A Source Book for Ancient Church History Part 39

23. He says the rites of our ancestors ought to be retained. But why, seeing that all things have made a progress toward what is better? The day shines not at the beginning, but as time proceeds it is bright with increase of light and grows warm with increase of heat.

27. We, too, inexperienced in age, have an infancy of our senses, but, changing as years go by, lay aside the rudimentary conditions of our faculties.

28. Let them say, then, that all things ought to have remained in their first dark beginnings; that the world covered with darkness is now displeasing because it has brightened with the rising of the sun. And how much more pleasant is it to have dispelled the darkness of the mind than that of the body, and that the rays of faith should have shone than that of the sun. So, then, the primeval state of the world, as of all things, has pa.s.sed away that the venerable old age of h.o.a.ry faith might follow.

30. If the old rites pleased, why did Rome also take up foreign ones? I pa.s.s over the ground hidden with costly buildings, and shepherds cottages glittering with degenerate gold. Why, that I may reply to the very matter which they complain of, have they eagerly received the images of captured cities, and conquered G.o.ds, and the foreign rites of alien superst.i.tion?

Whence, then, is the pattern of Cybele washing her chariots in a stream counterfeiting the Almo? Whence were the Phrygian prophets and the deities of unjust Carthage, always hateful to the Romans? And he whom the Africans worship as Celestis, the Persians as Mithra, and the greater number as Venus, according to a difference of name, not a variety of deities?

31. They ask to have her altar erected in the Senate House of the city of Rome, that is where the majority who meet together are Christians! There are altars in all the temples, and an altar also in the Temple of Victory.

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

To claim a sacrifice on this one altar, what is it but to insult the faith? Is it to be borne that a heathen should sacrifice and a Christian be present? Shall there not be a common lot in that common a.s.sembly? The faithful portion of the Senate will be bound by the voices of those who call upon the G.o.ds, by the oaths of those who swear by them. If they oppose they will seem to exhibit their falsehood, if they acquiesce, to acknowledge what is a sacrilege.

(_f_) _Codex Theodosia.n.u.s_, XVI, 10, 12; A. D. 392.

Decree of Theodosius prohibiting heathen worship as a crime of the same character as treason.

The following decree may be said to have permanently forbidden heathenism, at least in the East, though as a matter of fact many heathen not only continued to practise their rites in defiance of the law or with the connivance of the authorities, but also received appointments at the court and elsewhere. The law was never repealed. In course of time heathenism disappeared as a religious system.

XVI, 10, 12. Hereafter no one of whatever race or dignity, whether placed in office or discharged therefrom with honor, powerful by birth or humble in condition and fortune, shall in any place or in any city sacrifice an innocent victim to a senseless image, venerate with fire the household deity by a more private offering, as it were the genius of the house, or the Penates, and burn lights, place incense, or hang up garlands. If any one undertakes by way of sacrifice to slay a victim or to consult the smoking entrails, let him, as guilty of lese-majesty, receive the appropriate sentence, having been accused by a lawful indictment, even though he shall not have sought anything against the safety of the princes or concerning their welfare. It const.i.tutes a crime of this nature to wish to repeal the laws, to spy into unlawful things, to reveal secrets, or to attempt things forbidden, to seek the end of anothers welfare, or to promise the hope of anothers ruin. If any one by placing incense venerates either images made by mortal labor, or those which are enduring, or if any one in ridiculous fashion forthwith venerates what he has represented, either by a tree encircled with garlands or an altar of cut turfs, though the advantage of such service is small, the injury to religion is complete, let him as guilty of sacrilege be punished by the loss of that house or possession in which he worshipped according to the heathen superst.i.tion. For all places which shall smoke with incense, if they shall be proved to belong to those who burn the incense, shall be confiscated. But if in temples or public sanctuaries or buildings and fields belonging to another, any one should venture this sort of sacrifice, if it shall appear that the acts were performed without the knowledge of the owner, let him be compelled to pay a fine of twenty-five pounds of gold, and let the same penalty apply to those who connive at this crime as well as those who sacrifice. We will, also, that this command be observed by judges, defensors, and curials of each and every city, to the effect that those things noted by them be reported to the court, and by them the acts charged may be punished. But if they believe anything is to be overlooked by favor or allowed to pa.s.s through negligence, they will lie under a judicial warning. And when they have been warned, if by any negligence they fail to punish they will be fined thirty pounds of gold, and the members of their court are to be subjected to a like punishment.

70. The Dogmatic Parties and Their Mutual Relations

The parties in the Arian controversy became greatly divided in the course of the conflict. Speaking broadly, there were still two groups, of which one was composed of all those who regarded the Son as a creature and so not eternal and not truly G.o.d; and the other, of those who regarded Him as uncreated and in some real sense eternal and truly G.o.d, yet without denying the unity of G.o.d. The former were the various Arian parties tending to constant division. The latter can hardly yet be comprised under one common name, and might be called the anti-Arian parties, were it not that there was a positive content to their faith which was in far better harmony with the prevailing religious sentiment of the East and was constantly receiving accessions. In the second generation after Nica, a new group of theologians came to the front, of whom the most important were Eustathius of Sebaste, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the three Cappadocians, Basil, Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa, most of whom had at least sympathized with the h.o.m.oiousian party. Already at the synod of Ancyra, in 358, an approach was made toward a reconciliation of the anti-Arian factions, in that, by a more careful definition, h.o.m.oousios was rejected only in the sense of ident.i.ty of being, and h.o.m.oiousios was a.s.serted only in the sense of equality of attributes in the not identical subjects which, however, shared in the same essence. h.o.m.oiousios did not mean mere similarity of being. (Anathemas in Hahn, 162; Hefele, 80.) The line of development ultimately taken was by a precise distinction between _hypostasis_ and _ousia_, whereby _hypostasis_, which never meant person in the modern sense, which later is represented by the Greek _prosopon_, was that which subsists and shares with other _hypostases_ in a common essence or _ousia_.

Additional source material: Athanasius, _De Synodis_ (PNF); Basil, _Epp._ 38, 52, 69, 125 (PNF, ser. II, vol. VIII); Hilary of Poitiers, _De Synodis_, cc. 87-91 (PNF, ser. II, vol. IX); Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, III, 25.

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

The Council of Alexandria, A. D. 362, was held by Athanasius in the short time he was allowed to be in his see city at the beginning of the reign of Julian. In the synodal letter or tome addressed to the Nicene Christians at Antioch we have the foundation of the ultimate formula of the Church as opposing Arianism, one substance and three persons, one _ousia_ and three _hypostases_. The occasion of the letter was an attempt to win over the Meletian party in the schism among the anti-Arians of Antioch. Meletius and his followers appear to have been h.o.m.oiousians who were strongly inclined to accept the Nicene confession. Their church was in the Old Town, a portion of Antioch. Opposed to them was Paulinus with his party, which held firmly to the Nicene confession. The difficulty in the way of a full recognition of the Nicene statement by Meletius and his followers was that it savored of Sabellianism. The difficulty of the party of Paulinus in recognizing the orthodoxy of the Meletians was their practice of speaking of the three hypostases or subsistences, which was condemned by the words of the Nicene definition.(120) The outcome of the Alexandrian Council in the matter was that a distinction could be made between _ousia_ and _hypostasis_, that the difference between the parties was largely a matter of terminology, that those who could use the Nicene symbol with the understanding that the Holy Ghost was not a creature and was not separate from the essence of Christ should be regarded as orthodox. Out of this understanding came the New Nicene party, of which the first might be said to have been Meletius, who accepted _h.o.m.oousios_ in the sense of _h.o.m.oiousios_, and of which the three great Cappadocians became the recognized leaders.

The Council of Alexandria, in addition to condemning the Macedonian heresy, in advance of Constantinople, also antic.i.p.ated that a.s.sembly by condemning Apollinarianism without mentioning the teacher by whom the heresy was taught. It is condemned in the seventh section of the tome.

3. As many, then, as desire peace with us, and especially those who a.s.semble in the Old Town, and those again who are seceding from the Arians, do ye call to yourselves, and receive them as parents their sons, and as tutors and guardians welcome them; and unite them to our beloved Paulinus and his people, without requiring more from them than to anathematize the Arian heresy and confess the faith confessed by the holy Fathers at Nica and to anathematize also those who say that the Holy Ghost is a creature and separate from the essence of Christ. For this is in truth a complete renunciation of the abominable heresy of the Arians, to refuse to divide the Holy Trinity, or to say that any part of it is a creature.

5. As to those whom some were blaming for speaking of three subsistences (hypostases), on the ground that the phrase is unscriptural and therefore suspicious, we thought it right, indeed, to require nothing beyond the confession of Nica, but on account of the contention we made inquiry of them, whether they meant, like the Arian madmen, subsistences foreign and strange and alien in essence from one another, and that each subsistence was divided apart by itself, as is the case with other creatures in general and those begotten of men, or like substances, such as gold, silver, or bra.s.s; or whether, like other heretics, they meant three beginnings and three G.o.ds, by speaking of three subsistences.

They a.s.sured us in reply that they neither meant this nor had ever held it. But upon our asking them what, then, do you mean by it, or why do you use such expressions? they replied: Because they believe in a Holy Trinity, not a trinity in name only, but existing and subsisting in truth, both Father truly existing and subsisting, and a Son, truly substantial and subsisting, and a Holy Ghost subsisting and really existing do we acknowledge, said they, and that neither had they said there were three G.o.ds or three beginnings, nor would they at all tolerate such as said or held so, but that they acknowledged a Holy Trinity, but one G.o.dhead and one beginning, and that the Son is co-essential with the Father, as the Fathers said; and the Holy Ghost not a creature, nor external, but proper to, and inseparable from, the essence of the Father and the Son.

6. Having accepted, then, these mens interpretation of their language and their defence, we made inquiry of those blamed by them for speaking of one subsistence, whether they use the expression in the sense of Sabellius, to the negation of the Son and Holy Ghost, or as though the Son was non-substantial, or the Holy Ghost without subsistence. But they in their turn a.s.sured us that they neither said this nor had ever held it, but, we use the word subsistence thinking it the same thing to say subsistence or essence.(121) But we hold there is One, because the Son is of the essence of the Father and because of the ident.i.ty of nature. For we believe that there is one G.o.dhead, and that the nature of it is one, and not that there is one nature of the Father, from which that of the Son and of the Holy Ghost are distinct. Well, thereupon, they who had been blamed for saying that there were three subsistences agreed with the others, while those who had spoken of one essence, also confessed the doctrine of the former as interpreted by them. And by both sides Arius was anathematized as an adversary of Christ, and Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides as aliens from the truth, and Manichus as an inventor of mischief. And all, by G.o.ds grace, and after the above explanations, agreed together that the faith confessed by the Fathers at Nica is better and more accurate than the said phrases, and that for the future they would prefer to be content to use its language.

7. But since, also, certain seemed to be contending together concerning the fleshly economy of the Saviour, we inquired of both parties. And what the one confessed the others also agreed to: that not as when the word of the Lord came to the prophets, did it dwell in a holy man at the consummation of the ages, but that the Word himself was made flesh; and being in the form of G.o.d, He took the form of a servant, and from Mary after the flesh became man for us, and that thus in Him the human race is perfectly and wholly delivered from sin and made alive from the dead, and led into the kingdom of heaven. For they also confess that the Saviour had not a body without a soul, nor without sense or intelligence;(122) for it was not possible, when the Lord had become man for us, that His body should be without intelligence; nor was the salvation, effected in the Word himself, a salvation of the body only, but of the soul also. And being Son of G.o.d in truth, He became also Son of Man; and being G.o.ds only begotten Son, He became also at the same time first-born among many brethren. Wherefore neither was there one Son of G.o.d before Abraham, another after Abraham: nor was there one that raised up Lazarus, another that asked concerning him; but the same it was that said as man, Where does Lazarus lie? and as G.o.d raised him up; the same that as man and in the body spat, but divinely as Son of G.o.d opened the eyes of the man blind from his birth; and while, as Peter says, in the flesh He suffered, as G.o.d He opened the tomb and raised the dead. For which reasons, thus understanding all that is said in the Gospel, they a.s.sured us that they held the same truth about the Words incarnation and becoming man.

71. The Emperor Theodosius and the Triumph of the New Nicene Orthodoxy at the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381

The Emperor Theodosius was appointed colleague of Gratian and Valentinian II, 378. He issued in conjunction with these emperors an edict (_Cod.

Theod._, XVI, 1, 2; _cf._ _Cod. Just._, I, 1, 1, _v. infra_, 72, _b_, _e_), requiring all subjects of the Empire to hold the orthodox faith in the Trinity. He then called a council of Eastern bishops to meet at Constantinople in 381 to settle the question as to the succession to the see of that city and to confirm the creed of Nica as the faith of the Eastern half of the Church. Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus was appointed bishop of Constantinople, but was forced to resign, having formerly been bishop of Sasima, from which he had been translated in violation of the Nicene canons. As soon as it was apparent that the bishops would have to accept the Nicene faith the thirty-six Macedonians withdrew. Their opinion as to the Holy Spirit, that He was not divine in the same sense that the Son was divine, was condemned, without express statement of the point condemned, as was also the teaching of Apollinaris as to the nature of Christ. The council was not intended to be an ec.u.menical or general council, and it was not regarded as such even in the East until after the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, and then probably on account of the creed which was then falsely attributed to the Fathers of Constantinople. In the West the council was not recognized as an ec.u.menical council until well into the sixth century. (See Hefele, 100.) The council issued no creed and made no additions to the Nicene creed. It published a tome, since lost, setting forth the faith in the Trinity. It enacted four canons, of which only the first three are of general application.

Additional source material: Percival, _Seven Ec.u.menical Councils_ (PNF); Theodoret, _Hist. Ec._, V, 6-9; Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, V, 8; Basil, _De Spiritu Sancto_ (PNF), Hefele, 95-100.

(_a_) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, _Canons_, Bruns, I, 20. _Cf._ Kirch, nn. 583 _ff._

The text of the canons of the council may be found in Hefele, 98, and also in Bruns. The _Translations and Reprints_ of the University of Pennsylvania give translations. For the address of the council to Theodosius, see 72, _b_. The fourth canon is of a merely temporary importance.

Canon 1. The faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers who were a.s.sembled at Nica in Bithynia shall not be set aside but shall remain dominant. And every heresy shall be anathematized, especially that of the Eunomians or Anomans, the Arians or Eudoxians, the semi-Arians or Pneumatomachians, the Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apollinarians.

Canon 2. The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on churches; but let the bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nica, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian matters. And let not the bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of each province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nica. But the churches of G.o.d in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the time of the Fathers.

Canon 3. The bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after(123) the bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

(_b_) Cyril of Jerusalem, _Creed_. (_Cf._ MSG, 35:533.) _Cf._ Hahn, 124.

The clauses which are here given are the headings of the sixth to the eighteenth _Catechetical Lectures_ of Cyril of Jerusalem in which the writer expounded the baptismal creed of Jerusalem. This creed is approximately reconstructed by bringing together the headings. Its date is circa 345. It should be compared with the creed of the church of Salamis, in the next selection. They are the precursors of what is now known as the Nicene creed, incorrectly attributed to the Council of Constantinople A. D. 381.

We believe in one G.o.d, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of G.o.d, the only begotten, begotten of the Father, true G.o.d, before all the ages, through whom all things were made;

Incarnate and made man; crucified and buried;

And rose again the third day;

And ascended into heaven;

And sat on the right hand of the Father;

And shall come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end.

And in one Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, who spake by the prophets;