§ 47. The Chiliastic Controversy…

§ 47. The Chiliastic Controversy

During the third century the belief in chiliasm as a part of the Church’s faith died out in nearly all parts of the Church. It did not seem called for by the condition of the Church, which was rapidly adjusting itself to the world in which it found itself. The scientific theology, especially that of Alexandria, found no place in its system for such an article as chiliasm. The belief lingered, however, in country places, and with it went no little opposition to the “scientific” exegesis which by means of allegory explained away the promises of a millennial kingdom. The only account we have of this so-called “Chiliastic Controversy” is found in connection with the history of the schism of Nepos in Egypt given by Eusebius, But it may be safely assumed that the condition of things here described was not peculiar to any one part of the Church, though an open schism resulting from the conflict of the old and new ideas is not found elsewhere.

Additional source material: Origen, De Principiis, II, 11 (ANF, IV); Lactantius, Divini Institutiones, VII, 14-26 (ANF, VII); Methodius, Symposium, IX, 5 (ANF, VI); v. infra, § 48.

Eusebius, Hist. Ec., VII, 24. (MSG, 20:693.)

Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria 248-265, after serving as the head of the Catechetical School, a position which he does not seem to have resigned on being advanced to the episcopate. His work On the Promises has, with the exception of fragments preserved by Eusebius, perished, as has also the work of Nepos, Against the Allegorists. The date of the work of Nepos is not known. That of the work of Dionysius is placed conjecturally at 255. The “Allegorists,” against whom Nepos wrote, were probably Origen and his school, who developed more consistently and scientifically the allegorical method of exegesis; see above, § 43, k.

Besides all these, the two books On the Promises were prepared by him [Dionysius]. The occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the promises made to the holy men in the divine Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish manner, and that there would be a certain millennium of bodily luxury upon this earth. As he thought that he could establish his private opinion by the Revelation of John, he wrote a book on this subject, entitled Refutation of Allegorists. Dionysius opposes this in his books On the Promises. In the first he gives his own opinion of the dogma; and in the second he treats of the Revelation of John,(73) and, mentioning Nepos at the beginning, writes of him as follows:

“But since they bring forward a certain work of Nepos, on which they rely confidently, as if it proved beyond dispute that there will be a reign of Christ upon earth, I confess that in many other respects I approve and love Nepos for his faith and industry and his diligence in the Scriptures, and for his extensive psalmody with which many of the brethren are still delighted; and I hold the man in the more reverence because he has gone before us to rest.… But as some think his work very plausible, and as certain teachers regard the law and the prophets as of no consequence, and do not follow the Gospels, and treat lightly the apostolic epistles, while they make promises as to the teaching of this work as if it were some great hidden mystery, and do not permit our simpler brethren to have any sublime and lofty thoughts concerning the glorious and truly divine appearing of our Lord and our resurrection from the dead, and our being gathered together unto Him, and made like Him, but, on the contrary, lead them to a hope for small things and mortal things in the kingdom of God, and for things such as exist now—since this is the case, it is necessary that we should dispute with our brother Nepos as if he were present.” Farther on he says:

“When I was in the district of Arsinoe, where, as you know, this doctrine has prevailed for a long time, so that schisms and apostasies of entire churches have resulted, I called together the presbyters and teachers of the brethren in the villages—such brethren as wished being present—and I exhorted them to make a public examination of this question. Accordingly when they brought me this book, as if it were a weapon and fortress impregnable, sitting with them from morning till evening for three successive days, I endeavored to correct what was written in it.… And finally the author and mover of this teaching, who was called Coracion, in the hearing of all the brethren present acknowledged and testified to us that he would no longer hold this opinion, nor discuss it, nor mention it, nor teach it, as he was fully convinced by the arguments against it.”

§ 48. Theology of the Second Half of the Third Century under the Influence of Origen

By the second half of the third century theology had become a speculative and highly technical science (a), and under the influence of Origen, the Logos theology, as opposed to various forms of Monarchianism (b), had become universal. Under this influence, Paul of Samosata, reviving Dynamistic Monarchianism, modified it by combining with it elements of the Logos theology (c-e). At the same time there was in various parts of the Church a continuation of the Asia Minor theological tradition, such as had found expression in Irenæus. A representative of this theology was Methodius of Olympus (f).

Additional source material: Athanasius, De Sent. Dionysii (PNF, ser. II, vol. IV).

(a) Gregory Thaumaturgus, Confession of Faith. (MSG, 46:912)

Gregory Thaumaturgus, or the Wonder-worker, was born about 213 in Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus. He studied under Origen at Cæsarea in Palestine from 233 to 235, and became one of the leading representatives of the Origenistic theology, representing the orthodox development of that school, as distinguished from Paul of Samosata and Lucian.

The following Confession of Faith is found only in the Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus, by Gregory of Nyssa. (MSG, 46: 909 f.) Its genuineness is now generally admitted; see Hahn, op. cit., § 185. According to a legend, it was communicated to Gregory in a vision by St. John on the request of the Blessed Virgin. It represents the speculative tendency of Origenism and current theology after the rise of the Alexandrian school. It should be noted that it differs markedly from other confessions of faith in not employing biblical language.

There is one God, the Father of the living Word, His substantive Wisdom, Power, and Eternal Image, the perfect Begetter of the perfect One, the Father of the Only begotten Son.

There is one Lord, only One from only One, God from God, the image and likeness of the Godhead, the active Word, The Wisdom which comprehends the constitution of all things, and the Power which produced all creation; the true Son of the true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal, and Everlasting of Everlasting.

And there is one Holy Spirit having His existence from God, and manifested by the Son [namely, to men],(74) the perfect likeness of the perfect Son, Life and Cause of the living [the sacred Fount], Sanctity, Leader of sanctification, in whom is revealed God the Father, who is over all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all; a perfect Trinity(75) not divided nor differing in glory and eternity and sovereignty.

There is, therefore, nothing created or subservient in the Trinity, nor introduced as if not there before, but coming afterward; for there never was a time when the Son was lacking to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son, but the same Trinity is ever unvarying and unchangeable.

(b) Athanasius, De Sent. Dionysii, 4, 5, 6, 13-15. (MSG, 25:484 f., 497 f.)

What has been called the “Controversy of the two Dionysii” was in reality no controversy. Dionysius of Alexandria [v. supra, § 48] wrote a letter to the Sabellians near Cyrene, pointing out the distinction of the Father and the Son. In it he used language which was, to say the least, indiscreet. Complaint was made to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, that the bishop of Alexandria did not hold the right view of the relation of the Son to the Father and of the divinity of the Son. Thereupon, Dionysius of Rome wrote to Dionysius of Alexandria. In reply, Dionysius of Alexandria pointed out at length, in a Refutation and Defence, his actual opinion on the matter as a whole, rather than as merely opposed to Modalistic Monarchianism or Sabellianism. The course of the discussion is sufficiently clear from the extracts. Athanasius is writing in answer to the Arians, who had appealed to the letter of Dionysius in support of their opinion that the Son was a creature, and that there was when He was not [v. infra, § 63]. His work, from which the following extracts are taken, was written between 350 and 354.

Ch. 4. They (the Arians) say, then, that in a letter the blessed Dionysius has said: “The Son of God is a creature and made, and not His own by nature, but in essence alien from the Father, just as the husbandman is from the vine, or the shipbuilder is from the boat; for that, being a creature, He was not before He came to be.” Yes. He wrote it, and we, too, admit that such was his letter. But as he wrote this, so also he wrote very many other epistles, which ought to be read by them, so that from all and not from one merely the faith of the man might be discovered.

Ch. 5. At that time [i.e., when Dionysius wrote against the Sabellians] certain of the bishops of Pentapolis in Upper Libya were of the opinion of Sabellius. And they were so successful with their opinion that the Son of God was scarcely preached any longer in the churches. Dionysius heard of this, as he had charge of those churches (cf. Canon 6, Nicæa, 325; see below, § 72), and sent men to counsel the guilty ones to cease from their false doctrine. As they did not cease but waxed more shameless in their impiety, he was compelled to meet their shameless conduct by writing the said letter and to define from the Gospels the human nature of the Saviour, in order that, since those men waxed bolder in denying the Son and in ascribing His human actions to the Father, he accordingly, by demonstrating that it was not the Father but the Son that was made man for us, might persuade the ignorant persons that the Father is not the Son, and so by degrees lead them to the true godhead of the Son and the knowledge of the Father.

Ch. 6. … If in his writings he is inconsistent, let them [i.e., the Arians] not draw him to their side, for on this assumption he is not worthy of credit. But if, when he had written his letter to Ammonius, and fallen under suspicion, he made his defence, bettering what he had said previously, defending himself, but not changing, it must be evident that he wrote what fell under suspicion by way of “accommodation.”

Ch. 13. The following is the occasion of his writing the other letters. When Bishop Dionysius had heard of the affairs in Pentapolis and had written in zeal for religion, as I have said, his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius against the heresy of Sabellius, some of the brethren belonging to the Church, who held a right opinion, but did not ask him so as to learn from himself what he had written, went up to Rome and spake against him in the presence of his namesake, Dionysius, bishop of Rome. And the latter, upon hearing it, wrote simultaneously against the adherents of Sabellius and against those who held the same opinions for uttering which Arius was cast out of the Church; and he called it an equal and opposite impiety to hold with Sabellius or with those who say that the Word of God is a creature, framed and originated. And he wrote also to Dionysius [i.e., of Alexandria] to inform him of what they had said about him. And the latter straightway wrote back and inscribed a book entitled A Refutation and a Defence.

Ch. 14. … In answer to these charges he writes, after certain prefatory matter in the first book of the work entitled A Refutation and a Defence, in the following terms:

Ch. 15. “For never was there a time when God was not a Father.” And this he acknowledges in what follows, “that Christ is forever, being Word and Wisdom and Power. For it is not to be supposed that God, having at first no issue, afterward begat a Son. But the Son has his being not of Himself, but of the Father.”

(c) Eusebius, Hist. Ec., VII, 27, 29, 30. (MSG, 25:705.)

The deposition of Paul of Samosata.

The controversy concerning Paul’s doctrinal views is sufficiently set forth in the extract from Eusebius given below. Paul was bishop of Antioch from about 260 to 268. His works have perished, with the exception of a few fragments. The importance of Paul is that in his teaching is to be found an attempt to combine the Logos theology of Origen with Dynamistic Monarchianism, with results that appeared later in Arianism, on the one hand, and Nestorianism, it is thought, on the other.

Ch. 27. After Sixtus had presided over the church of Rome eleven years, Dionysius, namesake of him of Alexandria, succeeded him. About that time Demetrianus died in Antioch, and Paul of Samosata received that episcopate. As he held low and degraded views of Christ, contrary to the teaching of the Church, namely, that in his nature He was a common man, Dionysius of Alexandria was entreated to come to the synod. But being unable to come on account of age and physical weakness, he gave his opinion on the subject under consideration by a letter. But the other pastors of the churches assembled from all directions, as against a despoiler of the flock of Christ, all making haste to reach Antioch.

Ch. 29. During his [Aurelian’s, 270-275] reign a final synod composed of a great many bishops was held, and the leader of heresy in Antioch was detected and his false doctrine clearly shown before all, and he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church under heaven. Malchion especially drew him out from his hiding-place and refuted him. He was a man learned also in other matters, and principal of the sophist school of Grecian learning in Antioch; yet on account of the superior nobility of his faith in Christ he had been made a presbyter of that parish [i.e., diocese]. This man, having conducted a discussion with him, which was taken down by stenographers, and which we know is still extant, was alone able to detect the man who dissembled and deceived others.

Ch. 30. The pastors who had assembled about this matter prepared by common consent an epistle addressed to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, and Maximus of Alexandria, and sent it to all the provinces.…

After other things they describe as follows the manner of life which he led: “Whereas he has departed from the rule [i.e., of faith], and has turned aside after base and spurious teachings, it is not necessary—since he is without—that we should pass judgment upon his practices: as for instance … in that he is haughty and is puffed up, and assumes worldly dignities, preferring to be called ducenarius rather than bishop; and struts in the market-places, reading letters and reciting them as he walks in public, attended by a bodyguard, with a multitude preceding and following him, so that the faith is envied and hated on account of his pride and haughtiness of heart, … or that he violently and coarsely assails in public the expounders of the Word that have departed this life, and magnifies himself, not as bishop, but as a sophist and juggler, and stops the psalms to our Lord Jesus Christ as being novelties and the productions of modern men, and trains women to sing psalms to himself in the midst of the church on the great day of the passover.… He is unwilling to acknowledge that the Son of God came down from heaven. (And this is no mere assertion, but is abundantly proved from the records which we have sent you; and not least where he says, ‘Jesus Christ is from below.’)… And there are the women, the ‘subintroductæ,’ as the people of Antioch call them, belonging to him and to the presbyters and deacons with him. Although he knows and has convicted these men, yet he connives at this and their incurable sins, in order that they may be bound to him, and through fear for themselves may not dare to accuse him for his wicked words and deeds.…”

As Paul had fallen from the episcopate, as well as from the orthodox faith, Domnus, as has been said, succeeded to the service of the church at Antioch [i.e., became bishop]. But as Paul refused to surrender the church building, the Emperor Aurelian was petitioned; and he decided the matter most equitably, ordering the building to be given to those to whom the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome should adjudge it. Thus this man was driven out of the Church, with extreme disgrace, by the worldly power.

Such was Aurelian’s attitude toward us at that time; but in the course of time he changed his mind in regard to us, and was moved by certain advisers to institute a persecution against us. And there was great talk about it everywhere. But as he was about to do it, and was, so to speak, in the very act of signing the decrees against us, the divine judgment came upon him and restrained him at the very verge of his undertaking.

(d) Malchion of Antioch, Disputation with Paul. (MSG, 10:247-260.)

The doctrine of Paul of Samosata.

The following fragments are from the disputation of Malchion with Paul at the Council of Antioch, 268 [see extract from Eusebius, Hist. Ec., VII, 27, 29, 30; see above (c)], which Malchion is said to have revised and published. The passages may be found also in Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ, second ed., III, 300 ff. Fragments I-III are from the work of the Emperor Justinian, Contra Monophysitas; fragment IV is from the work of Leontius of Byzantium, Adversus Nestorianos et Eutychianos.

I. The Logos became united with Him who was born of David, who is Jesus, who was begotten of the Holy Ghost. And Him the Virgin bore by the Holy Spirit; but God generated that Logos without the Virgin or any one else than God, and thus the Logos exists.

II. The Logos was greater than Christ. Christ became greater through Wisdom, that we might not overthrow the dignity of Wisdom.

III. In order that the Anointed, who was from David, might not be a stranger to Wisdom, and that Wisdom might not dwell so largely in another. For it was in the prophets, and more in Moses, and in many the Lord was, but more also in Christ as in a temple. For Jesus Christ was one and the Logos was another.

IV. He who appeared was not Wisdom, for He could not be found in an outward form, neither in the appearance of a man; for He is greater than all things visible.

(e) Paul of Samosata, Orationes ad Sabinum, Routh, op. cit., III, 329.

The doctrine of Paul.

Paul’s work addressed to Sabinus has perished with the exception of a few fragments. See Routh, op. cit.

I. Thou shouldest not wonder that the Saviour had one will with God; for just as nature shows us a substance becoming one and the same out of many things, so the nature of love makes one and the same will out of many through a manifest preference.

II. He who was born holy and righteous, having by His struggle and sufferings overcome the sin of our progenitors, and having succeeded in all things, was united in character to God, since He had preserved one and the same effort and aim as He for the promotion of things that are good; and since He has preserved this inviolate, His name is called that above every name, the prize of love having been freely bestowed upon Him.

(f) Epiphanius, Panarion, Hær. LXV. (MSG, 42:12.)

The doctrine of Paul of Samosata.

Epiphanius was bishop of Salamis, 367-403. His works are chiefly polemical and devoted to the refutation of all heresies, of which he gives accounts at some length. He is a valuable, though not always reliable, source for many otherwise unknown heresies. In the present case we have passages from Paul’s own writings that confirm and supplement the statements of the hereseologist.

He [Paul of Samosata] says that God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, that in God is always His Word and His Spirit, as in a man’s heart is his own reason; that the Son of God does not exist in a hypostasis, but in God himself.… That the Logos came and dwelt in Jesus, who was a man. And thus he says God is one, neither is the Father the Father, nor the Son the Son, nor the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit, but rather the one God is Father and in Him is his Son, as the reason is in a man.… But he did not say with Noetus that the Father suffered, but only, said he, the Logos came and energized and went back to the Father.

(g) Methodius of Olympus, Symposium, III, 4, 8. (MSG, 18:65, 73.)

The theology of Origen was not suffered to go without being challenged by those who could not accept some of his extreme statements. Among those opposed to him were Peter, bishop of Alexandria, and Methodius, bishop of Olympus. Both were strongly influenced by Origen, but the denial of a bodily resurrection and the eternity of the creation were too offensive. The more important of the two is Methodius, who combined a strong anti-Origenistic position on these two points with that “recapitulation” theory of redemption which has been called the Asia Minor type of theology and is represented also by Irenæus; see above, § 27. He has been called the author of the “theology of the future,” with reference to his relation to Athanasius, in that he laid the foundation for a doctrine of redemption which superseded that of the old Alexandrian school, and became established in the East under the lead of Athanasius and the Nicene divines generally.

Methodius was bishop of Olympus, in Lycia. The statements that he also held other sees are unreliable. He died in 311 as a martyr. Nothing else is known with certainty as to his life. Of his numerous and well-written works, only one, The Banquet, or Symposium, has been preserved entire. His work On the Resurrection is most strongly opposed to Origen and his denial of the bodily resurrection.

Ch. 4. For let us consider how rightly he [Paul] compared Adam to Christ, not only considering him to be the type and image, but also that Christ Himself became the very same thing, because the Eternal Word fell upon Him. For it was fitting that the first-born of God, the first shoot, the Only begotten, even the Wisdom [of God], should be joined to the first-formed man, and first and first-born of men, and should become incarnate. And this was Christ, a man filled with the pure and perfect Godhead, and God received into man. For it was most suitable that the oldest of the Æons and the first of the archangels, when about to hold communion with men, should dwell in the oldest and first of men, even Adam. And thus, renovating those things which were from the beginning, and forming them again of the Virgin by the Spirit, He frames the same just as at the beginning.

Ch. 8. The Church could not conceive believers and give them new birth by the laver of regeneration unless Christ, emptying Himself for their sakes, that He might be contained by them, as I said, through the recapitulation of His passion, should die again, coming down from heaven, and, being “joined to His wife,” the Church, should provide that a certain power be taken from His side, so that all who are built up in Him should grow up, even those who are born again by the laver, receiving of His bones and of His flesh; that is, of His holiness and of His glory. For he who says that the bones and flesh of Wisdom are understanding and virtue, says most rightly; and that the side [rib] is the Spirit of truth, the Paraclete, of whom the illuminated [i.e., baptized], receiving, are fitly born again to incorruption.

(h) Methodius of Olympus, De Resurrect., I, 13. (MSG, 18:284.)

De Resur., I, 13.(76) If any one were to think that the earthly image is the flesh itself, but the heavenly image is some other spiritual body besides the flesh, let him first consider that Christ, the heavenly man, when He appeared, bore the same form of limbs and the same image of flesh as ours, through which, also, He, who was not man, became man, that, “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” For if it was not that he might set the flesh free and raise it up that He bore flesh, why did He bear flesh superfluously, as He purposed neither to save it nor to raise it up? But the Son of God does nothing superfluous. He did not take, then, the form of a servant uselessly, but to raise it up and save it. For He was truly made man, and died, and not in appearance, but that He might truly be shown to be the first begotten from the dead, changing the earthly into the heavenly, and the mortal into the immortal.

§ 49. The Development of the Cultus

The Church’s cultus and sacramental system developed rapidly in the third century. The beginnings of the administration of the sacraments according to prescribed forms are to be traced to the Didache and Justin Martyr (see above, §§ 13, 14). At the beginning of the third century baptism was already accompanied by a series of subsidiary rites, and the eucharist was regarded as a sacrifice, the benefit of which might be directed toward specific ends. The further development was chiefly in connection with the eucharist, which effected in turn the conception of the hierarchy (see below, § 50). Baptism was regarded as conferring complete remission of previous sins; subsequent sins were atoned for in the penitential discipline (see above, § 42). As for the eucharist, the conception of the sacrifice which appears in the Didache, an offering of praise and thanksgiving, gradually gives place to a sacrifice which in some way partakes of the nature of Christ’s sacrificial death upon the cross. At the same time, the elements are more and more completely identified with the body and blood of Christ, and the nature of the presence of Christ is conceived under quasi-physical categories. As representatives of the lines of development, Tertullian, at the beginning of the century, and Cyprian, at the middle, may be taken. That a similar development took place in the East is evident, not only from the references to the same in the writings of Origen and others, but also from the appearance in the next century of elaborate services, or liturgies, as well as the doctrinal statements of writers generally.

(a) Tertullian, De Corona, 3. (MSL, 2:98.)

The ceremonies connected with baptism.

And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line when we have an ancient practice which by anticipation has settled the state of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the church and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we renounce the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then, when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey; and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also in congregations, before daybreak, and from the hands of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and by all. On the anniversary day we make offerings for the dead as birthday honors. We consider fasting on the Lord’s Day to be unlawful, as also to worship kneeling. We rejoice in the same privilege from Easter to Pentecost. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and going out, when we put on our shoes, at the bath, at table, on lighting the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign [i.e., of the cross].

(b) Tertullian, De Baptismo, 5-8. (MSL, 1:1314.)

The whole passage should be read as showing clearly that Tertullian recognized the similarity between Christian baptism and heathen purifying washings, but referred the effects of the heathen rites to evil powers, quite in harmony with the Christian admission of the reality of heathen divinities as evil powers and heathen exorcisms as wrought by the aid of evil spirits.

Ch. 5. … Thus man will be restored by God to His likeness, for he formerly had been after the image of God; the image is counted being in His form [in effigie], the likeness in His eternity [in æternitate]. For he receives that Spirit of God which he had then received from His afflatus, but afterward lost through sin.

Ch. 6. Not that in the waters we obtain the Holy Spirit, but in the water, under (the witness of angels) we are cleansed and prepared for the Holy Spirit.…

Ch. 7. After this, when we have issued from the font, we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction according to the ancient discipline, wherein on entering the priesthood men were accustomed to be anointed with oil from a horn, wherefore Aaron was anointed by Moses.… Thus, too, in our case the unction runs carnally, but profits spiritually; in the same way as the act of baptism itself is carnal, in that we are plunged in the water, but the effect spiritual, in that we are freed from sins.

Ch. 8. In the next place, the hand is laid upon us, invoking and inviting the Holy Spirit through benediction.… But this, as well as the former, is derived from the old sacramental rite in which Jacob blessed his grandsons born of Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasses; with his hands laid on them and interchanged, and indeed so transversely slanted the one over the other that, by delineating Christ, they even portended the future benediction in Christ. [Cf. Gen. 48:13 f.]

(c) Cyprian, Ep. ad Cæcilium, Ep. 63, 13-17. (MSL, 4:395.)

The eucharist.

Thascius Cæcilius Cyprianus, bishop of Carthage, was born about 200, and became bishop in 248 or 249. His doctrinal position is a development of that of Tertullian, beside whom he may be placed as one of the founders of the characteristic theology of North Africa. His discussion of the place and authority of the bishop in the ecclesiastical system was of fundamental importance in the development of the theory of the hierarchy, though it may be questioned whether his particular theory of the relation of the bishops to each other ever was realized in the Church. For his course during the Decian persecution see §§ 45, 46. He died about 258, in the persecution under Valerian.

In the epistle from which the following extract is taken Cyprian writes to Cæcilius to point out that it is wrong to use merely water in the eucharist, and that wine mixed with water should be used, for in all respects we do exactly what Christ did at the Last Supper when he instituted the eucharist. In the course of the letter, which is of some length, Cyprian takes occasion to set forth his conception of the eucharistic sacrifice, which is a distinct advance upon Tertullian. The date of the letter is about 253.

Ch. 13. Because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when in the cup the water is mingled with the wine the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord’s cup that that mixture cannot be separated any more. Whence, moreover, nothing can separate the Church—that is, the people established in the Church, faithfully and firmly continuing in that in which they have believed—from Christ in such a way as to prevent their undivided love from always abiding and adhering. Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup water alone should not be offered to the Lord, even as wine alone should not be offered. For if wine only is offered, the blood of Christ begins to be without us.(77) But if the water alone be offered, the people begin to be without Christ, but when both are mingled and are joined to each other by an intermixed union, then the spiritual and heavenly sacrament is completed. Thus the cup of the Lord is not, indeed, water alone, nor wine alone, nor unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, nor unless both should be united and joined together and compacted into the mass of one bread: in which sacrament our people are shown to be one; so that in like manner as many grains are collected and ground and mixed together into one mass and made one bread, so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body with which our number is joined and united.

Ch. 14. There is, then, no reason, dearest brother, for any one to think that the custom of certain persons is to be followed, who in times past have thought that water alone should be offered in the cup of the Lord. For we must inquire whom they themselves have followed. For if in the sacrifice which Christ offered none is to be followed but Christ, we ought certainly to obey and do what Christ did, and what He commanded to be done, since He himself says in the Gospel: “If ye do whatsoever I command you, henceforth I call you not servants, but friends” [John 15:14 f.].… If Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is Himself the chief priest of God the Father, and has first offered Himself a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that priest truly acts in the place of Christ who imitates what Christ did; and he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church of God to God the Father when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ himself to have offered.

Ch. 15. But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned unless what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed; unless, indeed, any one should fear in the morning sacrifices lest the taste of wine should be redolent of the blood of Christ.(78) Therefore, thus the brotherhood is beginning to be kept back from the passion of Christ in persecutions by learning in the offerings to be disturbed concerning His blood and His blood-shedding.… But how can we shed our blood for Christ who blush to drink the blood of Christ?

Ch. 16. Does any one perchance flatter himself with this reflection—that, although in the morning water alone is seen to be offered, yet when we come to supper we offer the mingled cup? But when we sup, we cannot call the people together for our banquet that we may celebrate the truth of the sacrament in the presence of the entire brotherhood. But still it was not in the morning, but after supper that the Lord offered the mingled cup. Ought we, then, to celebrate the Lord’s cup after supper, that so by continual repetition of the Lord’s Supper we may offer the mingled cup? It was necessary that Christ should offer about the evening of the day, that the very hour of sacrifice might show the setting and the evening of the world as it is written in Exodus: “And all the people of the synagogue of the children of Israel shall kill it in the evening.”(79) And again in the Psalms: “Let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice.”(80) But we celebrate the resurrection of the Lord in the morning.

Ch. 17. And because we make mention of His passion in all sacrifices (for the Lord’s passion is the sacrifice which we offer), we ought to do nothing else than what He did. For the Scripture says: “For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord’s death till He come.”(81) As often, therefore, as we offer the cup in commemoration of the Lord and His passion, let us do what it is known the Lord did.

§ 50. The Episcopate in the Church

The greatest name connected with the development of the hierarchical conception of the Church in the third century is without question Cyprian (see § 49). He developed the conception of the episcopate beyond the point it had reached in the hands of Tertullian, to whom the institution was important primarily as a guardian of the deposit of faith and a pledge of the continuity of the Church. In the hands of Cyprian the episcopate became the essential foundation of the Church. According to his theory of the office, every bishop was the peer of every other bishop and had the same duties to his diocese and to the Church as a whole as every other bishop. No bishop had any more than a moral authority over any other. Only the whole body of bishops, or the council, could bring anything more than moral authority to bear upon an offending prelate. The constitution of the council was not as yet defined. In several points the ecclesiastical theories of Cyprian were not followed by the Church as a whole, notably his opinion regarding heretical baptism (see § 47), but his main contention as to the importance of the episcopate for the very existence (esse), and not the mere welfare (bene esse), of the Church was universally accepted. His theory of the equality of all bishops was a survival of an earlier period, and represented little more than his personal ideal. The following sections should also be consulted in this connection.

Additional source material: Cyprian deals with the hierarchical constitution in almost every epistle; see, however, especially the following: 26:1 [33:1], 51:24 [55:24], 54:5 [59:5], 64:3 [3:3], 72:21 [73:21], 74:16 [75:16] (important for the testimony of Firmilian as to the hierarchical ideas in the East). Serapion’s Prayer Book, trans. by J. Wordsworth, 1899.

(a) Cyprian, Epistula 68, 8 [=66]. (MSL, 4:418.)

Although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not obey depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop; and that if any one be not with the bishop, he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of the priests who cohere with one another.

(b) Council of Carthage, A. D. 256. (MSL, 3:1092.)

The council of Carthage, in 256, was held, under the presidency of Cyprian, to act on the question of baptism by heretics. See § 52. Eighty-seven bishops were present. The full report of proceedings is to be found in the works of Cyprian. See ANF, V, 565, and Hefele, § 6. The theory of Cyprian which is here expressed is that all bishops are equal and independent, as opposed to the Roman position taken by Stephen, and that the individual bishop is responsible only to God.

Cyprian said: … It remains that upon this matter each of us should bring forward what he thinks, judging no man, nor rejecting from the right of communion, if he should think differently. For neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terrors does any one compel his colleagues to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power of advancing us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct here.

(c) Cyprian, Epistula 67:5. (MSL, 3:1064.)

The following epistle was written to clergy and people in Spain, i.e., at Leon, Astorga, and Merida, in regard to the ordination of two bishops, Sabinus and Felix, in place of Basilides and Martial, who had lapsed in the persecution and had been deprived of their sees. The passage illustrates the methods of election and ordination of bishops, and the failure of Cyprian, with his theory of the episcopate, to recognize in the see of Rome any jurisdiction over other bishops. Its date appears to be about 257.

You must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and throughout almost all the provinces: that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighboring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. And the bishops should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his manner of life. And this also, we see, was done by you in the ordination of our colleague Sabinus; so that, by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, and by the sentence of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, and who had written letters to you concerning him, the episcopate was conferred upon him, and hands were imposed on him in the place of Basilides. Neither can an ordination properly completed be annulled, so that Basilides, after his crimes had been discovered and his conscience made bare, even by his own confession, might go to Rome and deceive Stephen, our colleague, who was placed at a distance and was ignorant of what had been done, so as to bring it about that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been justly deposed.

§ 51. The Unity of the Church and the See of Rome

In the middle of the third century there were in sharp conflict two distinct and opposed theories of Church unity: the theory that the unity was based upon adherence to and conformity with the see of Peter; and the theory that the episcopate was itself one, and that each bishop shared equally in it. The unity was either in one see or in the less tangible unity of an order of the hierarchy. The former was the theory of the Roman bishops; the latter, the theory of Cyprian of Carthage, and possibly of a number of other ecclesiastics in North Africa and Asia Minor. Formerly polemical theology made the study of this point difficult, at least with anything like impartiality. In the passage given below from Cyprian’s treatise On the Unity of the Catholic Church the text of the Jesuit Father Kirch is followed in the most difficult and interpolated chapter 4. As Father Kirch gives the text it is perfectly consistent with the theory of Cyprian as he has elsewhere stated it, and that the interpolated text is not. See, however, P. Battifol, Primitive Catholicism, Lond., 1911, Excursus E.

Additional source material: V. supra, § 27; also Mirbt, §§ 56-69. The little treatise De Aleatoribus (MSL, 4: 827), from which Mirbt gives an extract (n. 71), might be cited in this connection, but its force depends upon its origin. It is wholly uncertain that it was written either by a bishop of Rome or in Italy. Cf. Bardenhewer. Kirch also gives the text in part, n. 276; for other references, see Kirch.

(a) Cyprian, De Catholicæ Ecclesiæ Unitate, 4, 5. (MSL, 4:513.)

The tract entitled On the Unity of the Catholic Church is the most famous of Cyprian’s works. As the theory there developed is opposed to that which became dominant, and as Cyprian was regarded as the great upholder of the Church’s constitution, interpolations were early made in the text which seriously distort the sense. These interpolations are to-day abandoned by all scholars. The best critical edition of the works of Cyprian is by W. von Hartel in the CSEL, but critical texts of the following passage with references to literature and indication of interpolations may be found in Mirbt (Prot.), n. 52, and in Kirch (R. C.), n. 234 (chapter 4 only).

Ch. 4. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying: “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven” (Matt. 16:18, 19). [To the same He says after His resurrection: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:15). Upon him He builds His Church, and to him He commits His sheep to be fed, and although. Interpolation.] Upon one he builds the Church, although also to all the Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says, “As the Father has sent me, I also send you: receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye retain, they shall be retained” (John 20:21); yet, that He might show the unity, [He founded one see. Interpolation.] He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the Apostles were also what Peter was, with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity [and the primacy is given to Peter. Interpolation.], that there might be shown to be one Church of Christ [and one see. And they are all shepherds, but the flock is shown to be one which is fed by the Apostles with unanimous consent. Interpolation.]. Which one Church the Holy Spirit also in the Song of Songs designates in the person of the Lord and says: “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, chosen of her that bare her” (Cant. 6:9). Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church [unity of Peter. Corrupt reading.] think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church [who deserts the chair of Peter. Interpolation.] trust that he is in the Church, when, moreover, the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same things and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God”? (Eph. 4:4.)

Ch. 5. And this unity we ought to hold firmly and assert, especially we bishops who preside in the Church, that we may prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood; let no one corrupt the truth by a perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one in its entirety. The Church, also, is one which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light, and many branches of a tree, but one strength based upon its tenacious root, and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in its source.

(b) Firmilian of Cæesarea, Ep. ad Cyprianum, in Cyprian, Ep. 74 [=75]. (MSL, 3:1024.)

The matter in dispute was the rebaptism of those heretics who had received baptism before they conformed to the Church. See § 52. It was the burning question after the rise of the Novatian sect. Stephen, bishop of Rome (254-257), had excommunicated a number of churches and bishops, among them probably Cyprian himself. See the epistle of Dionysius to Sixtus of Rome, the successor of Stephen, in Eusebius, Hist. Ec., VII, 5. “He” (Stephen) therefore had written previously concerning Helenus and Firmilianus and all those in Cilicia, Cappadocia, Galatia, and the neighboring countries, saying that he would not communicate with them for this same cause: namely, that they rebaptized heretics. This attitude of Stephen roused no little resentment in the East, as is shown by the indignant tone of Firmilian, who recognizes no authority in Rome. The text may be found in Mirbt, n. 74, and in part in Kirch, n. 274. The epistle of Firmilian is to be found among the epistles of Cyprian, to whom it was written.

Ch. 2. We may in this matter give thanks to Stephen that it has now happened through his unkindness [inhumanity] that we receive proof of your faith and wisdom.

Ch. 3. But let these things which were done by Stephen be passed by for the present, lest, while we remember his audacity and pride, we bring a more lasting sadness on ourselves from the things he has wickedly done.

Ch. 6. That they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which have been handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the Apostles, any one may know; also, from the fact that concerning the celebration of the day of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, one may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed there alike which are observed at Jerusalem; just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of places and names, yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church. And this departure Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honor, even herein defaming Peter and Paul, the blessed Apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears that this tradition is human which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.

Ch. 17. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate and contends that he holds the succession of Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church was laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches, maintaining that there is a baptism in them by his authority; for those who are baptized, without doubt, make up the number of the Church.… Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace.

Ch. 19. This, indeed, you Africans are able to say against Stephen, that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans’ custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth, holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the Apostles. Nor do we remember that this at any time began among us, since it has always been observed here, that we have known none but one Church of God, and have accounted no baptism holy except that of the holy Church.

Ch. 24. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood.(82) … For how many strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have alone excommunicated yourself from all; and not even the precepts of an Apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace.(83)

Ch. 25. How carefully has Stephen fulfilled these salutary commands and warnings of the Apostle, keeping in the first place lowliness of mind and meekness! For what is more lowly or meek than to have disagreed with so many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one of them in various kinds of discord: at one time with the Easterns, as we are sure is not unknown to you; at another time with you who are in the south, from whom he received bishops as messengers sufficiently patiently and meekly as not to receive them even to the speech of common conference; and, even more, so unmindful of love and charity as to command the whole brotherhood that no one should receive them into his house, so that not only peace and communion, but also a shelter and entertainment were denied to them when they came. This is to have kept the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to cut himself off from the unity of love, and to make himself a stranger in all things to his brethren, and to rebel against the sacrament and the faith with the madness of contumacious discord.… Stephen is not ashamed to afford patronage to such a position in the Church, and for the sake of maintaining heretics to divide the brotherhood; and, in addition, to call Cyprian a false Christ, and a false Apostle, and a deceitful worker, and he, conscious that all these characters are for himself, has been in advance of you by falsely objecting to another those things which he himself ought to bear.

§ 52. Controversy over Baptism by Heretics

In the great persecutions schisms arose in connection with the administration of discipline (cf. § 46). The schismatics held in general the same faith as the main body of Christians. Were the sacraments they administered to be regarded, then, as valid in such a sense that when they conformed to the Catholic Church, which they frequently did, they need not be baptized, having once been validly baptized; or should their schismatic baptism be regarded as invalid and they be required to receive baptism on conforming if they had not previously been baptized within the Church? Was baptism outside the unity of the Church valid? Rome answered in the affirmative, admitting conforming schismatics without distinguishing as to where they had been baptized; North Africa answered in the negative and required not, indeed, a second baptism, but claimed that the Church’s baptism was alone valid, and that if the person conforming had been baptized in schism he had not been baptized at all. This view was shared by at least some churches in Asia Minor (cf. § 51, b), and possibly elsewhere. It became the basis of the Donatist position (cf. § 62), which schism shared with the Novatian schism the opinion, generally rejected by the Church, that the validity of a sacrament depended upon the spiritual condition of the minister of the sacrament, e.g., whether he was in schism or not.

Additional source material: Seventh Council of Carthage (ANF, vol. V); Eusebius, Hist. Ec., VII, 7:4-6; Augustine, De Baptismo contra Donatistas, Bk. III (PNF, ser. I, vol. IV).

(a) Cyprian, Ep. ad Jubianum, Ep. 73, 7 [=72]. (MSL, 3:1159, 168.)

A portion of this epistle may be found in Mirbt, n. 70.

Ch. 7. It is manifest where and by whom the remission of sins can be given, i.e., that remission which is given by baptism. For first of all the Lord gave the power to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and whence he appointed and showed the source of unity, the power, namely, that that should be loosed in heaven which he loosed on earth [John 20:21 quoted]. When we perceive that only they who are set over the Church and established in the Gospel law and in the ordinance of the Lord are allowed to baptize and to give remission of sins, we see that outside of the Church nothing can be bound or loosed, for there there is no one who can either bind or loose anything.

Ch. 21. Can the power of baptism be greater or of more avail than confession, than suffering when one confesses Christ before men, and is baptized in his own blood? And yet, even this baptism does not benefit a heretic, although he has confessed Christ and been put to death outside the Church, unless the patrons and advocates of heretics [i.e., those whom Cyprian is opposing] declare that the heretics who are slain in a false confession of Christ are martyrs, and assign to them the glory and the crown of martyrdom contrary to the testimony of the Apostle, who says that it will profit them nothing although they are burned and slain. But if not even the baptism of a public confession and blood can profit a heretic to salvation, because there is no salvation outside of the Church, how much less shall it benefit him if, in a hiding-place and a cave of robbers stained with the contagion of adulterous waters, he has not only not put off his old sins, but rather heaped up still newer and greater ones! Wherefore baptism cannot be common to us and to heretics, to whom neither God the Father nor Christ the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the faith, nor the Church itself is common. And wherefore they ought to be baptized who come from heresy to the Church, so that they who are prepared and receive the lawful and true and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration for the kingdom of God may be born of both sacraments, because it is written: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” [John 3:5].

Ch. 26. These things, dearest brother, we have briefly written to you according to our modest abilities, prescribing to none and prejudging none, so as to prevent any one of the bishops doing what he thinks well, and having the free exercise of his judgment.

(b) Cyprian, Ep. ad Magnum, Ep. 75 [=69]. (MSL, 3:1183.) Cf. Mirbt, n. 67.

With your usual diligence you have consulted my poor intelligence, dearest son, as to whether, among other heretics, they also who come from Novatian ought, after his profane washing, to be baptized and sanctified in the Catholic Church, with the lawful, true, and only baptism of the Church. In answer to this question, as much as the capacity of my faith and the sanctity and truth of the divine Scriptures suggest, I say that no heretics and schismatics at all have any right to power. For which reason Novatian, since he is without the Church and is acting in opposition to the peace and love of Christ, neither ought to be, nor can be, omitted from being counted among the adversaries and antichrists. For our Lord Jesus Christ, when He declared in His Gospel that those who were not with Him were His adversaries, did not point out any species of heresy, but showed that all who were not with Him, and who were not gathering with Him, were scattering His flock, and were His adversaries, saying: “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth” [Luke 11:23]. Moreover, the blessed Apostle John distinguished no heresy or schism, neither did he set down any specially separated, but he called all who had gone out from the Church, and who acted in opposition to the Church, antichrists, saying, “Ye have heard that Antichrist cometh, and even now are come many antichrists; wherefore we know that this is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us” [I John 2:18 f.]. Whence it appears that all are adversaries of the Lord and are antichrists who are known to have departed from the charity and from the unity of the Catholic Church.

§ 53. The Beginnings of Monasticism

Asceticism in some form is common to almost all religions. It was practised extensively in early Christianity and ascetics of both sexes were numerous. This asceticism, in addition to a life largely devoted to prayer and fasting, was marked by refraining from marriage. But these ascetics lived in close relations with those who were non-ascetics. Monasticism is an advance upon this earlier asceticism in that it attempts to create, apart from non-ascetics, a social order composed only of ascetics in which the ascetic ideals may be more successfully realized. The transition was made by the hermit life in which the ascetic lived alone in deserts and other solitudes. This became monasticism by the union of ascetics for mutual spiritual aid. This advance is associated with St. Anthony. See also Pachomius, in § 77.

Additional source material: Pseudo-Clement. De Virginitate (ANF, VIII, 53); Methodius, Symposium (ANF, VI, 309); the _Lausiac History of Palladius_, E. C. Butler, Texts and Studies, Cambridge, 1898; Paradise, or Garden of the Holy Fathers, trans. by E. A. W. Budge, London, 1907.

Athanasius, Vita S. Antonii, 2-4, 44. (MSG, 26:844, 908.)

Anthony, although not the first hermit, gave such an impetus to the ascetic life and did so much to bring about some union of ascetics that he has been popularly regarded as the founder of monasticism. He died 356, at the age of one hundred and five. His Life, by St. Athanasius, although formerly attacked, is a genuine, and, on the whole, trustworthy account of this remarkable man. It was written either 357 or 365, and was translated into Latin by Evagrius of Antioch (died 393). Everywhere it roused the greatest enthusiasm for monasticism. The Life of St. Paul of Thebes, by St. Jerome, is of very different character, and of no historical value.

Ch. 2. After the death of his parents, Anthony was left alone with one little sister. He was about eighteen or twenty years old, and on him rested the care of both the home and his sister. Now it happened not six months after the death of his parents, and when he was going, according to custom, into the Lord’s house, and was communing with himself, that he reflected as he walked how the Apostles left all and followed the Saviour, and how, in the Acts, men sold their possessions and brought and laid them at the Apostles’ feet for distribution to the needy, and what and how great a hope was laid up for them in heaven. While he was reflecting on these things he entered the church, and it happened that at that time the Gospel was being read, and he heard the Lord say to the rich man: “If thou wouldest be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor; and come and follow me and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.” Anthony, as though God had put him in mind of the saints and the passage had been read on his account, went out straightway from the Lord’s house, and gave the possessions which he had from his forefathers to the villagers—they were three hundred acres, productive and very fair—that they should be no more a clog upon himself and his sister. And all the rest that was movable he sold, and, having got together much money, he gave it to the poor, reserving a little, however, for his sister’s sake.

Ch. 3. And again as he went into the Lord’s house, and hearing the Lord say in the Gospel, “Be not anxious for the morrow,” he could stay no longer, but went and gave also those things to the poor. He then committed his sister to known and faithful virgins, putting her in a convent [parthenon], to be brought up, and henceforth he devoted himself outside his house to ascetic discipline, taking heed to himself and training himself patiently. For there were not yet many monasteries in Egypt, and no monk at all knew of the distant desert; but every one of those who wished to give heed to themselves practised the ascetic discipline in solitude near his own village. Now there was in the next village an old man who had lived from his youth the life of a hermit. Anthony, after he had seen this man, imitated him in piety. And at first he began to abide in places outside the village. Then, if he heard of any good man anywhere, like the prudent bee, he went forth and sought him, nor did he turn back to his own place until he had seen him; and he returned, having got from the good man supplies, as it were, for his journey in the way of virtue. So dwelling there at first, he steadfastly held to his purpose not to return to the abode of his parents or to the remembrance of his kinsfolk; but to keep all his desire and energy for the perfecting of his discipline. He worked, however, with his hands, having heard that “he who is idle, let him not eat,” and part he spent on bread and part he gave to the needy. And he prayed constantly, because he had learned that a man ought to pray in secret unceasingly. For he had given such heed to what was read that none of those things that were written fell from him to the ground; for he remembered all, and afterward his memory served him for books.

Ch. 4. Thus conducting himself, Anthony was beloved by all. He subjected himself in sincerity to the good men he visited, and learned thoroughly wherein each surpassed him in zeal and discipline. He observed the graciousness of one, the unceasing prayer of another; he took knowledge of one’s freedom from anger, and another’s kindliness; he gave heed to one as he watched, to another as he studied; one he admired for his endurance, another for his fasting and sleeping on the ground; he watched the meekness of one, and the long-suffering of another; and at the same time he noted the piety toward Christ and the mutual love which animated all.

Athanasius describes Anthony’s removal to the desert and the coming of disciples to him, and weaves into his narrative, in the form of a speech, a long account of the discipline laid down, probably by Anthony himself, chs. 16-43. It is to this long speech that the opening words of the following section refers.

Ch. 44. While Anthony was thus speaking all rejoiced; in some the love of virtue increased, in others carelessness was thrown aside, the self-conceit of others was stopped; and all were persuaded to despise the assaults of the Evil One, and marvelled at the grace given Anthony from the Lord for the discerning of spirits. So their cells were in the mountains, like tabernacles filled with holy bands of men who sang psalms, loved reading, fasted, prayed, rejoiced in the hope of things to come, labored in almsgiving, and maintained love and harmony with one another. And truly it was possible to behold a land, as it were, set by itself, filled with piety and justice. For then there was neither the evil-doer nor the injured, nor the reproaches of the tax-gatherer; but instead a multitude of ascetics, and the one purpose of all was to aim at virtue. So that one beholding the cells again and seeing such good order among the monks would lift up his voice and say: “How goodly are thy dwellings, O Jacob, and thy tents, O Israel; as shady glens and as a garden by a river; as tents which the Lord has pitched, and like cedars near the waters” [Num. 24:5, 6].

Ch. 45. Anthony, however, returned, according to his custom, alone to his cell, increased his discipline, and sighed daily as he thought of the mansions of heaven, having his desire fixed on them and pondering over the shortness of man’s life.

§ 54. Manichæanism

The last great rival religion to Christianity was Manichæanism, the last of the important syncretistic religions which drew from Persian and allied sources. Its connection with Christianity was at first slight and its affinities were with Eastern Gnosticism. After 280 it began to spread within the Empire, and was soon opposed by the Roman authorities. Yet it flourished, and, like other Gnostic religions, with which it is to be classed, it assimilated more and more of Christianity, until in the time of Augustine it seemed to many as merely a form of Christianity. On account of its general character, it absorbed for the most part what remained of the earlier Gnostic systems and schools.

Additional source material: The most important accessible works are the so-called Acta Archelai (ANF, V, 175-235), the anti-Manichæan writings of Augustine (PNF, ser. I, vol. IV), and Alexander of Lycopolis, On the Manichæans (ANF, VI, 239). On Alexander of Lycopolis, see DCB. In the opinion of Bardenhewer, Alexander was probably neither a bishop nor a Christian at all, but a heathen and a Platonist. Roman edict against Manichæanism in Kirch, n. 294.

An Nadim, Fihrist. (Translation after Kessler, Mani, 1889.)

The Fihrist, i.e., Catalogue, is a sort of history of literature made in the eleventh century by the Moslem historian An Nadim. In spite of its late date, it is the most important authority for the original doctrines of Mani and the facts of his life, as it is largely made up from citations from ancient authors and writings of Mani and his original disciples.

(a) The Life of Mani.

Mohammed ibn Isak says: Mani was the son of Fatak,(84) of the family of the Chaskanier. Ecbatana is said to have been the original home of his father, from which he emigrated to the province of Babylon. He took up his residence in Al Madain, in a portion of the city known as Ctesiphon. In that place was an idol’s temple, and Fatak was accustomed to go into it, as did also the other people of the place. It happened one day that a voice sounded forth from the sacred interior of the temple, saying to him: “Fatak, eat no flesh, drink no wine and refrain from carnal intercourse.” This was repeated to him several times on three days. When Fatak perceived this, he joined a society of people in the neighborhood of Dastumaisan which were known under the name of Al-Mogtasilah, i.e., those who wash themselves, baptists, and of whom remnants are to be found in these parts and in the marshy districts at the present time. These belonged to that mode of life which Fatak had been commanded to follow. His wife was at that time pregnant with Mani, and when she had given him birth she had, as they say, glorious visions regarding him, and even when she was awake she saw him taken by some one unseen, who bore him aloft into the air, and then brought him down again; sometimes he remained even a day or two before he came down again. Thereupon his father sent for him and had him brought to the place where he was, and so he was brought up with him in his religion. Mani, in spite of his youthful age, spake words of wisdom. After he had completed his twelfth year there came to him, according to his statement, a revelation from the King of the Paradise of Light, who is God the Exalted, as he said. The angel which brought him the revelation was called Eltawan; this name means “the Companion.” He spoke to Mani, and said: “Separate thyself from this sort of faith, for thou belongest not among its adherents, and it is obligatory upon you to practise continence and to forsake the fleshly desires, yet on account of thy youth the time has not come for thee to take up thy public work.” But when he was twenty-four years old, Eltawan appeared to him and said: “Hail, Mani, from me and from the Lord who has sent me to thee and has chosen thee to be his prophet. He commands thee now to proclaim thy truth and on my announcement to proclaim the truth which is from him and to throw thyself into this calling with all thy zeal.”

The Manichæans say: He first openly entered upon his work on the day when Sapor, the son of Ardaschir, entered upon his reign, and placed the crown upon his head; and this was Sunday, the first day of Nisan (March 20, 241), when the sun stood in the sign Aries. He was accompanied by two men, who had already attached themselves to his religion; one was called Simeon, the other Zakwa; besides these, his father accompanied him, to see how his affairs would turn out.

Mani said he was the Paraclete, whom Jesus, of blessed memory,(85) had previously announced. Mani took the elements of his doctrine from the religion of the Magi and Christianity.… Before he met Sapor Mani had spent about forty years in foreign lands.(86) Afterward he converted Peroz, the brother of Sapor, and Peroz procured him an audience with his brother Sapor. The Manichæans relate: He thereupon entered where he was and on his shoulders were shining, as it were, two candles. When Sapor perceived him, he was filled with reverence for him, and he appeared great in his eyes; although he previously had determined to seize him and put him to death. After he had met him, therefore, the fear of him filled him, he rejoiced over him and asked him why he had come and promised to become his disciple. Mani requested of him a number of things, among them that his followers might be unmolested in the capital and in the other territories of the Persian Empire, and that they might extend themselves whither they wished in the provinces. Sapor granted him all he asked.

Mani had already preached in India, China, and among the inhabitants of Turkestan, and in every land he left behind him disciples.(87)

(b) The Teaching of Mani.

The following extract from the same work gives but the beginning of an extended statement of Mani’s teaching. But it is hoped that enough is given to show the mythological character of his speculation. The bulk of his doctrine was Persian and late Babylonian, and the Christian element was very slight. It is clear from the writings of St. Augustine that the doctrine changed much in later years in the West.

The doctrine of Mani, especially his dogmas of the Eternal, to whom be praise and glory, of the creation of the world and the contest between Light and Darkness: Mani put at the beginning of the world two eternal principles. Of these one is Light, the other Darkness. They are separated from each other. As to the Light, this is the First, the Mighty One, and the Infinite. He is the Deity, the King of the Paradise of Light. He has five members or attributes, namely, gentleness, wisdom, understanding, discretion, and insight; and further five members or attributes, namely, love, faith, truth, bravery, and wisdom. He asserts that God was from all eternity with these attributes. Together with the Light-God there are two other things from eternity, the air and the earth.

Mani teaches further: The members of the air, or the Light-Ether, are five: gentleness, wisdom, understanding, discretion, and insight. The members of the Light-Earth are the soft gentle breath, the wind, the light, the water, and the fire. As to the other Original Being, the Darkness, its members are also five: the vapor, the burning heat, the fiery wind, the poison, and the darkness.

This bright shining Primal Being was in immediate proximity with the dark Primal Being, so that no wall of partition was between them and the Light touched the Darkness on its broad side. The Light is unlimited in its height, and also to the right hand and to the left; the Darkness, however, is unlimited in its depth, and also to the right hand and to the left.

From this Dark-Earth rose Satan, not so that he himself was without beginning, although his parts were in their elements without beginning. These parts joined themselves together from the elements and formed themselves into Satan. His head was like that of a lion, his trunk like that of a dragon, his wings as those of a bird, his tail like that of a great fish, and his four feet like the feet of creeping things. When this Satan had been formed from the Darkness—his name is the First Devil—then he began to devour and to swallow up and to ruin, to move about to the right and to the left, and to get down into the deep, so that he continually brought ruin and destruction to every one who attempted to overmaster him. Next he hastened up on high and perceived the rays of light, but felt an aversion to them. Then when he saw how these rays by reciprocal influence and contact were increased in brilliancy, he became afraid and crept together into himself, member by member, and withdrew for union and strengthening back to his original constituent parts. Now once more he hastened back into the height, and the Light-Earth noticed the action of Satan and his purpose to seize and to attack and to destroy. But when she perceived this thereupon the world æon of Insight perceived it, then the æon of Wisdom, the æon of Discretion, the æon of the Understanding, and then the æon of Gentleness. Thereupon the King of the Paradise of Light perceived it and reflected on means to gain the mastery over him. His armies were indeed mighty enough to overcome him; he had the wish, however, to accomplish this himself. Therefore he begat with the spirit of his right hand, with the five æons, and with his twelve elements a creature, and that was the Primal Man, and him he sent to the conquest of Darkness.(88)

V. The Last Great Persecution

The last of the persecutions was closely connected with the increased efficiency of the imperial administration after a period of anarchy, and was more effective because of the greater centralization of the government which Diocletian had introduced (§ 55). It was preceded by a number of minor persecuting regulations, but broke forth in its full fury in 303, raging for nearly ten years (§ 56). It was by far the most severe of all persecutions, in extent and duration and severity surpassing that of Decius and Valerian. As in that persecution, very many suffered severely, still more lapsed, unprepared for suffering, as many were in the previous persecution, and the Church was again rent with dissensions and schisms arising over the question of the administration of discipline.

§ 55. The Reorganization of the Empire by Diocletian

After a period of anarchy Diocletian (284-305) undertook a reorganization of the Empire for the sake of greater efficiency. Following a precedent of earlier successful emperors, he shared (285) the imperial authority with a colleague, Maximianus, who in 286 became Augustus of the West. As the greatest danger seemed to lie in the East, Diocletian retained the Eastern part of the Empire, and having already abandoned Rome as the imperial residence (284), he settled in Nicomedia in Bithynia. To provide for a succession to the throne more efficient than the chance succession of natural heirs, two Cæsars were appointed in 293, Constantius Chlorus for the West, and Galerius, the son-in-law of Diocletian, for the East. Constantius at once became the son-in-law of Maximianus. These Cæsars were to ascend the throne when the Augusti resigned after twenty years’ reign. The scheme worked temporarily for greater efficiency, but ended in civil war as the claims of natural heirs were set aside in favor of an artificial dynasty. At the same time the system bore heavily upon the people and the prosperity of the Empire rapidly declined.

Bibliography in Cambridge Medieval History, London and New York, 1911, vol. I.

Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum, 7. (MSL, 7:204.)

When Diocletian, the author of crimes and deviser of evils, was ruining all things, not even from against God could he withhold his hand. This man, partly by avarice and partly by timidity, overturned the world. For he made three persons sharers with him in the government. The Empire was divided into four parts, and armies were multiplied, since each of the four princes strove to have a much larger military force than any emperor had had when one emperor alone carried on the government. There began to be a greater number of those who received taxes than of those who paid them; so that the means of the husbandmen were exhausted by enormous impositions, the fields were abandoned, and cultivated grounds became woodlands, and universal dismay prevailed. Besides, the provinces were divided into minute portions and many presidents and prefects lay heavy on each territory, and almost on every city. There were many stewards and masters and deputy presidents, before whom very few civil causes came, but only condemnations and frequent forfeitures, and exactions of numberless commodities, and I will not say often repeated, but perpetual and intolerable, wrongs in the exacting of them.

§ 56. The Diocletian Persecution

The last great persecution was preceded by a number of laws aimed to annoy the Christians. On March 12, 295, all soldiers in the army were ordered to offer sacrifice. In 296 sacred books of the Christians were sought for and burnt at Alexandria. In 297 or 298 Christian persecutions began in the army, but the great persecution itself broke out in 303, as described below. Among other reasons for energetic measures in which Galerius took the lead, appears to have been that prince’s desire to establish the unity of the Empire upon a religious basis, which is borne out by his attempts to reorganize the heathen worship immediately after the cessation of the persecution. In April, 311, the edict of Galerius, known as the Edict of the Three Emperors, put an official end to the persecution. In parts of the Empire, however, small persecutions took place and the authorities attempted to attack Christianity without actually carrying on persecutions, as in the wide-spread dissemination of the infamous “Acts of Pilate,” which were posted on walls and spread through the schools. In the territories of Constantius Chlorus the persecution had been very light, and there was none under Constantine who favored Christians from the first.

Additional source material: Eusebius, Hist. Ec., VIII, and IX, 9; his little work On the Martyrs of Palestine will be found after the eighth book. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum. The principal texts will be found in Preuschen’s Analecta, I, §§ 20, 21; see also R. Knopf, Ausgewählte Märtyreracten.

(a) Lactantius. De Mortibus Persecutorum, 12 ff. (MSL. 7:213.)

The outbreak of the persecution.

A fit and auspicious day was sought for the accomplishment of this undertaking [i.e., the persecution of the Christians]; and the festival of the great god Terminus, celebrated on the seventh calends of March [Feb. 23], was chosen, to put an end, as it were, to this religion,

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

and cause of evils which befell not only the Christians but the whole world. When that day dawned, in the eighth consulship of Diocletian and seventh of Maximianus, suddenly, while it was hardly light, the prefect, together with the chief commanders, tribunes, and officers of the treasury, came to the church [in Nicomedia], and when the gates had been forced open they sought for an image of God. The books of the Holy Scriptures were found and burnt; the spoil was given to all. Rapine, confusion, and tumult reigned. Since the church was situated on rising ground, and was visible from the palace, Diocletian and Galerius stood there as if on a watch-tower and disputed long together whether it ought to be set on fire. The opinion of Diocletian prevailed, for he feared lest, when so great a fire should once be started, the city might be burnt; for many and large buildings surrounded the church on all sides. Then the prætorian guard, in battle array, came with axes and other iron instruments, and having been let loose everywhere, in a few hours they levelled that very lofty building to the ground.

Ch. 13. Next day the edict was published ordaining that men of the Christian religion should be deprived of all honors and dignities; and also that they should be subjected to torture, of whatsoever rank or position they might be; and that every suit of law should be entertained against them; but they, on the other hand, could not bring any suit for any wrong, adultery, or theft; and finally, that they should have neither freedom nor the right of suffrage. A certain person, although not properly, yet with a brave soul, tore down this edict and cut it up, saying in derision: “These are the triumphs of Goths and Samaritans.” Having been brought to judgment, he was not only tortured, but was burnt in the legal manner, and with admirable patience he was consumed to ashes.

Ch. 14. But Galerius was not satisfied with the terms of the edict, and sought another way to gain over the Emperor. That he might urge him to excess of cruelty in persecution, he employed private agents to set the palace on fire; and when some part of it had been burnt the Christians were accused as public enemies, and the very appellation of Christian grew odious on account of its connection with the fire in the palace. It was said that the Christians, in concert with the eunuchs, had plotted to destroy the princes, and that both the emperors had well-nigh been burnt alive in their own palace. Diocletian, who always wanted to appear shrewd and intelligent, suspecting nothing of the deception, but inflamed with anger, began immediately to torture all his domestics.

(b) Eusebius, Hist. Ec., VIII, 2; 6: 8. (MSG, 20:753.)

The edicts of Diocletian.

The first passage occurs, with slight variations, in the introduction to the work On the Martyrs of Palestine.

Ch. 2. It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, in the month Dystus, called March by the Romans, when the feast of the Saviour’s passion was near at hand, that royal edicts were published everywhere commanding that the churches be levelled to the ground, the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and all holding places of honor be branded with infamy, and that the household servants, if they persisted in the profession of Christianity, be deprived of their freedom.

Such was the original edict against us. But not long after other decrees were issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches everywhere should be first thrown into prison, and afterward compelled by every means to sacrifice.

Ch. 6:8. Such things occurred in Nicomedia at the beginning of the persecution. But not long after, as persons in the country called Melitina and others throughout Syria attempted to usurp the government, a royal edict commanded that the rulers of the churches everywhere be thrown into prison and bonds. What was to be seen after this exceeds all description. A vast multitude were imprisoned in every place; and the prisons everywhere, which had long before been prepared for murderers and grave-robbers, were filled with bishops, presbyters and deacons, readers and exorcists, so that room was no longer left in them for those condemned for crimes. And as other decrees followed the first, directing that those in prison, if they sacrificed, should be permitted to depart from the prison in freedom, but that those who refused should be harassed with many tortures, how could any one again number the multitude of martyrs in every province, and especially those in Africa and Mauretania, and Thebais and Egypt?

(c) Edict of Galerius, A.D. 311. Eusebius, Hist. Ec., VIII. 17. (MSG, 20:792.) Cf. Preuschen, Analecta, I, § 21:5.

This may also be found in Lactantius. De Mortibus Persecutorum, ch. 34. It is known as the “Edict of Three Emperors,” as it was issued from Nicomedia in the name of Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius. The date is April 30, 311. By it the persecution was not wholly ended. Galerius died in the next month, but Maximinus Daza resumed the persecution. There was for six months, however, some mitigation of the persecutions in the East, granted at the request of Constantine.

Amongst our other measures, which we are always making for the use and profit of the commonwealth, we have hitherto endeavored to bring all things into conformity with the ancient laws and public order of the Romans, and to bring it about also that the Christians, who have abandoned the religion of their ancestors, should return to sound reason. For in some way such wilfulness has seized the Christians and such folly possessed them that they do not follow those constitutions of the ancients, which peradventure their own ancestors first established, but entirely according to their own judgment and as it pleased them they were making such laws for themselves as they would observe, and in different places were assembling various sorts of people. In short, when our command was issued that they were to betake themselves to the institutions of the ancients, many of them were subdued by danger, many also were ruined. Yet when great numbers of them held to their determination, and we saw that they neither gave worship and due reverence to the gods nor yet regarded the God of the Christians, we therefore, mindful of our most mild clemency and of the unbroken custom whereby we are accustomed to grant pardon to all men, have thought that in this case also speediest indulgence ought to be granted to them, that the Christians might exist again and might establish their gatherings, yet so that they do nothing contrary to good order. By another letter we shall signify to magistrates how they are to proceed. Wherefore, in accordance with this our indulgence, they ought to pray their God for our good estate, for that of the commonwealth, and for their own, that the commonwealth may endure on every side unharmed and that they may be able to live securely in their own homes.

(d) Constantine, Edict of Milan, A. D. 313, in Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum, 48. (MSL, 7:267.) See also Eusebius. Hist. Ec., X, 5:2. (MSG, 20:880.)

The so-called Edict of Milan, granting toleration to the Christians, is not the actual edict, but a letter addressed to a prefect and referring to the edict, which probably was much briefer. The following passage is translated from the emended text of Lactantius, as given in Preuschen, op. cit., I, § 22:4.

When I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, had happily met together at Milan, and were having under consideration all things which concern the advantage and security of the State, we thought that, among other things which seemed likely to profit men generally, we ought, in the very first place, to set in order the conditions of the reverence paid to the Divinity by giving to the Christians and all others full permission to follow whatever worship any man had chosen; whereby whatever divinity there is in heaven may be benevolent and propitious to us, and to all placed under our authority. Therefore we thought we ought, with sound counsel and very right reason, to lay down this law, that we should in no way refuse to any man any legal right who has given up his mind either to the observance of Christianity or to that worship which he personally feels best suited to himself; to the end that the Supreme Divinity, whose worship we freely follow, may continue in all things to grant us his accustomed favor and good-will. Wherefore your devotion should know that it is our pleasure that all provisions whatsoever which have appeared in documents hitherto directed to your office regarding Christians and which appeared utterly improper and opposed to our clemency should be abolished, and that every one of those men who have the same wish to observe Christian worship may now freely and unconditionally endeavor to observe the same without any annoyance or molestation. These things we thought it well to signify in the fullest manner to your carefulness, that you might know that we have given free and absolute permission to the said Christians to practise their worship. And when you perceive that we have granted this to the said Christians, your devotion understands that to others also a similarly full and free permission for their own worship and observance is granted, for the quiet of our times, so that every man may have freedom in the practice of whatever worship he has chosen. And these things were done by us that nothing be taken away from any honor or form of worship. Moreover, in regard to the Christians, we have thought fit to ordain this also, that if any appear to have bought, either from our exchequer or from others, the places in which they were accustomed formerly to assemble, and concerning which definite orders have been given before now, and that by letters sent to your office, the same be restored to the Christians, setting aside all delay and dispute, without payment or demand of price. Those also who have obtained them by gift shall restore them in like manner without delay to the said Christians; and those, moreover, who have bought them, as well as those who have obtained them by gift, if they request anything of our benevolence, they shall apply to the deputy that order may be taken for them too by our clemency. All these must be delivered over at once and without delay by your intervention to the corporation of the Christians. And since the same Christians are known to have possessed not only the places where they are accustomed to assemble, but also others belonging to their corporation, namely, to the churches and not to individuals, all these by the law which we have described above you will order to be restored without any doubtfulness or dispute to the said Christians—that is, to their said corporations and assemblies; provided always, as aforesaid, that those who restore them without price, as we said, shall expect a compensation from our benevolence. In all these things you must give the aforesaid Christians your most effective intervention, that our command may be fulfilled as soon as may be, and that in this matter also order may be taken by our clemency for the public quiet. And may it be, as already said, that the divine favor which we have already experienced in so many affairs, shall continue for all time to give us prosperity and successes, together with happiness for the State. But that it may be possible for the nature of this decree and of our benevolence to come to the knowledge of all men, it will be your duty by a proclamation of your own to publish everywhere and bring to the notice of all men this present document when it reaches you, that the decree of this our benevolence may not be hidden.

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

The Diocletian persecution and its various continuations, on account of the severity of the persecution and its great extent, seriously strained the organization of the Church for a time, and in at least three important Church centres gave rise to schisms, of which two were of some duration. The causes for these schisms, as in the case of the schisms connected with the Decian persecution, are to be found in the confusion caused by the enforced absence of bishops from their sees and in the administration of discipline. In the latter point the activity of the confessors no longer plays any part, as the authority of the bishops in the various communities is now undisputed by rival. It was a question of greater or less rigor in readmitting the lapsed to the communion of the Church. For the canons of discipline in force in Alexandria, see the Canonical Epistle of Peter of Alexandria, ANF, VI, 269 ff. (MSG, 18:467.) They were regarded by the rigorist party in Alexandria as too lax. Of the three schisms known to have arisen from the Diocletian persecution, that in Alexandria is known as the Meletian schism, and three selections are given bearing on it. For the proposals of the Council of Nicæa to bring about a settlement and union, see the Epistle of the Synod of Nicæa, Socrates, Hist. Ec., I, 9 (given below, § 61, II, b). The schism continued until the fifth century. The schism at Rome, known as the schism of Heraclius, was much less important. It was caused by the party advocating greater laxity in discipline, and was for a time difficult to deal with on account of long vacancies in the Roman episcopate. The duration of the schism could not have been long, but the solution of the questions raised by it is unknown. In fact, the history of the Roman church is exceedingly obscure in the half-century preceding the Council of Nicæa. The third schism, that of the Donatists in North Africa, which broke out in Carthage, was the most considerable in the Church before the schisms arising from the christological controversies. For the Donatist schism, see §§ 61, 67, 72.

(a) Epistle of Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas to Meletius. (MSG, 10:1565.)

The Meletian schism.

The following epistle was written in the name of these four bishops, probably by Phileas, bishop of Thmuis, one of the number, to Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis. The four were in prison when it was written. It is the most important document bearing on the schism, and is important as setting forth the generally accepted legal opinion of the time regarding ordination and the authority of bishops. The document exists only in a Latin translation from a Greek original, and appears to form, with the two following fragments, a continuous narrative, possibly a history of the Church, but nothing further is known of it. For an account of the Meletian schism see Socrates, Hist. Ec., 1, 6 ff. The text of these selections bearing on the Meletian schism is to be found in Routh, op. cit., IV, 91 ff.

Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas to Meletius, our friend and fellow-minister in the Lord, greeting. In simple faith, regarding as uncertain the things which have been heard concerning thee, since some have come to us and certain things are reported foreign to divine order and ecclesiastical rule which are being attempted, yea, rather, which are being done by thee, we were not willing to credit them when we thought of the audacity implied by their magnitude, and we thought that they were uncertain attempts. But since so many coming to us at the present time have lent some credibility to these reports, and have not hesitated to attest them as facts, we, greatly astonished, have been compelled to write this letter to thee. And what agitation and sadness have been caused to us all in common and to each of us individually by the ordination performed by thee in parishes not pertaining to thee, we are unable sufficiently to express. We have not delayed, however, by a short statement, to prove thy practice wrong.

In the law of our fathers and forefathers, of which thou also art not thyself ignorant, it is established, according to the divine and ecclesiastical order (for it is all for the good pleasure of God and the zealous regard for better things), that it has been determined and settled by them that it is not lawful for any bishop to perform ordinations in other parishes than his own. This law is exceedingly important and wisely devised. For, in the first place, it is but right that the conversation and life of those who are ordained should be examined with great care; and, in the second place, that all confusion and turbulence should be done away with. For every one shall have enough to do in managing his own parish, and in finding, with great care and many anxieties, suitable subordinates among those with whom he has passed his whole life, and who have been trained under his hands. But thou, considering none of these things, nor regarding the future, nor considering the law of our holy Fathers and those who have put on Christ in long succession, nor the honor of our great bishop and father, Peter,(89) on whom we all depend in the hope which we have in the Lord Jesus Christ, nor softened by our imprisonments and trials, and daily and multiplied reproaches, nor the oppressions and distress of all, hast ventured on subverting all things at once. And what means will be left for thee for justifying thyself with respect to these things?

But perhaps thou wilt say, I did this to prevent many from being drawn away with the unbelief of many, because the flocks were in need and forsaken, there being no pastor with them. Well, but it is most certain that they were in no such destitution; in the first place, because there were many going among them and able to visit them; and, in the second place, even it there were some things neglected by them, representation should have come from the people, and we should have duly considered the matter. But they knew that they were in no want of ministers, and therefore they did not come to seek thee. They knew that either we were wont to warn them from such complaint or there was done, with all carefulness, what seemed profitable; for it was done under correction and all was considered with well-approved honesty. Thou, however, giving such careful attention to the deceits of certain men and their vain words,(90) hast, as it were, stealthily leaped forward to the performance of ordinations. For if, indeed, those accompanying thee constrained thee to this and compelled thee and were ignorant of the ecclesiastical order, thou oughtest to have followed the rule and have informed us by letter; and in that way what seemed expedient would have been done. And if perchance some persuaded thee to credit their story, who said to thee that it was all over with us—a matter which could not have been unknown to thee, because there were many passing and repassing by us who might visit thee—even if this had been so, yet oughtest thou to have waited for the judgment of the superior father and his allowance of this thing. But thinking nothing of these matters, and hoping something different, or rather having no care for us, thou hast provided certain rulers for the people. For now we learn that there are also divisions, because thy unwarrantable ordination displeased many.

And thou wert not readily persuaded to delay such procedure or restrain thy purpose, no, not even by the word of the Apostle Paul, the most blessed seer and the man who put on Christ, the Apostle of us all; for he, in writing to his dearly loved Timothy, says: “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins.” [I Tim. 5:22.] And thus he at once shows his own consideration of him, and gives his example and exhibits the law according to which, with all carefulness and caution, candidates are chosen for the honor of ordination. We make this declaration to thee, that in the future thou mayest study to keep within the safe and salutary limits of the law.

(b) Fragment on the Meletian Schism. (MSG, 10:1567.)

For the connection of the Meletians with Arianism, see Socrates, Hist. Ec., I, 6. Text in Routh, op. cit., IV, 94.

Meletius received and read this epistle, and he neither wrote a reply, nor repaired to them in prison, nor went to the blessed Peter [bishop of Alexandria]. But when all these bishops, presbyters, and deacons had suffered in the prison,(91) he at once entered Alexandria. Now in that city there was a certain person, Isidorus by name, turbulent in character, and possessed with the ambition of being a teacher. And there was also a certain Arius, who wore the habit of piety and was in like manner possessed with the ambition of being a teacher. And when they discovered the object of Meletius’s passion and what it was he sought, hastening to him and regarding with malice the episcopal authority of the blessed Peter, that the aim and desire of Meletius might be made manifest, they discovered to Meletius certain presbyters, then in hiding, to whom the blessed Peter had given authority to act as diocesan visitors for Alexandria. And Meletius, recommending them to improve the opportunity given them for rectifying their error, suspended them for a time, and by his authority ordained two persons in their places, one of whom was in prison and the other in the mines. On learning these things, the blessed Peter, with much endurance, wrote to the people of Alexandria in the following terms. [See next selection.]

(c) Peter of Alexandria. Epistle to the Church in Alexandria. (MSG, 18:510.)

For Peter of Alexandria, see DCB. Peter was in hiding when he wrote the following to the Alexandrian church in 306. He died 312 as a martyr.

Peter to the brethren in the Lord, beloved and established in the faith of God, peace. Since I have discovered that Meletius acts in no way for the common good, for he does not approve the letter of the most holy bishops and martyrs, and invading my parish, has assumed so much to himself as to endeavor to separate from my authority the priests and those who had been intrusted with visiting the needy, and, giving proof of his desire for pre-eminence, has ordained in the prison several unto himself; now take ye heed to this and hold no communion with him, until I meet him in company with some wise men, and see what designs they are which he has thought upon. Fare ye well.

(d) Epitaph of Eusebius, Bishop of Rome. Cf. Kirch, n. 534.

Schism of Heraclius.

The following epitaph was placed on the tomb of Eusebius, bishop of Rome (April 18 to August 17, 310 A. D.), by Damasus, bishop of Rome (366-384.)

I, Damasus, have made this: Heraclius forbade the fallen to lament their sin, Eusebius taught the wretched ones to weep for their crimes. The people was divided into parties by the increasing madness. Sedition, bloodshed, war, discord, strife arose. At once they were equally smitten by the ferocity of the tyrant.(92) Although the guide of the Church(93) maintained intact the bonds of peace. He endured exile joyful under the Lord as judge, And gave up this earthly life on the Trinacrian shore.(94)

THE SECOND DIVISION OF ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY: THE CHURCH UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE: FROM 312 TO CIRCA 750

The second division of the history of ancient Christianity, or Christianity under the influence of the Græco-Roman type of culture, begins with the sole rule of Constantine, A. D. 324, or his sole reign in the West, A. D. 312, and extends to the beginning of the Middle Ages, or that period in which the Germanic nations assumed the leading rôle in the political life of western Europe. The end of this division of Church history may be placed, at the latest, about the middle of the eighth century, as the time when the authority of the Eastern Empire ceased to affect materially the fortunes of the West. But it is impossible to name any year or reign or political event as of such outstanding importance as to make it a terminus ad quem for the division which will command the suffrages of all as the boundary between the ancient and the mediæval epochs of history.

The second division of ancient Christianity may be subdivided into three periods:

I. The Imperial State Church of the Undivided Empire, or until the Death of Theodosius the Great, or to 395.

II. The Church in the Divided Empire until the Collapse of the Western Empire and the Schism between the East and the West arising out of the Monophysite Controversies, or to circa 500.

III. The Dissolution of the Imperial Church of the West and the Transition to the Middle Ages.

In the third period are to be placed the beginnings of the Middle Ages, as the German invaders had long before 500 established their kingdoms and had begun to dominate the affairs of the West. But the connection of the Church of the West, or rather of Italy, with the East was long so close that the condition of the Church is more that of a dissolution of the ancient imperial State Church than of a building up of the mediæval Church. At the same time, the transition to the Middle Ages, so far as the Church is concerned at least, takes place under the influence of the ancient tradition, and institutions are established in which the leading elements, taken from ancient life, are not yet transformed by Germanic ideas. The East knew no Middle Age. For a history of the Eastern Church other divisions would have to be made, but in a history in which, for practical reasons, the development is traced in Western Christianity, the affairs of the Eastern Church must be treated as subordinate to those of Western Christianity.

For the second division of the history of ancient Christianity, the principal sources available in English are the translations in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Ph. Schaff and H. Wace. The First Series of this collection (PNF, ser. I) contains the principal works of Augustine and Chrysostom. The Second Series (PNF, ser. II) is for historical study even more valuable, and gives, generally with very able introductions and excellent bibliographies, the most important works of many of the leading patristic writers, including the principal ecclesiastical historians, as well as Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Rufinus, Cassian, Vincent of Lérins, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, and others. These translations are in part fresh versions, and in part older versions but slightly, if at all, revised, taken from the Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church anterior to the Division of the East and West, Oxford, 1838, et seq.

For the period before the outbreak of the great christological controversies, the ecclesiastical historians are of great value. There are no less than four continuations of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius accessible: the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, 324-439 (ed. R. Hussey, Oxford, 1853); of Sozomen, 324-425 (ed. R. Hussey, Oxford, 1860); of Rufinus, 324-395, which is appended to a Latin version or rather revised and “edited” Latin version of Eusebius; of Theodoret, 323-428 (ed. Gaisford, Oxford, 1854). Fragments of the Ecclesiastical History of the Arian Philostorgius, from the appearance of Arius as a teacher until 423, have been translated and are to be found in Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library. For the period after the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, there is no such abundance, but Evagrius, of whose history (ed. Parmentier and Bidez, London, 1898) there is a translation in Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library, though not in PNF, is of great value as he gives many original documents; and a portion of the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus (trans. by R. P. Smith, Oxford, 1860) carries the history to about 600. There are also works devoted to the history of the West by Gregory of Tours, the Venerable Bede, and Paulus Diaconus, and others of the greatest value for the third period of this division. They will be mentioned in their place.

As the series of the great church councils begins with the Christian Empire, the History of the Councils, by Hefele, becomes indispensable to the student of ecclesiastical history, not only for its narrative but for the sources epitomized or given in full. It has been translated into English as far as the close of the eighth century, or well into the beginnings of the history of the mediæval Church. The new French translation should be used if possible as it contains valuable additional notes. In connection with Hefele may be used:

Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, in PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV.

Wm. Bright, _Notes on the Canons of the First Four General __ Councils_, 1882, should be consulted for this period. Bruns, op. cit., and Lauchert, op. cit., give texts only.

The two great collections of secular laws are:

Codex Theodosianus, ed. Mommsen and Meyer, Berlin, 1905.

Corpus Juris Civilis, ed. Krüger, Mommsen, Schoell, and Knoll, Berlin, 1899-1902.

The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. I, 1912, covers the period beginning with Constantine and extending to the beginning of the fifth century. It contains valuable bibliographies of a more discriminating character than those in the Cambridge Modern History, and render bibliographical references unnecessary. To this the student is accordingly referred for such matters. The second volume of this work will cover the period 500-850.

Period I: The Imperial State Church Of The Undivided Empire, Or Until The Death Of Theodosius The Great, 395

The history of the Church in the first period of the second division of the history of ancient Christianity has to deal primarily with three lines of development, viz.: first, the relation of the Church to the imperial authority and the religious forces of the times, whereby the Church became established as the sole authorized religion of the Empire, and heathenism and heresy were prohibited by law; secondly, the development of the doctrinal system of the Church until the end of the Arian controversy, whereby the full and eternal deity of the Son was established as the Catholic faith; thirdly, the development of the constitution, the fixation of the leading ecclesiastical conceptions, and the adaptation of the system of the Church to the practical needs of the times. The entire period may be divided into two main parts by the reign of Julian the Apostate (361-363); and the reign of Constantine as Emperor of the West (312-324) may be regarded as a prelude to the main part of the history. On the death of Theodosius the Great in 395, the Empire became permanently divided, and though in the second period the courses of the Church in the East and in the West may be treated to some extent together, yet the fortunes, interests, and problems of the two divisions of the Church begin to diverge.

I. The Church And Empire Under Constantine

Constantine was the heir to the political system of Diocletian. The same line of development was followed by him and his sons, and with increasing severity the burden pressed upon the people. But the Church, which had been fiercely persecuted by Diocletian and Galerius, became the object of imperial favor under Constantine. At the same time in many parts of the Empire, especially in the West, the heathen religion was rooted in the affections of the people and everywhere it was bound up with the forms of state. The new problems that confronted Constantine on his accession to sole authority in the West, and still more when he became sole Emperor, were of an ecclesiastical rather than a civil character. In the administration of the Empire he followed the lines laid down by Diocletian (§ 58). But in favoring the Church he had to avoid alienating the heathen majority. This he did by gradually and cautiously extending to the Church privileges which the heathen religion had enjoyed (§ 59), and with the utmost caution repressing those elements in heathenism which might be plausibly construed as inimical to the new order in the state (§ 60). At the same time, Constantine found in the application of his policy to actual conditions that he could not favor every religious sect that assumed the name of Christian. He must distinguish between claimants of his bounty. He must also bring about a unity in the Church where it had been threatened (§ 61), and repress what might lead to schism. Accordingly he found himself, immediately after his accession to sole authority, engaged in ecclesiastical discussions and adjudicating by councils ecclesiastical cases (§ 62).

§ 58. The Empire under Constantine and His Sons

Constantine became sole Emperor of the West, 312, and by the defeat of Licinius, July 23, 324, sole ruler of the entire Roman Empire. On his death, May 22, 337, his three sons divided between them the imperial dignity: Constantine II (337-340), taking Gaul, Spain, and Britain; Constans (337-350), Italy, Africa, and Illyria, and in 340 receiving the share of Constantine II; Constantius (337-361), taking the East, including Egypt. Of these three the ablest was Constantius who, after the renewed Persian war (337-350), became, on the death of Constans, sole Emperor. Although the imperial authority was divided and the ecclesiastical policy of each Emperor followed the religious condition and theological complexion of his respective portion of the Empire, the social conditions were everywhere much the same. There were under Constantine and also under his sons the continuation of that centralization which had already been carried far by Diocletian, the same court ceremonial and all that went with it, and the development of the bureaucratic system of administration. The economic conditions steadily declined as the imperial system became constantly more burdensome (v. supra, § 55), and the changes in the distribution of wealth and the administration of landed property affected disastrously large sections of the populace. A characteristic feature of Roman society, which affected the position of the Church not a little, was the tendency to regard callings and trades as hereditary, and by the fourth century this was enforced by law. The aim of this legislation was to provide workmen to care for the great public undertakings for the support of the populace of the cities and for the maintenance of the public business. This policy affected both the humble artisan and the citizen of curial rank. The former, although given various privileges, was crushed down by being obliged to continue in what was often an unprofitable occupation; the latter was made responsible for the taxes and various public burdens which custom, gradually becoming law, laid upon him. Constant attempt was made by great numbers to escape these burdens and disabilities by recourse to other occupations, and especially to the Christian ministry with its immunities (see § 59, c). Constant legislation endeavored to prevent this and restore men to their hereditary places. The following extracts from the Theodosian Code are enactments of Constantine, and are intended to illustrate the condition, under that Emperor, of the law as to hereditary occupations and guilds, and the position of the curiales, so as to explain the law as to admission to the priesthood.

(a) Codex Theodosianus, XIII, 5, 1; A. D. 314.

The Theodosian Code was a collection of law made at the command of Theodosius II, A. D. 438. See § 80. It was intended to comprise all the laws of general application made since the accession of Constantine and arranged under appropriate titles.

If a shipman shall have been originally a lighterman, none the less he shall remain permanently among those among whom it shall appear that his parents had been.

(b) Codex Theodosianus, XIII, 5, 3; A. D. 319.

If any shipman shall have obtained surreptitiously or in any other way immunity, it is our will that he be not at all admitted to plead any exemption. But also if any one possess a patrimony liable to the duties of a shipman, although he may be of higher dignity, the privileges of honor shall be of no avail to him in this matter, but let him be held to this duty either by the whole or in proportion. For it is not just that when a patrimony liable to this public duty has been excused all should not bear the common burden in proportion to ability.

(c) Codex Theodosianus, XIV, 4, 1; A. D. 334.

Because the guild of swineherds has fallen off to but few, we command that they plead in the presence of the Roman people, for the defence should be made to them for whom the burden was established.… Therefore let them know that the personal property of the swineherds is liable to public burdens and let them choose one of two courses: either let them retain the property which is liable to the functions of swineherd, and let themselves be held to the duty of swineherd, or let them name some suitable person whom they will, who shall satisfy the same requirement. For we suffer no one to be exempt from the obligation of this thing, but whether they have advanced in honors, or by some fraud have escaped, we command that they be brought back and the same thing performed, the Roman people being present and witnessing, and we are to be consulted, that we may take note of those who make use of these shifts; as for further avoidance of public duties, it is by no means to be granted any, but he who shall have been able to escape shall run danger of his safety, the privilege having been taken away from him.

(d) Codex Theodosianus, XII, 1, 11; A. D. 325.

The following laws illustrate the attempts of the curiales to escape their burdens.

Because some have forsaken the curiæ and have fled to the camps of the soldiery, we prescribe that all who shall be found not yet indebted to the chief centurion, are to be dismissed from the soldiery and returned to the same curiæ; those only are to remain among the soldiery who are retained on account of the necessities of the place or the troop.

(e) Codex Theodosianus, XII, 1, 12; A. D. 325.

If any one belongs in a larger or smaller town and desiring to avoid the same, betakes himself to another for the sake of dwelling there, and shall have attempted to make petitions concerning this or shall have relied upon any sort of fraud that he may escape the birth from his own city, let him bear the burden of the decurionate of both cities, of one because it was his choice, of the other because of his birth.

(f) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 2, 3, cf. XVI, 2, 6; A. D. 326.

Since a constitution that has been issued prescribes that thereafter no decurion nor child of a decurion or person with suitable wealth and able to support the public burdens shall have recourse to the name and duties of the clergy, but only those shall be called to the place of the deceased who are of small fortune and are not held liable to civil burdens, we have learned that some have been molested, who before the promulgation of the said law had joined themselves to the company of the priests. Therefore we decree that these shall be free from all annoyance, but those who after the promulgation of the law, to avoid their public duties took recourse to the number of the clergy, shall be separated from that body and restored to their curial rank and made liable for their civil duties.

§ 59. Favor Shown the Church by Constantine

Neither on his conversion nor on his attainment of the sole rule of the Empire did Constantine establish the Church as the one official religion of the State. The ruler himself professed the Christian religion and neither abolished the former religion of the State nor disestablished it. But he granted to his own religion favors similar to those enjoyed by the heathen religious systems (a-d), though these privileges were only for the Catholic Church, and not for heretics (e); and he passed such laws as would make it possible for Christians to carry out their religious practices, e.g., that Christians should not be compelled to sacrifice when the laws prescribed sacrifices (f), that Sunday be observed (g), and that celibacy might be practised (h).

Additional source material: Eusebius, Vita Constantini (PNF, ser. II, vol. I), II, 24-42. 46; IV, 18-28. Sozomen, Hist. Ec. (PNF, ser. II, vol. II), I, 9.

(a) Constantine, Ep. ad Cæcilianum, in Eusebius, Hist. Ec., X, 6. (MSG, 20:892.)

The probable date of this epistle is A. D. 313, though there is uncertainty. Text in Kirch, nn. 323 f.

Constantine Augustus to Cæcilianus, Bishop of Carthage. Since it is our pleasure that something should be granted in all the provinces, namely, Africa and Numidia and Mauritania, to certain ministers of the legitimate and most holy Catholic religion, to defray their expenses, I have given written instructions to Ursus, the illustrious finance minister of Africa, and have directed him to make provision to pay to thy firmness three thousand folles.(95) Do thou, therefore, when thou hast received the above sum of money, command that it be distributed among all those mentioned above, according to the brief sent unto thee by Hosius. But if thou shouldest find that anything is wanting for the fulfilment of this my purpose in regard to all of them, thou shalt demand without hesitation from Heracleides, our treasurer, whatever thou findest to be necessary. For I commanded him, when he was present, that if thy firmness should ask him for any money, he should see to it that it be paid without any delay. And since I have learned that some men of unsettled mind wish to turn the people from the most holy and Catholic Church by a certain method of shameful corruption, do thou know that I gave command to Anulinus, the proconsul, and also to Patricius, vicar of the prefects, when they were present, that they should give proper attention not only to other matters, but also, above all, to this, and that they should not overlook such a thing when it happened. Wherefore if thou shouldest see any such men continuing in this madness, do thou without delay go to the above-mentioned judges and report the matter to them; that they may correct them as I commanded them when they were present. The divinity of the great God preserve thee many years.

(b) Constantine, Ep. ad Anulinum, in Eusebius, Hist. Ec., X, 7. (MSG, 20:893.)

The following epistle, of the same year as the preceding to Cæcilianus, is the basis of exemptions of the clergy from public duties. The extension of these exemptions was made by the decree of 319, given below. Text in Kirch, n. 325.

Greeting to thee, our most esteemed Anulinus. Since it appears from many circumstances that when that religion is despised in which is preserved the chief reverence for the most celestial Power, great dangers are brought upon public affairs; but that when legally adopted and observed it affords most signal prosperity to the Roman name and remarkable felicity to all the affairs of men, through the divine beneficence, it seemed good to me, most esteemed Anulinus, that those men who give their services with due sanctity and with constant observance of this law to the worship of the divine religion should receive recompense for their labors. Wherefore it is my will that those within the province intrusted to thee, in the Catholic Church over which Cæcilianus presides, who give their services to this holy religion, and who are commonly called clergymen, be entirely exempted from all public duties, that by any error or sacrilegious negligence they may not be drawn away from the service due to the Deity, but may devote themselves without any hindrance to their own law. For it seems that when they show greatest reverence to the Deity the greatest benefits accrue to the State. Farewell, our most esteemed and beloved Anulinus.

(c) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 2, 2; A. D. 319.

By the following law the exemption of the clergy from public burdens was made universal. As many availed themselves of the clerical immunities to escape their burdens as curiales, a law was soon afterward passed limiting access to the ministry to those in humbler social position. V. supra, § 58 f.

Those who in divine worship perform the services of religion—that is, those who are called clergy—are altogether exempt from public obligations, so that they may not be called away from their sacred duties by the sacrilegious malice of certain persons.

(d) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 2, 4; A. D. 321.

The Church is hereby permitted to receive legacies. This was a recognition of its corporate character in the law, and indirectly its act of incorporation.

Every one has permission to leave when he is dying whatsoever goods he wishes to the most holy Catholic Church.…

(e) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 5, 1; A. D. 326.

Privileges were granted only to the clergy of the Catholic or great Church as distinguished from heretics and schismatics. The State was, accordingly, forced by its exemptions and privileges granted the Church to take up a position as to heresy and schism. See for Constantine’s policy toward heresy, Eusebius, Vita Constantini, III. 64 ff. (PNF, ser. II, vol. I.)

Privileges which have been bestowed in consideration of religion ought to be of advantage only to those who observe the Catholic law. It is our will that heathen and schismatics be not only without the privileges but bound by, and subject to, various political burdens.

(f) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 2, 5; A. D. 323.

This and the following laws were passed to enable the Christians to escape from disadvantages in the carrying out of their religion. This law, that Christians should not be compelled to sacrifice, was enacted just before the final encounter with Licinius.

Because we have heard that ecclesiastics and others belonging to the Catholic religion are compelled by men of different religions to celebrate the sacrifices of the lustrum, we, by this decree, do ordain that if any one believes that those who observe the most sacred law ought to be compelled to take part in the rites of a strange superstition, let him, if his condition permits, be beaten with staves, but if his rank exempts him from such rigor, let him endure the condemnation of a very heavy fine, which shall fall to the State.

(g) Codex Justinianus; III, 12, 3; A. D. 321. Cf. Kirch, n. 748.

Sunday is to be observed.

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

All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable Day of the Sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other days are better adapted for planting the grain in the furrows or the vines in trenches. So that the advantage given by heavenly providence may not for the occasion of a short time perish.

(h) Codex Theodosianus. VIII, 16, 1. Cf. Kirch, n. 750.

Celibacy was favored by the Church. By the Lex Julia et Papia Poppea it had been forbidden under a fine and loss of rights under wills. Childless marriages also rendered the parties liable to disabilities.

Those who are held as celibates by the ancient law are freed from the threatened terrors of the laws, and let them so live as if by the compact of marriage they were among the number of married men, and let all have an equal standing as to taking what each one deserves. Neither let any one be held childless; and let them not suffer the penalties set for this. The same thing we hold regarding women, and freely to all we loose from their necks the commands which the law placed upon them as a certain yoke. But there is no application of this benefit to husbands and wives as regards each other, whose deceitful wiles are often scarcely restrained by the appointed rigor of the law, but let the pristine authority of the law continue between such persons.

§ 60. The Repression of Heathenism under Constantine

Constantine’s religious policy in respect to heathenism may have been from the first to establish Christianity as the sole religion of the Empire and to put down heathenism. If so, in the execution of that policy he proceeded with great caution, especially in the period before his victory over Licinius. It looks at times as if for a while he aimed at a parity of religions. Certain is the fact that only as conditions became more favorable to active measures of repression he increased the severity of his laws against what was of doubtful legality in heathenism, though he was statesman enough to recognize the difference in the religious conditions between the East and the West, especially as to the hold which Christianity had upon the mass of the people. While his measures in the East became constantly harsher, in the West he tolerated heathenism. The commonly received theory is that Constantine changed his policy. All the facts can be as easily understood on the hypothesis that as a statesman he had constant regard to the advisability of drastic execution of a policy which he in theory accepted and would have carried out in its entirety everywhere if he had been able.

Additional source material: Eusebius, Vita Constantini (PNF), II. 44 f., 47 f., 54 ff.

(a) Codex Theodosianus, IX, 16, 2; A. D. 319.

Private sacrifices forbidden.

Haruspices and priests and those accustomed to serve this rite we forbid to enter any private house, or under the pretence of friendship to cross the threshold of another, under the penalty established against them if they contemn the law.(96) But those of you who regard this rite, approach the public altars and shrines and celebrate the solemnities of your custom; for we do not indeed prohibit the duties of the old usage to be performed in broad daylight.

(b) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 10, 1; A. D. 320-321.

Haruspicia in certain circumstances to be observed.

If any part of our palace or other public buildings should be struck by lightning let the custom be retained of the ancient observance as to what it signifies, and let it be examined by the haruspices and very carefully written down, collected, and brought to our attention; to others also the permission of practising this custom is conceded, provided they refrain from domestic sacrifices, which are expressly forbidden.

(c) Codex Theodosianus. XV, 1, 3; A. D. 326.

Unfinished heathen temples need not be completed.

We direct that the judges of the provinces be warned not to give orders for any new work before they complete the buildings left incomplete by their predecessors, the erection of temples only being excepted.

§ 61. The Donatist Schism under Constantine

The Donatist schism arose in connection with the Diocletian persecution, in part over the policy of Mensurius of Carthage regarding the fanatical desire for martyrdom and the delivery of the sacred books according to the edict of persecution. Combined with this were the personal ambitions of the Archdeacon Cæcilianus, the offended dignity of the Primas of Numidia, Bishop Secundus of Tigisi, and the pique of a wealthy female devotee, Lucilla. It was mixed up with the customs of the North African church, whereby the Primas of Numidia exercised a leading authority in the conduct of the election of the bishop of Carthage, and also with the notion prevalent in the same church, for which also Cyprian contended in the controversy on the baptism of heretics [see § 52], that the validity of a sacrament depended in some way upon the personal character of the minister of that sacrament. It was asserted by the partisans of Secundus, who elected Majorinus bishop of Carthage, that Felix of Aptunga, the consecrator of Cæcilianus, who had been elected by the other party, had delivered the sacred books to the heathen officials, and was therefore guilty as a traditor. A schism, accordingly, arose in Carthage which spread rapidly throughout North Africa. The party of Majorinus soon came under the lead of Donatus the Great, his successor in the schismatical see of Carthage. The Donatist schism became of importance almost at once, and as it was inconsistent with Constantine’s religious policy, which called for Church unity,(97) it presented an immediate difficulty in the execution of laws granting favors to the Catholic Church.(98) On account of the interests involved, the schism was of long duration, lasting after the conquest of North Africa by the Vandals, and even to the Saracen conquest, though long since of no importance.

Anulinus. Ep. ad Constantinum, in Augustine, Ep. 88. (MSG, 33:303.)

To Constantine Augustus from Anulinus, a man of proconsular rank, proconsul of Africa.

The welcome and adored celestial writings sent by your Majesty to Cæcilianus, and those who act under him and are called clergy, I have devoutly taken care to record in the archives of my humility, and have exhorted those parties that when unity has been made by the consent of all, since they are seen to be exempt from all other burdens by your Majesty’s clemency, and having preserved the Catholic unity, they should devote themselves to their duties with the reverence due the sanctity of the law and to divine things. After a few days, however, there arose some, to whom a crowd of people joined themselves, who thought that proceedings should be taken against Cæcilianus and presented me a sealed packet wrapped in leather and a small document without seal, and earnestly requested that I should transmit them to the sacred and venerable court of your divinity, which your Majesty’s most humble servant has taken care to do, Cæcilianus continuing meanwhile as he was. The acts pertaining to the case have been subjoined, in order that your Majesty may be able to make a decision concerning the whole matter. I have sent two documents, one in a leathern envelope entitled “A Document of the Catholic Church, the Charges against Cæcilianus, Furnished by the Party of Majorinus”; the other attached without a seal to the same leathern envelope. Given on the 17th day before the calends of May, in the third consulship of our Lord Constantine Augustus [April 15, 313].

§ 62. Constantine’s Endeavors to Bring about the Unity of the Church by Means of General Synods: The Councils of Arles and Nicæa

One of the intentions of Constantine in his support of Christianity seems to have been the employment of the Christian religion as a basis for imperial unity. The policy of several earlier emperors in reviving heathenism, and Galerius in his persecution of the Christians, seems likewise to have been to use religion as a basis of unity. One of the first tasks Constantine encountered after he became sole ruler of the West was to restore the unity of the Church in Africa, which had been endangered by the disputes culminating in the Donatist schism; and when he became sole ruler of the Empire a new task of a similar character was to restore unity to the Church of the East, endangered by the Meletian schism in Egypt [v. supra, § 57, a], the Arian controversy in its first stage [v. infra, § 63], and the estrangement of the Asia Minor churches, due to the Easter controversy [v. supra, § 38]. It was a master-stroke of policy on the part of Constantine to use the Church’s conciliar system on an enlarged scale to bring about this unity. The Church was made to feel that the decision was its own and to be obeyed for religious reasons; at the same time the Emperor was able to direct the thought and action of the assembly in matters of consequence and to give to conciliar action legal and coercive effect. The two great assemblies summoned to meet the problems of the West and of the East were respectively the Councils of Arles, A. D. 314, and of Nicæa, A. D. 325.

I. The Council of Arles A. D. 314

(a) Constantine, Convocatio concilii Arelatensis, in Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, X, 5. (MSG, 20 :888.) Cf. Kirch, nn. 321 f.; Mirbt, nn. 89, 93-97.

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

Constantine Augustus to Chrestus, Bishop of Syracuse. When some began wickedly and perversely to disagree among themselves in regard to the holy worship and the celestial power and Catholic doctrine, I, wishing to put an end to such disputes among them, formerly gave command that certain bishops should be sent from Gaul, and that the opposing parties, who were contending persistently and incessantly with each other, should be summoned from Africa; that in their presence and in the presence of the bishop of Rome the matter which appeared to be causing the disturbance might be examined and decided with all care. But since, as it happens, some, forgetful both of their own salvation and of the reverence due to the most holy religion, do not even yet bring hostilities to an end, and are unwilling to conform to the judgment already passed, and assert that those who expressed their opinions and decisions were few, or that they had been too hasty and precipitate in giving judgment, before all the things which ought to have been accurately investigated had been examined—on account of all this it has happened that those very ones who ought to hold brotherly and harmonious relations toward each other are shamefully, or rather abominably, divided among themselves, and give occasion for ridicule to those men whose souls are alien as to this most holy religion. Wherefore it has seemed necessary to me to provide that this dissension, which ought to have ceased after the judgment had been already given, by their own voluntary agreement, should now, if possible, be brought to an end by the presence of many. Since, therefore, we have commanded a number of bishops from a great many different places to assemble in the city of Arles, before the calends of August, we have thought proper to write to thee also that thou shouldest secure from the most illustrious Latronianus, Corrector of Sicily, a public vehicle, and that thou shouldest take with thee two others of the second rank whom thou thyself shalt choose, together with three servants, who may serve you on the way, and betake thyself to the above-mentioned place before the appointed day; that by thy firmness and by the wise unanimity and harmony of the others present, this dispute, which has disgracefully continued until the present time, in consequence of certain shameful strifes, after all has been heard, which those have to say who are now at variance with one another, and whom we have likewise commanded to be present, may be settled in accordance with the proper faith, and that brotherly harmony, though it be but gradual, may be restored. May Almighty God preserve thee in health many years.

(b) Synodal Epistle addressed to Sylvester, Bishop of Rome, Bruns, II, 107. Cf. Kirch, nn. 330-337.

The following extracts give the canons of most importance in the history of the times. The exact wording of the canons has not been retained in the letter, which is the only record extant of the action of the council. The text from which the following is translated is that given by the monks of St. Maur in their Collectio Conciliorum Galliæ, reprinted by Hefele, § 15, and Bruns, Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum, II, 107 ff. It is to be preferred to the text of Mansi and the older collections.

The first canon settled for the West the long-standing question as to the date of Easter. The Roman custom as to the day of the week and computation of the time of year should be followed everywhere; the same decision was reached at Nicæa for the East (_v. __§ 62, II, a_). As a matter of fact, however, the computation customary at Alexandria eventually prevailed as the more accurate.

The eighth and thirteenth canons touch upon North African disputes. The former overrules the contention of Cyprian and his colleagues, that heretical or schismatical baptisms were invalid. It also laid down a principle by which Novatianism stood condemned. The thirteenth applied a similar principle to ordination; the crimes of the bishop who gave the ordination should not invalidate the ordination of a suitable person, as was claimed in the case of the ordination of Cæcilianus by Felix of Aptunga, accused as a traditor; further it ruled out the complaints against Felix until more substantial proof be brought, the official documents that he had made the tradition required by the edict of persecution.

Marinus and the assembly of bishops, who have come together in the town of Arles, to the most holy lord and brother Sylvester. What we have decreed with general consent we signify to your charity that all may know what ought to be observed in the future.

1. In the first place, concerning the observation of the Lord’s Easter, we have determined that it be observed on one day and at one time throughout the world by us, and that you send letters according to custom to all.

8. Concerning the Africans, because they make use of their own law, to the effect that they rebaptize, we have determined that if any one should come from heresy to the Church they should ask him the creed; and if they should perceive that he had been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, hands only should be laid upon him that he might receive the Holy Ghost. That if when asked he should not reply this Trinity, let him be baptized.

9. Concerning those who bring letters of the confessors, it pleased us that these letters having been taken away, they should receive other letters of communion.

13. Concerning those who are said to have given up the Holy Scriptures or the vessels of the Lord or the name of their brethren, it has pleased us whoever of them shall have been convicted by public documents and not by mere words, should be removed from the clerical order; though if the same have been found to have ordained any, and those whom they have ordained are worthy, it shall not render their ordination invalid. And because there are many who are seen to oppose the law of the Church and think that they ought to be admitted to bring accusation by hired witnesses, they are by no means to be admitted, except, as we have said above, they can prove their accusations by public documents.

II. The Council of Nicæa

For the Council of Nicæa, see Hefele, §§ 18-44. All church histories give large space to the Council of Nicæa. _V. infra, §§ __63__ ff., __72, a_.

(a) Council of Nicæa, 325. Synodical Letter, Socrates, Hist. Ec. I, 9. (MSG, 67 :77.) Text in Kirch, nn. 369 ff.; Mirbt, n. 107.

To the holy and, by the grace of God, great Church of the Alexandrians, and to our beloved brethren throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, the bishops assembled at Nicæa constituting the great and holy synod, send greetings in the Lord.

Since by the grace of God, a great and holy synod has been convened at Nicæa, our most pious sovereign Constantine having summoned us out of various cities and provinces for that purpose, it appeared to us indispensably necessary that a letter should be written also to you on the part of the sacred synod; in order that you may know what subjects were brought under consideration, what rigidly investigated, and also what was eventually determined on and decreed. In the first place, the impiety and guilt of Arius and his adherents were examined into, in the presence of our most pious Emperor Constantine: and it was unanimously decided that his impious opinion be anathematized, with all the blasphemous expressions and terms he has blasphemously uttered, affirming that the Son of God sprang from nothing, and that there was a time when He was not; saying, moreover, that the Son of God was possessed of a free will, so as to be capable either of vice or virtue; and calling Him a creature and a work. All these the holy synod has anathematized, having scarcely patience to endure the hearing of such an impious or, rather, bewildered opinion, and such abominable blasphemies. But the conclusion of our proceedings against him you must either have heard or will hear; for we would not seem to trample on a man who has received the chastisement which his crime deserved. Yet so strong is his impiety as to involve Theonas, Bishop of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais; for they have suffered the same condemnation as himself. But the grace of God freed us from this false doctrine, impiety, and blasphemy, and from those persons who have dared to cause discord and division among the people previously at peace; and there still remained the contumacy of Meletius to be dealt with, and those who had been ordained by him; and we shall now state to you, beloved brethren, what resolution the synod came to on this point. Acting with more clemency toward Meletius, although, strictly speaking, he was wholly undeserving of favor, the council permitted him to remain in his own city, but decreed that he should exercise no authority either to ordain or nominate for ordination; and that he should appear in no other district or city on this pretence, but simply retain a nominal dignity; that those who had received appointments from him, after having been confirmed by a more legitimate ordination, should be admitted to communion on these conditions: that they should continue to hold their rank and ministry, but regard themselves as inferior in every respect to all those who had been previously ordained and established in each place and church by our most honored fellow-minister Alexander. In addition to these things, they shall have no authority to propose or nominate whom they please, or to do anything at all without the concurrence of a bishop of the Catholic Church, who is one of Alexander’s suffragans. Let such as by the grace of God and your prayers have been found in no schism, but have continued in the Catholic Church blameless, have authority to nominate and ordain those who are worthy of the sacred office, and to act in all things according to ecclesiastical law and usage. Whenever it may happen that any of those placed in the Church die, then let such as have been recently admitted into orders be advanced to the dignity of the deceased, provided that they appear worthy, and that the people should elect them, and the bishop of Alexandria confirm their choice. This is conceded to all the others, indeed, but as for Meletius personally we by no means grant the same, on account of his formerly disorderly conduct; and because of the rashness and levity of his character he is deprived of all authority and jurisdiction, as a man liable again to create similar disturbances. These are things which specially affect Egypt and the most holy Church of the Alexandrians; and if any other canon or ordinance should be established, our lord and most honored fellow-minister and brother Alexander being present with us, will on his return to you enter into more minute details, inasmuch as he is not only a participator in whatever is transacted, but has the principal direction of it. We have also to announce the good news to you concerning the unanimity as to the holy feast of Easter: that this by your prayers has been settled so that all the brethren in the East, who have hitherto kept this festival with the Jews, will henceforth conform to the Romans and to us, and to all who from the earliest times have observed our period of celebrating Easter. Rejoicing, therefore, on account of a favorable termination of matters and in the extirpation of all heresy, receive with the greater honor and more abundant love our fellow-minister and your bishop, Alexander, who has greatly delighted us by his presence, and even at his advanced age has undergone extraordinary exertions in order that peace might be re-established among you. Pray on behalf of us all, that the decisions to which we have so justly come may be inviolably maintained through Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ, together with the Holy Spirit to whom be glory forever. Amen.

(b) Council of Nicæa, Canon 8, On the Novatians, Bruns. I, 8.

The Church recognized the substantial orthodoxy of the Novatians, and according to the principles laid down at Arles (cc. 8, 13, § 62 I, b) the ordination of the Novatians was regarded as valid. The following canon, although a generous concession on the part of the Church, did not bring about a healing of the schism which lasted several centuries. The last mention of the Novatians is contained in the 95th canon of the second Trullan Council, known as the Quinisext, A. D. 692.

Canon 8. Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, who come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are among the clergy. But before all things it is necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the teachings of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; that is, that they will communicate with those who have been twice married and with those who have lapsed during the persecution, and upon whom a period of penance has been laid and a time for restoration fixed; so that in all things they will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or in cities, only these are found who have been ordained, let them remain as found among the clergy and in the same rank. But if any come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the bishop of the Church must have the dignity of a bishop, and he who was named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the honor of a presbyter, unless it seem fit to the bishop to share with him the honor of the title. But if this should not seem good to him, then shall the bishop provide for him a place as chorepiscopus, or as presbyter, in order that he may be evidently seen to be of the clergy, and that in one city there may not be two bishops.

(c) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 5, 2; A. D. 326.

With the generous treatment of the Novatians by the Council of Nicæa should be compared the mild and generous treatment of Constantine, who distinguished them from other heretics.

We have not learned that the Novatians have been so condemned that we believe that to them should not be granted what they claim. Therefore we prescribe as to the buildings of their churches and places suitable for burial that they are to possess, without any molestation, those buildings and lands, namely, which on ground of long possession or from purchase or claim for any sound reason they may have. It will be well looked out for that they attempt to claim nothing for themselves of those things which before their secession belonged evidently to the churches of perpetual sanctity.

II. The Arian Controversy Until The Extinction Of The Dynasty Of Constantine

The Arian controversy may be divided into four periods or stadia:

1. From the outbreak of the Arian controversy to the Council of Nicæa (318-325). In this stadium the positions of the parties are defined, and the position of the West, in substantial agreement with that of Alexander and Athanasius, forced through by Constantine and Hosius at Nicæa (§ 63).

2. From the Council of Nicæa to the death of Constantine (325-337). In this stadium, without the setting aside of the formula of Nicæa, an attempt is made to reconcile those who in fact dissented. In this period Constantine, now living in the East, inclines toward a position more in harmony with Arianism and more acceptable in the East than was the doctrine of Athanasius. This is the period of the Eusebian reaction (§ 64).

3. From the death of Constantine to the death of Constantius (337-361). In this stadium the anti-Nicæan party is victorious in the East (§ 65), but as it included all those who for any reason were opposed to the definition of Nicæa, it fell apart on attaining the annulment of the decision of Nicæa. There arose, on the one hand, an extreme Arian party and, on the other, a homoiousian party which approximated closely to the Athanasian position but feared the Nicene terminology.

4. From the accession of Julian to the council of Constantinople (361-381). Under the pressure brought against Christianity by Julian (§ 68), parties but little removed from each other came closer together (§ 70). A new generation of theologians took the lead, with an interpretation of the Nicene formula which made it acceptable to those who had previously regarded it as Sabellian. And under the lead of these men, backed by the Emperor Theodosius, the reaffirmation of the Nicene formula at Constantinople, 381, was accepted by the East (§ 71).

In the period in which the Arian controversy is by far the most important series of events in Church history, the attitude of the sons of Constantine toward heathenism and Donatism was of secondary importance, but it should be noticed as throwing light on the ecclesiastical policy which made the Arian controversy so momentous. In their policy toward heathenism and dissent, the policy of Constantine was carried to its logical completion in the establishment of Christianity as the only lawful religion of the Empire (§ 67).

Arianism may be regarded as the last attempt of Dynamistic Monarchianism (v. supra, § 40) to explain the divinity of Jesus Christ without admitting His eternity. It was derived in part from the teaching of Paul of Samosata through Lucian of Antioch. Paul of Samosata had admitted the existence of an eternal but impersonal Logos in God which dwelt in the man Jesus. Arianism distinguished between a Logos uncreated, an eternal impersonal reason in God, and a personal Logos created in time, making the latter, the personal Logos, only in a secondary sense God. This latter Logos, neither eternal nor uncreated, became incarnate in Jesus, taking the place in the human personality of the rational soul or logos. To guard against the worship of a being created and temporal, and to avoid the assertion of two eternal existences, the anti-Arian or Athanasian position, already formulated by Alexander, made the personal Logos of one essence or substance with the Father, eternal as the Father, and thereby distinguishing between begetting, or the imparting of subsistence, and creating, or the calling into being from nothing, a distinction which Arianism failed to make; and thus allowing for the eternity and deity of the Son without detracting from the monotheism which was universally regarded as the fundamental doctrine of Christianity as a body of theology. In this controversy the party of Alexander and Athanasius was animated, at least in the earlier stages of the controversy, not so much by speculative interests as by religious motives, the relation of Jesus to redemption, and they were strongly influenced by Irenæus. The party of Arius, on the other hand, was influenced by metaphysical interests as to the relation of being to creation and the contrast between the finite and the infinite. It may be said, in general, that until the council of Chalcedon, and possibly even after that, the main interest that kept alive theological discussion was intimately connected with vital problems of religious life of the times. After that the scholastic period began to set in and metaphysical discussions were based upon the formulæ of the councils.

§ 63. The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicæa, A. D. 325

The Arian controversy began in Alexandria about 318, as related by Socrates (a). The positions of the two parties were defined from the beginning both by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria (b), and Arius himself (c), who by appealing to Eusebius of Nicomedia, his fellow-student in the school of Lucian of Antioch, enlisted the support of that able ecclesiastical politician and courtier and at once extended the area of the controversy throughout the East. By means of poems of a somewhat popular character entitled the Thalia, about 322 (d), Arius spread his doctrines still further, involving others than the trained professional theologian. In the meanwhile Arius and some other clergy sympathizing with him in Egypt were deposed about 320 (e). Constantine endeavored to end the dispute by a letter, and, failing in this, sent Hosius of Cordova, his adviser in ecclesiastical matters, to Alexandria in 324. On the advice of Hosius, a synod was called to meet at Nicæa in the next year, after the pattern of the earlier synod for the West at Arles in 314. Here the basis for a definition of faith was a non-committal creed presented by Eusebius of Cæsarea, the Church historian (f). This was modified, probably under the influence of Hosius, so as to be in harmony at once with the tenets of the party of Alexander and Athanasius, and with the characteristic theology of the West (g).

Additional source material: J. Chrystal, _Authoritative Christianity_, Jersey City, 1891, vol. I; _The Council of Nicæa: The Genuine Remains_; H. R. Percival, _The Seven Ecumenical Councils_ (PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV); Athanasius, _On the Incarnation_ (PNF, ser. II, vol. IV).

(a) Socrates. Hist. Ec., I, 5. (MSG, 67:41.)

The outbreak of the controversy at Alexandria circa 318.

After Peter, who was bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, Achillas succeeded to the episcopal office, and after Achillas, Alexander succeeded in the period of peace above referred to. Conducting himself fearlessly, he united the Church. By chance, one day, in the presence of the presbyters and the rest of his clergy, he was discussing too ambitiously the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, teaching that there was a unity in the Trinity. But Arius, one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, a man of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imagining that the bishop was subtly introducing the doctrine of Sabellius the Libyan, from the love of controversy took the opposite opinion to that of the Libyan, and, as he thought, vigorously responded to the things said by the bishop. “If,” said he, “the Father begat the Son, He that was begotten had a beginning of existence; and from this it is evident that there was a time when the Son was not. It follows necessarily that He had His subsistence [hypostasis] from nothing.”

(b) Alexander of Alexandria. Ep. ad Alexandrum, in Theodoret, Hist. Ec., I, 3. (MSG, 88:904.)

A statement of the position of Alexander made to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople.

This extract is to be found at the end of the letter; it is evidently based upon the creed which is reproduced with somewhat free glosses. The omissions in the extract are of the less important glosses and proof-texts. For the position of Alexander the letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia given below (c) should also be examined.

We believe as the Apostolic Church teaches, In one unbegotten Father, who of His being has no cause, immutable and invariable, and who subsists always in one state of being, admitting neither of progression nor diminution; who gave the law and the prophets and the Gospel; of patriarchs and Apostles and all saints, Lord; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten not out of that which is not, but of the Father, who is; yet not after the manner of material bodies, by severance or emanation, as Sabellius and Valentinus taught, but in an inexpressible and inexplicable manner.… We have learned that the Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, lacking only His “unbegottenness.” He is the exact and precisely similar image of His Father.… And in accordance with this we believe that the Son always existed of the Father.… Therefore His own individual dignity must be reserved to the Father as the Unbegotten One, no one being called the cause of His existence: to the Son, likewise, must be given the honor which befits Him, there being to Him a generation from the Father which has no beginning.… And in addition to this pious belief respecting the Father and the Son, we confess as the sacred Scriptures teach us, one Holy Spirit, who moved the saints of the Old Testament, and the divine teachers of that which is called the New. We believe in one and only Catholic and Apostolic Church, which can never be destroyed even though all the world were to take counsel to fight against it, and which gains the victory over all the impious attacks of the heterodox.… After this we receive the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; who bore a body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary, the mother of God [theotokos] in the fulness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead. He rose from the dead, was taken into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

(c) Arius, Ep. ad Eusebium, in Theodoret, Hist. Ec., I, 4. (MSG, 88:909.)

A statement in the words of Arius of his own position and that of Alexander addressed to Eusebius of Nicomedia.

To his very dear lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius unjustly persecuted by Alexander the Pope, on account of that all-conquering truth of which you are also the champion, sendeth greeting in the Lord.

… Alexander has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches; namely, “God is always, the Son is always; as the Father so the Son; the Son coexists unbegotten with God; He is everlastingly begotten; He is the unbegotten begotten; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always the Son; the Son is of God himself.”… To these impieties we cannot listen even though heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the Unbegotten; nor from any substance [hypokeimenon],(99) but that of His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time and before ages, as perfect God only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten or created or purposed or established He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise because we say that He is of that which is not.(100) And this we say because He is neither part of God, nor of any substance [hypokeimenon]. For this we are persecuted; the rest you know. I bid thee farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist and true Eusebius [i.e., pious].

(d) Arius, Thalia, in Athanasius, Orat. contra Arianos, I, 2. (MSG, 26:21.)

The following extracts from the Thalia, although given by Athanasius, the opponent of Arius, are so in harmony with what Arius and his followers asserted repeatedly that they may be regarded as correctly representing the work from which they profess to be taken.

God was not always Father; but there was when God was alone and was not yet Father; afterward He became a Father. The Son was not always; for since all things have come into existence from nothing, and all things are creatures and have been made, so also the Logos of God himself came into existence from nothing and there was a time when He was not; and that before He came into existence He was not; but He also had a beginning of His being created. For God, he says, was alone and not yet was there the Logos and Wisdom. Afterward He willed to create us, then He made a certain one and named Him Logos and Wisdom and Son, in order that by Him He might create us. He says, therefore, that there are two wisdoms, one proper to, and existing together with, God; but the Son came into existence by that wisdom, and was made a partaker of it and was only named Wisdom and Logos. For Wisdom existed by wisdom and the will of God’s wisdom. So, he says, that there is another Logos besides the Son in God, and the Son partaking of that Logos is again named Logos and Son by grace.… There are many powers; and there is one which is by nature proper to God and eternal; but Christ, again, is not the true power of God, but is one of those which are called powers, of whom also the locust and the caterpillar are called not only a power but a great power [Joel 2:2], and there are many other things like to the Son, concerning whom David says in the Psalms: “The Lord of Powers”;(101) likewise the Logos is mutable, as are all things, and by His own free choice, so far as He wills, remains good; because when He wills He is able to change, as also we are, since His nature is subject to change. Then, says he, God foreseeing that He would be good, gave by anticipation to Him that glory, which as a man He afterward had from His virtue; so that on account of His works, which God foresaw, God made Him to become such as He is now.

(e) Council of Alexandria, A. D. 320, Epistula encyclica, in Socrates, Hist. Ec., I, 6. (MSG, 67:45.) Cf. Kirch, nn. 353 ff.

The encyclical of the Council of Alexandria under Alexander, in which Arius and his sympathizers were deposed, was possibly composed by Athanasius. It is commonly found in his works, entitled Depositio Arii. It is also found in the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates. For council, see Hefele, § 20.

Those who became apostates were Arius, Achillas, Æithales, Carpones, another Arius, and Sarmates, who were then presbyters; Euzoius, Lucius, Julianus, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, who were then deacons; and with them Secundus and Theonas, then called bishops. And the novelties which they have invented and put forth contrary to the Scriptures are the following: God was not always a Father, but there was a time when He was not a Father. The Logos of God was not always, but came into existence from things that were not; wherefore there was a time when He was not; for the Son is a creature and a work. Neither is He like in essence to the Father. Neither is He truly by nature the Logos of the Father; neither is He His true Wisdom; but He is one of the things made and created, and is called the Logos and Wisdom by an abuse of terms, since He himself originated by God’s own logos and by the wisdom that is in God, by which God has made not only all things but Him also. Wherefore He is in His nature subject to change and variation as are all rational creatures. And the Logos is foreign, is alien and separated from the being [ousia] of God. And the Father cannot be(102) described by the Son, for the Logos does not know the Father perfectly and accurately, neither can He see Him perfectly. Moreover, the Son knows not His own essence as it really is; for He was made on account of us, that God might create us by Him as by an instrument; and He would not have existed had not God willed to create us. Accordingly some one asked them whether the Logos of God is able to change as the devil changed, and they were not afraid to say that He can change; for being something made and created, His nature is subject to change.

(f) Eusebius of Cæsarea, Creed, in Socrates, Hist. Ec., I, 8. (MSG, 67:69.) Cf. Hahn, § 188.

This creed was presented at the Council of Nicæa by the historian Eusebius, who took the lead of the middle party at the council. He stated that it had long been in use in his church.

We believe in one God, Father Almighty, the maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Logos of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, only begotten Son, the first-born of all creation, begotten of His Father before all ages, by whom, also, all things were made, who for our salvation became flesh, who lived among men, and suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit. We believe that each of these [i.e., three] is and subsists;(103) the Father truly Father, the Son truly Son; the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit; as our Lord also said, when He sent His disciples to preach: “Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” [Matt. 28:19].

(g) Council of Nicæa A. D. 325, Creed, in Socrates, Hist. Ec., I, 8. (MSG, 67:68.) Cf. Hahn, § 142.

The creed of Nicæa is to be carefully distinguished from what is commonly called the Nicene creed. The actual creed put forth at the council is as follows. The discussion by Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, § 32, is brief but especially important, as he shows that the creed was drawn up under the influence of the Western formulæ.

We believe in one God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of His Father, only begotten, that is of the ousia of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, of one substance(104) with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth, who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was made [became] flesh and was made [became] man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens and comes to judge living and dead. And in the Holy Ghost.

But those who say there was when He was not, and before being begotten He was not, and He was made out of things that were not(105) or those who say that the Son of God was from a different substance [hypostasis] or being [ousia] or a creature, or capable of change or alteration, these the Catholic Church anathematizes.

§ 64. The Beginnings of the Eusebian Reaction under Constantine

Shortly after the Council of Nicæa, Constantine seems to have become aware of the fact that the decision at that council was not acceptable in the East as a whole, representing, as it did, what was generally felt to be an extreme position. In coming to this opinion he was much influenced by Eusebius of Nicomedia who, by powerful court interest, was soon recalled from exile and even became the leading ecclesiastical adviser of Constantine. The policy of this bishop was to prepare the way for the revocation of the decree of Nicæa by a preliminary rehabilitation of Arius (a), and by attacking the leaders of the opposite party (b). Constantine, however, never consented to the abrogation of the creed of Nicæa.

Additional source material: Socrates, Hist. Ec., I, 8 (letter of Eusebius to his diocese), 14, 28 ff. Eusebius, Vita Constantini, III, 23; Athanasius, Historia Arianorum, §§ 4-7.

(a) Arius, Confession of Faith, in Socrates, Hist. Ec., I, 26. (MSG, 67:149.)

As a part of the process whereby Arius should be rehabilitated by being received back into the Church he was invited by Constantine to appear at the court. He was there presented to the Emperor and produced a confession of faith purposely vague and general in statement, but intended to give the impression that he held the essentials of the received orthodoxy. The text is that given by Hahn, § 187.

Arius and Euzoius to our most religious and pious Lord, the Emperor Constantine.

In accordance with the command of your devout piety, sovereign lord, we declare our faith, and before God we profess in writing that we and our adherents believe as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty; and in the Lord Jesus Christ His Son, who was made by Him before all ages, God the Word, through whom all things were made, both those which are in heaven and those upon earth; who descended, and became incarnate, and suffered, and rose again, ascended into the heavens, and will again come to judge the living and the dead. Also in the Holy Spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the coming age, and in the kingdom of the heavens, and in one Catholic Church of God, extending from one end of the earth to the other.

This faith we have received from the holy gospels, the Lord therein saying to His disciples: “Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” If we do not so believe and truly receive the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the whole Catholic Church and the Holy Scriptures teach (in which we believe in every respect) God is our judge both now and in the coming judgment. Wherefore we beseech your piety, most devout Emperor, that we who are persons consecrated to the ministry, and holding the faith and sentiments of the Church and of the Holy Scriptures, may by your pacific and devoted piety be reunited to our mother, the Church, all superfluous questions and disputings being avoided; that so both we and the whole Church may be at peace and in common offer our accustomed prayers for your tranquil reign and on behalf of your whole family.

(b) Socrates, Hist. Ec., I, 23. (MSG, 67:140.)

The attack of the Arians upon Athanasius and his party.

The partisans of Eusebius and Theognis having returned from their exile, they received again their churches, having expelled, as we observed, those who had been ordained in their stead. Moreover they came into great consideration with the Emperor, who honored them exceedingly, as those who had returned from error to the orthodox faith. They, however, abused the license granted them by exciting commotions in the world greater than before; being instigated to this by two causes—on the one hand, the Arian heresy with which they had been previously infected, and on the other hand, by animosity against Athanasius because in the synod he had so vigorously withstood them in the discussion of the articles of the faith. And in the first place they objected to the ordination of Athanasius, not only as of one unworthy of the episcopate, but also as of one not elected by qualified persons. But when he had shown himself superior to this calumny (for having assumed direction of the Church of the Alexandrians, he ardently contended for the Nicene creed), then the adherents of Eusebius exerted themselves to cause the removal of Athanasius and to bring Arius back to Alexandria; for thus only did they think they should be able to cast out the doctrine of consubstantiality and introduce Arianism. Eusebius therefore wrote to Athanasius to receive Arius and his adherents; and when he wrote he not only entreated him, but he openly threatened him. When Athanasius would by no means accede to this he endeavored to persuade the Emperor to receive Arius in audience and then permit him to return to Alexandria; and how he accomplished these things I shall tell in its proper place.

Meanwhile, before this, another commotion was raised in the Church. In fact those of the household of the Church again disturbed her peace. Eusebius Pamphilius says that immediately after the synod Egypt became agitated by intestine divisions; but he does not give the reason for this. From this he has gained the reputation of being disingenuous and of avoiding the specification of the causes of these dissensions from a determination on his part not to give his sanction to the proceedings at Nicæa. Yet as we ourselves have discovered from various letters which the bishops wrote to one another after the synod, the term homoousios troubled some of them. So that while they occupied themselves about it, investigating it very minutely, they roused the strife against each other. It seemed not unlike a contest in the dark; for neither party appeared to understand distinctly the grounds on which they calumniated one another. Those who objected to the word homoousios conceived that those who approved it favored the opinion of Sabellius and Montanus; they therefore called them blasphemers, as subverting the existence of the Son of God. And again those who defended the term, charging their opponents with polytheism, inveighed against them as introducers of heathen superstitions. Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius Pamphilius of perverting the Nicene creed; Eusebius again denies that he violates that exposition of the faith, and accuses Eustathius of introducing the opinion of Sabellius. Therefore each of them wrote as if contending against adversaries; but both sides admitted that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, confessing that there is one God in three persons (hypostases) yet they were unable to agree, for what cause I do not know, and could in no way be at peace.

§ 65. The Victory of the Anti-Nicene Party in the East

When Constantine died in 337 the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia was completely in the ascendant in the East. A council at Antioch, 339, deposed Athanasius, and he was expelled from Alexandria, and Gregory of Cappadocia was consecrated in his place. Athanasius, with Marcellus of Ancyra and other supporters of the Nicene faith, repaired to Rome where they were supported by Julius, bishop of Rome, at a well-attended local council in 340 (_a__, __b_). In the East numerous attempts were made to formulate a confession of faith which might take the place of the Nicene creed and prove acceptable to all parties. The most important of these were produced at the Council of Antioch, 341, at which no less than four creeds were formulated (_c__, __d_).

Additional source material: Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils (PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV); Socrates, Hist. Ec. (PNF, ser. II, vol. II), II, 19 (Formula Macrostichos); Athanasius, De Synodis (PNF, ser. II, vol. IV).

(a) Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos, 20. (MSG, 25:280.)

Athanasius and his allies in exile in the West are exonerated at Rome.

The Eusebians wrote also to Julius, thinking to frighten me, requesting him to call a council, and Julius himself to be the judge if he pleased. When, therefore, I went up to Rome, Julius wrote to the Eusebians, as was suitable, and sent moreover two of his presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenus. But when they heard of me they became confused, because they did not expect that we would come up; and they declined, alleging absurd reasons for so doing, but in truth fearing lest the things should be proved against them which Valens and Ursacius afterward confessed. However, more than fifty bishops assembled in the place where the presbyter Vito held his congregation, and they acknowledged my defence and gave me the confirmation both of their communion and their love. On the other hand, they expressed great indignation against the Eusebians and requested that Julius write to the following effect to them who had written to him. And he wrote and sent it by Count Gabienus.

(b) Julius of Rome, Epistula, in Athanasius. Apologia contra Arianos, §§ 26 ff. (MSG, 25:292.)

Julius to his dearly beloved brethren, Danius, Flacillus, Narcissus, Eusebius, and Matis, Macedonius, Theodorus, and their friends, who have written him from Antioch, sends health in the Lord.

§ 26. … It is necessary for me to inform you that although I alone wrote, yet it was not my opinion only, but of all the bishops throughout Italy and in these parts. I, indeed, was unwilling to cause them all to write, lest they might have weight by mere numbers. The bishops, however, assembled on the appointed day, and agreed in these opinions, which I again write to signify to you; so that, dearly beloved, although I alone address you, yet you may know it is the opinion of all.…

§ 27. That we have not admitted to our communion our fellow-bishops Athanasius and Marcellus either hastily or unjustly, although sufficiently shown above, it is but fair to set briefly before you. The Eusebians first wrote against Athanasius and his fellows, and you have also written now; but many bishops out of Egypt and other provinces wrote in his favor. Now in the first place, your letters against him contradict each other, and the second have no sort of agreement with the first, but in many instances the former are refuted by the latter, and the latter are impeached by the former.…

§ 29. Now when these things were thus represented, and so many witnesses appeared in his behalf, and so much advanced by him in his own justification, what did it become us to do? Or what did the rule of the Church require except that we should not condemn the man, but rather receive him and hold him as a bishop as we have done.…

§ 32. With respect to Marcellus, forasmuch as you have written concerning him also as impious in respect to Christ, I am anxious to inform you that, when he was here, he positively declared that what you had written concerning him was not true; but, being nevertheless requested by us to give an account of his faith, he answered in his own person with the utmost boldness, so that we recognize that he maintains nothing outside of the truth. He confessed that he piously held the same doctrine concerning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Catholic Church holds; and he affirmed that he had held these opinions not merely now but for a very long time since; as indeed our presbyters, who were at a former time at the Council of Nicæa, testified to his orthodoxy, for he maintained both then and now his opposition to the heresy of Arius; on which point it is right to admonish you, that none of you admit such heresy, but instead abominate it as alien from the wholesome doctrine. Since he professed orthodox opinions and offered testimony to his orthodoxy, what again ought we in his case to have done except to treat him as a bishop, as we did, and not reject him from our communion?…

§ 33. For not only the bishops Athanasius and Marcellus and their fellows came here and complained of the injustice that had been done them, but many other bishops, also, from Thrace, from Cœle-Syria, from Phœnicia, and Palestine; and presbyters, not a few, and others from Alexandria and from other parts were present at the council here and, in addition to their own statements, lamented bitterly before all the assembled bishops the violence and injustice which the churches had suffered; and they affirmed that outrages similar to those which had been committed in Alexandria had occurred not in word only but in deed in their own churches and in others also.

(c) Second Creed of Antioch, A. D. 341, in Athanasius, De Synodis Arimini et Seleuciæ, ch. 23. (MSG, 26:721.) Also in Socrates, Hist. Ec., II, 10. (MSG, 67:201.) Cf. Hahn, § 154.

The Council of Antioch in 341 was gathered ostensibly to dedicate the great church of that city, in reality to act against the Nicene party. It was attended by ninety or more bishops of whom thirty-six were Arians. The others seem to have been chiefly members of the middle party. The dogmatic definitions of this council have never been accepted by the Church; on the other hand, the canons on discipline have always enjoyed a very high place in the esteem of later generations. The following creed, the second of the Antiochian creeds, is traditionally regarded as having been composed originally by Lucian of Antioch, the master of Arius. Hence it is known as the creed of Lucian.

We believe in accordance with evangelic and apostolic tradition in one God the Father Almighty, the creator, the maker and provider of all things. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, God, through whom are all things, who was begotten of His Father before all ages, God of God, whole of whole, only one of only one, perfect of perfect, king of king, lord of lord, the living word, living wisdom, true light, way, truth, resurrection, shepherd, door, unchangeable, unalterable, and immutable, the unchangeable likeness of the Godhead, both of the substance, and will and power and glory of the Father, the first-born of all creation, who was in the beginning with God, God Logos, according to what is said in the Gospel: “and the word was God,” through whom all things were made, and “in whom all things consist,” who in the last days came down from above, and was born of a virgin, according to the Scriptures, and became man, the mediator between God and man, and the apostle of our faith, and the prince of life; as He says, “I have come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me”; who suffered for us, and rose the third day and ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and comes again with glory and power to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit given for consolation and sanctification and perfection to those who believe; as also our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying, “Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” clearly of the Father who is really a Father, and of the Son who is really a Son, and of the Holy Spirit who is really a Holy Spirit; these names being assigned not vaguely nor idly, but indicating accurately the special subsistence [hypostasis], order, glory of those named, so that in subsistence they are three, but in harmony one.

Having then this faith from the beginning and holding it to the end, before God and Christ we anathematize all heretical false doctrines. And if any one contrary to the right faith of the Holy Scriptures, teaches and says that there has been a time, a season, or age, or being or becoming, before the Son of God was begotten, let him be accursed. And if any one says that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures, or generated as one of the things generated, or made as one of the things made, and not as the divine Scriptures have handed down each of the forenamed statements; or if a man teaches or preaches anything else contrary to what we have received, let him be accursed. For we truly and clearly both believe and follow all things from the Holy Scriptures that have been transmitted to us by the prophets and Apostles.

(d) Fourth Creed of Antioch, Socrates, Hist. Ec., II, 18. (MSG, 67:221.) Cf. Hahn, § 156.

This creed is an approximation to the Nicene creed but without the use of the word of especial importance, homoousios. Valuable critical notes on the text of this and the preceding creed are to be found in Hahn; as these creeds are to be found both in the work of Athanasius on the councils of synods of Ariminum and Seleucia, in the ecclesiastical history of Socrates and elsewhere, there is a variety of readings, but of minor significance so far as the essential features are concerned.

We believe in one God, Father Almighty, the creator and maker of all things, of whom the whole family in heaven and upon earth is named; and in his only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Father before all ages; God of God, light of light, through whom all things in the heavens and upon earth, both visible and invisible were made: who is the word, and wisdom, and power, and life, and true light: who in the last days for our sake was made [became] man, and was born of the holy Virgin; was crucified, and died; was buried, arose again from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and is coming at the consummation of the age to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works: whose kingdom, being perpetual, shall continue to infinite ages (for He shall sit at the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come). And in the Holy Spirit; that is, in the comforter, whom the Lord, according to His promise, sent to His Apostles after His ascension into the heavens, to teach and bring all things to their remembrance: by whom, also, the souls of those who have sincerely believed in Him shall be sanctified; and those who assert that the Son was made of things which are not, or of another subsistence [hypostasis], and not of God, or that there was a time or age when He did not exist the holy Catholic Church accounts as aliens.

§ 66. Collapse of the Anti-Nicene Middle Party; the Renewal of Arianism; the Rise of the Homoousian Party

When Constantius became sole Emperor, on the death of his brother Constans in 350, there was no further need of considering the interests of the Nicene party. Only the necessity of establishing his authority in the West against usurpers engaged his attention until 356, when a series of councils began, designed to put an end to the Nicene faith. Of the numerous confessions of faith put forth, the second creed of Sirmium of 357 is important as attempting to abolish in connection with the discussion the use of the term ousia and likewise homoousios and homoiousios (a). At Nice in Thrace a still greater departure from Nicæa was attempted in 359, and a creed was put forth (b), which is of special significance as containing the first reference in a creed to the descensus ad inferos and to the fact that it was subscribed by the deputies of the West including Bishop Liberius of Rome. For the discussion of this act of Liberius, see J. Barmby, art. “Liberius” in DCB; see also Catholic Encyclopædia, art. “Liberius.” It was also received in the synod of Seleucia in the East. On these councils see Athanasius, De Synodis (PNF). It was in reference to this acceptance of the creed of Nice that Jerome wrote “The whole world groaned and was astonished that it was Arian.” See Jerome, Contra Luciferianos, §§ 18 ff. (PNF. ser. II, vol. VI).

Inasmuch as the anti-Nicene opposition party was a coalition of all parties opposed to the wording of the Nicene creed, as soon as that creed was abolished the bond that held them together was broken. At once there arose an extreme Arianism which had remained in the background. On the other hand, those who were opposed to Arianism sought to draw nearer the Nicene party. These were the Homoiousians, who objected to the term homoousios as savoring of Sabellianism, and yet admitted the essential point implied by it. That this was so was pointed out by Hilary of Poitiers (c) who contended that what the West meant by homoousios the East meant by homoiousios. The Homoiousian party of the East split on the question of the deity of the Holy Spirit. Those of them who denied the deity of the Spirit remained Semi-Arians.

(a) Second Creed of Sirmium, in Hilary of Poitiers, De Synodis, ch. 11. (MSL, 10:487.) Cf. Hahn, § 161.

The Council of Sirmium in 357 was the second in that city. It was attended entirely by bishops from the West. But among them were Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, leaders of the opposition to the Nicene creed. Hosius under compulsion signed the following; see Hilary, loc cit. The Latin original is given by Hilary.

It is evident that there is one God, the Father Almighty, according as it is believed throughout the whole world; and His only Son Jesus Christ our Saviour, begotten of Him before the ages. But we cannot and ought not to say there are two Gods.…

But since some or many persons were disturbed by questions as to substance, called in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to homoousios or what is called homoiousios, there ought to be no mention of these at all, nor ought any one to state them; for the reason and consideration that they are not contained in the divine Scriptures, and that they are above man’s understanding, nor can any man declare the birth of the Son, of whom it is written: “Who shall declare His generation?” For it is plain that only the Father knows how He begat the Son, and the Son how He was begotten of the Father. There is no question that the Father is greater. No one can doubt that the Father is greater than the Son, in honor, dignity, splendor, majesty and in the very name Father, the Son himself testifying, He that sent Me is greater than I. And no one is ignorant that it is Catholic doctrine that there are two persons of Father and Son; and that the Father is greater, and that the Son is subordinated to the Father, together with all things which the Father hath subordinated to Him; and that the Father has no beginning and is invisible, immortal, and impassible, but that the Son has been begotten of the Father, God of God, light of light, and of this Son the generation, as is aforesaid, no one knows but His Father. And that the Son of God himself, our Lord and God, as we read, took flesh or a body, that is, man of the womb of the Virgin Mary, as the angel announced. And as all the Scriptures teach, and especially the doctor of the Gentiles himself. He took of Mary the Virgin, man, through whom He suffered. And the whole faith is summed up and secured in this, that the Trinity must always be preserved, as we read in the Gospel: “Go ye and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Complete and perfect is the number of the Trinity. Now the Paraclete, or the Spirit, is through the Son: who was sent and came according to His promise in order to instruct, teach, and sanctify the Apostles and all believers.

(b) Creed of Nice A. D. 359, Theodoret, Hist. Ec., II, 16. (MSG, 82:1049.) Cf. Hahn, § 164.

The deputies from the Council of Ariminum were sent to Nice, a small town in Thrace, where they met the heads of the Arian party. A creed, strongly Arian in tendency, was given them and they were sent back to Ariminum to have it accepted. See Theodoret, loc. cit., and Athanasius, De Synodis.

We believe in one and only true God, Father Almighty, of whom are all things. And in the only begotten Son of God, who before all ages and before every beginning was begotten of God, through whom all things were made, both visible and invisible; begotten, only begotten, alone of the Father alone, God of God, like the Father that begat Him, according to the Scriptures, whose generation no one knoweth except only the Father that begat Him. This only begotten Son of God, sent by His Father, we know to have come down from heaven, as it is written, for the destruction of sin and death; begotten of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, as it is written, according to the flesh. Who companied with His disciples, and when the whole dispensation was fulfilled, according to the Father’s will, was crucified, dead and buried, and descended to the world below, at whom hell itself trembled; on the third day He rose from the dead and companied with His disciples, and when forty days were completed He was taken up into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of His Father, and is coming at the last day of the resurrection, in His Father’s glory, to render to every one according to his works. And in the Holy Ghost, which the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, both God and Lord, promised to send to the race of men, the comforter, as it is written, the spirit of truth, and this Spirit He himself sent after He had ascended into the heavens and sat at the right hand of the Father, from thence He is coming to judge both the quick and the dead.

But the word “substance,” which was simply inserted by the Fathers and not being understood was a cause of scandal to the people because it was not found in the Scriptures, it hath seemed good to us to remove, and that for the future no mention whatever be permitted of “substance,” because the sacred Scriptures nowhere make any mention of the “substance” of the Father and the Son. Nor must one “subsistence” [hypostasis] be named in relation to the person [prosopon] of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And we call the Son like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call Him and teach. But all heresies, both those already condemned, and any, if such there be, which have arisen against the document thus put forth, let them be anathema.

(c) Hilary of Poitiers. De Synodis, §§ 88, 89, 91. (MSL, 10:540.)

That the Homoiousian party meant substantially the same by their term homoiousios as did the Homoousians or the Nicene party, by their term homoousios.

Hilary was of great importance in the Arian controversy in bringing the Homoiousian party of the East and the Nicene party of the West to an agreement. The Eastern theologians, who hesitated to accept the Nicene term, were eventually induced to accept, understanding by the term homoousios the same as homoiousios. See below, § 70.

§ 88. Holy brethren, I understand by homoousios God of God, not of an unlike essence, not divided, but born; and that the Son has a birth that is unique, of the substance of the unknown God, that He is begotten yet co-eternal and wholly like the Father. The word homoousios greatly helped me already believing this. Why do you condemn my faith in the homoousios, which you cannot disapprove by the confession of the homoiousios? For you condemn my faith, or rather your own, when you condemn its verbal equivalent. Does somebody else misunderstand it? Let us together condemn the misunderstanding, but not take away the security of your faith. Do you think that one must subscribe to the Samosetene Council, so that no one may make use of homoousios in the sense of Paul of Samosata? Then let us subscribe to the Council of Nicæa, so that the Arians may not impugn the word homoousios. Have we to fear that homoiousios does not imply the same belief as homoousios? Let us decree that there is no difference between being of one and being of a similar substance. But may not the word homoousios be understood in a wrong sense? Let it be proved that it can be understood in a good sense. We hold one and the same sacred truth. I beseech you that the one and the same truth which we hold, we should regard as sacred among us. Forgive me, brethren, as I have so often asked you to do. You are not Arians; why, then, by denying the homoousios, should you be thought to be Arians?

§ 89. … True likeness belongs to a true natural connection. But when the true natural connection exists, the homoousios is implied. It is likeness according to essence when one piece of metal is like another and not plated.… Nothing can be like gold but gold, or like milk that does not belong to that species.

§ 91. I do not know the word homoousios or understand it unless it confesses a similarity of essence. I call God of heaven and earth to witness, that when I heard neither word, my belief was always such that I should have interpreted homoiousios by homoousios. That is I believed that nothing could be similar according to nature unless it was of the same nature.

§ 67. The Policy of the Sons of Constantine Toward Heathenism and Donatism

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.