orthodox side. (3) The
Trinitarians, or orthodox party, led by Alexander, Hosius, Macarius,
Marcellus, and Athanasius. At the outset they were in the minority, but
soon came to control the Council.
Unfortunately the authentic minutes of the transactions are not now
extant,[141:3] if indeed they ever existed. The Arians, it appears, came
to the Council confident of victory because the Emperor's sister
Constantia was an avowed Arian, and he himself was supposed to be a
sympathiser, since so many scholars about him upheld the doctrine. But
when Arius presented his creed signed by eighteen eminent names, it
created an uproar, the creed was seized and torn to pieces, and its
doctrines repudiated. All the signers but Arius and two bishops then
abandoned the project. Eusebius of Cæsarea came forward at this juncture
with an old Palestine creed as a compromise.[142:1] It acknowledged the
divine nature of Jesus. The Emperor favoured it, and the Arians were
willing to accept it, but Athanasius was suspicious and demanded so many
changes that when, after two months of solemn discussion, the amended
creed was passed,[142:2] Eusebius, the originator, hesitated to sign it.
This was a grand triumph for the orthodox party. The Emperor required
all bishops to subscribe to it.[142:3] The Semi-Arians did so under
protest. Arius and two Egyptian bishops[142:4] refused and were banished
to Illyria.[142:5] Arius was publicly excommunicated and his writings
ordered burned. The business of the Council concluded, Constantine
dismissed it with a splendid feast which Eusebius likened to the kingdom
of Heaven.[142:6]
The results of Nicæa were very significant:
1. The Church was given its first written creed, the Nicene Creed--the
basis of all later creeds, Greek, Latin, and Evangelical.[142:7] This
was the first official definition of the Trinity and has continued to be
the orthodox interpretation. The Nicene Creed contains all the cardinal
Christian doctrines. It was universally proclaimed as imperial law.
2. Church canons were enacted--the West accepts twenty, the East
more--which constitute the basis for the canon law of the Middle
Ages.[143:1] These canons indicate the burning questions in the Church
at that time.
3. The method of calculating the date for Easter, which differed in
Eastern churches and Western churches, was determined.[143:2]
4. This Council, guided, as was believed, by the Holy Ghost, acted as
the infallible, sovereign power of the Church and set precedents which
later conflicted with the supreme power claimed by the Pope.
5. The development of the papal hierarchy was stimulated. The Bishop of
Rome was recognised as the only Patriarch in the West.[143:3] He was
soon forced to be the recognised champion of orthodoxy.
6. The Council of Nicæa marks the beginning of the breach between the
East and the West which resulted in the first great schism in
Christendom.
7. The law of celibacy was almost imposed on the Church.[143:4]
8. Interference in the most vital concerns of the Church was recognised
as an imperial prerogative. The Emperor called the Council, presided
over its proceedings, acted as mediator between contending factions,
forced the Nicene Creed on the Church, fixed the day for celebrating
Easter, and approved the first ecclesiastical canons.
9. The various heresies and schisms of the time were condemned. This
action threw into prominent relief throughout the Empire the powerful
party of orthodox Catholics, who henceforth were to control the
destinies of the Church in both its internal and external organisation
and evolution.
The condemnation of Arianism was only a temporary victory. Soon
Constantine himself was won over by the Arians, invited Arius to his
court, and ordered Athanasius, who meanwhile had become Bishop of
Alexandria (328), to reinstate Arius in his parish. Athanasius refused
to do so, and was condemned and deposed by the councils of Tyre (334)
and of Constantinople (335), and exiled by the Emperor to Treves in
Gaul. Arius died before he could be recalled (336). Constantine II.
restored Athanasius to his see (338), but his brother Constantius and
his Arian friends deposed him again (339). Athanasius then fled to Pope
Julius at Rome (339), who laid his case before a Western council (341)
which vindicated both his creed and his rights. This supreme appellate
power assumed by the Bishop of Rome is significantly prophetic.
To heal the Arian conflict, which was again active--this time between
the East and the West,--the Council of Sardica was called in 343. The
Roman party controlled it, reconfirmed the Nicene Creed, and adopted
twelve new canons. The Arians refused to take part and held a rump
council. The result was a wider separation of the East and the
West.[144:1] Under Constantius, however, the Arian party grew stronger,
held the three Arian councils of Sirmium (351), Arles (353), and Milan
(355), forced their decrees upon the whole Church, exiled Hosius,
Hilary, and Lucifer, drove Athanasius, who had meanwhile once more
returned to his office (346), out of his see, and even deposed Pope
Liberius[145:1] and elected an Arian Pope, Felix II., in his place. Thus
the Arian party seemed triumphant East and West.
But the Arians soon split into bitter factions and began to destroy
themselves. Under Emperor Julian they lost imperial favour and saw the
Nicene party tolerated. The orthodox faction was thus able to gradually
re-win power in the West and South. Theodosius the Great (379-395)
externally completed the Nicene conquest of the whole Empire through an
imperial edict (380) and by calling the second general Council of
Constantinople (381), which ratified the Nicene Creed in a revised form
and passed seven additional canons.[145:2] But Arianism lingered long
within the Empire, especially among the Teutons, who were slow to accept
the Roman faith--the Vandals in 530, the Burgundians in 534, the Suevi
in 560, the Goths in 587, and the Longobards in 600.[145:3] It also
reappeared again and again in the later heresies on down to the present
day.
SOURCES
A.--PRIMARY:
I.--CHURCH FATHERS:
1.--Eusebius, _Life of Constantine_. _Nic. and Post-Nic.
Fathers._ 2d ser., i., bk. 2, 3. _Church History._
_Ib._, i.
2.--Athanasius, _Works_. 2d ser., _ib._, iv. _Fath. of the
Holy Cath. Ch._, viii., xiii., xix. Bright, W.,
_Orations_. Oxf., 1873.
3.--Socrates, _Ecclesiastical History_. _Nic. and Post-Nic.
Fathers._ 2d ser., ii., bk. 1, ch. 8 _ff._
4.--Sozomen, _Ecclesiastical History_. 2d ser., _ib._, ii.,
bk. 1, ch. 17 _ff._
5.--Theodoret, _Ecclesiastical History_. 2d ser., _ib._, iii.,
bk. 1, ch. 1-13.
6.--Philostorgius, _Epitome of Ecclesiastical History_. Bohn,
_Eccl. Lib._, ii., 429-528.
II.--COLLECTIONS:
1.--Percival, H. R., _The Seven Ecumenical Councils_. In
_Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, 2d ser., xiv. N. Y., 1900.
2.--Pusey, E., _The Councils of the Church_ (to 381).
3.--Fulton, J., _Index Canonum_. N. Y., 1892.
4.--Lambert, W., _Canons of the First Four General Councils_.
Lond., 1868.
5.--Hammond, W. A., _The Six Œcumenical Councils_. Oxf.,
1843.
6.--Bright, W., _Notes on the Canons of the First Four General
Councils_. N. Y., 1892.
7.--Mitchell, E. K., _Canons of the First Four General
Councils_. Univ. of Pa., _Transl. and Repr._, iv.
8.--Chrystal, J., _Authoritative Christianity_. Jersey City,
1891. Vol. i.
9.--Schaff, P., _The Creeds of the Greek and Latin Churches_.
Lond., 1877, ii., 28, 29, 57-62, 66.
10.--Lumby, J. R., _The History of the Creeds_. Lond., 1880.
Vol. ii.
11.--Howard, G. B., _Canons of the Primitive Church_. Lond.,
1896.
B.--SECONDARY:
I.--SPECIAL:
1.--Boyle, I., _Historical View of the Council of Nicæa_. N.
Y., 1856.
2.--Bright, W., _Waymarks of Church History_. Lond., 1894, 56
_ff._
3.--Bull, G., _Defence of the Nicene Faith_. 1685. Transl. in
_Lib. of Anglo-Cath. Theol._ Lond., 1851.
4.--Dorner, I. A., _History of the Doctrine of the Person of
Christ_. Edinb., 1861-3. 5 vols.
5.--DuBose, W. P., _The Ecumenical Councils_. N. Y., 1897.
6.--Dudley, T. W., _History of the First Council of Nicæa_.
Bost., 1880.
7.--Gwatkin, H. M., _Studies in Arianism_. Camb., 1882. _The
Arian Controversy._ N. Y., 1889. Ch. 1, 2.
8.--Hefele, C. J., _History of the Church Councils_. Edinb.,
1882-3. Bk. ii., ch. 1, 2.
9.--Kaye, J., _Some Account of the Council of Nicæa_. Lond.,
1883.
10.--Neal, J. M., _History of the Holy Eastern Church_. Lond.,
1850-73.
11.--Newman, J. H., _The Arians of the Fourth Century_. N. Y.,
1888.
12.--Stanley, A. P., _History of the Eastern Church_. N. Y.,
1875.
13.--Swainson, C. A., _The Nicene and Apostolic Creeds_. Lond.,
1875.
Note.--See Chap. VII. for additional works.
II.--GENERAL:
Adeney, ch. 1. Allies, v., ch. 37-39. Alzog, i., § 110-112.
Backhouse, pt. 11, ch. 11, 12. Bartlet, ch. 9. Baur, ii.,
112-120. Bouzique, ii., ch. 1. Butler, ch. 24. Cheetham, pt.
2, ch. 10, 11. Coxe, ch. 2, sec. 15; ch. 3, sec. 10-14.
Crooks, ch. 21-23. Darras, i., pd. 2, ch. 1. Döllinger, i.,
ch. 2; ii., ch. 3, 4; iii., ch. 2, sec. 2, 3. Duff, ch. 33,
34, 35. Fisher, 104, 119, 130. Fleury, bk. 21. Foulkes, ch. 4.
Gibbon, ch. 21. Gieseler, i., sec. 81-84. Gilmartin, i., 16.
Guericke, sec. 81-93. Harnack, _Dogma_, iv., ch. 1. Hase, sec.
102-104. Hore, ch. 4. Hurst, i., 431 _ff._ Jackson, ch. 11-16.
Jennings, i., ch. 4. Kurtz, i., § 49. Mahan, bk. iv., ch. 1-6.
Milman, i., bk. 1, ch. 2. Milner, i., cent. 4, ch. 3, 4.
Moeller, i., 331-337. Neander, ii., 403 _ff._ Newman, i., pd.
3, ch. 2, p. 323. Robertson, bk. 2, ch. 1. Schaff, iii.,
616-689. Stoughton, pt. 2, ch. 1.
FOOTNOTES:
[131:1] Epiphanius, ch. 29, 30, 53.
[131:2] Notably Celsus, who declared that the Christians "were divided
and split up into factions, each individual desiring to have his own
party."
[132:1] Irenæus, i., ch. 26; Hippolytus, ix., ch. 13-17; Epiphanius, ch.
29, 30, 53; Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, iii., ch. 27; Schaff, ii., 420;
Neander, i., 341; Moeller, i., 97; various histories of dogma and
encyclopedias.
[132:2] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, iii., ch. 27.
[132:3] Irenæus, _Against Heresies_; Hippolytus, _Refutation of all
Heresies_; Tertullian; Origen; Epiphanius; Gieseler, i., 129; ii., 442;
Moeller, i., 129; King, _The Gnostics and their Remains_; Neander, i.,
566; Mansel, _The Gnostic Heresies_; Baur, i., 185; Bright, _Gnosticism
and Irenæus_.
[133:1] Archelaus in _Ante-Nic. Lib._; Epiphanius, 66; Augustine in
_Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, 1st ser., iv.; Pressensé, _Her. and Chr.
Doctrine_; Gieseler, i., 203; Schaff, ii., 498; Moeller, i., 289;
Neander, i., 478; Mozley, _Manichæans_; histories of dogma and
encyclopedias.
[134:1] Augustine, the greatest Latin Father, was a Manichæan for many
years, as some maintain.
[134:2] See _History of Doctrine_ by Fisher, Shedd, Sheldon, Hagenbach,
Baur, Loofs, and Harnack; Dorner, _The Person of Christ_; Conybeare,
_The Key of Truth_; encyclopedias.
[135:1] Tertullian; Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, v., ch. 14-18; Epiphanius,
_Heresy_, 48, 49; Sozomen, ii., 32; Pressensé, _Heresy and Chr. Doctr._,
101; Mossman, _Hist. of Early Chr. Ch._, 401; Neander, i., 508; Schaff,
ii., 405; Moeller, i., 156; De Sayres, _Montanism_; Uhlhorn, _Conflict
of Christ'y with Heathenism_; Baur, i., 245; ii., 45; Ramsay, 434;
encyclopedias.
[135:2] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, vi., ch. 43, 45; vii., ch. 8; Cyprian,
_Ep._, 41-52; Socrates, iv., 28; Neander, i., 237; Gieseler, i., 254;
Moeller, i., 263; encyclopedias.
[136:1] Augustine in _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, iv.; Hefele, i.-ii.;
Neander, ii., 214; Schaff, iii., 360; various works on history of
doctrine; encyclopedias.
[137:1] Milman, _Hist. of Christ._, i., 65.
[137:2] The Bishop of Rome held a synod in which these ideas were
denounced and the orthodox view upheld.
[137:3] For the controversy see the histories of Eusebius, Socrates,
Sozomen, Theodoret, and Philostorgius; Epiphanius, _Heresy_, 69;
Athanasius; Hilary; Basil; Ambrose; Augustine; the two Gregories and
Rufinus; Newman, _Arians in the Fourth Cent._; Gwatkin, _Studies of
Arianism_.
[138:1] Socrates, i., ch. 5.
[138:2] Harnack, _Hist. of Dogma_, pt. ii., ch. 7.
[138:3] Socrates, i., 6. See Neander, ii. 403; Schaff, ii., 616; Gibbon,
ch. 21; Stanley, _Lect._, 2-3; Moeller, i., 382; Kurtz, i., 317.
[138:4] Socrates, i., 5; ii., 35.
[138:5] Theodoret, i., 4; _cf._ Philostorgius, i., 3.
[138:6] See two letters in Socrates, i., 6.
[138:7] _Ibid._
[139:1] Theodoret, i., 5.
[139:2] _Ibid._
[139:3] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., ch. 4.
[139:4] Euseb., _Life of Const._, ii., ch. 64-72; Socrates, i., 7.
[139:5] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., 6.
[140:1] Historians disagree about the number; Eusebius gives 250;
Theodoret, 300; Milman, 323; Döllinger, 318; Gwatkin, 223; etc.
[140:2] Gwatkin, 21.
[140:3] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., 7; Socrates, i., 14; Sozomen,
i., 17; Milman, i., 99.
[140:4] Socrates, i., 8; Sozomen, i., 17, 18.
[140:5] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., ch. 10.
[141:1] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., 12; Theodoret, i., 7; Hefele,
_Hist. of the Ch. Councils_, 280, 281.
[141:2] Hefele, i., 281; Moeller, i., 336, suggests Eustathius of
Antioch and Alexander of Alexandria.
[141:3] No minutes in the modern sense were kept. After measures were
agreed upon they were signed and thus promulgated. See Hefele, i., 262.
[142:1] Theodoret, i., 12; _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, 2d ser., xiv.,
1.
[142:2] The Nicene Creed of the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican
churches is not this one but "the baptismal creed of the Church of
Jerusalem" enlarged in 362-373.
[142:3] The Latin list of names numbers 228, though the original Greek
lists certainly had more. Hefele, i., 296.
[142:4] Sozomen, i., 9, 21; Theodoret, i., 7, 8.
[142:5] Sozomen, i., 21; Socrates, i., 9.
[142:6] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., 15.
[142:7] Univ. of Pa., _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 2; Schaff, iii., 631;
Fulton, _Index Canonum_.
[143:1] Univ. of Pa., _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 2. Cf. Hefele, i.,
355 ff.
[143:2] Excellent discussion of the whole question in Hefele, i., sec.
37.
[143:3] About 350 the canons were interpolated so as to give the Bishop
of Rome a primacy.
[143:4] Socrates, i., ch. 11; Sozomen, i., 23; Schaff, ii., 411; Hefele,
i., 435.
[144:1] Hefele, ii.
[145:1] Pope Liberius was reinstated, after the death of Felix II., on
subscribing to the Arian articles.
[145:2] Univ. of Pa., _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 2, p. 11; _Nic. and
Post-Nic. Fathers_, 2d ser., xiv., 163.
[145:3] See Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_.